House Passes Student Loan Takeover

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You made an assumption about my support for Bush and his legacy. You were dead wrong, and you should’ve admitted that much. I wouldn’t have rubbed your nose in it.[/quote]

Come to think of it, did anyone on these boards really support Bush? I don’t mean just voting for him, as many here also voted for McCain without supporting much of anything he stands for, I mean actually support the vast majority of his decisions.

Having said that, I really agree with Tirib’s analysis and think this should not be overlooked. Bush was wrong numerous times, he had a poor understanding of economics, and I think he tried too hard to be bipartisan (how long did it take for that first veto?).

However, I do trust what he says, and don’t believe he ever deliberately misled people to get their support, unlike our current POTUSINO. To this day, I would still be honored to sit down with GWB and have a few beers.

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You made an assumption about my support for Bush and his legacy. You were dead wrong, and you should’ve admitted that much. I wouldn’t have rubbed your nose in it.[/quote]

So what exactly is your complaint about the article? Where do you see a problem within the article exactly?

23

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
<<< I guess you are missing the posts on this forum. Even your post insinuates a bias toward the right wing. >>>[/quote]

I’m gonna try this again jist fer you, even though I just got done training chest tri’s and shoulders because that’s the kinda guy I am.

I’ll make it as crystal clear as I know how which should be pretty good because I have fairly substantial command of the English language.

By 2009 standards I am a hard line right winger.

I AM biased.

I AM NOT sympathetic to views in mortal conflict with my own which makes me also intolerant by 2009 standards.

I have held this major framework, though not necessarily every single individual issue, long enough to have heard every conceivable attempt at changing my mind. In fact it’s been years since I can remember hearing anything new and I am thus additionally close minded by 2009 standards.

This was once called conviction.

I’ve said all this 100 times already. No need to accuse me of being a narrow close minded unbending conservative. I am declaring to you outright that I am.

I agree with those who agree with me and disagree with those who don’t regardless of who the hell they are.

When an issue comes up, I determine my position by how it fits into my world view not by who is saying it.

Having said that, I will consider a politician’s past to help me interpret what they are saying. When John McCain says “bi-partisan” I immediately lean toward the interpretation that he is about to pursue a politically suicidal liberal democrat position. Why? Because that’s what it’s meant when he’s said that in the past.

When Barack Obama says anything at all I have to decide whether to ascribe some incredible newfound meaning to it or to let his past provide the context. He has a decidedly undeniable marxist past.

They have a vocabulary. He uses it. He uses it because his soul is pickled in it. I would respect him and his followers on principle if they would just declare their world view as plainly as I declare mine. I cannot stand all this “I love America too” shit. It’s a lie. He does not.

I will again give you some credit for recognizing yourself as being on the “extreme left” in the other thread. I mean that. However that ideology is not what made this nation the greatest, most powerful and most prosperous in less than 200 years. It just isn’t. Quite the contrary. We spent a good slice of the 20th century fighting a grueling cold war for the exact purpose of defeating it.

24

I do not have anything to add to this thread other than to swing from Tiribulus’ nuts here and say bravo on typing out exactly what I have been thinking lately.

25

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

A good post.

[/quote]

So what is your problem with the article? It seems the government is already subsidizing student loans and the bill cuts out the middle man (private lender).

“Putting the government in charge of all federal loans would save taxpayers an estimated $87 billion.”

What is wrong with cutting out the lenders that make money from government subsidy?

“end the subsidized loan program under which private lenders made $56 billion in government-backed loans to more than 6 million students last year”

Personally, if my tax dollars are going to go toward student loans, I would rather that money go to student loans as much as possible instead of going to paying private lenders.

Let the private lenders compete in the public market place with the federal student loans, which again is already a government program.

26

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You made an assumption about my support for Bush and his legacy. You were dead wrong, and you should’ve admitted that much. I wouldn’t have rubbed your nose in it.

So what exactly is your complaint about the article? Where do you see a problem within the article exactly? [/quote]

Expansion of a centralized power.

27

[quote]tedro wrote:
. Bush was wrong numerous times, he had a poor understanding of economics, and I think he tried too hard to be bipartisan (how long did it take for that first veto?).

[/quote]

What Bush were you watching? When did G W Bush try too hard to be bipartisan? Can you provide specific examples?

28

[quote]tedro wrote:

Come to think of it, did anyone on these boards really support Bush? I don’t mean just voting for him, as many here also voted for McCain without supporting much of anything he stands for, I mean actually support the vast majority of his decisions.[/quote]

Yes, actually. Quite a few of you supported any and every Bush/Cheney decision unquestioningly. JeffRo would be the single most disgusting example, but many of you are equally guilty. Rewriting history is Dick’s biggest talent, so I expect many here to try and emulate that as well.

I’m not going to look it up, but since the GOP controlled Congress during the first six years of his administration, I’m going to guess it was a little over six years. IIRC there weren’t any spending bills he objected to during that first six years.

That would actually be really funny if it was meant as satire. But in reality he looked the world in the eye and lied his ass off about wmd in Iraq and a link to AQ. He looked the people of LA in the eye and lied his ass off about helping rebuild.

He looked us all in the eye and lied his ass off about wanting to be a “uniter”, while deliberately setting out to be the most divisive and partisan president ever. You believe what you want, history and facts will show what a total lying shit bag he really was.

29

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Expansion of a centralized power. [/quote]

OK. Let’s talk about that, because I disagree and I see this move as a positive step.

The federal loans were already a Central Government program, so there is no expansion. The only involvement the private sector has is the profit from the loan. The loans are guaranteed so there is no risk for the lender. It is guaranteed profit from the Central Government. This was already a Central Government function.

It seems cutting out the private sector is a better application of funds that are already being spent. Perhaps abolishing the government in student loans all together would be a reduction of the central government, but cutting out the private sector from the profit does not make an expansion. It just makes sense.

30

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

The federal loans were already a Central Government program, so there is no expansion. The only involvement the private sector has is the profit from the loan.
[/quote]

In short, further centralization. It should’ve been the Central government getting kicked out of having anything to do with school loans.

31

(Pete…as an aside…I think a LOT of people are conveniently forgetting the GI Bill that most likely helped many of their parents, grand-parents and GREAT grandparents AFFORD to go to College…get homes…start businesses…get unemployment assistance; etc.)

If you take government out of the Loan process, then a) many institutions of higher learning will close and b) only the rich will be able get higher degrees. (Which is essentially the way it used to be in these “wonderful” days that many of you wish for).

Big, wasteful Government? Hate it too!

But Government can, and does, have a place.

Mufasa

32

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Pete…as an aside…I think a LOT of people are conveniently forgetting the GI Bill that most likely helped many of their parents, grand-parents and GREAT grandparents AFFORD to go to College…get homes…start businesses…get unemployment assistance; etc.)

If you take government out of the Loan process, then a) many institutions of higher learning will close and b) only the rich will be able get higher degrees. (Which is essentially the way it used to be in these “wonderful” days that many of you wish for).

Big, wasteful Government? Hate it too!

But Government can, and does, have a place.

Mufasa [/quote]

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only getting bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?[/quote]

I would like for them to get out of my prescription drugs. If I want to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, then let me. And don’t allow pharmaceutical companies to hold a patent on drugs preventing any generics for a period of time.

Get out of bailouts. Get out of banks and Wall Street. Get out of my TV, and off my radio. Get out of cigarettes. Get out of Corporations, and patents on seeds and grains. Get rid of the Patriot Act.

34

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?

I would like for them to get out of my prescription drugs. If I want to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, then let me. And don’t allow pharmaceutical companies to hold a patent on drugs preventing any generics for a period of time.

Get out of bailouts. Get out of banks and Wall Street. Get out of my TV, and off my radio. Get out of cigarettes. Get out of Corporations, and patents on seeds and grains. Get rid of the Patriot Act.

    [/quote]

That’s fine and dandy, but what about getting them out of my paycheck? It’s entitlements that will ultimately bankrupt this country.

35

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?

I would like for them to get out of my prescription drugs. If I want to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, then let me. And don’t allow pharmaceutical companies to hold a patent on drugs preventing any generics for a period of time.

Get out of bailouts. Get out of banks and Wall Street. Get out of my TV, and off my radio. Get out of cigarettes. Get out of Corporations, and patents on seeds and grains. Get rid of the Patriot Act.

    [/quote]

These all sound like conservative positions.

I’m confused now.

36

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
(Pete…as an aside…I think a LOT of people are conveniently forgetting the GI Bill that most likely helped many of their parents, grand-parents and GREAT grandparents AFFORD to go to College…get homes…start businesses…get unemployment assistance; etc.)

If you take government out of the Loan process, then a) many institutions of higher learning will close and b) only the rich will be able get higher degrees. (Which is essentially the way it used to be in these “wonderful” days that many of you wish for).

Big, wasteful Government? Hate it too!

But Government can, and does, have a place.

Mufasa

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only getting bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?[/quote]

IRS
(or at least make it a branch directed toward policing the wasteful and fradulent spending of a) government agencies and b) those who receive Government monies instead of working Americans.

Social Security (the “Gorrilla in the Room” that NO politician is talking about).

“Education”

Wasteful Spending (General)

Wasteful Spending (Military Systems and procurement; direct savings to salaries and dependent care)

Wasteful Spending (Duplication of agencies and services)

Major Overall of Medicaid and Medicare

(I’ll post more when I think of them…)

Mufasa

37

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?

I would like for them to get out of my prescription drugs. If I want to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, then let me. And don’t allow pharmaceutical companies to hold a patent on drugs preventing any generics for a period of time.

Get out of bailouts. Get out of banks and Wall Street. Get out of my TV, and off my radio. Get out of cigarettes. Get out of Corporations, and patents on seeds and grains. Get rid of the Patriot Act.

That’s fine and dandy, but what about getting them out of my paycheck? It’s entitlements that will ultimately bankrupt this country. [/quote]

True…but not totally…and not the things that the right tends to scream about…

It will be a) Social Security b) Health Care and c) the direct and indirect cost of funding past, present and future military engagements and obligations.

Mufasa

38

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You hate big government? Can I ask what roles big government must shed, then? I mean, it isn’t getting smaller, it’s only bigger, faster. So, what entitlements need to go?

I would like for them to get out of my prescription drugs. If I want to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, then let me. And don’t allow pharmaceutical companies to hold a patent on drugs preventing any generics for a period of time.

Get out of bailouts. Get out of banks and Wall Street. Get out of my TV, and off my radio. Get out of cigarettes. Get out of Corporations, and patents on seeds and grains. Get rid of the Patriot Act.

That’s fine and dandy, but what about getting them out of my paycheck? It’s entitlements that will ultimately bankrupt this country.

True…but not totally…and not the things that the right tends to scream about…

It will be a) Social Security b) Health Care and c) the direct and indirect cost of funding past, present and future military engagements and obligations.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Medicare will be much worse than Social Security. Military Spending is nothing compared to the ballooning costs of just Medicare and SS alone. But now, we’re talking a public option (which will lead to single payer anyways) and student loans (sorry, but these savings will dissapear) that will end up being vastly expanded and politicized.

39

There are a lot of “games” played when people attempt to analyze actual Government spending. Even trying to get a reasonable “pie” chart really depends on who devises it.

Social Security and actual military spending and obligations are prime examples of where getting a handle on actual cost is difficult at best; and totally misleading at its worst.

Mufasa

40

I think the biggest spending problem in the US is military. Why is it just fine to spend so much on the military, but not the people? Even wolves care for their injured.