Slashdot Mirror
GOP Blocks Senate Debate On Dem Student Loan Bill
TheGift73 writes with this quote from an AP report:
"Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill Tuesday to preserve low interest rates for millions of college students' loans, as the two parties engaged in election-year choreography aimed at showing each is the better protector of families in today's rugged economy. The 52-45 vote to begin debating the legislation fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to proceed and stalled work on an effort both parties expect will ultimately produce a compromise, probably soon. For now, each side is happy to use the stalemate to snipe at the other with campaign-ready talking points while they are gridlocked over how to cover the $6 billion cost."
It is funny how many bills he tries to bluff through Congress. This and the millionaires tax are something the republicans are going to torpedo, but in the process, they make republicans look like they hate the small guy. Both parties are against the small guy, but public portrayal of Democrats helping the poor is the old school image that could help them in today's economy too.
God spoke to me
The Repubs look like the losers for putting it to the little guys. The Dems look like losers for continuing to support increased spending.
And of course we are the losers because were' stuck with both of them.
and they young and the educated aren't it.
Lets keep artificially inflating the cost of university education by subsidizing more gender studies majors!
Why don't these students just ask their parents for money?
--M.R.
Should read "GOP Blocks Senate Debate on dem Student Loan Bills"
If either side really wanted to offer better protection for families, they'd kill student loans altogether. This would make education prohibitively expensive at going rates, and immediately pop the education cost bubble.
You can get better education, free or nearly free, in most of Europe, and yet the US youth just sits there, saddling itself with gazillions in student loan debt -- all of which it cannot default on, because it belongs to uncle Sam himself. Shudder...
Or the US could order 10.9 fewer 'new' long range bombers; I don't think it would drastically hurt our defense capabilities. I don't think the guys fighting for the DoD contract would be too happy, though. http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/07/238250/americas-next-bomber-unmanned-unlimited-range-aimed-at-china
Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
the democrats block the republican bill to keep low interest rates
the republicans block the democrat bill to keep low interest rates
the rates are set to rise because of a democrat passed law when they had majorities in both houses
Seriously, even if this were remotely relevant to Slashdot, does the summary really need to be this editorialized?
Look at the OP's initials.
It's turtles all the way down.
Republicans seem to vote against anything that Democrats propose. I'm 50 and I've never seen this in my entire life. Republicans either get every single thing they want or they hold their breath until they get their way. Without compromise there is no government only gridlock. If compromise is dead how are we different from every other banana republic out there? We used to rule from the middle but now we get our choice of extremes. Either the extreme right wing get their way or they threaten to bring the country to it's knees. They only amount to at the most a third of the citizens so since when do a third of the people call themselves a majority and demand we all obey them???? I don't like the Democrats but the right wing Republicans scare the hell out of me. The right wing and rich stole half the country during Bush 42's rule and now they are demanding the rest. If the rich get their way you better get used to a system that resembles feudal England. We'll all end up working for our rich masters. Don't believe me then in 50 years I dare you to tell me I'm wrong. In the last 10 years the rich got a LOT richer and the rest of us are struggling. The Republicans call it trickle down economics but I call it pissing down my neck and calling it rain!
When crafting the original bill that is expiring soon, the Democrats purposely had the bill expire during a presidential election year so that they could play the blame-game and claim that Republicans hate students and only care about the rich. The Dems have no intentions of extending the original law.
Why did the price of housing go up and up? Sub prime loans. you can blame wall street for making it worse but the prices were ticking up for years before wall street got involved. The prices started going up with the cheap government loans.
What we can see from the universities that they're responding in the same way. The more you increase the loans the more the tuition goes up. The only way to bring tuition prices down is to reduce the amount of money that can be spent on education.
It's not like the universities are not going to fill seats. They have class rooms and teachers that cost them money regardless of how many students they have... so if you reduce what can be spent on education rather then causing kids not to get educations it will probably cause prices to come down.
Furthermore, the US is giving national tuition rates to foreign students. That's US tax dollars paying for someone's education that isn't even a citizen and isn't likely to stay. So what exactly is the point?
I don't know... I have a lot of problems with the current way we finance tuition. They're the only loans you can't escape by declaring bankruptcy and that strikes me as wrong. There is no legal obligation that you shouldn't be able to escape by declaring bankruptcy. Everything from child support to a student loan. And I know what people are saying, lowlifes will just ditch their obligations. Yes they will. Which is why you don't loan lowlifes money in the first place. As to single mothers getting screwed out of alimony... well, it's a reason to make your separations demands reasonable. If the alimony is so high that it becomes in his interest to declare bankruptcy then you're asking for too much. Pointblank.
Just a little house cleaning and a lot of these problems will go away.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We haven't had a BUDGET for the federal government since Obama took office.
Imagine that - TRILLIONS in runaway deficit spending, and the DEMOCRATS, who for two years controlled EVERY branch of the government, WON'T PASS A BUDGET.
Many moons ago, someone posted something like this here on Slashdot:
Dems - want a European type of capitalist/socialist type of economy with plenty of entitlement programs with the taxation to go with it.
Reps - want to turn the US into a Third World Shithole where you have 99% poor slobs with a 1% super wealthy fat cats with all the power.
It's pretty obvious who's winning contrary to what the Talk Radio and Fox News people say.
Does it have to be one or the other? I don't know. But if it does, I'll take the European model any day because I just don't have the connections to become a 1%'er.
And if one is naive enough to believe that all they need to do is work hard and they'll be a 1%'er; well, good luck with that.
This will not make any difference to those, who are getting the student loans, not at all.
In fact with the latest developments that the student loans are forgiven in 15 to 20 years and that the monthly payments cannot exceed 10% of so called 'discretionary spending', which starts at the yearly amount exceeding 2 minimum 'poverty levels' ($16,000 per person or abou 35K for a family of 4), it means that a person making 50K a year will have to pay maximum of 10% of (50K-32K) per year, or $150/month for 15 to 20 years. If the person makes 100K/year, this goes up to maximum of $567/month.
If the person gets a loan of 100K, just to pay the principal for a person earning 50K /year, it would take 666 month or 55 YEARS, and that's only principal, at that point the interest rates absolutely does not matter, because he'll stop paying after 15-20 years, so he'd pay less than half of just principle out in that time, the interest rate does not matter.
This is political nonsense, not reality, what is happening in gov't, the reality would include realisation that gov't shouldn't be in business providing any loans to anybody in the first place, so that with the decreased fake demand, the number of students would drop off and prices would go down dramatically.
Why is it a good thing for the number of students to drop off? Because how many students take these loans, adding to the national debt, while not working, adding to the national deficit, requiring this money to be printed or borrowed (and the real interest rates WILL go up eventually, and there is already over $1T of unpaid student debt out there). The huge numbers of students are only going to the colleges to get worthless sociology and literature degrees, or go into law, etc.
They shouldn't be paid to do that in the first place, who in their right mind would give a loan to a USA student going to major in sociology? WOULD YOU?
If you wouldn't personally, why would you want the entire system to do that?
Besides, rather than creating this false demand and forcing debt on the people, creating all this debt and worsening deficit, it would better for those very students to enter the workforce much sooner and without debt they'd be better off anyway.
Of-course the political elite on the left want to create this 'popular issue', which really only makes the situation for the students worse, and simultaneously this artificially decreases the work participation rate and thus artificially decreases the unemployment rate, so these student loans are handed out for political propaganda. OTOH the colleges and universities etc., are getting a sweet deal - huge numbers of gov't backed students, who don't actually CARE about the cost of education, as long as they get whatever loans is given to them, and those who can do basic math realise that it's in their best interest to go to the most expensive school.
In fact schools need to start including things in their curriculum that are as expensive as possible - how about trips all over the world as part of 'classes'? How about buying every student a house and an expensive car and all the furniture, electronics and clothing they want? Why not? If the system is on the hook for it and the students are capped at how much they will have to pay back anyway, it only makes sense, right?
Nobody sees this for what it is.
You can't handle the truth.
Let's consider what college now means for many millennials:
1) Get a degree with minimal job applicability.
2) Go tens of thousands in dollars into debt to get it.
3) Get a job that requires no more skills than the degree imparted (and that pays ~$10/hour or less)
4) Find out that the federal government and private lenders put in all sorts of riders ranging from rising costs of holding the debt, to "we can arrest you if you are delinquent on your federal loan."
Anyone advocating making it easier to fall into the student loan trap is morally analogous to a drug dealer.
That's what you get for losing perspective on what is politically extreme and what isn't in the US.
A bunch of right wing extremists, who are spectacularly successful, because they've succeeded in making themselves look far more moderate and acceptable than they really are.
The dotcom bubble in the late 90s under the Clinton administration was a gridlocked House and Senate.
The economy prospers when there is gridlock.
Sadly, they didn't gridlock on more important issues like SOPA, PIPA, NDAA, and the healthcare bill.
Inevitably when they do agree on things they ramrod them through that cost more government largess, lives, and liberties, let alone spreading the suffering to all.
The U.S is deeply divided into two opposing camps, and the media encourage this by playing the two parties off like football teams.
Your party is not always right. The other party is not always wrong. Politics should not be a "my team's better than yours" shouting match.
Here's the 'but' to your plan: lobbyists - oil company and the student loan industry (Banks).
We peons are just going to have to suck it.
You know, it never hit me what a big deal this idea of "forgiving" loans is, maybe because I paid mine off and assumed others would do the same. Only a stooge would pay more than the absolute minimum toward a debt that will magically disappear in 20 years. Are we really OK with all those defaults (excuse me, "forgiveness") getting dumped on the taxpayers?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Education is the most important factor in improving one's position in society. Unless one is saddled with onerous loans, that is.
In most of Europe, higher education is free, which is a tremendous factor in improving quality of life and social mobility.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Perhaps they need to ask why the cost of higher ed is increasing disproportionate to income levels and inflation?
Here comes the RepubloChristian Astroturfing Association of America
This will not make any difference to those, who are getting the student loans, not at all.
In fact with the latest developments that the student loans are forgiven in 15 to 20 years and that the monthly payments cannot exceed 10% of so called 'discretionary spending', which starts at the yearly amount exceeding 2 minimum 'poverty levels' ($16,000 per person or abou 35K for a family of 4), it means that a person making 50K a year will have to pay maximum of 10% of (50K-32K) per year, or $150/month for 15 to 20 years. If the person makes 100K/year, this goes up to maximum of $567/month.
If you actually knew someone with student loan debt, you would know where your error is in your assumption.
First of all, the loan forgiveness only applies to federal student loans. Most students have a mix of federal, state, and bank-supplied loan money. Hence even if the federal loans are eventually forgiven, the others are still accruing interest.
Second, the bank-supplied loans in particular are notorious for being cruel to those who took out the money. Interest rates are free to change at a moment's notice and some people have seen double-digit interest rate increases in single years.
They shouldn't be paid to do that in the first place, who in their right mind would give a loan to a USA student going to major in sociology? WOULD YOU?
Yes, I would. And I would wager that in reality, you would as well. You don't believe what you present to slashdot, as we have already seen. Would the real roman_mir please stand up?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The most powerful thing the US Congress could do to bring down the cost of education and make it more accessible to the entire populace would be to enforce the Constitution's ban on patents of nobility. Specifically, the government recognizes higher education degrees as the functional equivalent of life titles. Certifications differ in that they must be renewed based on standardized testing, so relying on them is _not_ the equivalent of honoring patents of nobility.
Seastead this.
Who you know is still far, far more important than what you know. You merely need to be basically competent (say, top 30-40%) if you have good connections. If you're smart enough to go to college, you can do well in the trades and if you have business sense to go along with that (hint: it's not taught in college), you'll be very successful.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Do you not know that Democrats blocked a Republican bill to lower student loan interest rates just last month? The fact that you hammer Republicans for this either shows blatant bias or extreme ignorance on your part as well as whoever submitted this article. HERE is an article explaining it.
Democrats blocked that bill because Republicans attached an amendment at the last minute that defines legal sexual relations as being only between couples who are heterosexual, married, and Christian. In other words, rape charges could be filed against anyone having otherwise consensual sex. Try reading the damn legislation in full before you start spouting nonsense about how evil Democrats are.
You get both sides of the wrong issue.
Congress should be asking why students need loans at all.
Everyone agrees that education is a priority for having an employable population so why isn't access to education the issue?
How about this idea, vote the entire group, that is every current member of congress out of office. Elect independents with no party memberships at all, perhaps it will sink in to the rest that democracy is about compromise and finding a common ground, not "its my way and no other and I will burn the ground to get it".
I would believe our founding fathers would not approve of what has become of this experiment called "The United States"
()-()
How about we stop sending government money to schools that keep their rates too high? Schools have found out that they can make more money if they raise their tuitions and still get money from the government. They've found out that they can keep their rates so high because they know that students can get loans and grants. Everyone complains about the 1% and high fuel prices, I say we look at the accounting books at colleges. I would say this is a better way of helping more people get into school than feeding the schools. Remember that cat or dog that arrived at your door one day when you were a kid? What did your parents tell you "Don't feed it! Otherwise it won't ever leave" and what did you do? You fed it, and what did it do? It stayed and wouldn't leave.
"News for nerds, stuff that matters..."
The problem as many of us recognize is "education" is pretty subjective. There is education that we all do for leisure like reading novels, watching sports, cooking, ect. Then there is education that is an investment where you pay to learn something that will give you knowledge or a skill that can be used to increase your income. It is not logical to borrow money for the former but it may be worth borrowing money for the latter depending on your expected rate of return. The problem is many borrow money to go to college for a leisure education. This happens because there is no pricing mechanism. Student loans don't differentiate between the two. Maybe they should. I'm all for leaving it to a free market. This would mean you would have to get rid of tax payer subsidized loans and also allow people to declare bankruptcy where student loans are dismissed as well. This would show you what the real rate would be and it would be close to any loan without collateral.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
We should be asking why the quality of higher education has decreased so significantly. Of course, everyone knows the answer to the question, but nobody wants to say it: it is because universities have fallen into the trap of providing students with vocational training and minimal education. Professors are pressured not to make required general education courses too challenging, departments are pressured to make their curricula more relevant to what students will see on the job, and subjects which contribute little to vocational skills are the first on the chopping block when budgets become tight.
Palm trees and 8
Wait, what? The GOP is in the minority in the senate. Thus the GOP can't block anything.
4 Dems either voted against it or abstained.
Therefore, the headline should read "Democrates Block Senate Debate...
Just saying.
the dems wanted a bill that didn't expire, but they couldn't get it passed without adding a GOOPER rider making it expire in 2012.
the GOP is hoist on their own petard here, chief. their whole 'government only when we're dragged into it and only in short bits' strategy fucked em here.
The Slashdot summary implies this is about interest rates on existing loans. It's not:
So the failure of this bill will cause interest rates on new loans to jump to 6.8%. Increased costs will decrease demand for these loans, and thus less people will get sucked into the indentured servitude that is the student loan system. This is a good thing.
Liberty in your lifetime
The Republicans have a bill that lowers the rate but Reid won't let it come up for a vote. So the headline should be Democrats Block Vote on Lowering Interest rates.
As for me, the whole lowering of rates is stupid. Legal adults made a legal contract, knowing the terms. Why should they get a break?
No one is offering a bill to reduce my mortgage rate.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
college it self needs to be reworked for the better.
There needs to be smaller chunks so you have more then just a degree for each 2 year chunk.
Some class plans / tracks are loaded with fluff and fitter so they can be padded out to 2 or 4 years.
Some class plans / tracks have to much gen edu class as part of them.
Some degree are left overs of the past that have little to no use now days.
Some jobs don't need a degree but as for them pop quiz hot shot how does a BA in underwater basket weaving make some a better IT tech vs a 2 year tech school?? or even just a secretary? vs some with a 2 year community college AA / AS?
college transferring is a mess more stuff needs to able to be transferred.
Not all people are cut for college system but can do tech schools / Vocational / community and they need more respect.
Also why does a TV channel want some with a 4 YEAR BA in communications (it's a non tech class load) to work master control VS a 2 year DIGITAL MEDIA ARTS COLLEGE school that is very hands on now who can do a better some who has 4 years class room or some who 2 years class room was very hands on some times even doing some real work as part of the classes?
The Republicans oppose the loopholes, but a lot of them have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to keep changes to the Internal Revenue Code revenue-neutral. This means any loophole that is eliminated must be offset dollar-for-dollar with compensating cuts to the basic income tax rates.
Remember when Obama & the Dems wanted to let some of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and they feverishly argued that it wasn't a tax increase, it was a return the the "normal" rate, that the law included a sunset for a reason?
Then remember when letting the rest of the Bush Tax Cuts expire was an unconcionable burden to place on working Americans?
These student loan rate cuts (passed while Bush was President, which makes me wonder why they aren't referred to as the Bush Student Loan Cuts, but I digress) went into law with a 5 year life, put there by the Democrats with the explicit purpose of expiring a few months before the 2012 Presidential election. Furthermore, President Obama submitted a budget proposal a couple months ago that let the student loan rate cut expire - why would he do that?
Finally, people are starting to warn that we have a "lost generation" - the current generation graduating from college and going years before finding work in their field of study - seems to me the President is trying to buy them off, hoping they won't notice the lack ofopportunities available to them...
Ken
5) idiots in HR demand degrees to apply for the job even though a Degree has no use for the position.
I wish it was that simple. Not only do they require degrees, but most of the hiring managers I have spoken with seem to have this delusion that someone in their 20s can have 10 years of experience in a technical field. I realize it's a bit of a wish list in a sense (as in, they'll ultimately take someone with less experience if hard-pressed), but that's exactly the issue -- they have to be hard-pressed to find someone before they take a youngin'. So the youngin' never finds a quality job in a technical field, and so doesn't build up the experience to even go back and apply for that job a couple years later after some field experience. Instead, the long-term outlook feels more like "stuck at whatever minimal job you can get". You can't even save up money to move where there are better jobs or anything, because you have a low-paying entry-level non-technical job that doesn't give holidays, benefits, or enough money to do much more than pay the rent and a minimal payment on your student loans.
It is incredibly depressing to be young in this climate, especially when you see (as is evident in the discussion on this article) that the elder generation of the country doesn't seem to think it's a problem.
We home schooled 2 up to high school, at which point they both wanted to go to regular school. We were lucky enough to get them each into one of the very few functioning high schools in the city. They both are in college now, doing fine. Use the community as a teaching resource, and get them into sports or dance or something so they have a network of similar-aged friends. Of course it cost us one parent's income for 10 years. Ouch.
What they were was a fund to pay for the tax cuts Bush introduced.
At the current payout deficit of the social security fund, it would last another 80 years.
Except that the fund was spent to pay for the tax cuts.
Guess what: the republicans want those tax cuts to continue, but SS to find some way of funding itself AND those cuts.
I don't think the Dems actually think that far ahead.
To them it's pretty simple, give people free shit, and they vote for you.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
N/T
Hooray, another techy discussion on SlashDot.
But since you brought it up, I'm glad the GOP is opposing this particular bill. For those of you who don't live here or don't pay attention, we have a tiny little spending problem. The GOP's insistence that we pay for these subsidies is annoying to the lefties out there, but quite necessary - unless we want to end up like Greece/Spain/Portugal.
I think it is criminal that there is not a Standard Reference Set of books for a majority of subjects.
What should happen is
1 school book author should be required to separate the "practice/quiz" parts of the book
2 Whenever possible books on a given subject should be written to a "consensus" track (the subject should be taught in a given order) with the only real splits in things like Conventional V Electron flow in an electronics course.
3 an electronic version should be included with the purchase of the physical book (and if you sell back the physical book you should be able to keep the E-Copy so no DRM allowed on that copy).
if you start looking at the Stupid Expenses in schooling then maybe this would not be such a problem.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
The current student loan debt exceeds one trillion dollars and growing. That's more than the credit card debt.
Doesn't really give a person a warm fuzzy feeling.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The interest, and paying back the loan, does not even kick-in until you stop attending college.
It depends on the loan type. Some loans have government-paid interest while in school. Other loans have the normal interest rate while in school and it just accumulates. The worst type of loans (the ones I had to end up getting) actually had a higher interest rate while you were in school than they do during the repayment period. This was actually a good motivator, though, and was part of the reason I attended summer quarter as well as taking an overload of courses. Faster graduation -> less interest -> slightly easier to repay.
How could the GOP block the debate? It sounds more like there are 3-4 Democrats that blocked it, since, there are only 49 GOP senators at the moment.
"School administrators don't show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30."
Like every other position of authority as a professional. Even in IT, I have a large team with directors, managers, analysts and architects reporting to me.
The day begins at 7 and pretty much goes to whenever we finish our work. Some days its 4, other days its midnight.
I'm accountable for lots of people, budgets, and deal with everything from a CEO who wants to know why we have to spend money to meet some new legal mandate to dealing employees who need help with personal stuff. And oh yeah.... when my department doesn't hit its numbers, I might get fired. Doesn't matter if have 35 years in the business.
I find it amusing that teachers keep claiming they're "professionals", yet feel that doing more than showing up more than 8 to 3:30 is working really hard and going above and beyond the call.
If you want a 9-5 job, then take one. But don't turn around and then complain you don't get the respect you think you've earned.
I have a question that I haven't been able to get anyone to directly answer without some vague hand-waving of "no one will go for it" or "I think that's illegal".
To say the best social program is a job, makes a lot of sense. It's true. The problem comes in when jobs cannot be found. Businesses will do what's in their best interest and take care of themselves, which might mean NOT hiring anyone to keep their bottom line doing well. So how do you force people to get jobs when you can't find them? First-hand and second-hand, I know that hard-working perfectly qualified people are being turned away because of lack of funds, lack of interest, or simply oversupply of qualified people. It is hard to get a job when you are just starting out when there are older people with 30 years experience competing with you for the same job, for example.
My Point: why does it have to be a free government handout? Why not a stopgap where, in order to earn your welfare/unemployment check, you submit documentation to your city/county/state that you performed say 20 hrs of community service that week? Work as a school cross guard, pick up trash from the highways, clean up parks and build new playground equipment for the kids, be a mentor, something. Even better, how about work a few hours a week repairing/building roads, bridges, other infrastructure needed. Effectively, until businesses want to hire, why not let government hire temporary workers to deal with all of the problems in the country? Two birds with one stone.
I'm confused. How do you "preserve low student loan rates" when the student loan rate is higher than it has been since the 1970s? With the government giving money to the banks at practically zero percent interest rates, student loan rates are at 8% or higher, same as they were when the government lending rate was 5-6%. Plus, my wife's rate is adjustable, so it goes up when the rates go up.
Unfortunately, we didn't do our research and went with a fly-by-night company by the name of SallieMae, which pretends to be a government backed and legitimate lending agency, but is really nothing but a bunch of crooks pretending to be sponsored by the government. They are no more sponsored by the government then the Franklin Mint. Do not do business with Sallie Mae.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"If we start torpedoing unpopular industries with discriminatory tax policies"
Requires that that 6Bn be there currently. Else it isn't a discriminatory tax policy, since it isn't there to be taken away.
But most of the jobs recent grads are getting are more likely to be closer to wait staff, manual labor or some other position where you don't even submit a resume to a HR department.
Several comment attribute the rise in education costs to the availability of grants and loans.
There is another reason education costs have risen at public universities. When times were good, states cut taxes and cut funding to their universities. When the economy went south, the states made even more cuts. If the state schools are not being funded by the state, the schools will get the money that they need to operate from the students.
In exchange for low taxes, we are squandering the infrastructure and institutions built by those who came before us.
The U.S. does not have a two-party system; it has a three-branch system. The U.S. Executive Branch & Legislative Branch (Congress) are elected separately, and we all have Judges. Europeans don't realize that Congress is not just another name for Parliament.
European Parliaments form a government, and elect a Prime Minister (the executive) who agrees with the ruling party. The executive is rarely against the goals of the ruling party. The U.S. President can be elected by the people against the prevailing Congress.
Third, it's good to have educated workers. But that education ain't worth much if potential employers can't hire the graduates, and taking money away from potential employers makes it that much harder for them to hire those graduates.
This myth that giving rich people more money results in more jobs drives me batshit crazy. It is NOT true. If you look at tax rates on the rich historically, there is NO correlation to unemployment. ZILCH. ZERO. NADA. Right now, rich people have lower taxes than they've had in over a century. The highest marginal tax rate, which was over 90% during periods of our greatest economic growth in this country, is currently 35%. The capital gains tax rate, which is what most of the super-wealthy pay, is only 15%--lower than it's been since 1942. Corporate tax rates are low also, with many corporations effectively paying negative taxes--zero in taxes, but receiving government subsidies.
And whoa nellie, has it paid off! In the past 20 years, the poor and middle class have been sliding backwards in terms of total wealth and income distribution. Meanwhile, the super rich and corporations and going like gangbusters. They're taking home more income as a percentage of total income than they have since the 1920s. So if giving money to these so-called "job creators" is what we're supposed to do to reduce unemployment, I've got news for you. That's exactly what we've been doing more than ever for most, probably all, of your lifetime. Where the hell are the jobs?
There is ONE thing and one thing ONLY that creates jobs: DEMAND If there is no demand, I don't care how much money rich people have, there will be no jobs. If there is demand, I don't care how badly rich people are compared to today, there will be jobs. Period. End of story.
Anyone who is serious about reducing unemployment must focus on getting money into the hands of the people who actually spend the vast majority of it--the poor and middle class. This is by far the best way to increase demand and thus decrease unemployment. I know that it's popular to whine and complain about wealth redistribution, but shocker! There has already been massive wealth distribution in this country--from the poor and middle class to the rich. One only has to look at, for example, the effective tax rate of people like Mitt Romney versus median-income Americans to see this wealth redistribution in action.
People like me aren't fighting to go to Mitt Romney's house and take his stuff, that's ridiculous. What we do want, though, is for the redistribution that is happening currently to stop, for everyone to pay their fair share, for this insane idiocy of supporting "job creators" who aren't actually creating jobs but doing nothing but serving as hugd money vacuums to stop.
And the kicker? Once that demand is created, it's not like the rich will lose their money. They will still be rich and still continue to get richer. Probably not as fast and not with such vast sums like they are doing today, but the wealth will be shared with everyone and we as a country can finally experience meaningful economic progress again. That's the kind of "getting rich" I can really stand behind.
... that Republicans don't represent people. They represent corporations.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Don't get me wrong, I love reading political discussions on slashdot, but what is the technical factor here? There is none. So why is the article posted here? Because more traffic is being given to politically driven /. stories these days than the traditional geek stories. So what does /. do? Ignore the trend, continue to let the occasional political story slip through the crack into the stream, and then go to work creating SlashBI--because that is something that the /. audience is apparently interested in.
IMO, what we really need to do is simultaneously fracture both parties. Instead of having a "third party", we also need a fourth party.
I actually got excited for a bit because I thought OWS and TP happening in such temporal proximity could mean that we are arriving upon such a schism. Truly, the Democrats and Republicans are owned by corporate interest, while OWS and TP are powered by the public interest.
By splitting both parties, we can work around the perception that a vote for a third party is a vote for the guy you don't like.
:(){
What I'd give to get out of this two party quagmire.
Worse comes to worst, you could always leave the country.
Sadly, the only thing I can give is my vote (to third parties), and some money (to third parties), but it is not enough...
Have you tried volunteering your time (to third parties) to help their candidates' campaigns?
Today, a huge number of people would have to see their taxes slashed IN HALF to be elevated to the levels of serfs, which is a sad state of affairs in USA, since it fought the King over just 3% taxes.
Granted, your math is questionable at best, but even if we assume it to be somehow vaguely related to something that might almost count as being fractionally representing reality you still have some huge problems.
For one, serfs generally lived about half as long as the typical American today, especially when you account for the large numbers of people under European serfdom who never lived to their 10th birthday.
Even more so - and you should be aware of this as you claim to be an expert on economics - under serfdom economic mobility effectively goes to zero . Serfs are born, raised, and buried on their master's land. Most of them won't learn how to read or ever have any grasp of the existence of a world beyond the small area they live in. Landowners will stay landowners, serfs will stay serfs.
Is that really what the free market wants - economic oppression of the majority of the population?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It should also be noted that when the Republican House passed a measure last week to extend that interest rate, the President immmediately threatened a veto
For fucks sake, why is it that the politically minded always stop at recrimination, and never point out the reasons for why things are done.
/how/ to fund it. The Republicans want to fund the program with cuts to preventative health services. The Democrats want to fund the program by closing tax loopholes that Republicans have previously wanted closed.
/you/ think the program should be funded?
Both the Rs and the Ds want the student load extension project to be funded. They are arguing about
So... how do
Well???
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That's right. You agreed to a legally-binding contact, to borrow money, and pay it back. So, pay it back. Stop whining about the payments. The tax payers should not have to suffer paying for the debts that individuals purposely chose to take on, because now all of a sudden, it's just not fair to actually pay back money you said you would pay back.
This sense of entitlement to free money is what is killing America. The people want free health care, even if it bankrupts the country. Who cares, right? It's not their own money, it is the money of the 53% that pay taxes. Those evil 53%ers, how dare they want to keep their money to themselves.
Bearded Dragon
So on the one hand, you have Democrats who want to use tax dollars to keep loan interest rates low. On the other, Republicans who want to use tax dollars to keep loan interest rates low. The only disagreement is on whether the money should be raised by closing loopholes or de-funding another program.
Did anyone stop to ask why we are forcing people to take on huge debts just to be educated? That is where there is no difference between these parties: neither one seems to think that the fact that we have millions of young men and women whose adult lives begin with tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt is a problem. Not only that, but we are talking about debts that are very difficult to escape through bankruptcy procedures.
The philosophy that underlies this sort of thinking? That college education is a fancy form of vocational training, that a college degree is a ticket to a "good" (i.e. high paying) job, that people are investing in their own future (on margin, of course). Which of the major parties begins its approach to education with the stance that an educated populace is good for society as a whole? Which major party is pushing a solution that is based on the idea that universities are not vocational schools, and that educating people is an investment that benefits everyone in the country?
The problem here is not that student loan rates need to be kept low, and that we must find the money for that; the problem is that we have an education system that is based on people taking out loans in the first place.
Palm trees and 8
The cost of college education in the US has skyrocketed ever since the government started messing around with supply and demand by keeping student load rates artificially low. Whenever our government gets their hands on something for the sake of making it "affordable" they always end up increasing the cost of it.
Always.
Stop manipulating the market.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
May I suggest the problem is trying to have massive programs done on the federal level for the entire country. You shouldn't expect to find a bunch of agreement between those diverse areas.
So if California wants to spend themselves silly and have a massive welfare state, let them. Let other states figure their own way.
Try to minimize what needs to be nationalized as much as possible.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Harry Reid was the only D who voted along with the R's on this.
Here's what two political scientists have to say (my notes):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27
(When Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said that 78-81 Democrats in Congress are members of the Communist Party, no Republican leaders condemns him.
Washington politics and Congress haven't been this dysfunctional in 40 years. The problem is with the Republican party. "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition." This is not "both sides do it." Moderate and center-right Republicans are extinct.
This started first with Newt Gingrich, whose strategy was to convice voters that Congress was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents. As speaker, Gingrich wanted to compromise with Clinton but couldn't.
Second, Grover Norquist founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985, and his Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which binds signers never to support a tax increase, including closing loopholes, has been signed by 238/242 House and 41/47 Senate Republicans, followed by other litmus-test pledges.
This makes compromise impossible. The filibuster has become routine. Senate Republicans have blocked every nominee. This has produced complete gridlock and America's first credit downgrade. Republicans were forced to vote against bills they co-sponsored. Mike Lofgren wrote an anguished diatribe.
Journalists should report this, not "a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon.")
Voting against the bill allows him to bring it back in some funky parliamentary move that someone else can probably explain better than I can.
Tautology not supported by facts. The U.S. government hasn't "messed around with supply and demand" for health care, but that hasn't stopped medical costs from exploding as fast as higher education. You could try to cook up some kooky argument involving SCHIP or Medicare, but even that wouldn't explain why costs have exploded for everybody else.
Conservative dogma debunked by.....pretty much the rest of the industrialized world. Universal health care provides better care for less money. Students getting a free education in Canada or France can start their own business without having to worry about paying off $50k in student loan debt and attract employees without having to provide them health insurance.
Businesses go under and declare Chapter 11 all the time. Students cannot discharge debt in bankruptcy baring the most extreme of conditions.
So you're in favor of ending bankruptcy for businesses, right? They signed on the loan, they pay the price. And all that.
FTFY.
FTFY.
Conservative lies are what's killing America. Everyone pays taxes, but you knew that already.
You certainly could, but that's not the problem. Federal highways are a better and cheaper option than a patchwork of state highways. Universal health care provides better care for less money than private insurance - as well as larger bargaining power when buying for a market of over 300 million as opposed to 30 million. Or 700,000.
Mississippi would already be a third world country without federal spending. Thanks but no thanks on letting the disadvantaged sink or swim because they were born in such a state.
Except you do, of course. See: teabaggers marching around in their cognitive dissonance bubble carrying signs saying "Keep your government hands off our Medicare".
As sensible a position as maximizing government for the sake of maximizing government.
Stay on topic, uberhah. Your tactic to misdirect the subject won't work here.
No one forced the students to sign a student loan agreement. It was done of their free will. If they can no longer afford to pay the loan, they can file for bankruptcy. It is called being a mature adult and accepting responsibility for your choices.
Those students entered into those agreement under the false illusion that a college degree will grant them riches beyond their dreams, illusions preached by the left. And now that pretty much everyone has a college degree, it is no longer special and guarantees diddly squat. Oh no! Reality!
Maybe instead of being taught that we need more lawyers, middle managers and IT folks, we should keep it realistic and acknowledge that some people just shouldn't go to college, and that some people are just destined to work an assembly line in a factory.
Bearded Dragon
Slight problem with it: the vast majority of subprime loans had nothing to do with Freddie Maye or Freddie Mac. They came from companies like Countrywide lowering their underwriting standards down into the gutter after financial markets were deregulated and the industry-written bankruptcy bill passed under Bush made it harder for consumers to declare bankruptcy. Then the mortgages were split up and sold as unregulated AAA securities.
So pass a law capping tuition at $3,000 a semester for a school to receive student loan money. Would actually force a reduction in costs without throwing students under the bus.
Has totally been shitted out of the house at this point. Sure it matters, but it would be nice if tech stuff actually out-numbered political articles. This place has gone to shit since Taco left. And no, I'm not leaving, 'cause I'm an ass who also wants to spew his own garbage.
Stop fighting over "which party is better!" They are the same, just with different names and PR teams. And the second they are elected everything they said is out the window. I'd love to say go 3rd party, but that's as likely as humping a goat to the top of Mt. Everest.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Because Republicans want to cut health care spending in return for a vote on student loans.
In other words, a poison pill the Republicans put in because they knew the Democrats would never vote for it. But that fact would have interfered with your storyline, so it was left out.
Its called pay to play, bitch.
And the more your get the more you pay.
Don't like it, move to the libertarian paradise of Somolia.
Companies are bent on maximising the revenue to be obtained by leveraging externalities, which are overwhelmingly negative for society in general. (Simplest example: pollution.)
The harm is an integral part of this attitude; because companies/corporations are not people they have no empathy or conscience (they are psycopathic.)
Externalities must be paid for (cleaned up, etc.) by society at large.
Thus the need for regulation to reign in psycopathic, soulless person-corporations.
He is in fact describing almost ALL companies, especially all corporations.
Economics 101
"Stafford loans are generally paid off over a decade or more after graduation. Allowing interest rates to double would cost the typical student about $1,000 over the life of the loan, the administration says." according to the article.
100 hours at $10.00 an hour covers this For a 10 year loan that is 10 hours a year, or less than one hour a month offset. Point being that "if" funds cannot be found to finance this bill (and I certainly believe there is government waste to be harvested) the impact to the end user is really negligible. People will spend more non productive hours at work than this.
the property, sales taxes and such, puts him over the 50%.
Even if we make the very questionable assumption that your math is accurate, your example doesn't meet the criteria provided of
Do you actually know anyone who pays a 50% tax rate in the US? By that I mean: They make X dollars, pay Y dollars in taxes, and Y/X > 0.50
As neither property nor sales tax are dependent on income. Your imaginary example could opt instead to live on a rented property and pay essentially zero property tax. Similarly your imaginary friend could drive to a different state where the sales tax is less and pay less in sales tax.
However, since you aren't actually trying to represent - but rather trying to discredit - the fiscal conservatives, you don't see yourself bounded by reason or facts. Carry on. You would, however, do a better job of meeting your aspiration if you did pay more attention to the real world before spouting off your favorite absurd talking points.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Govt gives QEs to Wall street.
Why can't Govt write off student loans?
Casteism
"The 52-45 vote to begin debating..."
I am not exactly sure when this happened but for some ignorant reason the majority no longer wins; and this was just to begin debating.
Your transparent attempts at projection wont work here. The subject is bankruptcy, the point is consistency. If student loans are accountable for the loans they choose to sign, should businesses not be held to the same standard: yes or no.
Should the same standard used for business debt: yes or no?