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."
I don't think it is true that both parties do not value the small guy, rather the small guy doesn't have a lobby and if he did, what would it lobby for? The crazy-quilt of American politics looks that way because Americans look that way.
I have a suggestion. Since the U.S. should value education for its citizens to compete in the world, and since the Republicans believe in free enterprise, and since the Democrats dislike the oil companies for whatever reasons, let's take the $6 Billion the federal government gives in tax breaks/subsidies to the oil companies and use it to cover the student loan rates. What Republican could be against a government directed industrial policy, what Democrat could be against screwing the oil companies out of a few bucks? Everyone wins.
So you say people become Republicans when money becomes more important to them than their ideals?
How much greater is your income because you received those loans and could go to a much better school? How much more skilled and productive are your work colleagues because they took similar loans to attend a better school? And let's not pretend that either social security or medicare will "go broke". There are going to be drastic cuts in benefits, but they've _always_ been "broke". They're not designed to hold a reserve fund, they're designed to churn their taxes pretty directly into the benefits allocated at the moment.
This doesn't automatically make these loans or programs loans a good investment or justified, but it seems important to provide the basic counter so people are reminded what the real issues are when someone makes a confused, self-serving claim like this. After all, the anonymous poster probably isn't on fire right now: why is he paying taxes for a fire department he's unlikely to need?
"I have to pay to subsidize social security and medicare, neither of which I will ever see, because they are both projected to go broke before I ever collect a cent, and fixing them is a political third rail."
I feel the same way but after my father died of a heart attack after working an 11 hour day in a boiler factory I figure it's money well spent since those things are taking care of her since he's gone. It's not as good as what he used to get for health insurance but it's better then nothing for a woman who's had 18 major operations in her life.
I can't use my insurance on her like her and Dad used theirs on me when I was little so that's all there is. If that stuff lasts till she passes on I'll be satisfied even if there isn't anything left for me.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Thus why you should vote Constitutional Party -> Libertarian -> Independent -> Republican -> Abstain in that order for every politician.
I completely agree, but unfortunately, a vote for anything other than the major party you are closest to is a vote for the one you are not. The only way for a third party to stand a chance beyond the little onesies and twosies here and there is to change the system. The easiest and least disruptive way to do this is to only declare a winner at the state level in any federal election if one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. If no one receives 50%, the top two vote earners go into a runoff. This would allow voters to vote for a third party without fear that a vote for and independent would ensure that your last choice wins.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Alternatively, you could charge young people vast sums of money for their education
Why are the sums of money "vast"? College tuition and fee rates have gone up much faster than the rate of inflation. Why do you think that is? Other things have increased at this rate as well. Health care, for example has also increased at this rate. What do these things have in common? Well, one this is that someone else is paying for them. See, with health care, insurance companies and government will pay a set minimum for procedures. When there is a minimum that payers will pay, what do you think the minimum price will be? The laws of supply and demand no longer applies.
The same can be said of higher education. When students can apply for grants and easy-to-get loans, they can afford more than they can truly afford. When a provider may charge more for a service and still maintain an adequate customer base, they will. Universities may charge more because students can artificially afford to pay more. Before easy loans and grants, students were able to work a summer waiting tables or manning a booth at a mall, save that money and use it to pay for the next year of school. This is no longer the case. Now students must either get student loans or have very wealthy parents.
When I went to school in the early 90's, my tuition at a state funded college was about $500 a semester. Books cost me another $200 or so. Other little piss-ant fees like parking and such would run me another $100. Of course, I didn't stay in a dorm or get a meal plan as it was cheaper to live at Mom's. I was able to work summers and part time during the school year and paid for the whole thing in cash.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.