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."

Comments

Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Chrisq]

Both parties are against the small guy

True, but sad considering that both parties rely mainly on small guys to vote them in to power.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[gtall]

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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[jellie]

Your logic is retarded. This was a provision that would remove tax loopholes on the wealthy to pay for the funding of the federal Stafford loans program (who was, incidentally, a Republican). These are tax loopholes that even the Republicans opposed! How does this make the Democrats "hate the small guy"?

I don't know if Slashdot loves repeating the "both parties are the same, both parties are stupid" mantra, but really, at least make a coherent argument when doing so. You're just like Mitt Romney, trying to rewrite history.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

My grad loans are at 8.5%. These interest rate cuts don't help me one bit. But I have to pay for them with my taxes, in addition to paying off my own loans.

So, just to keep score:

I have to pay to subsidize benefits for younger people that I didn't get.
AND
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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[jmac_the_man]

Also of note: The bill to RAISE these rates was passed in 2007 (to take effect this year.) Who controlled the House and Senate in 2007?

Republicans have been opposed to this since before Obama took office.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[DJRumpy]

Of the two I prefer the dem bill.

From the House passed Republican bill:

Rates on popular student loans would be barred from doubling as scheduled on July 1 under Republican-authored legislation that the House of Representatives passed Friday – but the change would be funded by slashing money from a fund for disease prevention and public health.

From the Democrat bill:

Republicans oppose the Democratic plan to pay for the bill by forcing high-earning stockholders in some privately owned corporations and professional practices to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Even if it passed the Senate, it would have no chance of emerging from the Republican-controlled House.

What I see here are those who have already reaped the benefits of an education, and who can certainly afford a minimal increase in their taxes assist those trying to better themselves.

Every GOP sponsored bill has been slash and burn to 'spare' the wealthy from shouldering a burden in this recession, when they are the ones most able to afford it. While poor families are trying to figure out how to eat for the week, the rich would have to decide whether to buy the Rolls, or the Mercedes. It's a fair comparison. The wealth gap between the poor and rich has never been more pronounced. The rich do not need coddling. They need to pay their dues. I'm moderately well off and pay far more than any typical millionaire in taxes, but I understand the need. Without a health lower and middle class, the economy sucks. Jobs are not created in a vacuum. You need customers and those customers are supplied by the low and middle class, not the rich.. You also need an educated workforce to compete in a global industry. If only those able to afford an education could actually get one, we will plummet even further in the global market as there are simply not enough 'rich' folk to make the workforce competitive on a global scale let alone a national scale.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read an interesting piece on Us politics a few days ago from a Belgian reporter living in the US. (I'm from Belgium btw) It goes something like this:

Both parties are actively trying to get the other side to block their proposals, they do this so that their supporters get aroused and angry at that other party. When your supporters are pissed off and angry at the other guy, they will vote for you, even when your a dumbfuck that screws up a lot. They're to busy being angry at the other guy to notice.

There was some more to do with it but that's what it came down to.
When I read 'political' debate on slashdot, that's exactly what I'm seeing.

This political behavior to actively try and get blocked by the other party obviously works best in a two-party system. So your hope for real change comes with a third party, not with the republocrats/demicans.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is an unfair argument (and shows GOP bias on your part). The current bill was only being voted on to start the debate, and the Republicans opposed it because "the Democratic plan to pay for the bill by forcing high-earning stockholders in some privately owned corporations and professional practices to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes."

So the GOP blocked the bill because high-earners will get increased taxes, whereas the Dems blocked the first bill you cited because the GOP wanted to pay for it by cutting Health Care to middle-income families. Frankly, the GOP choice is no choice at all.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Antique Geekmeister]

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?

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[CFBMoo1]

"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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[chrb]

I have to pay to subsidize benefits for younger people that I didn't get.

If you provide free or subsidized education, then more young people will be educated. Better educated people generally go on to be more productive members of society, and over their lives will pay more taxes, thus funding education for the next generation. That is how the system works.

Alternatively, you could charge young people vast sums of money for their education. This will deter many from seeking a higher education level. You will therefore end up with a larger proportion of young people having lower education levels, which tend to lead to menial jobs, more unemployment, and a reliance on benefits.

There are plenty of countries that are willing to fund the education of their young people. In today's knowledge based global economy, it seems like a good investment. If education becomes prohibitively expensive in the U.S., then it is the U.S. economy that will suffer in the long term, and people will wonder why it is that better educated young people in places like Finland can still find jobs, when young Americans can't.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[AngryDeuce]

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.

While I can't speak for Democrats as a whole, as someone who is decidedly liberal (but not necessarily a Democrat, the party is just barely left-of-center, as you can plainly see when you compare our 'left' with the 'left' in Europe), I have no problem with oil companies. What I have a problem with is skirting regulations to save a buck when they're making more money then they ever have in history, skimping on safety protection for the people manning their rigs, and most of all, the way they've somehow managed to not only convince the congressmen they've bribed but a significant portion of the American people that they still deserve those 10 figure subsidies.

The people you'll see champing at the bit for 'free markets' are often the same people that defend the government transferring billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to megacorporations because the megacorps don't want to fund their own risk, but they damn sure demand they get to pocket the whole fucking reward come tax time. It's completely ridiculous and really makes me wonder who the fuck could possibly think that is appropriate, especially people that don't have a direct vested interest (i.e., stockholders). Their opinions I can understand, but the other 99.99999% of the population, no fucking idea...

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[thoth]

I see you, an Anonymous Coward, have bought into the Republican/Conservative lie - that rich people provide jobs - hook line and sinker.

Unless you are literally the pool boy for some multimillionaire, you job *most likely* comes from MIDDLE CLASS consumer demand to make stuff that you want to buy.

Rich people DO NOT go around investing their money into small businesses to help the common folk. That's total BS. Rich people are more likely to park their money out of the country or in hedge funds. Similarly, corporations DO NOT invest money into jobs for the hell of it. They ONLY respond to consumer demand.

Right now, corporation profits are the highest ever in recorded history. Job growth... still slow, because of lack of demand. Supply side economics is again shown to be a failure, with actual real evidence from reality, not the imagination of some free market theorizing zealot.

Your false d dichotomy about the economy also glosses over that rich people and corporations ARE the leeches.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[thoth]

Oil companies are profitable enough without also leeching billions of subsidies they don't really need.
Now apparently profit isn't enough of a motive, they need to be bribed to hire people too? WTF?

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[Slyfox696]

You do realize that most of the school's money is not spent on administration, right? You do realize that, and this changes from state to state, schools spend so much more money on teachers and their various benefits than they do on administrator salaries, right?

My mother is a superintendent of a town with 5,000 people. While she's not quite to six figures yet, she's not too far off. But what people don't realize is the amount of responsibility which falls on a superintendent's shoulders. They don't see the nonsense they have to deal with, so many of them are not around to realize that when something happens at the school at 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning, the superintendent is responsible for getting up and driving to the school to take care of it. People don't realize how school funding works, how many conferences they have to go to, how many laws they are responsible for knowing in order to not break, etc. People don't know how much it costs to get to the position, how much time and energy has to be put into it, how administration works year round and is on call 24/7, even on their vacation. People don't realize how much money so many of these administrators donate from their own pocketbooks, to help various projects around the school. I know my mom, for example, has donated over a thousand dollars in one year, just for various clubs and programs around the school. She's donated user of her personal belongings for the betterment of the school. People don't realize these things, which is understandable because most people are not around administrators in a personal setting, but that doesn't make their comments any less silly when I read them.

School administrators don't show up at 7:30 and leave at 3:30. They don't work just five days a week. They never get a chance to "be away from it all". I'm not denying there are many many public schools and public school administrators who are not good at what they do. Just like in any profession, you're going to have incompetents. It's just a fact of life. But what also is a fact of life is there are many more administrators who are hard working individuals, who do the job they do because they love kids and are willing to go through the stress, the hassle, the "never seeing family", etc. that it takes to be a school administrator.

Most schools are accountable for their spending. Most schools have to work very hard to make sure their spending is responsible, and meets the numerous guidelines which are tied to nearly every cent that comes into the school. I would suggest you spend some more time with a responsible and hard working superintendent, and see just how much they really do. Then tell me they don't deserve what they make, and that they are not accountable for what they do.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[AngryDeuce]

Ah yes, the "you took money so we own you" argument.

As opposed to the "Well, now that I'm rich, I don't want to pay taxes!! No No No NO NO NO NO!!!!" argument?

These same people have the gall to bitch and cry about the "entitled". Give me a fucking break. Who told them they were entitled to a tax-free existence?

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[roman_mir]

If you really want to go back to serfdom,

- you really shouldn't bring up serfdom. A serf paid his master only 25% of his earnings.

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.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[TheGratefulNet]

When society is bent on harming your industry by any means, then why hire people

lets sort this in the right order:

"when industry is bent on harming OUR society by any means, then why subsidize/support them?"

big oil is clearly a "me, Me, ME! gimme gimme gimme!!" green fest. nothing matters to them but profits and the right to keep doing what they are doing, unless supplies do finally run out OR we've ruined our environment so bad its unlivable here.

of couse, those that make decisions wont' be alive for the fallout (so to speak). they are fat (literally) dumb and happy to keep on keepin' on.

there should be zero respect for any industry that works that way.

of course, this is the US, backwards-land as it is, these days ;(

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[CrimsonAvenger]

No one said that the Democrats are pushing for students to go to four-year colleges. They want to allow students to receive the financial aid to do so, and they want to prevent the predatory for-profit schools from abusing the system.

It should be noted that the Republicans feel exactly the same way.

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.

When all is said and done, the argument isn't about the student loan interest rate (everyone in Congress agrees it should be maintained as is), but about how to fund the loan program when it requires borrowing money at market rates and lending it out at below market rates.

The Dems picked this particular funding method not because they preferred it, but because they were pretty sure the Reps would oppose it. Just as the Reps in the House picked their funding method because they were pretty sure the Dems would oppose it.

Thus, both sides can say truthfully, that they TRIED to do this, but were stymied by [EVIL OTHER PARTY]...

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[aztektum]

The oil industry is a very mature industry at this point. It does not need tax breaks. This is more of the "but they're the jorb creators! We can't take their money or they won't pay for jorbs!" crap that has been shot down over and over.

If tax payers need not subsidize student loan debt, why should they subsidize an industry that has a ready group to cover their operating costs, the people that drive cars. No need to fund via subsidy an industry with billions of customers.

A mature industry reaping billions in profit each year should not be subsidized. If you're worried about the matter of "fairness" in tax policy, which really is an elementary school notion, how fair is it we continue to let billionaire businesses while slashing spending on education? You know an educated populace is probably worth more on the whole than oil industry, since we won't be able to actually rely on oil forever. Better to have spent money on educating people than throwing it at an industry with an expiration date.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[nomadic]

"because they want less government spending "

For other people. Their own medicare, social security, and farm subsidies should stay, of course.

Re:Obama knows how to play politics if anything.

[im_thatoneguy]

I'll take the $250 billion deficit and continue working within the party to reduce that number over the $1500 billion with no chance of having any effect whatsoever. So tell me, who is the fool?

Ummm, the deficit is largely the result of an economic collapse preceded by said control of legislature and executive branch.

That's like blaming the firefighters for all of your property destruction when the arson is the one who lit the fire. "Water damage in my house has increased 500% since the firefighters showed up!"

You can attempt to solve a deep recession through stimulus and tax cuts. BOTH cause deficits and BOTH cost money.

The GOP lit the deficit fire and now they're blaming the people who are saddled with fixing it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DTVAKoOCx_A/TmeDk3PCsqI/AAAAAAAAEI8/Jn-l5tyOcI0/s1600/Fiscal%2BMess%2Bwith%2BBush%2BTax%2BCuts.JPG

Once again

[Cornwallis]

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.

Re:Once again

[siddesu]

I'll admit am not very knowledgeable about the intricacies of this particular law, but helping people get education is not so much "spending" as investing into the future. Not only this, we know investment in education and knowledge is one place where the gubmint has legitimate role, as the market tends to fail to allocate enough for education.

Re:Once again

[Shadow of Eternity]

And preventing education is an investment in the future of the republican party. A combination of poverty and ignorance is the best environment for their ideology to grow and spread in.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. This won't help education one bit. All it does is prevent a cut in administrative spending, which has skyrocketed in the past 20 years. Tuition has been going through the roof. Where has the money gone? It hasn't gone to professors. However, the number of new administrators has skyrocketed. The salaries of administrators have skyrocketed.

Now, they just tell kids "don't worry about the rising tuition. See, interest rates are low."

It's a scam. It's a bubble. The sooner we burst it, the better.

Re:Once again

[White Flame]

What appears to be happening is that costs are inflating in accordance to the availability of and expectation of student loans, because hey, the kids'll have it so might as well take it. The quality of education is not increasing with all this additional tuition money being leached into the schools.

The system needs an overhaul and costs need to be reined in. Arguing about loan interest rates on this burgeoning, inflated debt is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re:Once again

[capteutrino]

Actually, it is the government intervention that makes college expensive.If the government stops subsidizing student loans the colleges would have to cut the prices to attract students.

Re:Once again

[DarkOx]

helping people get education is not so much "spending" as investing into the future.

I am sorry but you wrong on this point as are both parties at least in the context of the way they are going about it right now. The problem with going to college for most students is not obtaining credit, nor is it the interest rate on the credit even if rates were go up to a whopping 4.5% OMG. The problem is COST.

The cost of college has risen in great excess compared to the general rate of inflation. The cause is to much credit to available and to cheap due to government loan grantee and or direct lending programs. This is exactly the same issue which resulted in the housing bubble. It is a bubble the cost is objectively to high today, outside STEM fields, many, many students will never recoup the time value adjusted cost of getting that education, in better salary or career opportunities. The only way tuition will ever go down is if students stop enrolling because they can't pay.

If you want to fix the problem, you STOP offering loan grantees today. You have Sallie Mai start cutting the number of loans and the amounts it offers each year over a 5-7 year period so students can adjust and find other lenders. You eliminate the special bankruptcy protections student loans enjoy so families who borrow to much have a remedy. This will mean students will have to find cosigners or otherwise collateralize the debt. This will make them cost conscience again. It will no longer be a race between schools to see who can offer the fanciest athletic facility and the best food in the dining hall but who can offer the strongest academic credential at the lowest price, as it should be.

Re:Once again

[khallow]

but helping people get education is not so much "spending" as investing into the future

In which case you should be supporting the end of subsidized student loans. There's two things to remember about current student loans in the US. Because the interest rate is subsidized and the loan guaranteed, there is no difference for loan rates between someone who is likely to be able to repay their loan and someone who isn't. That means such loans help college students get debt not get an education, which they might get as a result or they might not. The loan isn't doing anything to make that more likely since it is near completely blind to such things as the ability to repay.

Second, such loans increase demand for educational products and produce a hefty amount of tuition inflation. In other words, people who actually go to college for an education have to pay more, probably a lot more, because the US's subsidized loans encourage a lot of people who otherwise would be gainfully employed, to flail around in college for a while and collect debt not education. It makes the investment in education more expensive and hence, is harming the US's ability to "invest in the future" in this particular area.

I see this as a typical "the cure is worse than the disease" situation which will continue for a while since most of the participants can't be bothered to understand the structural problems in the approach.

Not only this, we know investment in education and knowledge is one place where the gubmint has legitimate role, as the market tends to fail to allocate enough for education.

We know no such thing. To the contrary, the US demonstrates a remarkable diversity of colleges due precisely to the market for education over the past 150 years. Why do people say things about the "market" when they don't have any clue what they're speaking of?

Nor is there a "legitimate role" for this particular level of government. It's not just that the approach actively harms us (which in itself should be a no-go for government involvement), but there's no mandate for such activity. One has to resort to the extraordinarily vague "general welfare" excuse, which can rationalize anything, including stuff that is against rather than for the general welfare as subsidized student loans are.

In summary, subsidized loans have driven up the cost of education by increasing demand and have encouraged people to make poor and expensive education choices. Doubling down on the mess isn't going to make it better. Instead, you'll see more expensive education, more people with debt they can't repay, and greatly increased consumption of public funds. It's a mystery to me how one can view this as an "investment".

Re:Once again

[Lumpy]

You are 100% correct. Cost of education is going up, now loan interest is going up. And the quality of the education? dropping through the floor. MY wife is finishing up a degree and she is utterly appalled at the kindergarten level of education she feels she is getting in her accounting classes and business classes. She recently told me, "I now understand why you assume that anyone with a business degree is a moron... it's because we are taught to be that way in college."

She was told that to balance the books you only need to be within $2000.00US looking for any discrepency below that is a waste of time. Someone can embezzle a significant amount of money under those rules and not get caught. As a career accountant she is appalled at the idea of "eh close enough" these supposed experts and educators are drilling into their students heads.

Where are the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't these students just ask their parents for money?

--M.R.

Re:Where are the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea. People with poor parents shouldn't be getting an education anyway, the worthless peasants. Anybody who isn't rich should be grateful for a job mopping floors, not going around trying to improve their life.

Student loans led to the education bubble

[Kergan]

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...

Re:Student loans led to the education bubble

[Orne]

Didn't we just cover this a couple of days ago? Colleges don't face a risk of default; the loans are provided by banks and are underwritten by the federal government. Because 90% of the risk is mitigated by the gov, the colleges can raise tuition and the banks don't balk. A small % of students get in over their heads and default but that is baked into the interest rate, which used to be variable until congress messed with it in 2005. Like housing, the scheme breaks down when normal graduates can't pay the bills... Because there's no jobs.

Doesn't anyone care about the country?

[Grayhand]

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!

Dems vs Reps

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Republicans know there constituency...

[SJHillman]

You'd be surprised how many people quickly turn from Dem to Rep once they're out of college and into the real world and have to pay taxes for all of the idealistic things they supported while in college.

The GOP is doing them a favor

[MikeRT]

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.

A deeply divided country

[isorox]

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.

Re:Republicans know there constituency...

[phizix]

So you say people become Republicans when money becomes more important to them than their ideals?

Re:Wrong

[roman_mir]

the loan forgiveness only applies to federal student loans.

- and this story only applies to the Senate and federally backed loans.

Second, the bank-supplied loans in particular are notorious for being cruel to those who took out the money.

- that's a nonsense statement, it has nothing to do with how banks operate. They operate within the limits created by the system, and the system allows them to give out loans with free money the banks get from the Fed and the system 'insures' these loans. There should be no surprise that banks use this to the maximum logical conclusion, it's not free market that operates here.

Interest rates are free to change at a moment's notice and some people have seen double-digit interest rate increases in single years.

- ah, but the US government and the Federal reserve cannot at this point allow the interest rates to go up, it will be politically difficult as the US economy would implode. So the artificial interest rates will be kept low in US dollars by the Fed printing all the money to buy all of the debt (and that is what is happening right now, the Fed is buying all new Treasury debt).

The REAL interest rates are already very high, that is exactly why nobody can actually get access to real investment capital through banks, the real interest rates that come out of real savings are extremely high, high double digits, maybe higher than triple digits, that's because there are no real savings and investments available with all this fake stuff going on.

Yes, I would. And I would wager that in reality, you would as well

- that's because you don't understand economics.

Providing loans to US students is exactly the same as providing loans to US housing market or buying US bonds or buying stocks in most US companies or buying State bonds or buying US municipal bonds, etc.

Why is that you ask? It's because all US debt now is the same, everything is on the US Treasury and Federal reserve, there is NO difference in buying US Treasury debt or US housing debt or US education debt, it all is the same stuff.

Who in their right mind wants to buy long term US debt? You think you can buy US bonds and save for your retirement decades from now? You think with the real negative rates of return and the Fed creating all this inflation you will be making money holding long term US debt?

See, dumb_register, that's why we are different - I can add.

Re:Republicans know there constituency...

[NeutronCowboy]

Of course not everyone's upbringing is net subsidized. Accounting for how much paid in versus paid out is a zero sum game. But here's an interesting little bit: taxes pay for civilization. Civilization advances the entire social group. In other words, taxes provide more long-term benefits than you can get from not paying taxes. Yes, someone will receive less than they pay in. Congratulations, you discovered the cost of living in a society, where burdens are shared, and some pay more than others.

Really? Is this concept so fucking hard to understand? What the hell did you do in social studies, civics class or even history