#2
And we are not even at the point where we feel the effects of his wonderful transformation yet.
Most of his failed policies will hit us next year and the Year after that. Plus what ever disaster this know nothing puts us through if Americans are stupid enough to vote for him again.
I say we are at 6% inflation no matter what the bunk numbers the government gets us and will be at 10% next year.
#5
Yep, TFSM. The official inflation index excludes food and fuel, so the Fed is concerned that inflation is so low, the US may be entering a deflationary spiral!
If you happen to eat, drive, or heat your home, however, I concur that 12% is much closer to the mark.
#8
He's a Me Person. He walked away from Gov. Brewer while she was talking to him today. He has no respect whatever for other people.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/25/2012 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I calculate inflation real simply: Deficit/GDP, or $1.5 trillion/$15 trillion, or 10%. All the other metrics are just camoflage, since the money devaluation is the same thing as inflation, to me. One key component NEVER mentioned is that by holding interest rates on basic savings to essentially zero, instead of the historic 4% or so, they are inflating away 4% per year of the value of savings.
If jobs are on President Obama's mind, he should care about the U.S. logging industry. In 46 of the 50 states, forestry ranks in the top 10 manufacturing industries. It employs about 2.5 million Americans and pays $87 billion in wages annually. Its annual sales are $230 billion, including exports of roughly $35 billion.
Those jobs and that revenue now face a man-made crisis -- more specifically, a Big Green environmentalist-made crisis. Obama's administration could weigh in on either side.
For 35 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has understood silviculture -- the act of harvesting trees, as opposed to processing them -- to be an agricultural activity, not a manufacturing one. The distinction is vital because of particulars in the Clean Water Act. Runoff from "point-source" manufacturing facilities (including saw mills) is closely regulated. Permits are required, and an involved monitoring and remediation process is prescribed.
On the other hand, the "natural runoff" from forest roads -- basically mud puddles that accumulate in ditches -- has never required such permits or monitoring. It is cared for through what is known as "best management practices."
But in the case Georgia-Pacific West Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals turned this long-standing rule on its head. The court said that the EPA has been misinterpreting its own rules for 35 years, and that, in fact, forest roads must be regulated in similar fashion to factories and power plants.
The Ninth Circuit decision, if upheld, would crush forestry in the Pacific Northwest. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon put it, "One court would shut down forestry on private, state and tribal lands by subjecting it to the same, endless cycle of litigation."
The many millions of dollars needed to obtain EPA permits ($160 million in Washington state alone) are actually the easy part. The hard part begins with the monitoring and remediation of mud puddles along tens of thousands of miles of forest roads.
It ends in the courtroom, where the Clean Water Act's citizen lawsuit provision would allow anyone to drag foresters, landowners or local governments any time a puddle is improperly neglected.
The Clean Water Act has historically empowered well-funded Big Green environmental groups to tie up industrial activity in court. Other provisions of federal law force taxpayers to pay them any time they succeed.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling could empower them to shut down entire forests and many livelihoods. Imagine trying to do business, knowing that at any moment, a well-funded group of litigious environmentalists -- like the plaintiffs in this case -- could shut you down.
Georgia-Pacific is headed to the Supreme Court, which will decide in June whether to hear it. It has asked Obama's solicitor general for his position.
So far in the litigation process, the Obama EPA and Justice Department have sided with the industry, adhering to the traditional, 35-year-old interpretation of EPA rules. But in its most recent brief, the federal government's lawyers included a curious passage that has caused a small panic among the logging industry's legal team.
It essentially asserts that EPA has never before officially stated its decades-old position in writing, that runoff collected in man-made roadside ditches counts as "natural runoff."
Tim Bishop, the attorney who will argue the case before the Supreme Court if it receives a hearing, told me this statement is factually false, and that it nearly disowns the position that EPA has always taken.
Meanwhile, the Arizona legislature seems to have tired of the obstructionism of the Obama Administration, and has decided to launch their own investigation of Operation Fast and Furious to determine if DOJ officials committed felonies under Arizona state law. They intend to return their findings by the end of March, which would seem to impose some constraint on how much longer DOJ Inspector General Cynthia Schendar can delay publishing the IGÂ’s findings.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) came out with a statement in support of the Arizona legislatureÂ’s move.
“The state of Arizona’s decision to launch a probe into this botched program is clearly warranted and underscores the serious nature of what took place with this deadly federally-run law enforcement program,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “Combined with a Congressional investigation that’s still underway, the Arizona probe represents an important opportunity to get to the bottom of what really happened with this flawed program. The Justice Department has been less than forthcoming about its role in the failed operation, and we’re hopeful the Arizona investigation will produce answers – something that both Arizona citizens and the American people deserve.”
The ACLJ has heard from more than 50,000 Americans nationwide urging President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to provide the truth about Operation Fast & Furious.
#2
The best way is to work your way up the food chain. In this way, you find associations and work to progressively isolate those at the top, who you know are in it deep.
Worked for isolating Pablo Escobar. Works for anyone.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/25/2012 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
heh - would love to see Eric Holder and the chief liar as 'honored guests' of Sheriff Joe....
#5
I am sure Eric Holder is one of the few not thrown under the bus by Obama as he most likely has the kind of Fast and Furious info to take Obama down with him.
#6
#1 Too bad the state can't supoena the Feds. Start with the traitor in chief and work on down.
Is there not a criminal case that results from the death of Agent Terry? If so, it would seem to me that the Feds could be subpoena'd as witnesses or even charged as a part of a crime.
#7
I agree with the chewing up the food chain from the bottom up. As you work your way up the chain there will be some one who would rather talk than go to the slammer as a law enforcement type.
It is funny and perverse that the only place I can find info on F & F is here and on Fox News...elsewhere it doesn't exist.
I'd love to get some guy to sing like a canary on this in October of next year. It's about time the Dems got an October surprise instead of a Republican.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
01/25/2012 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I agree with the chewing up the food chain from the bottom up. As you work your way up the chain there will be some one who would rather talk than go to the slammer as a law enforcement type.
They could stream audio from their jail cells at night for all who were interested. Might hasten the process of getting to the root of the problem.
More than half of likely voters disagree with President Obama's decision to deny a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, according to The Hill Poll.
Seventy-five percent of Republicans, 69 percent of conservatives and slightly more than half of centrists disagreed with Obama's decision, the poll found.
But environmentalists -- many of whom have been disappointed by Obama's tenure thus far -- praised his decision, saying the project was risky and would have increased global warming. If all the environmentalist just died, there would be a reduction is global warming. As long as their residual carbon was interred, of course!
Fifty-seven percent of liberals and 54 percent of Democrats in the poll supported Obama's choice. Waitaminute! Does this mean that most enviros are into control of everyone by the all-powerful state, run by our betters? (democrats, that is.)
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/25/2012 10:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These polls never link one opinion with another. In this case, which candidate does their sample of likely voters support for election to the Presidency in 2012? [Don't mention the pipeline decision in this question] I expect the results would clash with other polls.
I have come over to the view that US presidential elections are decided by the ignorant and un-informed. That's why campaign money is poured into deceitful negative ads.
#2
I think primary voters tend to be better informed than those that show up at the last minute for the main election. The Republicans need to make sure that they get their opinions out there, not just on Fox and Rush and the blogs but where Joe-I-don't-follow-politics might get it. Ads during The Real Housewives or something.
#3
The decision was made to generate profit for Obama crony Warren Buffett - details here.
Posted by: Cincinnatus Chili ||
01/25/2012 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#2 - I agree with the difference between primary & general election voters. However, you also have the problem of open primaries, where the other party can support the goofball opposition candidate, an example of how better information can lead to a poorer outcome. How you can reason with people who get their political ideas from ads run during "Real Housewives" is beyond my comprehension.
#7
That environmentalists are the key opponents is pathetic - it shows they are ignorant 'useful idiots' for some other cause. The new pipeline would be environmentally cleaner than 1) continuing to overload the old pipelines, 2) transporting the oil on trains or trucks, 3) transporting through other pipelines (existing and new) across much less benign topography to the west coast and shipping out, and 4) having the oil end up being used in China, with essentially no environmental regulations, rather than the US.
#10
Ok, I am going to say it. Who is the USA's biggest trading partner? Its not China, Japan or the EU. Its Canada. Over 55% of all US exports go to Canada. Those, by the way, are mostly manufactured goods, not raw materials. Today the State of the Union address speaks of - well- protectionism. HMMMMM. Even this pipeline deal would have generated more jobs south of the border than in Canada. Maybe this pipeline should just stay in Canada and go to newly developed refineries in Canada. If the US has under utilized refineries in Texas. Well, the USA had its shot. Pipelines east and west in Canada and no more to the south. The US is just too fickle with its best neighbour.
#11
Oh I forgot this scoop. Tomorrow the Canadain Prime minister will lobby at the World Economic Forum at Devos that Canada is now open to selling oil to the rest of the world. We now sell 99% of the oil to the US. Thats going to change baby.
#12
Who knew Environmentalists = Greenhouse gas advocates. Which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere?
1. Piping Canadian oil to the US and shipping Persian Gulf to China
- or -
2. Piping, then shipping Canadian oil across the Pacific ocean and shipping Persian Gulf halfway across the planet to the US?
The Department of Education has acknowledged using flawed data in a study on the impact of race on student loan repayment rates, having omitted black students from its calculation. The analysis was conducted during the debate over gainful employment regulations, in response to complaints that the rules would hurt colleges that enroll relatively high percentages of minority students. RACISM... or something.
Department officials disclosed the error in a December court filing, which is part of the ongoing legal challenge to gainful employment by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the primary for-profit trade group. That lawsuit appears to have led to the mistake's discovery. Yeah... mistake my ass.
The Obama administration designed the federal rules in an attempt to ensure that most programs at for-profit colleges and certificate and vocational programs at nonprofit institutions prepare students for "gainful employment." For programs to be eligible for federal financial aid, they must adhere to benchmarks related to student loan repayment and debt-to-income ratios. In other words... you are now wards of the state with debt and full serfdom is granted. Rest of details at link.
#2
the Oblahblah admin has been trying to put private schools out of business using slanted studies, mistake-ridden data, and racial "thumb on the scales"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2012 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The courts have ruled that unforgivable student loans do not constitute involuntary servitude, but if this ain't it then what is?
"Unforgiveable student loans" was established by our esteemed {spit} Congresspersons, and is not properly a judicial issue. What one Congress can establish, another Congress can dis-establish. This should be a campaign issue but isn't.
#4
"Congresspersons, and is not properly a judicial issue. What one Congress can establish, another Congress can dis-establish. This should be a campaign issue but isn't."
When Congress passes a law which violates the Constitution, say for example the 13th Amendment, then it is the duty of the courts to invalidate that law.
In this case you have a debt obligation which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and never expires. You can either move out of the country (which some are doing) or pay it back. They will garnish wages, even your social security. All of this is justified because now you have a BA in Gender Studies or the like, so you should have no problem paying it all back.
#5
In this case you have a debt obligation which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and never expires. This has been obvious to any thinking citizen since the Constitution was put into effect. Congress is the appropriate place to deal with this issue, not the courts. The electorate [as a whole] exhibits zero understanding of the meaning of debt servitude, no doubt supported by a collective ignorance of long division and simple exponents.
From an 1833 commentary on this issue: it may be stated, that the general object of all bankrupt and insolvent laws is, on the one hand, to secure to creditors an appropriation of the property of their debtors pro tanto to the discharge of their debts, whenever the latter are unable to discharge the whole amount; and, on the other hand, to relieve unfortunate and honest debtors from perpetual bondage to their creditors, either in the shape of unlimited imprisonment to coerce payment of their debts, or of an absolute right to appropriate and monopolize all their future earnings. The latter course obviously destroys all encouragement to industry and enterprize on the part of the unfortunate debtor, by taking from him all the just rewards of his labour, and leaving him a miserable pittance, dependent upon the bounty or forbearance of his creditors. The former is, if possible, more harsh, severe, and indefensible. It makes poverty and misfortune, in themselves sufficiently heavy burthens, the subject or the occasion of penalties and punishments. Imprisonment, as a civil remedy, admits of no defence, except as it is used to coerce fraudulent debtors to yield up their present property to their creditors, in discharge of their engagements. But when the debtors have no property, or have yielded up the whole to their creditors, to allow the latter at their mere pleasure to imprison them, is a refinement in cruelty, and an indulgence of private passions, which could hardly find apology in an enlightened despotism; and are utterly at war with all the rights and duties of free governments. Such a system of legislation is as unjust, as it is unfeeling. It is incompatible with the first precepts of Christianity; and is a living reproach to the nations of christendom, carrying them back to the worst ages of paganism. One of the first duties of legislation, while it provides amply for the sacred obligation of contracts, and the remedies to enforce them, certainly is, pari passu, to relieve the unfortunate and meritorious debtor from a slavery of mind and body, which cuts him off from a fair enjoyment of the common benefits of society, and robs his family of the fruits of his labour, and the benefits of his paternal superintendence. A national government, which did not possess this power of legislation, would be little worthy of the exalted functions of guarding the happiness, and supporting the rights of a free people. It might guard against political oppressions, only to render private oppressions more intolerable, and more glaring.
#6
Congress won't deal with it. They could, but they won't. It would mean writing off money that they are counting on in their phony if-we-were-Enron-we'd-all-go-to-jail accounting.
But it is also proper for the courts to step in. The 13th Amendment states:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So, involuntary servitude shall not exist within the US. Congress creates a law which implements involuntary servitude. And you say the courts have no say in the matter? Sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning.
Strike it down. Let Congress try again, only this time without violating those pesky fundamental rights.
Actually, what should be struck down is any law which has the effect of making the debt a form of servitude. So, for example, it should expire after a period of time.
#7
Since the loan is secured on the content of the persons mind then perhaps loan defaulters should lose some percentage of neuronal matter instead of it being a non-dischargable loan....
Means you had no choice in the matter. No free will. When you sign a contract as an 'adult' committing yourself without purpose of evasion, it's not involuntary.
#10
Supposedly the loans (using my money) were given on the premise that the student could or would pay it back. The premise that if they wait 20 years (or whatever) without paying it back all is forgiven kind of grates on my nerves.
If a subprime loan is given then is the grantee not obligated to repay? And keep the collateral to boot?
#11
"Means you had no choice in the matter. No free will. When you sign a contract as an 'adult' committing yourself without purpose of evasion, it's not involuntary."
Not true.
Indentured servants, signed up voluntarily. Usually the deal was passage to America in exchange for X number of years of work. The only "involuntary" part was that once you signed up, you could no longer back out.
The system actually worked quite well. It is now, however, unconstitutional.
#12
"If a subprime loan is given then is the grantee not obligated to repay? And keep the collateral to boot?"
These people did walk away, but they did not generally get to keep the collateral (house).
State law varies on whether or not the lender could go after the borrower who just locked the door of the house and walked away. In CA, for example, it depends on whether the loan was for "purchase money" which in turn depends on whether it was the original purchase loan or subsequent refinance.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the industry did not go after these people (with a couple of exceptions). Mostly this was because everyone knew the defaulting borrowers couldn't write a $50k check anyway, so what was the point?
#13
Congress won't deal with it. They could, but they won't.
-- The term "won't" is a modal operator, like "can't". Using it drags in hypnotic induction and all manner of extraneous presuppositions that need to be untangled.
-- Just because Congress does stupid and unnecessary things is no reason for the courts to become involved. That is a reason for the electorate to become involved, and if they "won't" or "can't", F-'em. If you don't like this situation, call your congressman, or support a congressional candidate who supports your views. I guess that's too old-fashioned nowadays.
-- The Constitution gave Congress the power to define & regulate bankruptcy. That also means Congress can also exclude certain debts from being discharged in bankruptcy, and whether or not certain debts "should expire after a period of time." The US custom is that debts expire when the debtor does under the condition that the debtor's estate has insufficient funds to pay debts outstanding.
-- Anyone is free to not pay a debt. Deadbeats are no longer imprisoned as they once were. They are free to deal with the debt collectors in their own way. Being harassed by debt collectors is not involuntary servitude.
-- By the way, I do support making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. This would instantly destroy the student loan industry, along with cutting off an income stream to overpriced educational establishments & ultimately slash educational expenses. The "rent seekers" who benefited from making student loans non-dischargeable were the financial industry & educational establishment.
- Congress passes a law making it illegal to post anything critical of the government on a website. Your response: call Congress, because the courts have no roll. Sorry, but that is nonsense.
- Not paying a student loan is a pretty big deal, and it sticks with you for the rest of your life. You may be "free" not to pay it, but the government is just as "free" to garnish your wages (and in some cases, those of your spouse), your tax returns, your social security, etc. They WANT the money. You are also "free" not to pay off Guido the loan shark, but I don't recommend it.
- Not too long ago student loans *were* dischargeable in bankruptcy. Didn't bring the industry down then. Can't imagine why it would now.
#16
The problem is, of course, that starting in the late 60s it became popular on the Left to default on student loans at will, just to Stick it to The Man.
And because they were allowed to get away with it.
Some of them became faculty and administrators directly complicit in the higher ed bubble that now has students defaulting out of need. But Congress' response was to nuke the social contract implicit in those loans.
Indentured servants, signed up voluntarily. Usually the deal was passage to America in exchange for X number of years of work. The only "involuntary" part was that once you signed up, you could no longer back out.
The system actually worked quite well. It is now, however, unconstitutional.
You confuse involuntary servitude with indentured servitude. They're not the same. The latter is still in effect as a form of contract obligating an individual for work/service in return for remuneration or training. Penalties for early withdraw. Go to your local recruiter and see the skill training available, some carry extended commitments in exchange for specific training.
#18
"You confuse involuntary servitude with indentured servitude. They're not the same. The latter is still in effect as a form of contract obligating an individual for work/service in return for remuneration or training. Penalties for early withdraw. Go to your local recruiter and see the skill training available, some carry extended commitments in exchange for specific training."
If this were correct, then your employer could give you a benefit in exchange for a requirement that you can't quit for some term of years. Well, they can't.
Also, in your example, you talk about paying a penalty for early withdrawal. This sort of thing is fine. A financial penalty is not the same thing as saying you can't ever quit.
Finally, the case law on student loans specifically states that they don't create an "indenture". The voluntariness of it simply isn't an issue. The issue is whether anyone can enslave themselves in the US, even on a temporary basis. The answer is a resounding, unequivocal NO. Except for student loans, of course.
Military service (especially the draft) also appears to be in some ways at odds with all of this.
#19
Military service is an exception as you replace your protections as a citizen under the constitution with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has been that way since the founding fathers wrote it, which is part of the reason they feared a large standing army and preferred using militias and hence the 2nd amendment.
#20
They signed a contract for their student loans. Why should my tax dollars (or the interest rates I have to pay on other things) pay for their stupidity?
If you went tens of thousands of dollars into debt to get a degree in Basketweaving Studies, you deserve whatever happens to you. What happened to saving, and working, to pay for college?
Posted by: Barbara ||
01/25/2012 19:26 Comments ||
Top||
#21
When they made student loans non-dischargable they gave incentive to lenders to make loans they would otherwise not make. Colleges encouraged the practice since most of the loans were guaranteed to be paid (to them). This drove up college costs to absorb all the available funds. Nobody thought they had any skin in the game - and nobody did, except the students, who were too stupid to know any better (or were deceived, even) and the taxpayers, and nobody gives a sh*t about them.
#22
Military service (especially the draft) also appears to be in some ways at odds with all of this.
Draft is another misnomer that causes the confusion. It's selective service of the federal militia. Per Art I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress defines the militia. One of the first acts passed by Congress was the Militia Act which defined it as all free white males from 18 years to 45 years of age - which also pretty much covered the electorate. Today that is covered in Title X USC para 311 as the class of unorganized militia incorporating all males 17 to 45. You're in per Congress' Constitutional authority. [Ah, but what about women? Well, the same section authorizes Congress to make the laws governing land and naval forces in which Congress has chosen to bar women from combat. When they repeal that little inconvenience that some people think it is, you'll have a valid Constitutional argument that as currently written para 311 fails to meet 'equal before the law'.]
#23
BTW, it's not just the military, look in here -
To provide scholarships to American Indians and Alaska Natives at health professions schools in order to obtain health professionals to serve Indians. Upon completion, scholarship recipients are obligated to serve in the Indian Health Service or an Indian health organization for each year of support with a minimum of 2 years.
#24
I think Glenmore has the right take on the student loan argument: the federal government first guaranteed the loans, thus relieving banks of risk, and then made the loans non-dischargable, relieving themselves of risk. The banks win, the government wins, and the students lose.
Yes, students are adults. But they're not very sophisticated, they're not very knowledgable about real life and finance, and we shouldn't have a system that takes advantage of them.
Yes also, students should not incur heavy debt to obtain a degree in Gender Studies, Sports Broadcasting, or any number of other useless (to the marketplace) degrees. If you want to blow $100K of your own money (or that of Mummsy and Daddsy) to gain personal enlightenment by obtaining a degree in Music Theory, go for it. But borrowing $100K to get a useless (to the marketplace) degree is going to haunt you.
A half-century ago a college degree demonstrated that you had critical thinking and writing skills that were useful in the market -- there was seldom a 'useless' degree. Nowadays, we've democratized college attendance (good) without insisting that the students have the entry skills (e.g., all the remedial courses now required) and the performance (e.g., all the grade inflation) to make that degree meaningful.
Thus, you as an employer don't know if the new grad in front of you at a job interview can do the job, her/his degree in Gender Studies not withstanding.
So how would I solve the problem of student loans (and thus begin to solve the larger problems faced by higher education) --
1) make a student loan dischargeable in bankruptcy
2) government guarantees no more than 80% of the face value of a student loan after a certain threshold is reached
3) universities (profit or non-profit) have to hold a certain percentage of the loan paper. Even 5% would enforce discipline in lending
This would cut student loan lending a fair degree. Universities would have to make up some shortfalls to get superb but poor students (if they want them). States would have to reconsider grants (not loans) as a basis for poor and working class kids to get into college, and would have to condition these on performance.
Most of all, universities would have to police their own expenses. That's my own rice bowl and I'm aware of the implications. But universities can't afford every program, every center, every major, every department. Academia has to get back to basics, or the coming wave in certification (a certificate for demonstrating proficiency, not a degree for attending Enormous State U.) is going to swamp them.
Not every kid should go to Harvard.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/25/2012 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Yes, students are adults. But they're not very sophisticated, they're not very knowledgable about real life and finance, and we shouldn't have a system that takes advantage of them.
The point you are making is a point many make about signing a contract with the military. Do we need to legally redefine 'adult' back up to 21 for contracts and voting?
- Congress passes a law making it illegal to post anything critical of the government on a website. Your response: call Congress, because the courts have no roll. Sorry, but that is nonsense. I agree, the words you put in my mouth ARE nonsense. However, those are your words, not mine. STRAW MAN! - Not paying a student loan is a pretty big deal, and it sticks with you for the rest of your life. You may be "free" not to pay it, but the government is just as "free" to garnish your wages (and in some cases, those of your spouse), your tax returns, your social security, etc. They WANT the money. You are also "free" not to pay off Guido the loan shark, but I don't recommend it. The last time I checked, the government doesn't work like Guido. Debtors are no longer thrown in prison. There exist plenty of bad debts the government has cheerfully taken on, except for the student kind.
Steve White - why should the feds guarantee any student loans? If certain college level studies are in critically short supply, simply give grants. No public loans or grants for things like gender studies.
It's called argument by analogy, and is perfectly valid.
Barbara:
Government does many stupid things with our money. The question is how to fix it.
Procopius2k:
Look up "efficient breach". No one thinks that all contracts should be enforced no matter what. The economy would grind to a halt if we tried. Anyway, that's also an argument against bankruptcy in general, and centuries of experience have proven that bankruptcy is better than debtor's prison. Leave the moral issues to your priest.
#28
To Glenmore and Steve White: yes, that the federal government and the banks shifted all the risk to student borrowers, benefited universities too. All that risk-free money made runaway tuition inflation possible, which in turn funds all those useless departments, majors, and degrees. It's a self-feeding cycle that begets ignorant graduates with no marketable skills, no way to repay, and taxpayers who will inevitably get stuck with the bill.
The government can keep filling the gap by granting visas to Indian and Chinese scientists, doctors, and engineers, but as taxpayers they're wise to it and are just as angry and disgusted as anyone on this thread.
#29
universities (profit or non-profit) have to hold a certain percentage of the loan paper. Even 5% would enforce discipline in lending
The measure of a field's value should determine who pays for it. It seems to me that a college education should keep someone at or above maybe 3x the federal poverty level. Graduates should be required to pay back loans with 50% of any income they receive above 3x the poverty level. After seven (?) years any remaining debt is totally forgiven. Maybe the school eats half and the government eats the other half, and the graduate walks away free and can pass any learnings on to their children.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Meanwhile, the Arizona legislature seems to have tired of the obstructionism of the Obama Administration, and has decided to launch their own investigation of Operation Fast and Furious to determine if DOJ officials committed felonies under Arizona state law. They intend to return their findings by the end of March, which would seem to impose some constraint on how much longer DOJ Inspector General Cynthia Schendar can delay publishing the IGÂ’s findings.
The Department of Education has acknowledged using flawed data in a study on the impact of race on student loan repayment rates, having omitted black students from its calculation. The analysis was conducted during the debate over gainful employment regulations, in response to complaints that the rules would hurt colleges that enroll relatively high percentages of minority students.
