|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 5, 2019 13:40:01 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 6, 2019 8:50:32 GMT -5
I read the article and find it confusing. But then again, I'm an English major. LOL Was it really fraud? Or a mistake? Or what? The article says that "they disagreed on who exactly is to blame." Apparently the CBO said it was a good idea at the time, so it certainly seems possible that at least some of the people involved believed it to be so. And I'm curious about what the loan default rate was before the change. Student loan defaults have been a problem since I got mine back in the 1960's. I remember reading about the problem all through the 1970's and beyond. Just got worse as the cost of college kept going up.
I'm not sure that the source of the loan matters as much as what kind of jobs graduates can find once they're out. I was an unskilled laborer for the first few years of my work life and it took me about 10 years to pay off my measly student debt of $3,000 (late 1960's money). My loan came through a private bank, and I almost defaulted more than once. Certainly missed some payments. I would have been much better off if I could have adjusted my payments to match my income.
Anyway, to me it's only a fraud if the people who did knew that it wouldn't work. If they were merely wrong, that's not really a fraud, just ignorance. And I'm not sure that we can put the blame for every problem with the student loan program on this one thing. Like I said, the program had lots of problems long before Obama.
But that's just me. 8->
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Sept 6, 2019 14:51:06 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
You mean you don't think the Democrats would cause a crisis so that they could offer socialism as a solution? Under what other circumstances than the thought of crippling debt would stupid kids trade their freedom for "free" college?
LOL!
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 22:44:10 GMT -5
I read the article and find it confusing. But then again, I'm an English major. LOL Was it really fraud? Or a mistake? Or what? The article says that "they disagreed on who exactly is to blame." Apparently the CBO said it was a good idea at the time, so it certainly seems possible that at least some of the people involved believed it to be so. And I'm curious about what the loan default rate was before the change. Student loan defaults have been a problem since I got mine back in the 1960's. I remember reading about the problem all through the 1970's and beyond. Just got worse as the cost of college kept going up. I'm not sure that the source of the loan matters as much as what kind of jobs graduates can find once they're out. I was an unskilled laborer for the first few years of my work life and it took me about 10 years to pay off my measly student debt of $3,000 (late 1960's money). My loan came through a private bank, and I almost defaulted more than once. Certainly missed some payments. I would have been much better off if I could have adjusted my payments to match my income. Anyway, to me it's only a fraud if the people who did knew that it wouldn't work. If they were merely wrong, that's not really a fraud, just ignorance. And I'm not sure that we can put the blame for every problem with the student loan program on this one thing. Like I said, the program had lots of problems long before Obama. But that's just me. 8-> Hey Fred, glad to see you're still around! I probably won't be sticking around any longer. But I'm glad to have met you, and wish you all the best. It was a pleasant experience debating you on this forum, take care!  |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 7, 2019 8:34:30 GMT -5
>You mean you don't think the Democrats would cause a crisis so that they could offer socialism as a solution?
---You mean like when the Republicans are in power and they try to sabotage all the government programs they don't like so they can point at the mess and demand that the program be shut down? LOL
>Under what other circumstances than the thought of crippling debt would stupid kids trade their freedom for "free" college?
---Two things to keep in mind. (1) College is way overpriced these days. Most are being run as tax-free cash cows and they could cost a lot less under proper management. (2) We don't have to let the rich get by without paying their fair share of taxes. Look at all the multi-billion dollar corporations that make big profits every quarter and pay almost nothing in taxes. There's plenty of money out there and it wouldn't damage the economy to take a little more from the top. No need for crippling debut.
---And BTW, how do you feel about the crippling debt that Trump and the Republicans have been amassing over the past 2.5 years? About 1 trillion now and growing daily (600 billion when Trump took over. Almost doubled since then). I miss the old Republicans, those who thought a balanced budget was not only good, but necessary. The old Reps used to accuse the Dems of being "tax and spend". But the new Reps are "spend and don't tax". Sooner or later we'll have to pay. Maybe the Reps are planning on a Dem takeover in 2020 and a financial crash shortly thereafter? Then they can blame the Dems for the problem. 8->
---Anyway, lots of nations have free college, just like free public schools 1-12, and they aren't crashing. It can be done without undue pain. And it helps the poorer students have a chance to rise up.
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Sept 7, 2019 13:19:08 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Actually, Trump's debt is nowhere near the astounding amount Obama accumulated 6.875 trillion (at least that's the figure I found).
Considering Trump had to totally resupply our armed forces with modern equipment (due to Obama's efforts to weaken the United States militarily) -- I am surprised the figure is that low.
He needs to spend whatever he deems necessary for this endeavor and what I have to say about it is this: Thank God we have a president who cares whether or not the United States has what it needs to defend itself if need be. GO TRUMP!!
Not to mention the creation of a new branch -- "The Space Force" -- which probably required its own budget.
Considering that nitwit Obama shut down our space program altogether-- well, let's just say I don't have a problem with what Trump spends money on! GO TRUMP!!
And then we have our Southern Border wall (which I know you don't think will "work"). However, the border guards (who do this every day for a living) say it is a necessary expense and they want it.
I tend to think the person doing the job is in a better position to determine what they need. So I vote with the "build the wall" crowd. At the very least, we will have something to show for our money.
I prefer these kinds of expenditures over Obama's constant entertainment of "Hollywood Stars" at the White House. We have NOTHING to show for our 6.875 trillion that Obama pissed away on frivolity. That, and giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups.
Trump isn't much for shindigs to entertain the "rich and famous". He's a bit busy fixing the mess Obama created.
Oh, and considering Trump did all this (and fixed the flagging economy -- and NO Obama did not have anything to do with it) while defending himself against a soft coup by Obama and his cohorts -- Trump is nothing short of amazing!
True Trump can be a bit brash at times, but the man is a dynamo. It makes me wonder what he would have accomplished if not for the distraction of the Russia hoax.
I am eagerly awaiting Durham's report. My only fear is that Barr's fondness for his old pal Mueller will color his judgement and cause him to be lenient.
I want to see all of Obama's cohorts in orange jumpsuits. That includes the Kenyan imposter as well. You recall, I posted the video by the UK spy saying Obama's "mother" isn't genetically related to him as they tested her parent's DNA against Obama's. So this clown was a liar all around.
To be blunt, if Trump sat in a chair and did nothing all day long he would still be a better president than Obama. Not only did Obama do nothing worthwhile to help the United States but he actively tried to harm us.
His attempted soft coup of Trump is just one more example of his sneaking nature.
In short, this one sentence sums it all up: "The United States will never be a Socialist country."
As long as Trump believes that, he can spend anything he wants on anything he wants and I will support him.
There is no way on God's green earth I would want any of those communists running for the Democratic nomination as president.
TRUMP 2020
--Debutante
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 9, 2019 10:38:03 GMT -5
>Actually, Trump's debt is nowhere near the astounding amount Obama accumulated 6.875 trillion (at least that's the figure I found).
---People refer to the debt in one of two ways: either the difference between what taxes bring in and how much is spent or the total amount the US owes in Treasury Bonds and everything else. The spending debt was 600 billion when Obama left and it just now crossed over into 1 trillion. Basically, Trump has spent 400 billion more than taxes are bringing in. The 7 trillion number you found may have been the total debt. Not sure. But that just crossed over into 22 million in the past couple of weeks. So, if that's the case, Trump has tripled the debt.
>Considering Trump had to totally resupply our armed forces with modern equipment (due to Obama's efforts to weaken the United States militarily) -- I am surprised the figure is that low.
---Not true. Congress spends money on the military as pork. Makes the Pentagon buy stuff they don't want and don't need to send money back to their states. This was no different under Obama.
>Trump isn't much for shindigs to entertain the "rich and famous".
---Do you not watch the news? ALL politicians suck up to rich people to get campaign donations. Trump has run as many celebrities through the White House as anyone else. Plus, he takes them to his golf resorts and such where money goes directly into his pocket. Trump plays golf almost every weekend. According to his staff, he watches TV 4 hours a day (Fox News) and only works about 2 hours per day. And, of course, there are all the petty twitter wars in gets into that waste lots and lots of time.
>That, and giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups.
---You mean like killing bin Laden?
>Oh, and considering Trump did all this (and fixed the flagging economy -- and NO Obama did not have anything to do with it)
---The economy has been steadily improving ever since the Dems took over from George W and the Reps. Like it or not, Trump inherited a good thing. Yes, it has continued to improve since he took office, but that trend had alre
True Trump can be a bit brash at times, but the man is a dynamo. It makes me wonder what he would have accomplished if not for the distraction of the Russia hoax.
I am eagerly awaiting Durham's report. My only fear is that Barr's fondness for his old pal Mueller will color his judgement and cause him to be lenient.
I want to see all of Obama's cohorts in orange jumpsuits. That includes the Kenyan imposter as well. You recall, I posted the video by the UK spy saying Obama's "mother" isn't genetically related to him as they tested her parent's DNA against Obama's. So this clown was a liar all around.
To be blunt, if Trump sat in a chair and did nothing all day long he would still be a better president than Obama. Not only did Obama do nothing worthwhile to help the United States but he actively tried to harm us.
His attempted soft coup of Trump is just one more example of his sneaking nature.
In short, this one sentence sums it all up: "The United States will never be a Socialist country."
As long as Trump believes that, he can spend anything he wants on anything he wants and I will support him.
There is no way on God's green earth I would want any of those communists running for the Democratic nomination as president.
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 9, 2019 10:50:03 GMT -5
>Actually, Trump's debt is nowhere near the astounding amount Obama accumulated 6.875 trillion (at least that's the figure I found).
---People refer to the debt in one of two ways: either the difference between what taxes bring in and how much is spent or the total amount the US owes in Treasury Bonds and everything else. The spending debt was 600 billion when Obama left and it just now crossed over into 1 trillion. Basically, Trump has spent 400 billion more than taxes are bringing in. The 7 trillion number you found may have been the total debt. Not sure. But that just crossed over into 22 million in the past couple of weeks. So, if that's the case, Trump has tripled the debt.
>Considering Trump had to totally resupply our armed forces with modern equipment (due to Obama's efforts to weaken the United States militarily) -- I am surprised the figure is that low.
---Not true. Congress spends money on the military as pork. Makes the Pentagon buy stuff they don't want and don't need to send money back to their states. This was no different under Obama. Our military has never needed to be resupplied or equipped with newer and better stuff. Totally false.
>Trump isn't much for shindigs to entertain the "rich and famous".
---Do you not watch the news? ALL politicians suck up to rich people to get campaign donations. Trump has run as many celebrities through the White House as anyone else. Plus, he takes them to his golf resorts and such where their money goes directly into his pocket, plus the tax money for all the Secret Service folk, staff, etc. Trump plays golf almost every weekend, which has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. According to his staff, he watches TV 4 hours a day (Fox News) and only works about 2 hours per day. And, of course, there are all the petty twitter wars in gets into that waste lots and lots of time.
>That, and giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups.
---You mean like killing bin Laden? 8->
>Oh, and considering Trump did all this (and fixed the flagging economy -- and NO Obama did not have anything to do with it)
---The economy has been steadily improving ever since the Dems took over from George W and the Reps. Like it or not, Trump inherited a good thing from Obama. Yes, it has continued to improve since Trump took office, but that trend had already been going on for 8 years.
>You recall, I posted the video by the UK spy saying Obama's "mother" isn't genetically related to him as they tested her parent's DNA against Obama's. So this clown was a liar all around.
---Yeah, a video that someone made is excellent evidence of an impossible conspiracy. LOL But you have a serious problem. St. Trump has admitted that Obama is a citizen, so you have to believe him, right. It’s either Trump or the video. Who you gonna go with? 8->
---We’re never going to agree about Trump. Everything you believe about Obama and Clinton, I believe about Trump. He’s a con artist, a fool, and he is actively hurting the USA. I truly believe that anyone who is a patriot must oppose Trump as much as possible. He’s the worst president we’ve ever had. It’s going to take years to fix all the many messes he has made, and I only hope whoever takes his place will have the skills and support to do so. It makes me sad to see the nation so messed up, but getting rid of Trump will be the first step in fixing things.
Just my opinion. No reason for us to argue about it, since neither of us is likely to change our mind. I see that Mcans is dropping off the list, which only leaves you, Bob, and me. Guess there’s an end coming soon. 8-<
|
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Sept 9, 2019 13:13:14 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
He's a drama queen. This is the second or third time he's left. He will be back eventually. Not that I care -- truthfully, he's on my shit list because he makes excuses for child rapists. I don't allow for "culture" or "religion" when people attack little children. And I have absolutely no patience for people who do.
You and I disagree on many things -- but you've got ethical standards.
By the way -- about Bin Laden. He died in a cave somewhere of kidney disease (I believe that's what I read) about a year or two before Obama "got" him. Strange that the seal team that supposedly did the deed passed in a air crash (think I read helicopter). In short, no body -- no proof -- I don't believe Obama.
What about the billions he dropped off to the Taliban which eventually made its way to funding terrorists? Now I know we've discussed this before and you said Obama was returning money that "belonged to them". At the time, I didn't really know one way or the other -- but about eight to ten months after we posted about that I came across an article which said the money actually belonged to the previous Shah.
So strictly speaking, was it really the property of the Taliban? I don't think so. It was a completely different regime.
Giving those billions was aid and comfort to terrorists no matter how you cut the mustard. And they used that money to fund terrorists who killed our American soldiers!
Anyhow...
Between Obama and Trump -- I will take Trump. He's not trying to "fundamentally transform America." I like America the way it already is -- granted it has it flaws, but it is far better than what those clowns in Brussels put together.
Obama was weakening America for a globalist take over. I don't like the man and I hope he ends up in jail. That's actually mild. Most people I know want him hung for treason.
There is only one reason for a "global" effort. That would be an interplanetary defense. That could be arranged (if need be) without a global government through treaties.
The bigger something is the harder it is to make it work efficiently. Some countries can't even manage to get it together
A "one world government" would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
-- Debutante
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Sept 10, 2019 8:48:28 GMT -5
>You and I disagree on many things -- but you've got ethical standards.
---Why, thank you kindly ma'm. To me, the worst problem we face as a nation is that not only do we have extremes who disagree with each other, but that both extremes demonize the other side. So the question is, how can a nation so divided long endure (sound familiar? LOL). The US was founded on the idea that people can disagree over serous issues and still manage to work with each other enough to keep the country running. These days politics seems to be all-or-nothing. Few are willing to compromise or make any deals at all. And to show any respect for the other side? No way!
---I disagree with many people in various online groups, but I try to be reasonable about it. I don't believe that beginning a discussion by calling the other person stupid or evil gets us anywhere. Once the insults start, listening stops. (Good idea for a bumper sticker.) I have a super-Trump nephew who I argue with, but he doesn't know how to write very well, so all he usually does is respond with those GIFs and posters that mock the other side without any actual content. Yeah, he can post a pic of Clinton or someone looking stupid, but so can the left post pics of Trump (or whoever) making a stupid face. That is not a discussion. Sigh.
>What about the billions he dropped off to the Taliban which eventually made its way to funding terrorists?
---That money, plus several other billions, belonged to the nation of Iran, not the Shaw. Back in the day, we were selling weapons to Iran. They gave us several billions as a down payment. Then the Iranian revolution happened and we canceled the weapon sale, but kept the money. We don't want Iran to have nukes, so we gave them some of their own money back, in hopes of getting them to be less hostile to us. And it worked until Trump came along and cancelled the nuke deal, after which Iran began its nuke program again. Legally, it's their nation's money, regardless of regime change. And none of it comes out of our taxes, so using it to bribe the current leadership seems like a good idea to me. Give them a taste and offer more, if we can work out a deal. Yeah, Iran supports terrorism, but they're less like to do that if they can get their money back. And we are buds with several other nations and groups who support terrorism, and that never stopped us before. Iran got their nuclear plans from good buddy Pakistan. 19 of the 21 9/11 terrorists were from good buddy Saudi Arabia. Russia carries out terrorism in the Ukraine and supports the evil government in Syria, but Trump love Putin. Etc.
---Anyway, yes, Iran finances terrorism, but not the Taliban. Keep in mind that Islam is divided into two groups, Shia and Sunni. The Taliban is Sunni and Iran is Shia. It's like Christianity was in the 19th century with Catholic and Protestant. Plenty of hate and violence for everyone. Western Iraq is Sunni and eastern Iraq is Shia, like Iran, so Iran wants Iraq to fall apart so they can take over east Iraq. Of course, northern Iraq is Kurds, which both the other sides hate, and that's where the Iraqi oil wells are. Double reason to take over.
---And that's why the Mid East is such a mess. There are 4 major religious/ethic groups (add Israel to the mix) that hate each other even more than they hate the West or anybody else. We keep sending US troops there as targets, but we should probably just leave and let them kill each other like they've been doing for thousands of years. Nothing we do will stop the ingrained hate and violence.
---In any case, Shia Iran hates the Sunni Taliban and the Sunni Taliban hates Shia Iran.
>A "one world government" would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
---Indeed. Our 50-state nation is already a bureaucratic nightmare. Just look at the marijuana laws. Still listed as a Schedule 1 dangerous drug by the Feds, but legalized in 33 states. What a mess. In Texas, some cities do not prosecute for marijuana possession, but other do. Or at least they try to, but labs can't tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. Hemp is now legal in Texas (and its oil), but since the police labs can't tell the difference, it's difficult to prosecute.
---Anyway, it's not a president or government that you have to worry about for one-world government - it's multinational corporations. They use their money and influence around the world to work international commerce. Having standard laws and local governments is good for business, so one-world government is what the Big Boys of business are covertly pushing for. They don't call it that, but the truth is that already many smaller nations already belong to corporations and will do whatever the corporation says. In return for selling out, the leaders of those nations get a cut of the profits.
---We're already in a one-world economy, like it or not, so a one-world government (run by corporations) is the logical next step.
|
|
