  Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4469 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Sorry. As a pragmatist, I believe in ideas that WORK. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4472 Registered: 10-2003 |
The idea that the federal government should continue to waste $4 billion a year, by subsidizing private banks to conduct student loan lending, is rooted in nothing more than ideology. There is no evidence presented that demonstrates private lenders are any more "efficient" than government lending. The mere fact that it costs $4 billion a year more for private lenders to do the same job is proof to the contrary. Anecdotally, I've used both federal Direct Loans and private loans to finance my education. The Direct Loans were always processed and deposited much faster, with less paperwork. The argument in favor of continuing the subsidy represents another bogus Republican position, in that the loans would show up on the federal balance sheet instead of the balance sheets of private lenders. Of course, we all ignore that the loans earn interest to the government upon repayment. And please note how readily the private student loan lenders have been extending credit to students since September, while they receive no-strings government money anyway. If one applies the Republican position on this issue to a personal level, then no student would ever take out loans for fear of temporary debt, despite the evidence that future earnings more than recover the amount of debt. This, my friends (snicker), is called an "investment". I'd like to think that for our tax dollars, the government is going to help people instead of corporate entities. (Message edited by DaninDC on February 27, 2009) | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19063 Registered: 11-2006 |
Subsidies?? Where in the constitution is this even alluded to as a role of government. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1267 Registered: 08-2006 |
Bats, The commerce clause, the general welfare clause, and Congressional oversight of the District allow Congress to do whatever it wants no matter what else the balance of the Constitution says. Be pragmatic. This isn't 1782 anymore. The Constitution has "been soundly rejected by the majority of the nation. Deal with it and prosper". There is still room at the trough. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19073 Registered: 11-2006 |
"No matter what the constitution says" THAT IS THE PROBLEM. There would be no country if it were not for the Constitution. TO reject it, is to reject our national identity. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4474 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Tell that to George W. Bush! | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1327 Registered: 05-2007 |
The American Constitution is a great part of the American identity, but not the entirety of it. A crafted document that is historically and still yet unable to fully match man. Americans can exist without the American Constitution, but the American Constitution cannot exist without Americans. The American Constitution was and is made for man, not man for the American Constitution. Being in part out of man AND arguably in part divine, the American Constitution inherently carries flaws of man. Worship of the American Constitution would infer it is in a fully perfected state. Even the drafters knew this was not the case. Healthy reverence for the American Constitution is certainly warranted. However, to conclude it already perfected in all its parts is unwise. (Message edited by vetalalumni on March 01, 2009) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4481 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Bullshit. How was our nation governed from 1776-1789? Remember the Articles of Confederation, Dr. Political Guru? | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1345 Registered: 05-2007 |
quote: quote: Facetiousness assumed in the second quote. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19243 Registered: 11-2006 |
GWB is a rank amateur next to Obama when it comes to shredding the constitution and the principles on which this country was built. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 623 Registered: 04-2008 |
"GWB is a rank amateur"? Maybe he was an amateur at understanding the wires he tapped. I suspect he doesn't know meaning of the word "amateur". Can we say "habeas corpus"? Nice try though. | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1348 Registered: 05-2007 |
^^^ Classicyesfan, you are too kind. That particularly wilted flaming dart was not even sarcastically a "nice try". (Message edited by vetalalumni on March 08, 2009) | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 628 Registered: 04-2008 |
^^^^ Vetal, one must still step carefully so as not to be suspected of violating the patriot act. No matter, one with average perception would be able to understand that the new prez has not had the opportunity to perform as thorough a trashing as done by the previous administration which was second only to the Nixon/Agnew abuse. Feel free to add stronger venom if you wish though.... | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1350 Registered: 05-2007 |
^^^ Point taken  | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 757 Registered: 05-2006 |
If the President can have congress get around the Supreme Court ruling which made line item veto's unconstitutional he can address those earmarks on the spending bills. That was the tool Clinton used until it was ruled unconstitutional. Reagan asked for it, Clinton asked for it Obama needs it. Congress doesn't want to give it, yet members of a certain party in Congress cries about spending. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 631 Registered: 04-2008 |
Vetal, I am still somewhat hesitant after being labeled "unpatriotic" these past 8 years (that in spite of my good standing as a "Son of the American Revolution"!). | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 759 Registered: 05-2006 |
"Facetiousness assumed in the second quote" very much so Vetal | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1278 Registered: 08-2006 |
Firstandten, The President, whether Reagan or Obama. does not need a line item veto. The President can forwarn Congress that a veto is coming if x,y, or z appear in a bill. Congress then has a choice on including them and having an entire bill vetoed or settling on a-w. A couple of years ago, Wisconsin voters took away their governor's line item veto. It seems that Governor Tommy Thompson (R) had become more and more creative in deleting commas, connecting words, etc. to sometimes radically change the direction of legislation. His successor, Gov. Doyle (D) then somehow got so creative that new spending items were implemented that were not even suggested by the original legislation. If Congress was stupid enough to once again surrender one of its powers and obligations to the executive branch, it might have a difficult time restoring it's power if things didn't work out as hoped. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19268 Registered: 11-2006 |
The "wire tapping" was not deemed by the proper authorities to be unconstitutional and properly so. Absent that, the only infraction by GWB (and it is not insignificant) was to expand government via entitlement spending (like a true liberal). | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 761 Registered: 05-2006 |
Oladub, Obama is walking a tightrope on this one. He cannot upset the congressional democrats or he will have more trouble than he should getting his agenda thru. He knows he's going to have massive battles with Congress on HIS budget and whatever form health care reform takes. He passed the stimulus bill and childrens health care that by definition had no earmarks. Even so 40% of the earmarks in this bill are from republicans but this is still a good opportunity for the republicans to hammer the President. The president even though some folks want to call him a socialist or liberal or what have you, is first and formost a pragmatist. He is going to break some promises, all politicans do. However he has kept most of them. He broke a promise to get the troops out in 16 months...19 months I can live with that. He broke a promise on campaign financing. He would have been stupid to keep that promise and we all know he's anything but that. And he promised earmark reform. He may end up breaking that but If this is what it will take for him to get his agenda thru congress I'll go ahead and sign it and blame it on Bush after all its his budget. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1283 Registered: 08-2006 |
Firstandten, I've heard that there are between 3,800 and 9,000 earmarks in this bill that is dismissed as last year's business. One night the President is crediting himself with no earmarks. The next day, the House is passing this earmark bill and the President is going along with it. The fact is that since earmarks are unnecessary spending, this continuing resolution could have been slashed to reflect over budget costs without all the earmarks slipped in. I guess we are supposed to act stupid and accept that this all has to do with last year. I am not willing to give either the Republicans or the President any allowance for games that further bankrupt the country. Obama's agenda has panicked the stock market; down -38.8% since October 1. The resulting loss of over $3T of equity dwarfs the $785B Porkulus package and continues the downward spiral making it fiscally impossible to finance all Obama's new programs except by inflation and hidden taxes that will wipe out retirees and the middle class. Obama couldn't be doing much more damage to the economy if he tried. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19281 Registered: 11-2006 |
Tightrope? Unless he reverses his very nature, he is leading us into a full blown Depression. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4511 Registered: 10-2003 |
Sure guys. Everything was just peachy keen until January 20, wasn't it? | ||
Vetalalumni Member Username: Vetalalumni Post Number: 1385 Registered: 05-2007 |
quote: Classicyesfan, don't sweat inaccurate labels. Don't let them define you. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19376 Registered: 11-2006 |
The liberal economic bomb went off in the late summer and early fall. Now, Obama is amplifying the problem. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8675 Registered: 02-2007 |
ah, the comforts of our delusions. pity poor bats, as any pretense that his ideology had a leg to stand on have crashed down upon him. is it any wonder his delusions are increasingly irrational and insistent? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7878 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: http://www.slate.com/id/221355 6/ | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8678 Registered: 02-2007 |
Earmarks are NOT bad things. the Human Genome Project? funded by earmarks. lots of important research gets funded that way, but you only hear about the really stupid ones that get $250k. same thing for very important infrastructure projects, yet you only hear about "the bridge to nowhere" | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19387 Registered: 11-2006 |
They are a form of corruption, and therefore a bad thing. Even if the project is valid, if it is passed via crooked means, it is tainted. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1308 Registered: 08-2006 |
Money for earmarks is provided in the budget. Earmark money is appropriated to everyone in Congress. If a congress person or senator fails to submit a list of spending projects in his/her district, that district's money is then spent in other districts. Refusing earmarks just deprives one's district of getting that amount of tax money back. My guess of why earmarks exist is that congress members provide each other with some gifts to take home to each of their own districts. My solution would be to cut the federal budget by the amount equal to the value of earmarks. |
