Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Republicans The Almighty Buck Politics

GOP Blocks Senate Debate On Dem Student Loan Bill 834

Posted by Soulskill
from the can't-even-agree-to-disagree dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GOP Blocks Senate Debate On Dem Student Loan Bill

Comments Filter:
  • by GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:28AM (#39939051)
    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.
    • by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:37AM (#39939099)

      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.

    • by gtall (79522) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:22AM (#39939281)

      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.

      • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @08:32AM (#39939987)

        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...

    • by jellie (949898) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:50AM (#39939389)

      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 [yahoo.com].

      • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @08:55AM (#39940197)

        How does this make the Democrats "hate the small guy"?

        How about the fact that, like the Republicans, the Democrats believe that four year degrees are a fancy form a job training? You know, they are encouraging "the small guy" to take on a substantial debt to receive a four year degree so that they can get a "good job." Meanwhile, the education itself provides them with the same job skills and overall education quality as a less expensive two year degree.

        University education in America has been declining in quality, and the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans for that. The difference is that the Democrats want to sound like they are making it easy to get "an education" -- by piling up student loan debt, thus ensuring that you will need a high paying job afterward to repay that debt. At the end of the day, is it any surprise that most students are rushing to take the "easy A" courses so that they can just get a bachelor's degree and find that $80k/yr job?

        If you want to improve access to education, you need to remove the loan debt aspect of high education, and essentially make college education free for those who pass the admission process. Of course, that would be terribly socialist, and would be bad news for those banks that profit from the student loan debt, so I doubt any politician will really push for it.

        • by jellie (949898)

          Isn't this completely off-topic? Anyway ... Our society currently values a college education. How many companies are going to hire you if you only have a high school diploma? Other than those that may require a portfolio (e.g., art, music, programming, web design, etc.), there are few. You can't even apply for medical or graduate school without a bachelor's or equivalent.

          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

          • Our society currently values a college education. How many companies are going to hire you if you only have a high school diploma?

            Relevant to this...

            Once upon a time, when you wanted a job with a company, they would give you an aptitude test, to determine whether you knew enough to do the job, or were bright enough to learn to do the job well.

            Then, along came someone who argued that those aptitude tests were discriminatoy.

            So, it became illegal to use aptitude tests for hiring purposes.

            At that point, the

          • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @10:50AM (#39941369)

            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]...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @07:39AM (#39939597)

      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.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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.

      No, the Republicans are making themselves look like they hate the small guy. They seem to be the party of the 1% and only the 1%.

      It doesn't matter to me, though, I'm voting either Green or Libertarian; I can't bring myself to vote for a candidate that wants to put otherwise law abiding pot smokers in prison. Someone you love smokes dope, what kind of f

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Presidential election years are all about wedge issues, and putting your opponents into a jam. Obama loses the election if he loses the youth vote, so he's gonna pander in that direction, and position the right between the choice of "they don't want you to get the health care you need" and "they're trying to prevent you from being educated and raising your own stature in the most American of ways".

      He loses the election without women, so he make sure that the right wingers end up on the wrong side of every

  • Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cornwallis (1188489) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:30AM (#39939065)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siddesu (698447) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:41AM (#39939109)
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:49AM (#39939147)

        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.

        • Dems vs Reps (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:20AM (#39939271)

          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:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:10AM (#39939221)

        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.

        • by Newander (255463)

          The question isn't where the money is going. The question is where it's coming from. The states are having major financial problems and rather than increase revenue through taxation they've elected to cut expenses by defunding universities. The costs aren't decreasing so the universities need to bring in the money from another source.

          Now, the salaries of administrators/executives has gotten out of control across all sectors, but not enough to account for the drastic increases in tuition that have occurred i

      • Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by White Flame (1074973) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:40AM (#39939353)

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @07:51AM (#39939671) Homepage

          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.

      • Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by capteutrino (2261584) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:45AM (#39939365)
        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.
        • by thoth (7907)

          But then the issue becomes, how can the gov't best encourage higher education? Without loans a lot of students couldn't go at all.
          Blaming the gov't for being the entire cause of this isn't fair - colleges share some responsibility by being greedy and raising tuition as much as they can get away with. That's what happens when the corporation profit mentality invades everything. Rather than figuring out what's best overall for the country, or what's best for their customers, the system is turning to eat itsel

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by physicsphairy (720718)

        The interest rate does not have much to do with whether people "get education." The interest, and paying back the loan, does not even kick-in until you stop attending college. (Heck, maybe you want to *raise* interest rates on government loans and use the money to pay for more loans/educational investments!)

        Now there is something to be said for not saddling people with overly-burdensome debt that is going to impair their future livelihoods. But it's kind of a different issue, and, frankly, has a lot mor

      • Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DarkOx (621550) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @07:23AM (#39939519) Journal

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khallow (566160) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @07:35AM (#39939575)

        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".

        • In which case you should be supporting the end of subsidized student loans.

          I see this is a common meme. Since you seem to be more coherent than some of the other trolls, I'll just cut and paste my questions here. Unfortunately for you, every question needs an answer before I start to even consider the possibility that my assumptions are wrong.
          * there is no perfect free market. Education especially. What makes you think that there are other lenders available?
          * supply is not inelastic, especially in Education. What makes you think that it is?
          * what is important is marginal cost. You

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by argStyopa (232550)

        Except this isn't an "investment in education". This is political payola.

        The effort to subsidize student loans (and student loans altogether) are nothing but a naked effort to pay off 2 (really 3) voter blocks that vote HEAVILY democratic:
        - teachers (and this one's long-term value has proven to be a wise investment)
        - the young
        - college grads (surveys in the US show that the undereducated and overeducated both tend to vote left - those that don't know anything, and those that think they know everything).

        The

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:32AM (#39939071)

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

    --M.R.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:42AM (#39939111)

      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.

    • by Chrisq (894406)

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

      --M.R.

      Because their parents are still struggling to pay for their own tuition.

  • by Kergan (780543) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:33AM (#39939077)

    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...

    • by azalin (67640) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:01AM (#39939193)
      That is because all those socialist tendencies in Europe, which are hard to sell in the US. Another thing hard to sell would be European income tax and v.a.t. levels needed to pay for all the (mostly) free education. That said, I'm convinced that a society as a whole greatly profits by providing as much education to as many members as possible. Education is investment not spending.
    • by niklask (1073774)

      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...

      One can argue which universities in the world are the best, which metric to use etc, but higher education is not free in Europe. It is payed for with tax euros, or as in my case, tax kronor, as I got my education in Sweden. What you fail to understand is that students in Europe, in Sweden at least, take students loan too. There may not be tuition fees but students have to pay rent, eat, pay for books etc too you know. So while the total student loan amount in Sweden is generally smaller than in the U.S., st

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @05:56AM (#39939175)
    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!
  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:16AM (#39939257)

    Why did the price of housing go up and up? Sub prime loans. you can blame wall street for making it worse but the prices were ticking up for years before wall street got involved. The prices started going up with the cheap government loans.

    What we can see from the universities that they're responding in the same way. The more you increase the loans the more the tuition goes up. The only way to bring tuition prices down is to reduce the amount of money that can be spent on education.

    It's not like the universities are not going to fill seats. They have class rooms and teachers that cost them money regardless of how many students they have... so if you reduce what can be spent on education rather then causing kids not to get educations it will probably cause prices to come down.

    Furthermore, the US is giving national tuition rates to foreign students. That's US tax dollars paying for someone's education that isn't even a citizen and isn't likely to stay. So what exactly is the point?

    I don't know... I have a lot of problems with the current way we finance tuition. They're the only loans you can't escape by declaring bankruptcy and that strikes me as wrong. There is no legal obligation that you shouldn't be able to escape by declaring bankruptcy. Everything from child support to a student loan. And I know what people are saying, lowlifes will just ditch their obligations. Yes they will. Which is why you don't loan lowlifes money in the first place. As to single mothers getting screwed out of alimony... well, it's a reason to make your separations demands reasonable. If the alimony is so high that it becomes in his interest to declare bankruptcy then you're asking for too much. Pointblank.

    Just a little house cleaning and a lot of these problems will go away.

  • No difference. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:31AM (#39939311) Homepage Journal

    This will not make any difference to those, who are getting the student loans, not at all.

    In fact with the latest developments that the student loans are forgiven in 15 to 20 years and that the monthly payments cannot exceed 10% of so called 'discretionary spending', which starts at the yearly amount exceeding 2 minimum 'poverty levels' ($16,000 per person or abou 35K for a family of 4), it means that a person making 50K a year will have to pay maximum of 10% of (50K-32K) per year, or $150/month for 15 to 20 years. If the person makes 100K/year, this goes up to maximum of $567/month.

    If the person gets a loan of 100K, just to pay the principal for a person earning 50K /year, it would take 666 month or 55 YEARS, and that's only principal, at that point the interest rates absolutely does not matter, because he'll stop paying after 15-20 years, so he'd pay less than half of just principle out in that time, the interest rate does not matter.

    This is political nonsense, not reality, what is happening in gov't, the reality would include realisation that gov't shouldn't be in business providing any loans to anybody in the first place, so that with the decreased fake demand, the number of students would drop off and prices would go down dramatically.

    Why is it a good thing for the number of students to drop off? Because how many students take these loans, adding to the national debt, while not working, adding to the national deficit, requiring this money to be printed or borrowed (and the real interest rates WILL go up eventually, and there is already over $1T of unpaid student debt out there). The huge numbers of students are only going to the colleges to get worthless sociology and literature degrees, or go into law, etc.

    They shouldn't be paid to do that in the first place, who in their right mind would give a loan to a USA student going to major in sociology? WOULD YOU?

    If you wouldn't personally, why would you want the entire system to do that?

    Besides, rather than creating this false demand and forcing debt on the people, creating all this debt and worsening deficit, it would better for those very students to enter the workforce much sooner and without debt they'd be better off anyway.

    Of-course the political elite on the left want to create this 'popular issue', which really only makes the situation for the students worse, and simultaneously this artificially decreases the work participation rate and thus artificially decreases the unemployment rate, so these student loans are handed out for political propaganda. OTOH the colleges and universities etc., are getting a sweet deal - huge numbers of gov't backed students, who don't actually CARE about the cost of education, as long as they get whatever loans is given to them, and those who can do basic math realise that it's in their best interest to go to the most expensive school.

    In fact schools need to start including things in their curriculum that are as expensive as possible - how about trips all over the world as part of 'classes'? How about buying every student a house and an expensive car and all the furniture, electronics and clothing they want? Why not? If the system is on the hook for it and the students are capped at how much they will have to pay back anyway, it only makes sense, right?

    Nobody sees this for what it is.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:37AM (#39939337) Homepage

    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.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @08:15AM (#39939841) Homepage

      5) idiots in HR demand degrees to apply for the job even though a Degree has no use for the position.

      That right there is where the problem stems from. Morons that have a degree that are in charge of hiring that have the snooty opinion that they only want to hire degree holding employees. yet refuse to pay what a degree holding employee should be paid.

      The flicking receptionist does not need a Bachelors degree.

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:44AM (#39939361)

    That's what you get for losing perspective on what is politically extreme and what isn't in the US.

    A bunch of right wing extremists, who are spectacularly successful, because they've succeeded in making themselves look far more moderate and acceptable than they really are.

  • by isorox (205688) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @06:52AM (#39939393) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      The Dems are usually wrong; the Republicans are always wrong.

  • by kenh (9056) on Wednesday May 09, 2012 @09:45AM (#39940709) Homepage Journal

    Remember when Obama & the Dems wanted to let some of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and they feverishly argued that it wasn't a tax increase, it was a return the the "normal" rate, that the law included a sunset for a reason?

    Then remember when letting the rest of the Bush Tax Cuts expire was an unconcionable burden to place on working Americans?

    These student loan rate cuts (passed while Bush was President, which makes me wonder why they aren't referred to as the Bush Student Loan Cuts, but I digress) went into law with a 5 year life, put there by the Democrats with the explicit purpose of expiring a few months before the 2012 Presidential election. Furthermore, President Obama submitted a budget proposal a couple months ago that let the student loan rate cut expire - why would he do that?

    Finally, people are starting to warn that we have a "lost generation" - the current generation graduating from college and going years before finding work in their field of study - seems to me the President is trying to buy them off, hoping they won't notice the lack ofopportunities available to them...

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...