President Obama

[gto250us]

I don't know. The loudest wackos seem to be shouting from the right, but you're right about Bush II's pushing us far to the right though. What's considered left wing these days would have been considered fairly moderate only three decades ago. The disparity is in that the radicals on the right have been lent legitimacy by news outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal while the radicals on the left, the really radical lefties, are still considered wackos by everyone, including the media.

I think that ABC is just biased as Fox, but the other way. These media folks on both ends of the spectrum preach to the converted. They have their audience and they pump them. Their livelyhood depends on it. So, Air America, Pacifica, Fox, Rush, all spew their brand of crap for their audience. I don't think that Rush or Fox make right wacko's more legit, maybe only to those who are themselves wacked.

Those in the middle catch hell from both sides. Look at Arlen Specter, or Collins and Snow in Maine. They pretty much stand in the middle and they are always ridiculed by members of both parties.

Thank god for beer and whiskey.

[RedScare]

I guarantee that HPD was stopping and checking all cars on Woodhead. I got stopped and they wrote me up for expired inspection sticker. They were pretty much their usual pricks about it all too. This was around 1997-1999.

And I guarantee that it was not a checkpoint. Standing on the side of the road and observing violations such as expired inspection and registration and making that motorist pull over for a ticket is not the definition of a checkpoint. And, there is no way that the largest city in the state is going to sneak in an illegal checkpoint just for fun. Law enforcement has tried to figure out how to pull off checkpoints legally for years, despite the fact that they are a prodigious waste of manpower for limited returns. They have to have numerous officers on duty to safely funnel traffic through the checkpoint, as well as quickly check whatever it is they are checking, and have officers to conduct further investigation of possible offenders. And, since it is only on one street, it is easy to get around it. The only ones going through the checkpoint are the irritated sober drivers.

The latest attempt is an end around trying to do DL checkpoints. Since illegals cannot get DLs, a DL checkpoint theoretically would snag lots of illegals. But checkpoints are illegal in Texas for ANY reason without legislative approval, so those are not flying either.

Back to my question. How is local law enforcement going to pull over a driver to check solely for citizenship LEGALLY?

[IronTiger]

I think that ABC is just biased as Fox, but the other way. These media folks on both ends of the spectrum preach to the converted. They have their audience and they pump them. Their livelyhood depends on it. So, Air America, Pacifica, Fox, Rush, all spew their brand of crap for their audience. I don't think that Rush or Fox make right wacko's more legit, maybe only to those who are themselves wacked.

Those in the middle catch hell from both sides. Look at Arlen Specter, or Collins and Snow in Maine. They pretty much stand in the middle and they are always ridiculed by members of both parties.

Thank god for beer and whiskey.

Arlen Specter is definitely a liberal. Don't delude yourself into thinking he's a moderate. Something tells me the political spectrum has gotten so whacked out, we don't even know where the middle is.

[barracuda]

I think that ABC is just biased as Fox, but the other way. These media folks on both ends of the spectrum preach to the converted. They have their audience and they pump them. Their livelyhood depends on it. So, Air America, Pacifica, Fox, Rush, all spew their brand of crap for their audience. I don't think that Rush or Fox make right wacko's more legit, maybe only to those who are themselves wacked.

Those in the middle catch hell from both sides. Look at Arlen Specter, or Collins and Snow in Maine. They pretty much stand in the middle and they are always ridiculed by members of both parties.

Thank god for beer and whiskey.

Not to defend ABC, but they've never run a 24-hour "news" network dedicated to attacking the political enemies of a partisan founder and CEO. Disney is more an entertainment company than a news business, and their ABC News is much diminished from it's stature during golden days of network news.

News Corp's Fox news, on the other hand, was set out (in large part) to provide a conservative counter balance to what Australian founder Rupert Murdoch considered the "liberal media".

Arlen Specter is definitely a liberal. Don't delude yourself into thinking he's a moderate. Something tells me the political spectrum has gotten so whacked out, we don't even know where the middle is.

Arlen Specter represented one of the last in a dying breed of northeastern republicans before switching his affiliation. He's not 'definitely' a liberal, except when compared to the ultra conservatives who've taken over the Republican party. Compared to today's republican party, even Nixon would be considered liberal. So I guess we do agree that the political spectrum is out of whack.

[IronTiger]

Arlen Specter represented one of the last in a dying breed of northeastern republicans before switching his affiliation. He's not 'definitely' a liberal, except when compared to the ultra conservatives who've taken over the Republican party. Compared to today's republican party, even Nixon would be considered liberal. So I guess we do agree that the political spectrum is out of whack.

Well, somewhere in the Nixon-Kennedy line, things switched so that the Republicans were more conservative, and Democrats were more liberal. The radical divisions started sometime in the 1990s and only worsened with Bush and Obama.

That said, what is "normal politics" now?

[AtticaFlinch]

Not to defend ABC, but they've never run a 24-hour "news" network dedicated to attacking the political enemies of a partisan founder and CEO. Disney is more an entertainment company than a news business, and their ABC News is much diminished from it's stature during golden days of network news.

News Corp's Fox news, on the other hand, was set out (in large part) to provide a conservative counter balance to what Australian founder Rupert Murdoch considered the "liberal media".

Arlen Specter represented one of the last in a dying breed of northeastern republicans before switching his affiliation. He's not 'definitely' a liberal, except when compared to the ultra conservatives who've taken over the Republican party. Compared to today's republican party, even Nixon would be considered liberal. So I guess we do agree that the political spectrum is out of whack.

You know what else is whack? Crack. Crack is whack.

So yeah, you've reiterated a great point. What's now considered "left" was at one time not too long ago considered "moderate" or even "middle right." People calling themselves moderate in this day and age are either out of touch or actually pretty far to the right. But hey, it's all relative, right?

And for fairness' sake, GTO did also mention Pacifica and Rush as being offenders. I consider myself a fairly liberal guy (would probably be considered "moderate" thirty years ago), and I find myself having a regular one-sided argument with the occasional KPFT down-with-America pansy (I'm even a member!). The problem with the left is that there's an overwhelming consensus that every facet of an issue is valid, which IMHO is complete BS. That's the same reason the Average Joe thinks the ACLU is garbage. How can Joe Unthinking Everyman support an organization that helps the KKK and flag burners both? People on the left are so fearful of the term elitist, they've decided the best thing to do is support every cockamamie idea out there, regardless of merit. It's like the legitimacy of the creationism-in-textbooks debate that never ends in Austin. Someone needs to stand up and say, "Your idea is dumb, it has no merit, sit back down and lick that tasty window." I'd probably give my own balls if the Democratic party would grow a pair of their own.

[crunchtastic]

That said, what is "normal politics" now?

The same as it ever was, mijo.

Party politics is a lever used by the top 2 percenters to keep us occupied, while they line their pockets by leveraging other people's money.

[barracuda]

And for fairness' sake, GTO did also mention Pacifica and Rush as being offenders. I consider myself a fairly liberal guy (would probably be considered "moderate" thirty years ago), and I find myself having a regular one-sided argument with the occasional KPFT down-with-America pansy (I'm even a member!). The problem with the left is that there's an overwhelming consensus that every facet of an issue is valid, which IMHO is complete BS. That's the same reason the Average Joe thinks the ACLU is garbage. How can Joe Unthinking Everyman support an organization that helps the KKK and flag burners both? People on the left are so fearful of the term elitist, they've decided the best thing to do is support every cockamamie idea out there, regardless of merit. It's like the legitimacy of the creationism-in-textbooks debate that never ends in Austin. Someone needs to stand up and say, "Your idea is dumb, it has no merit, sit back down and lick that tasty window."

I understand that many people dislike the ACLU, which at root is because they don't pick sides. In their view, the legal right (like freedom of speech) should apply to all citizens, even if the issue or group at hand may be unpopular. I tend to agree with this. The law does not give exceptions to rights just because we disagree with the person or message. And in most of those unpopular cases, nobody else is willing to defend those rights we all supposedly cherish.

I'd probably give my own balls if the Democratic party would grow a pair of their own.

You should make that offer.

[AtticaFlinch]

I understand that many people dislike the ACLU, which at root is because they don't pick sides. In their view, the legal right (like freedom of speech) should apply to all citizens, even if the issue or group at hand may be unpopular. I tend to agree with this. The law does not give exceptions to rights just because we disagree with the person or message. And in most of those unpopular cases, nobody else is willing to defend those rights we all supposedly cherish.

But why are everybody's rights defended. Some people need to not talk. Sad but true.

You should make that offer.

I'm sure nobody, least of all my wife, is yet ready for me to give them up, but if teeth ever formed on the Democratic platform, I'd consider making the sacrifice. 'Twould require a bit more than platitudes though. I expect action!

[barracuda]

But why are everybody's rights defended. Some people need to not talk. Sad but true.

True perhaps, but I don't think rights should be decided by this. It's like letting voters decide who should be allowed to get married.

I'm sure nobody, least of all my wife, is yet ready for me to give them up, but if teeth ever formed on the Democratic platform, I'd consider making the sacrifice. 'Twould require a bit more than platitudes though. I expect action!

I was kidding of course. I'm frustrated to see Democrats win the 2008 election, and then bow to whiny Republicans who offer no alternatives of their own and refuse to even compromise with the party who demolished them in the election.

[IronTiger]

See, this is what I mean...everyone on this board seems to indicate "Hey, I'm moderate, it's those radicals on the other side that's causing problems!"

Guess what? Everyone is believing that, even me. It's just to decide now which side is telling the truth!

(Everyone's answer: "I am!")

[lockmat]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama today unveiled a plan to expand oil and natural gas drilling in untouched coastal waters and parts of the eastern Gulf of Mexico...

Obama’s drilling outline, which would govern offshore exploration through 2017, includes the lease sale of a tract of Atlantic waters 50 miles off the Virginia coast and plans for new seismic studies along south- and mid-Atlantic states that could help pinpoint pockets of oil and gas. That research would guide future drilling decisions on the Atlantic seaboard.

Was there already some drilling in these parts? The article says, "new drilling."

At the same time, the administration walled off new drilling for the North Atlantic as well as Pacific waters along California, Oregon and Washington. The president also is planning to keep drilling out of Alaska’s Bristol Bay, home of a large sockeye salmon fishery and the migratory routes of endangered whales.

The drilling outline represents a scale-back of former President George W. Bush’s proposal to open broad swaths of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts for new energy leases.

How can republicans AND the Sierra Club be against it?

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said the administration was "attempting to pull the wool over our eyes" with a plan that "closes off more areas than it opens."

"President Obama’s rhetoric conveys support for increasing American oil and natural gas production, while the reality is he’s proposing a plan that will close more areas to drilling than it opens, and the few areas still available won’t be open for years," Hastings said.

The head of the Sierra Club denounced the plan as a giveaway to Big Oil.

If what the republicans are saying is true, what is Obama's purpose in doing this? Is it just a smoke and mirrors act to make us think he's moving forward when he's really just wading in the water?

Why is the Sierra Club upset?

As normal, many necessary details left out the article.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6937779.html

[AtticaFlinch]

If what the republicans are saying is true, what is Obama's purpose in doing this? Is it just a smoke and mirrors act to make us think he's moving forward when he's really just wading in the water?

Why is the Sierra Club upset?

The Sierra Club's against opening any new drilling sites period. It's sorta like how the NRA is against any gun restrictions period. It's the give-em-an-inch-and-they-take-a-mile theory. The only difference is the NRA thinks the government is the bad guy, while the Sierra Club thinks oil corporations are the bad guys.

Republicans are opposed to it because Obama did it. There is no practical reason for it other than opposition for the sake of opposition. I really can't think of a single instance during Obama's presidency where Republicans have shown any willingness to so much as compromise with Obama on anything. Don't worry though. It's all so much political posturing and mugging for the cameras in anticipation of the 2010 elections. Behind closed doors, they're probably pretty happy Obama's done this. They just can't let the teabaggers know as they don't want to lose their votes.

[lockmat]

The Sierra Club's against opening any new drilling sites period. It's sorta like how the NRA is against any gun restrictions period. It's the give-em-an-inch-and-they-take-a-mile theory. The only difference is the NRA thinks the government is the bad guy, while the Sierra Club thinks oil corporations are the bad guys.

Republicans are opposed to it because Obama did it. There is no practical reason for it other than opposition for the sake of opposition. I really can't think of a single instance during Obama's presidency where Republicans have shown any willingness to so much as compromise with Obama on anything. Don't worry though. It's all so much political posturing and mugging for the cameras in anticipation of the 2010 elections. Behind closed doors, they're probably pretty happy Obama's done this. They just can't let the teabaggers know as they don't want to lose their votes.

For an objective view, I'd like to see statistcis of current areas that are open and closed to drilling compared to the ones Obama is proposing to open and close. Not sure there's something like that out there. There must at least be the current statistics available somewhere.

edit: baker hughes rig count - http://gis.bakerhugh...s/default2.aspx

I also found this, even though it's old, but should help a little: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/map.offshore.drilling/

[infinite_jim]

Healthcare: check

Credit Card Reform: check

Energy Independence

Pollution (Cap&Trade)

Drug Law Reform

Economic Stimulus 2.0 (Jobs)

Immigration Reform

Transportation Reform

Election/Campaign Reform

Education Reform

Resolving the War in Iraq

Resolving the War in Afghanistan

Financial Markets Reform

Anything else?

[ricco67]

Healthcare: check

Credit Card Reform: check

Energy Independence

Pollution (Cap&Trade)

Drug Law Reform

Economic Stimulus 2.0 (Jobs)

Immigration Reform

Transportation Reform

Election/Campaign Reform

Education Reform

Resolving the War in Iraq

Resolving the War in Afghanistan

Financial Markets Reform

Anything else?

That's funny. Didn't he promise that he wouldn't drill off the costs of florida and such?

While I support the decision, that sounds an awful like "flip flopping" file that under "Breaking a promise."

[AtticaFlinch]

While I support the decision, that sounds an awful like "flip flopping" file that under "Breaking a promise."

Call it what you want, but I call it making an informed decision based on the accumulation of more information. How can you expect someone to be an effective leader if they were to tenaciously hold onto all their ideas regardless of what new and enlightening information came in?

Oh wait, that's exactly what conservative luddites expect us to do. That's why so many of them revered George II and that's why whenever Sarah Palin's mug come on the boobtube. If many of them had their way, we'd still live in caves and eat raw meat.

[jgriff]

Call it what you want, but I call it making an informed decision based on the accumulation of more information. How can you expect someone to be an effective leader if they were to tenaciously hold onto all their ideas regardless of what new and enlightening information came in?

I agree with you Attica. A politician should be able to change his mind when new information is available. What new information is available?

[AtticaFlinch]

I agree with you Attica. A politician should be able to change his mind when new information is available. What new information is available?

I can't speak for the president, and I'm certainly not privy to all the information he is, but I'd bet his change of pace has something to do with the sluggish economic recovery weighted against the ecological needs of the manatee. I'm guessing, based on the obvious, we the people and pragmatic decision-making skills outweighed partisanship and blind rhetoric.

"This is not a decision that I've made lightly," the president said. "But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/31

This is assuming, of course, that you find the continued decline of employment rates to be a significant piece of new information. There may be some scientific stuff that swayed his decision too, and I'm sure that's what you were fishing for, but I'm willing to bet the economy was his biggest motivator.

[Marksmu]

Call it what you want, but I call it making an informed decision based on the accumulation of more information. How can you expect someone to be an effective leader if they were to tenaciously hold onto all their ideas regardless of what new and enlightening information came in?

Oh wait, that's exactly what conservative luddites expect us to do. That's why so many of them revered George II and that's why whenever Sarah Palin's mug come on the boobtube. If many of them had their way, we'd still live in caves and eat raw meat.

Sounds to me like he is adopting a position that makes economic sense....Funny though isnt it that, republicans have always held that position. Its been democrats that have wanted to prevent movement in that arena.

How bout that wonderful new student loan program? That is really brilliant. He nationalizes student loans so the government is the one making the loans, thereby cutting out the middleman....thats good, right? No middle man, means the loans will be more affordable right? The students then can get the loans at the discounted 2.8% rate right? Nope, that would make sense...instead, he just closes out the private loan writing business and keeps the rate at 6.X%....What happens to the profit? Well its just another brilliant redistribution plan. The 3.X% gains on those new loans goes to historically underprivileged minorities, and Pell Grants.

It even has provisions to "forgive" debt after so many years of payments...I wonder who gets to pay for all the forgiven debt? Even when he appears to be making a good decision, hidden in the background somewhere is a big redistribution plan.

This man is not a leader....He wants the citizens of the US to become so reliant upon the government that the government can dictate everything. We are very close to having more people living off the government that paying into it. What happens when we cross that line?

[AtticaFlinch]

Sounds to me like he is adopting a position that makes economic sense....Funny though isnt it that, republicans have always held that position. Its been democrats that have wanted to prevent movement in that arena.

Oh? Funny thing is, Obama isn't just pushing for oil though. Opening these oil fields is just one part of a comprehensive plan to upgrade our energy supply. The Republican plan was to stick more straws in the dirt and then stick their heads in the sand, hoping big business led the way in developing alternative energy plans on their own for the eventual time when oil became cost prohibitive to produce. So actually, the Republican plan, while temporarily pragmatic, was also rather shortsighted.

How bout that wonderful new student loan program? That is really brilliant. He nationalizes student loans so the government is the one making the loans, thereby cutting out the middleman....thats good, right? No middle man, means the loans will be more affordable right? The students then can get the loans at the discounted 2.8% rate right? Nope, that would make sense...instead, he just closes out the private loan writing business and keeps the rate at 6.X%....What happens to the profit? Well its just another brilliant redistribution plan. The 3.X% gains on those new loans goes to historically underprivileged minorities, and Pell Grants.

As a beneficiary of several Pell grants, I applaud this decision. Some of us didn't have the benefit of wealthy parents like you did who would pay for all the costs of our education. I see nothing wrong with taking unearned money from big business and reinvesting it in the education of our nation's students. I really don't understand your reasoning for disdain either, unless you're suggesting that education is a privilege reserved exclusively for an elite few.

It even has provisions to "forgive" debt after so many years of payments...I wonder who gets to pay for all the forgiven debt? Even when he appears to be making a good decision, hidden in the background somewhere is a big redistribution plan.

Crazy, I know. However, I bet if we have a more highly educated populace earning greater amounts of money due to their education, we'll be able to absorb the loss through greater income tax revenue.

This man is not a leader....He wants the citizens of the US to become so reliant upon the government that the government can dictate everything. We are very close to having more people living off the government that paying into it. What happens when we cross that line?

For someone so reliant upon his family for his upbringing, his education, his home and his job, I find it repulsively and obnoxiously hypocritical that you have a problem with other people doing the same thing. You are the HAIFy Little Lord Fauntleroy.

[jgriff]

I can't speak for the president, and I'm certainly not privy to all the information he is, but I'd bet his change of pace has something to do with the sluggish economic recovery weighted against the ecological needs of the manatee. I'm guessing, based on the obvious, we the people and pragmatic decision-making skills outweighed partisanship and blind rhetoric.

http://www.commondre...line/2010/03/31

This is assuming, of course, that you find the continued decline of employment rates to be a significant piece of new information. There may be some scientific stuff that swayed his decision too, and I'm sure that's what you were fishing for, but I'm willing to bet the economy was his biggest motivator.

I think you could also chalk this decision up to compromise. We usually hear about how divided our government is but here is an example of Obama compromising with Republicans. You can't give him all the credit though. The Republicans have obviously promised to support him on something in the future for this favor.

[AtticaFlinch]

I think you could also chalk this decision up to compromise. We usually hear about how divided our government is but here is an example of Obama compromising with Republicans. You can't give him all the credit though. The Republicans have obviously promised to support him on something in the future for this favor.

Well, I hope it's a sign of more positive things to come. We're a much stronger country when we work together and focus on our similarities than when we fight each other and focus on our differences.

[Marksmu]

As a beneficiary of several Pell grants, I applaud this decision. Some of us didn't have the benefit of wealthy parents like you did who would pay for all the costs of our education. I see nothing wrong with taking unearned money from big business and reinvesting it in the education of our nation's students. I really don't understand your reasoning for disdain either, unless you're suggesting that education is a privilege reserved exclusively for an elite few.

First and foremost its not unearned money. That money has been earned for sure. Somebody took the risk to start a business and make it successful. Just because it is profitable does not make it unearned. You are WAY off base with that socialist comment. You obviously know nothing at all about starting/running a business to say it is unearned. It may seem like alot to you, but I have news for you, people do not work to just get by with enough....people are driven to work harder if there is the promise of more at the end of that work. The government should NEVER be the one who decides when you have enough. It removes all incentive. Your views, like it or not, are socialist. You are exactly what the US has fought for years, and this new entitlement feeling that is sweeping the US, is exactly what is wrong with this country. Always trying to figure out who owes you something.

Second, I have no problem whatsoever with student loans. They ARE available to everyone, regardless of income. I have a problem with programs that target individual classes, races, etc. A single set of criteria should exist for everyone, regardess of race, class, demographics, etc. Anytime you isolate and pick out a set of people and give to them exclusively its a big problem. A large percentage of the money is going to historically black colleges at the exclusion of other minority owned and populated institutions.

Crazy, I know. However, I bet if we have a more highly educated populace earning greater amounts of money due to their education, we'll be able to absorb the loss through greater income tax revenue.

Funny though, that it actually does not work out that way. 20+% of all pell grants goes to worthless degree programs such as Kaplan, University of Phoenix and Everest college...all online programs that employers give absolutly no deference to....A large percentage never graduate, and just incur debt while recieving no benefit.

I am not advocating not giving the loans, merely stating that the fact that just because they took the loan out does not mean that they are adding to the income base...perhaps an interest rate increase for failing to complete your program would be in order.

For someone so reliant upon his family for his upbringing, his education, his home and his job, I find it repulsively and obnoxiously hypocritical that you have a problem with other people doing the same thing. You are the HAIFy Little Lord Fauntleroy.

My family was able to pay for my education because they work hard, and have money left over as a result of it. They did not have to pay for it, and were not forced to do so. Every penny I have, and every brick in my house was paid for by my own work or that of my wife, not the work of my parents. I do not rely upon my family for anything and if the business boarded up shop today, I would have no problem whatsoever finding work. I more than carry my own weight, and my degrees and skills keep me plenty marketable at any time. That is the beauty of two useful degrees as opposed to multiple worthless ones.

A large percent of the money is being targeted towards people who Obama hopes will later vote for him. Its all BS, just more redistribution.

[AtticaFlinch]

First and foremost its not unearned money. That money has been earned for sure. Somebody took the risk to start a business and make it successful. Just because it is profitable does not make it unearned. You are WAY off base with that socialist comment. You obviously know nothing at all about starting/running a business to say it is unearned. It may seem like alot to you, but I have news for you, people do not work to just get by with enough....people are driven to work harder if there is the promise of more at the end of that work. The government should NEVER be the one who decides when you have enough. It removes all incentive. Your views, like it or not, are socialist. You are exactly what the US has fought for years, and this new entitlement feeling that is sweeping the US, is exactly what is wrong with this country. Always trying to figure out who owes you something.

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The unearned money was the student interest the banks made borrowing the money interest free from the government (and also protected by the government in case of default).

Also, I have no problem admitting some of my stances reflect aspects of socialism. I was raised a Christian, and my concept of morality and ethics would prevent me from thinking profit motivations rank higher than the needs of the people. So what if a few people take advantage of a system designed to aid people when they're in need? Who gives a crap if a small percentage of people are wastes of flesh? The vast majority of people who utilize social programs do it out of need, and only do it temporarily until they've managed to regain traction. I don't think social programs should be designed to hurt the lowest common denominators, I think they should be designed to aid the majority when it's necessary. You miss the point when you think social programs are entitlement programs even if a handful of people treat it that way.

Second, I have no problem whatsoever with student loans. They ARE available to everyone, regardless of income. I have a problem with programs that target individual classes, races, etc. A single set of criteria should exist for everyone, regardess of race, class, demographics, etc. Anytime you isolate and pick out a set of people and give to them exclusively its a big problem. A large percentage of the money is going to historically black colleges at the exclusion of other minority owned and populated institutions.

I'm a white male and middle class, and I got a Pell grant every semester I attended college except for two. So, who's being excluded?

Funny though, that it actually does not work out that way. 20+% of all pell grants goes to worthless degree programs such as Kaplan, University of Phoenix and Everest college...all online programs that employers give absolutly no deference to....A large percentage never graduate, and just incur debt while recieving no benefit.

They're accredited universities. For someone who wants a single set of criteria to exist for everyone, you're acting like you don't want a single set of criteria to exist for everyone.

I am not advocating not giving the loans, merely stating that the fact that just because they took the loan out does not mean that they are adding to the income base...perhaps an interest rate increase for failing to complete your program would be in order.

I think that's a fair compromise. I also thought Bush II's rule about out-of-state tuition rates after a certain number of years also was fair. Look, we agree on stuff. Neat.

My family was able to pay for my education because they work hard, and have money left over as a result of it. They did not have to pay for it, and were not forced to do so. Every penny I have, and every brick in my house was paid for by my own work or that of my wife, not the work of my parents. I do not rely upon my family for anything and if the business boarded up shop today, I would have no problem whatsoever finding work. I more than carry my own weight, and my degrees and skills keep me plenty marketable at any time. That is the beauty of two useful degrees as opposed to multiple worthless ones.

I probably shouldn't have made that personal, but it irritates the crap out of me when you go on about your individual accomplishments as if they're the result of your had work alone. You wouldn't have been able to do it if you didn't have some level of support at various stages in your development. I don't begrudge you that. In fact, I think it's wonderful you've got loving, accomplished parents who find you viable enough to have helped develop you. I wish everyone did, but not everyone does. For them, the government has need to act as a surrogate (of sorts), and I'm glad they do. The fact is, no one on earth makes it through life without help. No one. Not even you.

A large percent of the money is being targeted towards people who Obama hopes will later vote for him. Its all BS, just more redistribution.

How is this even redistribution? You aren't being charged any more money for it. Your taxes aren't increasing. It's taking unrealized gains from allowing the government to handle a job that had been gifted to the private sector, and then using that money to help more people go to school. Considering you didn't have to borrow a dime to go to college, and considering most kids of well-to-do families don't have to borrow a dime to go to college, it seems to me this plan is taking the future gains of the poor and middle-class and applying it to their educations now. It's not a redistribution if it's their money in the first place.

[ricco67]

Call it what you want, but I call it making an informed decision based on the accumulation of more information. How can you expect someone to be an effective leader if they were to tenaciously hold onto all their ideas regardless of what new and enlightening information came in?

Oh wait, that's exactly what conservative luddites expect us to do. That's why so many of them revered George II and that's why whenever Sarah Palin's mug come on the boobtube. If many of them had their way, we'd still live in caves and eat raw meat.

I'm not saying it's a BAD thing, but he was harping on it all throughout the campaign, and I agree that policy should be affected by any new enlightening information that would change one's position. To vilify an opponent for his views that is "right" and then turn around and do the that very thing is he is against is interesting. Nothing more.

It's one of those things that irritate me about politics, that's all.

Now that its basically a done deal, I wonder what will happen when the elections come again and how contributions from environmental lobby will happen.

Then again, they have usually been Democratic in their leanings, so I expect them to stay with President Obama and chalk it up to a 'quirk' in his environmental stance.

[west20th]

Sounds to me like he is adopting a position that makes economic sense....Funny though isnt it that, republicans have always held that position. Its been democrats that have wanted to prevent movement in that arena.

How bout that wonderful new student loan program? That is really brilliant. He nationalizes student loans so the government is the one making the loans, thereby cutting out the middleman....thats good, right? No middle man, means the loans will be more affordable right? The students then can get the loans at the discounted 2.8% rate right? Nope, that would make sense...instead, he just closes out the private loan writing business and keeps the rate at 6.X%....What happens to the profit? Well its just another brilliant redistribution plan. The 3.X% gains on those new loans goes to historically underprivileged minorities, and Pell Grants.

It even has provisions to "forgive" debt after so many years of payments...I wonder who gets to pay for all the forgiven debt? Even when he appears to be making a good decision, hidden in the background somewhere is a big redistribution plan.

This man is not a leader....He wants the citizens of the US to become so reliant upon the government that the government can dictate everything. We are very close to having more people living off the government that paying into it. What happens when we cross that line?

What's even funnier is now they are against it just because Obama is for it. And I don't see the issue with eliminating the corporate welfare for the banks. The Government guaranteed those loans to begin with. So it's a capitalist principle to have the government (with our money) to provide profits for the banks while shielding them from any risk?

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm not saying it's a BAD thing, but he was harping on it all throughout the campaign, and I agree that policy should be affected by any new enlightening information that would change one's position. To vilify an opponent for his views that is "right" and then turn around and do the that very thing is he is against is interesting. Nothing more.

It's one of those things that irritate me about politics, that's all.

Now that its basically a done deal, I wonder what will happen when the elections come again and how contributions from environmental lobby will happen.

Then again, they have usually been Democratic in their leanings, so I expect them to stay with President Obama and chalk it up to a 'quirk' in his environmental stance.

Is it really all that environmentally unsound? I personally don't know the environmental impact of this decision, but two things to consider are 1) more fields are being closed than being opened, and 2) offshore drilling technology has improved even over the past several years to make for cleaner drilling/pumping in the new fields than was being used in those older fields.

Also, I think you've misrepresented Obama's campaign platform. He didn't villify the idea of offshore drilling. He didn't like it to be sure, but he didn't villify it. His position that McCain's overly simplistic "Drill here, drill now" was shortsighted, and I don't see how this current plans stands in opposition to that. As far as a promise not to open up drilling, you can rest assured there will not be any more drilling, it'll just be different drilling.

[Marksmu]

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The unearned money was the student interest the banks made borrowing the money interest free from the government (and also protected by the government in case of default).

I agree the banks needed to be cut out. There was no purpose for them. Those were unearned profits...but knowing your history, you can easily see how jumped off that cliff.

Also, I have no problem admitting some of my stances reflect aspects of socialism. I was raised a Christian, and my concept of morality and ethics would prevent me from thinking profit motivations rank higher than the needs of the people. So what if a few people take advantage of a system designed to aid people when they're in need? Who gives a crap if a small percentage of people are wastes of flesh? The vast majority of people who utilize social programs do it out of need, and only do it temporarily until they've managed to regain traction. I don't think social programs should be designed to hurt the lowest common denominators, I think they should be designed to aid the majority when it's necessary. You miss the point when you think social programs are entitlement programs even if a handful of people treat it that way.

I'm a white male and middle class, and I got a Pell grant every semester I attended college except for two. So, who's being excluded?

They're accredited universities. For someone who wants a single set of criteria to exist for everyone, you're acting like you don't want a single set of criteria to exist for everyone.

Its a fine line here - b/c I am against government regulation, but at the same time, some people are so dumb they need to set rules so that the dumb are not constantly taken advantage of....I hate contradicting my own thought process, but alot of universities offer degrees that do not in any way increase your ability to get a job after graduation. Many people goto college with the promise of a better job, but graduate to find that their degree program was really not worth anything to a non-government employer and they are deep in debt as a result of it

Im not sure how you can regulate that realistically, but higher education does not always equate to higher pay. There are alot of new grads out there waiting tables b/c they found there is not a market for their degree. I dont know perhaps higher interest rates for college degrees that have lower expected salaries in the private marketplace. (must exclude government jobs in this number) That would make lower rates for doctors, engineers, chemists, physicsts, scientist, etc, and high rates for history, poli-sci, english etc....Tie the student loan interest rates to the expected salaries.

I think that's a fair compromise. I also thought Bush II's rule about out-of-state tuition rates after a certain number of years also was fair. Look, we agree on stuff. Neat.

I may write crazy things, but they are usually just my initial thoughts....believe it or not, your crazy left wing rants occasionally make sense and cause me to change my thought process partially...What just gets me all worked up is punishing achievement, and sweet heart deals. I want a level playing field, Im sick of the appearance of things being crooked.

I probably shouldn't have made that personal, but it irritates the crap out of me when you go on about your individual accomplishments as if they're the result of your had work alone. You wouldn't have been able to do it if you didn't have some level of support at various stages in your development. I don't begrudge you that. In fact, I think it's wonderful you've got loving, accomplished parents who find you viable enough to have helped develop you. I wish everyone did, but not everyone does. For them, the government has need to act as a surrogate (of sorts), and I'm glad they do. The fact is, no one on earth makes it through life without help. No one. Not even you.

I credit my parents a great deal...my parents forced me to study all through grade school and high school. In high school anything less than an A and I would lose driving privileges, for that 12 week grade period. Anything less than a B and I was grounded. They cared alot, and I definitely got the advantage of their caring. In college, I would never have chosen engineering if not forced. My parents told me we will pay for your college degree if you do either engineering, a bs in one of the sciences, or goto medical school. If you chose another path we will loan you the money, but not pay for your college. My first year of school, I thought long and hard about taking an easier path and getting to party like so many of my friends did, but in the end I did not change because I did not want to come out of college so deep in debt.

I was not disciplined enough to do it on my own....I was bribed, they used my wants to get me to do what they thought was best for me. Just like in a good ole capitalist society....I wanted something and they made me work for it. If it was free, there is no way in the world I would have chosen the harder path....why work harder, when you can work less and get the same reward?

How is this even redistribution? You aren't being charged any more money for it. Your taxes aren't increasing. It's taking unrealized gains from allowing the government to handle a job that had been gifted to the private sector, and then using that money to help more people go to school. Considering you didn't have to borrow a dime to go to college, and considering most kids of well-to-do families don't have to borrow a dime to go to college, it seems to me this plan is taking the future gains of the poor and middle-class and applying it to their educations now. It's not a redistribution if it's their money in the first place.

When after 20 years of payments at 10% of their after tax dollars their debt is forgiven, who do you think is paying for that forgiveness? If they work for the government its forgiven after 10 years....That money was paid out to the university with tax dollars, and then the government just forgives it...therefore it has to be paid out by someone...the only one paying is the taxpayer, and the number of people actually paying tax is shrinking, while the number of people taking services from the government is increasing. Its still a redistribution.

To be clear - Im not against student loans. I'm for them...I am against the government picking and choosing what groups get to benefit from programs. There ought to be a strict list of requirements for everything, and that list should not include race/sex/demographics or any other identifiable information.

What's even funnier is now they are against it just because Obama is for it. And I don't see the issue with eliminating the corporate welfare for the banks. The Government guaranteed those loans to begin with. So it's a capitalist principle to have the government (with our money) to provide profits for the banks while shielding them from any risk?

I do not take issue with eliminating the middle man. It was another waste of taxpayer money to allow a bank to profit while 100% of the risk was on the taxpayer.

I only disagree with the way the profit is now being spent.

[ricco67]

Is it really all that environmentally unsound? I personally don't know the environmental impact of this decision, but two things to consider are 1) more fields are being closed than being opened, and 2) offshore drilling technology has improved even over the past several years to make for cleaner drilling/pumping in the new fields than was being used in those older fields.

Also, I think you've misrepresented Obama's campaign platform. He didn't villify the idea of offshore drilling. He didn't like it to be sure, but he didn't villify it. His position that McCain's overly simplistic "Drill here, drill now" was shortsighted, and I don't see how this current plans stands in opposition to that. As far as a promise not to open up drilling, you can rest assured there will not be any more drilling, it'll just be different drilling.

You're right, technology has improved a tremendous amount, but don't tell that to the Sierra club and other environmental people. According to them they are all the rigs are made of tin and are susceptible to collapse if a seagull lands on it funny. I'm struggling to remember when the last major leak occurred from a rig in the gulf or California.

"Vilify" maybe a harsh term, but it's fairly close to it. He pretty much was fairly against it during his campaign, but in 2008, he was fairly open to drilling.