The Divided States of America..

Maybe it's the instantaneous availability of current news.. maybe its just that dissension & fighting gets more news coverage. But it seems to me that the US is becoming more & more split ideologically. We have the occupiers at one extreme, & the tea party at the other. The left & the right. The left generally wants more govt, more spending, cradle to grave nanny state solutions. The right wants less govt, cut spending, more traditional american values of freedom & self reliance.

That is simplistic, i know, but is a basic summary of the main differences.

There doesn't seem to be a 'silent majority' anymore. People are leaning to either position, & with good reason. We have had a 'blend' of the 2 ideologies, which has resulted in our current problems. ..$15T in debt & still rising. We either need to go full socialism, or get back to a free market economy. This blend has only given us the worst of both, with rampant corruption making matters worse.

The tolerance of corruption is unbelievable. It's like the leaders think the system is going down, & are letting their cronies grab what they can before it crashes.

The extreme left is pushing for full socialism, of course, & seems to be willing to use violence to get there. They have organized or at least hijacked the occupy movement, & are now looking for violent confrontation to get their agenda in place. Do we think the extreme right will sit by idly while this happens? Violent confrontation seems to be in the not too distant future. A new civil war is brewing with these ideological differences.

And where are our leaders? Our commander in chief is fanning the flames of division with his constant class warfare remarks, & seems to be promoting the left's agenda, & egging on the occupy crowd.

Instead of looking for real solutions to our problems, & healing our divisions, the country is splitting even more, with the full support & encouragement of the govt.

I suppose this is really nothing new.. every so often a nation must define itself.. each generation must choose who they will be. I am very sorry my generation made such a mess of things.. we were like spoiled bratty rich kids who just partied away their parents hard earned savings, then spent more & left the debt to their kids.

Anyway, have a happy thanksgiving, Americans. I'll leave with a few poignant quotes i've found entertaining..


"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln

"Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true."
Polish Proverb

If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?
Will Rogers

It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.
H. L. Mencken

My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was sixty. She's ninety-seven now, and we don't know where the hell she is.
Ellen DeGeneres

Everything plaguing the US seems to mainly boil down to pure simple greed. Greed for more money, more power, more control, more more more from the powers at be. Greed for more house, more land, more electronics, more cars and bikes, more more more from the populace. Our greed for more feeds their greed for more. Their greed for more feeds our greed for more.

Profit is not inheritantly evil, but the idea of sustainability was shelved and buried a long long time ago it seems. You can make a fair and healthy profit without destroying your customer's economic situation, the environment around you, etc. Or you can gut every last cent, every last resource, with no view for future growth. And its everywhere, in every facet of our lives. Credit cards. Factory farms. McMansions and suburban sprawl coupled with dilapidated urban centers. Student loans and the education for profit system we've adopted along with the myth of the value of college while diminishing the value of the degree and experience earned. Eventually the populace will be bled dry, the corporations will have amassed a fortune in worthless paper, and the government will be defunct and broke.

I think this is what the occupy movement is/was all about, combating massive greed, but misses the point in that sitting on a street corner outside of an office building in downtown Manhattan isn't going to fix the greed. It takes the commitment to change lifestyle and outlook. To live with less, live within one's means, to not buy the bigger house just because you can get the loan, to carry minimal amounts of debt, to buy locally, to live locally, to be part of a community and know your neighbors.

"Corporate greed" is the mantra of morons. They apparently operate on the theory that, if you repeat it often enough, then it becomes true. Much like the idea that they actually represent 99% of the population, which they so obviously don't.

They howl that xxxx industry made "billions and billions in profits" - happily ignoring the fact that they required many, many, many more billions of money invested/held in security to make that profit. While they scream that we should hate the banks, hate health providers, etc, why don't they mention we should hate companies' whose business is office supplies?

After all, that is the industry that ranks as the highest as return on investment.

And why not auto parts stores? Candy makers? Music stores? Restaurants? Soft drink beverages? Housewares? Publishers of periodicals? Publishers of books? Toys?

Why doesn't the Occupy Whatever crowd piss and moan about those industries? After all, every single one of them delivers a much, much greater return on investment than banks i.e. a much higher profit per dollar invested.

It isn't "corporate greed". It's the result of WORK. That thing where you get up in the morning and go to earn a living instead of sitting around bitching about how much other people make? Sort of like Steve Jobs did - and by the way, while they're using their iPhones, where's their bitching about Jobs as the uber corporate warrior?

Don't like banks? Then don't patronize them. Don't like credit cards and credit? Then don't use it. Don't like student loans? Then don't ask for one - work your way through university like I and so many others did without any loans. Education for profit is a problem? Fine - start your own university and put ads out asking for professors with terminal degrees, willing to work for free at a "not for profit" university.

Don't like giant multinational corporations? Then sell your motorcycle, vehicle, etc and put your ass in gear and get walking. Most of the occupy crowd, however, can do little more than bitch and THEIR consumerism is just fine. Listening to a bunch of Occupy Whatever morons yapping about "corporate greed" against the background of their North Face tents, is laughable.

Nobody FORCES you to buy anything - well, with exceptions like Obamacare coming to a state near you, of course. You have a right to choose to boycott industries whose profits you don't like, but the idea that you should demand that the government PUNISH industries you don't like, take some of the money they earned, and "share" it with you is simply contemptible.

You don't like the percentage of the nation's wealth "the rich" own? Then get off your ass, occupy a job, and make some money of your own instead of bitching what others have accumulated. And maybe, just maybe, explain why that small minority who own that wealth also pay a majority of the income taxes collected, and yet, you don't want to share THAT financial aspect of their lives. If they should "share their wealth", why won't the Occupiers also demand that they not only get a cut of "the rich"'s wealth - but a cut of the percentage of taxes they pay as well.

The idea of being proud of your self-reliance is pretty much dead these days. Along with the ability to engage in critical thought.

Jeez Jag...sounds like you answered a question that nobody asked...though we appreciate you letting us know what's on your mind.
Then again, maybe your thoughts are directly related to this divided people thread...

skierd wrote:

Everything plaguing the US seems to mainly boil down to pure simple greed. Greed for more money, more power, more control, more more more from the powers at be. Greed for more house, more land, more electronics, more cars and bikes, more more more from the populace. Our greed for more feeds their greed for more. Their greed for more feeds our greed for more.

Profit is not inheritantly evil, but the idea of sustainability was shelved and buried a long long time ago it seems. You can make a fair and healthy profit without destroying your customer's economic situation, the environment around you, etc. Or you can gut every last cent, every last resource, with no view for future growth. And its everywhere, in every facet of our lives. Credit cards. Factory farms. McMansions and suburban sprawl coupled with dilapidated urban centers. Student loans and the education for profit system we've adopted along with the myth of the value of college while diminishing the value of the degree and experience earned. Eventually the populace will be bled dry, the corporations will have amassed a fortune in worthless paper, and the government will be defunct and broke.

I think this is what the occupy movement is/was all about, combating massive greed, but misses the point in that sitting on a street corner outside of an office building in downtown Manhattan isn't going to fix the greed. It takes the commitment to change lifestyle and outlook. To live with less, live within one's means, to not buy the bigger house just because you can get the loan, to carry minimal amounts of debt, to buy locally, to live locally, to be part of a community and know your neighbors.

I know you are a thinker, skierd, & i've been thinking about your response for a couple of days. I don't think i agree with your assessment of the occupy movement.. it is not "combating massive greed", or greed in general. It seems to me that most of the occupiers are just as greedy.. they just want theirs. Many of those interviewed want their student loans paid off, or a slice of the pie, somehow. With the rampant corruption in the govt, i suppose i can't blame others for wanting to get in on the gravy train. But surely we realize that there is no free lunch, & someone is footing the bill. Every ponzi scheme ends badly for those at the end.

What is greed? In its basic form, it is just the desire to get ahead.. to build a family, empire, or company. It is a competition to have more that others, perhaps, but it also a desire for security & a better life. Everyone seems to want more.. we are never satisfied with what we have. Many studies have been done that show all levels of the income spectrum wishing for just a little more, then they would have enough. Is greed really evil? If you can charge more for your time or services would you do it? If you can get a better paying job, wouldn't you do it? If sellers can price their products so they sell, but they make more than they need, is that wrong? Apple gets a lot for their iphone, but when the android os came out, it took a bit of their market share.. they have to convince everyone that their product is better, worth more, & price it to sell.

There are laws that prevent monopolies from charging whatever they want, and antitrust laws to prevent organized price fixing. But i don't think the complaints from the occupiers are really about that. They are against capitalism in general.. they are michael moore followers.. dreaming of a utopia where everything is equal. But where has socialism ever worked?

I submit that greed is the fuel that drives people to work hard & get ahead, if they can get compensated. In purely socialistic states, worker production is very flat, because there is no motivation to excel. "The greater good" just does not motivate people like "more for me & my family". China is another good example. When in full socialism, they were stagnant. Once they opened the door to capitalistic enterprise, it has exploded. This is just basic human nature.. there is no changing it or denying it.

But these are arguments about what is dividing us. ..and i think it is good to have the clear choices in the open, not disguised or muddled in politically correct terminology. I think it is a division between a more socialistic direction for the country, & a return to free market capitalism. Your generation will have to make that choice. Mine has made a mess of things by trying to have both, but that hasn't worked at all, so a definitive choice needs to be made.. what kind of country do you want? We cannot just let the extremists & ideologues decide for us. Thinking people need to learn from history, understand the times they are in, & speak up for what they want. I don't think socialism will be an escape from greed or excesses by the elite.. they will still do that, & have the additional power to keep the rest of us from rising to their station, if we so desire.

Isn't this the simple point of division in the US? Capitalism vs. Socialism? Are you saying it is Greed vs. Charity? I think greed & charity are individual traits, & cannot be made into a tenet or ideology of politics.

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
Albert Camus

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Plato

If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
Yogi Berra

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Ayn Rand

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
Jack Handey

Jäger wrote:

"Corporate greed" is the mantra of morons. They apparently operate on the theory that, if you repeat it often enough, then it becomes true. Much like the idea that they actually represent 99% of the population, which they so obviously don't.

They howl that xxxx industry made "billions and billions in profits" - happily ignoring the fact that they required many, many, many more billions of money invested/held in security to make that profit. While they scream that we should hate the banks, hate health providers, etc, why don't they mention we should hate companies' whose business is office supplies?

After all, that is the industry that ranks as the highest as return on investment.

And why not auto parts stores? Candy makers? Music stores? Restaurants? Soft drink beverages? Housewares? Publishers of periodicals? Publishers of books? Toys?

Why doesn't the Occupy Whatever crowd piss and moan about those industries? After all, every single one of them delivers a much, much greater return on investment than banks i.e. a much higher profit per dollar invested.

It isn't "corporate greed". It's the result of WORK. That thing where you get up in the morning and go to earn a living instead of sitting around bitching about how much other people make? Sort of like Steve Jobs did - and by the way, while they're using their iPhones, where's their bitching about Jobs as the uber corporate warrior?

Don't like banks? Then don't patronize them. Don't like credit cards and credit? Then don't use it. Don't like student loans? Then don't ask for one - work your way through university like I and so many others did without any loans. Education for profit is a problem? Fine - start your own university and put ads out asking for professors with terminal degrees, willing to work for free at a "not for profit" university.

Don't like giant multinational corporations? Then sell your motorcycle, vehicle, etc and put your ass in gear and get walking. Most of the occupy crowd, however, can do little more than bitch and THEIR consumerism is just fine. Listening to a bunch of Occupy Whatever morons yapping about "corporate greed" against the background of their North Face tents, is laughable.

Nobody FORCES you to buy anything - well, with exceptions like Obamacare coming to a state near you, of course. You have a right to choose to boycott industries whose profits you don't like, but the idea that you should demand that the government PUNISH industries you don't like, take some of the money they earned, and "share" it with you is simply contemptible.

You don't like the percentage of the nation's wealth "the rich" own? Then get off your ass, occupy a job, and make some money of your own instead of bitching what others have accumulated. And maybe, just maybe, explain why that small minority who own that wealth also pay a majority of the income taxes collected, and yet, you don't want to share THAT financial aspect of their lives. If they should "share their wealth", why won't the Occupiers also demand that they not only get a cut of "the rich"'s wealth - but a cut of the percentage of taxes they pay as well.

The idea of being proud of your self-reliance is pretty much dead these days. Along with the ability to engage in critical thought.

I have to admit that i am not very sympathetic to the occupiers. These do not seem to be people wanting freedom, but free stuff. But it also seems to be a hodge podge of extremists, criminals, & unwitting dupes. I am not a fan of banks or financial institutions in general. I am too familiar with history to trust them. They take advantage of people & exploit situations to their advantage.. but who doesn't? I would predict that any of the occupiers who had an opportunity to profit from a current event would do so.. just like our congress does when they are lucky in the stock market, just coincidentally related to a bill they are working on.

I may have to add your last line to my quote list.. It isn't very funny or witty, but it's truth is hard to ignore.

Self reliance is what made America. Dependence is what will kill it. What made us different from the euro states was we didn't look to the king, parliament, or any lords for our sustenance. Just get the hell out of our way, & we'll take care of ourselves, thank you very much. You don't have to go that far back in our history to see it. But that does not seem to be the direction the country is headed. Dependency & free stuff is what we want, now.

This is also the root of our division. It is defined fuzzily by the media, perhaps, but it is still that basic difference: Self reliance vs. Dependence. Small govt. vs. Big govt. Capitalism vs. Socialism.

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Theodore Roosevelt

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

The more that learn to read the less learn how to make a living. That's one thing about a little education. It spoils you for actual work. The more you know the more you think somebody owes you a living.
Will Rogers

My grandfather always said, "Don't watch your money; watch your health." So one day while I was watching my health, someone stole my money. It was my grandfather.
Jackie Mason

There are for sure a bunch of self-entitled whiny brats in my generation unwilling to work in any job they see as beneath them i.e. basically anything in the service industry or outside of the blow-off major they took to just get a degree in college. The sophomore art student who didn't want to do her clean up hours because "My tuition should pay for someone to do this for me." for example. I told her that if sweeping up a studio is too hard that she might consider dropping out of college now because it only gets harder and messier from here...

There are also a lot of people who are just starting to realize that they have been lied to their entire lives about how to get ahead and succeed and are justifiably pissed off to find themselves out of school with a pile of debt and a worthless degree and the only job options available are starting at $8-10/hr and may or may not be full-time and certainly do not offer benefits of any sort. I remember being told for as long as I remember, going back to elementary school, that the way to get ahead was to go to college and get a degree so I can get a good job, and even better I can explore any type of degree that I want! Tests are taken, preference and placement exams, sorting, tracking, etc all put in place to prepare the majority of students for college. Only the lowest achievers were steered into vocational training and then those students were segregated into a centralized vo-tech center. The rest of us were pretty firmly steered into college. A few smart kids, myself included, managed to jump the stream a little and take tech classes (Architectural drafting in my case, I was going to be an Architect or an Engineer and was going to design great and wonderful buildings, the next Frank Lloyd Wright here donchaknow?) but still inevitably ended up in college with the vast majority of my generation.

And here's where the few that have an idea of whats going on start getting pissed off. College tuition has risen dramatically in the last 15 years. My second tier state university, in-state tuition mind you, is close to $4000 a semester, $8000 a year. Before supplies, room and board or rent and food if you live off campus, transportation costs, etc. Go ahead and find me a night and weekend job for a high school grad that pays enough to pay cash for tuition and living expenses. So you get student loans, which just for tuition is $40k in the average 5 years it takes to graduate now. So you come out of college with $40k in debt to get the degree that you've been told since you've been old enough to hear about it that you have to get in order to succeed, and worse the only kind of debt that can't be forgiven by bankruptcy... only to find yourself in a sea of other liberal arts grads with the same worthless degree working the same service sector jobs that even a decade ago didn't require a degree and 25 years ago didn't require a diploma.

Who profits from this? The colleges certainly, increased enrollments lead to more funding or private investment/endowments which means shiny new buildings, sports stadiums, etc. The faculty doesn't of course, most of the tenured professors are being replaced with non-tenured, significantly less experience and more importantly less expensive adjuncts who are there to teach the new and rising hordes of kids who really aren't smart enough to be in higher education but are there anyways. Who else? The banks certainly did, particularly with federally backed loans at moderate interest rates for college students who will now be under the yoke of debt for up to a decade or more before they even get off the ground. Get 'em early and make the profit now after all, instead of waiting to sling them a subprime mortgage with low teaser rates at the beginning that they'll be able to afford while they pay off their student loans to us but will jump to cover the difference once those are paid off. Don't forget the mountain of credit card debt that most 20-somethings accumulate since most have been coddled from birth and have no concept of money. Who else? The politicians and educators at the public and private high schools who've taken the 'easy' road of funneling kids into colleges regardless of ability into college in order to not discriminate instead of taking a hard stance on what kids actually need to learn in order to stay in office and/or stay out of the papers and the like. Parents are to blame as well to a point, by devaluing blue collar work to the point that the trades are stagnant and finding it near impossible to fill their ranks with qualified employees.

I've said it before, and I'll say it here: a liberal arts degree in the 21st century is the new company store.

I'll also agree that the OWS kids really don't know what they want. They just know that they've been duped and don't know what else to do about it because all of that education has no prepared them to actually think. The only reason I'm not out there myself is I realized pretty quickly that if everyone's in college, its going to take more than a degree to succeed and that its all a big shell game to try to get the most money out of me as possible. I am torn on the OWS crowd. Part of me is glad to see my generation finally get pissed off about something and attempt to do something about it. Part of me says GET A DAMN JOB ALREADY! There's plenty of work out there, if you're willing to do it. I've told anyone that wants to listen that protests aren't the way, changing your lifestyle to live within modest means, going without to go without debt, etc is the way to really stick it to wall street. And then start voting for people who give a damn and aren't bought and sold by companies or interest groups. Mostly it falls on deaf ears, and so it goes.

Government regulation has its place. Business has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted to do the right thing. Government has also proven this time and time again as well. It can't fix stupid. It takes an educated, excited, engaged populace to effect change in the system. We have to figure out how to run this country and pay its bills without selling off land to pay down the federal bills like we did in the 19th and early 20th century since its mostly all sold, and without needing a total war in Europe or Asia where we can swoop in as the only party with a healthy and undamaged manufacturing and financial base and profit off their rebuilding.

re: Greed. There is a large difference between greed and profit. Profit is a good and healthy thing and is absolutely necessary. Greed is hurtful and damaging; to the consumer who is raked for more and therefore limited in their future consumption of good and to the company who would rather make a dollar this year than two next year from the same customer. Greed works from the labor side as well, a union that demands compensation in excess of the company's ability to provide without massive risk to its financial well-being is dooming their own jobs to outsourcing at best.

From the banking industry: Profit is the take from a regular mortgage or business loan. Greed is pushing subprime mortgages on lower income families who don't have the means to afford it but are buying a house anyways because Freddie and Fannie say they can, no I'm sorry that they have to but don't worry the Federal government will cover the defaults (probably but not really because its not gonna happen because real estate always goes up right lol) then bundling those shit loans together for sale on the stock market and pulling in the profit from both ends, eventually undermining the world economy to make a few extra dollars today. Profit is providing student loans at reasonable rates to cash strapped students trying to make it through college on their own. Greed is working to convince everyone to go to college and making loans, once again federally backed and subsidized, to everyone for any kind of degree in damn near any amount without looking twice. Greed is seeing tuition rates rise along with the increased easy availability of loans in order to create more money to pay for worthless degrees and bankrupting a generation before it gets out of the gates.

Manufacturing is littered with the corpses of companies who decided to stay the course and wrangle every last cent from an aging design instead of innovating to create the future products that will be in demand. Hello Apple before the iPod and intel processors. Hello domestic auto makers's inability or desire to create a truly good small car. Hello (soon :( ) Eastman Kodak who couldn't make the digital switch.

skierd wrote:

There are for sure a bunch of self-entitled whiny brats in my generation unwilling to work in any job they see as beneath them i.e. basically anything in the service industry or outside of the blow-off major they took to just get a degree in college. The sophomore art student who didn't want to do her clean up hours because "My tuition should pay for someone to do this for me." for example. I told her that if sweeping up a studio is too hard that she might consider dropping out of college now because it only gets harder and messier from here...

There are also a lot of people who are just starting to realize that they have been lied to their entire lives about how to get ahead and succeed and are justifiably pissed off to find themselves out of school with a pile of debt and a worthless degree and the only job options available are starting at $8-10/hr and may or may not be full-time and certainly do not offer benefits of any sort. I remember being told for as long as I remember, going back to elementary school, that the way to get ahead was to go to college and get a degree so I can get a good job, and even better I can explore any type of degree that I want! Tests are taken, preference and placement exams, sorting, tracking, etc all put in place to prepare the majority of students for college. Only the lowest achievers were steered into vocational training and then those students were segregated into a centralized vo-tech center. The rest of us were pretty firmly steered into college. A few smart kids, myself included, managed to jump the stream a little and take tech classes (Architectural drafting in my case, I was going to be an Architect or an Engineer and was going to design great and wonderful buildings, the next Frank Lloyd Wright here donchaknow?) but still inevitably ended up in college with the vast majority of my generation.

And here's where the few that have an idea of whats going on start getting pissed off. College tuition has risen dramatically in the last 15 years. My second tier state university, in-state tuition mind you, is close to $4000 a semester, $8000 a year. Before supplies, room and board or rent and food if you live off campus, transportation costs, etc. Go ahead and find me a night and weekend job for a high school grad that pays enough to pay cash for tuition and living expenses. So you get student loans, which just for tuition is $40k in the average 5 years it takes to graduate now. So you come out of college with $40k in debt to get the degree that you've been told since you've been old enough to hear about it that you have to get in order to succeed, and worse the only kind of debt that can't be forgiven by bankruptcy... only to find yourself in a sea of other liberal arts grads with the same worthless degree working the same service sector jobs that even a decade ago didn't require a degree and 25 years ago didn't require a diploma.

Who profits from this? The colleges certainly, increased enrollments lead to more funding or private investment/endowments which means shiny new buildings, sports stadiums, etc. The faculty doesn't of course, most of the tenured professors are being replaced with non-tenured, significantly less experience and more importantly less expensive adjuncts who are there to teach the new and rising hordes of kids who really aren't smart enough to be in higher education but are there anyways. Who else? The banks certainly did, particularly with federally backed loans at moderate interest rates for college students who will now be under the yoke of debt for up to a decade or more before they even get off the ground. Get 'em early and make the profit now after all, instead of waiting to sling them a subprime mortgage with low teaser rates at the beginning that they'll be able to afford while they pay off their student loans to us but will jump to cover the difference once those are paid off. Don't forget the mountain of credit card debt that most 20-somethings accumulate since most have been coddled from birth and have no concept of money. Who else? The politicians and educators at the public and private high schools who've taken the 'easy' road of funneling kids into colleges regardless of ability into college in order to not discriminate instead of taking a hard stance on what kids actually need to learn in order to stay in office and/or stay out of the papers and the like. Parents are to blame as well to a point, by devaluing blue collar work to the point that the trades are stagnant and finding it near impossible to fill their ranks with qualified employees.

I've said it before, and I'll say it here: a liberal arts degree in the 21st century is the new company store.

I'll also agree that the OWS kids really don't know what they want. They just know that they've been duped and don't know what else to do about it because all of that education has no prepared them to actually think. The only reason I'm not out there myself is I realized pretty quickly that if everyone's in college, its going to take more than a degree to succeed and that its all a big shell game to try to get the most money out of me as possible. I am torn on the OWS crowd. Part of me is glad to see my generation finally get pissed off about something and attempt to do something about it. Part of me says GET A DAMN JOB ALREADY! There's plenty of work out there, if you're willing to do it. I've told anyone that wants to listen that protests aren't the way, changing your lifestyle to live within modest means, going without to go without debt, etc is the way to really stick it to wall street. And then start voting for people who give a damn and aren't bought and sold by companies or interest groups. Mostly it falls on deaf ears, and so it goes.

Government regulation has its place. Business has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted to do the right thing. Government has also proven this time and time again as well. It can't fix stupid. It takes an educated, excited, engaged populace to effect change in the system. We have to figure out how to run this country and pay its bills without selling off land to pay down the federal bills like we did in the 19th and early 20th century since its mostly all sold, and without needing a total war in Europe or Asia where we can swoop in as the only party with a healthy and undamaged manufacturing and financial base and profit off their rebuilding.

re: Greed. There is a large difference between greed and profit. Profit is a good and healthy thing and is absolutely necessary. Greed is hurtful and damaging; to the consumer who is raked for more and therefore limited in their future consumption of good and to the company who would rather make a dollar this year than two next year from the same customer. Greed works from the labor side as well, a union that demands compensation in excess of the company's ability to provide without massive risk to its financial well-being is dooming their own jobs to outsourcing at best.

From the banking industry: Profit is the take from a regular mortgage or business loan. Greed is pushing subprime mortgages on lower income families who don't have the means to afford it but are buying a house anyways because Freddie and Fannie say they can, no I'm sorry that they have to but don't worry the Federal government will cover the defaults (probably but not really because its not gonna happen because real estate always goes up right lol) then bundling those shit loans together for sale on the stock market and pulling in the profit from both ends, eventually undermining the world economy to make a few extra dollars today. Profit is providing student loans at reasonable rates to cash strapped students trying to make it through college on their own. Greed is working to convince everyone to go to college and making loans, once again federally backed and subsidized, to everyone for any kind of degree in damn near any amount without looking twice. Greed is seeing tuition rates rise along with the increased easy availability of loans in order to create more money to pay for worthless degrees and bankrupting a generation before it gets out of the gates.

Manufacturing is littered with the corpses of companies who decided to stay the course and wrangle every last cent from an aging design instead of innovating to create the future products that will be in demand. Hello Apple before the iPod and intel processors. Hello domestic auto makers's inability or desire to create a truly good small car. Hello (soon :( ) Eastman Kodak who couldn't make the digital switch.

This is so insightful it brought a tear to my eye.. I am very impressed with your perception & reasoning abilities.. Well done.

You may think your generation has the most 'self-entitled whiny brats', but they learned it from, & emulated the originators of it: my generation. We were a bunch of spoiled brats who felt the world owed us a living. We learned the principles from our socialistic academic upbringing, then tried to put them into practice. Too few of us too late have realized the mistake & seen through the scam. Now we will leave a massive financial burden on your generation, if we can turn it around. If not, financial collapse & civil war are in the future. History will condemn us for our folly.

+1 on govt. regulation of business. I think this is their primary duty, in order to protect the common man from the powerful money men. But now we see the money people closely linked to our political leaders. They all hang out together, subsidize each other, & keep each other in power. They screw the electorate, & expect to be thanked for watching out for them.

Your comments on education being the new company store are very perceptive! This message needs a wider audience. This kind of critical analysis of the education system is suppressed by the govt/academia/banking/ corporate monolith.

I think the educational system is self-serving, too. They 'require' a certain degree, which they will provide.. for a tidy sum (and rising, as you have pointed out). The degree doesn't really prepare them for the working world they are entering into, but they have co-conspired with big corporations to build their own business & eliminate the competition. It is like the company store, like you said.

I think a lot of what you call 'greed', i would call corruption or criminal activity. If a system works itself into a taxpayer subsidized monopoly, they should not be able to charge whatever they want.. they should not have all the control & management over their monopoly, & they should not have the politicians & bankers in their pocket conspiring together to milk the people. Those would be 'anti trust' activities in the business world, & would be illegal. There would also be numerous 'conflict of interest' laws & issues to address. We have the ability to regulate. We can prosecute criminal behavior. We don't have to scrap the system & go full marxism to find utopia. Our jeffersonian democracy is the envy of history, & we should value it, esteem it, & protect it.

I completely agree: Free market with regulation. That is a good working system that gives the most opportunity & freedom for everyone.

Government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.
Ayn Rand

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
Abraham Lincoln

Opportunity is often missed because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
Thomas Alva Edison

"A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines."
Frank Lloyd Wright

mucker wrote:

Jeez Jag...sounds like you answered a question that nobody asked...though we appreciate you letting us know what's on your mind.
Then again, maybe your thoughts are directly related to this divided people thread...

And... jeez... sounds like the problem is you just don't get it. Though we appreciate hearing your firmly entrenched Canadian smugness and all.

Just sayin'... BTW, how would you rate your knowledge of the US, given all your time in the US and all? Chief source of information the CBC, right?

skierd wrote:

There are for sure a bunch of self-entitled whiny brats in my generation unwilling to work in any job they see as beneath them

Apropos of nothing whatsoever, every generation has a bunch of self-entitled whiny brats: yours, the generation between, mine and Rydnseek's, and undoubtedly our parents' generation as well. It is the whiny brats who get noticed while the others who are getting on with life, pulling their weight, moving forward, go largely unnoticed.

Quote :

There are also a lot of people who are just starting to realize that they have been lied to their entire lives about how to get ahead and succeed and are justifiably pissed off to find themselves out of school with a pile of debt and a worthless degree and the only job options available are starting at $8-10/hr and may or may not be full-time and certainly do not offer benefits of any sort. I remember being told for as long as I remember, going back to elementary school, that the way to get ahead was to go to college and get a degree so I can get a good job, and even better I can explore any type of degree that I want!

We might have to disagree on that.

Does anyone REALLY think that a degree in basket weaving (or criminology in my case) is a sure fire guarantee of a great job when they sign up for that in college? Really? Honestly? I was in my teens and realized that the world wasn't knocking down doors to get at Criminology graduates to offer them six figure incomes. Are those eyeballing liberal arts degrees actually dumb enough to believe their parents and teachers (while at the same time criticizing and disbelieving everything else their elders tell them) that a liberal arts degree is the yellow brick road? If they're actually that dumb, then they're probably earning exactly what they're worth.

I don't buy that they actually believed that liberal arts/criminology/etc degrees were a guaranteed route to financial success. Alternately, if they did, when do you take ownership of your own ignorance and irresponsibility? You shop harder and dig deeper when deciding which laptop or cellphone to buy for Christ's sakes. The guys making big bucks fast now are the same guys who were doing it back when I left high school in the early 70's - the guys who head north to the drill rigs, the mines, who get into trades as electricians, steam engineers, etc. Or the guys who pick the winner degrees; engineers, medicine, nursing. That hasn't changed in 40 years. It will probably be the same 40 years from now when I'm taking the long dirt nap.

Quote :

And here's where the few that have an idea of whats going on start getting pissed off.

My question is this: if they're so smart and are now getting pissed off, why did they opt for dead end degree programs in the first place if they were looking for guaranteed success? I don't regret the criminology degree; I knew it was a roll of the dice but I had strong personal interest in the subject. Still do. But I knew the chances that it would pay for the time and money invested was small indeed. The difference is I didn't get pissed off at the education providers because a pot of gold didn't suddenly appear after I graduated.

Quote :

College tuition has risen dramatically in the last 15 years. My second tier state university, in-state tuition mind you, is close to $4000 a semester, $8000 a year. Before supplies, room and board or rent and food if you live off campus, transportation costs, etc.

Just to add some context here, when I first went to university, tuition was $425 a semester. To add further context, I was being paid the whopping sum of $.85/hr as a full time lifeguard when I left that job to enter the criminology program. Which, incidentally, was more than the minimum wage at the time. Tuition per semester is now ten times as much - but I think I have a fair chance of finding a job paying at least $8.50 an hour as well... ten times as much as I was making back then.

We bitched and held protests about the excessive costs of tuition back then as well, when tuition was $425 a semester. There have been times in between, where society has toyed with the idea of underwriting much of education costs, but tuition being expensive is nothing new.

Quote :

Go ahead and find me a night and weekend job for a high school grad that pays enough to pay cash for tuition and living expenses. So you get student loans, which just for tuition is $40k in the average 5 years it takes to graduate now. So you come out of college with $40k in debt to get the degree that you've been told since you've been old enough to hear about it that you have to get in order to succeed, and worse the only kind of debt that can't be forgiven by bankruptcy... only to find yourself in a sea of other liberal arts grads with the same worthless degree working the same service sector jobs that even a decade ago didn't require a degree and 25 years ago didn't require a diploma.

Ignoring the concept of why anyone would enter a worthless degree program (which I don't believe is worthless no matter what it is), there is the small matter of what criminology and sociology refer to as "deferred gratification". In other words, don't buy something until you can afford it.

Yes, you can plunge straight into university out of high school, run up the debt, toy with low paying jobs, etc. On the other hand, you can also join the military and stay long enough to take advantage of the GI Bill, let the military pay for your degree. Or you can go to the patch, up north, the rigs, whatever, and save money so that you can pay for your education as you go, rather than running up debt. The military, mining, forestry, exploration, etc is full of young men and women with their heads screwed on straight, staying in that work just long enough to save up the money for whatever degree they intend to pursue. Is it as much fun as a job around home, hanging with your buds at the local pub after a day's work? No. Is it a means to quickly save money for college. Or trades pre-training? Or a house? Yes.

The bottom line is nobody forces you to go to college straight out of high school. Any more than nobody forces you to buy a home before you can afford it.

Quote :

Parents are to blame as well to a point, by devaluing blue collar work to the point that the trades are stagnant and finding it near impossible to fill their ranks with qualified employees.

Yes, parents are to blame for devaluing blue collar work. And maybe those whose view of the trades are that it is for those not "smart enough" to be in college or university. When will that tired old stereotype die among the educated intelligensia?

But who made those who opted for coffee course degrees ignore the fact those tradesmen make a pretty damned good buck? When you knowingly pass on where the money is because it isn't good enough for you, you can't complain later in the day that you wuz robbed.

The trades themselves, on the other hand, have only themselves to blame. Industry around here is screaming, for the second time in my lifetime, for government to relax immigration standards so they can do what they did last time around - bring tradesmen in from other countries to fill the gaps. What nobody asks is: "So why have you refused to offer apprenticeships after the last round of immigrant tradesmen"? Industry was happy to offer apprenticeships when government offered to pay the tab with incentive programs for apprenticeships. When government ended those programs, industry by and large quit offering apprenticeships - it was almost impossible to get an apprenticeship around here until a short time ago, and this is an area where mining and the forest industry are heavy in demands for tradesmen. Industry assumed that, once they ran out of tradesmen again and started screaming the blues that there were no workers, that government would once again allow them to import journeyman immigrants en mass. So far government hasn't done that again, and all of a sudden apprenticeships are starting to pop up everywhere.

I am not aware of anywhere in North America where government forbids industry/tradesman from apprenticing people if they so wish. So when those industries start howling they can't find enough qualified employees, the first thing an intelligent person should ask them is "So how many apprentices have you trained in the last ten years?" They want the journeyman, but they don't want the hassle of training the apprentice - that should be somebody else's problem.

Quote :

I'll also agree that the OWS kids really don't know what they want. They just know that they've been duped and don't know what else to do about it because all of that education has no prepared them to actually think.

Looking at the assorted photos of the Occupy Whatever yard apes, we'll have to disagree that they're educated kids who just realized they were duped. Let's see... thinking back to the news stories from assorted Occupy Whatever sites of the last few weeks, we have a drug OD who survived, another who did not, robberies, sexual assaults, a bunch of SEIU union organizers, etc. Flip through the pics of the "protesters" and honestly ask yourself "Would I trust my child to the care of a person that looks like that"? If you wouldn't trust your child to their care, why would you trust your governance to their care?

These are the same losers who were running around when I was their age wearing Che T-shirts and glorifying him as a hero of the common man. They represent 99% of the population? Please... they're self defined losers, for the most part.

Quote :

The only reason I'm not out there myself is I realized pretty quickly that if everyone's in college, its going to take more than a degree to succeed and that its all a big shell game to try to get the most money out of me as possible.

It's not a shell game. It's about choice and competition. I doubt anyone held a gun to your head and forced you to go to college. They certainly didn't point a gun at me, and I've been down the college/university route three times now. Two of those trips were dead ends as far as being a road to financial success goes. On the other hand, they also became stepping stones that aided me with success elsewhere in life.

Furthermore, even if everyone is in college, those who want to succeed will succeed. Because there will always be a percentage of students more interested in bitching at a protest than working their asses off for the grade. Or simply sticking it out long enough to just finish the program

I always tell those who think they are being taken to simply not patronize the takers if they really feel that way. Education costs too much; not worth what they are charging for it? Then go get it cheaper somewhere else or don't go at all - the military will take you with Grade 12 and give you a technical profession. I don't get people who willingly sign on for whatever and then claim it isn't worth it and they are just being taken.

Quote :

I am torn on the OWS crowd. Part of me is glad to see my generation finally get pissed off about something and attempt to do something about it. Part of me says GET A DAMN JOB ALREADY!

I'm not torn at all - you're right in what you say at the end: go occupy a job for Christ's sakes. Other than that, they really don't look any different than the generation before me that I watched "finally pissed off about something". Or my generation "finally pissed off about something". Or the generation after mine "finally pissed off about something".

Quote :

There's plenty of work out there, if you're willing to do it. I've told anyone that wants to listen that protests aren't the way, changing your lifestyle to live within modest means, going without to go without debt, etc is the way to really stick it to wall street.

And how right you are. We have Occupy Whatever going on in two different cities here of a million plus, with five major mines right smack dab in the middle between them. Mines that pay $34/hr to start, with every benefit known to mankind, safe work, not a lot of physical work involved, living in communities that tourists happily pay a thousand a day to come and play in. While the self-designated losers are laying around telling any media person how government and corporations done them wrong, how they can't pay their loans, how they can't get ahead, those mines are desperately trying to find applicants to take new entry positions so they won't fall behind on their shipping quotas due to insufficient productions. They're now making the pitch to government to allow them to bring migrant workers in who are willing to mine.

Obviously, something ain't quite right with this picture, because the Occupy Whatever losers obviously don't want work that bad. But we're supposed to believe they are hard done by.

Quote :

And then start voting for people who give a damn and aren't bought and sold by companies or interest groups... Government regulation has its place. Business has proven time and time again that it can't be trusted to do the right thing.

It is an interesting concept that we can't trust business - but apparently, government has proven itself sufficiently trustworthy that we want it to regulate and control private business. Not to mention with our current administration, starting to take over business sectors.

Interestingly enough, convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff points out in his new book that the very proliferation of government regulation is what makes the lobbyist system viable. Each regulation produces more bureaucrats with more power, and each of them becomes a potential access point to influence government. We try government regulation, things generally get worse, and then the default position becomes "Well, we just didn't go far enough with regulation". That's the kind of thinking that brought us the Community Reinvestment Act, leading in turn to the response of subprime mortgages and derivatives, all presided over by the beaming face of Barney Frank and Company.

Quote :

It takes an educated, excited, engaged populace to effect change in the system.

I think I'm at the point where I can write enough initials after my name (if I so choose) to qualify as being among the educated. And having walked those hallowed halls three times, and having spent more than a few years of my life immersed in the "educated", I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot more educated morons than there are uneducated morons. For one thing, far too many "educated" people are blinded by their own arrogance of just how smart they are. Which leads one to wonder: if they really are so educated and smart... how come they can't figure out how to get themselves out of debt when a rig pig with a grade 10 education is rolling in money?

Beyond that, I've watched three generations of "educated, excited, engaged populace" rampage for change now. I don't see any difference in the lot of them, other than their physical appearance. Occupy Whatever even smells like Haight Ashbury...

Quote :

We have to figure out how to run this country and pay its bills

The answer to that probably lies in the concept of not spending money we don't have, government not getting involved (including taxing and spending) in areas it was never intended to be, and enough with the God-damned entitlement programs already. The concept that government owes you some sort of guaranteed economic outcome, happiness quotient, or whatever is at the root of a whole hell of a lot of this.

Quote :

re: Greed. There is a large difference between greed and profit.

Perhaps so. However, it is not the government's place, nor in its powers, to arbitrarily decide what "greed" is. Monopolies and price fixing, yes. But the last thing we need is a president who hasn't even run a lemonade stand, who gives nearly a trillion dollars to "green" energy companies who promptly make the money disappear and then go bankrupt, with the power to decide what is profit and what is greed.

The only ones who should have that power are the consumers. Or the parties to any contract. And if they are too stupid to figure it out, then maybe their purpose in life is to serve as a bad example of stupidity to others. I don't patronize businesses of any size who I feel are gouging me. I don't need and especially don't want government intervention to hold my hand and do that for me.

Quote :

From the banking industry: Profit is the take from a regular mortgage or business loan. Greed is pushing subprime mortgages on lower income families who don't have the means to afford it but are buying a house anyways because Freddie and Fannie say they can, no I'm sorry that they have to but don't worry the Federal government will cover the defaults (probably but not really because its not gonna happen because real estate always goes up right lol) then bundling those shit loans together for sale on the stock market and pulling in the profit from both ends, eventually undermining the world economy to make a few extra dollars today.

That's one version. Here's another that might be a bit closer to what actually happened.

A president decided that government regulation of business was good, because of the ol' greed versus profit argument. So he created the Community Reinvestment Act, which essentially tells banks they will lend to unqualified borrowers or else the federal government will fuck them over. This is called good government regulation.

So banks had to make x number of loans to these unqualified borrowers to keep the Prez and the Feds off their back. Well, these unqualified borrowers won't borrow even when offered a loan at normal rates. So the number of loans to these poor folks aren't being met. Here comes the sub-prime loan, which eventually becomes the no-money-down-chase-me-around loan. And now loans are happening, the Feds are off the banks case. Of course, they'd much rather be lending that money to commercial customers and normal customers due to much higher return rates, but at least Barney Frank and Co are assuring them they don't have to worry, because the loans are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

Yes, think about that for a moment: if you're a bank all about "greed" - why would you push x amount of dollars out the door at subprime interest rates, much of it with no money down, instead of that same money out the door to qualified borrowers at normal interest rates?

Well, it didn't make a lot of sense to banks either. Even with Barney and the boys assuring the banks that those loans were safe, they were nervous. So they went to the government, and yeah, it was okay to bundle those mortgages and sell them as derivatives - because after all, they were money in the bank. Now a derivative is essentially a purchase of risk. I lend Rydnseek $10. And nine other guys like him $10. Now it doesn't look like Rydnseek and friends will be able to pay; the economy is looking nervous. Skeird comes to me and says "I'll take that $100 promissory notes off your hands for $60; you're going to lose $40, but you know you at least won't lose $100. And best of all, with that money back in your bank, then you can lend it out at normal interest rates and the profit on those will surpass what you lose in selling me those derivatives."

Meanwhile, Skierd's risk and potential profit is that enough of those notes will be paid in full that he will at least make his $60 back along with a bit more, and hopefully all $100 of it - quite a profit percentage wise if that happens.

But these weren't normal derivatives that would have been approached with caution and purchased normally by buyers. Why? Because Barney and the boys eliminated all the risk. So Skierd and other derivative buyers are told over and over again (yes, you can go watch it on CSPAN) that the mortgages making up those derivatives were perfectly secure, and those loans held by Fanny and Freddy (and assumed by banks) were one of the most solid assets the US government had. Backed by the full faith and credit of the US, no less. So to purchasers, there was NO risk. Why WOULDN'T you buy those derivatives? They sold at high prices because what people were essentially buying was a very high paying guaranteed government bond. Except it wasn't of course.

And as the end drew near, Barney and the boys brought even more good government regulations in to oversee the banking industry, allowing Fanny and Freddy to lend even deeper into their minimums. Right up to when the whole thing finally shit the bed.

So these renters who couldn't afford a house and yet became a home owner of a house way outside anything they could afford, what did they lose? In most cases, they lost nothing - no money down, interest rates at what they had been paying for rent, they essentially went back to the lifestyle they had been at before offered the gift of living beyond their means for X number of years. And BTW, when the FBI and insurance industry went digging through the whole sorry mess, they found that there had been mortgage fraud committed by 85% of the people who defaulted on their mortgages: overdeclared income, underdeclared debt, etc. But we don't talk about that; we talk about "greedy bankers". Never about fraudulent borrowers.

Quote :

Profit is providing student loans at reasonable rates to cash strapped students trying to make it through college on their own. Greed is working to convince everyone to go to college and making loans, once again federally backed and subsidized, to everyone for any kind of degree in damn near any amount without looking twice.

So you would prefer having a government bureaucrat with the power to say "No Skierd, we will only lend you money to enter a Licensed Practical Nurse program where you'll be wiping peoples' bums for the rest of your working life, because our society really needs LPNs and we don't think you're smart enough to do the other things on our list of what we'll lend for".

Do I want government with that power? No. Do I think government (taxpayer's money) should be involved in the student loan business in the first place? No. Would I be sorry if student loans disappeared altogether, forcing adults to be responsible with the finances of their education? No - both my wife and myself managed without a single loan.

Quote :

Greed is seeing tuition rates rise along with the increased easy availability of loans in order to create more money to pay for worthless degrees and bankrupting a generation before it gets out of the gates.

Or perhaps... a generation who thinks of themselves as adults, and who demands to be treated as adults, and who has the right to vote, should actually take responsibility for their own choices in both career and lifestyle. At that age, they're a little old to use the excuse that somebody should be holding your hand and protecting them from themselves. If they are truly that disfunctional and childlike to the point of needing protection, shouldn't we be discussing removing their right to vote? The fact they may make incredibly stupid personal choices does not mean everyone else involved is "greedy". That's what in the old days we used to call an "excuse".

Good post, Jager. Nice to see you back. Personal responsibility & self determination are cheering after this one.

I definitely agree with getting the govt out of the student loan (and housing loan, and venture capital loan, etc) business. But i do see an insidious difference in the student loan sector. All the other loans are merely redistribution & simple corruption.. giving taxpayer money to govt fat cats & their cronies. Academia, the politicians, & the money people have conspired together to target young & unsophisticated borrowers with predatory loans. The big caveat they gloss over? You cannot get out of these loans, even with bankruptcy. This is a return to the dark ages, & was inspired & promoted by the socialist left as a means of social engineering & redistribution. So many kids, without parental counsel or approval, since they're 18, trust their academic advisers (who profit by the loans, so there is a conflict of interest, too), & agree to take on massive debt. They do not think about paying it back.. it is just free money! They get their degree in french poetry or music appreciation, & start looking for a job. They cannot make enough to even pay the interest on the loan, yet it keeps accruing penalties & interest. They will not be able to buy a house or any other credit based loan, since they are in default.

Sure, they shouldn't have signed on for a loan like this. But this is a predatory loan if there ever was one, & we have had laws against those for centuries. I think there are solutions.

1. Let the schools & the lenders take a hit. They can drop the amount owed & set up an affordable repayment plan.

2. Let the student give back the degree or credits. They were borrowing to get the paper. Let the academians & the lenders share the default, since it was because of their lending policies targeting young, unsophisticated borrowers. The academic salesmen were selling a product. Let them take it back. They can go to court with the lenders & figure out who loses what.

3. Fire the politicians. They are the ones supposedly watching out for us, protecting us from being exploited by the big money people. Any politicians who promoted or voted for this boondoggle should lose their job. If they got any 'perc's from passing it, they should spend some time in jail.

Don't let schooling interfere with your education.
Mark Twain

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
Thomas Jefferson

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln

I don't believe there is a conspiracy to troll students into predatory student loans. By universities, by financial institutions, or by politicians.

There is an underlying belief system that the more educated you are, the greater your chances of financial and career success in life. And to a large extent, that is true. Part of real life is that not all degree programs are lucrative, but YOU THE STUDENT choose your program, not the school, nor the banks, nor the politicians. Really, did anyone think anyone other than a university would pay them a six figure income for a degree in women's studies? Or criminology?

Universities, their academics, their counsellors, have an almost elitist certainty that a degree is the road to success and fulfilment - it worked for them, did it not? And thus the end justifies the means. If they have a failing, it is in not stressing to these ADULTS, the seriousness of what is being undertaken with a loan. But why is that failing THEIR fault, and not the parents of the students, their peers, high schools, relatives, etc - or (here's a really crazy thought) the responsibility of the student themselves? How can you be a student today, about to sign a loan, and not notice all the students pissing and moaning about the cost and issues with student loans? Why would students not listen to those complaints and research them as deeply as they do the pluses and minuses of respective smartphones, iphone versus Blackberry, etc.? Where's the excuse when they can be the most critical of consumers about relatively frivolous spending, and yet blindingly stupid about some of the most important spending they will do in their lives?

The banks? Can you imagine the outrage if banks had said "We will not make loans to our best and brightest so they can get an education"? The howls and squeals would deafen us all - and government would spring forward to save the day with an equivalent to the CRA to force banks to make those loans.

Greedy big money people? If I forced you to lend $10,000 to somebody, would you choose to lend it to an established commercial customer who put x amount down, or to a student just starting school, with nothing down, promising he'd finish his degree and pay you back? Where is the greater probability of assured profit?

Yes, it is somewhat (but just somewhat) problematic that you can't escape student loans by bankruptcy. I would argue the real problem is it is too easy to escape other debt through bankruptcy. It is an interesting concept to say "Just have them give the credits and degree back". But how do you prevent them from keeping copies to prove what they KNOW - you can't take the knowledge back. If you're in the survey business and a guy comes to you and says "Here's my proof that I had a geomatics degree, a 3.9 GPA, and I'll work for $28 instead of $40 an hour while you bill me out at $80/hr as per usual", is that guy a good catch or what? He can perform to the standard, but you don't have to pay him the standard because he gave back the paper. You get a deal, he gets a pretty good job - and the people who loaned him the money to get that knowledge get screwed. Including those who own shares in that financial institution - like that union pension plan and the little old lady down the street, for example. "Big greedy banks" is an interesting way to describe a vast cross section of Americans who own investments in those institutions, many of them anything but rich people.

If I see a problem here aside from a social movement towards refusing to take personal responsibility for your decisions, it is the rejection of the concept of deferred gratification.

WHY is it so important to get an education before you've achieved the means to pay for it? Is that concept lost on so many these days? If student loans are so expensive, why pretend they are the only way to get an education?

Are the students of today so stupid they don't know about what the GI Bill has to offer as an alternative - not to mention serving your country?

Are the students of today so stupid they don't know a good number of their peers are off working in the patch, up north, etc for a few years making the big bucks before coming back to civilization with a bank account that will cover their entire education and living expenses at the same time?

I don't believe they're that stupid. I think many simply consider student loans the most comfortable way of getting what they want right now, without deferred gratification, and then they piss and moan when it comes time to pay the piper.

We have become a nation of people desperately trying to wash off our own bad choices and lack of personal responsibility as somebody else's fault - never ours. And all the better if we can blame our bad choices and personal failings on academics, "fat cat banks", and politicians. Any group we can demonize and all love to hate. As a nation we need to grow up and start taking pride in personal responsibility, not spending our lives bitching about how we wuz done wrong.

A Convention refugee can arrive in this country with nothing but the clothes on his back, not a pot to piss in, unable to speak English or even Spanish - and most end up making a successful life for themselves in America in relatively short order. And yet our supposed best and brightest, educated here with every perk we can give them, apparently are often doomed to fall by the wayside due to the social inequity our society has inflicted on them.

What the fuck, over?

Jäger wrote:

I don't believe there is a conspiracy to troll students into predatory student loans. By universities, by financial institutions, or by politicians.

I don't think it is an open, cognizant conspiracy, but it functions like & the results are the same as if academia, the banks, & the politicians all agreed in a dark, smoke filled room.

Quote :

There is an underlying belief system that the more educated you are, the greater your chances of financial and career success in life. And to a large extent, that is true. Part of real life is that not all degree programs are lucrative, but YOU THE STUDENT choose your program, not the school, nor the banks, nor the politicians. Really, did anyone think anyone other than a university would pay them a six figure income for a degree in women's studies? Or criminology?

Universities, their academics, their counsellors, have an almost elitist certainty that a degree is the road to success and fulfilment - it worked for them, did it not? And thus the end justifies the means. If they have a failing, it is in not stressing to these ADULTS, the seriousness of what is being undertaken with a loan. But why is that failing THEIR fault, and not the parents of the students, their peers, high schools, relatives, etc - or (here's a really crazy thought) the responsibility of the student themselves? How can you be a student today, about to sign a loan, and not notice all the students pissing and moaning about the cost and issues with student loans? Why would students not listen to those complaints and research them as deeply as they do the pluses and minuses of respective smartphones, iphone versus Blackberry, etc.? Where's the excuse when they can be the most critical of consumers about relatively frivolous spending, and yet blindingly stupid about some of the most important spending they will do in their lives?

The banks? Can you imagine the outrage if banks had said "We will not make loans to our best and brightest so they can get an education"? The howls and squeals would deafen us all - and government would spring forward to save the day with an equivalent to the CRA to force banks to make those loans.

Greedy big money people? If I forced you to lend $10,000 to somebody, would you choose to lend it to an established commercial customer who put x amount down, or to a student just starting school, with nothing down, promising he'd finish his degree and pay you back? Where is the greater probability of assured profit?

Yes, it is somewhat (but just somewhat) problematic that you can't escape student loans by bankruptcy. I would argue the real problem is it is too easy to escape other debt through bankruptcy. It is an interesting concept to say "Just have them give the credits and degree back". But how do you prevent them from keeping copies to prove what they KNOW - you can't take the knowledge back. If you're in the survey business and a guy comes to you and says "Here's my proof that I had a geomatics degree, a 3.9 GPA, and I'll work for $28 instead of $40 an hour while you bill me out at $80/hr as per usual", is that guy a good catch or what? He can perform to the standard, but you don't have to pay him the standard because he gave back the paper. You get a deal, he gets a pretty good job - and the people who loaned him the money to get that knowledge get screwed. Including those who own shares in that financial institution - like that union pension plan and the little old lady down the street, for example. "Big greedy banks" is an interesting way to describe a vast cross section of Americans who own investments in those institutions, many of them anything but rich people.

How clearly was that small detail disclosed? I bet if you asked most school debtors if they knew they could never escape from their loans, even with bankruptcy, they would not know it. I completely agree that people should be responsible, & live within their means. But it has been the school counselors who have promoted the student loan program, selling it with religious fervor to financially unsophisticated borrowers.

The academians have a monopoly on the degree dept. Most corporations don't care if you really know something, they just want the degree.. the paper. Small businesses might take advantage of the educated but paperless students, but the number would be small.. certainly smaller than the mass of students with unmanageable & inescapable debt. I'm very much of a 'buyer beware' open market kind of guy, but these lending practices, targeting young people are inexcusable, & should be illegal. I know of too many idealistic young people with a mountain of school debt & a minimum wage job. I just think the profiteers of the loans.. academia, the politicians, & the banks.. should also share in the results of their scam, & find some way of getting them off the hook... not something for nothing, but how about a little protection from those the students are trusting?

Quote :

If I see a problem here aside from a social movement towards refusing to take personal responsibility for your decisions, it is the rejection of the concept of deferred gratification.

WHY is it so important to get an education before you've achieved the means to pay for it? Is that concept lost on so many these days? If student loans are so expensive, why pretend they are the only way to get an education?

Are the students of today so stupid they don't know about what the GI Bill has to offer as an alternative - not to mention serving your country?

Are the students of today so stupid they don't know a good number of their peers are off working in the patch, up north, etc for a few years making the big bucks before coming back to civilization with a bank account that will cover their entire education and living expenses at the same time?

I don't believe they're that stupid. I think many simply consider student loans the most comfortable way of getting what they want right now, without deferred gratification, and then they piss and moan when it comes time to pay the piper.

We have become a nation of people desperately trying to wash off our own bad choices and lack of personal responsibility as somebody else's fault - never ours. And all the better if we can blame our bad choices and personal failings on academics, "fat cat banks", and politicians. Any group we can demonize and all love to hate. As a nation we need to grow up and start taking pride in personal responsibility, not spending our lives bitching about how we wuz done wrong.

I agree with all you say here. I'm a proponent of taking responsibility & personal freedom. But i think this crosses the line & is a return to dark ages financial practices & indentured servitude. Even the Bible has a year of jubilee to escape from oppressive debt. But not our students. Sure, some of them bought the lie.. they believed their teachers, counselors, parents, media, & countless other voices telling them to 'get an education!' 'THE most important thing ever!' 'It doesn't cost, it pays!' I don't think they should have to bear the whole burden of the scam they bought into. Many of these kids have 40k+ debt, & growing! The interest continues to grow, & they can't even make the minimum payment to cover the interest. The parents suffer, too, when the kids move back home to try & make ends meet. The parents did not take out the loan, or get any use of the money, but they are suffering for what the kid did.

This product did not function as advertised. It should be 'recalled' & money returned, or a class action suit should be filed by those who have been scammed by the vendors of the product. It is not a simple 'caveat emptor', imo. It was false advertising.. bait & switch. The product, which carried an almost universal endorsement, was faulty. The debtors can & should bear responsibility, but so should the profiteers from this scam.

Quote :

A Convention refugee can arrive in this country with nothing but the clothes on his back, not a pot to piss in, unable to speak English or even Spanish - and most end up making a successful life for themselves in America in relatively short order. And yet our supposed best and brightest, educated here with every perk we can give them, apparently are often doomed to fall by the wayside due to the social inequity our society has inflicted on them.

What the fuck, over?

I'm not defending our dainty kids who are too good for hard work. I think they should get out & make their own lives, & not be given this sense of entitlement. But how can we defend or hold unaccountable those who are teaching them how entitled they are, & offering free money to show it? Then they mention later, 'oh, by the way,' you'll never be able to pay this loan off, & you can never escape from it, or the consequences of your massive indebtedness?'

We have to stop the policy, first. ..not let more people be crippled by massive debt & be targets of unscrupulous lenders & salesmen. I do not see any justification for this kind of lending practice. It is immoral, targets naive borrowers, & is not fully disclosed.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
Albert Einstein

A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.
George Bernard Shaw

As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true.
Craig Murray

Wow...

I admit, I'm a bear of very little brain ("Winnie-The-Pooh') and being that simple don't understand all of the nuances of the arguments - Political, financial, social, or otherwise.

I wish my 25 year old had one-half of Skieerd's intellect. As such I'll only hope he turns into the next Eddie Van Halen ( My fault - I influence his interest in music when he was very young).

Form follows function. ...and I see where we are as a product of a system which takes and doesn't give much back. ...and that in many cases, victims of circumstance created the circumstance to become victims.

I only remember one economist (Karl Marx) prediction that follows from success and separations of power (Read: Money) is the eventually the proletariats overthrow the bourgeoisie (Sp?). It's a re-equalization of power from the "Haves" to the "Have nots"

This country is heading to another revolution, and quicker than I ever thought it would. I can see us getting to a place where money is worthless. Re: Mad Max (less a holocost) ?

I can also see all of this discussion taking place in the middle of the desert by a fire. Something between the Three Amigos and Easy Rider.

Merry/Happy to you guys... Thanks for the brain charging.

rydnseek wrote:

I don't think it is an open, cognizant conspiracy, but it functions like & the results are the same as if academia, the banks, & the politicians all agreed in a dark, smoke filled room.

With the student who took the loan and spent the money being a non-sentient being, blown hither and yon by the winds of chance. Our best and brightest, and yet not smart enough to read a legal, financial document - nor even to go to their parents and say "Whaddya think".

Once again, we manage to convince ourselves we have no responsibility for our actions - when they don't turn out well. If we get the loan, and a degree that pays big bucks (I'm thinking of numerous RN's as I type this), then aren't we the smart, hard working professional! But if we choose a degree in the Romantic Languages, or criminology, and then find ourselves flipping burgers, then we wuz done wrong by the world and taken in by a bunch of shysters.

Quote :

How clearly was that small detail disclosed? I bet if you asked most school debtors if they knew they could never escape from their loans, even with bankruptcy, they would not know it.

Shall we ask government to nanny us a bit further by requiring it to be in 18 point font?

Do these "school debtors" become the same people who take on no-money-down-chase-me-around subprime mortgages that they can't pay off a decade, two decades down the road? The ones who max out one credit card after another? The ones who buy toys instead of health insurance? Kind of the same thought processes, don't you think? So if it's all about age, how do we explain the rest of this crowd?

At what chronological age do we stop making excuses for people who are financially irresponsible and then expect either the government (i.e. taxpayers) to pick up the tab or the right to walk away from the debt they've accumulated?

Quote :

But it has been the school counselors who have promoted the student loan program, selling it with religious fervor to financially unsophisticated borrowers.

What should we set as the age at which we presume people to be sophisticated borrowers? If people need protection from their financial ineptitude until such time as they are of the age that makes them sophisticated borrowers, then how about a law that prohibits them from using any kind of credit, taking out any loan, any mortgage, any credit card, until such time as they become of the age where we pronounce them financially sophisticated? We do want to protect them from themselves, right?

Quote :

The academians have a monopoly on the degree dept.

No they don't. You've been able to buy a degree from the back of comic books since I was a child. If you want a degree that means something, then you get a degree from an institution whose track record shows that people holding their degree have value in that field. And again, nobody holds a gun to anybody's head and forces them to undertake a degree program. In many instances, you have to compete for a spot in that program.

Quote :

Most corporations don't care if you really know something, they just want the degree.. the paper.

We'll have to disagree on that. You can be wearing a P.Eng's iron ring, but if your drill and blast patterns keep blowing coal into dust in the wind, you won't last a week. Corporations are about profit - otherwise they don't survive long. If you have the paper but you're incompetent and causing losses, why would you expect the CEO to value you as an employee and keep you around?

Quote :

I'm very much of a 'buyer beware' open market kind of guy, but these lending practices, targeting young people are inexcusable, & should be illegal.

By odd coincidence, most students, and thus most students seeking student loans, are young people.

What "lending practices" - the print isn't big enough? Not understandable by an adult?

Shall we prohibit student loans, and then see what the reaction is with that strategy to protect adults from their own negligence? Can we expect students to jump with joy that they've been prohibited from taking on student loans in the interest of protecting them from themselves?

How about a statutory age of 30 as the point where you're deemed to be financially sophisticated and thus eligible for loans and other forms of credit? Will students thank us for taking that step to protect them from themselves?

What shall we make illegal - requiring people to pay off their debts on a loan that isn't secured? You get a loan for a house, a car, etc - there is some real property you can try to recover if the borrower defaults. How, exactly, does a borrower recoup the loan you defaulted on by taking your knowledge purchased by that loan?

Maybe what we need is a pool of outraged people who will kick in money secured by their houses or whatever, to set up a fund giving student loans. With the exception that THEIR student loans can be escaped by bankruptcy proceedings. If those people think banks and other financial institutions should undertake that risk with student loans, surely they won't mind setting the example by taking on that risk themselves.

Quote :

I know of too many idealistic young people with a mountain of school debt & a minimum wage job. I just think the profiteers of the loans..

I think the proper term is "unrealistic", not "idealistic".

You are amazed that your Masters in Renaissance Art, basket weaving, Eastern Religions, doesn't have employers lined up with job offers paying six figure incomes? Okay, fair enough.

So now you're astonished that a) you were too negligent to read the loan documents, and/or b) you read it, but you figured you'd worry about it once you had your cool degree, and/or c) there's no employment demand for your idealistic/unrealistic degree and/or d) a minimum wage job after a) and b) and c) isn't cutting it.

Okay, you couldn't grasp the concept of delayed gratification when you wanted your basket weaving degree before you could afford to pay for it. So, you wouldn't do the hard stuff to earn the money for the degree before heading for university, and now you refuse to do the hard stuff to pay for it AFTER you have your degree?

Did the military quit hiring once you got your degree? No, that usually makes you an officer candidate. The patch doesn't hire those with degrees for camp work? Not from what I've seen. The mines and pulp mills won't hire somebody with a degree for those entry level positions that pay around $70k plus? Not from what I've seen.

So why is this poor, oppressed student in that minimum wage job instead of any of the alternatives above? Because they're too good for those jobs? Because if they can't find an employment in a position where they can use their degree in Romance Languages, then the only acceptable substitute is a minimum entry job?

Quote :

academia, the politicians, & the banks.. should also share in the results of their scam, & find some way of getting them off the hook... not something for nothing, but how about a little protection from those the students are trusting?

"Scam"???? So, an adult's negligence/indifference means they're being "scammed"? The ones who used those exact same loans to get a profitable degree, they were "scammed" as well?

I really do think we need the outraged to pool their money, offer those unsecured loans to students under whatever terms they think financial institutions should be offering to these poor, financially unsophisticated students. And after six or seven years, see how it has been going for them...

Quote :

IEven the Bible has a year of jubilee to escape from oppressive debt.

The Bible also says that the wicked borrow and do not repay. And that if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life - a parable for those evil universities teaching students what they specifically wanted to study, I suppose.

Quote :

Sure, some of them bought the lie.. they believed their teachers, counselors, parents, media, & countless other voices telling them to 'get an education!' 'THE most important thing ever!' 'It doesn't cost, it pays!' I don't think they should have to bear the whole burden of the scam they bought into.

I'm thinking of all the RN's, the doctors, the engineers, the mining and petroleum technicians, the GIS analysts, the architects, the optometrists, the lawyers, living in poverty because of the scam that had them get student loans, get a degree, and then end up working minimum wage jobs because there is nothing in their chosen field.

It's hard, because I don't know any. But I do know people in all those fields who parlayed a student loan into a successful and well paying career in those fields. I doubt they would agree that they were lied to, just as I doubt they think they were scammed. In fact, as a group I suspect they would have the least amount of sympathy over those who took coffee courses and then are wailing they didn't get a good paying job out of it.

Quote :

The interest continues to grow, & they can't even make the minimum payment to cover the interest. The parents suffer, too, when the kids move back home to try & make ends meet. The parents did not take out the loan, or get any use of the money, but they are suffering for what the kid did.

So not only do we have a young adult too stupid/negligent/lazy to make intelligent program choices or read a financial contract, or head to the patch or up North, or the military, or overseas to pay their debt. We also have parents too stupid/negligent to advice their children on their career choices, review a major financial document with them - or tell their kids to quit sucking off them at home while they work a comfy minimum wage job, and instead pack their workboots and head where the work is.

What a surprise what those parents begat. Like parent, like child. Kind of all fits together.

Quote :

This product did not function as advertised. It should be 'recalled' & money returned, or a class action suit should be filed by those who have been scammed by the vendors of the product.

You can't recall a faulty brain and negligent decisions. I suppose that does leave as the only option attempting to foist responsibility off on anyone BUT the person who chose the program, chose the loan, chose to not wait until they had saved enough money to pay for their education out of their own pocket.

Quote :

It is not a simple 'caveat emptor', imo. It was false advertising.. bait & switch.

"bait & switch"???? What university calendar can you refer us to where the university guarantees students well paying jobs and don't deliver?

Quote :

The product, which carried an almost universal endorsement, was faulty.

Yes, we usually view students positively. However, we can't guarantee that every student is a product that will make intelligent choices, act responsibly, and pay at least as much attention to the terms of a major financial document as they do to comparing different cell phone service plans.

Quote :

I'm not defending our dainty kids who are too good for hard work.

But you are.

You've repeatedly mentioned young adults with student loan debt, stuck in minimum wage jobs, remember?

Give us your best guess as to what percentage of those students could say "I looked for work in the patch, camp work up north, in the mines and pulp mills, the military, instead of hanging around my home town stuck in a minimum wage job, but none of them would hire me". Ideally, both before and after their degree, second best before they took the loan and started the degree, and worst choice, once they were done without a decent job and in a minimum wage position.

What percentage will you offer us. I'll say I don't think even 1% could honestly say that. The mines here are bringing in Jamaicans, to work in jobs that start at $34/hr, because they can't get enough people. Jobs that entail driving a truck, in a community that people flock to to ski in the winter and flyfish and golf in the summer. Give us your number.

Quote :

But how can we defend or hold unaccountable those who are teaching them how entitled they are, & offering free money to show it? Then they mention later, 'oh, by the way,' you'll never be able to pay this loan off, & you can never escape from it, or the consequences of your massive indebtedness?'

If the terms of your loan are news to you, if you're too fucking lazy to get off your ass and go where the work will let you pay your debt off quickly, then I think you're employed just about exactly at the level that you deserve to be at. Claiming that level of ignorance as a university graduate is a bit hard to swallow.

Quote :

We have to stop the policy, first. ..not let more people be crippled by massive debt & be targets of unscrupulous lenders & salesmen. I do not see any justification for this kind of lending practice. It is immoral, targets naive borrowers, & is not fully disclosed.

Which brings us back to the original question:

Up to what chronological age do we prohibit them from borrowing money, having credit cards, or using any kind of credit? And if they're actually that stupid and underdeveloped as adults, shouldn't we also raise the voting age to the same age as well? Maybe even prohibit them from starting a university program as well?

After all, if you're too childish, immature, and stupid to read the terms of a loan and ask questions, the safest thing to do is to prohibit you from entering into credit agreements. For your own good of course - you can thank us later. And if you can't make even baseline intelligent decisions about credit, clearly it isn't possible for you to make an informed choice while voting, so we should move the voting age up to the age of financial responsibility. And most of all, if you're not mature enough to intelligently enter into financial arrangements, how in the world can you be intelligent and mature enough to make a considered choice about what you're going to do with the next four years of your life?

Clearly, this is a job for Barack Obama.

X-Racer wrote:

I only remember one economist (Karl Marx) prediction that follows from success and separations of power (Read: Money) is the eventually the proletariats overthrow the bourgeoisie (Sp?). It's a re-equalization of power from the "Haves" to the "Have nots"

This would be the same Karl Marx that we now know obsessively played the stock markets, correct?

An example of a country where Marxism has been a success would be most instructive at this juncture.

Quote :

This country is heading to another revolution, and quicker than I ever thought it would.

At the hands of who? Those so unmotivated they won't even go North, to the patch, etc where big money jobs that would solve all their financial woes are going begging?

Don't think so.

Local Native band leader told a little story about his mother lately. He was talking with her about the problems of unemployed Native youths. This is an old woman who worked traplines in the North while carrying newborn infants with her. Here's what he said his Mom told him:

"Fly them all to Afghanistan. Kick them out of the airplane. The ones who make it home are the keepers."

Smart old lady.

I think we are getting off topic, Jager.. perhaps we need to split off into another thread regarding free market regulations, which is what i see the student loan program as being under.

I think most of the 'division' in america is more philosophical.. we are choosing between federalism/statism/socialism on the one side, & states rights/personal responsibility/free markets, on the other. It is my contention that the free market is a better system for a nation such as the us. With our size, diversity, & population, a smaller socialistic state model doesn't work. We cannot just plug the successes of sweden or norway into the us & expect it to work. There are too many variables.

But i am in favor of simple, fair regulations for the free market, otherwise we will have unscrupulous exploiters who will take advantage of people, & use their wealth & power to oppress the common man. These regulations are pretty simple.. child labor laws, truth in lending, full disclosure, insider trading, etc. Most have been around a long time, & arose from necessity. There is a risk of the state overstepping its bounds & using the power of the govt to pick winners, as was done in railroads in previous centuries, and more recently in defense contracts, 'green' industry lending, bank & corporate bailouts, etc. Better oversight & checks & balances can offset those problems. Corruption can never be fully eliminated, but we can try to keep it down, & not let it flourish like it has been doing lately.

Balance is necessary. We cannot thrive in unregulated free markets, where the money people can run roughshod over the common people, but neither can we have excessive regulations where the state is managing to the point of being socialistic. I believe the founders of america came upon a good system of checks & balances, & a balance of power. It maximizes freedom for the individual, while encouraging entrepreneurial ventures. I do not want to see the socialist policies take over in the us, with the left claiming capitalism & open markets have failed. It is not free market & capitalism that has us in $15t debt & rising. It has been socialistic programs & policies. Let us phase those out, since they are bankrupting us, return to a more balanced approach with more power given to the states, & let the federal govt stick to international & interstate affairs, not micromanaging every aspect of the individual's life.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well-administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
Benjamin Franklin

"If I were asked the difference between Socialism and Communism, I could only reply that the Socialist tries to lead us to disaster by foolish words and the Communist could try to drive us there by violent deeds."
Winston Churchill

rydnseek wrote:

I think we are getting off topic, Jager.. perhaps we need to split off into another thread regarding free market regulations, which is what i see the student loan program as being under.

Putting the words "free market" in conjunction with the word "regulations" for that market seems to be a logical fallacy, don't you think?

While I don't believe that regulation should be totally eliminated in the interests of having a truly free "free market", the sheer volume of just federal regulations ensures that what we have in America is anything but free markets. Would anyone care to argue that point?

"Fair, just, and 'necessary'" free market regulations brought us the CRA. And yet people rant of where "unregulated" banking took us. Forcing banks to give mortgages and loans to unqualified borrowers is "unregulated" banking? And when it all collapses on itself, it's the "greedy banks" fault? While our resident leftists and statists don't understand the links between the CRA and the collapse of the housing/financial sector, I don't think that applies to you.

It also says much to me that Jack Abramoff pointed out that all those "free market regulations" are what create opportunities for lobbyists to influence the governance of the country, whether they are lobbyists for business, unions, environmentalists, other NGOs - whoever. The rights of freedom of speech and association mandate that, without question, the model of lobbying is a fundamental freedom for those who choose to exercise it - but that doesn't mean we have to provide such a fertile environment in which it can thrive.

Moving on, while we could certainly have any other thread you care to pursue - gladly - but I think this is very much on topic. Because, as I see it, this is what defines where limited government, fiscal accountability (government or individual) and personal responsibility end, and where the government nanny state begins, where people can use the excuse they weren't financially sophisticated enough so shouldn't be responsible for the debts they voluntarily incurred, where somebody else is to blame for their station in life, not their own choices and efforts.

Quote :

I think most of the 'division' in america is more philosophical.. we are choosing between federalism/statism/socialism on the one side, & states rights/personal responsibility/free markets, on the other.

I agree. Except it isn't just a philosophical discussion - it is reality, it is how we are governed. Including free markets which are anything but free. Where phrases like "greedy banks" are thrown around haphazardly as though unquestionable fact, without ever a mention of the free market regulations like the CRA which obligated them to make loans at subprime rates to unqualified borrowers, without ever a mention that banks are nowhere near the top as far as ROE goes, without ever a mention that mortgage fraud on the part of borrowers was around 85% during the collapse of the housing market - what about criminal borrowers? How often do you see a news story or an individual posting about this issue on the Internet mentioning that apparently insignificant fact?

Quote :

But i am in favor of simple, fair regulations for the free market, otherwise we will have unscrupulous exploiters who will take advantage of people, & use their wealth & power to oppress the common man.

Yes. Thank God for the CRA, right? That one was all about fairness - the American Dream, remember. And it allowed 85% of those whose mortgages failed to commit mortgage fraud in the loans they got from those unscrupulously exploitative financial institutions. Funny how that doesn't get much press...

Quote :

These regulations are pretty simple.. child labor laws, truth in lending, full disclosure, insider trading, etc.

Those regulations are anything but simple, especially once those within and who profit from the lobbyist industry finish having their say to ensure that they they can continue to use the rights of freedom of expression and association to buy influence in government in how those "simple, fair regulations" are used for the "free" market.

Take the "unregulated/deregulated" banks for example. Anybody want to venture a guess at how little regulation we have applying to financial institutions - including those which apply to the student loans they put out?

No? Let me offer a few hints:

1. Community Reinvestment Act
   
2. Bank Secrecy Act
   
3. Equal Credit Opportunity Act
   
4. Glass–Steagall Act - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
   
5. Federal Reserve Board
   
6. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
   
7. Office of Thrift Supervision
   
8. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
   
9. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
   
10. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
    
11. Credit CARD Act
    
12. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
    
13. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
    
14. Electronic Fund Transfer Act
    
15. Truth in Lending Act
    
16. National Credit Union Administration
    
17. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
    
18. USA PATRIOT Act
    
19. Truth in Savings Act
    
20. Expedited Funds Availability Act
    
21. Office of Foreign Assets Control
    
22. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
    
23. Fair Credit Reporting Act
    
24. Bank Holding Company Act
    

What's that... about 24 different pieces of regulations dealing with the "unregulated" financial industry? Those who actually know something about the "unregulated" financial free market will notice those are just pieces of federal legislation - after that, there's state and sometimes local regulation as well.

Quote :

Most have been around a long time, & arose from necessity. There is a risk of the state overstepping its bounds & using the power of the govt to pick winners, as was done in railroads in previous centuries, and more recently in defense contracts, 'green' industry lending, bank & corporate bailouts, etc.

You forgot the power of govt to pick winners in the populace, AKA entitlement programs. Not to mention making individual financial losers into winners by interceding on their behalf when they make irresponsible financial decisions. Why is that always get overlooked when we talk about the government "picking winners"?

Quote :

Better oversight & checks & balances can offset those problems.

Like all that bank regulation above, you mean?

Would you care to offer us your best guess as to how many individual pieces of federal government legislation - replete with it's own army of managers and federal worker bees (mean salary for all including the lowliest clerk: about $80k per annum) - we would need to achieve the nirvana of balance with the evil banking industry? 50? 75? 100? We'll talk state legislation later...

Quote :

Corruption can never be fully eliminated, but we can try to keep it down, & not let it flourish like it has been doing lately.

Here's a crazy thought: maybe if we weren't so obsessed with "fairness" - where the starting presumption is that the individual MUST be the victim because evil banks/money people are abusing them, never the opposite - we wouldn't have an enormous bureaucracy increasingly controlling every element of our lives, and providing an unlimited and fertile ground for unelected lobbists of all persuasions to play in.

Quote :

We cannot thrive in unregulated free markets, where the money people can run roughshod over the common people, but neither can we have excessive regulations where the state is managing to the point of being socialistic.

Interesting. You've repeatedly hit on the idea that the poor, dumb, common people are abused by the money people, apparently lacking intellect, common sense, access to those who can provide legal advice. I just listed over 20 federal acts regulating the unregulated financial 'free' market sector, and yet you (and many others) apparently believe the common man is run roughshod over by banks.

Why is that "unregulated"?

How many federal financial regulatory acts would it take to satisfy you that the common people are protected if... what, 24?... regulatory acts aren't enough?

Given that the FBI determined that about 85% of the defaulted mortgages during the housing collapse had mortgage fraud in the application for the mortgage, what more do you suggest we need to protect those individuals committing mortgage fraud - they understood the mortgage well enough to commit fraud, after all?

When does it become excessive regulation in your mind if 24 federal acts and counting, plus state regulations, plus local regulations, etc isn't enough?

Should we have some more regulatory acts to (another crazy thought) protect the unregulated financial sector from the unsophisticated common man committing fraud to obtain loans and then defaulting, swiftly followed by a bankruptcy to avoid financial responsibility. (I'd suggest that when you run a fraud scam like that, you're sophisticated enough to be held financially responsible, if not criminally, and don't need protective regulations and government picks of individual winners for the common man).

Quote :

I believe the founders of america came upon a good system of checks & balances, & a balance of power. It maximizes freedom for the individual, while encouraging entrepreneurial ventures.

I tend to agree. Particularly when looking at how little they meddled in the private sector, and in how much they expected and assumed individuals would take responsibility for themselves and their actions. What we have been doing for the last 80 years or so bears no resemblance to that.

Quote :

Let us phase those out, since they are bankrupting us, return to a more balanced approach with more power given to the states, & let the federal govt stick to international & interstate affairs, not micromanaging every aspect of the individual's life.

Fair enough. But if the handoff is then to the states to micromanage... the financial affairs of students for example... just what will the difference be at the end of the day as far as freedom and a presumption of personal responsibility goes, not to mention government interference in the unfree market?

Jäger wrote:

Take the "unregulated/deregulated" banks for example. Anybody want to venture a guess at how little regulation we have applying to financial institutions - including those which apply to the student loans they put out?

No? Let me offer a few hints:

1. Community Reinvestment Act
   
2. Bank Secrecy Act
   
3. Equal Credit Opportunity Act
   
4. Glass–Steagall Act - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
   
5. Federal Reserve Board
   
6. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
   
7. Office of Thrift Supervision
   
8. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
   
9. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
   
10. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
    
11. Credit CARD Act
    
12. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
    
13. Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
    
14. Electronic Fund Transfer Act
    
15. Truth in Lending Act
    
16. National Credit Union Administration
    
17. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
    
18. USA PATRIOT Act
    
19. Truth in Savings Act
    
20. Expedited Funds Availability Act
    
21. Office of Foreign Assets Control
    
22. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
    
23. Fair Credit Reporting Act
    
24. Bank Holding Company Act
    

What's that... about 24 different pieces of regulations dealing with the "unregulated" financial industry? Those who actually know something about the "unregulated" financial free market will notice those are just pieces of federal legislation - after that, there's state and sometimes local regulation as well.

Where are the statists when you need them? We're not arguing, we're agreeing. We need some rabid socialists to promote the practices of the current regulatory mess. I am suggesting returning to a simpler, fairer regulatory climate. I do not espouse unregulated markets.. i think some at the federal level are necessary & good to protect the people from industrial revolution era practices, & balance between the states. But i definitely don't think the current climate is good for the individual or business. It is based more on crony capitalism, where the politicians set up conditions where their guy makes the money, & open competition is not furthered.

Quote :

Quote :

Most have been around a long time, & arose from necessity. There is a risk of the state overstepping its bounds & using the power of the govt to pick winners, as was done in railroads in previous centuries, and more recently in defense contracts, 'green' industry lending, bank & corporate bailouts, etc.

You forgot the power of govt to pick winners in the populace, AKA entitlement programs. Not to mention making individual financial losers into winners by interceding on their behalf when they make irresponsible financial decisions. Why is that always get overlooked when we talk about the government "picking winners"?

Quote :

Better oversight & checks & balances can offset those problems.

Like all that bank regulation above, you mean?

Would you care to offer us your best guess as to how many individual pieces of federal government legislation - replete with it's own army of managers and federal worker bees (mean salary for all including the lowliest clerk: about $80k per annum) - we would need to achieve the nirvana of balance with the evil banking industry? 50? 75? 100? We'll talk state legislation later...

I believe, perhaps naively, that we can have a govt that allows industry to prosper, while protecting its citizens from the unscrupulous. At this point, i am happy to just get the feds out of the picture with their massive regulations.. the states also have that problem. But they also have to compete, & if a certain state begins to choke business with excessive regulations, companies can move to another state. That happens with countries, too, which is why the us needs to be competitive with business on the federal level.. simpler, fairer regulations. Businesses don't mind fair, evenly enforced regulations that protect the individual.

Quote :

Quote :

Corruption can never be fully eliminated, but we can try to keep it down, & not let it flourish like it has been doing lately.

Here's a crazy thought: maybe if we weren't so obsessed with "fairness" - where the starting presumption is that the individual MUST be the victim because evil banks/money people are abusing them, never the opposite - we wouldn't have an enormous bureaucracy increasingly controlling every element of our lives, and providing an unlimited and fertile ground for unelected lobbists of all persuasions to play in.

My premise is that the current regulatory climate is NOT fair.. businesses are being choked with regulations.. the current use of regulation is not to protect the individual, but to promote socialist endeavors. We CAN provide a climate that is fair to BOTH business & the individual. We would not need the bureaucracy, either.

Quote :

Quote :

I believe the founders of america came upon a good system of checks & balances, & a balance of power. It maximizes freedom for the individual, while encouraging entrepreneurial ventures.

I tend to agree. Particularly when looking at how little they meddled in the private sector, and in how much they expected and assumed individuals would take responsibility for themselves and their actions. What we have been doing for the last 80 years or so bears no resemblance to that.

See? we are in agreement. It is possible to have simple regulations.. it is not a bad word.. child labor laws, etc. I am in no way promoting the mess we have now, or suggesting we build regulation upon regulation. Simpler & fewer is best. The more complex it is, the more lawyers & shysters take advantage of loopholes or lobby for specific industries.

Quote :

Quote :

Let us phase those out, since they are bankrupting us, return to a more balanced approach with more power given to the states, & let the federal govt stick to international & interstate affairs, not micromanaging every aspect of the individual's life.

Fair enough. But if the handoff is then to the states to micromanage... the financial affairs of students for example... just what will the difference be at the end of the day as far as freedom and a presumption of personal responsibility goes, not to mention government interference in the unfree market?

States are another issues.. each state, imo, needs to come to grips with their own situation, & not just elect gravy train promoters. That is a problem we have with our electorate. We do not, as a nation, consider what is wise, efficient, or frugal, but what us & our'n get from the politicians. At least if we limit these excesses to state govts, they have to live within a balanced budget (or go bankrupt), & they have to compete with other states for both businesses & the labor pool. Some states, like Tx & Ca got some benefit from cheap labor by encouraging illegal immigration.. come to our state, no penalties, lots of work! Many businesses took advantage of that, & made money for a while.

..and what is the deal with the statists here? Surely you guys aren't afraid of Jager.. you dish it out, he dishes it back.. you can still make your points & promote any leftist ideals. I think it would be very cool if we could discuss things without the personal jabs, but i understand that a lot of people think that is the fun part.

But at what point do regulations become oppressive? At what point are they desirable? Are all regulations evil? Good? This is another topic, but the current one seems to be worn out or too boring.

Quote... .. the current use of regulation is not to protect the individual, but to promote socialist endeavors.

A socialist would not agree that is true...that would not resonate with a true, socialist , struggle.
Just; as I assume, it would not resonate well with a capitalist.

I think, in general,we all want similar things in life...we just disagree, mostly, on how we should go about accomplishing it.

Noboby wishes to do poorly...unless they are insane...

Everybody argues the truth...

I wish us all well...knowing the truth will set us free.

Our current governments do their best to deal with one issue at at time, today...mean while ,tomorrow brings the unknown...

Seems that dealing with the electorate is more important than the issues themselves.

This is the biggest problem I see with democracy....and I'm not the first to ask, does the majority , always, choose what is best, for the majority?

Almost ends in a mob mentality...if you let your imagination see it.

We all want a say in our concerns....but we all, can't be in charge...

Therefore, we should hope that our leaders have lived up to our minimum requirements...while not being to sterile to move us forward.

I assume we can agree that this planet needs to move forward...even, if how, is still debated.

To fight over the scraps seems pointless...on a historic level.

Our species is part of nature and the history we have observed...to deny nature or history, is a , lone, venture, in itself.

Comfort, should be second to basic need. I see democracy/capitalism addressing comfort, before needs.