219 - 212

[Azazello1313]

Well, it's a pretty distinct spread and if you look at the link it was consistent across the board. At best, the public was only marginally opposed.

 

My issue, frankly, is with how reliable it is to poll the public on something that has been so damned confusing, ever shifting, and riddled with rhetoric as this whole mess has been. Who among those polled has actually looked into the issue at hand, understands the details and is making an informed opinion? My guess is, compared to how many are either starry-eyed Obama fans or hateful Rush backers who'll just say "no" to anything he puts up, it's quite low.

 

And I'm not saying this in defense of the bill because, honestly, I'd be lying if I could say that this is certainly a good thing. I still have no idea at all (not for lack of effort, mind you). I'm just saying that my faith in what my fellow American is using to base his/her opinion on in these matters is at an all time low.

 

there is stupidity and demagoguery on both sides. I mean yeah, there's people buying whatever shallow nonsense rush and palin are spouting, but then you also have obama, whose only talking point on this bill lately has been demonizing the isurance and spam industries (industries that mostly SUPPORT the bill, and why wouldn't they, as this basically creates trillions in new subsidies and corporate welfare for them). the morons on both sides tend to cancel each other out.

 

the truth is, people in general know a lot more about this issue than they did, say, a couple years ago. and as specific proposals have come to light and been debated, public opinion has moved decisively in one direction.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Well, it's a pretty distinct spread and if you look at the link it was consistent across the board. At best, the public was only marginally opposed.

 

My issue, frankly, is with how reliable it is to poll the public on something that has been so damned confusing, ever shifting, and riddled with rhetoric as this whole mess has been. Who among those polled has actually looked into the issue at hand, understands the details and is making an informed opinion? My guess is, compared to how many are either starry-eyed Obama fans or hateful Rush backers who'll just say "no" to anything he puts up, it's quite low.

 

And I'm not saying this in defense of the bill because, honestly, I'd be lying if I could say that this is certainly a good thing. I still have no idea at all (not for lack of effort, mind you). I'm just saying that my faith in what my fellow American is using to base his/her opinion on in these matters is at an all time low.

 

agreed

[Brentastic]

just another way in this bill for the government to take money from the young and healthy (and relatively poor) to pay for the old and sick (and relatively well-off).

Pretty much. I am baffled by so many huddlers, who I think of as intelligent people, that believe our government is serving the people. Newsflash They aren't. The government is only serving it's own financial interest. Here's what the bill does for our trusty govt:

 

The govt now borrows money at a very low rate (about 25 basis points or 0.25%) but will charge students upwards of 6.8% (grad stafford loans) and 8.5% to parents (parent plus loans), yet they want everyone to believe this new bill will help students afford school but it does nothing for the students. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. OTOH, lenders such as my employer make a very small margin (about 84 basis points or 0.85%) on these loans while offering interest rate reductions on those loans (on-time payments, paying through ACH - will lower your rate). Direct Lending offers none of these rate reductions.

[Brentastic]

How is there no advantage to students by getting subsidized interest from the government? How is their no advantage to the banks by receiving this interest, many times on loans that would not even have been taken out if not for the subsidization of the interest?

The subsidized interest is an entitlement by the goverment no matter who the loan is through. Regardless of whether or not you get your loan through direct lending (DOE) or my company, your subsidized interest accrued is paid by the government. The way it works, is that the interest accrues and the government pays this interest for the student. The Stafford loan consists of subsidized and unsubsidized and is the primary loan for students. Most students must take out both sub and unsub because of the very high school costs. Removing private lending reduces options for the students - and primarily that means, removing interest rate reductions provided by private lenders only (since the DOE does not offer said reductions).

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Pretty much. I am baffled by so many huddlers, who I think of as intelligent people, that believe our government is serving the people. Newsflash They aren't. The government is only serving it's own financial interest. Here's what the bill does for our trusty govt:

 

The govt now borrows money at a very low rate (about 25 basis points or 0.25%) but will charge students upwards of 6.8% (grad stafford loans) and 8.5% to parents (parent plus loans), yet they want everyone to believe this new bill will help students afford school but it does nothing for the students. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. OTOH, lenders such as my employer make a very small margin (about 84 basis points or 0.85%) on these loans while offering interest rate reductions on those loans (on-time payments, paying through ACH - will lower your rate). Direct Lending offers none of these rate reductions.

 

Educate me on this bill. Does it outlaw all education loans from banks to students? Or does it only remove the servicing of the federal stafford type loans from the banks? If it only does the latter, why don't the banks continue to lend at a lower rate and undercut this supposedly inferior government loans?

[detlef]

there is stupidity and demagoguery on both sides. I mean yeah, there's people buying whatever shallow nonsense rush and palin are spouting, but then you also have obama, whose only talking point on this bill lately has been demonizing the isurance and spam industries (industries that mostly SUPPORT the bill, and why wouldn't they, as this basically creates trillions in new subsidies and corporate welfare for them). the morons on both sides tend to cancel each other out.

 

the truth is, people in general know a lot more about this issue than they did, say, a couple years ago. and as specific proposals have come to light and been debated, public opinion has moved decisively in one direction.

You will note that I made a point of recognizing the "stupidity and demagoguery" on both sides.

 

Thing is, I don't think I can take your word on the "truth" that people in general know more about this than they did a few years ago. They've heard a lot more about it, that's for sure. Thing is, regardless of what side you're on, you're getting a pre-digested and agenda laced version of what info you're getting. Both sides have too much at stake to give it to you straight. So, you've got a combination of lawmakers acting like trial lawyers, pundits stating opinion as fact, and people not thinking much at all. That doesn't smell much to me like people, in general, are at all well informed on this issue.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

You will note that I made a point of recognizing the "stupidity and demagoguery" on both sides.

 

Thing is, I don't think I can take your word on the "truth" that people in general know more about this than they did a few years ago. They've heard a lot more about it, that's for sure. Thing is, regardless of what side you're on, you're getting a pre-digested and agenda laced version of what info you're getting. Both sides have too much at stake to give it to you straight. So, you've got a combination of lawmakers acting like trial lawyers, pundits stating opinion as fact, and people not thinking much at all. That doesn't smell much to me like people, in general, are at all well informed on this issue.

 

I'll put the over/under on how many people outside of Washington that have read all 2,500 pages at about 100.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Educate me on this bill. Does it outlaw all education loans from banks to students? Or does it only remove the servicing of the federal stafford type loans from the banks? If it only does the latter, why don't the banks continue to lend at a lower rate and undercut this supposedly inferior government loans?

 

 

I doubt if these banks want the business once they no longer have the gov backing up the loans in case of default.

[Brentastic]

Educate me on this bill. Does it outlaw all education loans from banks to students? Or does it only remove the servicing of the federal stafford type loans from the banks? If it only does the latter, why don't the banks continue to lend at a lower rate and undercut this supposedly inferior government loans?

The bill eliminates the FFELP program - which are federally guaranteed loans. The only option now for lenders is private loans which must carry a higher rate, and therefore, less desireable for students. The rate must be higher because of the added risk to the lender (no guarantee). See, the government guarantees 97% on FFELP loans because they have the ability to garnish wages should a borrower neglect payment. Private lenders don't carry that right, and therefore private loans are riskier. Also, the federal loans offer certain entitlements to the student borrowers, making them more appealing.

 

Lenders will continue to lend private loans for additional school costs but the majority of loans will be made in the form of stafford loans because of their flexibility. Why do you think the government should have a monopoly over such an enormous industry?

 

Like people who are into Harley Davidson motorcycles and clothing - being solely devoted to a particular political party is an image thing. We the people need to take control of our country again. Get involved, read the details, make informed decisions. I'm guilty of failing to do this too but there needs to be a MASSIVE overhaul of our political system if we ever intend on surviving as a great country based on freedom.

[Azazello1313]

You will note that I made a point of recognizing the "stupidity and demagoguery" on both sides.

 

Thing is, I don't think I can take your word on the "truth" that people in general know more about this than they did a few years ago. They've heard a lot more about it, that's for sure. Thing is, regardless of what side you're on, you're getting a pre-digested and agenda laced version of what info you're getting. Both sides have too much at stake to give it to you straight. So, you've got a combination of lawmakers acting like trial lawyers, pundits stating opinion as fact, and people not thinking much at all. That doesn't smell much to me like people, in general, are at all well informed on this issue.

 

that's like saying that, at the end of a trial in which you were a juror, you don't know any more about the facts of the case than you did at the beginning. after all, the people who informed you about the case were both advocates giving you an "agenda-laced" version of the facts, both of whom have far too much at stake to "give it to you straight".

 

there are many in our society who will only listen to the argument given by the plaintiff's attorney, and many who will only listen to the defense. but there are a lot who will, to the best of their intellectual capacity, listen to both sides and render an appropriate judgment.

[Brentastic]

I doubt if these banks want the business once they no longer have the gov backing up the loans in case of default.

Exactly - it makes it a much more risky investment for lenders. The goverment has the power of garnishing wages, so they will get theirs regardless of default or not. The rate of default on private loans have increased dramatically over the last few years, so private loans must carry a pretty heafty rate to compensate for the risk.

[gbpfan1231]

Exactly - it makes it a much more risky investment for lenders. The goverment has the power of garnishing wages, so they will get theirs regardless of default or not. The rate of default on private loans have increased dramatically over the last few years, so private loans must carry a pretty heafty rate to compensate for the risk.

Brent - why is this part of the bill at all? I am confused and don't see the connection to health care?

[Azazello1313]

The bill eliminates the FFELP program - which are federally guaranteed loans. The only option now for lenders is private loans which must carry a higher rate, and therefore, less desireable for students. The rate must be higher because of the added risk to the lender (no guarantee). See, the government guarantees 97% on FFELP loans because they have the ability to garnish wages should a borrower neglect payment. Private lenders don't carry that right, and therefore private loans are riskier. Also, the federal loans offer certain entitlements to the student borrowers, making them more appealing.

 

right, the government "competes" by having taxpayers underwrite all of the risk and using their coercive power to reduce that risk. this is how goverment always "competes" in the marketplace.

 

In a way, I kind of understand the logic of, if the government is going to subsidize all of the risk, they ought to also incur the benefit, otherwise it essentially IS a handout to the banks making these loans. but, removing that private element from the existing structure IS going to reduce competition in this arena in a way that WILL cost students more money for less flexibility. but the bigger problem I have is the government here just basically seizing an entire profitable industry to help pay for a massive new entitlement totally unrelated to that industry.

[Azazello1313]

pretty good response to that david frum piece:

 

Could Republicans have avoided the ObamaCare catastrophe if they'd played nice, bought in, and worked with Democrats to pass a smaller, bipartisan bill? That's essentially what former Bush speechwriter David Frum alleges in this piece, which Jake Tapper reports is being distributed to reporters by the White House. It's no surprise that the Obama administration likes Frum's argument: What he says, basically, is that by following the most conservative voices and refusing to cooperate with Democrats, the GOP assured that the most progressive possible bill is what would pass.

 

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

 

...Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

 

...We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

 

Frum is concerned with GOP party prospects and I'm not, and that's certainly going to affect how we approach the matter. But here's the problem I have with his argument: RomneyCare may have been developed with Republican establishment support, but if your focus is good policy rather than good politics, it's not worth defending. Neither would any potential compromise along similar lines have been.

 

Frum doesn't spell out exactly what deal he thinks Republicans should've cut, but the ground that he's implicitly suggesting should've been given up was basically the whole enchilada: the insurance mandate, the subsidies, the government run and regulated marketplaces, the expansion of Medicaid. These are rotten policies that, in just a few years, have already had rotten outcomes. What would have been gained by ObamaCare opponents caving and supporting something along these lines?

 

The best precedent for a Frum-style strategy of selling out compromise is probably Medicare Part D. That bill picked up support from genuine fiscal conservatives like Rep. Paul Ryan because the understanding was that, if this version doesn't pass, something bigger and worse will. As a political calculation, this makes sense. But the end result wasn't one to be proud of: We still ended up with a poorly designed, unsustainable, potentially disastrous policy. If ObamaCare opponents had compromised, that's all they would have succeeded in passing here. Fine, you might say, but that's what we got anyway! Fair enough. But unlike the current situation, they would have been responsible for those outcomes, would have given liberals political cover, and ultimately put themselves in a far weaker position to push for reforms.

 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/the-allu...-bipartisanship

[Brentastic]

Brent - why is this part of the bill at all? I am confused and don't see the connection to health care?

Basically, from what I understand, in order to move to the reconciliation, the government needs to be able to show a reduced federal deficit of $xx (not sure what that amount is). Under the estimates provided by the CBO, the healthcare bill alone did not meet those requirements, so they added the student loan reform to this reconciliation.

 

Keep in mind that these figures calculated by the CBO are only estimates based on models created by them (the government). So, in the end, the federal deficit may increase because of these bills.

[Brentastic]

right, the government "competes" by having taxpayers underwrite all of the risk and using their coercive power to reduce that risk. this is how goverment always "competes" in the marketplace.

 

In a way, I kind of understand the logic of, if the government is going to subsidize all of the risk, they ought to also incur the benefit, otherwise it essentially IS a handout to the banks making these loans. but, removing that private element from the existing structure IS going to reduce competition in this arena in a way that WILL cost students more money for less flexibility. but the bigger problem I have is the government here just basically seizing an entire profitable industry to help pay for a massive new entitlement totally unrelated to that industry.

BINGO, we have a winner.

[cre8tiff]

pretty good response to that david frum piece:

 

 

 

Frum is concerned with GOP party prospects and I'm not, and that's certainly going to affect how we approach the matter. But here's the problem I have with his argument: RomneyCare may have been developed with Republican establishment support, but if your focus is good policy rather than good politics, it's not worth defending. Neither would any potential compromise along similar lines have been.

 

Frum doesn't spell out exactly what deal he thinks Republicans should've cut, but the ground that he's implicitly suggesting should've been given up was basically the whole enchilada: the insurance mandate, the subsidies, the government run and regulated marketplaces, the expansion of Medicaid. These are rotten policies that, in just a few years, have already had rotten outcomes. What would have been gained by ObamaCare opponents caving and supporting something along these lines?

 

The best precedent for a Frum-style strategy of selling out compromise is probably Medicare Part D. That bill picked up support from genuine fiscal conservatives like Rep. Paul Ryan because the understanding was that, if this version doesn't pass, something bigger and worse will. As a political calculation, this makes sense. But the end result wasn't one to be proud of: We still ended up with a poorly designed, unsustainable, potentially disastrous policy. If ObamaCare opponents had compromised, that's all they would have succeeded in passing here. Fine, you might say, but that's what we got anyway! Fair enough. But unlike the current situation, they would have been responsible for those outcomes, would have given liberals political cover, and ultimately put themselves in a far weaker position to push for reforms.

 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/the-allu...-bipartisanship

Pelosi herself said last night there were over 200 Republican Amendments in the bill. That seems like bi-partisan to me.

 

They weren't minor alterations, either:

 

Take a look.

 

Boner acted like they never had input, as did most of the others that spoke. But they did.

[gbpfan1231]

Basically, from what I understand, in order to move to the reconciliation, the government needs to be able to show a reduced federal deficit of $xx (not sure what that amount is). Under the estimates provided by the CBO, the healthcare bill alone did not meet those requirements, so they added the student loan reform to this reconciliation.

 

Keep in mind that these figures calculated by the CBO are only estimates based on models created by them (the government). So, in the end, the federal deficit may increase because of these bills.

If true this is so so wrong. Not sure if it was in this topic about the lefties saying that you have to go by what the CBO says - the CBO can only use what they are given and are not allowed to use certain judgements (that is how I believe it works). It sure seems that if you take the numbers and add a brain to the numbers this thing is a cost not a revenue producer. Sick sick sick.

 

Similar to doing a forecast in a business - if a salesmen has 10 opportunities to get 10 $100 projects the forecast is not always $1,000. If he thinks that half those opportunies have a 50% chance of coming to fruition the forecast takes this into account and the final forecast is less than $1,000. Only the idiotic government would still say we will have $1,000 of income.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I doubt if these banks want the business once they no longer have the gov backing up the loans in case of default.

 

bingo

 

And that's worth major $ to the banks.

[Brentastic]

If true this is so so wrong. Not sure if it was in this topic about the lefties saying that you have to go by what the CBO says - the CBO can only use what they are given and are not allowed to use certain judgements (that is how I believe it works). It sure seems that if you take the numbers and add a brain to the numbers this thing is a cost not a revenue producer. Sick sick sick.

 

Similar to doing a forecast in a business - if a salesmen has 10 opportunities to get 10 $100 projects the forecast is not always $1,000. If he thinks that half those opportunies have a 50% chance of coming to fruition the forecast takes this into account and the final forecast is less than $1,000. Only the idiotic government would still say we will have $1,000 of income.

Right, that is why this bill being passed is such a heated topic. And to think the student loan portion is overlooked by many and applauded by the others (even economics professors). This should be an eye-opener to every American that our government is out of control. Dems and Repubs alike - nobody is safe.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

How is the end of a program that benefits a third party like the banking system on behalf of the taxpayers a bad thing when the very same type of thing like "government motors" is railed on by the same people?

[WaterMan]

Sure Texas, go ahead and succeed but you won't have health insurance.

[Brentastic]

bingo

 

And that's worth major $ to the banks.

It's not just banks, like I said, the majority of lenders are companies such as mine, small and barely making money (we've been on salary freeze since 2008 and have laid off about 35% of our staff since then). Most lenders are actually servicers who borrow from banks. It's just business my friend and businesses are there to make money - based on your post, you appear to only favor government business and only want government to make money. The intention of goverment was not to take over entire industries and become business. Yet you applaud this? Your views are so skewed toward the party you favor - open your mind a bit and think outside of what information is handed to you. This bill is not good for students - in fact, if this was a normal company doing this, it would be illegal.

[Duchess Jack]

bingo

 

And that's worth major $ to the banks.

 

stopping giving something to banks that allows them to make money with little to no risk to themselves is a lot different than taking something away from them. Haven't the banks benefitted from an era making money without risk long enough?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[gbpfan1231]

How is the end of a program that benefits a third party like the banking system on behalf of the taxpayers a bad thing when the very same type of thing like "government motors" is railed on by the same people?

When it is included in a health care reform bill maybe??

Edited March 22, 2010 by gbpfan1231