219 - 212

[Azazello1313]

but that is what I don't understand, Az. What exactly are they siezing. They are just taking away the middleman who is making a profit on the government's guarantees. The subsidy is for the students, not the bank - right?

 

If people want to aruge that it hsould not be in this bill - I understand that - but I don't see how they are siezing something

 

well writing and servicing the loans is a profitable business, that's why people do it. presumably, it is profitable because they are adding some value to the process. they are seizing all of that business by saying they are the only ones who can apply the subsidies.

 

should the government take over all car dealers because their sales were subsidized by "cash for clunkers"? so let's say the government took $3 billion of taxpayer money to offer $5000 cash back on every new car purchase, then they calculated that this subsidy resulted in $100 million more in profit to the car dealers. so then the government says hey, no fair, we should get that money, and they set up their own crappy government car dealerships and say OK, you can only get the $5000 rebate if you buy the car at our government dealership. then they say "hey, taxpayer, check it out -- we just saved you $100 million by cutting out the middle man!"

[Azazello1313]

Removing the middleman is good for business as long as one of the parties involved isn't the government. Theoretically the government isn't supposed to compete with private business, although we all know that in many cases they do (i.e. the post office). Once upon a time if you wanted if you wanted to go to college and you didn't have the money, you (or more likely your parents) would have to go get a loan. This kept a lot of people from being able to go to college who were not able to qualify for these loans. The government steps in and sets up a program where they would guarantee the repayment of these loans to the banks thus making them available to a lot more people. A good idea IMO and a win, win for everyone. Flash forward 40 years and now the government wants to cut the banks out of the equation. I believe this is a bad idea because the government is taking business away from private companies.

 

When I take a basic look at how the whole process has played out it makes me worry that it could happen again and again in other industries:

 

1. private company provides important service to customer

 

2. government feels not enough people are benefitting, or have access to, important service and provides the necessary aid to people in order to take advantage of important service

 

3. government feels it could save money and provide service to customer cheaper than private company so it takes over the role of service provider

 

 

Just like with health care I'm in favor of steps 1 and 2. I think a more educated (and healthy) society benefits everyone. It's step 3 that I believe we have to be leery of.

 

very well put

[Duchess Jack]

Az/Brent/Joe - not that this is going to happen - but would you be okay with a student still going to a bank/lender for a student loan and the government cutting a check to the student (or lender) for whatever amount the subsidy amounts to - but NOT guaranteeing the loan for the lender? Would that also be seen a siezing?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Azazello1313]

The Gallup pole from your link shows 45% favor while 48% oppose. The Fox News (forgive me if I mistrust this) says 35% favor while 55% oppose (which I think skews your average a bit). Personally, I trust the Gallup pole to be closer to the reality.

 

a new cnn poll out today:

 

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

 

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

 

how can anyone think passing a bill with that kind of public opposition is a good idea for the country? what will you think when the republicans do the same thing in the future?

 

Regardless of what you think about health care, tomorrow we wake up in a different political world. . . .

 

Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances. Farewell, social security! Au revoir, Medicare! The reason entitlements are hard to repeal is that the Republicans care about getting re-elected. If they didn’t–if they were willing to undertake this sort of suicide mission–then the legislative lock-in you’re counting on wouldn’t exist. . . . If the GOP takes the legislative innovations of the Democrats and decides to use them, please don’t complain that it’s not fair. Someone could get seriously hurt, laughing that hard.

[wiegie]

well writing and servicing the loans is a profitable business, that's why people do it. presumably, it is profitable because they are adding some value to the process.

Why would you presume that? Perhaps it is profitable because the government is just plain giving them money to do it.

[WaterMan]

how can anyone think passing a bill with that kind of public opposition is a good idea for the country? what will you think when the republicans do the same thing in the future?

 

Take your blinders off sir and look back about 7 years.

 

September 12, 2003

New Gallup Poll On Patriot Act

From the Gallup Poll press release, September 9, 2003:

 

 

"The poll, conducted Aug. 25-26, finds 67% of Americans saying the government should not take steps to prevent terrorism if those steps would violate their basic civil liberties, while 29% say the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the United States, even if it means their basic civil liberties would be violated."

[caddyman]

a new cnn poll out today:

 

 

 

how can anyone think passing a bill with that kind of public opposition is a good idea for the country? what will you think when the republicans do the same thing in the future?

 

Exactly what I have been saying for months. Believe me, something big will happen when the right gets control back. It will be huge. Don't know what it is but it will be big. This is a very bad precedent that has been set here. There is not one big change in America that has happened in this manner before.

[wiegie]

a new cnn poll out today:

 

how can anyone think passing a bill with that kind of public opposition is a good idea for the country? what will you think when the republicans do the same thing in the future?

I find it amusing that the numbers in this poll were almost exactly the same:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

 

Any response, Az?

[caddyman]

Take your blinders off sir and look back about 7 years.

 

September 12, 2003

New Gallup Poll On Patriot Act

From the Gallup Poll press release, September 9, 2003:

 

 

"The poll, conducted Aug. 25-26, finds 67% of Americans saying the government should not take steps to prevent terrorism if those steps would violate their basic civil liberties, while 29% say the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the United States, even if it means their basic civil liberties would be violated."

What was the vote tally on this bill? How did the democrats vote? Did the patriot change your life in any measurable way? Did the patriot act threaten to bankrupt your country?

[bushwacked]

. This is a very bad precedent that has been set here. There is not one big change in America that has happened in this manner before.

 

Oopsie.

[caddyman]

I find it amusing that the numbers in this poll were almost exactly the same:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

 

Any response, Az?

This is about more than finding a competing poll to support your argument. This is about one side of congress changing the country forever. Please show me a link where that has happened before.

[caddyman]

Oopsie.

get lost

[cre8tiff]

Oopsie.

 

 

get lost

 

That was wayyy too easy, even for Zeke.

[evil_gop_liars]

What was the vote tally on this bill? How did the democrats vote? Did the patriot change your life in any measurable way? Did the patriot act threaten to bankrupt your country?

 

[Duchess Jack]

What was the vote tally on this bill? How did the democrats vote? Did the patriot change your life in any measurable way? Did the patriot act threaten to bankrupt your country?

the question was - how can anyone pass the bill with that type of public opposition. he showed that it happens.

[caddyman]

the question was - how can anyone pass the bill with that type of public opposition. he showed that it happens.

That may have been the question, but that is not the point. It is fine...remember this day. This will haunt the left for decades to come.

[bushwacked]

That may have been the question, but that is not the point.

 

 

[caddyman]

It's called analysis...but I would not expect someone like yourself to understand that. It is dumbasses like you that got us this mess. The left counts on stupidity and you have not let them down. Keep up the good work mo-ron.

[bushwacked]

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Wonder where Perch stands on this? Maybe he moved out of the country.

[bpwallace49]

Wonder where Perch stands on this? Maybe he moved out of the country.

 

He is busy stocking up for the fight over immigration reform that is next . .

[detlef]

That may have been the question, but that is not the point. It is fine...remember this day. This will haunt the left for decades to come.

Trust me, I stopped paying attention to what you say some time ago. However, I didn't realize that you actually didn't want us to pay attention to what you were saying.

[Azazello1313]

I find it amusing that the numbers in this poll were almost exactly the same:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

 

Any response, Az?

 

sure. first of all, there is a massive difference between public polling about strategy in a war we are already fighting, and polling about a new policy the government is talking about implementing. polling on the iraq war when it was initiated was obviously strongly in favor. once you're IN a war, you kind of have to be willing to absorb some lumps to your approval rating to coninue fighting it -- this was as true for bush in iraq as it was truman in korea, johnson in vietnam. if the president high-tailed the moment any war became unpopular, it would obviously be disastrous for foreign policy. and that's sorta why we allow presidents some leeway as commander-in-chief, and expect them to lead. the role of congress, on the other hand, is more clearly intended to reflect that of the people on a day to day basis.

 

that having been said, if the surge didn't work, the negative public opinion would have basically made the iraq war effort unsustainable. even a commander in chief fighting an ongoing war can't ignore public opinion for long.

 

in any case, this is an entirely different issue, it's congress passing a new social bill. and while bush's continuance of a war after it became unpopular had all sorts of historical precedent, congress and the president instituting a new social policy despite clear, consistent public opposition is, as far as I know, totally unprecedented. the comparisons here would be social security, medicare & medicaid (and their various expansions), various other new deal programs, the great society reforms of the 60s, and so on. all of those had bipartisan support in congress, and strong overall public support. no way anyone would have tried doing them otherwise.

 

what if bush had rammed through totally privatizing social security, eeking out tiny majorities, using procedural dodges, and political bribes and bullying, even though most of the country was opposed? that's something that would be comparable to what is going on here. how would you have felt about that one?

[SEC=UGA]

Well, here is how this may impact my company. Since the recession began we have cut jobs, full time employees. As a company we covered all of the health care for our employess, they paid no copay on the premiums. So, in the future, I will not expand my company back to being over 50 employees, won't happen, don't want to be subject to the healthcare laws provided for in the current legislation. And depending on how the future legislation looks, I might just drop the healthcare for my employees entirely, it may be cheaper to pay any penalties associated with doing so. I'll let the fed government and taxpayer pick up the tab on that.

 

Again, as the legislation is not final and I don't know exactly how my company will be impacted, I'm not absolutely certain yet as to what actions i will take, but I have a feeling that this legislation will definitely modify the manner in which my company is staffed and the benefits I offer.

[caddyman]

Trust me, I stopped paying attention to what you say some time ago. However, I didn't realize that you actually didn't want us to pay attention to what you were saying.

Is there some reason that you think I give a rats ass about what you have to say? You left wing pinkos can deflect the issue all you want. That does not change the fact that we could be screwed.