Published: Wednesday, June 11 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
@MountanmanThe filibuster is still very much alive and
kicking...otherwise a 56-38 bill would have passed. (56 is greater than 38).
The nuclear option only applied to judicial appointments. They are
now guaranteed an up or down vote on confirmation.
As to my earlier comment...it should read pay off these legislators....not lay
off !Think the right wing Mormon censors at DN we're doing a little
To Screwdriver, Johnny Moser, UtahBlueDevil and Esquire:This bill
isn't about just allowing students to refinance however and wherever they
want. Read the article again. It plainly states toward the beginning that this
bill will be paid for by the Buffet Rule, which means that additional taxes will
be placed on the upper tier of American taxpayers. This group already pays the
vast majority of all federal income taxes. That's the
Democrat's answer to everything. Just add more taxes to the group that is
already carrying the load for most of America. Since they make more money than
most people, the hope is that those people will just keep going along with that.
What people don't think about is that the more this group of
Americans are taxed (and they are already paying much more in taxes and at a
disproportionate rate to the rest of the country), the more incentive they have
to take their business producing funds out of the country where they aren't
taxed nearly so heavily. That then hurts all of America.Democrats
hope that we the people don't read the details of their bills or think them
@ Mountanman, not true what you say about the filibuster. Despite the
propaganda you are absorbing, the so called nuclear option was just for federal
judicial nominees and executive-office appointments. Republicans had turned
nomination fights into a reckless and relentless tool to grind the gears of
government to a halt. The GOP's pattern of obstruction just isn’t
normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned. Sadly, the filibuster
By the numbers. 56-38. That means 4 senators did not vote. There are, if you
count the two "independents" that always vote with the democrats, 55
senators that vote democrat. There are 45 Republican Senators. That means if
all 38 were democrats that voted to bring this issue up to a vote, up to 17 of
them didn't vote for their own bill. I don't see why this is a
Republican problem. If the Democrats can't get 5 Republicans to vote for
their bill, it must be a bad bill. Otherwise, some of the RINO Republicans
would have voted for it.I paid my own student loans off. My
interest rate was in the double digits. IT was hard, but I did it. I
don't feel at all bad for students who get these loans, some live the high
life, and pay for it later. Debt is debt. This is unsecured debt. No reason
to lower the interest rates.
@ Brio, funding is a non issue. And please don't tell me the top earners
are undertaxed. No one really believes that. It's about our priorities.
Did you know that what we have been spending annually in Afghanistan and Iraq
would pay for every tuition bill for students in America? Yeah, it's
priorities, and the GOP has theirs, and it ain't the middle class (or
lower). If you raise the taxes of rich Americans by even 1% to cover such
investments, there will be no disincentives on investment and productivity. In
fact, the opposite is true. So, are you one of the 1%, or simply a conservative
who fights for them even though you aren't in the club? This is a serious
@ Darrel:Please do additional research regarding the topic you chose
to write about. America has already lost it's leading position in education
relative to the rest of the world. And it isn't at the college level.
It's all the way from the K-12 years.America isn't even in
the top 20 anymore in preparing students for college. Especially regarding the
basics of math, science and reading. It then becomes little wonder
that students don't better understand the terms of things like personal
student loan contracts they commit to later on. One of the primary
reasons students are doing so poorly in pre-college education is that Democrats
are opposed to allowing school vouchers... since big Teacher Unions are so
adamantly opposed to them. Those teacher unions supported Obama's campaign.
So Obama is beholding to them.Vouchers allow students stuck in
terrible public schools the choice of going to much better charter schools.
Those schools have been proven time and time again to prepare students at a much
higher level for college. An article earlier this week explained
it's almost impossible to fire terrible public school teachers. Please do more research before writing.
We tell kids they will amount to nothing unless they go to college. Yet less
than 20% of the jobs require a college degree. So many students never put
that college degree to work, yet are in debt up to their eyeballs, I do have an email from Utah Workforce Services stating that only 15.3% of
jobs require a 4-year degree. Its all a scam to prop up the education
establishment.BTW, a few months ago didn't this same issue come
up? Obama declared (!) that rates would be lowered? This is just another
political stunt to make the other side look bad. The left is all about
politics, not helping kids.
Esquire:To say funding is a non-issue is simply not true. It's
always an issue. To believe otherwise is being totally naive regarding the
economics of any major bill. That's something Democrats are counting on.
You've apparently fallen for it. Why would I tell you top
earners are under-taxed when just the opposite appears to be true? You're
totally right that no one really believes they are actually under-taxed. If
anything, they are now over-taxed.According to the Tax Foundation of
America:The top 1% is already paying 37.4% of all taxes.The top 5%
is already paying 59.1% of all taxes.The top 10% is already paying 71% of
all taxes.The bottom 50% of people pay just 2.4% of taxes in
America.In 1986 the top tax rate was 28%. But by continually adding
another 1% at a time, as you're advocating, that rate has grown to 40%.
That's the primary reason businesses are relocating overseas. Over 6
million manufacturing jobs have been lost since Obama took office.I'm not in the 1%, but would like to be. Who wouldn't? I did major
Scredriver, bluedevil, EsquireWhy not student loans? Because they
are unsecured, the lender (taxpayer) has no collateral when they default.
Higher risk requires higher rates.Johnny Moser,What do we
lose? The TAXPAYER loses the revenue from the lowered rates.MaverickThank you for telling college students the price of their votes.
Thanks for insulting them by letting them know they can be bought for 2 grand
each.Elmobaggins,Nice straw argument. What tax breaks are the
GOP pushing for related ot this. None. Is your argument so weak you resort to
a straw argument?Esquire,You should learn about filibusters.
They require votes. Votes have been held on everything harry allows; perhaps the
votes have been cloture votes, but they have been held. The only votes not held
are on position harry opposes.Darrel,We are paying more for
less. If fewer students go, the laws of supply and demand kick in, and costs
drop. Student loans have pushed the equation way out of balance.
@lost in DCI absolutely agree that student loans have pushed the
equation way out of balance. The heart of the problem is how to make education
more accessible with keeping the costs reasonable.In the mean time,
it seems heartless to prevent the disadvantaged from going to school to better
themselves while we wait for supply and demand to fix the market. I took out
student loans, got a degree in Computer Science and received a 50% pay increase
as a result within a month of graduation. Coincidence? No. Now I am better
able to provide for my family and ensure my kids have a better chance at
success. I am the first and only college graduate in my family. Without that
help, I could not have gone to school.If we complain about the cost
of the taxpayer in guaranteeing the loan, we cannot complain about the cost of
incarceration and welfare. The leading indicator of poverty is education.
Poverty breeds crime, and not too many with jobs in access of 100k a year are on
food stamps. We can either pay and help people be productive, or we can pay to
keep them down. Which sounds more reasonable?
Darrel,congratulations on getting your degree and improving your
family's income.I'm sure it took a lot of hard work and
dedication. good for youI did not say we should cut off student
lending. I admit it is a complicated situation, but do not think letting someone
who HAS received the benefit get away with his obligations is right. Perhaps
lending only for certain types of degrees is the answer???? no loans for psych
or sociology, pop-culture, etc.???I think it stretch to imply that
if we do not reduce student loan rates on existing debt (new debt already HAS
low rates), or lack of college definitely leads to jail or welfare.private lenders can no longer make guaranteed loans, so the comment about the
cost of guaranteeing loans is moot. The government now makes the loans, and the
cost to the taxpayer of defaults is too high. The student already has the
degree, so again, you assertion is slightly off.The now-graduate
should be able to repay the taxpayer. By reducing the rate, or forgiving the
debt (as BO is wont to do), the taxpayer, you and I, is being cheated.
When people start going bankrupt (and I know student loan debt is not
bankruptable per se but a lot of other debt is) because they are buried by their
loans, then yes, we as taxpayers will really pay the price. It will be a bigger
bubble than the real estate thing that hit in 2008. So again, not sure who
exactly loses if the rates are reduced. There is still a rate of interest being
paid. As for the comment on charter schools, they haven't
proved time and again they are any better than traditional public schools. Some
are good, some are worse and they certainly haven't been around long enough
to revolutionize education (in either direction). I would suggest we do what
they do in Finland and truly invest in their public schools by paying teachers
well and reducing class size. Maybe we should give that a try because this
approach actually does have "proven" results.
So first, the Unions get a Obama Gov't bailout and the students
protest........Now the students protest because they didn't get
a Gov't Bailout like the crooked Unions?If you don't like
student loans, don't go in debt for one.....Your money paid
educators who educated you!.....if you don't like the results, ask for a
refund from the school, not the taxpayers you promised to repay?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments