Now I'm worried

[Guest]

I guess the house of reps.pass a bill that will keep student loans interest from increasing but putting the cost off on the health care bill. I am beginning to think that neither party has any brains. They never will learn fire them all

[Guest]

I guess the house of reps.pass a bill that will keep student loans interest from increasing but putting the cost off on the health care bill. I am beginning to think that neither party has any brains. They never will learn fire them all

You know I was thinking about this and why this is happening.

We know that just last week, the administration wanted to borrow 8 BILLION...that is with a B from the health care bill to run a phoney experiment and got caught, and this bill is worth less than what they wanted to spend, so maybe the idea is to make Obama veto it and then call him on it.

Not sure but politics as usual. He doesnt want to touch what might not even be and from where he wanted to borrow...he would prefer to just pay it out

BUT BOTTOM LINE IS the Senate will NEVER EVER PASS this so it is entirely symbolic.

[Guest]

Yes, the House wants to pass lower interest on student loans by taking money from women's health care funding. The House is controlled by Republicans who want to strip funding from women's health care funding. No wonder that thinking women are going to vote Democrat this November.

[Guest]

Yes, the House wants to pass lower interest on student loans by taking money from women's health care funding. The House is controlled by Republicans who want to strip funding from women's health care funding. No wonder that thinking women are going to vote Democrat this November.

Seeing as the "money stripped" is from the ObamaCare bill that the vast majority of Americans oppose, I think you're making a specious argument.

Besides, the Democrat Senate won't even bring to the floor.

The President wants to save the loan rate by taxing small business. Ohh; that'll be popular.

[Guest]

No, Richie, the President wants to do away with tax breaks for the oil companies which have seen profits soar and they currently pay a very tiny percentage in taxes.

It is the Republicans who want to strip money from women's health care programs to pay for the lower student loans. Thinking women will not be voting Republican - AGAIN.

Once again, you have not got your facts straight - but that is in the Republican playbook. DIVERT THE BLAME.

[Guest]

How about stop diverting the blame and do what is best for the country. That would be a novel approach.

[Guest]

Seeing as the "money stripped" is from the ObamaCare bill that the vast majority of Americans oppose, I think you're making a specious argument.

Besides, the Democrat Senate won't even bring to the floor.

The President wants to save the loan rate by taxing small business. Ohh; that'll be popular.

President Obama also wants to pay for it by ending the four billion dollars a year subsidy to the oil companies, who are seeing their largest profits ever. That would be four billion of the total cost of six billion.

Why should students pay a higher interest rate on their student loans than home mortgages or auto loans? The banks are getting the money at 1% interest and want to charge students 6.8%. Where is the justice in that?

Of course, students could just take Mitt Romney's advice and borrow the money from their parents.

Republicans want to pay for this by stripping women's preventive care and children's inoculations.

[Guest]

Let's see, Repubs want to strip women's preventive care and children's inoculations and the Demo what to increase funding for abortions. Seems like a trade off to me, less children, less inoculations and less need for women's preventive care.

Let's get real, ain't none of this gonna happen with the current crop of criminals in Foggy Bottom. This is all election garbage trash talk.

[Guest]

Please prove your assertion that Dems want to increase funding for abortions.

[Guest]

doncha just love the out from LEFT field throw away comments about "taking away" from women....such an OLD, out dated, partisan BS!!

btk

[Guest]

One thing people may or may not know that if you dont have your student loan paid by the time you get social security the loan is taken from your benefits. Some loans are in the hundred thousand dollar range and they dont get paid off till then. The kids dont know about some of this and get stuck later.

[Guest]

This is ALL just some more of the same old bullsh*t and just another rendition of "OH MY.....Grandma will have to eat dog food....".

This is nothing more than a campaign at stupid, gullible people who think the government "gives" (gifts) necessities for "free".

And when you pay no federal income tax like 48% of Americans do not, why would you worry about getting stuck with the bills in the form of skyrocketing taxes.

[Guest]

Let's see, Repubs want to strip women's preventive care and children's inoculations and the Demo what to increase funding for abortions. Seems like a trade off to me, less children, less inoculations and less need for women's preventive care.

Let's get real, ain't none of this gonna happen with the current crop of criminals in Foggy Bottom. This is all election garbage trash talk.

Foggy Bottom is where the state department is. What does the state department have to do with student loans or funding of abortions?

[Guest]

A few weeks back, Mitt Romney said he loves the Paul Ryan Budget. He thinks it's mah-ve-lous. The Ryan Budget keeps these student loan interest rates at 6.8% forever. Then last week, Romney said in PA that he believes that student loan interest rates should be lowered. I'm getting whiplash listening to this guy.

[Guest]

No, Richie, the President wants to do away with tax breaks for the oil companies which have seen profits soar and they currently pay a very tiny percentage in taxes.

It is the Republicans who want to strip money from women's health care programs to pay for the lower student loans. Thinking women will not be voting Republican - AGAIN.

Once again, you have not got your facts straight - but that is in the Republican playbook. DIVERT THE BLAME.

You're new phrase is totally wishful thinking. Was this an MSNBC talking point. Did Chris Matthews give his marching orders.

You're wrong on the proposed source of the money, as if giving oil companies the same tax deductions every other business gets is a crime. You've been making up a lot of stuff lately.

[Guest]

The president wants to end oil subsidies which total over four billion dollars a year.


History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-subsidies-back-nearly-century-215500548.html)

[Guest]

You're new phrase is totally wishful thinking. Was this an MSNBC talking point. Did Chris Matthews give his marching orders.

You're wrong on the proposed source of the money, as if giving oil companies the same tax deductions every other business gets is a crime. You've been making up a lot of stuff lately.

In the Bloomberg report is stated: "Democrats accused Republicans of what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called an “assault on women’s health” because the measure would eliminate the health fund, which has provided breast and cervical cancer screenings as well as child immunization and prenatal tests for birth defects and developmental disorders. They cited a USA Today/Gallup poll showing Romney trailing Obama among women voters by 18 percentage points."

I tried to give the link but copying the link and the paragraph did not work.

The only time I have watched MSNBC was during the last cruise I was on because MSNBC and Fox were the only news channels. It was at the time of the Zimmerman shooting of Martin and downright comical (or tragic) to hear such biased sides of the news on both ends of the spectrum. No middle ground at all.

[Guest]

The president wants to end oil subsidies which total over four billion dollars a year.


History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-subsidies-back-nearly-century-215500548.html)

If the President is talking about oil subsidies and you are also, you're both lying. Oil companies are not "subsidized". It's political shorthand for dummies.

Oil, gas companies aren’t subsidized - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_prez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M )

[Guest]

If the President is talking about oil subsidies and you are also, you're both lying. Oil companies are not "subsidized". It's political shorthand for dummies.

Oil, gas companies aren’t subsidized - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_prez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M )

The President must be confused. Here is a blog right from whitehouse.gov which discusses oil subsidies. I'm sure RichieLion knows more about this than the President and Congress.


Five Reasons to Repeal Subsidies for Oil Companies | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/29/five-reasons-repeal-subsidies-oil-companies)

[Guest]

well if it is from the WH what other authentication would or could anyone ever want?:bowdown:

btk

[Guest]

The President must be confused. Here is a blog right from whitehouse.gov which discusses oil subsidies. I'm sure RichieLion knows more about this than the President and Congress.


Five Reasons to Repeal Subsidies for Oil Companies | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/29/five-reasons-repeal-subsidies-oil-companies)

well if it is from the WH what other authentication would or could anyone ever want?:bowdown:

btk

Exactly BTK. The President never stretches the truth. The truth is that you, Jan, have not even read the article I linked and so you're still among the clueless. You are a propaganda victim and I don't have pity for you because it's your choice.

[Guest]

Isn't it just amazing that RichieLion and BTK are right on government policy and the White House official blog is incorrect on government policy?

We ought to vote the both of them to public office. chilout

[Guest]

propaganda and clueless? sounds a lot like the republicaan party to me or at least some of our posters.

[Guest]

Isn't it just amazing that RichieLion and BTK are right on government policy and the White House official blog is incorrect on government policy?

We ought to vote the both of them to public office. chilout

It took forever, it seems, but you're finally catching on.

Why would the White House lie in pursuit of their political agenda? It's a mystery, isn't it?

Thanks for finally seeing the wisdom I'm imparting. I can really help you back to the light if you remain motivated. We'll talk about it.

[Guest]

Am I the only one noticing the hidden issue?

It's not about loan interest rates versus women's health funding (though people can probably predict my opinion on that).

Why is this an issue in the first place?

I have an idea. It's because every time that government (federal and state) has thrown money at universities to make college more affordable, they've taken that money and thrown it at tenured professors and regents with an 'edifice complex'. Costs for a colelge education, like health care, have FAR outstripped inflation. And from what my daughter told me, the professors work less and less - frequently recycling the same material so they're not working much in between years either.

[Guest]

Am I the only one noticing the hidden issue?

It's not about loan interest rates versus women's health funding (though people can probably predict my opinion on that).

Why is this an issue in the first place?

I have an idea. It's because every time that government (federal and state) has thrown money at universities to make college more affordable, they've taken that money and thrown it at tenured professors and regents with an 'edifice complex'. Costs for a colelge education, like health care, have FAR outstripped inflation. And from what my daughter told me, the professors work less and less - frequently recycling the same material so they're not working much in between years either.

Not only thrown money at the tenured professors (whose salaries I have absolutely no idea of) but how about at the athletic coaches? I read recently that Urban Meyer - after taking a year off from U of Florida - is now Ohio State head coach at $4 million per year plus bonuses. No tenured professor is making that kind of money. The $4 million comes from the money brought in by sports for a part but I am sure also from tuition increases.