Watching the Democrats in Congress is a lot like playing Russian Roulette except you have no chance to win. Lets examine the chambers:
1. Cap & Tax
2. HealthCare
3. Student Loans
4. Nationalized Auto
5. Nationalized Financial
6. Slash National Defense
Oh boy, spin that chamber and fire away. Maybe ending up like Christopher Walken at the end of the Deer Hunter would be sweet relief.
For the rest of us lucky souls who have to deal with this, all these rounds are national disgraces to some extent. The decision to completely screw Poland and the Czech Republic by denying them basic security from an increasingly KGB-esque Russia was morally indefensible, short sighted and will boomerang on the United States. If Russia is a date rapist then the United States just hopped in the van and voluntarily took the roofie. You'll see what I mean soon enough.
That awful decision also masked another awful decision, the national government taking control of all student loans by 2010.
That's right all. No other alternatives allowed by law.
Now this is mathematically idiotic because the government has no money to lend anybody. We can't even pay our own bills. It also fails to make any sense to set up a system where every tax payer has to assume the risk of every student loan made in this country. How is a system where one group of people has to fund the loan, then pay back the loan, while assuming all the risk feasible? It isn't. And all you people who think that the government controlling interest rates will keep costs down, I would advise you to examine how the government treats people when it is in complete control over the relationship. What do you think will happen when the fed is really short on cash? You get a bump in rates, that's what and you have nowhere else to go. They can promise otherwise but we know from welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and the bank bailouts that the government lies. Those lies never result in less money for them.
If you need a specific example, the bank bailouts are a good one. Many of them are now back on solid footing and want to pay off their bailouts and take back control over their companies. Obama won't let them out until he is good and ready. It's like dealing with the Mafia.
The other massive problem with the nationalization of student loans is a cultural one. All of these young impressionable minds are already going off to places where they will be fed a steady stream of leftist ideology with no counterweight and these loans insidiously reinforce that indoctrination.
Absurd you say? A loan is just a loan, who cares who gives it? I disagree. This new plan is another attempt to fundamentally alter the government/citizen relationship. Historically and constitutionally, the citizen is always the independent variable that is controls the relationship, using the government on a as needed basis and only in specific roles defined by our founding documents and subsequent laws. Essentially, the government had little to no proactive power to interfere with the individual. The government had to wait around until petitioned for action. If none was forthcoming, then the government had little to do.
This nationalizing of loans, along with most other Obama ideas, reverses that relationship. The government has now put itself in the power position to dictate terms of behavior to the individual, all individuals, without their consent (or even consultation) and before any citizen initiative is orchestrated to request such a thing. It creates a culture where preemptive government intervention in an individuals life is an accepted practice. The citizen is now forced by his own government to come to the State, hat in hand, to ask for the funds to pursue their future. With all this talk of eliminating government waste in healthcare and the military, we never hear about making higher education more affordable by eliminating wasted funds. The skyrocketing costs of education will force more and more people to the State looking for money to achieve the American dream. By focusing this effort on people at their most influential time is a carefully designed plan to get as many people on board with the nanny state as possible. That generation will then pass it on to their kids, then it will simply be the norm.
Look at the entire public school system. The State is now responsible for:
1. Busing you to and from school
2. Feeding you
3. Educating you with a curriculum of their design
4. Assessing your ability (standardized tests)
5. Regulating college admissions
6. Controlling student loans
Where exactly in this process is individual liberty or resposibility? Or the role of the family?
I suppose you get to choose what leftist University you attend, so long as the government office approves of your choice and gives you the cash. Otherwise you are controlled by the State from K through 12, into higher education, from sunrise to sunset. Add to this the effort to destroy vouchers, home schooling, etc. and the liberals are trying to create an absolute monopoly of thought.
Big Tobacco was raked over the coals for supposedly pandering to kids (Joe Camel) an unhealthy product. Well, I would argue liberal education is far more dangerous than smoking. Our kids are getting dumber and dumber by the year and Big Education unions refuse to address the issue. They would rather fight over evolution vs. creation and keeping their pensions and tenure. Who cares if little Johnny can't read or write, at least he'll know that his teacher is well paid for nine months of work and that there is no God.
Wanna spin it again?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
IF YOU HAD A TWELVE SHOOTER THE EXTRA SIX CHAMBERS WOULD GET EVEN MORE NONSENSE STUFFED INTO THEM.....
ReplyDeleteYet another great point sir . In particularly regarding public schools . Having been brought up through the same system I was I'm sure you will understand this recollection . Even in our school days it was not an option for a private industry to make a bid to provide the school lunches . Iregardless of the fact that a private industry could have not only provided the same ( if not better food ) that still met the national health standards and done it at a price that would not have excluded even the poorest families , it was ( and is ) simply not allowed .
ReplyDeleteFor instance if the company that owned Wendy's could provide the entire range of government mandated ( healthy ) meals for children at a price that was pro rated for income chalenged families - it was not ( and is not ) allowed because it's not run by the state .
So what that did ( and does ) is leave those familes with two parents and no criminal history high and dry . As I'm sure you remember we ate brown bag bologne sandwhiches and penut butter crackers for 10 years as our one parent freinds with unemployed ' uncles ' sported fresh Jordans , Starter Jackets , brand new jeans , and still got to eat free on pizza day .
All because our parents actually worked for a living . I'm damn proud of that situation now but it sure sucked back then .