Since I'm feeling political...

[tasty]

Catch a clue Tasty.....NOBODY PAYS BACK STUDENT LOANS!

Perhaps you should catch a clue before you talk you fucking dipshit. I don't know how old you are, you have to begin paying off federal college loans (Staffords, to be exact) after seven years (whether you continue your education or not).

I have over $20,000 in student loans (that was the part of my college that the military did NOT pay for), and I havn't even begun to pay them back in any real significance yet.  Also, most of the people I know and went to college with have left their student loans in deferment for years.

The fact that you haven't started to pay them back doesn't change the fact that YOU STILL OWE THEM. The government isn't going to let you defer them until you die! You will have to pay them back, and so will your college compatriots.

Also, I am sick and tired of everybody thinking this should be some kind of Socialist Society where the government pays for everything!!!  Why don't you go get a fucking job and pay for college yourself!  Or do what I did and join the military and let them pay for most of it.

Can you read? They're LOANS. Not gifts. I am obligated to pay the government back--the government isn't paying for a damn thing. It isn't "socialism". The question here is about the interest rates on those loans. Also, how the fuck am I supposed to pay for college with a job? A part time job? I don't know any part time jobs that pay 32,000 a year. If I were to earn the money that college costs before starting college, I would be in my late twenties by the time I started as an undergraduate. Not a feasible plan.

again, not bush's fault.

How are the loan rates on federal loans not Bush's fault? He directly supervises the program, and he is responsible for cutting the funding.

The reason I posted about this is because people were saying that Bush's administration has positively affected their financial outlook. I wanted to illustrate that Bush's administration has not been positive for everyone--his policies have had a significant negative effect on my financial future. I'm glad we still have these programs that allow people like myself to receive a quality college education despite the fact that I cannot fully afford it. If conservatives had been in charge all along, the program probably wouldn't even exist.

[Ssickboy]

I hear ya tasty.

$46,000 in loans due and rising. +$1,800 a year in interest.  Hopefully, they don't ever take away the student interest tax write-off.  (fingers tightly crossed)  

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Catch a clue Tasty.....NOBODY PAYS BACK STUDENT LOANS!

Perhaps you should catch a clue before you talk you fucking dipshit. I don't know how old you are, you have to begin paying off federal college loans (Staffords, to be exact) after seven years (whether you continue your education or not).

I have over $20,000 in student loans (that was the part of my college that the military did NOT pay for), and I havn't even begun to pay them back in any real significance yet.  Also, most of the people I know and went to college with have left their student loans in deferment for years.

The fact that you haven't started to pay them back doesn't change the fact that YOU STILL OWE THEM. The government isn't going to let you defer them until you die! You will have to pay them back, and so will your college compatriots.

Also, I am sick and tired of everybody thinking this should be some kind of Socialist Society where the government pays for everything!!!  Why don't you go get a fucking job and pay for college yourself!  Or do what I did and join the military and let them pay for most of it.

Can you read? They're LOANS. Not gifts. I am obligated to pay the government back--the government isn't paying for a damn thing. It isn't "socialism". The question here is about the interest rates on those loans. Also, how the fuck am I supposed to pay for college with a job? A part time job? I don't know any part time jobs that pay 32,000 a year. If I were to earn the money that college costs before starting college, I would be in my late twenties by the time I started as an undergraduate. Not a feasible plan.

again, not bush's fault.

How are the loan rates on federal loans not Bush's fault? He directly supervises the program, and he is responsible for cutting the funding.

The reason I posted about this is because people were saying that Bush's administration has positively affected their financial outlook. I wanted to illustrate that Bush's administration has not been positive for everyone--his policies have had a significant negative effect on my financial future. I'm glad we still have these programs that allow people like myself to receive a quality college education despite the fact that I cannot fully afford it. If conservatives had been in charge all along, the program probably wouldn't even exist.

A.  My Stafford Loans are still deferred (Got my first one in 1993, so that's 11 years and counting).  And I'm 30, since you are too lazy to go look at my profile.

B.  Yes, I do still owe them, and I don't have a problem with that.  And yes, the government seems to be quite content on letting me defer them as long as I want.  Although I have started paying some of them back, as I said before, some of them are also still being deferred 11 years later.

C.  And I wasn't talking about the LOANS, you, how did you say it, "fucking dipshit", I was talking about the Pell Grants and other money that you don't have to pay back that you were complaining about earlier.  You are not obligated to pay that money back, and children like you seem to think that the government owes you that.....I disagree.

Okay, the last one was for Cutter, so I'll let him respond to that part.

Peace.

-GhostSniper [the Socialist Liberal Democrat's Worst Nightmare] Out.

[westamastaflash]

Maybe TRY to go a bit back on-topic?

Thank you for the history lesson, but that miniscule fact I reiterated had little bearing on my over all point. I am a firm believer in the simplistic democratic principle of majority rule.

Well thats nice, but thank whatever god you believe in that the USA is NOT a democracy. The founders built a system based on rule of law, private property, and individual rights. Several quotes:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University of Edinburgh
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

Then, a bit off topic, but important to the revelant discussion at hand - if the majority is always right, and no rule of law exists, then any behavior considered by the majority to be wrong could be made illegal. I am of the differing opinion, and one of the greatest (IMHO) political philosophers is as well:

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person."
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850


I await the flames.

["Sixhits"]

Maybe TRY to go a bit back on-topic?

Thank you for the history lesson, but that miniscule fact I reiterated had little bearing on my over all point. I am a firm believer in the simplistic democratic principle of majority rule.

Well thats nice, but thank whatever god you believe in that the USA is NOT a democracy. The founders built a system based on rule of law, private property, and individual rights. Several quotes:

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person."
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850


I await the flames.

I would mostly agree with you.

Democracy has always been an ideal to strive for rather than something practiced in it's purest form. Same goes for Communism, and, indeed, I expect most forms of government.

Good polical systems try and blend the best bits from all the base ideals. The US has pretty effective political system.

However, I'd disagree that the primary founding of the US was based ON law, private property, and individual rights. I believe it was founder on the desire for a balanced government, one that government for the people and by the people. Our present day notions of who "the people" are have changed since the founding.

The critical aspect of the founding, one which I think IS American Democracy, is the effective series of checks and balances. For me, Democracy isn't so much that my vote gets counted but HOW my voted is factored into the accounting. As much as I disagree with the prosess by which Bush became president, the fact that in the end he took the electoral college and not the public vote is just the breaks.

I think that Spets is not making himself clear enough when he says he believes in majority rule. Should five peopl be able to tell four people exactly what to do? No. Should five people be able to influence policy more than four people? Yes. To extent that notion to the national level then, is what he means. So when liberals and other criticize, for example, Bush's election (aside form irregularities in HOW he was elected) we're criticizing the extent to which his policy practices differ from the majority of America.

The concept of voter mandate plays into this. Sure, you might get into office with out a majority but if you run that office as if you had the majority you are being dishonest to the will of the people. Bush has perfected the practice of being dishonest to the will of the people whilest attempted to co-opt that will though a series of lies and manipulations. All of which every president before him has tried to do on one level or another. The distinction is that on every level since his election he's acted as if his will was the will of every American. He's never had that right - he's there to serve and he's only played one side. That's part of what raises the hatred he's earned. He ran as a uniter and practices as a divider. And he tries very hard to undercut the checks and balances built into the system. Even so, the system has done an amazing job of maintaining some semblance of those checks and balances...

[c| Spetsnaz.]

West, no reason to flame, you have your opinion, I have mine.

Ill make my self crystal clear. The Commander and Chief should be elected by the popular vote, and not the supreme court or the electoral college. Pretty simple. Of course this would only work if the now horribly flawed system of voting is drastically altered.

[iblisajinn]

West, no reason to flame, you have your opinion, I have mine.

Ill make my self crystal clear. The Commander and Chief should be elected by the popular vote, and not the supreme court or the electoral college. Pretty simple. Of course this would only work if the now horribly flawed system of voting is drastically altered.

Geeze, step away for a day and there's two pages of posts on which to catch up...

I cannot agree with the notion of electing a president by popular vote, and thankfully, the Founding Fathers did as well - as a result of this they also gave us a bicameral legislature.

If you require only a simple majority of electing the chief executive, the states with the most people become far more important, and candidates can effectively go to only a handful - the ten most populous states have 50% of the US population, so places like the Dakotas, Vermont, Alaska, and Wyoming would get left out in the cold.

The electoral college helps to balance the population discrepancy; a simple majority system reinforces it.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

The Founding Fathers also agreed with slavery.

["Sixhits"]

The Founding Fathers also agreed with slavery.

He layth on the Smack Down!

Many were also Agnostic. Many were adulterous. I think it's elements that these that make the Founders so .... so quaint.

[iblisajinn]

The Founding Fathers also agreed with slavery.

He layth on the Smack Down!

Many were also Agnostic. Many were adulterous. I think it's elements that these that make the Founders so .... so quaint.

Well, if you really want to go down this road...

Many of the founding fathers were slaveowners during a time when slavery was a generally accepted practice.  We understand that this is unacceptable now, but their adherence to the practice does not necessarily negate their other arguments.  The advantage held by larger states in 1790 only white male landowners were given voting rights is still an advantage today if now that whites, blacks, men, women, landowners, whatever, are all able to vote.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I agree, it does not negate their other accomplishments. It simply brings into perspective how different our political culture has become.

[iblisajinn]

A serious problem with majority voting schemes is they frequently fail to produce majority winners.  Mr Gore and Mr Bush each received 48%, Mr Clinton 43% (1992), all of them well under the 50% + 1 needed to win.  The largest majority in recent years was Reagan in 1980, (55%) and 1984 (59%).  Two successful presidents barely won at their popular votes - Mr Truman and Mr. Kennedy were both within a margin of error around 50%, with Kennedy winning by about 100,000 votes, and papers calling the election for Dewey over Truman before the official tallies were released.  

Spetsnaz also wrote:
"I agree, it does not negate their other accomplishments. It simply brings into perspective how different our political culture has become. "

Socially and technologically, the early 21st century is very different from the late 18th - but politically?  Is it so hard to imagine that a majority of the people, whipped into a frenzy by some cause perceived to be for the good of all, could trample on the rights of the few?  

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Socially and technologically, the early 21st century is very different from the late 18th - but politically?  Is it so hard to imagine that a majority of the people, whipped into a frenzy by some cause perceived to be for the good of all, could trample on the rights of the few?

The megalith of corporate influence on politics and the media is a concept which did not exist in the 18th century. The influence it has on politics today is debatable, but in my opinion it is greater than we will ever come to fathom. It is not at all hard to image such a scenario as you have pointed out, but democracy is a double edged sword. Better to trample the rights of a few, than for the few to trample the rights of the majority.

["Sixhits"]

Heck, the debate between mojority rule and minority rights is a pickle indeed. Minorities have rights too, but where do you draw the line stating, "yer done?" (I mean numberical majorities/minorities).

As my gift to this thread for the day, pleas take a look at this:

"(CBS)?Precautions in the name of air security are about to taken to a level unimaginable in the United States only a few years ago.

The Washington Post reports the Bush administration is expected to order as soon as next month the first step in setting up databases on all air passengers, to be used to color-code each air traveler according to his or her potential threat level.

Passengers coded red would be stopped from boarding; yellow would mean additional screening at security checkpoints; and green would mean an only standard level of scrutiny.

Airlines and airline reservation companies would reportedly be forced to turn over all passenger records to U.S. government officials, who struck out in a trial program was based on voluntary surrender of airline industry data. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/12/terror/main592564.shtml

Here's on of my favorite bits:

"The Post says the TSA plans to introduce this year a program for frequent fliers who could get through check-in lines at the airport faster - if they agree to give the government access to some of their personal inform"

I see. Mr. Passenger, would you like the carrot or the stick?

Weren't we taking about finger printing foreigners and filing away their personal information when they enter the country? I think I was saying it wouldn't be long before that was being done to average Americans.

Oh:

"There will reportedly be some overlap between CAPPS II and the recently implemented U.S. VISIT program for fingerprinting and photographing foreigners, as both systems use the same terrorist and criminal watch lists.

In an interview with the Post, the department of Homeland Security's chief privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, says that if the databases are merged, there would be strict rules about which agencies could use the information and how it could be used. "

... Riiiiight.

Well, it's being done. The government is now giving each traveler a security rating. I'm made so cofident by their promises of privacy, non-commercial use of their databases, and that info like bank accounts, credit ratings, and medical history will be left out. Not like Bush and his good ole boys don't lie or nothing.

Is it 1984 yet?

[c| Hathcock]

Relax a bit.  Thats why the Supreme Court exists.  If they find it infringes on any of the constitution it will not last for long.  I know some people really freak out about anything reagrding their personal privacy but I know I'll just feel that much better about air travel.  Anyone here gonna be a Red light?