The 100 Hour Agenda.

[kapkomet]

don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!!

What would you suggest, then, for people that have paid into it for years and get nothing in return?

[FlaSoxxJim]

What would you suggest, then, for people that have paid into it for years and get nothing in return?

 

 

Damn. I could have been a Republican after all.

Edited November 10, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[southsider2k5]

I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes, the cost is still there. But cutting interest rates in half won't change the number of defaults, so it adds no new costs (the government ALREADY guarantees the loans). I was just trying to illustrate how cutting interest rates on student loans would be easier on the cost side for banks, than regular commercial loans.

 

Actually from a true economic sense it would. Its simple supply and demand. Anytime you make something cheaper, more people buy it, and loans are no different.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually from a true economic sense it would. Its simple supply and demand. Anytime you make something cheaper, more people buy it, and loans are no different.

And the banks would therefore make more money, on volume - but the rate of defaults (as a percentage) would probably remain the same.

 

Anyway, this was a side point example, not the point of the discussion.

[Rex Kickass]

You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful.

[southsider2k5]

You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful.

 

And therein lies the point. If she had come out and said, I want to raise your taxes because... there is a much better case for it. But to say we are going to cut spending, not raise taxes, and institute all of these programs, including really expensive things, is the exact same kind of tactics that they campaigned against.

[Texsox]

don't fight privatizing Social Security - just get rid of it entirely!!!

[NorthSideSox72]

And therein lies the point. If she had come out and said, I want to raise your taxes because... there is a much better case for it. But to say we are going to cut spending, not raise taxes, and institute all of these programs, including really expensive things, is the exact same kind of tactics that they campaigned against.

Let's wait and see how they plan to implement these things. Its possible they are talking about shifts in spending here as well, not necessarily increasing any taxes. I know we are all so sure that she is lying and won't stick to her word, but, let's give her and the Dems a chance first. In a year, after we see what is really going on, then we'll know.

[kapkomet]

You are neglecting the fact that qualification of federally subsidized student loans is based on a family's household income. The amount of loans secured per person won't necessarily go up. The number of people going to college might. And as an American, I'm willing to pay a little bit more in my taxes to see that more of us get the college education we need to be successful.

I don't think that's right, Rex. Unless that formula is a very widely accepting formula on a lot of different incomes.

[Rex Kickass]

I never qualified for more than a couple grand in federally subsidized student loans per year as a student. There are federally subsidized and non federally subsidized student loans that a college student can qualify for.

[kapkomet]

I never qualified for more than a couple grand in federally subsidized student loans per year as a student. There are federally subsidized and non federally subsidized student loans that a college student can qualify for.

Right, I do remember that there are "standards" applied to how much was subsidized, but I think thye do that by years, meaning your 1st year in school you qualify for less then your last two years.

[Rex Kickass]

Based on income as I recall, was never approved for more than 15% of my tuition in subsidized loans.

[NorthSideSox72]

Back to the 100 hour agenda...

 

Here is something interesting. The Dems, expectedly, are promising to enact stricter laws regarding relationships between lobbyists and Congresspeople. Of course, some of the ones they suggest are just window dressing. Others may be difficult to work with.

 

What is REALLY needed, as I've said before, is an enforcement body outside of Congress, with some real teeth. If you read the last three paragraphs of the article, you'll see I'm not alone in that suggestion. Maybe that will actually get done with this Congress. I doubt it, but, its possible.

[Rex Kickass]

This would be awesome if they get it done. Even awesomer, if it gets through the Senate and the White House.

[Balta1701]

This would be awesome if they get it done. Even awesomer, if it gets through the Senate and the White House.

I think it would be absolutely awesome if the Dems pushed anti-corruption legislation through both the House and Senate and the President vetoed it.

[NorthSideSox72]

This would be awesome if they get it done. Even awesomer, if it gets through the Senate and the White House.

 

I think it would be absolutely awesome if the Dems pushed anti-corruption legislation through both the House and Senate and the President vetoed it.

 

Either way, its only awesome with that enforcement body actually checking the data. Without that, this is nothing but a farce.

[Balta1701]

Either way, its only awesome with that enforcement body actually checking the data. Without that, this is nothing but a farce.

In theory, the House and Senate ethics committees were supposed to work that way; equal parts of members of each party, with the ability to launch outside investigations, but a few years ago the Republicans decided to completely remove the teeth of those committees by giving each party the ability to totally shut down an investigation without any input from the other party, and the Dems walked out in protest, shutting the whole process down.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it would be absolutely awesome if the Dems pushed anti-corruption legislation through both the House and Senate and the President vetoed it.

 

No, that would be terrible.

 

I want our President on board with this. I want this to enjoy wide bipartisan support. I want to see everyone invested in representing our country to support these efforts.

[NorthSideSox72]

In theory, the House and Senate ethics committees were supposed to work that way; equal parts of members of each party, with the ability to launch outside investigations, but a few years ago the Republicans decided to completely remove the teeth of those committees by giving each party the ability to totally shut down an investigation without any input from the other party, and the Dems walked out in protest, shutting the whole process down.

And for that reason, it should be an external agency, not Congress itself.

[Balta1701]

And for that reason, it should be an external agency, not Congress itself.

But no matter what, because they have the ability to create the laws of the nation, Congress will be the group regulating that organization.

 

The fact is, if you have a one-party rule system and that party is insistent on castrating whatever oversight board there is because they've decided that anyone who finds them corrupt hates baseball, apple pie, chevrolet, and America, there will be no way around it, they'll be able to neuter that investigative body.

 

The House/Senate ethics committees work fine...if you don't have a party which has decided that any ethics body is going to focus on them and therefore the ethics process is an enemy. And no matter what you create, it is just a matter of how determined the party in power is; the Congress has enough power that they'll be able to kill oversight if that's what they want to do. If there was an independent committee of investigation for the last 2 years, all they'd have done is push through a rider on some bill stripping it of some key power in order to shut it down.

 

I for one don't see how anything you could design would actually work better than the current system, in that it would always be subject to the whims of any corrupt supermajority. The one nice thing about having it be a part of Congress was that the minority could actually prevent it from reaching quorum and therefore prevent it from actually killing the whole process; it was all just delayed instead of dead. If it was something created by law, then a simple majority in Congress and the presidency would have been enough to kill investigations. Because of the way the ethics committee was constructed, a shutdown was not equivalent to a total neutering, which was a positive.

[NorthSideSox72]

But no matter what, because they have the ability to create the laws of the nation, Congress will be the group regulating that organization.

 

The fact is, if you have a one-party rule system and that party is insistent on castrating whatever oversight board there is because they've decided that anyone who finds them corrupt hates baseball, apple pie, chevrolet, and America, there will be no way around it, they'll be able to neuter that investigative body.

 

The House/Senate ethics committees work fine...if you don't have a party which has decided that any ethics body is going to focus on them and therefore the ethics process is an enemy. And no matter what you create, it is just a matter of how determined the party in power is; the Congress has enough power that they'll be able to kill oversight if that's what they want to do. If there was an independent committee of investigation for the last 2 years, all they'd have done is push through a rider on some bill stripping it of some key power in order to shut it down.

 

I for one don't see how anything you could design would actually work better than the current system, in that it would always be subject to the whims of any corrupt supermajority. The one nice thing about having it be a part of Congress was that the minority could actually prevent it from reaching quorum and therefore prevent it from actually killing the whole process; it was all just delayed instead of dead. If it was something created by law, then a simple majority in Congress and the presidency would have been enough to kill investigations. Because of the way the ethics committee was constructed, a shutdown was not equivalent to a total neutering, which was a positive.

There is a difference between creating an agency and controlling it. If Congress actually allowed for the creation of an agency within either the judicial or executive branch, under their control, then the only way Congress could screw with it is if it failed to give it any money. And that would be right out there for the world to see. So I do think an external enforcement body is very much possible - its just a question of whether or not Congress is willing to give up the control.

 

One way Bush could get himself some positive feedback from the public is if he created the agency by executive order, and then dared Congress to vote it down. Or, pushed it through in the lame duck Congress. Either way, he puts Congress on the spot.

[Balta1701]

One way Bush could get himself some positive feedback from the public is if he created the agency by executive order, and then dared Congress to vote it down. Or, pushed it through in the lame duck Congress. Either way, he puts Congress on the spot.

You're assuming that Bush would actually be willing to do something that could hurt his own party...had there been an actual ethics process running for the past 4 years, it would have been a disaster for the Republicans.

[kapkomet]

You're assuming that Bush would actually be willing to do something that could hurt his own party...had there been an actual ethics process running for the past 4 years, it would have been a disaster for the Republicans.

Yea, 'cause it's only Republicans that are unethical... as always.

[Balta1701]

Yea, 'cause it's only Republicans that are unethical... as always.

I'm too lazy to look up the logical fallacy here.

 

"The Republicans have terrible ethics problems which are vastly worse than those of the Democrats = the Democrats have no ethics issues"?

[kapkomet]

I'm too lazy to look up the logical fallacy here.

 

"The Republicans have terrible ethics problems which are vastly worse than those of the Democrats = the Democrats have no ethics issues"?

It's damn near always the way you make it sound with the select quotes you like to pick out of things.