Obama a Partisan President

[Matt J]

Don't think it was pork, but it appears much like the rest of politics -- funneling gov't money to a limited number of friends of politicians for the sake of re-election. Politics today is nothing more than paying back votes. Many politicians change their mind on a whim depending on friends getting paid or votes being bought. Democrat, Republican -- it doesn't really matter. What I was saying earlier about the pork is that if the Republicans had been able to throw their sacks of goodies into the bill, we would have seen republicans voting for this bill. If there is partisan politics being played, don't look at only the votes. Look at the reason why the votes are the way they are -- by doing so, you will likely find that the republican politicians' interests were not included by the dems in the making of the bill.

Again, this is not funneling government money to a limited number of friends. It allows a state owned bank to offer money through the federal student loan program. While it wasn't prohibited before it was expressly allowed and this makes it legal. Certain financial institutions weren't traditionally allowed to lend to the student loan program. Those included savings and loans and credit unions. When deregulation occurred they were included to allow lending.

 

[Lynnie]

Student loans should not have been in this bill.

 

[Em]

Again, this is not funneling government money to a limited number of friends. It allows a state owned bank to offer money through the federal student loan program. While it wasn't prohibited before it was expressly allowed and this makes it legal. Certain financial institutions weren't traditionally allowed to lend to the student loan program. Those included savings and loans and credit unions. When deregulation occurred they were included to allow lending.

According to the article and what I could find on Google, Bank of North Dakota is the only state owned bank in the entire USA. So, I don't understand how it could be considered to be anything other than the funneling of funds, since all student loans across the entire USA would have to be made through one bank if this had continued to be in the Senate's fix-it package to the bill. You state that it allows "a" state owned bank...., but in reality, it appears to allow only "the" (as in one) Bank of North Dakota....

 

[beachFool]

The is no doubt the new legislation is an improvement and a better use of tax dollars.

Student loan program shift not complicated - Roanoke.com

Essentially taxpayers have been subsidizing big banks-there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Lynnie]

I've been under the impression that both parties pontificate against earmarks. The healthcare bill/law is now under fire for the $3.4B in earmarks approved in the 11th hour and is being questioned as to whether or not this was a 'payoff.'

Student loans should have been a separate bill.

 

[Matt J]

According to the article and what I could find on Google, Bank of North Dakota is the only state owned bank in the entire USA. So, I don't understand how it could be considered to be anything other than the funneling of funds, since all student loans across the entire USA would have to be made through one bank if this had continued to be in the Senate's fix-it package to the bill. You state that it allows "a" state owned bank...., but in reality, it appears to allow only "the" (as in one) Bank of North Dakota....

Prior to deregulation of the financial industry only commercial banks could lend money through the student loan program. With deregulation savings and loans and credit unions could get in on the action. Up until this bill was passed a bank owned by a state was not eligible.

Despite popular belief the vast majority of student loan money comes from private banks and not the government. It is guaranteed ultimately by the federal government, but the money isn't coming from your tax dollars. The only thing coming from your tax dollars are the billions, yes with a b, that go to paying the interest subsidies on loans. Those subsidies allow a student to borrow take free during their school, 6 month grace period after graduation, and an approved deferral period. Any interest accrued during that time is paid by the federal government to the lender, in 90% of cases that is the servicer, SallieMae purchases that percentage of loans after they have been fully disbursed. They do this by securitizing the loans.

 

[toes]

Since the original thread theme was the strange-ness of "partisanship," perhaps all of the bipartisan facts should be reviewed (w/in the confines of healthcare reform). Partisanship is a two way street. It is not exclusively defined by affirmative support. So successfully persuading opposing party members to vote "Yes" or "No" is defined as bipartisanship. 216 House "Yes" votes were needed to pass this bill. There are 253 House Democrats! Republicans were way beyond mathematically helpless to stop this bill - they had no power to do so. How hard could it be to get a mere 85% of your own party to support your own bill that defines the competency of your own President?? As we witnessed-up until about 4 hours prior to the vote and 7+ months after the original vote deadline passed - these "party-line Yes" votes were excruciatingly difficult to find. It is indeed true that all Republicans voted against this bill (178 "No" votes). That is a partisan vote if one ever existed. However, 34 House Democrats (13% "No" votes) joined Republican opposition and also voted against this bill. Bipartisanship indeed occurred

 

[Matt J]

Since the original thread theme was the strange-ness of "partisanship," perhaps all of the bipartisan facts should be reviewed (w/in the confines of healthcare reform). Partisanship is a two way street. It is not exclusively defined by affirmative support. So successfully persuading opposing party members to vote "Yes" or "No" is defined as bipartisanship. 216 House "Yes" votes were needed to pass this bill. There are 253 House Democrats! Republicans were way beyond mathematically helpless to stop this bill - they had no power to do so. How hard could it be to get a mere 85% of your own party to support your own bill that defines the competency of your own President?? As we witnessed-up until about 4 hours prior to the vote and 7+ months after the original vote deadline passed - these "party-line Yes" votes were excruciatingly difficult to find. It is indeed true that all Republicans voted against this bill (178 "No" votes). That is a partisan vote if one ever existed. However, 34 House Democrats (13% "No" votes) joined Republican opposition and also voted against this bill. Bipartisanship indeed occurred

True, but one part left out of all of this regarding money is the campaign contributions. Many Democrats were bullied into believing that the GOP on State and National levels would come after them with waves of money and support to prevent their re-election. Thus far that promise has been kept with Palin, although shrill, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to you. Unless of course she's rooting for you.

 

[Lynnie]

True, but one part left out of all of this regarding money is the campaign contributions. Many Democrats were bullied into believing that the GOP on State and National levels would come after them with waves of money and support to prevent their re-election. Thus far that promise has been kept with Palin, although shrill, I don't think it's the worst thing that could happen to you. Unless of course she's rooting for you.

The Dems had better promises, perhaps?

 

[beachFool]

"Under financial-aid provisions in the bill, all students and parents beginning next fall will borrow directly from the federal government, ending a program in which the government subsidized private lenders to provide federal loans"

Full story can be found on www.wsj.com

Part of the left stream media ya' know.