Just to highlight my own Visigothery — I see things, you see, that just aren’t there, like for instance Obama’s inherent embrace of Marxism — here’s a reminder from the Tuesday debate of how the President very clearly does not stand for any of those things we fringe “purists” very unhelpfully accuse him of — and in our conspiratorial zeal, push away the very kinds of moderate and undecided voters who the Obama campaign stacked the debate audience with.
Also? Candy Crowley was just doing her job. So stop whining about media bias. Hobbits.
CNS:
In this week’s debate, Obama touted his success in taking $60 billion away from private businesses (“middlemen,” as he calls them) by nationalizing the student loan industry:
“We’ve expanded Pell Grants for millions of people, including millions of young women, all across the country. We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program and we said, let’s just cut out the middleman. Let’s give the money directly to students. And as a consequence, we’ve seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that’s going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace.”
[…]
Of course, by cutting out banks and lenders, the administration’s takeover of the student industry “cut out” private sector businesses, employers, and a part of the free market economy.
Obama’s latest “middlemen” remarks mirror comments he made in the first debate when he gave an example of the type of thing “that requires some federal support”:
“When it comes to making college affordable, whether it’s two-year or four-year, one of the things that I did as president was we were sending $60 billion to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, even though the loans were guaranteed. So there was no risk for the banks or the lenders, but they were taking billions out of the system.
“And we said, “Why not cut out the middleman?” And as a consequence, what we’ve been able to do is to provide millions more students assistance, lower or keep low interest rates on student loans. And this is an example of where our priorities make a difference.”
So, “Why not cut out the middleman?”
Well, for one reason, because these so-called “middlemen” are employers, taxpayers, and private citizens who need to earn a living. And, for another, competition in a free market is actually a good thing.
And, of course, one has to wonder: who’ll be the next “middlemen” they’ll cut out?
Government takeover of industry, you say? Meh. Considered pruning of an often recalcitrant and unpredictable free market, is how we forward-looking thinkers prefer to think of iot. That’s not anti-capitalism. It’s just pro- centralized administrative planning — a top down approach that has never been properly tried elsewhere, but one that, in theory, will create an egalitarian Utopia.
By the way, that 15-member panel that will determine health care treatment based on a series of calculations and life-expectancy or age considerations built into Obamacare? That will cut out the middle man of having you and your doctor deciding on your course of treatment. Free will and choice can get messy and confusing. Best just to let the experts dispassionately and without bias determine what to do with your body.
So you see? Things are about to get a lot smoother under progressive governance. And fairer. And far less chaotic and messy.
In fact, come talk with us. We’ve some five year plans that’ll like, totally blow your minds!
It’s not predatory lending when the government does it!
Hell, why even have student loans at all? Why not change the educational system from K-12 to K-16 and and make it free?
Shoot eCurmudgeon, what change? It’s well on the way to being content free already.
How can grocers possible not be on that list?
I expect energy to be next for nationalization, after healthcare and finance.
What could go wrong?
Obama a Marxist? You must be imagining things. What things?
Well, there’s the imaginary thing where he quoted Mao:
Obama: “I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we’re going to have to work. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to fight.”
From the writings of Chairman Mao: “The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise. By the end of this year the victory of socialism will be greatly assured. Naturally there will be many struggles ahead and we must struggle hard.”
And the imaginary thing where Obama may have taken his campaign theme to lead America “Forward” in his next term after Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, Mao’s plan to modernize China’s economy which resulted in the deaths of around 45 million people.
And the imaginary thing where his debate coach and former Obama White House staffer, Anita Dunn, said Mao was her favorite philosopher: “The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each together [wonder why –ocbill], but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices.” Make choices, break eggs, murder millions and millons of people. You know, choices.
“And, of course, one has to wonder: who’ll be the next “middlemen” they’ll cut out?”
Kulaks. Kulaks and Hoarders.
GOSPLAN Lives!
In the MO Senate race, McCaskill has been running ads–purportedly against Akin–where he refers to that student loan debacle as a third stage cancer of socialism or words to that effect.
Her ads are weird–about half of them make me more likely to vote for her opponent.
Greetings:
While many applaud former President Clinton’s attempt to bring welfare spending under some adult level of control, I believe that what actually resulted was something like a cancer metastasizing with a dearth of programs spreading into almost every piece of legislation that is signed into law.
The growth in student loans is a good case in point. While many think of these loans going to young people trying to get a college education. the plaintiffs and defendants on “Judge Judy” provide a different if only anecdotal sample. Many seem to be well beyond what one might consider “college-age”. Another many seem to have little in the way of previous or recent educational experience. Lastly, many seem to have problems with their finances, especially understanding that debts are to be repaid. Basically, it seems to me that the only way most of these people would qualify for a loan would be if there was no real expectation that it would be repaid.
A low-income, poorly educated individual with no creditworthiness or assets gets a loan that is either the taxpayers’ money or backed by the government’s once “full faith and credit. How much of an impact would a bankruptcy have ???
People keep giving him credit for that. It wasn’t his idea. He vetoed welfare reform twice and only signed it the third time because he got focus group data that showed it would hurt his re-election chances if he vetoed it again.
Goin’ into “Kingfish” mode, is he?
Amos ‘n’ Andy’s Kingfish? That guy spent all of his time on the couch.
Yeah, it’s funny how Clinton always gets credit for welfare reform when it was actually jammed down his throat by Republicans. Same way he gets credit for an economic boom we never would have had if he’d gotten more of his agenda past those same Republicans. Course, those giving the credit are in the legacy media so no surprise there.
agenda 21 is pithy
Obama under pressure to spell out his agenda for a second term