rich old men

Wall Street Journal: Why Is Obama Siding With College Students Against These Poor Banks?

The education you can affordYesterday, we learned a lot of fun facts about the one trillion dollar student loan bubble! Like the fact that student loans (unlike any other unsecured line of credit) cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so the debt will never, ever go away,  not even if you die, and that banks will even garnish your social security checks to get their money. (Although the joke’s on THEM since we won’t even HAVE Social Security soon so ha!)  Even though the student loan bubble is actually slowing down the housing market and the rest of the economy along with it, the Wall Street Journal thinks that best course of action is to do absolutely nothing. See, that would be socialism! You wouldn’t want there to be socialism, would you? Of course not.  Also, these kids should be out creating JOBS, not trying to seek relief from the oppressive terms and conditions of their student loan obligations! If only “Uncle Sugar” wouldn’t be so focused on redistributing wealth, yadda yadda not hurting small businesses blah blah.  Actually we can’t figure that part out but the argument seems to be that helping debt burdened borrowers will hurt small businesses or something. We think?

We’ll have to wait until Friday to see how slowly the U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter. But today Team Obama will tell Congress about its latest proposals to spread the wealth around—specifically from private lenders to the people who owe them money on student loans. The goal is to create new ways for borrowers to avoid repayment.

Having recently forced taxpayers to underwrite a series of such measures for loans issued by the government, the White House now wants the shareholders of financial companies to suffer even more when private loans go bust.

Not that there are many private loans left after Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats seized control of this market with legislation that passed along with ObamaCare in 2010. With roughly $1 trillion in student loans outstanding, close to $900 billion are federal loans, and Uncle Sugar is responsible for more than 90% of recent loan originations. But the existence of a market sliver still occupied by private enterprise gives politicians a handy industry to blame for mounting troubles in a government-dominated business.

Sponsored Video

The new report says that Congress should consider letting borrowers discharge their private student loans through bankruptcy. This would reverse a hard lesson learned during the 1970s. … While we don’t doubt Mr. Obama’s sincere impulse to redistribute money, the timing of this effort suggests it is one more election-year pander to the young voters who showed up for Mr. Obama in 2008 but may be less enthusiastic this time….Young voters may appreciate Mr. Obama’s latest efforts to help them weather the Obama economy. But wouldn’t it be easier merely to encourage job creation rather than try to anticipate and make taxpayers pay for every consequence of joblessness?

Yes! Who will protect the shareholders of these corporations? Won’t someone PLEASE think of the shareholders of these corporations? And if these college grads just CREATED THEIR OWN JOBS, they wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. Maybe they should have thought of that before they got more education than they could afford.

[Wall Street Journal]

Related

About the author

Kris E. Benson writes about politics for Wonkette and is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. This will come in handy for when they finally open that philosophy factory in the next town over. @Kris_E_Benson

View all articles by Kris E. Benson

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

102 comments

  1. SorosBot

    We have to protect the poor predatory lenders from those helpless unemployed former students!

      1. SorosBot

        Sadly I've tried applying for crap jobs like that and never hear back; when you have too much education you're overqualified and they shitty employers have no interest in you.

        1. Billmatic

          Well, I was being sarcastic. The whole point of getting the loan to go to college is so you don't have to work at the McDonalds in Wal-Mart for the rest of your life.

        2. bikerlaureate

          Q'd for fookin' T.

          Even with past experience in such jobs, there's no response whatsoever – and I can't dumb down my subsequent job experience any more than I already have. Incredibly frustrating when siblings conclude you're just not "willing" to "take" some humble part-time employment, etc.

  2. Antispandex

    Another liberal attempt to steal money from hard working…um, I mean job creating…well, they HAVE the money. That should be enough…'cause you know, possession is nine tenths and all.

  3. bumfug

    These asswipes will be regretting a lot things (like getting rid of firemen) when people finally wake up and burn them in their beds.

  4. Chow Yun Flat

    Maybe they should have thought of that before they got more education than they could afford

    In other words, before they got ideas above their station in life.

    1. bibliotequetress

      If poor people keep educating themselves, who will launder my silky underthings? Lovingly and gently wash my Lexus? Provide delicious healthy breast milk for my children so that I do not get stretchy nipples?
      Oh, right, poor people will continue to do that. They'll just have a Masters in public policy while doing it. Carry on!

        1. bibliotequetress

          Once one's lawn has been mowed by a Fullbright scholar, one does not wish to return to the days of a Mexican taking ESL classes, dear.

  5. RadioBowels

    Success! That's what these freeloaders should be striving for. Not feeding off the teat of the government like TARP. And Freedom!

  6. EatsBabyDingos

    I would read the WSJ if it would advocate bringing me a good $20 ounce bag of weed from the invisible hand.

  7. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    How about this, the first half of all profits from the top 20 banks in the country will go to pay off student loans. That should eliminate the debt in, what, one year?

    Or, how about a tax on all bonuses on Wall Street equal to half there amount will be used to pay off student loans. That will take, what, two years?

  8. docterry6973

    My son and daughter-in-law owe plenty. I sure hope Barry hurries up and makes some rich guy pay for it.

  9. EatsBabyDingos

    Answer me this, oh mighty Wall Street Journal: If you know everything, why does my butt always itch on Friday afternoons at 5:14 pm, huh?

  10. weejee

    Uncle Sugar is totally rediculose. Particularly now with the sugar beetnik O'Barry in charge. Just wait for Mittens to start with the offshore raisin' cane, sugar, and you'll be seeing the epitome of rediculose. Poindextrose, also too.

  11. johnnyzhivago

    Was trying to explain this stuff to my kid when he advised he was not concerned, since he's planning to get one of those entry level jobs that pay $300,000/year.

  12. StealthMuslin

    Remember when Harvard and Yale accepted chickens?
    But enough about the sixties…

  13. Billmatic

    Anyone got that Krugman thing handy about all the stuff the Wall Street Journal was wrong about?

  14. Callyson

    Speaking of Uncle Sugar, we don't seem to be getting those ads for Mutually Beneficial Arrangements anymore…maybe all the sugar daddies are now broke thanks to the crooks on Wall Street, and those crooks enjoy theft more than lust?

  15. pdiddycornchips

    Who needs institutions of higher learning? Listening to Rush Limbaugh is all the education you poors need.

  16. Woodshedding

    Since the 1%'s money is undoubtedly what decides what's being taught, it follows they should be paying for the educational system. I realize it would be an extreme hardship, they'd have to print some more worthless money. But hey, we all make sacrifices.

  17. Billmatic

    I love how the WSJ passively aggressively blames everyone in the universe (other than the banks and the rapidly expanding university industry) for out of control debt and then complains that "creating jobs" would be better solution, even though they offer absolutely no suggestions on how a president could possibly do that other than, I assume "cut more taxes."

    How a dedicated "free market conservative" newspaper can sit there and pretend like high unemployment is the responsibility of the president is grotesque intellectual dishonesty. I am absolutely sure if a Republican president presided over high unemployment rates the WSJ would run a column once a week explaining that the Chief Executive has no control over job creation rates, and that's just the way they'd like it to be because otherwise we're talking about New Deal Liberalism!

    I mean if anyone would let Obama create just maybe something like the WPA, we might be able to move forward but that's horrible and destroys the very fabric of the American Democracy. Or whatever.

  18. SayItWithWookies

    With roughly $1 trillion in student loans outstanding, close to $900 billion are federal loans, and Uncle Sugar is responsible for more than 90% of recent loan originations.

    Granted that the sentence above is just one piece of their argument but do they really expect their readers to believe that the government is just willy-nilly calling people and bullying them into taking out student loans like they were some reverse-mortgage scam?

    The fuckin' government is trying to make it affordable for students to go to college so they can get high-paying jobs so they can buy houses and cars and employ manufacturers and assorted service workers. It's just annoying to see these alleged fiscal conservatives try to fix a problem while insisting we shouldn't look at the whole problem but only half of it.

    Really, the WSJ must think its readers are complete dumbasses, is the only conclusion I can come to.

    1. MissTaken

      Yay! You're back! Even though "(we)'re not very funny but (we) appreciate diverse opinions (tee hee)".

      1. NY9 Solyndra

        " (we) appreciate diverse opinions (tee hee)". "

        That's good because if you don't appreciate diverse opinions, then your employer should be forced out of business, ala Chik-fil-a!

        1. SorosBot

          Yeah, boycotting a company because their owners are hateful bigots is such a crime against diverse opinions! We should have to give money to all corporations no matter how vile their owners are.

          1. NY9 Solyndra

            BTW, the issue in Chicago is not that of boycotting but of an Alderman blocking a business from opening.

            ITA w/ boycotts and allowing consumers to vote with their dollars, but since when is it appropriate for the government to act as thought police and punish companies for the personal beliefs (and not the actions) of their employees?

          2. SorosBot

            Which is opposed by liberals, who unlike conservatives actually value freedom, so once again your reference makes absolutely no sense, moron.

          3. PhilippePetain

            "Whaaaaaa mommmyyyy"

            Sorry, just saw this douchebag's thread. I love it. Remember when these guys were strutting around like tough guys and not the limp-dicks they actually are?

        2. Billmatic

          I dunno, I drove past one today and it looks like the Christian Conservatives are out in full force and then there's the other 99% of America that doesn't give a shit so it's not like it's the END OF THE UNIVERSE.

          1. NY9 Solyndra

            I hope you had your windows rolled up so as not to contract anything from those heathens. We progressives need to protect our Master Race from infection!

          2. SorosBot

            Um, why are you putting the right-wing language and dogma of "Master Race" in the mouth of "we progressives"?

    2. SorosBot

      Well they should know better than the fucking banks, which remember created the Bush recession we're still crawling out of.

    3. SayItWithWookies

      Indeed — only when people are being as selfish as possible can they attain the greatest common good. In fact, were it not for people who didn't believe in working for the common good, there wouldn't be any common good at all.

      1. NY9 Solyndra

        Government bureaucrats are altruistic. They choose their careers primarily to benefit mankind rather than as a way to get above average wages and benefits, avoid competition, or do real work.

        1. SayItWithWookies

          Oh good — I needed to cut some wood and was wondering if you had an old saw lying around. Government workers don't get above-average pay in comparison to private workers in the same sector — only when you use disingenuous methods like comparing the entire population of private sector workers to public sector workers do you get this disparity. Of course, there are precious few dishwashers, waiters or copy machine technicians in the public sector and more engineers, firefighters and other higher-skilled workers. So good luck purveying that utter nonsense.

          1. NY9 Solyndra

            Compare the percent of government versus private sector workers who receive defined benefit pension plans. Government workers are far more likely to receive defined benefit pension while private sector workers are more likely to receive defined contribution plans.

            Or take a look at government workers who do not contribute to SS but are allowed to contribute to privatized pension plans like CALPERS and CALSTRS, two of the largest shareholder groups in the world.

          2. SayItWithWookies

            Oh, so you're adding the pension plan into the salary? No wonder — do these same statistics add the employer's contribution of private sector workers' 401(k) plans into their salary?

            But the real point is not that we should be paying public sector workers less, but that private sector workers' pay and benefits have been eroding over the last three decades. Public sector workers too, in fact — workers in my state, which is typical, haven't had a raise in four years, which means they're essentially getting paid ten percent less than they were back then.

  19. Mahousu

    Forget too big to fail. You whiny students are too small to fail.

    Come back when you have at least $10M in assets, and perhaps then we'll consent to let you file for bankruptcy.

  20. Goonemeritus

    I’m starting to get the impression that the Wall Street Journal might not be the most balanced arbiter of this argument.

  21. AncienReggie

    And again I note: Beginning this fall, thanks to the shitheels in Congress, there will no longer be a six-month "grace period" between the time students leave college (by graduation or otherwise) and the time they have to start making payments on their student loans.

    This new policy doesn't do anything to reduce the deficit–let alone create jobs–and doesn't even mean the original lenders make any more money off the loans. It's just plain meanness and political spite, and one more way for the GOP to say fuck you to students whose families couldn't afford to send them off to get book learning.

    There's no snark here, just a listless, dull rage.

    1. MilwaukeeKent

      .Sadly, no. That's why CCA, as a proud member of ALEC, is working with state legislatures across the country to correct this shortfall in a well-rounded and professional enforcement environment.

  22. tessiee

    "the joke’s on THEM since we won’t even HAVE Social Security soon so ha!)"

    *tonelessly*
    Yes. Ha.

  23. GeorgiaBurning

    <snark -2> Once the cold war was over and there was no "Soviet menace", there was suddenly no need to subsidize the education of all these poors to close the gap-of-the-day.
    Whatever techies we needed could be imported cheap enough and they'd pay for their own edumacation. Anything else could be handled by the ruling class.
    Grinding a generation of graduates into poverty is an effective way to keep "you people" (as Ann Romney puts it) in your place and keep your kids from thinking about any career path that doesn't require a uniform or a plastic name tag.

    1. HistoriCat

      Plus, the 1% no longer fear Marxist revolution, so no need to worry about peasant uprisings …

  24. tessiee

    It's true that old habits die hard. For the last 50 years or so, parents, teachers, and guidance counselors told kids that college was the way into better jobs and a middle class life (back when there was a middle class, but anyway), because that was true at the time, and they were speaking from direct experience/observation.

    Now that it's no longer true, what exactly are we supposed to tell kids? "Having a college degree won't get you a job, but you still have to do it anyway, and be unemployed with tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt instead of just unemployed"? Not everybody has the same talents and abilities; maybe not everybody is suited for college, even though they may be perfectly nice, smart people.

    That having been said, the idea of banks suffering? HAW haw!

    1. aklibtard

      Totally agree. My first career was as an engineer. I didn't get as much debt as some, but I still had about $20,000 to cover. I entered the field making around $40K. Not bad at all. On work sites however, I would regularly meet machinery operators who were making upwards of $200,000 a year. Those socialist IBEW members often made more than electrical engineers. The skills those tradesmen learned were the type that could easily be used to start small businesses too because they don't take a lot of start up cash, just knowledge and skill. All of them were making a hell of a lot more than any of the liberal arts majors I knew. These days I teach, and I absolutely tell my kids that there are plenty of other options than college.

      1. bibliotequetress

        I agree, we now push students to college in order to enter fields better or at least easily learned through technical school or on the job training.
        Nevertheless, at least in regions where the population has a high percentage of college graduates, the requirement to have a degree, or even a graduate degree, becomes reflexive. A degree becomes the first cut.
        Just for the hell of it, I searched the Boston Globe classifieds, weeded for "Some College Coursework Required" and limited to "Hospitality," and in less than thirty seconds hit this : http://jobview.boston.monster.com/Overnight-Guest
        Yeah, you need to go to college to work the graveyard shift on the hotel check-in desk. This is why I still tell my nieces & nephews to go to college in any damn field. Just do it in state schools. Not that they're a bargain.

  25. BarackMyWorld

    Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, and Dana Loesch don't have college degrees …what makes you think YOU need one?

  26. CivicHoliday

    We have GOT to stop telling kids they can dream big and be anything they want to be. If they just accepted the fact that just like daddy they are destined for the mine, the factory or the burger king, we'd have so much less debt in this country. Sheesh.

Comments are closed.