Didn't you get the memo, Amy? Working your way through college (and maybe taking more than 4 years to do it) and going to non-ivy-league schools is for idiotic suckers. It's not honorable or respectable, it means "yer dum!". So sayeth the leftists.

This reminds me of the health care debate, where the government is completely ignoring the primary problem- cost. Instead of trying to figure out why people have trouble repaying their loans (ridiculously high tuition costs, degrees in subjects that just won't get you a job), the government is trying to figure out how to get everyone else to foot the bill for people who are simply irresponsible.

The courts have made it difficult if not impossible for companies to give aptitude tests to people for jobs that require a degree of intelligence. A college diploma, at the cost of four years and many thousands of dollars, is the new substitute.

I'm all for education, for its own sake, but it is not necessarily equivalent to a college diploma.

Al, You're correct. Obama knows too well if he gives these kinds of handouts to these irresponsible, lazy people they will vote him back into office.

Hmmm,if I vote Obama in, I cant gets edumacated.....

If I vote in those nasty republicans, they is not gonna pay for ma edumacation.

The whole worship of "public service" has gotten ridiculous. Is somebody who works for the Agriculture department and writes papers about food more of a "public servant" than the farmer who grow it or the railway executives and workers who bring it to market? Is a research scientist at NIH more of a "public servant" than an engineer at Medtronic or GE Healthcare? Is a *Congressman* more of a "public servant" than (insert any job here)?

You know, Obama did spend a fair amount of time talking about Community Colleges and how important, and a good option they are. The trick is to get the rest of the country to figure it out.

I'm dumbfounded. My parents brought us to America 30 years ago from a communist country because this was the land of opportunity, you work hard you get ahead and that's exactly what they did. How can this man destroy the beauty that is this country. I went to college, but didn't finish. I'm upper middle class because I'm intelligent and I work hard. I don't have student loans because when I was in school, I went to a community college and my parents paid for it. They didn't have to foot the bill, but they did because I am their daughter and if I ever have kids I would do the same. I'm all for paying the same amount of taxes as a person in my same income bracket with kids, even though they use more government services then I do, i.e. schools, because I want to contribute to the learning of our societie's children, but I sure as fuck do not feel the need to pay for some middle aged person's college education. Unbelievable. The longer Obama is in office the more I feel like I want to get out of this country. It breaks my heart to see America turning into a socialist society.

>>This reminds me of the health care debate, where the government is completely ignoring the primary problem- cost. Instead of trying to figure out why people have trouble repaying their loans (ridiculously high tuition costs...

Not so, Al.

Watch the president's electrifying Q & A - 2 days after his Union address - with the House Republicans in Baltimore when he specifically takes on both your points - the COST of health care reform & the horribly high charges for student tuition. I dare you!

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/29/HP/R/28993/President+Speaks+at+GOP+Retreat.aspx

In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education," Obama said in yesterday's speech. "No one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

A bit of cognitive dissonance there? If the world-class education is such a great way to reduce poverty, why are they going broke? I'd like to see the breakdown of vocational type majors (engineers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, architects) still paying off their student loans after 20 years vs the arts/literature/[insert victim group] studies types - I suspect there would be very few of the former.

And I love the "chose to go to college". Like there's some a la carte menu for life where you pick and choose which bits you like. If a college degree is worth it, do it and pay it off. If not, do something else. Simple enough.

BAH! Bloody foolishness.

Get a degree you can afford, one that will get you a job later.

Don't like it? Get a job first, save some money, and look into grants or scholarships that will help cover the cost.

Or, gasp, go to a local college that won't cost so much. God forbid you don't get the exact thing you want, but that isn't an entitlement.

Or, and just throwing this out there, join an organization that will help pay for school. I know of people who went all the way to the end with their degree plan, graduated, and joined the military with a contract bonus that paid off almost all of their student loans.

Me, I use the Army's tuition assistance program, its working out nicely.

So much to say on this topic...

"Let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service," Obama said.

And the Law of Unintended Consequences says that two things will happen as a result.

1. Student loans will become harder to get, and those who can pay them off (the suckers) will face higher rates as a result of the capped repayments and effective default of those who can't.

2. Competition for government jobs by people who want to get their loans forgiven earlier will depress wages in that sector and make it unattractive to smart people who can earn more elsewhere.

So Obama manages to simultaneously decrease accessibility to a college education and make public service less attractive to talented people. Both of which are diametrically opposed to his aim. What is it with the left and their belief that reality can be repealed by edict?

Uncle Dave's simple way to graduate from college debt-free:

1. Go into the miltary for four years.

2. Go to college.

Thank you.

I graduated from the University of Washington in 1988 with a dregee in Accounting. And I was completely debt-free the day I walked out its doors. And yes, I paid my own way through. And no, I did not get any scholarships. How can a GED to community college to state college person up end up debt-free but a 4.0 GPA type (in high school) ends up owing tens of thousands?

Santa Monica College, by the way, charges a whopping $26 per credit hour. This is, of course, already heavily subsidized by California residents.

My friend, engineering prof Barb Oakley, went into the army to pay for her schooling.

This policy would only accelerate the trend of increasing costs and decreasing value of degrees.

Proposals of this sort are effectively subsidies to employers and educational institutions. They actually decrease the value of education to students, and create impediments to social mobility be inspiring credentialism.

This reminds me of Obama's contempt for the private sector. He and Michelle have repeatedly implied that there is something wrong with people who don't go into "public" service, ie, work for the government or an ACORN-style organization. Even though his every proposal is, in the end, paid for by the very selfish, money-grubbing jerks they've spent their careers demonizing.

Does the Federal government like me or something?

I'm currently pursuing my second college degree right now and they're lending me the money. Unless I've got some special privilege that I don't know about, I'm not doing anything that anyone else can't do.

I'm a little more supportive of Obama than many of the commenters here usually seem to be, but I also think this plan is a little off. From the perspective of a educator-in-training (I'm halfway through my PhD), rhetoric like this has the danger of hinting that "world-class" educations always (or often) end up causing their recipients to be paying them off for more than 20 years.

I have two major problems with this. First of all, expensive elite colleges can be afforded in a myriad of ways - including through the Armed Forces programs, both the GI bill and ROTC (my brother's a junior at a eec through the ROTC program), through merit scholarships (I will have a debt of $2,500 for my ~10-year elite education, out of an estimated price tag of $235,000), and through the old-fashioned way of working your way through college (my sister's plan). All three of these ways don't result in the student being saddled with immense debts for more than 20 years. Instead, we who chose wisely get to help subsidize those who didn't.

Second, this rhetoric also could be used to support the fallacy that only an education received at an elite college is a "world-class education." I call bull. There are a great many reasons why this is not true. First and foremost, education is what you make of it. At my elite undergraduate institution there were certainly plenty of kids who got a whole lot of nothing except four years of incredibly expensive playtime, graduating with an unemployable degree in English literature and $160K of debt to pay off. On the flip side, there are plenty of kids who go to less prestigious institutions and get a world-class education, working their butts off to learn everything they can.

And besides the student side of the equation, the job market for new professors in most humanities and social science disciplines is so freaking bad that a flood of new, excited, world-class PhDs has been washing over the so-called "lesser" schools for a number of years now, and it's only going to get bigger. I'm at one of the top two programs in my field, and at least half of the grad students I know want to work in less-prestigious public institutions and two-year community colleges, because of a combination of the job market and a sincere desire to help bring a world-class education to people at these "less prestigious" universities. (Although, again, I'd argue that many of these "less prestigious" universities are already giving a world-class education - or were before their budgets were cut...)

I agree with President Obama (and the entire country, I'd warrant) that education is a vital national concern. However, bringing costs down and supporting the continuing development of world-class educations at schools across the board would both be, in my opinion, smarter courses than just extending a sort of financial amnesty to people who made bad educational choices. (On that note, methinks we need some more world-class high-school-counseling programs, because the current ones don't seem to be working that well...) My home state used to be rightly famous for its amazing public school system, but with our state budget crisis everything's gone into a tailspin - they're hiking student fees through the roof, laying off professors (instead of the administrative staff I'd prefer to see go, but that's another story), cutting important classes or reducing the sections available to a pittance (which means that students are suddenly unable to get their degree because a required course is only offered twice in a year where it was offered twenty times in a year before, and both sections are full to the brim), reducing library hours, etc. If you want to spend money on education, give us the California schools we used to have, the envy of the nation, and then bring every state's public schools up to that standard. You'd help millions of ordinary students, not the elite few who spend four years becoming Campus Master of Beer Pong, barely graduate (with an unemployable degree), can only find a job at Starbucks, and thus end up trying to pay off $160K in debt on a barista's salary. I feel for those unfortunate souls, but I'm more interested in the single mom who's halfway through her nursing program when her essential courses are cut.

the fallacy that only an education received at an elite college is a "world-class education." I call bull. There are a great many reasons why this is not true. First and foremost, education is what you make of it.

I almost quit college. I stayed because I realize people are prejudiced against those without degrees. But, I've been a nerd my whole life and I for sure don't need a formal college class to learn. Professors and mentors do have value -- but, it's possible to learn from one at a not-so-prestigious school, and to find very good profs at places like Santa Monica College. My assistant who went there was extremely smart, and extremely well-educated. And she isn't in debt up to the part of her hair for her college education.

These days, with the Internet, and venues like iTunes U, with free college lectures from professors, and don't forget the public library, it's possible to be educated "informally," and have that free and informal education be worth a hell of a lot.

Much of your comments assume anyone who doesn't pay off their loans is just lazy and selfish. Nonsense. There certainly is a lot of that, and I agree that should not be tolerated.

Imagine with me a highly qualified student who qualifies for med school. I suppose we could say no more Federal loans for med school, if the people feel that way. No problem, when you get sick drive into Mexico for a doctor. We have some really great doctors here, but you won't run into them in a free government clinic.

Anyway, after graduating, said med student becomes physically or mentally unable to work as a doctor. Say $200,000 at 8%, means 16,000 a year just on interest, with low or no income this is an impossible burden.

Under current law, though we bailed out a bunch of greedy crooks in the bank and student loan industry to nearly a trillion dollars cost to the taxpayers, that disabled debtor cannot go bankrupt for 25 years, and when she does, SHE OWES TAXES ON THE WHOLE AMOUNT AS TAXABLE GAIN DUE THAT YEAR. Which means she can't go bankrupt.

I realize many of y'all must be forgiven for your uninformed views, because after all you did attend the public schools in modern times. But, one of the big differences between the US and England after the revolution was we felt those who really get messed up should be allowed a second chance. It's called bankruptcy, not debtors prison (which is reserved in the US for unemployed or underemployed divorced men.)

Bankruptcy should not be as easy as it was for a long time, but it isn't that hard for intelligent people to tell which is which, and those who really are totally messed up, by factors other than spending too much, other than just not wanting to pay it off, should be allowed to go bankrupt.

I make no bones about being a Republican. I know money issues to some extent, and that 8% interest, with almost all paid back, is really not a bad return in the current market . Those who loan are more than compensated by high returns, for the relatively small risk they take, if we screen those who truly can't pay.

They get those guaranteed loans at a high interest rate, because of the risk involved, then when someone is one of those who can't pay, they went to whine. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. They want their cake and to be able to eat it as well.

I spent the first five years after college working for a student loan servicing company. The first three of those five were spent in direct contact with borrowers having difficulty repaying their loans.

The majority of the folks having difficulty repaying their loans were not middle class people struggling to repay their loans. The majority of folks in trouble were working class folks who went to fly-by-night proprietary trade schools that offered no education or job training (hair dressing, truck driving, etc.) but whose tuition just happened equal the maximum loan amount an applicant could get for one semester.

The proprietary trade schools were included in the program in the name of "fairness." The logic (if we can call it that) was that those who were too poor or not smart enough to go to a charted college deserved a chance to get job training to improve their lives.

Fly-by-night proprietary trades schools sprang up and became eligible for the program. Their admission application includes a student loan application with the disbursement going directly to the school. Even if a student drops out, flunks out, or gets expelled, the schools get to keep a "processing fee" from the loan amount when they return it to the lender. The borrower is responsible for repaying that.

These schools spring into existence for a few years, run some students through, and close before they can be sued for fraud. The owner then opens a new school to continue the conduit of free money from the federal government.

While working in student loans, I dealt with borrowers from doctors and lawyers carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to hair dressers carrying a few thousand. Most of them worked hard to repay the loans and were grateful for the opportunity the program had given them.

A few weren't so grateful. I spoke with a doctor who said he made enough money that he refused to repay his loan until I explained that the federal government had guaranteed it and could seize his tax returns. He fell into line quickly after that. I spoke with a guy who read at a fourth-grade level and had been swindled into signing with a truck driving school that expelled him after one day but kept 30% of the loan as a processing fee. It took his life savings to repay that loan.

If Obama want to "fix" the student loan program, he should reform the eligibility requirements for the schools. Make them be in existence for a number of years before they become eligible.

The student loan program offers deferred payment plans, multi-year forbearances, and other programs for folks having trouble repaying their loans.

But if you borrow thousands to go to an expensive, Ivy League school to get a Bachelor's degree in Womyn's Studies or borrow a few thousand to go to Joe Bob's Truck Driving Academy without thoroughly vetting Joe Bob, your inability to repay your debt is not because the payments are too high.

"I'm all for paying the same amount of taxes as a person in my same income bracket with kids, even though they use more government services then I do, i.e. schools, because I want to contribute to the learning of our societie's children, but I sure as fuck do not feel the need to pay for some middle aged person's college education.

Posted by: Nina at January 30, 2010 6:53 AM"

Ahh, but you see Nina, several states have recognized that "children" as old as 22-25 should be covered as dependents by their parents for college support (if parents are divorced anyway) and many of the health care reform plans this past year have advocated being able to carry kids on the parent's plan till they were 25 or so.

Jody- Thanks for the link and, believe me, I'm delighted to hear the President speak about the costs. However, talk is cheap and I feel this is just another example of saying one thing while doing another. It's one thing to say "education is too expensive", it's quite another to propose a way to actually reduce the cost of education. While he's done the former, he's not done the latter. Instead, he proposes that we "reduce the cost of education" by spreading the cost to everyone. As Amy has pointed out, this is not reducing the cost. It's simply making others kick in to pay your bills.

Amy, you nailed it. The moral decadence of this president is stunning. If I didn't have to provide for my mother, I think I would "go Galt" and try to find a lower-paying job.

Speaking of which, your ex-boyfriend's Medicare transplant reimbursement rate SUCKS. I earn (if you can call it that) more sitting here monitoring oceanographic products on the internet. Just wait til government takes over healthcare, so that doctors can earn the equivalent of union scale in the custodial arts. I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up earning that, too, if government takes over then news biz under the guise of bailing it out.

Is "lede" the same as "lead," by the way?

"Lede" is journalism-speak for the lead concept of a story (often a lead paragraph, but sometimes lasting for a few paragraphs). A lede is what is supposed to make you want to turn your attention to the meat of the story. Good stories -- be they written or filmed -- don't bury the lede.

Anyone remember this quote, from "Broadcast News"?

And if things had gone differently for me tonight then I probably wouldn't be saying any of this. I grant you everything. But give me this: he personifies everything that you've been fighting against. And I'm in love with you. How do you like that? I buried the lead.

That last sentence should read, "I buried the lede."

And I didn't need a degree in journalism to know that. :)

Marion, how dare you present a clear and brief explanation without permission from the guild and an expensive degree from the country's most overrated trade school, the Columbia School of Journalism? Yes, that's journalism with a capital J.

That quote reminds me to ask if anyone knows what's happened with Holly Hunter's formerly slightly odd but charming locution? I'm not referring to her accent. She was hawking milk the other day and it sounded like she was wrestling with an extra tongue.

Had a chat a few weeks ago with another nursing student in passing. She's going to Saint Anthony's College of Nursing, which used to be one of the best nursing colleges in the country. Emphasis on used to. Two year RN. Tuition? $40,000 in all. I told her about the program I'm in: 16 month program (I go year 'round), I'll have my RN as well, and my tuition and expenses are $6000 in all. Her credit hour is just over $800. Mine is $67 at the community college. Guess who will get hired first? It's a toss up. Employers DON'T CARE. She's massively in debt, and I could practically pay my schooling collecting aluminum cans. Poor kid.

My argument is that needing college to succeed is saying that our primary school system is crap. Take a guess why.

I am reminded of what I think is a Heinlein story idea: since studies show that people with a Bachelor's degree earn more, the public school system was modified to award Bachelor's degrees upon graduation from high school...

Nina: It breaks my heart to see America turning into a socialist society.

It breaks mine, too, and I've been here all my life.

It's morally effortless for socialists like Obama to turn self-sufficient societies and economies into basket cases through implementation of their programs. This is because they, unlike your parents, have no inkling of what it's like living in the lower classes in a communist system (there is no middle class in such a system). They never have actually lived like that, they know no one who has, and they have no intention of ever finding out what it's like. The socialist elites like Obama intend to be in the favored class, much like high-level members of the Communist Party were in the Soviet Union.

For all their supposed "compassion", they don't give a flip what the 95% of the population not in the favored class under communism must endure. People in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, who actually had to live in the system, and others who realize what it'd be like, do.

I've just explained why those of us who don't want to live in such a situation will resist unto death, if necessary. And why Obama looks down his nose at the productive class the way he does.

As I've said before, the idiots who voted for Obama's socialist paradise did so under the belief that they would not be part of the proletariat, but they would be in the party.

Feeding your family to the alligators, hoping to be eaten last.

>>As I've said before, the idiots who voted for Obama's socialist paradise did so under the belief...

Brian,
I wish you'd watch Obama in Baltimore (my link above).
I'm not being insincere. You are someone who reveals nothing but his negative thoughts about the president & I'd be fascinated - on that basis - to get your opinion:)

(In my dreams! I expect you'll just snip back that you know everything you need to know about Obama's artfully concealed anti-American plotting!)

You would think after this sub prime collapse and our current fiscal mess, the last thing we would want to do is teach the generation soon to enter adulthood to borrow more than they can afford to pay back.

Then again, Obama isn't exactly reputed for his long history of wise and practical decisions.

I wish you'd watch Obama in Baltimore (my link above). I'm not being insincere. You are someone who reveals nothing but his negative thoughts about the president & I'd be fascinated - on that basis - to get your opinion:)

Why? The man has a knack for spewing seventy minutes of words while saying nothing. To be honest, I can't bear to listen to the man, he hurts my brain.

I'm not revealing my "negative thoughts" as though there are some other kind to have. There aren't. For a thinking person, there is nothing positive to be said about Barack Obama. For the feeling person however...

(In my dreams! I expect you'll just snip back that you know everything you need to know about Obama's artfully concealed anti-American plotting!)

I wish it were that sinister. Yes, he hates America. But he doesn't hate the America that is, he hates the America that his mentors sold him. He's fighting against an elaborate straw-America that never existed.

And he's not intelligent enough to engage in "plotting". He's just stupidly flailing about and letting the imbeciles in Congress have their way with him.

Wait, the lecture he gave Republicans about how they have to work with him to pass his agenda because they're just the party of "no" otherwise?

Obama could not get his agenda passed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House. And this is the Republicans' fault how?

Again, the man spent over an hour saying nothing of value or substance. Only his most ardent supporters can listen to him and hear anything but babble.

Jody, I went to the link to listen, but don't have time for the full hour. Would you know at about which minute the relevant q&a's are found? Thanks.

>>Why? The man has a knack for spewing seventy minutes of words while saying nothing. To be honest, I can't bear to listen to the man, he hurts my brain.

So you won't watch the linked clip..just because!

Exactly as I thought, brian:)

@brian: Obama could not get his agenda passed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House. And this is the Republicans' fault how?
____________

I thought that too. When Clinton was president with a republican congress, everything was Congress's fault (unless it was good). When Bush was president with a republican house and a 51-50 Senate (VP tiebreaker), everything was the republican's fault. When Bush was president withe a Democratic Congress, everything was Bush's fault.

Now, Obama was president with a Democratic house and a 60-40 Senate, which has since plummeted to a 59-41 Senate, and everything is the fault minority in Congress?

How is it that a Republican with a 1 vote Senate majority is to blame for everything, but a Democrat with a 18-20 vote supermajority blames the minority? Because he's a democrat with the media in his pocket is why.

...and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service,” Obama said.

And what is to be the definition of "public service?"

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service.“ - Michelle Obama

Being First Lady is a public service?

Do her 22 assistants count as "public servants?" Even ones making over $100,000 a year (the "rich" hurdle)?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

And how many years do they have to do this "public service" for it to count as a career?

I'd like to see the breakdown of vocational type majors (engineers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, architects) still paying off their student loans after 20 years vs the arts/literature/[insert victim group] studies types - I suspect there would be very few of the former.

If a college degree is worth it, do it and pay it off. If not, do something else. Simple enough.

Uncle Dave's simple way to graduate from college debt-free:

1. Go into the miltary for four years.

2. Go to college.

Thank you.

That's what I did.

> So you won't watch the linked clip..
> just because!

This is kind of like that time loojy insisted that everyone watch the video of the botched circumcision... There was no way we could fully understand the matter under discussion until we'd seen the video.

(But some of us didn't make time for that, either.)

That's the theme of the weekend on this blog: Goddamit, I will compel you to ingest my materials and feel the power of my compassionate self-righteousness! DRINK YOUR KOOLAID! DRINK IT NOW!

I take issue with the idea that I owe my kids college. They know, because I have instilled the idea in them, that they have to work for what they get. They want to know programming they have to work at it. They want a car they have to get a job and save for it. They want college they have to so the same thing.

In a few minutes I will be getting off of here and my 13 year old son will spend hours learning the web building languages. He will probably be on this computer for 5 hours doing programming work when he only has to do 4 hours a day for homeschooling. And then when he gets off he still has to do History, Math, Sciences, English, Reading and research. Research meaning I make each of the kids pick a topic every week and they have to tell me what they learned. Sometimes its about cars, guinea pigs or video game programmers but they have to know something they didn't before.

I know that they will have the skills to get to where they want to be when they get older. And if they don't get there it is their own fault. They know what they have to do.. And they also know that because they are dyslexic they are going to have to find their own ways of getting where they want to be and I wont take any excuses for their not getting there.

>>Jody, I went to the link to listen, but don't have time for the full hour. Would you know at about which minute the relevant q&a's are found? Thanks.

kishke,
Seriously impressed you actually clicked! (And thanks for being polite.)
That's a v. good question - and I can only answer horribly.
The qs & the answers are sort of scattered right through, I'm afraid.
It might be trying your patience if I timidly suggest watching it in 20 minute chunks?
The questions from the floor are by no means easy, I found it riveting to see an exchange of this quality - unfiltered by partisan commentary.

Wow. Just. Wow.

Obama gives a substance-free lecture to Congressional Republicans about how important it is that they cave in to his agenda, and you found it "riveting"?

Kishke - here's the executive summary as I've heard it: Obama to Republicans: "Now that there's 41 of you in the Senate, we're gonna blame you for everything we don't get done."

In other words, I'm convinced that the dems ran a weak candidate in Mass because they wanted to lose the seat and gain a scapegoat.

>>Kishke - here's the executive summary as I've heard it: Obama to Republicans: "Now that there's 41 of you in the Senate, we're gonna blame you for everything we don't get done."

Yes, brian, kishke could take a summary from you "as I've heard it" - meaning what? You didn't watch it for yourself?

Or read this (below):

"Why not replace the SOTU with this sort of thing?" Asks conservative National Review's Daniel Foster, transfixed. Summing up the event, he adds, "maybe it's just that the novelty of the Q&A has yet to wear off, but that was--for lack of a better phrase--pretty cool." His favorite part: the "back-and-forth" with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), "as it was clear that the president realized he was in the presence of a razor-sharp wonk and one of the most effective critics of his administration." Calling the entire event "remarkable," he says "more remarkable still is that it would be hard to argue the exchange is anything but a plus-plus for Obama and the GOP. Both sides emerged from it looking as if, contra the public's greatest fears, they more or less know what they are talking about on issues like the deficit and health-care reform."

I went to community college, worked as a teaching assistant and a research assistant through college, and through a stellar record and weeks of applying for different scholarships I got my masters paid for. Since I got a degree in something useful I was able to pay off my student loans in a year.

Obama, I didn't think I'd feel any more like a sucker than the time I realized that you were going to make it impossible for my fiance and I to buy a house. So, thanks. You are really going above and beyond.

Oh, awesome. Once again, I "do the right thing" and pay my debts, and some irresponsible jackass gets a free ride. I don't even know why this surprises me anymore. I'd leave this country but frankly there's nowhere else to go.

Thanks a lot, Obama. Thanks for nothing.

Jody -

I don't need to watch it. I know that anything Obama said that appears sensible is a lie. Anything he said that indicates he intends to do anything other than explode the deficit and fuck the country is a lie.

The budget he presented today is proof positive that he didn't concede a fucking thing.

His whole lecture to the Republicans (and make no mistake, it was a lecture. He wasn't listening to anyone) was of the form "Fuck you, I won."

I don't care what some pundit from National Review has to say about it. I don't care what some pundit from The Nation has to say about it.

They have papers to sell, and the simple truth of the matter doesn't sell because it's only two words:

He's lying.

"He's lying"

??

He promised transparency.

You can see right through him.

Ta-da!

>>I don't need to watch it. I know that anything Obama said that appears sensible is a lie. Anything he said that indicates he intends to do anything other than explode the deficit and fuck the country is a lie.

Brian,
That's a slightly unhinged statement. It's also the same approach used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They, too, know in their very marrow the "simple truth".

Jody -

Have you been paying attention to what Obama's actually DONE, or are you only listening to what he says?

Because the two do not correspond in any meaningful way.

He says he's going to balance the budget, yet his proposals create the largest budget deficits in history.

When word and deed to not correspond, one must take the deed to be what was intended. That would make the word that prefaced it a lie.

Nice try comparing me with the insane truthers. At least I've got reality on my side.

>>He says he's going to balance the budget, yet his proposals create the largest budget deficits in history.

Brian,
Can you give me the exact quote you mean, please?

I agree that we should judge by outcomes & not vainglorious claims.

You say he claims one thing & does quite another.

Show me.

That bloomberg article is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

> Show me.

Waitin' fer my tax cut! Been a harsh year, y'know? Out here in the private sector, I mean.