EDUCATION=HEALTH- CARE=JOB'S

[Pine Mt Beagles]

THE SAME OLD THING BUT DIFFERENT=
=WHY DOES ONE BILL HAVE TO BE ATTACHED TO ANOTHER TO GET PASSED=THROUGH OUT AMERICAN HISTORY EVERY SINGLE BILL ALWAY'S HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING ADDED=BEFORE IT WILL PASS=

Story By Chuck Jaffe, BOSTON ) --
It will be years before many Americans figure out how they're impacted by the health-care bill that President Obama signed into law this week, and whether they actually benefit. But the law has an immediate potential payoff in my home. Yet this has nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with my oldest daughter heading off to college in the fall, with her sister to follow two years down the road.

Logically, the health-care bill shouldn't affect student loans and college financing, but many things that happen in Washington defy logic. Thus, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act -- a major deficit-reduction initiative that includes student funding and financing -- is joined with the health-care bill that passed the House on Sunday night.

Personal Finance Minute: Student-loan overhaulIn the health-care reconciliation bill now in the Senate, there is a provision to make major changes to the federal government's student-loan program. Andrea Coombes takes a look at what this all would mean for borrowers.
It's not like winning the lottery in an amount sufficient to pay off the tuition bills, but it is a step forward that has mostly been overlooked in the rhetoric and arguments over health care. No matter how the bill is modified by the Senate, most observers believe this part of the reform will stick.

The new law cuts out private lenders from originating federal student loans, a change in the process that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will save the federal government as much as $7 billion per year.

The move ends more than 35 years of financial stupidity; the government has paid billions of dollars in subsidies to encourage private banks to lend money to students, and then guaranteed those loans anyway. You could argue that the guarantee or the subsidy made sense, but it was kind of like wearing a hooded raincoat and carrying an umbrella.

The bill is expected to save taxpayers $61 billion over 10 years, while reducing the federal deficit by at least $10 billion over the same decade. It meets the "pay as you go" principles that Congress has been pushing for.

Because the move ends a subsidy, it comes at no cost to taxpayers. Education Secretary Arne Duncan explained last week that the billions of dollars saved will go to the Pell Grant program; Pell Grants provide need-based assistance to low-income undergraduate and post-graduate students.

The Pell program was expected to run out of money this year, which Education Department officials had said could cut or drop scholarships for as many as 8 million low-income students. Now, the program will not only remain solvent, but eligible students will see the maximum grant rise from $5,550 this year to a shade under $6,000 in 2017.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

WHERE WOULD WE HAVE BEEN WITH OUT IT==

Obama: Stimulus bill saved troubled economy
Speaking on the first anniversary of the American Recovery and Investment Act, President Obama said the emergency legislation he signed a year ago to help the struggling economy has saved at least two million jobs and avoided a deeper recession.

The giant economic stimulus package enacted a year ago has helped stabilize the economy but has not made much of a dent in the nation's vast unemployment.

This Story

The Obama administration is acknowledging that its program of spending cuts and tax breaks has yet to ease joblessness, and White House officials are increasingly engaged in shaping the details of new legislation to boost job creation.

"You can argue, rightly, that we haven't made as much progress as we need to make when it comes to spurring job creation," President Obama said Wednesday in marking the program's anniversary. "That's part of the reason why I expect Congress to pass additional measures as quickly as possible that will help our small-business owners create new jobs, give them more of an incentive to hire."

The debate over how much credit the $862 billion stimulus program deserves for the nascent economic recovery escalated Wednesday with Obama and Republican leaders trading barbs.

The nation's economy was shrinking rapidly last winter when Congress passed the stimulus package, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The economy began expanding again over the summer, and most analysts attribute that turnaround to a combination of the stimulus bill, near-zero interest rates and other dramatic action by the Federal Reserve, as well as the healing of the financial system.

Many economic analysts also agree with the administration's claims that the stimulus law has created or preserved 2 million jobs and that the number will total 3.5 million by the time the spending ultimately plays out.

But the recovery has so far been too weak to plug the yawning hole in U.S. employment. The economy has shed 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, including 20,000 in January, and the unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Add to that the danger that the private sector will fail to grow fast enough to keep the economic expansion going when the stimulus money fades in the second half of 2010.

[2500 HD]

More than 2 trillion dollars less in debt to China you dumb A$$

[bluegrass]

Your question and premise is a bit confusing coming from you...however, it was the Democrats who intended to take over the private lending for college, and for the time being they have done it. This bill REMOVES private funding for student loans...this means that IF a college student needs a loan they HAVE to get it from the US Government. They CANNOT get private funding for school because of it.

Another power grab by Democrats...don't be fooled by the claim that it will save the taxpayer money...nothing the government does, except a straight up TAX CUT ever saves the US citizens money.

This question was asked earlier...you are just now getting to it??

What does taking over the student loan activities of the US have to do with HEALTHCARE REFORM???



Tony

[bluegrass]

Rufus, do you even read what you copy and paste???

Let me show YOU two different, totally opposite statements within the SAME ARTICLE you copied and pasted...you gotta be kidding me.





Many economic analysts also agree with the administration's claims that the stimulus law has created or preserved 2 million jobs and that the number will total 3.5 million by the time the spending ultimately plays out. ........this statement seems to support the idea that there ACTUALLY have been SOME job creation. How the hell you can claim you PRESERVED any jobs is ludicrous, but this statement DOES CLAIM that there have been at the very least SOME jobs created, right??




But the recovery has so far been too weak to plug the yawning hole in U.S. employment. The economy has shed 8.4 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, including 20,000 in January, and the unemployment rate stands at 9.7 percent. Add to that the danger that the private sector will fail to grow fast enough to keep the economic expansion going when the stimulus money fades in the second half of 2010......in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH the article contradicts itself by putting the numbers not at job CREATION but JOB LOSSES beginning in 2007 (when the Democrats officially took control of Congress). How can you have 2 MILLION JOBS PRESERVED or CREATED and still have JOB LOSSES????????



Rufus, you are still obviously confused...take the blinders off, start seeing things and maybe take your head out of Obambi's ass and you might get straightened out.



Tony

[Pine Mt Beagles]

====I STAY CONFUSED ==
LIKE I WONDER WHY =REPUBLICAN'S= WOULD VOTE FOR A ====BAIL OUT====840=====BILLION DOLLARS====FOR WALL STREET====WHO==== DOES NOTHING FOR WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY= EXCEPT SPEND OUR MONEY =AND VOTE AGAINST======== A STIMULAS BILL FOR AMERICAN'S===========AND VOTE AGAINST A HEALTH CARE BILL===ALSO FOR AMERICAN'S====AND GIVES MORE MONEY TO= GRANT'S =AND GIVES EASIER ACESSS=TO STUDENT LOAN'S= WITH LOWER INTEREST RATES=AND BETTER TERM'S OF REPAYING THE MONEY= AS WELL=MAKING IT =EASIER FOR MORE PEOPLE TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
=
=WHY DO PEOPLE= BUY= A =BIG MAC--=FRIES---AND A===== DIET COKE=====

[Pine Mt Beagles]

by bluegrass on Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:01 pm

Your question and premise is a bit confusing coming from you...however, it was the Democrats who intended to take over the private lending for college, and for the time being they have done it. This bill REMOVES private funding for student loans...this means that IF a college student needs a loan they HAVE to get it from the US Government. They CANNOT get private funding for school because of it.
==
==it was the Democrats who intended to take over the ==private== lending for college,
===
===This bill REMOVES== private== funding for student loans.
==
==NOW== DO THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER PRIVATE LENDING OR REMOVE PRIVATE LENDING AS IT IS =OR LET THE GOVERNMENT(((GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRIVATE))) DO THE LENDING ==I KNOW =YOU= DON'T KNOW= BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE==THREE COUNTERDICTIONS IN ONE PARAGRAPH=
=
=YEP= I'AM THE ONE CONFUSED==
=
=WHY= WILL A HOUND SPEND ALL NIGHT= EATING THE ENTIRE FRONT AND SIDES= OUT OF A NEW HOUSE TO STAND IN THE =SNOW AND RAIN=THEN LOOK AT YOU= AS IF TO SAY= LOOK AT WHAT I DONE=!!!!!

[2500 HD]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

[Rabbithoundjb]

Well PMB I already knew my hounds were smarter than your president you voted for.

Did you folks see what Obama did while congress is out on break, 15 executive appointments of more radicals some who have been unexceptable to congress already. Talk about a corrupt sleezbag, 11/2012, god I hope this country is not dumb enough to re-elect this POS.

Jobs are NOT even close to a priority to this administration, the take over of the private sector is all this president cares about. unemployment is what is keeping the country in crisis, if that was fixed he would loose his fear ,scared factor to push his agenda.

Remember what his chief of staff said, never waste a crisis.

[bluegrass]

====I STAY CONFUSED ==
LIKE I WONDER WHY =REPUBLICAN'S= WOULD VOTE FOR A ====BAIL OUT====840=====BILLION DOLLARS====FOR WALL STREET====WHO==== DOES NOTHING FOR WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY= EXCEPT SPEND OUR MONEY =AND VOTE AGAINST======== A STIMULAS BILL FOR AMERICAN'S===========AND VOTE AGAINST A HEALTH CARE BILL===ALSO FOR AMERICAN'S====AND GIVES MORE MONEY TO= GRANT'S =AND GIVES EASIER ACESSS=TO STUDENT LOAN'S= WITH LOWER INTEREST RATES=AND BETTER TERM'S OF REPAYING THE MONEY= AS WELL=MAKING IT =EASIER FOR MORE PEOPLE TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
=
=WHY DO PEOPLE= BUY= A =BIG MAC--=FRIES---AND A===== DIET COKE=====

Rufus, IF you have no problem with Government pushing private businesses out of the picture, you should have no problem the rest of Obambi's one term watching this happen to other industries. Take a look at what he has done so far...
1. Government takeover of GM
2. Government takeover of Healthcare
3. Government takeover of Student Loans
4. Government takeover of CEO Pay..(remember this one??)


The pattern is obvious. As is your acceptance of it. Eventually he will get to something you DO care about and maybe then you won't be so contrite and approving.

For the record, I was and still am against the original wall street bailout...the natural course of economics should have been allowed to flow and businesses that needed to go bankrupt should have been allowed to do so. Also I am against ALL the DEFICIT SPENDING that has been done since 2007. I believe the wars we are in SHOULD be fought, although I might do things radically different, yet they still need to be done (which is why the only thing I criticize Obambi for regarding the wars is that he SAID he was against them all for political gain then continues the same policies, I am NOT against funding for the wars we are currently in) however your messiah has spent so much money that we DO NOT HAVE, and I say WE since its OUR MONEY (government doesn't have money of its own, remember??) that the amount is obscene.

Also obscene is this guy's arrogance and disdain for those that disagree with him. Very typical of liberals though, even more so of Socialists.



Tony

[Pine Mt Beagles]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN A TAKE OVER AND== SHORT TERM HELP===
WASHINGTON -- The top earners at five big companies still living on federal bailout money will take a 15 percent pay cut this year, the Obama administration's pay czar says -- yet many will still make millions.

Kenneth Feinberg also said cash salaries would be capped at $500,000 this year for the vast majority of the top executives at the five companies. Any further compensation has to be in stock.

Still, he said, 69 of the 119 executives covered by the restrictions will take home pay packages worth more than $1 million.

The announcements Tuesday were the administration's latest effort to deal with outrage over lucrative pay provided to executives of bailed-out companies while the public struggles with stagnant wages and high unemployment.

Taxpayers can still expect to lose tens of billions on the rescues of the five companies: American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler and General Motors.

Feinberg said his review refuted companies' complaints that pay restrictions would drive away top talent. Inside the five companies, 84 percent of the top executives covered by last year's pay limits have stayed put, he said.

"These statistics undercut the argument that if you don't pay more, people will leave," Feinberg said. "They are not leaving."

Feinberg set pay rules in October for the seven companies that received the most money from the government's $700 billion bailout fund. Since then, Citigroup and Bank of America have paid back the money and are no longer covered by the pay guidelines.
It's far from clear that the five remaining companies will repay their taxpayer billions.

AIG, the world's largest insurer before it nearly collapsed in the financial crisis, has been selling assets to repay some of its $182 billion bailout package. This month, it sold American Life Insurance Co. for $15.5 billion.

That deal is expected to cut AIG's outstanding debt to the government to about $78 billion. The company is considering other sales. And the government will sell shares it holds in AIG to recoup some of its investment.

A repayment of $568 million to the Federal Reserve last week will allow AIG executives to start getting the biggest chunk of their pay packages, known as stock salary, a year early.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN A TAKE OVER AND== SHORT TERM HELP=

WASHINGTON -- The top earners at five big companies still living on federal bailout money will take a 15 percent pay cut this year, the Obama administration's pay czar says -- yet many will still make millions.

Kenneth Feinberg also said cash salaries would be capped at $500,000 this year for the vast majority of the top executives at the five companies. Any further compensation has to be in stock.

Still, he said, 69 of the 119 executives covered by the restrictions will take home pay packages worth more than $1 million.

The announcements Tuesday were the administration's latest effort to deal with outrage over lucrative pay provided to executives of bailed-out companies while the public struggles with stagnant wages and high unemployment.

Taxpayers can still expect to lose tens of billions on the rescues of the five companies: American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, Chrysler Financial, Chrysler and General Motors.

Feinberg said his review refuted companies' complaints that pay restrictions would drive away top talent. Inside the five companies, 84 percent of the top executives covered by last year's pay limits have stayed put, he said.

"These statistics undercut the argument that if you don't pay more, people will leave," Feinberg said. "They are not leaving."

Feinberg set pay rules in October for the seven companies that received the most money from the government's $700 billion bailout fund. Since then, Citigroup and Bank of America have paid back the money and are no longer covered by the pay guidelines.

It's far from clear that the five remaining companies will repay their taxpayer billions.

AIG, the world's largest insurer before it nearly collapsed in the financial crisis, has been selling assets to repay some of its $182 billion bailout package. This month, it sold American Life Insurance Co. for $15.5 billion.

That deal is expected to cut AIG's outstanding debt to the government to about $78 billion. The company is considering other sales. And the government will sell shares it holds in AIG to recoup some of its investment.

A repayment of $568 million to the Federal Reserve last week will allow AIG executives to start getting the biggest chunk of their pay packages, known as stock salary, a year early.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

=====REMEMBER WHEN====
No Republicans Whined When Bush Made 171 Recess Appointments

Earlier this week, Republicans proved the lesson we all learned in school, “the majority rules,” doesn’t apply to the U.S. Senate. With every single Republican vote and two from defecting Democrats (see below), Republicans sustained a filibuster against Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

After the vote, President Obama cited the filibuster against Becker and Republican holds on more than 60 of his nominees and said he would consider using recess appointment strategy to break the stranglehold the Republican minority has put on the nominees.

If Obama follows through and appoints Becker or other blocked nominees, get ready for another dose of Republican hypocrisy as they undoubtedly will join with their corporate allies to whine about how the unfairness of recess appointments.
Of course they would be suffering from a convenient group memory loss. President George W. Bush not only made 171 recess appointments—Obama has not made any—Bush’s very first recess appointment was to the NLRB. On Aug. 31, 2001, he appointed Peter J. Hurtgen to be chairman of the NLRB.

That was just the start of his attempt to pack the board. He named seven other nominees to the NLRB via recess appointments. No one seems to recall any Republican hue and cry over those recess appointments.

The major difference is Bush’s picks were demonstrably pro-corporate and Chamber of Commerce approved. Becker scares Republicans and their big business buddies because of his background as labor lawyer and advocate for workers.
=
=H=I=P=P=O=C=R=I=T='=S

[bluegrass]

=====REMEMBER WHEN====
No Republicans Whined When Bush Made 171 Recess Appointments

Earlier this week, Republicans proved the lesson we all learned in school, “the majority rules,” doesn’t apply to the U.S. Senate. With every single Republican vote and two from defecting Democrats (see below), Republicans sustained a filibuster against Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

After the vote, President Obama cited the filibuster against Becker and Republican holds on more than 60 of his nominees and said he would consider using recess appointment strategy to break the stranglehold the Republican minority has put on the nominees.

If Obama follows through and appoints Becker or other blocked nominees, get ready for another dose of Republican hypocrisy as they undoubtedly will join with their corporate allies to whine about how the unfairness of recess appointments.
Of course they would be suffering from a convenient group memory loss. President George W. Bush not only made 171 recess appointments—Obama has not made any—Bush’s very first recess appointment was to the NLRB. On Aug. 31, 2001, he appointed Peter J. Hurtgen to be chairman of the NLRB.

That was just the start of his attempt to pack the board. He named seven other nominees to the NLRB via recess appointments. No one seems to recall any Republican hue and cry over those recess appointments.

The major difference is Bush’s picks were demonstrably pro-corporate and Chamber of Commerce approved. Becker scares Republicans and their big business buddies because of his background as labor lawyer and advocate for workers.
=
=H=I=P=P=O=C=R=I=T='=S

And this has to do with JOBS, HEALTHCARE and EDUCATION in what manner??? HOW does this post relate to either of the three aforementioned things???


Talk about misdirection....idiot.


Notice you didnt put a link AGAIN. Not even a DATE this time...how old are these articles Dufus????

[bluegrass]

Since you are so fond of FIXING things you think we mess up on I thought I would return the favor...

Pine Mt Beagles wrote:
====I STAY CONFUSED ==
LIKE I WONDER WHY =DEMOCRATS= WOULD VOTE FOR A ====HEALTHCARE TAKEOVER====OVER 1=====TRILLION DOLLARS====FOR ILLEGALS====WHO==== DOES NOTHING FOR WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY= EXCEPT SPEND OUR MONEY =AND VOTE AGAINST======== SENSIBLE LEGISLATION===========AND VOTE FOR A STUDENT LOAN BILL===ALSO FOR ILLEGALS====AND GIVES MORE MONEY TO= GRANT'S =AND GIVES GOVERNMENT ONLY ACESSS=TO STUDENT LOAN'S= WITH HIGHER INTEREST RATES=AND BETTER TERM'S OF REPAYING THE MONEY= AS WELL=MAKING IT =EASIER FOR MORE ILLEGALS TO GET A COLLEGE EDUCATION.
=
=WHY DO PEOPLE= VOTE= DEMOCRAT--=--AND STILL TRY TO CALL THEMSELVES INDEPENDENT??? (It was driving me crazy trying to use that dam.n equals sign, I dont know how or why you use it moron)