Barack Obama....

[Cold_Zero]

I would like to point out the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 as a perfect example of how gridlock is a good thing.The Democratic controlled Congress got the 'bright idea' of tinkering with the Student Loan industry because private participants of the industry were making more money on student loans than the Congress thought they should. Hold tight because this plays right in to what WILL happen when the Democratic controlled Congress takes on Big Oil and their 'Wind Fall Profits.' Though NO ONE talks about the Federal Government's WIND FALL profits when it collects taxes. But that is beside the point....So Congress gets this bright idea. 1. They transfer Billions of dollars out of the FFELP program and into the Pell Grant program. They claim that it was to replace the money that was taken out of the Pell Grant program back in the 1990's by the Republicans. The only problem was that they did not pro-rate the amounts returned to the Pell Program to current costs. Also the structure of FFELP loans (compared to Pell Grants) is that the Private industry comes up with anywhere from 100% - 97% of the loan money and you come up with either 0-3% and the government provides a 2% subsidy on the loan value. Pell works this way, the program comes up with 100% of the loan money that does not have to be paid back. Which program will spend the money the most efficiently and reach more students? Remember with MORE people going back to school and HIGHER tuition cost under Pell there will be a lot less money to go around after a while. So the Democrats take out money from a more efficient program (FFELP) and into a less efficient program (Pell). 2. Congress also reduced the 2 basis point subsidy on the FFELP loans. This caused a lot of the participants in FFELP to re-evaluate their participation in the program. Remember this is a voluntary program that was setup to benefit students paying for school. What happened was that 20 of the top 100 lenders in FFELP (almost all the major players) have bailed out of the program and the majority of the lenders that have remained have indicated that they will only do when it is profitable for them. 3. Congress as a part of this Act artificially reduced the repayment interest rates for FFELP loans well below market standard. The major way that Servicers in FFELP (or any lending industry) make money is the repayment interest on the loans. If you go through and arbitrarily slash the interest rates on Home Mortgages, Car Loans or Personal Loans you are going to cause lenders to not make a profit on their loans and invest their money in other ventures.4. Congress also reduced the amount of money that Guarantors and Servicers could charge on collection costs. Again, this is money that private participants in the program can not count on and cause these loans to become unprofitable. The way the FFELP is structured is that no one person in the program gets an upper hand. Lenders, Guarantors, Servicers and Borrowers have to play be the rules. Borrowers can not default on their loans and just get away with it. Lenders have to follow rules when originating and disbursing these loans, Guarantors have to follow certain rules when guaranteeing, paying out claims and collecting on these loans and Servicers have to do certain due diligence and abide by the Collection Acts at the Federal and State levels. This was done to give the borrowers (who default on their loans) the upper hand.

So, fast forward to 2007-2008. The Mortgage Lending Crisis hits (not an affect of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007), which further leads to a Credit Crunch in the market with investors pulling out of debt backed assets. The major way private participants in the FFELP program raise money to originate new loans? Securitizing pools of loans and putting them out on the market. The major way the federal government raises money to originate loans? RAISE YOUR TAXES.

So Q1-2 Congress and specifically the Dept. of Ed starts to see the writing on the wall. Massive amounts of students will show up to the Financial Aid Offices at their schools and there will be little to NO money to borrow for their tuition costs. So what does the Congress do? They hold hearings on the matter where they are told by the private participants in the student loan industry that Congress screwed the pooch on this one and squeezed them out of the Student Loan Market. Congress and the White House turn around and instruct the Dept of the Treasury to buy pools of loans from these Lenders so that they can turn around and originate FFELP loans for the 2008-2009 School year.

You see that? Congress wants to control how much money people make in the student loan industry, give borrowers a break and throw the market into a tail spin. Then they have to pony up money bail out the industry so that they dont have millions of screaming (and voting) students on their hands. If this is the CHANGE that we have to look forward to with Obama.. No thanks! Obama backs Direct Lending anyways and wants to squeeze out all private lenders from the Student Loan Industry. The only problem is that if every Private Lender gets out of Student loans, Direct Lending (a Government Agency) can only provide up to 40% of the student loan volume needed this year. Also, they DO NOT service their own portfolio. They contract out the servicing of their portfolio to AFSA and other private services. HA! Obama and Kennedy claim that Direct Lending can do a better job in providing student loans to the market than the private lenders and they have rely those same private lenders/servicers to service their portfolio. Seriously, the reason why Obama, Clinton (remember Bill Clinton created Direct Lending) and Kennedy favor Direct Lending and squeezing private lenders out of the industry is that they want to CONTROL disbursement of the funds. Where the money or disbursement is, there is the power.

Now to be fair Bush signed this Act because he wanted his funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan War passed. So Bush is equally to blame on this cluster ****.

[stopcamping]

While you have a good point, your logic presumes that Saddam was totally innocent.

Remember, Bush's rhetoric for war was based on the fear of Iraq killing us up with WMDs. He claimed we had to preemptively strike, because: "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." We didn't go over to act like "world police" and to liberate the Iraqis (though this what our reason for being there morphed into), we went over there chiefly for self-defense.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, however, I definitely don't feel safer.

[Cold_Zero]

Remember, Bush's rhetoric for war was based on the fear of Iraq killing us up with WMDs. He claimed we had to preemptively strike, because: "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." We didn't go over to act like "world police" and to liberate the Iraqis (though this what our reason for being there morphed into), we went over there chiefly for self-defense.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy, however, I definitely don't feel safer.

So then it doesnt matter if we find WMD's are not. A preemptive strike is just that.. Preemptive. We strike them before they can do any harm to us.I'm a bit baffled at your comments and where you are coming from. You said my drug dealer analogy was flawed. And yet turn around and respond with this (see above).

Two drug dealers live on your block. The cops kick down the door of the one but not the other? How is that a bad thing? Wait next week, they will come back for the other.

[stopcamping]

So then it doesnt matter if we find WMD's are not.

Yes it does matter, that's why we went there. Iran is the most likely to have WMDs right now with their "civilian nuclear program." I don't get why we didn't go there, if we had we wouldn't be worrying today whether they're making nukes or not and who they're likely to use them on.

I'm a bit baffled at your comments and where you are coming from. You said my drug dealer analogy was flawed. And yet turn around and respond with this

You don't see how Iran was the country we should've invaded?

Two drug dealers live on your block. The cops kick down the door of the one but not the other? How is that a bad thing? Wait next week, they will come back for the other.

These cops are pretty lazy if they're gonna wait till next week to nab the guy who's profile is on America's Most Wanted, he'll be long gone by then.
Modified by stopcamping at 5:56 PM 6/8/2008

[Cold_Zero]

Nah, the cops are probably just busy processing the evidence and gaining the warrants for the next raid...

[stopcamping]

...or they think the case is closed and are kicking back at Krispy Kreme Donuts.

[Cold_Zero]

Ha!Or hassling Repo Man over a cake.

[sensibleS13driver]

Ha!Or hassling Repo Man over a cake.

Since they never found their yellow cake.

[themadscientist]

daym, that's a long way to go for a punchline but worth the trip.

[96Qowner]

I just want to add something to the thread.

Don't forget, we'll never known what DIDN'T happen because we invaded Iraq. One can get carried away with it, but it's valid. There are things that didn't happen and that will never be talked about because of it. 3000 Americans died in one day, for instance, on Sep 11, 2001.

Saddam didn't invade another country.Saddam didn't further corrupt the UN.Uday didn't torture any more women.Iraq didn't develop nuclear weapons with the help of France and Russia in response to Iran's ambitions.

Etc.

[AZhitman]

Saddam didn't invade another country.Saddam didn't further corrupt the UN.Uday didn't torture any more women.Iraq didn't develop nuclear weapons with the help of France and Russia in response to Iran's ambitions.

Etc.

Works for me.

Armchair quarterbacks will second-guess these things 'til the end of time.

Conicidentally, they're the SAME people who excuse Obama's inexperience with statements like, "He knows to surround himself with people who are more knowledgeable than he."

Well NO SHAT, SHERLOCK. Those people are called ADVISORS, and he's not the first to have them.

Who's to say that his advisors will be any better than GWB's advisors?

Hindsight is 20/20, boys.

[audtatious]

And Syria did what after we kicked out Saddam?

[96Qowner]

Not sure what you're referring to.

1) Information persists that any WMDs (bio/chem weapons) Saddam had, were moved to Syria before the invasion.2) Syria has continued to provide safe crossing into Iraq for outside insurgents.3) Syria has withdrawn troops from Lebanon, but not directly due to US presence in Iraq.

But one could argue that with such a large and capable US military force in Iraq, complete with all needed logistical support, neighboring countries are hesitant to misbehave too much. At one time, Syria was quite aware of US military plans on the books to mount a coordinated invasion of both Iraq and Syria, as Baath regimes and terrorlst supporting regimes. At any rate, with 150,000 US troops as well as Predators in the area - Syria has to behave for the time being.

[audtatious]

Syria left lebanon and they ended their weapons programs after we went into Iraq. Of course, they did hide one facility that Israel blew up last year.

[ishkabibble]

Don't forget, we'll never known what DIDN'T happen because we invaded Iraq. One can get carried away with it, but it's valid. There are things that didn't happen and that will never be talked about because of it.

Saddam didn't invade another country.Saddam didn't further corrupt the UN.Uday didn't tortured any more women.Iraq didn't develop nuclear weapons with the help of France and Russia in response to Iran's ambitions.

So you feel it was a good idea to start a halfhearted "proactive" fight in Iraq rather than finish the job in Afghanistan? One that has killed more US citizens than 9/11?

3000 Americans died in one day, for instance, on Sep 11, 2001.

Has nothing to do with Iraq. In fact, the Iraq situation has probably made us less safe.

[96Qowner]

C'mon, ishka, don't just do the knee jerk thing. For one thing, it's not responsive.

The point is that we don't know what awful things didn't happen. We don't know what didn't go wrong. We only know what happened because of the action we did take. We don't know what might have happened if we had occupied Afghanistan and left Saddam alone. You assume everything would have been better that it is now. We don't know that.

Understand?

But to answer you, to be responsive to the post you made, I'll say that I do not assume that I am smart and the people who run the country and make the decisions are dumb. I sincerely believe that there are underlying geopolitical reasons that can't be made public to the entire world, which is what happens when the American people are informed. I think we went into Iraq to eliminate Saddam as a risky wild card in the Gulf, to prevent any possible overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, to plant our foot between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, and to base troops on two of Iran's longest borders. It's true that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Saddam did, however, support Islamic terrorism. AQ weren't the only terrorists we needed to confront.

Ask yourself this: If we had successfully tossed OBL and AQ out of Afghanistan, would he have concentrated his efforts on the Saudi monarchy? What would have happened if it had fallen to an Islamic revolution? Is that likely to be a danger with the cream of US military currently based in Iraq?

Obama makes a big deal out of having an opinion that we shouldn't invade Iraq, made when it didn't matter what he thought because he didn't hold national office, and when he wasn't privy to ANY classified information; information that all those people who actually WERE Senators and Representatives had, and then voted to approve it. It doesn't make him look smart - it just makes him look uninformed.

[Cold_Zero]

Saddam didn't invade another country.Saddam didn't further corrupt the UN.Uday didn't tortured any more women.Iraq didn't develop nuclear weapons with the help of France and Russia in response to Iran's ambitions.

Etc.

Saddam will never again invade another country.Saddam will never again corrupt UN officials.Saddam and Uday will never again torture and (as far as Uday is concerned) will never rape women.Iraq's Nuke, Bio and Chemical programs are permanently defunct.

...Fixed. I guess the glass is half full in my eyes.

[ishkabibble]

C'mon, ishka, don't just do the knee jerk thing. For one thing, it's not responsive.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The point is that we don't know what awful things didn't happen. We don't know what didn't go wrong. We only know what happened because of the action we did take. We don't know what might have happened if we had occupied Afghanistan and left Saddam alone. You assume everything would have been better that it is now. We don't know that. Understand?

We would most likely be in the same situation we were in before we invaded Iraq. Which is better than what we are in now. Understand? If you think Iraq was some sort of immediate threat, I wonder what you are basing that on. If you are talking about being proactive, remember that Saddam and OBL's power structure were essentially U.S. creations. The time to be proactive was back then.

But to answer you, to be responsive to the post you made, I'll say that I do not assume that I am smart and the people who run the country and make the decisions are dumb. I sincerely believe that there are underlying geopolitical reasons that can't be made public to the entire world, which is what happens when the American people are informed. I think we went into Iraq to eliminate Saddam as a risky wild card in the Gulf, to prevent any possible overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, to plant our foot between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, and to base troops on two of Iran's longest borders. It's true that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Saddam did, however, support Islamic terrorism. AQ weren't the only terrorists we needed to confront.

I think the people who make the decisions need to be judged on an individual basis. Many of the current decision-makers follow an ideology which is not founded in objectivity, IMO. I try to be skeptical of nearly everything... doubly so for people whose decisions have a significant effect on my living conditions. I don't subscribe to blind faith in my leaders, sorry.

Even if there was an actual threat, we should confront them all at once? Terrible idea, now we are spread too thin. And the "war on terror" is a joke, IMO... like I said, it's unwinnable and has made is less safe.

Ask yourself this: If we had successfully tossed OBL and AQ out of Afghanistan, would he have concentrated his efforts on the Saudi monarchy? What would have happened if it had fallen to an Islamic revolution? Is that likely to be a danger with the cream of US military currently based in Iraq?

I felt we should have sent an incredible amount of troops to Afghanistan, finished the job efficiently, and gotten out of there. Leave anything after that to clandestine operations.

Obama makes a big deal out of having an opinion that we shouldn't invade Iraq, made when it didn't matter what he thought because he didn't hold national office, and when he wasn't privy to ANY classified information; information that all those people who actually WERE Senators and Representatives had, and then voted to approve it. It doesn't make him look smart - it just makes him look uninformed.

How does it make the Congressmen who were informed and voted against it look?

On the contrary, foresight and insight are two traits that a leader should have. The fact that he understood the farce that the invasion was gives him a bit of credibility in my eyes. Nearly everyone I know knew what was being pulled over on the American public while it was happening. Maybe actually being in Washington gives us a different perspective... actually, it probably does. People around here tend to be less ignorant and also get to see firsthand how the "system" works.

According to your criteria, it doesn't matter what you think about Iraq. Guess we should stop the discussion and just let the geniuses like Bush and Rummy take care of everything.

[AZhitman]

Good thing the kids who stormed the beach at Normandy didn't turn around when the situation appeared "unwinnable".

Keep in mind, most Dems supported our actions when we entered the fray - Regardless of how they've tried to distance themselves since then.

I, for one, wouldn't want to live in a country that "rolls over" in the face of an adversary that appears "unbeatable".

A bunch of illiterate turbaned cretins in sandals with RPG's is NOT "unbeatable".

Hell, me, WD and Repo could take out an entire "unit" with Andy's .50-cal and his Hummer.

In all seriousness, I just think we need to do a better job of making their way of life less attractive to the youth who are sure to follow them.

Go ahead and argue with me that liberating their children from militia service, educating their women, ensuring proper medical care and nutrition is available, and providing a better standard of living is not "our place".

I'll listen.

[rn79870]

I think I've figured it out. Let the gov. buy all the unwanted SUVs now on the dealer lots, load them on B52s, drop them on Iran...never mind...

[ishkabibble]

Good thing the kids who stormed the beach at Normandy didn't turn around when the situation appeared "unwinnable".

They were fighting the Axis, not a word.

Keep in mind, most Dems supported our actions when we entered the fray - Regardless of how they've tried to distance themselves since then.

They were wrong, too, and I lump them in with the neocons. What's your point here? I've yet to see anyone on NICO claim to be a Dem.

I, for one, wouldn't want to live in a country that "rolls over" in the face of an adversary that appears "unbeatable".

Well, we shouldn't just keep doing more of the same, that for sure. Same actions, same results. The threat is overstated, anyway.

A bunch of illiterate turbaned cretins in sandals with RPG's is NOT "unbeatable".

We're not fighting that, we're fighting an irrational ideology of people who have nothing to lose.

In all seriousness, I just think we need to do a better job of making their way of life less attractive to the youth who are sure to follow them.

Yep... that's the kind of strategy I'd rather discuss. Just kicking their *** isn't getting us much of anywhere.

Go ahead and argue with me that liberating their children from militia service, educating their women, ensuring proper medical care and nutrition is available, and providing a better standard of living is not "our place".

I'll listen.

Oh, there's plenty of opportunities for us to be altruistic around the world. So why make Iraq the first choice?

If that's why we're there, why didn't they come out and say that rather than faking like there was an imminent threat?

Side note: as far am I'm aware, the standard of living in Iraq has declined since the invasion.

[Cold_Zero]

Good thing the kids who stormed the beach at Normandy didn't turn around when the situation appeared "unwinnable".

Or worse, when the German counter attack (Battle of the Bulge) appeared to negate all the advances that we made on the European continent. But the brave men and women of the allied forces (like my Opa that worked to retake the Saar Valley) did not give up even when the outlook looked bleak. Also not to mention the brave allied forces in the Pacific...

[HashiriyaS14]

The objective in Iraq is incomparable to any objective in the Second World War.

We already ACHIEVED our main tactical objectives in Iraq, the *war* is over, now we're involved in an unsuccessful occupation, which is something we didn't really attempt in WWII.

We already crushed all the military assets of the government of Iraq, that was the war, and it's been done for years.

We are now an occupying force, much as the redcoats occupied Boston, and we are the victims of a guerilla conflict. As we saw in Vietnam, and in our own revolution, and in many other conflicts across history, the odds are stacked enormously against us.

We did our part, we knocked out the heavy hardware, and now we need to let them build up their nation as they see fit to do. The majority of Iraqi citizens do not want an Islamic theocracy and we need to trust that they will exercise their collective wills to prevent that from happening.

NONE of them want us there any longer than we need to be because all of them are terrified that we're going to become some defacto colonial ruler intent on robbing them of their oil.

EDIT: The only thing we DO need to do is to ensure that Iran does not invade and annex the country. As mentioned, the Iraqis hate them and would make that difficult, but they DO currently lack a functioning military while Iran has a decent one. Hopefully, the threat of nuclear immolation will keep Iran from mounting any large-scale assault on Iraq after we pull out. Personally, I think it will.

[Cold_Zero]

now we're involved in an unsuccessful occupation, which is something we didn't really attempt in WWII.

Are you saying that we did not Occupy German, Austria and Japan after WWII? I seem to remember my Opa after being injured by a mortar in Europe being shipped out to Japan to join the Occupation Forces. And that Japan had a US Military Governor (Douglas Mac Arthur) and that at least in Germany old SS troops would go around assassinating mayors that worked with the Allies and sabotaging industry.

[Cold_Zero]

Barack Obama is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5SVDYBNrY

[ishkabibble]

I love that song. I saw them live back in the day.

[Jager]

But you raise an interesting point, can you provide sources for Iran's Chemical or Biological use during the Iran/Iraq war? To be honest, I remember that war to be totally one sided until the Iranians created their Basij death squads to march over the border and advance on the Iraq positions at any cost (similar to the WWII Russian penal battalions).

as requestedhttp://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/...w.htmhttp://w ... is...r.php

ish we cant drop tons of men and material into afganisatn, its counter productive even the non special forces units we have over there now alot of the time. We taught them how to fight, and we promised them wed help rebuild in the 80s after the soviets left, we failed to do so, and we do not stand a chance at stopping them with normal tactics, The special forces units that integrated into society and respected the customs of the people had much higher success rates against terrorists. also afghanistan was and is relying on opium and heroin to keep itself going, so us being over there is seriousyl stifling a major player in the war on drugs, without causing massive international issues. thats why the area over there is full of international troops. whether they say it or not people understand why we are there.

as for iraq, ill be blunt again, whether we should have gone in or not, one thing that isnt brought up is that Iraq threatened to invade lebanon during its civil war with hezbollah, as well as threatened israel with continued scud attacks and terrorlst hits or support. Us going in may have just stopped one of the largest religious wars we have ever seen. as alsmost every nation over there would have tried to wipe israel off the map. and we would have been drug into that war at immense loss of life. Us hitting saddam has helped keep the middle east more stable in the process. Iran has made no secret of its hatred for Iraq, and if it overran saddam before we did, its likely that they would control the largest oil fields in the world combined as well as become the largest player in the middle east and OPEC. ill let you do the math.

Whether we agree that iraq was a bad idea or not, the benefits to going over there and doing what we are now seriously outweighs the massive possible destruction if any of the above actions was to occur.

oh and if we invaded iran wed have alot more people dead then 3000, so just saying whoops we should have done that is rather short sighted. Iran isnt iraq, they are a hardened country with no lost love for the US. too bad we deposed the shah and made that our problem too.

[Cold_Zero]

as requestedhttp://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/possess.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/...w.htmhttp://w ... is...r.php

I was looking for evidence of deployment rather than the possession. We have NBC, yet just because we possess them doesn't mean we deploy them. They are interesting articles none the less, with the last two being pretty good articles. Still working on the iranchamber article and site. The question that I asked was loaded because Iran's deployment of Chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war has never really been substantiated. Not only is/has it been widely known and substantiated that Iraq had the weaponized arsenal and deployment capability to carry out the attacks, but the confirmed usage of chemical weapons inside Iraq (on non military targets) and in Iran (on military targets). Thanks for the articles.bud

[Cold_Zero]

An interesting article on Barack Obama:http://article.nationalreview....g5NTc=

bud

[AZhitman]

Very interesting.

The writer did a great job on Point #1... Great "debunking" of Obama's invocation of Kennedy's name (I hate when he does that).

Go ahead and swoon, folks. Get caught up in Obamalamamania. Ignore the sidestepping and confusion on foreign policy.

I sure as hell don't want his finger on the red button. Then again, he'd probably give it to Ahmenijadihdjimehad as a "peace offering".