Clash Cadillac wrote:LittleCupcakes wrote:Make a convincing argument, and perhaps I shall be convinced. I might add: "to fail to be convinced by my many arguments is nothing less than a failure of rationality."
In my mind your response to CPoguesFan illustrates her point very well. It seems you dismissed her comment regarding the DOE without much consideration. Please bear in mind she is my wife and I may be a bit biased in my opinion.
I respect that your posts are consistent in following your core values, however I find it odd that you have been avoiding this thread because as you put it
"sometimes have thought about it at work, or while resting, or at other inappropriate times, and so I have found that less-frequent reading and posting has been better for me overall". I don't understand why it stresses you out so much to read other people's opinion's unless you are afraid of reading something that undermines your belief system. I guess this is consistent with your post in which you implied that you
"never watch political speeches"I have been following up on your last lengthy post with internet browsing when I have some down time. I was trying to find an article that illustrated how reduced taxes in Sweden helped their economy. I discovered that the legislation only took effect in the middle of 2008 which would explain why I could not find any articles with statistics to bolster your claim. Can you point me to your source?
I skipped the argument as I has been drinking, and didn't feel like doing the work needed to reply (nor did I realize that I was required to
).
OK, so the argument is, if I may sum up (and reply):
DOE oversees student loan regulation (if by "oversees" you mean "pays billions to banks to make FFEL loans", then I agree)
Student loans are riskier than other types of loans (fine, but doesn't have to be that way)
Loan defaults were bad under no DOE oversight, and better since DOE oversight (I don't know when DOE "took over", but default rates have steeply fallen to about 5-6%, so OK with me)
Therefore, the existence of the DOJ is validated (HAH!
)
I'm not saying it's worthless, just not worth it.
Budget Summary$59,000,000,000 is the budget, roughly, and it has about 4,200 fulltimers. It is relatively small, but that by itself is not enough reason to keep them around.
I'm in favor of non-guaranteed, risk-aware loans by private entities to students. Not all students are good risks (I don't mean creditworthiness; student loans should be based on success potential and prior educational success, much as colleges evaluate applicants) and not all students deserve loans. If you press me, I'll say sure, keep just a fraction of the budget solely for the purpose of overseeing loans, but dump it to another department as then it would be just a money problem, not a policy problem and so not needful of an entire Department.
Much of the budget is direct grants to students, and although it's a nice, soft, squishy notion to hand out checks to kids, it is NOT the federal taxpayer's responsibilty to directly pay a student to go to college. I realize one may disagree, but this is a basic tenet of my core philosophy, and so I cannot be convinced otherwise on this point.
Clash, if you would simply ask about my motivations for avoidance, rather than engage in a little amateur psychology, I'd be pleased to answer (privately, please). Suffice to say, you are way off base, and it is not other opinions of which I am "afraid" (in fact, I love differing opinions, even thought they are always wrong
).
The speech thing is a different kettle of fish. Speeches are a way to emotionally manipulate an audience. Emotional reactions are difficult to predict and deeply affecting. Even I (yes, it's true!) can be strongly affected by emotions, and most of the time that's great (reacting to music, or books, or a potential sex partner, etc) and appropriate.
Choosing a political leader, however, is an entirely different matter. Pluses and minuses must be weighed, perspectives must be varied, history must be consulted, and other considerations must be identified and quantified.
I'm just like everyone else, and emotions overwhelm me too. I can't let my choice of leader be influenced by emotion, so I simply don't want to risk "falling in love" with a politician because of the pretty way he/she may speak. I don't need to remind you of how often a people is mislead by a charismatic leader.
Allow not nature more than nature needs, man's life is cheap as beast's.