To the Editor:
I am 85 years old, a news hawk, and I spend many hours on my computer each day checking global news. The letter to the editor “Trillions of Dollars” in the Aug. 31 edition of The Jefferson Post prompted me to respond.
The President’s trip to India was a business trip, not a vacation for his wife. This important trip also included stops for the G20 summit in Seoul, South Korea and other countries. The $2 billion cost is totally incorrect and came from an anonymous source in India. This erroneous cost figure was spread all over the world by the Drudge Report, Michelle Bachman, Rush Limbaugh and others in 2010. The other travels and places mentioned are non-specific and I will not comment on those. (Ref. snopes.com President Obama’s Asian Trip and ‘Debunking the Myth: The Cost of Obama’s Trip to Asia,” by CNN)
The student loan program is a great expense to the federal government. However, records indicate that this high cost is not because students are borrowing more money, but is the cost of more students going to college. The $2 trillion college loan program mentioned in the Aug. 31 letter to the editor cannot be confirmed. In my research, I found that the total loan cost for 2009 through 2010 was $110 billion, an average of $55 billion per year. Considering the increasing cost of a college education, let’s add $150 billion dollars per year for year 2011 and 2012. This totals $410 billion dollars, far less than the $2 trillion in the Aug. 31 letter.
As long as the student is in college, pursuing a degree the loan continues. Some students thirst for education and get a four-year degree, a master’s degree then a doctorate, which could take 12 years or more. Presently, with the very high cost of a college degree, only the very rich, like the Romney’s, can afford it. When our country cannot help the middle class get an education, we are deteriorating from within. If the student loan was cosigned, the cosigner is obligated to pay the loan if the student defaults. (Ref. “What America Owes in Student Loans:” NPR)
The George Bush Republican policies cost $5.1 TRILLION in eight years. This averages about $.625 TRILLION per year. The Barack Obama Democratic policies cost $985 BILLION dollars in four years. This averages about $246 BILLION per year. (Ref. “Adding to The Deficit: Bush vs. Obama,” The Washington Post)
Everyone should think twice before we “change horses in the middle of the stream.” Quoting from the letter of Aug. 31: “Out of control. What we need is another change. A better one this time.” I THINK NOT.
Dallas D. Lassen
West Jefferson
I suggest you get your information from some other sources besides FauxNews.
< His medical plan isn't worth anything, he was suppose to help the college students and that hasn't helped me one bit.>
I guess all those under 26 now included in their parent's plan think otherwise. So do those with pre-existing conditions. Possibly also those that got a refund from their insurances, thanks to the ACA.
As for the student loans: Look no further than your representative, Ms Fauxx: " I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that." But perhaps you are with Mitt Romney, who said: Well, go borrow money from your parents. Ummm yeah.... right.
In general, Republicans stand for lower taxes, less regulation, reduced government spending, free trade, right to work among other things. According to the Obama narrative in 2008, it was policies like that that" drove us into the ditch." And according to his 2012 narrative, we just cannot return to those "policies of the past." Since the MSM never has (and never will) point out the obvious shortcomings in that line of thinking, today I'm going to do it for them.
The fact is the American economy was chugging along quite nicely under Bush until the housing bubble burst. After the downturn caused by 9/11, the economy created 8 million jobs through January 2008, and unemployment during 2007 averaged 4.6 percent. Also in 2007, federal tax revenues came in at 18.5% of GDP which was in line with the historical average and the highest since 2000. What makes that fact particularly noteworthy is this surge in tax revenues occurred AFTER the Bush tax cuts, a clear demonstration of how lowering marginal tax rates can lead to stronger economic growth and hence higher tax revenues. So Republican economic policies weren't driving anything into any ditch through 2007.
Then the housing bubble burst, a hundred year economic flood from which we are still trying to recover. Here's what Warren Buffet said about that in his recent investment newsletter: "All of us participated in the destructive behavior – government, lenders, borrowers, the media, ratings agencies, you name it. At the core of the folly was the almost universal belief that the value of houses was certain to increase over time and that any dips would be inconsequential. The acceptance of this premise justified almost any price and practice in housing transactions."
Notice that the Sage of Omaha didn't single out any "Republican economic policy" as the root cause of the problem, but rather noted that everyone got swept up in what was basically a psychological mania based on the flawed belief of ever increasing housing prices. Recent analysis from the Federal Reserve also supports this view by debunking the myths surrounding the usual villains in this piece. For example, the Fed's analysis shows that adjustable rate subprime mortgages were not the smoking gun in this matter, nor were supposedly devious sellers of mortgage backed securities – indeed, the Fed found that the fine print of these instruments contained ample information to warn prospective buyers of the risks involved. Evil Wall Street insiders weren't the bad guys either, the Fed found that many of them were among the biggest LOSERS when the bubble burst – like Bear Stearns.
Nope, the biggest issue was widely held optimism about housing prices, an optimism that overrode all other considerations in the market. And that's an issue of human nature, not economic policy. Four centuries ago there was a tulip mania in Holland and a few years ago there was a housing mania in the U.S. A political candidate (with an accepting MSM) who twists this reality into a narrative that paints Republican policies as the root cause of our current troubles is not only being disingenuous, he's basically lying.
Of course, those of us with a brain have known that about Obama all along.
Its not only time to "change horses" its time to run liberals who care more about illegal aliens & muslim feelings than United States citizens out of washington.
You said it right when you said that it's time to run liberals who care more about illegal aliens & mulsim feelings than United States citizens out of washington. I am right there with you!!!
And to Dallas Lasson's idea that it isn't a good idea to "change horses in the middle of the stream", are you kidding me? So, it would be better for us to stick our head in the sand for another four years and let Obama get us further in debt and totally wreck or economy? Make it so hard that no other president has a snowballs chance of getting us back out that hole he has us in? Name one thing that Obama has done for us in the 4 years that he has been president! Not one single thing. His medical plan isn't worth anything, he was suppose to help the college students and that hasn't helped me one bit.