[NeedKarma]

Kansas City sets youth curfew after weekend shooting | Reuters

I'm OK with that one. It's not really the kids that are the problem, it's the failed parenting of the previous generation.

[paraclete]

And how did they fail karma? They were set up by their parents who thought it was a great idea to party

[NeedKarma]

That's the fail.

[tomder55]

It's fostering an entitlement mentality in the population.

Rioting in London and flash mobbing in American cities have raised another paradox: Does contemporary looting and violence follow from physical deprivation or from a boredom, envy, and anger caused by too many subsidies and too little personal initiative and self-reliance? We know that the more we ensure that young people have generous unemployment insurance and government money for housing, food, and education, the more they are likely not to get up at 6 a.m. and take an extra class or look for a job. And yet the more we provide such bread-and-circuses dependencies, the more it becomes dangerous to question such life support. Ask the Emperor Justinian, who cut back on a bloated civil-service and entitlement bureau — and earned the Nika riots, which almost toppled his regime. So even as we suspect that the welfare state is unsustainable, we are told that it alone can prevent social unrest — which we suspect is currently brought about by the welfare state.

We worry about our youth, citing high unemployment among those under 25, a $16 trillion debt bequeathed to them, a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system propped up by a shrinking and poor youth cohort working for an affluent and long-lived aging generation. But we also fret that young people are not quite suffering in Depression-era style, but instead are hooked on iPhones, iPads, iPods, DVDs, and video games. A new profile of the stay-at-home, electronics-laden, late-20-something-year-old suggests that millions are earning just enough for entertainment, car payments, and gas, subsidized by mom and dad with free rent, food, and laundry. Are today’s students saddled with the highest per capita student-loan debt in history, and at the same time more pampered and learning less than any previous generation?

VDH's Private Papers::Obama's Paradoxes

[NeedKarma]

Are today's students saddled with the highest per capita student-loan debt in history, and at the same time more pampered and learning less than any previous generation?

The previous generation made this generation.

[tomder55]

And the generation before who thought it was a good idea post WWII to create the nanny-state.

[excon]

Are today's students saddled with the highest per capita student-loan debt in history, and at the same time more pampered and learning less than any previous generation?

Hello tom:

It's true. It's a result of a gift the right wing made to the banksters.. Oh, that wasn't the ONLY gift. It was just the beginning of the greatest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the WEALTHY that we've experienced over the last decade or so.

Let's see how the right wingers PROTECTED their banksters... They made SURE that students couldn't discharge their loans through bankruptcy, and they made SURE the government backed the loans... Yup, WE got screwed, and we're STILL getting screwed.. They make ALL the profit and we take ALL the risk. The students get SCREWED in either case.

And, the right wingers are STILL carrying their water because they don't want to raise taxes on the banksters. They think lowering them is good.

Excon

[tomder55]

Is bankruptcy the way you normally settle a loan ?

[excon]

is bankruptcy the way you normally settle a loan ?

Hello tom:

Fortunately, I've never taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws.. But, SOME people need to. That's WHY the bankruptcy laws are there. We BELIEVE in giving a person a second chance. But, whether you believe in them or not, doesn't change the fact that banksters made SURE that their loans won't be discharged in bankruptcy.. They got their friends in congress to pass that loss on to the OTHER creditors...

So tell me. Why should a bank be PROTECTED from THIS particular loan?? I thought you were a FREE market kind of guy, but I see you want to PROTECT the banksters... How does a free marketeer justify PROTECTING the banksters??

excon

[tomder55]

As you well know ,I've never been in favor of protecting banks . I have not had the time to research the history of student loans . But my best guess is that the government took it upon themselves to subsidize a large percentage of them somewhere in the 1960s.

The question really is why has the cost of higher education gone up so much ? I suspect ;based on my experience ,that colleges are run like a 4 year Disneyland /Animal House.

[excon]

But my best guess is that the government took it upon themselves to subsidize a large percentage of them somewhere in the 1960s.

Hello again, tom:

Subsidizing student loans is GOOD. It protects the STUDENT... It shifts some of the costs onto the taxpayer. That's good for the country. I don't mind my taxes going toward public education.

But, somehow, the banksters got their friends in congress to SWITCH it around so THEY were the ones who got PROTECTED, and the STUDENTS got screwed... That's BAD for the country.

excon

[NeedKarma]

and the generation before who thought it was a good idea post WWII to create the nanny-state.

No I think it has a LOT more to do with the sifting of the American Dream to the "appearance of wealth" as the ultimate goal. The parents are so focused on money and acquiring goods that parenting took a back seat.

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

Subsidizing student loans is GOOD. It protects the STUDENT... It shifts some of the costs onto the taxpayer. That's good for the country. I don't mind my taxes going toward public education.

But, somehow, the banksters got their friends in congress to SWITCH it around so THEY were the ones who got PROTECTED, and the STUDENTS got screwed... That's BAD for the country.

excon

Yeah I know... you would make college education an entitlement fully paid for by the taxpayer .

So Sen Durbin wants to restore it to the way it was before the 2005 change where the Government loans were exempt from being subject to bankruptcy laws ;but students were enabled to renege on private loans. Why doesn't Sen Durbin et al go the additional step and remove the prohibitions about defaulting on the gvt loans ? Why even have provisions for students to pay them back ? It's only greedy "banksters" after all that were providing the financing for the students education. The President would gladly cut out the middle man.

Why doesn't Sen Durbin et al go after those greedy ivy covered institutions they graduated from for fleecing the students with way out of proportion to the benefit education costs ? The students after all are shmoozed with this fradulent promise of a higher paying career at the end of their time in these institutions . If anyone's perpetrating a fraud it's the colleges.

BTW... Student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy prior to 1976. With the introduction of the US Bankruptcy Code (11 USC 101 et seq) in 1978, the ability to discharge education loans was limited. Prior to this legislation, education loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy without any exceptions.
It was Democrats that began the changes... Not "right wingers".

[excon]

Yeah I know.....you would make college education an entitlement fully paid for by the taxpayer .

It was Democrats that began the changes .... Not "right wingers".

Hello again, tom:

Couple things..

YES. I believe that's what state university's were all about - FREE education. And, YES again, I think they MORE than paid for themselves... That's the difference between INVESTMENT and idle spending. You guy's CAN'T tell the difference..

Second thing.. I didn't say there weren't some Democrat right wingers... How do you account for Joe Lieberman? But, I don't disagree with you about the influx of congressional right wingers from BOTH parties... Ever since Citizens United, they know where their bread is buttered.. It's WITH the moneyed interests. I call 'em banksters, but we can include corporations too.

excon

[tomder55]

FREE

Bread a Circuses ;the hallmark of the nanny state and decline of great nations .
Anyway it's not the pampered middle class youths that are flash mobbing (except the thrill seekers or the impov kabuki dancers ). I can assure you that many if not most of them could easily pay back their student loans if it weren't for those greedy phone companies (phonesters ?)who charge them a fortune to text.

[paraclete]

So Tom you think it is the poor and underprivileged who are responsible for flash mobs? Did you notice who were among the mob in Britain? The people came from both rich and poor.

This is a fad like slabbing is a fad, give them some new gadget and they will forget it altogether. What I say is no one under 21 should have a moblie phone then the problem is solved.