Shelby tries to blame Obama for bank bailouts that happened ‘last fall.’
By on Jun 7th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Shelby tries to blame Obama for bank bailouts that happened ‘last fall.’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) why he believes the Obama administration is “taking us down the road to socialism.” Shelby said it was “obviously” the case, and pointed to last fall’s bank bailouts as the prime example:
WALLACE: Sen. Shelby, you say that the Obama administration is taking us down the road to socialism. Explain.
SHELBY: Well, obviously. So, they intervene last fall in the bank crisis. No one has ever done it on that scale before. Now the automobile crisis.
Shelby seemed to catch himself moments later, saying, “you have to go back to the Bush administration. They started it.” Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
yeah do you think any of these loosers dared utter the words “bush is a socialist”?
remember, its only socialism when a black guy does it..
June 7th, 2009 at 10:09 amIronically enough, by misusing the term, the Republicans are convincing some Americans that “socialism” is a good thing.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:16 amAs I’ve said before. The GOoPers have convinced themselves that Obama has simply followed Clinton. The Bush Administration was so horrible that they are trying to deny it ever happened.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:17 amGeorge Bush is the one who chose the socialist route when he decided to bailout the banks and the auto industry. This wasn’t a secret to anyone. Of course, as usual, the right wingers of America were listening with their fingers in their ears and seeing with their hands over their eyes! They remember nothing about what happened over the last 8 years and they can prove it to: THEY HAD THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS AND THEIR HANDS OVER THEIR EYES. Did I mention they had their fingers in their ears when listening and had their hands over their eyes when watching the last 8 years of George Bush? Huh.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:18 amWALLACE: Sen. Shelby, you say that the Obama administration is taking us down the road to socialism. Explain.
What’s probably worse than the answer is the leading question from that runt wanna-be suçk face.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:23 amAnd of course they conveniently forget that the reason the “socialism” of the bank bailout was seen as necessary was because of the utter failure of their free market fundamentalist ideas.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:23 amWeren’t the bankers in full panic mode, and essentially extorting money, at the time, and threatening to take the whole country with them if they didn’t get it? It was, in a sense, bigger than Bush. I don’t even blame Bush for caving. Blaming Obama is just more cry-baby shitz from the Republican party.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:28 amThey try to bury us under the BS coming out of the GOP leadership.
They’re trying to push the buttons of their base. Watch for key words:
socialism, Christian values,taxes,guns,immigrants,etc. in the hope of triggering an emotional response that will override any logical thinking.
It’s painful to watch.
Somebody should put together a complete glossary of GOP talking points. I’d be hilarious.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:28 amYeah I like how the banks tell us that capitalism is great until they lose money. Then they want to socialize the losses. Of course the American public is held hostage by these same bastards who brought us to this point.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:31 amBetter socialism than crackerism, Shelby.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:35 amIt’s also been said before that the GOP seeks to privatize gains and socialize losses.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:36 amPrivatize the profits, socialize the losses has been the mantra since the eighties, at least. Corporate feudalism was the term at the time.
This is a re-run—it’s just a bit bigger than the last time that the music stopped playing and the bankers found themselves without chairs. I see no problem with U.S. citizens collectively owning the chairs. Call it whatever you want.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:37 amNah, they have to lay some more groundwork still. But it’s coming…
June 7th, 2009 at 10:40 amI still find it hard to believe Shelby was the one
republican sensible enough to vote against the Graham Leach Bliley act.
Had to be a mistake.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:48 amShelby is the minority leader of the Senate Banking Committee. “They” led the charge? Sorry Senator, it was Congress who passed the $700 billion bill.
The people’s legislature, of which you are a part, did it.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:51 am“Bank Bailout” is a Misnomer.
Most small, Neighborhood Banks are Still Solvent and doing fine , in spite of the Faltering Economy.
It is the BIG Investment Banks…those specifically Deregulated by Graham Leach Bliley…. that are in trouble due to their problem Gambling.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:52 amBlame is all they seem to have at the moment – they have no ideas that haven’t already been tried and failed.
Too bad for America, because it really is good to have two opposing parties with intelligent and honest debate, rather than what we currently have.
Might as well have elected Republican chimpanzees. At least they’d have been honest about the feces they flung…
June 7th, 2009 at 10:54 amBadger Says: It is the BIG Investment Banks…those specifically Deregulated by Graham Leach Bliley…. that are in trouble due to their problem Gambling
Well said. It truly was a gambling problem, and nothing more.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:56 amIMHO, the only reason that Bush even started this bailout process of banks and major businesses was that the small, elite, top one percent of people on the income ladder were in danger of not getting the full value of their over-valued assets. They stood to suddenly be worth several billion (or hundred million) dollars less and they did not like that idea. This despite the fact that they still would be worth billions or hundreds of millions of dollars even after the losses. But that wasn’t good enough for them. They wanted it all.
We know that some ridiculously high percentage of the wealth in this country (about 90%) goes to a ridiculously small percentage of people (like 1%). It is not unreasonable to believe that a high percentage of the TARP funds is going to ultimately end up in the hands of this same small group of people.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:59 amFoxSnooze is expert at making mountains out of molehills — and vice versa. Little Chrissy Wallace talks about “taking the country down the road to socialism” but here’s the scorecard:
– nationalized industry = $82.4 billion
– private industry = $39.2 trillion
About 0.2 percent of private industry has been essentially taken into a form of “government receivership” as a result of the incompetence of the Bu$h administration. BFD
Shelby, with his panties all in a wad, provides just one more example of why it would have been a good idea to let the South secede before the Civil War.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:00 amUntil the MSM holds the GOP over the fire for sitting on their fat arses and letting the economy fall into pieces, we’ll have to put up with the likes of Shelby and all the other rabble rousers. They need to be shamed into silence and the MSM should be the ones to do it. To bad they’re not up to the task.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:05 amI meant to say “temporary government receivership”.
We are already seeing signs that eight national banking companies are going to repay TARP funds sooner rather than later. The bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM are moving quickly which will be important to their ability to regain consumer confidence.
I am convinced that the government will exit its ownership of shares in these businesses as quickly as possible. The “socialist” screed is pure BS. Frankly, it reminds me somewhat of all the fury that was stirred up years ago when the government extended loans to Chrysler and to the country of Mexico. After all the dust settled, we were paid back in full with interest but the poor embattled republicans have apparently lost confidence (if they ever had any) in our government’s ability to do the same this time around. What a bunch of pussies!
June 7th, 2009 at 11:07 amtom Says: Shelby, with his panties all in a wad, provides just one more example of why it would have been a good idea to let the South secede before the Civil War.
Having been raised in Georgia, but having been born in New Jersey, I could not agree more. Saving the South was not such a great idea in retrospect because:
1. Southern red states receive more Federal money than they pay in Federal taxes. They are a burden.
2. Aside from the South, America is left-center. Bush never would have been President without the South.
3. Racism is still fully alive and kicking here. Without the South, President Obama has an upper 70’s approval rating. With the South, he drops by 10% points.
4. The South fosters ignorance – especially the divisive, religious kind.
and so on…
June 7th, 2009 at 11:09 amOh, no, we can’t have the corporate media holding the G-NO-P accountable. That would prove that they’re “liberally biased”.
Gotta prove that they’re “Fair & Balanced™” by inviting two Republicans on the Sunday talk shows for each Democrat and giving the daughter of the unpopular former Vice-President unprecedented access to the airwaves even though she has nothing to offer beyond her daddy’s talking points.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:15 amA-hole Shelby refuses to take part in the socialist healthcare that is provided to members of Congress, right? Yea right. What a buffoon.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:15 amBravo Ralph! Exactly.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:25 amI am beginning to believe that these idiots with (R) associated with the name may not be intelligent enough to know the difference between their capitalism and it’s failure and socilaism or communism for that matter. Hell they allowed the Bush Crime Family to create a fascist regime without saying a word about it. The banks failed September 18, 2008. Barack Obama had not been elected yet. The free market fiasco has resulted in all these actions being necessary. We should not permit ignorance in these positions of power. Shelby should be fired.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:28 amYour right, we should not rely on the internet, internet is only a media, but I think while you are writing this article your mind is not in peace… I knew from reading every word you wrote.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:34 amFired from the banking committee?
He got 68% in the last election, so you’ll have to take that up with the state of Alabama.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:34 amOur porn spammer buddy Seslichat is going weird places now.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am@ralph the wonder locust
Like I said … Too bad they’re(MSM) not up to the task.
And the MSM concept of “Fair & Balanced™” is like giving the serpent on Adam & Eve fame equal time against the word of God.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:37 amAfter eight years of Republican leadership (or should I say (non-leadership) these Bozos shouldn’t be allowed a platform to complain. With the incredible mess Bush, Cheney and his Republican co-horts left this country in a little bit of socialism seems like the only way to right the course. I just wish Obama could fire dimwits like Shelby. He’s only against the auto reforms because he’s a HUGE recipient of funds from auto special interests. Shelby should resign and GSTH, do not pass go, do not collect $200. He’s a REAL JERK!!!!!!!!!!!
June 7th, 2009 at 11:40 amWho’s spoofing sesli? It’s got to be one of the regulars.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:40 amshamless plug:
Of Bailouts, Buyouts and Bankruptcy
June 7th, 2009 at 11:41 amShelby’s comments clearly show that he should not be a member of the Senate because he doesn’t know that healthcare reform is a huge part of what is wrong with this economy. Or maybe he does know it but sticks to his talking points so that he continues to satisfy his constituents so that they continue voting for him to stay in Congress. His cowardice in the face of facts he knows to be true tells me that he doesn’t care about what Americans want, he’s a hypocrite, and that he views being in Congress as his own personal right.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:41 amPresidents firing senators is a terrible idea. One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats hold the House, the Senate, and the Executive office. We’re not really on the defensive here. Perhaps we should be more worried about the Democrats than we are about the Republicans.
I wish I had the link to the Obama poster that someone put online during the campaign. It said “Chill the fcuk out. I got this.”
June 7th, 2009 at 11:47 amwiley, I love that poster. I saw it for the first time the week before the election. Perfectly captured the mood of the moment for me.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:49 amwiley, here ya go.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:51 amIt’s a “Big Lie.”
Which will be repeated regularly and publically, until it joins the “conventional wisdom.”
You cannot rebut such a lie with ‘facts.’ It will only get MORE exposure from efforts to debunk it.
The Big Lie works on 2 premises: one, the lie is to big to be a lie, and two, it is repeated til mere repetition confers a pseudio-legitimacy.
This tactic works incredibly well, and it is made even more effective by the structure of the 24-hour news cycle, which require CONTENT–any kind, and any shape–to perpetuate the appearance of contemporeity…
June 7th, 2009 at 11:57 amSupposedly, Shelby is a college-educated guy, but I’m finding that *most* difficult to believe.
What he reminds me of most is a bratty (and not-too-bright) 8 year old trying to claim that the dog ate his homework – WHEN HE DOESN’T HAVE A DOG.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pmShelby’s 100% right, and bush deserves some blame to for starting the bailouts. Obama took them and increased everything 10 fold. Let’s face it bush was a big government republican with socialist attributes. This country has been heading towards socialism for over 20 years.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
This country has been heading towards socialism for over 20 years.
Let’s see… “over twenty years”?
That would mean that St. Ronnie Ray-Gun began this nation’s slide toward “socialism”, right?
Weird that the lame troll wouldn’t try to pin it on Jimmy Carter.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pmThis is desperate…. blaming Obama for what happened last fall. Does Shelby think his voting block in AL are that stupid to not notice?
Perhaps.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pmI really wish the “Conservatives” would begin by DEFINING what they call “socialism” . . . seems most trollies have no idea HOW social or economic systems work, let alone be able to assign “definitions” . . . . and I guess ol’Shel just plain forgot about BUSH . . . seems all Republican have.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pmThis country has been heading towards socialism for over 20 years.
I would say this country has been headed toward unregulated free market capitalism since 1981. And that’s why the income disparity in this country has grown so much over the past thirty years.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:39 pmJess Wonderin Says:
I really wish the “Conservatives” would begin by DEFINING what they call “socialism”
It appears anything that is for the people, by the people and for we the people.
Therefore, this is an un American and the continued trashing of our Constitution.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pmAccording to the party of NO this must be their definition of socialism:
The Preamble to the United States Constitution
Please take note, the only ‘provide for’ not beginning with a capital letter is common defense in the true form on the preamble. But…. there are many other copies online with common defense changed beginning with capital letters.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
This country has been heading towards socialism for over 20 years.
I would say this country has been headed toward unregulated free market capitalism since 1981. And that’s why the income disparity in this country has grown so much over the past thirty years.
In my day and probably most here, we memorized the Preamble to the Constitution in 8th grade and government classes were required later on in HS. It appears all of this has been dropped starting with the Reagan years and I suspect it was on purpose.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:33 pmHere’s a neat pie chart that shows clearly what Shelby’s complaining about.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pmThe truth is that socialism IS a good thing.
Ask our cousins in Europe or in Canada how they like their education and healthcare systems. Ask them how much they enjoy their vacations and living without the worry about how to send their children to college or how much that grandma’s hip replacement will cost.
Ask the workers there about how much better they feel about their CEO who only makes a few times as much money as the lowest-paid employee, compared to the US where a CEO can potentially make 1,000 times as much.
Socialism is only scary when you don’t really know what it is.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pmIt’s not socialism if rich people are allowed to keep the profits!
Actually, that works pretty well as a complete understanding of what the word “socialism” means to today’s plutocracy.
June 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pmSesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 5:00 pmSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat
______
unbelievable Says:
Southern red states receive more Federal money than they pay in Federal taxes. They are a burden.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:09 am
______
“Why does this state-by-state disparity exist?”
Spending does lean red, but the reason is demographic, not political. Most federal money is spent on retirees, especially Social Security and Medicare. And of course the elderly have been moving south and west for years. Every large blue state saw its elderly population depleted during the late 1990s. As might be expected, red Florida and Arizona took in many of the elderly, but they weren’t alone. Almost every Mountain and Southern state expanded its elderly population.
Despite the red dominance of retirement destinations, the spending tilt toward red states isn’t extreme. The ten states where Uncle Sam spent the least money per capita in 2003 include three solid reds — Utah, Georgia and Indiana; two solid blues – New Jersey and Illinois; and five battleground states — one barely red, Nevada and four barely blue, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Which brings us to the real culprit: high blue-state income taxes.
States with the highest incomes per capita — and they’re all solid blue — pay much higher federal taxes per capita. An income of $132,000 in San Francisco buys the same standard of living as $71,000 in Phoenix, but when it’s time to fill out the 1040, the San Francisco family pays 17.3 percent of its income in federal income taxes. That’s $22,812, almost triple the national median. Meanwhile, the Phoenix family pays $7,576, about $400 less than the median. A similar comparison could be drawn of Boston and Atlanta, not to mention New York and almost anywhere.
The income difference is illusory because it does not result in a higher standard of living, but the tax burden on that illusory income is real.
By forcing taxpayers who live in high-cost, high-salary areas up into higher tax brackets, the progressive income tax code not only redistributes income from the prosperous to the poor, but from middle-income blue to middle-income red. Part of this redistribution is caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), once conceived by Democrats to catch rich tax avoiders, now rapidly eating away at the upper-middle class in blue states. Is this the progressivity that Democrats have been championing for years?
June 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
______
had enough Says:
——————————————————————————–
According to the party of NO this must be their definition of socialism:
The Preamble to the United States Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
Please take note, the only ‘provide for’ not beginning with a capital letter is common defense in the true form on the preamble. But…. there are many other copies online with common defense changed beginning with capital letters.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
______
And, having written that preamble, did the founders immediately set up a system of redistributing income so that everyone had roughly the same amount of land, money, personal belongings, influence etc?
June 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pmupright left Says:
And, having written that preamble, did the founders immediately set up a system of redistributing income so that everyone had roughly the same amount of land, money, personal belongings, influence etc?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Was that strawman idiocy supposed to make a point? See anyone here advocating that everyone be given the same amount of land or make the same amount of money? Anyone here advocating Marxism because I dont see it. Still we HAVE promoted the general wellfare when we built the highway system established public education, rural electrification, provided police and fire depts. Social Security and so on. You had no point I hope you didnt really think you did.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pmThnx for the link, Ralph. This is the first time I’ve liked a president as much as a president as I like him as a person. To have elected such a man after the Bush years, in the heat of a thousand crises is such a fantastic gift.
And it’s not McCain/Palin. Having a strong feeling or relief for 8 months is something else.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm______
EugeneDebs Says:
You had no point I hope you didnt really think you did.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
______
Of course there was a point, deb. Don’t assume that because you missed it, it’s not there, bud. The point was that we need to be careful about giving the government too much power and becoming too dependent upon it. If we broaden the idea of promoting the general welfare too much, we may end up with a government that makes the Patriot Act and Telecom Immunity seem libertarian. ;)
June 8th, 2009 at 12:56 amupright left Says:
If we broaden the idea of promoting the general welfare too much, we may end up with a government that makes the Patriot Act and Telecom Immunity seem libertarian.
I can agree with that, but my definition of “too much” is actually at the point where it becomes too much, where as your idea of “too much” is any. No matter what the tax rate was, I’ve never heard an economic conservative say that it had reached the appropriate level, or be willing to state what an appropriate level would be, with the sole exception of anti-tax extremists like Grover Norquist who flatly say 0% is appropriate.
You’re an absolutist – an extremist, in fact – at the opposite end of the scale but using the same ideological approach of the most die-hard Bolshevik.
Your economic utopia amounts to crumbling, useless infrastructure, an uneducated and unemployable populace, legal cheating and shoddy goods. Basically ecomic anarchy.
Ross Perot used to say “let’s run government like a business,” and y’all seemed to warm to that message. While the analogy isn’t perfect, no business ever managed to thrive by refusing to invest its money into improved operations. The same holds true for the American economic environment in which businesses operate.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am______
ElBruce Says:
If we broaden the idea of promoting the general welfare too much, we may end up with a government that makes the Patriot Act and Telecom Immunity seem libertarian.
I can agree with that, but my definition of “too much” is actually at the point where it becomes too much, where as your idea of “too much” is any. No matter what the tax rate was, I’ve never heard an economic conservative say that it had reached the appropriate level, or be willing to state what an appropriate level would be, with the sole exception of anti-tax extremists like Grover Norquist who flatly say 0% is appropriate.
You’re an absolutist – an extremist, in fact – at the opposite end of the scale but using the same ideological approach of the most die-hard Bolshevik.
Your economic utopia amounts to crumbling, useless infrastructure, an uneducated and unemployable populace, legal cheating and shoddy goods. Basically ecomic anarchy.
Ross Perot used to say “let’s run government like a business,” and y’all seemed to warm to that message. While the analogy isn’t perfect, no business ever managed to thrive by refusing to invest its money into improved operations. The same holds true for the American economic environment in which businesses operate.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:09 am
______
Spoken like a true partisan; anyone who disagrees with you on something must be diametrically opposed on everything.
So, those who want the govt to provide healthcare for people who can’t afford it are extremists? Or is it wanting the govt to take as limited a role as possible while providing that care that is extreme? Perhaps extremist means wanting to help those who can’t afford college (help, not make a free ride an entitlement)? An extremist must be one who wants education programs to retrain those whose jobs are disappearing as opposed to wanting the govt to keep those jobs even though they aren’t profitable. And extremists would willingly accept a tax increase to reduce the debt? If that’s your idea of an extremist, I can live with that. ;)
June 8th, 2009 at 2:00 amupright left Says:
Of course there was a point, deb. Don’t assume that because you missed it, it’s not there, bud. The point was that we need to be careful about giving the government too much power and becoming too dependent upon it. If we broaden the idea of promoting the general welfare too much, we may end up with a government that makes the Patriot Act and Telecom Immunity
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So you thought you were making that point by showing that the founding fathers didnt take the promote the general wellfare provision to institute Marxism? Ok so you had a point you just didnt come within miles of making a cogent argument in support of it and assumed we would read your mind and figure out what it was and how it didnt really have anything to DO with Marxism is that about it?
June 8th, 2009 at 4:46 amupright left
If your only argument is where to draw the line then A) GOOD. That is exactly WHERE it should be lets despence with the idiotic mantra I keep seeing, though not so far from you, that any such promotion is unconstitutional. Actually that is EXACTLY the public discussion we should have where do we draw that line. And B) you do THAT argument no service by talking about giving everyone the same amount of land or any other such thinly veiled conflations of promotion with Marxism
June 8th, 2009 at 4:50 am______
EugeneDebs Says:
So you thought you were making that point by showing that the founding fathers didnt take the promote the general wellfare provision to institute Marxism? Ok so you had a point you just didnt come within miles of making a cogent argument in support of it and assumed we would read your mind and figure out what it was and how it didnt really have anything to DO with Marxism is that about it?
June 8th, 2009 at 4:46 am
______
Sorry, Deb, I didn’t see anyone advocating Marxism. You’re off base with that one. You know, just advocating a few ideas that are similar to Marxism doesn’t necessarily make one a Marxist. ;)
June 8th, 2009 at 9:26 amupright left Says:
So, those who want the govt to provide healthcare for people who can’t afford it are extremists? Or is it wanting the govt to take as limited a role as possible while providing that care that is extreme?
If you’re willing to go for public health care, then I may have misjudged you. And the other stuff.
But complaining about “big government” untethered to any specific proposal on its own merits and making slippery-slope arguments about Marxism just serves the extremist cause.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:22 amHey, upright left:
A college education SHOULD come with a free ride. In an economy highly driven by service and hi-tech industries, a college education is necessary, and should be considered an addendum to public education. Make it free and optional, and pay for it in the same way the public schools are currently paid for. There will still be expensive Ivy League schools, just as there are private schools now.
There is no logic in making the people pay for the education that they are told growing up that they will not be successful without, especially when the cost of that education is spiraling so far out of control that fully 2/3 of the population can’t even consider going to college, and those that do are saddled with so much debt for so long that saving for their kid’s college is impossible, thus continuing the cycle.
There are only two options for most in this society when it comes to college – either don’t go to college, get a crappy job, and stay poor forever, or go to college, get a decent job that doesn’t really warrant the enormous cost to get the required degree, stay poor for at least 10 years, and then be moderately less poor forever.
FREE COLLEGE. A successful and self-governing populace is an educated populace. An uneduated, stupid, or ignorant populace gives us a President who’s sole qualification for the job was that it seemed like he’s be a fun drinking buddy.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:58 amShelby the great he was the clown in charge of banks and wallstreet for the last 12 years. It is his falt that all this mess were in he and other repucks that removed most all reg,s to keep the banks and wallstreet honest, now the repuck tries to blame somebodt else. These republicans are cowards stand up and take the blame you caused, why are so many millons going to the republicans to block health care and some dems, these people who vote against health care should be thrown out of office, there takeing money from health care so they can be elected again.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pmIt will hopefully be a long time before the American voters will accept the RepoTalibans lies at face value again.
Some may choose to accept them but they will have to swallow them as lies.
The rest of us, and thank heavens the internet, know better and are willing to call a lie a lie.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:18 pmI thought that FOX viewers had a short memory….sheesh.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:02 pm