Just an example of SEIU thuggery at its finest. They've got those community organizing skills down pat!
I know Danny Glover got arrested the other day at one of their protests. Andy Stern said he wanted to get arrested but for some reason didn't, Maybe he changed his mind at the last minute.
The best our Pip dictionary Application would do was
thug [thug] Show IPA
a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
(sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.
1800–10; < Hindi thag lit., rogue, cheat
thug·ger·y [thuhg-uh-ree] Show IPA, noun
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source | Link To thuggery
Apparently, Denise, you are again suffering from a case of language inflation. Unions and community organization are now in your mind the purview here of people that are cruel and vicious and are ruffians, robbers and murderers. I would suspect that you would have quite a few people who might give you a dispute about that. I suspect that none of them were part of the Kali cult that was apparently wiped out in 1839, not even, in all likelihood, by extension. You'd have to prove that.
I wonder if the new 'government only' student loans will only be given to kids who agree to attend colleges that allow these union and community organizing folks to recruit and brainwash them?
This is an interesting an poisonous piece of speculation here. Because of its structure, it appears to avoid libel while giving free reign for fantasy to build absurdity upon absurdity, unmortared by the cement of reality testing. You leave out, Oh, so many things.
First, you don't like government spending of taxpayer monies at all. So any cutbacks should be welcome to you.
Second, That the government was not giving the money to the kids, it was giving money to the banks, so the banks could make a profit on it. That's corporate welfare, a taxpayer giveaway to people who don't need the money in the first place to underwrite loans so that the banks can't loose money on them. That's anti-capitalist. The banks should be taking the risk to make money; not doing so is what you should be calling socialism, isn't it?
Third, the government loses money by doing so, so that's what you'd call "waste and fraud in Government," isn't it?
Fourth, if the banks wish to make student loans, the government hasn't said that they can't. They are still free to do so. They are simply angry that now they must do so in a free market, with competition that says that it's in the interest of the country to have a well educated citizenry, and is willing to put its money where its mouth is. Had the banks been less greedy about their lending rates in the past, and had they been more aware of "enlightened self interest" rather than simply "self-interest" then they wouldn't have created the conditions where it was in the interest of the government and the people to change policy. Now they must actually compete.
Fifth, the loans the government offers are not interest free loans. The government should make a profit on them, enough to cover the defaults and to increase the loan pool that they have to operate with in the first place. It should be a government program that may actually make money.
Nobody says that private colleges have to accept government loans. They can accept private bank loans or make whatever other arrangements they wish to make with the students. They will need to compete for money and for students with other colleges in a competitive environment.
Feel free to wonder how many people lost their jobs to the Government take-over of the Student loan industry. While you think about that, think about how many people lost their jobs in the funeral industry when the government mandated seat belts and air bags and saved perhaps tens of thousands of lives a year.
I share your grief.
If the banks wish to compete, the market is still there. It simply won't be a subsidized market any more.
Unless you want to campaign for a heavily subsidized banking industry so we can be sure that those banks make sure they have big big profits without taking those risks. That is what you say you want, now, isn't it?