[patientrenter]

I agree that it ain’t gonna happen, brian, but I do hear people claim that fixing what caused our current problems is very complicated and will take lots of time, and probably can’t work all that well etc. That’s all bunk. It would be quite easy to fix most of the problem through tough downpayment rules – the people (mostly in Congress) who could do so just don’t want to.

As for the gullible being taken to the cleaners, I disagree. In this case, the people who will be taken to the cleaners are

1. taxpayers, who will have to come up with the money to support all the debt we are incurring to keep the inflated asset price shell game going

2. net savers, who will lose to inflation as people in debt push every button to avoid repayment in full value of what they have borrowed.

Being in those two groups doesn’t require being gullible. Those of us in the first group are there without much of a choice. I am in the second group, too, and I can see how that makes me an easy mark. But if we have created a society where being financially responsible is punished, I think we need to change before other societies without this defect eat our lunch.

[patientrenter]

I agree that it ain’t gonna happen, brian, but I do hear people claim that fixing what caused our current problems is very complicated and will take lots of time, and probably can’t work all that well etc. That’s all bunk. It would be quite easy to fix most of the problem through tough downpayment rules – the people (mostly in Congress) who could do so just don’t want to.

As for the gullible being taken to the cleaners, I disagree. In this case, the people who will be taken to the cleaners are

1. taxpayers, who will have to come up with the money to support all the debt we are incurring to keep the inflated asset price shell game going

2. net savers, who will lose to inflation as people in debt push every button to avoid repayment in full value of what they have borrowed.

Being in those two groups doesn’t require being gullible. Those of us in the first group are there without much of a choice. I am in the second group, too, and I can see how that makes me an easy mark. But if we have created a society where being financially responsible is punished, I think we need to change before other societies without this defect eat our lunch.

[patientrenter]

I agree that it ain’t gonna happen, brian, but I do hear people claim that fixing what caused our current problems is very complicated and will take lots of time, and probably can’t work all that well etc. That’s all bunk. It would be quite easy to fix most of the problem through tough downpayment rules – the people (mostly in Congress) who could do so just don’t want to.

As for the gullible being taken to the cleaners, I disagree. In this case, the people who will be taken to the cleaners are

1. taxpayers, who will have to come up with the money to support all the debt we are incurring to keep the inflated asset price shell game going

2. net savers, who will lose to inflation as people in debt push every button to avoid repayment in full value of what they have borrowed.

Being in those two groups doesn’t require being gullible. Those of us in the first group are there without much of a choice. I am in the second group, too, and I can see how that makes me an easy mark. But if we have created a society where being financially responsible is punished, I think we need to change before other societies without this defect eat our lunch.

[patientrenter]

I agree that it ain’t gonna happen, brian, but I do hear people claim that fixing what caused our current problems is very complicated and will take lots of time, and probably can’t work all that well etc. That’s all bunk. It would be quite easy to fix most of the problem through tough downpayment rules – the people (mostly in Congress) who could do so just don’t want to.

As for the gullible being taken to the cleaners, I disagree. In this case, the people who will be taken to the cleaners are

1. taxpayers, who will have to come up with the money to support all the debt we are incurring to keep the inflated asset price shell game going

2. net savers, who will lose to inflation as people in debt push every button to avoid repayment in full value of what they have borrowed.

Being in those two groups doesn’t require being gullible. Those of us in the first group are there without much of a choice. I am in the second group, too, and I can see how that makes me an easy mark. But if we have created a society where being financially responsible is punished, I think we need to change before other societies without this defect eat our lunch.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Eugene]I have to disagree with you all, at least with regard to loans for professional schools (law, business, med).

The way things are, all capable students can attend these schools without regard to their ability to pay, poorer and stronger students are offered scholarships financed by money from richer and weaker students, graduates get well-paid jobs and the ability to pay off their loans within years after graduation.

Remove student loans, tuition comes down, scholarship pool shrinks. Richest students benefit because they get to pay less. Poor students lose, because there’s less money available for need-based scholarships. The whole system becomes less equitable and produces less qualified professionals.[/quote]

Eugene, if loans to pay for education expenses were more restricted, then it would have to become more focused on the students who were the poorest and most likely to succeed (as measured by earning enough later on to pay it all back with interest).

I don’t see any problem with requiring middle class people to postpone buying a new car in order to pay more for their childrens’ college expenses. And I don’t have a problem with denying financial aid to a poor person who may not be determined enough or capable enough to put the education they are looking for to good-paying use. Not everyone is smart enough or ambitious enough to justify giving them $100,000 for more education.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Eugene]I have to disagree with you all, at least with regard to loans for professional schools (law, business, med).

The way things are, all capable students can attend these schools without regard to their ability to pay, poorer and stronger students are offered scholarships financed by money from richer and weaker students, graduates get well-paid jobs and the ability to pay off their loans within years after graduation.

Remove student loans, tuition comes down, scholarship pool shrinks. Richest students benefit because they get to pay less. Poor students lose, because there’s less money available for need-based scholarships. The whole system becomes less equitable and produces less qualified professionals.[/quote]

Eugene, if loans to pay for education expenses were more restricted, then it would have to become more focused on the students who were the poorest and most likely to succeed (as measured by earning enough later on to pay it all back with interest).

I don’t see any problem with requiring middle class people to postpone buying a new car in order to pay more for their childrens’ college expenses. And I don’t have a problem with denying financial aid to a poor person who may not be determined enough or capable enough to put the education they are looking for to good-paying use. Not everyone is smart enough or ambitious enough to justify giving them $100,000 for more education.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Eugene]I have to disagree with you all, at least with regard to loans for professional schools (law, business, med).

The way things are, all capable students can attend these schools without regard to their ability to pay, poorer and stronger students are offered scholarships financed by money from richer and weaker students, graduates get well-paid jobs and the ability to pay off their loans within years after graduation.

Remove student loans, tuition comes down, scholarship pool shrinks. Richest students benefit because they get to pay less. Poor students lose, because there’s less money available for need-based scholarships. The whole system becomes less equitable and produces less qualified professionals.[/quote]

Eugene, if loans to pay for education expenses were more restricted, then it would have to become more focused on the students who were the poorest and most likely to succeed (as measured by earning enough later on to pay it all back with interest).

I don’t see any problem with requiring middle class people to postpone buying a new car in order to pay more for their childrens’ college expenses. And I don’t have a problem with denying financial aid to a poor person who may not be determined enough or capable enough to put the education they are looking for to good-paying use. Not everyone is smart enough or ambitious enough to justify giving them $100,000 for more education.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Eugene]I have to disagree with you all, at least with regard to loans for professional schools (law, business, med).

The way things are, all capable students can attend these schools without regard to their ability to pay, poorer and stronger students are offered scholarships financed by money from richer and weaker students, graduates get well-paid jobs and the ability to pay off their loans within years after graduation.

Remove student loans, tuition comes down, scholarship pool shrinks. Richest students benefit because they get to pay less. Poor students lose, because there’s less money available for need-based scholarships. The whole system becomes less equitable and produces less qualified professionals.[/quote]

Eugene, if loans to pay for education expenses were more restricted, then it would have to become more focused on the students who were the poorest and most likely to succeed (as measured by earning enough later on to pay it all back with interest).

I don’t see any problem with requiring middle class people to postpone buying a new car in order to pay more for their childrens’ college expenses. And I don’t have a problem with denying financial aid to a poor person who may not be determined enough or capable enough to put the education they are looking for to good-paying use. Not everyone is smart enough or ambitious enough to justify giving them $100,000 for more education.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Eugene]I have to disagree with you all, at least with regard to loans for professional schools (law, business, med).

The way things are, all capable students can attend these schools without regard to their ability to pay, poorer and stronger students are offered scholarships financed by money from richer and weaker students, graduates get well-paid jobs and the ability to pay off their loans within years after graduation.

Remove student loans, tuition comes down, scholarship pool shrinks. Richest students benefit because they get to pay less. Poor students lose, because there’s less money available for need-based scholarships. The whole system becomes less equitable and produces less qualified professionals.[/quote]

Eugene, if loans to pay for education expenses were more restricted, then it would have to become more focused on the students who were the poorest and most likely to succeed (as measured by earning enough later on to pay it all back with interest).

I don’t see any problem with requiring middle class people to postpone buying a new car in order to pay more for their childrens’ college expenses. And I don’t have a problem with denying financial aid to a poor person who may not be determined enough or capable enough to put the education they are looking for to good-paying use. Not everyone is smart enough or ambitious enough to justify giving them $100,000 for more education.

[patientrenter]

davelj, I am not predicting that Prop 13 will fall. But if Prop 13 is that big castle on the hill with stout walls that seem impregnable, I am suggesting that the barbarians outside the gates are eyeing the possible weak spots, seeing something interesting, and sizing them up carefully. We will see what they decide to do.

[patientrenter]

davelj, I am not predicting that Prop 13 will fall. But if Prop 13 is that big castle on the hill with stout walls that seem impregnable, I am suggesting that the barbarians outside the gates are eyeing the possible weak spots, seeing something interesting, and sizing them up carefully. We will see what they decide to do.

[patientrenter]

davelj, I am not predicting that Prop 13 will fall. But if Prop 13 is that big castle on the hill with stout walls that seem impregnable, I am suggesting that the barbarians outside the gates are eyeing the possible weak spots, seeing something interesting, and sizing them up carefully. We will see what they decide to do.

[patientrenter]

davelj, I am not predicting that Prop 13 will fall. But if Prop 13 is that big castle on the hill with stout walls that seem impregnable, I am suggesting that the barbarians outside the gates are eyeing the possible weak spots, seeing something interesting, and sizing them up carefully. We will see what they decide to do.

[patientrenter]

davelj, I am not predicting that Prop 13 will fall. But if Prop 13 is that big castle on the hill with stout walls that seem impregnable, I am suggesting that the barbarians outside the gates are eyeing the possible weak spots, seeing something interesting, and sizing them up carefully. We will see what they decide to do.

[patientrenter]

The play comes in several acts. This not the final act. We have to go through small and /or temporary cuts in the most visible and painful segments of CA govt spending.

After that builds some public sympathy for relief for CA, the feds will relent. “We had to save poor flesh and blood Californians from this horrible and unfair fate. They are practically dying for want of a few tens of billions of dollars.” A few of the most high profile spending cuts will be left in place, as a sop to federal taxpayers.

It is possible that a condition of receiving federal funds will be an increase in California taxes. There are many who would like nothing better than to see the end of Prop 13, and this bailout would be one of the best chances in years to achieve that. A good number of Republican pols and businessmen could be turned by the bailout money.

Give it another few months. The bailout is on its way.

[Author]

Posts