Wrong on the substance and the style
Following up on the last item about the calamity that was last night’s Democratic debate, the problem was not just that moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos devoted more than half the event to process, trivia, and gotcha questions, it’s that the shift to substantive issues wasn’t much better.
The first 50 or so minutes remained safely on conservative ground, emphasizing various political controversies that Republicans want to talk about. But the rest of the debate also, oddly enough, seemed to have been run through a Republican filter. As Josh Marshall put it:
[T]he questions upon which the candidates were pressed the most were ones that presumed the correctness of Republican agenda items, sometimes explicitly so — on taxes, capital gains taxes, gun rights, Iraq, etc.
Quite right. For example, Gibson seemed especially animated about capital gains tax rates.
“You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, ‘I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.’ It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
“And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”
When Obama explained why a rate increase would be fair, Gibson followed up with his dissatisfaction: “But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.”
I don’t necessarily mind this style of confrontational questions, but it’s important under the circumstances for moderators to have their facts straight. In this case, Gibson was just wrong, pressing Obama on a mistaken premise.
Steve M. added:
The debate was lousy with right-wing talking points. Jeremiah Wright. Tuzla. Supposed lack of respect for the flag. (One reason Gibson said it was legitimate to ask Obama about this — the question came from an ordinary citizen, on videotape — was that “it is all over the Internet.”) Past pledges to ban handguns. Alleged ignorance of right-wing “laws” of economics. (“But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up,” Gibson said flatly at one point.) […]
People say, “Can Obama really withstand the attacks he’ll face from the GOP in the general election?” But that’s not the right question. The right question is: Can Obama withstand the attacks he’ll face from the mainstream press parroting the GOP? That should be his biggest concern.
It’s a bit of a tangent, but one other question that bugged me was when Gibson pressed Clinton and Obama on committing to accepting the other as a running mate. When they demurred, Gibson tried to make a constitutional argument:
Just to quote from the Constitution again, ‘In every case,’ Article Two, Section One, ‘after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president.'”
“If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?”
But that’s complete nonsense. First, in colonial times, the 12th Amendment was passed to override this constitutional provision. Second, the language in Article II had nothing to do with primary rivals teaming up. By Gibson’s logic, he was asking each of the candidates to agree to serve alongside John McCain in 2009.
When wrapping up, Gibson told viewers that he thought he’d run a “fascinating debate.” I’m glad he thought so, because I don’t imagine anyone else agreed.
I guess it is largely because Obama hasn’t been in government as long as Hillary or McCain, or that he hasn’t had scandals along the way, but what’s with this six-degrees-of-separation complex? Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan, and now Ayers. The message seems to be he’s elitist, but he spent too much time hanging with kids from the wrong side of the tracks, or at least their cousins.
I had been looking forward to this debate since there are such important issues to be discussed–gas prices, housing crisis, our president discussing torture at the White House, etc. Instead I screamed at Hillary and George and John throughout this debacle. I thought Obama held his own pretty well against the ridiculous attacks. Isn’t it just pitiful what has happened to our political discourse–and our media in general? What can we do about it? Calling and emailing just don’t seem to make an impact–things are getting worse, not better. I mean, really, “Do you love the flag?”!!!!!!!!! Can the discussion get any more stupid?
Correction of GIbson’s stupid statement:
Gibson followed up with his dissatisfaction: “But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, my revenues go up.”
“If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?”
Actually, it wasn’t good enough for colonial times, given that the Constitution was written eleven years after the Declaration of Independence and the end of colonial rule.
And as you note, the 1800 election — where that clause led to a tie between Jefferson and Burr and a giant mess — sort of proved it wasn’t good enough back then either.
I’m not an economist, but since capital gains are only paid on realized profit or loss, it should surprise no one that when the rate is lowered, people sell assets that realize a profit to take advantage of the lower rate. This, even if the net effect is in fact a rise in receipts (and I don’t think that the moderator is correct in this), it will only be temporary.
If we observe the results of this administration’s tax cutting efforts, I think we’ll discover that the few examples that raised additional revenue were all temporary, and the biggest factor was an amnesty on repatriated corporate income, hardly something that can produce sustained results.
I also wonder how many Americans make over five times the median salary (c. $250,000)?
I did not watch all 22 debates, but can anyone tell me if any of them addressed the issues of presidential power, signing statements, the power of Justice Department legal opinions, or politically motivated enforcement of laws like carbon emissions?
PENNSYLVANIA DEBATE
In the debate last night far too much time was spent attacking Obama on trivial issues such as wearing flag lapel pins, one bitter misstatement, and remote associations. The two moderators and Clinton put him on the defensive for much of the night.
He did OK and Clinton was her usual competent self. About the only news was the conviction of candidates that each would set the strategy and mission for Iraq and not be necessarily bound by opinions of the generals. Also, each conceded that the other was electable in the November election.
Mostly ho-hum. Where are Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich when we need them?
homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com
Of course, also “good enough” in colonial times were slavery and univeral male suffrage. Is Gibson saying neither candidate should be allowed to run?
Last night’s debate marked ABC’s descent into sleazy tabloid journalism. The most important question not asked–whether the candidates wore boxers or briefs.
I like what Steve M. also wrote in his blog (CB links to it above):
“[Obama] needs to learn that, in a presidential election year, the press always wants Republican Daddy.”
After witnessing the travesty last night on ABC,I was reminded why I quit watching that mindless channel years ago. I felt as though I had been an acquiescent accomplice ,after it was finally,unmercifully over. Charlie Gibson is the embodiment of the now passe’ cliche of “anally retentive.”. What can you say about li’l Georgie Porgie-but a lackey, a lacking. It is abundantly apparent that last night’s debacle proves that ABC is indeed Mickey Mouse in the Disney Wonderland.
BOTH candidates were attacked on trivial issues.
In Dowd’s column I found it troubling that Obama only recently paid off his student loans, apparently right before deciding to run for president. Yes, that’s trivial too, but what is it with people who think a student loan doesn’t really count as a debt? With two lawyers in the family, why wasn’t paying back the loans a higher priority, for its own sake, not because it would embarrass a prospective campaign?
If you want to go after trivial “character” issues, I think evading student loan debt is a character issue. Does Obama think it is OK to sponge off the government or to treat his education as something he is entitled to and thus doesn’t have to pay for? There is an ethic in many families that you avoid debt to begin with and when in debt pay back what is owed as soon as possible. Maybe that’s a lingering value from a different generation, or maybe Obama thinks a debt owed to the people (e.g., the govt) isn’t a real debt, or maybe he thinks that HE doesn’t have to pay back student loans because he is a member of an oppressed minority. Whatever his justification, apparently Obama doesn’t share that view about promptly paying one’s debts. Would he be similarly selective as president, picking and choosing which obligations to honor and which to ignore? And what would be the basis for his choices?
If not paying back the loans would be an embarrassment for a presidential candidate, why isn’t it an embarrassment when one is not running for president? And why isn’t it fake and dishonest to rush out and pay them before running for president?
Mary: WTF?
He paid off his loans. You said that. Where are you getting the accusations of his evading debt?
Obama and his wife did not pay off their loans until their 40’s because they had a lot of debt and it took that long to pay off. There is no evidence that it was becasue he was ever in default. It underscores two problems, first, that college is expensive and a barrier to a lot of people, second, Obama is far poorer than either the Clinton’s or MaCain.
It’s troubling but true that minorities just don’t take debt as seriously as normal people do. That’s just the way it is, so don’t kill the messenger for my telling you this. I know what I’m talking about; I lived it in Chicago and I saw it every day.
Mary Mary quite contrary
I think evading student loan debt is a character issue. Does Obama think it is OK to sponge off the government or to treat his education as something he is entitled to and thus doesn’t have to pay for?
Thanks for reminding us that your whole persona as a college professor is a complete lie, Mary.
If you were a professor, you’d understand that having student loans for a long time means that you’re paying the loaner — government or private — much more in the long run, given the obscenely high interest rates they attach.
You’re beyond parody now. Good luck, IFP.
In response to #6:
Danp said:
I did not watch all 22 debates, but can anyone tell me if any of them addressed the issues of presidential power, signing statements, the power of Justice Department legal opinions, or politically motivated enforcement of laws like carbon emissions?
No, Danp, they haven’t addressed those issues. Those aren’t Republican issues, you know. What’s interesting to me is that the best debate was probably the one last summer on CNN when they used viewer questions. But unfortunately, they didn’t use any on those very important topics.
why isn’t it fake and dishonest to rush out and pay them before running for president?
Because he only now made a lot of money off his book sales, Mary, and therefore only now had the cash on hand to pay them off.
Christ, you’re just embarrassing yourself now.
We are paying off our son’s student loan. One month we forgot to make a payment (on time). Sallie Mae robo-called 6 times a day until the payment was processed. I really don’t know who people get by with NOT paying their student loans.
I think that two Harvard law school educations just took that long to pay off Mary…
To ‘Insane Fake Professor’ @ 15
Go join the grassroots political organization ‘SWW for McCain’. Their motto is “He’s one of us!”
If anyone had any doubt of your racism prior to that post, you have removed any doubt by 1) lumping all minorities together & 2) differentiating them from ‘normal people’.
By the way, SWW stands for Stupid WHITE Warmongers! Go join them you bigot…
“For example, Gibson seemed especially animated about capital gains tax rates.”
We need to remember that all these television pundits are multi-millionaires. They have made a fortune these last seven years with the Bush tax cuts, on earned income, capital gains and dividends. I can’t believe that they can be objective about the elections. They all know that their taxes will (maybe) be raised substantially under Obama. Nobody talks about this, but I don’t think it’s a trivial influence on this crowd. They’re all fat cats.
It was a stroke of genius to lower taxes so dramatically on the rich and powerful, because they’re going to fight like hell to keep them.
From Gibson’s ‘internet generated’ question about flag pins, I think we can deduce that Charley don’t surf.
The average law school alum graduates with $80,000+ of debt. Harvard graduates…considerably more. Harvard law graduates x 2…well, you get the picture.
I’m guessing Hillary’s parents paid her law school tuition…? If not, I wonder how long it took her and Bill to pay off their student loans?
Should politicians not be allowed to have mortgages, too?
What about auto loans?
Should a man with credit card debt be unelectable?
Regarding ABC’s ignorance of the U.S. Constitution: Article Two, Section One, “after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president.” CB correctly mentioned Article Twelve as invalidating that.
It probably should be noted that there were no political parties, as we know them, when the Constitution was written. The revolutionaries who wrote it presumed that all were on “the same side” and that the President and Vice-President should simply be the top two respectively.
ABC’s complaint line: 818 460 7477
Mary,
You truly put the ‘more’ in moron.
First, there is nothing to suggest Obama was ever delinquent in paying off his student loans. Second, student loans are typically given at a lower interest rate than car, home, and other loans, so it only makes sense that they are last in line to be paid off. They also tend to have smaller payments so they pay down at a slower rate.
Your grasp of economics in general, and Obama’s own personal finances is McCanian.
Finally, what the hell does Obama’s repayment rate have to do with the debate last night? Focus, Mary. Focus.
You can deduct up to $4,000 student loan interest off your income taxes. Some people intentionally postpone paying off their loans to pay less in tax.
http://www.fastweb.com/fastweb/resources/articles/index/101602
I guess Obama missed an opportunity for this sound byte:
“If lowering taxes raised government revenue, eliminating them would bring in the most of all. But taxing 0% on 60 quintillion dollars brings nothing into the treasury, even assuming such ridiculous growth in the economy. Given this obvious fact, can we agree that lowering taxes does NOT always increase revenue? Once we understand that, we can start discussing what level of taxation is necessary to provide minimal working revenue for a government our citizens demand.”
Why is anyone surprised that Disney TV hires morons? SWMBO used to work for ABC and when Disney bought Cap Cities (which owned ABC), all the smart people got bought out and fired. F’r chrissakes! Their office is next to a building that’s shaped like the hat from “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” and they work on a studio lot that’s run like a semi-benign police state where the working folks have to wear “worker bee” costumes (I am not kidding about that).
Is anyone surprised that George is doing all he can to help the wife of the man who made him who he is???
To SmilingDixie @ 21 – you should be aware that “Insane Fake Professor” is part of the in-group amusement for this blog’s regular readers – though I doubt that “Mary” is much amused… Since he takes what are her apparently sincere Clinton-defending Obama-bashing comments and twists them just enough to show how simultaneously out-of-touch and repugnant they really are. “TR” can chime in with the history any time now.
SmilingDixie (#21) – hey please, you’re giving those who think Southerners are dim more ammo! Haven’t you gotten the memo about IFP??? Go complain about Colbert being a “right winger” – it’ll make as much sense
ABC: Mickey Mouse
Gibson and Stephanopolous: Shameful
There were thousands of other questions they could have asked that would have helped the American people decide which candidate would best address their concerns about the sorry state of our country right now. Instead they asked tabloid-style gotcha questions, questions which were slanted against Obama and which he has answered many times already. Stephanopolous even asked a question he got from Sean Hannity! What the ? How has ABC sunk to the level of FAUX News? Clinton, clinging to her remote change of being the nominee, seemed to gleefully “pile on” to the bittergate, Wright and Ayers questions. Obama was the only person who left the stage with his dignity intact.
what the hell does Obama’s repayment rate have to do with the debate last night? — doubtful, @28
Obama’s repayment rate was one bit of trivia that Hillary didn’t manage to get introduced (via her tool, Stephanopulous) into the “debate” last night, so Mary is doing it for her this morning.
Smiling Dixie, @21,
You remind me of the Communist Youth comrades in the early days of USSR — very earnest but totally devoid of any sense of humour. Insane Fake Professor is *satire*. A *spoof* (of Mary). *Not* to be taken literally.
For that matter, I no longer believe that *Mary* is serious. If she is, she’s also seriously deranged. But, if so, why would she continue to read this — otherwise sane — blog?
If you really want to hear bad reporting about this “debate,” you should listen to the Slate “Today” show on NPR, where Emily Baselon from “The Double X Factor” – the “reporter” covering the debate – said that Obama came off as a “slacker who wasn’t really there,” who was unwilling to “apologize” for anything. The bimbo went on to talk about how “genuinely offensive” his “bitter” comment is, that his answer is dishonest and unsatisfying and “that’s why no one can get past it.”
What a moron this Generation Y-bother bimbo is. How she got hired as more than the unpaid intern is beyond understanding – she sounds about 21, and if she has an IQ higher than ambient room temperature I’d be surprised.
NPR: radio for “smart people” – yeah, right, if Mary is “smart.”
#6: I did not watch all 22 debates, but can anyone tell me if any of them addressed the issues of presidential power, signing statements, the power of Justice Department legal opinions, or politically motivated enforcement of laws like carbon emissions?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh, my faves were the hectoring from both stooges insisting that the candidates take a “pledge” not to raise taxes. What kind of BS is this? How can any presidential candidate be expected to do such a thing? Nobody knows what sort of economic straits might arise when a person is president, or what might have to be done to deal with them. Ask H.W. Ask Reagan. That is patent nonsense, and I wish one of the candidates would have had the guts to tell them so and refuse to take their “pledge.” It makes about as much sense as those stupid abstinence pledges. It seemed like that was about the only thing where G & S got serious, first badgering both candidates about it, then pouncing on Obama for talking about raising the SS tax caps. I hope the caps get removed altogether and those two sadass jerks end up paying through the nose out of their ridiculous salaries. Pathetic!
Oh, and as for Obama not paying off his student loans fast enough for Mary: Maybe he would have been able to if he’d taken one of the juicy jobs he was offered at a big firm instead of going to work in the streets of Chicago at pauper’s wages. Mary, you make IFP look sane.
Sorry, Insane Fake Professor, I think you’re out of a job.
Mary @12 just blew away any attempt to parody her.
Mary, Obama worked for several years before he went to law school (remember, he was a community organizer for 3 years? Or would you rather forget that? I think that before that he worked for Corp America for a year or 2). So he didn’t graduate till he was close to 30. I’m not gonna look up the date, but figure it was around 1990.
So he said he paid them off about 3 years ago, right? So that means he took 15 years to pay off a tens-of-thousands of dollar loan. And he had worked in a small civil rights practice after law school, then was in the IL Senate, which I don’t imagine pays the big bucks.
You guys who think Mary is a Clinton supporter are giving “her” way too much credit. I used to think she was a serious Clinton support. She’s not.
She is a gooper troll and nothing more. Her love of Clinton and her hate of Obama is a two-fer force; truly offend any Obama supporters and turn everyone off of Clinton.
Don’t give her that much credit, please. Don’t let this gooper bitch take over the discourse.
There is an ethic in many families that you avoid debt to begin with and when in debt pay back what is owed as soon as possible. Maybe that’s a lingering value from a different generation, or maybe Obama thinks a debt owed to the people (e.g., the govt) isn’t a real debt, or maybe he thinks that HE doesn’t have to pay back student loans because he is a member of an oppressed minority. Whatever his justification, apparently Obama doesn’t share that view about promptly paying one’s debts. Would he be similarly selective as president, picking and choosing which obligations to honor and which to ignore? And what would be the basis for his choices?
Mary, now you’ve done it. You’ve aggrevated me enough to comment on your lunacy (to which I generally think you are entitled). Perhaps Barack Obama should take a page out of HRC’s book and simply stiff small businesses in states where the primaries or caucuses have already been held? Like Iowa and New Hampshire – surely you remember those? According to her own campaign finance records, HRC was egregiously slow in paying for sandwiches and other little small business niceties in those states. The junior Senator from New York apparently makes her debt-avoidance choices based upon those who can least afford to be stiffed and least afford to go after her for collection. There’s good character for you.
Your riff about Obama’s student loans proves that you truly are the original Insane Fake Professor. Hillary Clinton may feel confident that she can continue to behave as a one woman wrecking crew against Democratic unity because she intuits that voters like me would vote for her over McCain (I’m not into cutting off my nose to spite my face). But, she is squandering any “benefit of the doubt” credit she might need if she were to win the nomination through her “kitchen sink” tactics and go on to win the Presidency. That is a recipe for weakness and the road to (at best) a single term. Her behavior alienates me more every day.
Soooooooo…has mary claimed to be a “perfesser?” I dont follow all of her inanities, but based on other people’s replies, and the fact that IFP calls himself IFP in homage, I’m guessing this is the case.
So if Mary claimes to be a “perfesser,” can she really not know that
a: Student loans typically have a lower interest rate, so people usually don’t pay them off faster than higher-interest rate loans or credit card debt?
b: Ivy League educations cost substantially more than educations at other colleges and as such might take longer to pay back if Mom & Dad aren’t footing the bill?
c: The longer it takes to a person to pay back a college loan, the more money the bank makes off the interest, so THEY don’t care if it takes you the entire length of time in the terms of the loan to pay it back, as long as you’re not delinquent or in default? And if the bank doesn’t care, why should anyone else? Was Mary denied money from a bank because they gave it to Barack? There was a contract between a lending instution and a man, or in this case, a couple. Unless there’s proof that the couple didn’t adhere to the terms of the contract, then it’s completely immaterial.
If Mary doesn’t grasp any of this, then I certainly hope her “perfessership” is an honorary one, and she’s not actually responsible for the education of young minds. because those kids are bound to be stupider than when they started for being in her charge.
Soooooooo…has mary claimed to be a “perfesser?”
Mmmmhmmmm, of what she didn’t say. Tautology, criminology, abnormal psychology and advanced mixology, from the looks of it.
By the way, Tom? Is there some reason you refer to every woman who behaves badly as a “bimbo”? Is there something wrong with the classic (and far more accurate) “asshole,” “jerk,” “idiot,” “fool,” “loser,” “liar” or any number of handily non-gendered insults that don’t wrongly characterize willful dishonesty as lack of intelligence?
Mmmmhmmmm, of what she didn’t say. Tautology, criminology, abnormal psychology and advanced mixology, from the looks of it. -Maria
My bet is Underwater Basket Weaving.
Brain damage from oxygen depletion, you think? You may be on to something there.
Even lawyers at small civil rights practices make more than the average college grad and Obama had his wife’s salary too. Between them they could have paid off their loans in a couple of years. Instead, they obviously made minimum payments and stretched it out. I know young professional couples like the Obamas and some stretch out their loans, but others typically pay their loans off quickly so they will have more disposable income for buying a house, starting a family, car, travel and other expenses. The Obamas apparently increased their lifestyle before satisfying their debt. I wouldn’t fault them for that if they were just another family, but when someone runs for president there is a higher standard.
Do you spend money on large purchases and take on more debt before paying off what you already owe? Not if you are responsible. And IFP, nowhere did I attribute this to Obama’s race! I attribute it only to his character and poor judgment.
There was an article in the LA Times about a year ago about the fact that many Hispanic college students avoid student loans entirely, preferring to work their way through. They pointed out that this hurts their gpa when their work hours conflict with being able to study or attend classes or extracurricular events that would help them get into grad programs. This suggest that it is NOT necessarily the usual course to run up huge loans and then take as long as possible to pay them back because of the govt-subsidized low interest rates. There are still segments of our population who do not believe in debt and consider it shameful to not repay what is owed or to be dependent on others. Things like this may be part of why Obama doesn’t appeal much to Hispanics.
We are in the middle of a credit crisis, due partly to the attitude among consumers that the good life can be supported by plastic and home equity. If Obama couldn’t afford to go to college, it is great that there were loans to help him. However, going forward without paying them back PROMPTLY is what has gotten us into the current mess our economy is in — borrowing too much, spending too much and saving too little. If Obama exemplifies that, how can he fix it?
In my opinion, as a professor, if you have graduated, have a job, and you’re only making minimum payments on your student loans (or are deferring them) in order to drive a better car or live in a better house, you’re living beyond your means. The high percentage of people who skip paying their loans entirely is a scandal because of what it says about our attitude toward debt and responsibility.
TuiMel, the sandwich incident was contradicted by the people involved. That is a falsehood being spread about Clinton. All campaigns have cash flow problems — comparing campaigns to personal finances makes no sense. The Clintons have never been shown to be deadbeats on a personal level — nor has Obama (except for the Rezko house-purchase questions). I will point out that Bill Clinton balanced the budget and ran a surplus during his presidency. What will Obama’s attitude about that be? It is a fair question. Younger generations are clearly more used to living on credit. Will he have any sense of urgency about retiring some of the debt Bush has run up or will he make “minimum payments” on that too?
You really are beyond parody Mary (especially given that you address your fake doppleganger as if he/she were making a legit point).
If you’ll note, we are talking about student loans, which are traditionally and completely normally paid off over a period of time. That’s what the Obamas did (and you’ll note that he didn’t “have his wife’s salary” to help, since she had her own damn loans. I think the reason that her parents couldn’t help w/Law school is that they were busy paying off their 5th spoon (see Colbert).)
Now, in a related issue, the Clinton campaign fell far, far behind in payments to vendors who provided services to the campaign (have they ever paid those? Haven’t heard lately). Now these debts are of the sort that are normally and traditionally paid off within 30 days. And they are supposed to be paid out of the operating funds of the campaign. If the campaign can’t afford a service, they shouldn’t be buying them, even if it hurts the campaign. Stiffing small businesses all across the country is unacceptable.
So Mary, do you care to comment on the differences between the two types of debt payment???
“TuiMel, the sandwich incident was contradicted by the people involved.”
Link? I recall seeing reports of SEVERAL creditors who weren’t getting paid. If that’s been debunked please do set the record straight.
Between them they could have paid off their loans in a couple of years.
Shorter Mary: I totally got busted pretending, without evidence, that the Obamas were in default on their multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in law school debt, but I’m too pigheaded and short of integrity to back down and retract my outlandish charge of “debt evasion.”
And IFP, nowhere did I attribute this to Obama’s race!
Mary at 12, again wholly without evidence: maybe he thinks that HE doesn’t have to pay back student loans because he is a member of an oppressed minority
You really are a characterless tool, girlfriend. IFP has you pegged.
Link? I recall seeing reports of SEVERAL creditors who weren’t getting paid. If that’s been debunked please do set the record straight.
Indeed. It got so bad that the members of the production community, who are a pretty tight-knit group nationwide, were warning their compadres in upcoming primary states not to stage events for the Clintons without getting paid upfront. Ouch.
So Mary has no problem with the Clintons dishonorably breaking their contracts with small business owners, but has her panties in a bunch (ugh, the visual–must not go there) because the Obamas actually complied with the agreed-upon terms of student loans instead of paying them off early. Astounding.
Gee, Mary. IYO, it’s not appropriate to compare the treatment of creditors by an individual’s campaign for public office with personal habits or character. [IMO, one’s business (campaign) debts are every bit as critical as personal.] Nevertheless, you manufacture some sort of super credit-worthiness standard (and attack the traditional middle class lifestyle in the bargain, I might add) for Senator Obama. You then make a leap – because you think he fails to hurdle your absurd credit-worthiness / character bar – to the conclusion that Obama will be fiscally irresponsible as President. Because for you THAT comparison works. What medication are you taking? It clearly is affecting your ability to reason. Your posts today are truly embarrasments. If you are a Republican troll rather than a Clinton zealot, you have (again?) jumped the shark.
The high percentage of people who skip paying their loans entirely is a scandal because of what it says about our attitude toward debt and responsibility.
And this (if it is in fact true) is relevant how?
In my opinion, as a professor,
A professor who thinks they’re called Roads Scholarships and thinks Foreign Policy is an academic major?
Keep pretending, Mary. It’s adorable!
“Insane Fake Professor is *satire.”
No, I did not get that memo…
Tom – No intent to give Southerners a bad name. I am not from the ‘south’.
Libra – I am pushing 60, so can’t qualify for youth. As to a lack of a sense of humor, probably close to guilty. Definitely do not think “It’s troubling but true that minorities just don’t take debt as seriously as normal people do.” is humorous in any context.
Will keep in mind that IFP is satire & will reserve mocking for Mary.
We are in the middle of a credit crisis, due partly to the attitude among consumers that the good life can be supported by plastic and home equity -Mary
Sorry Mary, on time repayment of student loans is not a contributing factor to the credit crisis.
In my opinion, as a professor, if you have graduated, have a job, and you’re only making minimum payments on your student loans (or are deferring them) in order to drive a better car or live in a better house, you’re living beyond your means. -Mary
To begin with, you’re not a professor. No one buys it because we have too much faith in our education system. Bad eggs like yourself would’ve been incinerated. Yelling at people on a street corner does not count as being a professor.
And again, you have a McCainian grasp of the economy if you think that people who buy a home or a car while paying for student loans somehow hurts the economy. Just the opposite. People who buy all three and make on time payments of them actually help the economy.
I know a lot of people who make the minimum payment on their student loans because they have investments that yield higher dividends. Why pay more than the minimum on a 6% loan when I’m earning 8% on that dollar elsewhere?
You’ve truly gone beyond the pale now. Pathetic.
I think it’s cute how “trolls” like Mary still cling to the whole Rezko thing despite ample evidence proving no wrong doing or anything near what they (the trolls) try to hint at..
Mary, if you were my “perfesser” I’d demand my tuition back. Your life could only be deemed worthwhile if indeed you were only put on this earth to annoy the crap out of people.
Sad excuse for a hobby, but there you have it.
There’s a whole bunch of people in California who’ve given the Clinton campaign until May 1 to pay up their debts or be sued. Don’t think the Obamas have ever had the beadles on them for non-payment of debts of any sort. Just sayin’…
Mary *can’t* be for real. Nobody who prefaces any statement with “as a professor” (with the “so you peons just shut up” hanging in the air) could, *possibly*, actually *be* a professor. My husband used to be a prof (years ago, before retirement) and he had too much respect for his profession to spout such BS. As did all of his colleagues. The only teachers I’ve ever known who try and pull rank/parade superiority are the pre-school ones…
If you want to go after trivial “character” issues, I think evading student loan debt is a character issue.
Choosing a President based on such matters is profoundly stupid.
“And IFP, nowhere did I attribute this to Obama’s race!”
Mary at 12, again wholly without evidence: maybe he thinks that HE doesn’t have to pay back student loans because he is a member of an oppressed minority
If there were a God, people who blatantly lie like that would fall dead on the spot.