Should we bail out student loans?
posted at 6:00 pm on November 20, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Do Occupiers have a point in demanding a bailout of student loan debt? After all, the argument goes, the federal government bailed out the big financial institutions — why not the little guys, too? Reason and Reason TV offer this three-and-a-half minute slice of common sense in showing why this is not just a bad idea, but how it also greases the skids for the next bailout, something the Occupiers insist they oppose:
1. These loans are voluntary. All borrowers are excrutiatingly well-informed of how much they’re borrowing and how much they’re going to have to pay back.
About half of all college students take out loans and when they do, every lender clearly spells out exactly how much you’re on the hook for and what your monthly payments are going to be after you leave school.
Critics say that 18-year-olds don’t understand what they’re getting into and shouldn’t be held accountable for their decisions. But that’s an argument against letting kids attend college, not against letting them borrow against future earnings to get a degree that will increase lifetime earnings by somewhere between about $280,000 and $1 million.
2. The amounts being borrowed are hardly overwhelming. While the cumulative total of all college-related debt is huge – approaching a trillion dollars, it’s bigger than credit-card debt – it’s not so big for individuals. The typical college graduate who borrowed money to attend graduates owing about $25,000. They’ve got a minimum of 10 years to pay back that amount and the repayment schedule can be extended and modified for a wide variety of reasons.
The monthly payment for $25,000 in student loans at going rates comes to around $290 a month. That’s not chump change. But given that the that college grads have unemployment rates that are less than half the national average and that the average salary offer for graduating seniors is almost $50,000, the loan amount isn’t so bad either.
3. Bailouts are never a good idea. Like Tea Party activists, Occupy Wall Street protesters are right to rail against bailouts for big banks and financial institutions that are politically connected. But student loan forgiveness advocates are wrong to perpetuate yet another cycle of bailouts. It’s never right to socialize losses while privatizing gains. That’s what the banks did – they risked their money on stupid investments and then got made whole at the expense of taxpayers. Student loan forgiveness is simply another version of the same swindle. And it offloads the costs of other people’s decisions onto taxpayers, who guarantee federally backed student loans.
The better question is whether we should continue to push student loans at all. Just as with the housing bubble, the program has pushed an explosive increase in tuition rates thanks to the higher demand student loans produce, which forces students to borrow even more. The loans have fueled a higher-education bubble that needs to deflate soon. And these protests might end up undermining the political support for government-guaranteed student loans altogether, which may very well be the only salutary impact that Occupiers end up having in the long run.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Nonsense on the part about paying for food and board whether in college or not. It’s still a college costs. Most university students are kids who just graduated high school.
It’s not feasible for most students to work full time jobs and go to school full time. I did that at at a comm college and it was next to impossible to study when you spent 10 hrs at work and then 5 hrs at night in class. After that, you were too exhausted to study. When I transferred my credits over to univ, it wasn’t possible…univ was much more difficult than comm college could ever be. They always say a good estimate of study time is 3 hrs per credit hour…so you have 18 hrs a week in class, you will find you’ll study anywhere from 36 hrs to 54 hours to keep a competitive GPA, and you need at least a 3.75 to be considered for most scholarship funds, especially at smaller schools with smaller endowments.
So, yes, the cost of room and board are included, and rightfully so.
In fact, those costs are ALWAYS built into the COST OF ATTENDANCE for a school. The COA of the state school I attended is currently $24k a year. So, $9k means next to nothing, because NO ONE (outside of those with wealthy parents or college funds set up decades before) pays anywhere near $9…
So, you’re suggesting an 18 yr old work to save up $50k before attending college? Without a degree, you’re working a job that pays next to nothing in this economy…and you save that much money how? You start college when you’re 60?
1) I don’t support bailing out student loans. There would never be enough money in the world to do that anyway even if it was a good idea.
2) You can’t just quit school in the middle. How do you pay off the debt accrued without the degree? Wal Mart doesn’t pay enough to settle the bill, and you end up paying anywhere from 6-12% interest on education you can’t even use to get ahead in the work force.
Your comment is indicative of what I meant. You took a complex situation and stated emphatically, it IS that simple, if you find you can’t afford it, just stop going to college. That’s an absurd solution.
The attitude of grow up kid, you made your bed now lie in it is stupid and gets us nowhere. Newsflash- there aren’t enough jobs in science and math for every student in the nation to get a degree in science and math. The humanities are, get this, important as well. Do we really want to push a world where we urge no one to study art and literature and philosophy?? Someone posted they went to college in 1982 and spent $10k for the whole thing, tuition, room, board, etc. The problem IS the cost. $10k today will barely pay the tuition for one year at most state schools. $50k for a bachelor’s is far too much, no matter how you look at it.
TheBlueSite on November 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Wow… I don’t even know where to begin.
First, people with diabilities have the right to the same education as everyone else.
Second, my daughter does not have a disability. She had a stroke. Which is a brain injury. And she is recovered. But a stroke at 19 is a huge psychological challenge. And did require a huge physical effort as she was recovering. My point was that despite some pretty severe setbacks, she overcame them and is working hard towards her degrees that should enable her to obtain a good job upon graduation.
Third, the original poster whom I quoted did not qualify his twit comment. It said Liberal Arts Degree + $250K loans = twit.
Chitownmom on November 21, 2011 at 12:31 PM
um… we already did when we issued them– interest free!
Unlike TARP loans (already paid back at a profit), OWS stooge-gents simply want to default.
That’s not a bail-out… it’s a cop-out.
Terp Mole on November 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM
I’m sorry. 250k for a liberal arts degree is just stupid. Shame on you and your daughter for not having enough common sense to understand that.
dpierson on November 21, 2011 at 12:35 PM
You are wrong. That information is made very clear. It’s called the exit interview and has to be completed once you graduate. I finished my graduate degree in July and had to do it, even though I did one after each of my other degrees.
Dr. Conservative on November 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM
I did both in undergrad and graduate school. So did lots of other people I went to school with.
tommyboy on November 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM
How about chill the hell out. Maybe her child didn’t have the option to go to another school and the loans are there due to her stroke? Ever think of that? And economics isn’t a crap degree.. oil companies use economic students (who usually are brough on fulltime after 6 months) to help their economists with rough speculation of the markets in the coming years. Her daughter, unlike you or I, will get an advantage, as many companies will higher someone who is disabled as they also get tax breaks. Also, what is a oil/gas or mining comp hit a site that they might need anthropologists.. BAM, she would be a dream!
Besides, who are you to say who does what in the world of schooling and learning?
I am doing a double at the moment as well… I am thinking on a triple. Accounting with a minor in Business and possibly a minor in environmental natural resource sciences (because I can).
upinak on November 21, 2011 at 12:46 PM
I call BS. I got through a University in 4 years, working full time, some semesters I also had another part time job. I paid 100% of my expenses, including and food.
These whining babies at OWS sicken me…
ladyingray on November 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM
I did both in undergrad and graduate school. So did lots of other people I went to school with.
tommyboy on November 21, 2011 at 12:38 PM
when Spawn starts college in 2012, he will be expected to work while in school.
annoyinglittletwerp on November 21, 2011 at 12:50 PM
You really think that spending $250k on a degree makes sense? If you have an Economics degree then you would understand that the payback period for the degree at that cost makes no sense. Basically getting a degree is an investment. You need to make sure that your return on your investment is profitable.
dpierson on November 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Kristamatic on November 21, 2011 at 11:57 AM
You know I’m also autistic. I’ll be working @ Wal-Mart while finishing my degree-and since it’s a degree in history…I’ll still be working @ Wal-Mart once I graduate.LoL At my age the goal is to prove wrong those who said that I was too stupid to get a degree. while @ ‘tech I’d also like to form an all autistic-spectrum music group ‘Culture Shock’. Does your daughter play or sing? *smiles and waves*
annoyinglittletwerp on November 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Better solution: a two-pronged attack for former borrowers and future borrowers.
For a government-secured loan, the interest rates are abnormally high. Lenders are guaranteed to get their money back. Reduce interest rates – not to zero, but to about 2%. Reduce, but do not eliminate, penalties for failure to pay back the loan.
For future borrowers: limit borrowing. Pure and simple. Refuse a federal loan to any student who takes out more than, say, $25,000 of undergraduate debt or $100,000 of graduate debt. Once you pass that mark, not only will the government refuse to lend to you, it will call in the loans already made if you take out another loan. It will force a downward pressure on tuition.
Roxeanne de Luca on November 21, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Umm who is it to make sense to you or I? This is their life, not ours and it is their problem not ours. Having a disability makes life hard and college harder…. so who am I (or you) to judge what a person does with the money THEY borrow?
Do you see where I am going with this….. or not.
upinak on November 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM
@ TheBlueSite on November 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM -
Yet earlier:
Stay in college and accrue more debt that, per your post, requires grad school and more debt to pay off, or stop going, end your debt cycle, and get a job where you can work your debt off and, if you just can’t stand not purchasing credentials, go to school part time.
Don’t you think plumbers, welders, and electricians need apprentices? Water treatment plants? Auto mechanics? Paint shops?
I know they’re not “reasonable” jobs, but all are $50k-$200k+ if you become the best in your field/area.
It’s absurd because you’re invested and view it through a personal lens.
It’s not complex. You can either afford it or you can’t. You should either continue or you shouldn’t. It doesn’t get much more simple than that.
I don’t care one way or the other, btw, until you demand my money for your overreaching.
And yet:
There’s a connection in your two posts if you’ll see it.
Straw man. I have no problem with people studying the arts. I have a problem when they complain that their degree was expensive, they can’t find a job, and they regret incurring the debt.
No matter how often you post that, you’re either wrong or lying. If you don’t understand how, please read the actual numbers I linked earlier. If you’re just lying to further your position, please stop.
rogerb on November 21, 2011 at 1:23 PM
If the kids would listen then it would get us somewhere.
People need to repay the money they borrow.
Therefore, people need to contemplate their ability to repay borrowed money.
Therefore, people need to contemplate the amount they’re borrowing and their capacity to generate enough income after the money is borrowed. This isn’t being done by a majority of college students these days.
1. Nobody said that every student needed to get a degree in science and math.
2. Getting a degree in science and math contributes to one’s ability to repay a loan much better than a degree in Early Asian Gender Studies. Certainly, you don’t deny this.
Actually, it’s not absurd at all. Instead of doubling down on debt, one could quit school and find a job in order to pay back half the amount one would otherwise have to repay.
I, for one, want to push a word where we urge no one to study art and literature and philosophy if they can’t afford it. It’s great to have artists, literaries, and philosophers around – but we shouldn’t be forced to fund overwhelming numbers of them. It’s great to have pop singers and pro football players around, too, but the world only has room for so many.
Someone posted they went to college in 1982 and spent $10k for the whole thing, tuition, room, board, etc. The problem IS the cost. $10k today will barely pay the tuition for one year at most state schools. $50k for a bachelor’s is far too much, no matter how you look at it.
blink on November 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM
NO NO NO ! ! !
tx2654 on November 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM
I disagree with this.
Nobody has a right to a fully funded doctorate education. Such educations must be earned via intelligence, hard work, performance, and, yes, the ability to afford it. Everyone doesn’t have the right to it.
Nobody has a right to any higher level education.
blink on November 21, 2011 at 1:31 PM
Ugh. You do realize the economy can only bear so many plumbers and such, right? I said reasonable in the sense that, if you spend X amt of dollars for a degree, when you find a job in that field that requires said degree, you should get a return equal to your original payout…or else, why get the degree to begin with? Firms can’t demand labor then expect all economic players that supply labor to make investments that put them into a hole they can never climb out of.
If you accrue a certain amt of debt, you can’t just stop and then expect to reasonably pay off that debt, because you can’t get the required income level needed to pay off the debt WITHOUT the degree. Even the most basic jobs today require at min a B.A. I used to hire people and the firm required a degree or I was supposed to toss the application into a pile and basically ignore it, and this was a job that should’ve never required any degree.
So, no, stopping a degree program halfway through, owing $30k is not a feasible plan for many people. IF you find ajob without the degree that pays enough, you end up paying for an investment that resulted in negative gain for you.
And, as I stated, the COA includes room, board, and transportation. So, $9k a yr is nowhere near reality. Looking at “tuition” prices is about as helpful as buying a high end camera and looking at the price of the body, then realizing you can’t take pictures without the lens that adds 50% to the price. Tuition+books+loans fees+ student fees+room+board+transportation= some number close to the COA.
TheBlueSite on November 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM
Mmmm, let’s see…four maybe five annual winter break trips to South Padre Island…four maybe five spring break excursions to Cancun…annual “investments” in alcohol and other recreational substances…the latest laptop (computer, not dance) (then again, let’s throw in the dance part anyway) and having to have the latest personal electronic devices lest one be “unfriended” or something…and that can certainly raise the expense of college a bit.
Education is an investment. No, not like Obama defines investment, but an investment where one needs to weigh costs versus the pay outs.
So long as college can be “free” and students routinely default on loans, the rate is increasing not decreasing, and colleges get paid whether or not the student ever pays, this cost benefit analysis is never done….and if it is, it is rare indeed.
Going to Dad’s old school, or going to the same school all the rest of the kids are going to, or attending the school with the best football program, or one that USN&WR defines as a leading party school…this is how college enrollment decisions appear to be guided.
Cost benefit analysis?
That’s boring stuff.
Work full time or even part time in college? When is a dude supposed to party?
Employers and potential employers have access to a lot more information today about applicants than they did ten or 20 years ago…and believe me, they will ferret out all sorts of “college stuff” to include looking at simple decision-making processes and one’s ability to stand up, alone, and make critical choices on one’s own, and the rate of stupid or ill choices being made. Facebook is not your friend.
Every choice one makes once they leave the arms of Daddy and Mommy will come back at them if they are stupid choices.
And, that includes choice of academic major.
coldwarrior on November 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM
If we bailed out student loans this year, colleges would raise their tuition to a million dollars a semester next year. One of the main reasons college costs have been increasing much faster then the overall rate of inflation for the last 40 years is that the federal government, one way of the other, has been pumping money into the system. The faster it pumps in the money the higher the yearly cost.
Colleges look on tuition as their way of getting more federal money: The Federal government sees that students get enough money to go to college (through loans or whatever), the colleges then raise their cost, the federal government pumps in more money.
Fred 2 on November 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM
The problem isn’t really the loans themselves. The fact that you need a degree to do ~anything~ means that the demand for a college education is higher than it’s ever been. The problem is that education is one of those sectors where it’s the governments duty to keep an ideal situation (high demand) from turning into a bubble.
Most student’s take out private loans, although it’s becoming increasingly hard to get loans because banks are demanding co-signers and if you’re not the first student in the family to go to school, your parents will most likely be rejected. These private loans have astronomical interest rates (9.8%+ is not unusual) and compound annually. Most students who take out 15,000 for tuition, room and board while living on ramen noodles will have that 15,000 turn into 22,000 before they even get their bachelors. Even if you’re able to find a job in a college town in this economy, most of your take-home pay that’s not going to commuting to that minimum wage job will barley cover interest.
The reason why this is a problem is that basic economics teaches us that interest rate and bank profit is directly proportional to risk; the riskier the investment the higher the return. Student loans are unusual in that they are the least riskiest loans to make, because they are underwritten by the government and can only be escaped through death. The interest rates, therefore, should only be slightly higher than inflation and should certainly not be compounding. Government subsidized loans, which are thankfully becoming more available, offer lower interest rates and better repayment terms, so new students will not be bent over quite so much.
Basically, the problem is that banks are charging interest rates that are abnormally with terrible repayment terms. You could argue that they present all the information upfront, but remember that not every student is going for a degree in economics and the “forecasted” repayment schedules provided are almost always severely low-balled. There is no reason why any student loan should be more than 1% higher than a treasury bond return. Have the government run the lenders out of the market that are gouging students and this whole problem will go away.
Rainsford on November 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Which is clearly completely different than arts, literature, math, and science majors, and, come to think of it, college degrees in general, right? I’m guessing I’m out of touch and/or not sophisticated enough to see it.
Hint- If you’re good at what you do, plumber or pharmacist, you’ll have a job.
Best of luck with the rest of your degree.
rogerb on November 21, 2011 at 1:53 PM
again………WHO IS FUNDING THESE GROUPS?
PappyD61 on November 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM
I worked part time all 4 years of undergrad. And full time during the summer. That was enough to pay for about 70% of my college costs. The people taking out $200K loans are buying a lot more than books with that money.
Go to a college dorm and look at the cars parked there. You’ll be hard pressed to find a car older than 5 years or worth less than $25K.
angryed on November 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM
I’ve never understood even the stafford loan interest rate of 6% considering there’s no way to discharge the loans, which means they’re probably the lowest risk loans on the planet. Why not 1-2%?
If the US economy keeps increasing productivity at around 3% per year, new graduates add that more possible revenue to firms hiring new grads…so the loans themselves become investments for the student and the private sector as a whole in the long run.
TheBlueSite on November 21, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Exactly!
stacman on November 21, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Lol, no one is concentrating on the fact it is the Universities that are hiring people like Bill Ayers to teach there. These are the people whose skills are utterly useless, that is unless you need to be schooled in bombing police stations or alinsky tactics.
Forget the point about bailing them out, ask them questions as to why they are not protesting the Universities tuition rates. How much is the President being paid? Maybe they should allow students to eliminate electives that have nothing to do with the actual degree.
The Universities have become liberal bastions, send the whiney little monkeys right back to their teachers. Have them ask for the professors to take a cut in pay along with the administration.
Use the dirty little hippies against the ex dirty hippy professors!
Africanus on November 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Nope!
becki51758 on November 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM
This is hardly justification to force taxpayers to finance an expensive education in arts, philosophy, or literature. If someone wants such an education they can work/save to pay for it themselves.
First, nobody owes you a return on your educational investment.
Second, if the market doesn’t support return on your educational investment, then you should reconsider making the investment in the first place. Would you give me $100 in exchange for me paying you $1 per year?
EXACTLY!!!!
Of course they can. It’s called supply and demand. Firms aren’t obligated to pay above market rates for anyone.
If there is an excessive supply of philosophers then a firm is quite allowed to exploit the market conditions in order to hire a philosopher on the cheap. Likewise, if there is a limited supply of petroleum engineers, then petroleum engineers are quite allowed to exploit the market conditions in order to negotiate a high salary that would pay them an above average return for their educational investment.
Likewise, if the market is flooded with gasoline, then you have every right to purchase gasoline even if the refiner doesn’t get a return on that investment.
Why on earth would you think that you are guaranteed a return on your educational investment?
Stop being stupid. One might be better served quitting school in order to start repaying their student loans instead of continuing to accrue more and more debt.
Actually, most should probably expect to make the same amount without a Philosophy or Art History degree as one should expect to make with a Philosophy or Art History degree.
So, it’s MUCH better to accrue less debt and start paying it off early.
blink on November 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM
annoyinglittletwerp on November 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM
Nah she doesn’t sing. She could translate all your lyrics into several languages, though.
Kristamatic on November 21, 2011 at 4:34 PM
You missed the part where the Occupiers want to legislate everything to be “fair” regardless what that takes, didn’t you?
Them paying and not getting ROI isn’t “fair”.
Them getting a cheap commodity when the market is flooded however is “fair” and it would be “not fair” to force the price higher to allow the ROI of the people producing that commodity to have a profit.
It’s slightly more complicated than “GIMME”, but lets be honest… not that much more complicated.
Do I get a guaranteed positive return on my investments so they can never lose money regardless what I invest in? Of course not… and that’s not “fair” to me.
It’s like going to Vegas and gambling… It’s only “fair” when I win.
gekkobear on November 21, 2011 at 4:54 PM
Excellent job boiling the issue down to this.
TheBlueSite probably thinks that she deserves a guaranteed return on the money she invests in Vegas, too.
Sorry, TheBlueSite, but there shouldn’t be any guaranteed return on the money you bet on education. And make no mistake about it – money spent on education is most certainly a bet.
blink on November 21, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Which is all fine and dandy unless one is expecting the government (read taxpayers) to eventually pay for it. If that’s the case, then don’t be surprised when the taxpayers want to get THEIR money’s worth and say something and perhaps demand value for their dollar, which means something that they think is useful.
If you are arguing that someone who borrows $250k should not be poked at, sure.. IF THEY PAY OUT THE LOAN. If they expect or end up having someone else (usually the beleaguered taxpayer) bail them out, then that’s the cost of doing business – being poked at.
kim roy on November 21, 2011 at 5:18 PM
Excellent reply, kim roy.
Amazing that upinak doesn’t think that we should have a say in judging a borrowers ability to repay a taxpayer loan (or a loan guaranteed by taxpayer money).
I wonder if upinak also thinks that we shouldn’t have been allowed to judge Beacon Power’s and Solyndra’s ability to repay their taxpayer guaranteed loans.
blink on November 21, 2011 at 5:25 PM
College students today use loans to live a substantially better lifestyle than I enjoyed during my 8 years as an undergrad, law school and grad school student.
I live in a Southern college city and see many, many college students who drive much better automobiles than I do (not just the fraternity/sorority crowd, either) and who live in attractive apartments.
And they have credit cards and frequently no jobs.
My parents paid for college, I worked my way through law school while living in their home (not much fun in my 20s, particularly considering that most of my friends had apartments) and taking the city bus to school.
I borrowed $5,000 for grad school from the government and about that much from my parents, both of which I repaid.
I bought my first car when I was 26.
I cleaned a lot of plates, automobiles and bathrooms on the path to getting my degrees, and I emerged with 3 of them and very little debt.
I took city buses or borrowed my parents car some of the time for local travel and I took the Greyhound for distance travel.
If college students today choose to borrow money to live like they are working for a living, I applaud them.
I just don’t care to pay for it.
molonlabe28 on November 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Colleges raise tuition every year….how do some of you not understand that you have to sign a new loan every semester for whatever the cost is. Of course you do, because not only was the loan terms not set at the times of admission, even the tuition cost in future terms is unknown. Many schools even do things like provide academic and other scholarships which only apply to freshmen and then when those expire you suddenly are taking out loans for thousands more in future semesters. All the colleges care about is cobbling together a financial sheet of grants, scholarships, loans to students, or payments from parents so that all these numbers add up to cover the tuition. They don’t care how much of a total loan you will have and such a figure is impossible to even calculate at the time of admission.
Resolute on November 21, 2011 at 5:55 PM
So it should be fairly easy to track costs since you’re required to conduct such a formal annual resubmittal.
Again, if you’re over your head, get out of the pool.
Impossible? The numbers are public. Add 10%/year as a worst-case scenario.
Universities routinely raise tuition, and each time they inundate the local media and their students with mailings and emails. This isn’t hard. College kids should know how to do this, or at least how to ask for help. God help us if they don’t.
rogerb on November 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM
My bs meter just pegged. I carried a full load and worked graveyard full time picking pallets in a warehouse. Was it easy? No, were my grades optimal while working full time at night and going to school during the day? No, they slipped a little bit, I came off the chancellors list that semester and had to settle for the deans list until I cut my hours back a bit the next semester. Can it be done, yes, and I was not and am not alone in doing this.
Koa on November 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM
yup…i work full time and go to school…so does my wife
also this bluesite character mentioned not everyone can be a plumber etc but right now is probably one of the best times to go into those trades! all the baby boomers are retiring! demand will be sky high soon enough!
dirksilver on November 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM
My Calc II teacher was a Chinese woman working on her Doctorate. Couldn’t understand a word. So I never came to class, just to take the exams & got a C+.
Worthless. If that had been Calc I, I wouldn’t have passed.
Badger40 on November 21, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Life is tough, and tougher if you’re stupid. …………..John Wayne
Education is useless without skills. Just about all the interviews I witnessed with the OWS crowds, the protestors had their heads firmly in the clouds. Too much evidence of their behavior recorded to deny the facts.
mixplix on November 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM
Higher-education has become a cesspool of political indoctrination, corruption and waste. There is absolutely no reason at all the taxpayers should be funding or bailing out any aspect of this screwed up “industry.”
jsingood on November 22, 2011 at 6:41 PM
Ya know blink, I almost always disagree with you, but you’re right this time. Either it is somethong you or I ater, or the old “clock being right twice a day” is in effect.
However. Good call.
Old Country Boy on November 22, 2011 at 7:30 PM
Thanks.
Eat whatever you ate more often. It would be good if you were right more than twice per day. ;)
blink on November 22, 2011 at 7:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3