Connect with us

Opinion

Opinion — President Biden, What About My $50,000?

Yeah, Joe!?

Published

on

President Biden has suggested that he’s now reconsidering the forgiveness of $50,000 per student in student loan debt. As a parent who sent four children to college, each took some student loans, and my wife and I paid the rest like many other families in the country did for their children. As I thought about this proposal, I wondered who would qualify for the up to $50,000 forgiveness? As I thought more about this issue and the complexity of deciding who should get reimbursed, I thought about the other discussion of reparations for slavery. The challenge in both of these issues is figuring out if we’re going to do it how do we do it without alienating millions upon millions of Americans. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there approximately 47.8 million blacks in this country, of which 5 million came in this country as immigrants in the last 10 years. So, we have perhaps 42 million blacks who could be eligible for compensation in some form, or another should come. On the other hand, as you will see shortly, there may be as many as 60 million students holding college debt and might be in line for the cost of forgiveness. 

In the United States, we have 40.3 million people who have completed college carrying $1.5 trillion; they’re approximately 21,000,000 students in college today, and the amount of money in outstanding student loan debt is second only to residential mortgages. Student loan debt exceeds all credit card debt.

You could ask how did we get into the problem of so much debt? In a word, the answer to the question is government. When the government decided that everybody should have the right to own a home, the government created Affordable Housing loans. In essence, the government decided people who could not qualify for a home loan get a home loan regardless of their ability to repay the loan. The same is true in the college business. Everybody has a right to go to college regardless of their ability to learn and succeed and pay back the loan. 

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

According to the Washington Post, of 100 students start 21, one never completes. One-third of those who drop out are from lower-income families.

For a long period of time, private banks loaned the money to pay for college, then they took the risk of defaults but under the Obama Biden administration, that all changed when the U.S. government became the lender of record, so all the outstanding student loan debt are obligations of the United States government, in other words, you. 

-Student loans make up more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt in the United States from more than 44 million borrowers.
-Student loans are being securitized as asset-backed securities non as SLABS.
-SLABS has been enticing to investors due to some structural guarantees, but as student debt loads increase, they may become riskier than initially thought.

Here is the critical question: What happens under Biden’s proposed program to the investor who owns SLABS? If the government guarantees the obligation and the loan is canceled, will the investors get all of their money returned?

What about the parents who took out a home equity loan to pay for college? Should some of the $50,000 go to the parents of the students? What about people like me that took the money out of savings to pay the cost of college? The issue is very complicated. The young people what to get rid of some of their debt and just out of school; a student loan payment could be a big as a house payment.
 
Why was debt increased so much in a short time frame? U.S. News and World Report’s analysis of its ranked national universities shows that in the past 20 years, average tuition at private colleges rose by 144%; at public universities for out-of-state students by 165%; and at public universities for in-state students by 212%.

I would like you to look at these numbers and ask yourself did your income go up these percentages over the same time. According to Social Security, the income in 2001 was $31,581, while in 2019, it had grown to $51,916. This is a 64% increase in income over the time frame. You can see the cost of college more than consumed the rise in income, so it should be clear students had to borrow more and more money as the cost of college outstripped the family’s ability to pay the expenses. 

I think this idea is very divisive because those Americans who spent their money to pay for their children’s college education who get left out of any forgiveness program will be furious. Families will become more divided, and voters on both sides will also become angry. We will see examples of cross-generation conflict. 

There are two simple answers to this question. First, put a cap on the increases in college costs of college and remind the student you decided to go. You chose the college. If we made a financial commitment so you could go, then the financial obligations you made are yours. You went to college to improve yourself. I say not too forgiving debt for those who made the decision.   

Dan Perkins is a published author of 4 novels on nuclear and biological terrorism against the United States and is a current events commentator for over 30+ news blogs on a rotating basis. He recently has had commentaries posted on Medium, Conservative Truth, and Newsmax among others. He appears on radio and TV regularly many times a month. Dan’s newest show is called “America’s Cannabis Conversation,” on the W420radionetwork.com. His latest entrance in communications is his first Podcast called “What’s on My Mind?” This can be heard on SoundCloud; just look for the name of the show or Dan Perkins. More information on Perkins can be found on his web site: danperkins.guru

News

DOD Will Stop Paying Military Members Who Refuse Vaccine

Hasn’t this gone on long enough?

Published

on

military troops

At this point in the pandemic, perhaps the only thing that we know for sure is that we don’t really know when the end will finally arrive.  The virus has continued to power through unpredictable waves, each with their own distinct set of warnings from the powers that be.

And so, not knowing when any of this will be considered “over”, (at least in the federal government’s eyes), overreaching vaccine mandates continue to be enforced.

The latest threat to the unvaccinated takes aim at the US military, hitting service members directly in the wallet.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered that all members of the National Guard and Reserve must receive Covid vaccines or face loss of pay and being marked absent without cause from drills and training, according to a copy of a memo obtained by NBC News.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Aug. 24, Austin made the Covid vaccine mandatory for all service members and directing the secretaries of the military services to issue their own implementation guidance and timelines. The mandate extended to all service members on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard.

On Nov. 2, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma wrote a letter to Austin, asking him to rescind the vaccine mandate for members of the Oklahoma National Guard. Days later, Stitt appointed a new adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard who said he would not enforce the vaccine mandate.

But the DOD wasn’t having it.

On Monday, Austin responded to Stitt, denying his request to rescind the mandate for the Oklahoma National Guard. What remained unclear, however, was how the Pentagon planned to enforce the mandate for members of the National Guard while they are on state duty. Most of the time, including when they are training, members are on state duty and answer to their governor.

Further, those who are unable to participate in their duties due to their vaccination status will be accusing no time served during their absences.

At this point in the pandemic, perhaps the only thing that we know for sure is that we don’t really know when the end will finally arrive.  The virus has continued to power through unpredictable waves, each with their own distinct set of warnings from the powers that be. And so, not knowing when any of this will be considered “over”, (at least in the federal government’s eyes), overreaching vaccine mandates continue to be enforced. The latest threat to the unvaccinated takes aim at the US military, hitting service members directly in the wallet. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered that all members of the National Guard and Reserve must receive Covid vaccines or face loss of pay and being marked absent without cause from drills and training, according to a copy of a memo obtained by NBC News. On Aug. 24, Austin made the Covid vaccine mandatory for all service members and directing the secretaries of the military services to issue their own implementation guidance and timelines. The mandate extended to all service members on active duty or in the Ready Reserve, including the National Guard. On Nov. 2, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma wrote a letter to Austin, asking him to rescind the vaccine mandate for members of the Oklahoma National Guard. Days later, Stitt appointed a new adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard who said he would not enforce the vaccine mandate. But the DOD wasn’t having it. On Monday, Austin responded to Stitt, denying his request to rescind the mandate for the Oklahoma National Guard. What remained unclear, however, was how the Pentagon planned to enforce the mandate for members of the National Guard while they are on state duty. Most of the time, including when they are training, members are on state duty and…

Continue Reading

Opinion

Former Trump Chief of Staff Flips, is Cooperating with Jan 6th Committee

Say WHAT?!

Published

on

The work of the January 6th select committee continues to astound and astonish of late, with potential witness after potential witness finding themselves in untenable positions.  Stuck between a rock and a contempt charge.

The latest to reverse course and decide to cooperate is none other than former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who this week signaled his willingness to work with the Democratically-led fishing expedition.

 Mark Meadows, who served as former President Donald Trump’s last chief of staff and was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, is now cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the panel, said in a statement that Meadows has been “engaging” with the panel through his lawyer, providing records to the committee “and will soon appear for an initial deposition.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee in late September for records and testimony regarding his and Trump’s activities before and during the Capitol riot.

The news was rather unexpected:

“Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney. He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition,” the committee said in a statement Tuesday. “The Select Committee expects all witnesses, including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive. The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.”

His lawyer initially said Meadows wouldn’t cooperate with the committee because of Trump’s plans to assert executive privilege, an argument dismissed by the committee, whose members will vote this week to hold former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress for ignoring the panel’s subpoenas.

“As we have from the beginning, we continue to work with the Select Committee and its staff to see if we can reach an accommodation that does not require Mr. Meadows to waive Executive Privilege or to forfeit the long-standing position that senior White House aides cannot be compelled to testify before Congress,” Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger said in a statement Tuesday. “We appreciate the Select Committee’s openness to receiving voluntary responses on non-privileged topics.”

The committee has been widely criticized on the right side of the aisle, with many considering their investigation to be nothing more than a re-do of Trump’s second impeachment, this time with a Democratic majority deciding the outcome.

The work of the January 6th select committee continues to astound and astonish of late, with potential witness after potential witness finding themselves in untenable positions.  Stuck between a rock and a contempt charge. The latest to reverse course and decide to cooperate is none other than former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who this week signaled his willingness to work with the Democratically-led fishing expedition.  Mark Meadows, who served as former President Donald Trump’s last chief of staff and was involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, is now cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the panel, said in a statement that Meadows has been “engaging” with the panel through his lawyer, providing records to the committee “and will soon appear for an initial deposition.” Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee in late September for records and testimony regarding his and Trump’s activities before and during the Capitol riot. The news was rather unexpected: “Mr. Meadows has been engaging with the Select Committee through his attorney. He has produced records to the committee and will soon appear for an initial deposition,” the committee said in a statement Tuesday. “The Select Committee expects all witnesses, including Mr. Meadows, to provide all information requested and that the Select Committee is lawfully entitled to receive. The committee will continue to assess his degree of compliance with our subpoena after the deposition.” His lawyer initially said Meadows wouldn’t cooperate with the committee because of Trump’s plans to assert executive privilege, an argument dismissed by the committee, whose members will vote this week to hold former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark in contempt of Congress for ignoring the panel’s subpoenas. “As we have from the beginning, we continue to…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week