Monthly Archives: September 2022

Why I’m Against Forgiving Student Loans

The Biden Administration is forgiving up to $10,000 of student loans for people who make up to $125,000. Anyone getting free debt relief is obviously excited about this, and even some people who don’t have any college debt are happy to help.

The right wing media is furious though. Social media is flooded with posts pointing out how everyone else deserves a break too, poor people need more help than anyone making $125,000 per year, and it’s unfair to treat people who willingly took on loans as victims. As is always the case in American media, everyone is talking about the wrong things, which is distracting from the real issues and therefore enabling them, guarantying the problem will continue.

Everyone knows the price of college tuition skyrockets every year for no other reason than colleges can get away with extorting their customers. One of the main reasons they get away with this is they know it doesn’t matter if their students can afford tuition. As long as students can get a loan, the school will get their money, and whatever happens after that isn’t the their problem.

Imagine if the government came out and said, “We realize you need a car to get to work, and the price of cars has risen 1,000% in your lifetime. So we’re going to give everyone who currently has a car loan $1,000. You’re welcome.” Anyone with a car note would say, “Sure, I guess. Thanks for barely nothing.” Anyone without a loan would say, “Fuck you too.” They would both be right, but arguing about the details misses the point. The real issue is the extortionate increase in the price of cars. If the government simply stopped car companies from being able to overcharge their customers, they could fix the problem for free.

The second half of the real problem is the interest rates on student loans. Imagine if you bought a car for $10,000 because you needed it to get to work. Then you paid $100 every month for a year, and at the end of the year your loan balance was $10,000. Then the president of the United States comes out and says, “Don’t worry. I’ll save you by making tax payers give your predatory lender $100!”

An actual person’s student loan balance

Millennials wouldn’t be crippled by a lifetime of student loan debt if the interest rate was zero, and since student loans are the only debt that can’t be eliminated by filing for bankruptcy, I believe that would be a fair trade.

Anyone who is pissed off that it’s unfair for college debtors to get free relief shouldn’t be focusing their arguments on that one myopic point. They should be pointing out that the government could give students more help for free by simply eliminating interest rates, or at least cutting them in half. The only people who lose in that scenario are the ultra rich assholes who created the problem.

If we’re going to scream about how something is unfair, we should be screaming about the fact that the government’s only solution to students being exploited by financial institutions is to give huge lump sums of free tax payer money to the exact same bankers who created the problem to begin with. This is exactly how the government dealt with the 2008 housing market crash:

Step 1: Financial institutions bankrupt consumers by overcharging them. Step 2: Consumers can’t pay off their loans, which means the banks become in danger of going bankrupt. Step 3: The government gives the banks free tax payer money. Step 4: The CEOs of those companies buy mansions, yachts, cocaine, and hookers with that money. Step 5: The consumer never stops living paycheck to paycheck.

So, yes, I’m completely against giving those vultures more money. I want students to have debt relief, but I want them to get it at no cost to the tax payer by simply preventing colleges and lending institutions from gouging their customers.

If you liked this post, you may like these:

Fixing the Economy
The Housing Market
Healthcare in America
The Stock Market
Banks
Taxes

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Should Both Go To Jail For Mishandling Top Secret Documents

In 2009, Hillary Clinton installed an E-mail server in her home, which she used to conduct government business. After a series of hacks and leaks, the FBI and the State Department investigated her unsecure server. They identified hundreds of E-mails containing classified information, and it’s fair to say they would have found more if Hillary hadn’t hastily deleted 33,000 E-mails. Every agency that investigated her agreed she was “careless” and “negligent” in handling classified information but refused to bring charges against her.

When Hillary ran for president in 2016, her opponent, Donald Trump, relentlessly reminded voters about the controversy and encouraged his fans to chant, “Lock her up. Lock her up.” The E-mail scandal played a significant role in Trump defeating Hillary in the 2016 election to become the 45th president of the United States.

After leaving office in 2020, Trump took hundreds of classified documents home with him from the White House. In 2021, The National Archives and Records Administration noticed they didn’t have certain items from Trump’s tenure that they’d expected. So they requested he turn over any classified he may have kept. Trump’s lawyers sent back 15 boxes and promised he didn’t have anything else. However, the FBI found evidence that Trump was still in possession of more. So they sent agents to search his home, where they found 26 additional boxes of confidential, secret, and top secret documents.

Now history is repeating itself. Government agencies are debating whether Trump’s actions were deliberate, if they warrant prosecution, and if criminal charges are even possible due to their unprecedented nature. The right wing media is saying this is a witch hunt and making every excuse imaginable to defend Trump while the left wing media is acting like all we can do is wait and see what the lawyers decide. They’ve all missed the point… again.

My perspective comes from the fact that I served in the U.S. Air Force from 2000 to 2007, and I had a top secret security clearance. Anyone who has worked in a top secret environment can tell you that the vast majority of classified information is boring. Even the culture in a top secret environment is dull by design. You’re not supposed to have fun, or be creative or expressive. When you walk into a secure area, everything is as serious as a heart attack.

My first supervisor explained it to me like this, “When something is marked ‘top secret,’ it doesn’t matter how mundane the actual information is. You treat it as if it contains the exact time and location where the president is going to be, and any unauthorized person who sees it is an assassin who will use that info to murder the president. It doesn’t matter if the information fell into the wrong hands because you were negligent or malevolent. Your actions killed the president. That’s all that matters. You see, ‘top secret’ doesn’t just mean ‘really important.’ It means, ‘no mistakes, no excuses, no mercy.'”

I recently saw a Tweet that summed it up another way. It said, “Top secret info is like child porn. If it’s in your house, you’re going to jail.”

For enlisted personnel, there’s no gray area when it comes to handling classified information. You either follow the rules to perfection, or you get the book thrown at you. On the off-chance you miraculously don’t go to jail for mishandling sensitive material, at the very least you’ll lose your job and your security clearance and never be able to work anywhere near classified information again.

It’s worth noting that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump didn’t just mishandle information that could compromise a single mission or a military base in the middle of nowhere. They failed to safeguard information related to the highest levels of national security… your security. If they were anyone else, they would have been arrested the moment the FBI found their unsecured documents. The only debate would have been about how long they’d spend in prison.

The only question news pundits should be asking in response to the Hillary/Trump saga is why politicians with the highest responsibility to national security are held to the lowest standard of accountability.