Judge Kavanaugh

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

How many classes do you think Alan Dershowitz’s Taught at Harvard law ?

you are completely missing the point. Dershowitz isn’t cashing huge checks on friday morning, then going on tv that afternoon and attacking banks for making profits off the cost of college. that’s the difference, and it’s a huge difference.

harvard is a private school, they don’t force anyone to do anything. if students want to choose to borrow 250k to line Warrens pockets, that’s their choice, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. nothing.

but when Warren goes on tv and uses her platform as a us senator to tell bankers that it’s wrong for THEM to take money from college students, then we should all call her out for being the hypocrite that she is. she obviously doesn’t believe it’s wrong to profit off of college students seeking an education.

you cannot begin to make that wrong, you just can’t. her salary isn’t the issue, it’s the obvious hypocrisy that’s the issue. you can’t see that?

tell me why i’m wrong. pointing out that trump is rich isn’t refuting my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you are completely missing the point. Dershowitz isn’t cashing huge checks on friday morning, then going on tv that afternoon and attacking banks for making profits off the cost of college. that’s the difference, and it’s a huge difference.

harvard is a private school, they don’t force anyone to do anything. if students want to choose to borrow 250k to line Warrens pockets, that’s their choice, that has absolutely nothing to do with me. nothing.

but when Warren goes on tv and uses her platform as a us senator to tell bankers that it’s wrong for THEM to take money from college students, then we should all call her out for being the hypocrite that she is. she obviously doesn’t believe it’s wrong to profit off of college students seeking an education.

you cannot begin to make that wrong, you just can’t. her salary isn’t the issue, it’s the obvious hypocrisy that’s the issue. you can’t see that?

tell me why i’m wrong. pointing out that trump is rich isn’t refuting my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are her horrible statements things like this?
Thank you, thank you. As Barry mentioned, before I was a Senator, I was a law professor. What
he didn’t say is that I taught contracts, secured transactions, and bankruptcy – all courses related
to the functioning of competitive markets. I love markets! Strong, healthy markets are the key to
a strong, healthy America.
That’s the reason I am here today. Because anyone who loves markets knows that for markets to
work, there has to be competition. But today, in America, competition is dying. Consolidation
and concentration are on the rise in sector after sector. Concentration threatens our markets,
threatens our economy, and threatens our democracy.
Evidence of the problem is everywhere. Just look at banking. For years, banks have been in a
feeding frenzy, swallowing up smaller competitors to become more powerful and, eventually,
too big to fail.1
The combination of their size, their risky practices, and the hands-off policies of
their regulators created a perfect storm, resulting in the worst financial crisis in 80 years. We
know that excessive size and interconnectedness promotes risky behavior that can take down our
economy – and yet, today, eight years after that financial crisis, three out of the four biggest
banks in America are even bigger than they were before the crisis and two months ago five were
designated by both the Fed and the FDIC as “too big to fail.”
2
The concentration problem—and particularly the idea of “too big to fail” in the financial
sector—gets a lot of attention. But the problem isn’t unique to the financial sector. It’s hiding in
plain sight all across the American economy.
You can read the whole thing
https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/...ust_Speech.pdf

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

tell me why i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.

If the first paragraph of you statement is true, why does it cost north of 50 k for a year at Harvard? Why are so many people scrambling to save for or take out loans for secondary education?

Do you think it one for a professor to make 400k for a year and a half of teaching, then complain when she is done professing that college is too expensive, and then blaming it on banks?

The universities set the price of tuition not banks, if people want to go to school that bad and can't afford it they get loans.

Just like everything else that's costs money in the world, no one is forcing you to buy a house or that new truck and finance it, it is your decision. If you don't like the loan terms you shop around

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

If the first paragraph of you statement is true, why does it cost north of 50 k for a year at Harvard? Why are so many people scrambling to save for or take out loans for secondary education?

All the top schools are above 50k these days. The difference is they've been able to use their stature and benefactors to create large endowments to offset tuition to get the best students.

Harvard actually has less students graduating with debt than just about another elite university.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Because you're just wrong.

First off universities are non-profit organizations. Second, Harvard has an endowment of 38 billion dollars, about 1/2 of their students don't even pay much if any tuition. 400k for an esteemed professor of her stature at one of the top schools in the world isn't in any way out of line.

If you'd bother to actually read what Warren was professing you'd see she's argued the government should underwrite student loans at a rate similar to what the banks get to borrow for to minimize profit either by private lenders or government profit.

It may not be a silver bullet to solve the cost of higher education but it's in no way hypocritical at all.

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok Jim. If you're making a large profit and paying employees and then spreading the profits to shareholders...it's not the same thing as paying employees for their work and using the excess to improve the institution and pay for students that can't afford a world class education but who have qualifications that deserve it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok Jim. If you're making a large profit and paying employees and then spreading the profits to shareholders...it's not the same thing as paying employees for their work and using the excess to improve the institution and pay for students that can't afford a world class education but who have qualifications that deserve it.

oh, it’s the bank shareholders that make it unethical!!! so if it’s a privately owned bank, or some kind of mutual, that would be ok for them to make student loans with interest?

that makes all kinds of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

oh, it’s the bank shareholders that make it unethical!!! so if it’s a privately owned bank, or some kind of mutual, that would be ok for them to make student loans with interest?

that makes all kinds of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not getting it. Her position was that the government should lend money to students at the same rate it lends it to banks.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're not getting it. Her position was that the government should lend money to students at the same rate it lends it to banks.

no sir. her position was that the banks are exploiting the students. naturally she would never sink so low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the university is non profit. warren wasn’t a volunteer. she made a fortune, but claims banks cannot do the same. please explain the difference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is what she has concerns about
How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America’s next financial black hole
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...windle-124484/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This is what she has concerns about
How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America’s next financial black hole
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...windle-124484/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but she profited by it also. i cannot believe you and spence, i just can’t. and you people claim that trump supporters are hypnotized? its you who can’t, ever, under any circumstances, being yourself to be critical of anyone prominent on. your side. i’m not asking you to say warren is the moral equivalent of trump. just to concede the glaring, obvious, irrefutable hypocrisy on this one issue. and you can’t do it. you aren’t capable of admitting she profited offf of students borrowing money. you just can’t. strange stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but she profited by it also. i cannot believe you and spence, i just can’t. and you people claim that trump supporters are hypnotized? its you who can’t, ever, under any circumstances, being yourself to be critical of anyone prominent on. your side. i’m not asking you to say warren is the moral equivalent of trump. just to concede the glaring, obvious, irrefutable hypocrisy on this one issue. and you can’t do it. you aren’t capable of admitting she profited offf of students borrowing money. you just can’t. strange stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim

A Elephant and a Mouse are not the same Just because they both eat peanuts .. but thats what you are trying to get people to admit with warren and predatory lending ... using your logic the lunch lady the janitor or any one who has a job at any college or university in the country profited off of students borrowing money. even though they have no control over policy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim

A Elephant and a Mouse are not the same Just because they both eat peanuts .. but thats what you are trying to get people to admit with warren and predatory lending ... using your logic the lunch lady the janitor or any one who has a job at any college or university in the country profited off of students borrowing money. even though they have no control over policy

ummm, i know an elephant and a mouse arentbthe same just because they eat peanuts. you guys are really slow in the uptake.

the mouse and the elephant are different. very different. but if both eat peanuts, neither one has the moral standing to lecture the other about why it’s evil to eat peanuts. do you honestly not agree with that? seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device