Bachmann Criticizes Obama’s Student Loan Plan – From the Wires –

Obama is changing the rules governing student loans to make them easier to pay. Bachman does not like it.

Like her right-wing brethren, Bachman has a fetish for a thing called “personal responsibility.” I put it in quotes because what she means by the phrase is different than an actual English interpretation of it. Let’s quote from the article:

“There is a morality in keeping our financial promises, and I don’t think we should push that off onto the taxpayer,” she said. “The individual needs to repay and be responsible for repaying their student loan debt.”

 Bachmann Criticizes Obama’s Student Loan Plan – From the Wires –

In English, personal responsibility means that individuals have a responsibility for their obligations. But Bachman only means the little people, those individuals with mortgages, student loans and credit card debts. She is merciless in her desire to have every last dime extracted from these individuals.

But she is less enthusiastic about investment banks, American corporations’ overseas operations, or any legal accountability for the economic catastrophe of the Wall Street Crash of 2007 and it subsequent bailout (at a 100% of the value of the toxic assets). How long could I go on about the incredible lack of responsibility by much of our corporate and ruling class?

So, personal responsibility is only applicable to certain people.

Let me make a guess as to how the little people, those with personal responsibility, as opposed to those without are divided. It’s purely driven by the size of their campaign contributions and the number of lobbyists they field.

It is not surprising that Bachman is unable to manage any criticism of a student loan system that among other problems happily pays out money for valueless degrees by unaccredited institutions. It is not surprising that imposing twenty and thirty years of debt on America’s young is not a problem in her eyes. It is not surprising that the pain of ten of millions of Americans who live day to day one step above financial insolvency while American* corporations horde their money and enjoy record profits does not strike her as a serious problem.

James Pilant

*I sometimes wonder just how American they are. Corporate fidelity to the moral standards of a patriot seem questionable at best. Many business thinkers deny that corporation have any responsibility toward the nations whose laws and military protect them.

Enhanced by Zemanta

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say


They are saying nothing of the kind, and unless the author is dumber than a stone, that author is deliberately coming to a dishonest conclusion.

Shareholders are summoned at intervals usually once a year to vote on the board of directors and any policy changes. These votes are in almost all cases pre-ordained in their outcomes.

Shareholders under American law are almost powerless. Only large shareholders can build substantial building blocks of votes to challenge a current board. So, most shareholders are simply silent or agreeable.

What the vast majority of shareholders said was, “There was nothing that could be done, the board of directors is too entrenched to challenge and they have been almost to a man selected by the CEO. A no vote would be a waste of my time and could make enemies down the road.”

I don’t like this kind of misleading nonsense. “All is well, the money is well earned, compensation follows the free market, etc.”

What the shareholders would do if actually given the power they are supposed to have under the laws of property is unknown but I find it unlikely they would like to see their dividends diminished to reward CEO’s regardless of their performance and far in excess of CEO salaries in other nations.

James Pilant

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say

Enhanced by Zemanta