https://www.facebook.com/messages/?action=read&tid=v2FuvW8FgEaZ9obmSS046w

Dennis Ross

Select messages to forward.

Select messages to delete.

Delete
All

July 5,
2010

Gordon Wayne
Watts

H!.

you're
welcome, Dennis - glad i could help - were you able to use all 4 programs I
outlined? (Don't 4get 2 update them every time U turn on yr computer. --and then
run a 'quick' scan B4 doing anything else online.)

June 2,
2011

Gordon Wayne
Watts

H.R. 5043 post -why
did you delete my post & what is your take in this
bill?

I posted a
question about H.R. 5043 just now, and it's deleted - I guess you deleted it.
Was my post offensive in some way? The issues surrounding that are explained on
http://GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html
or http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html
-- briefly, students used to have bankruptcy protections, and if these standard
loan protections are returned, the Federal Government will be less likely to
guarantee student loans, less loans will originate, --and at a cost lower than
before (Lower Tuition: since colleges will know they can't price-gouge students
without rick of bankruptcy), and this will have a "side effect" of getting
Government OUT of Higher-Education. (Translation: GOOD, since conservatives
*want* the Govt out of Higher Education.)

For some reason, liberals
support this too -and I suspect they view it as a free handout.

I don't
want a free handout - I don't mind paying what I owe, but I don't want to be
over-taxed to death, and tuition is technically a tax, since it is funding to a
state-owned college in most cases -and a college regulated by State &
Federal govt is all cases.

This is a rare issue where liberals &
conservatives can see eye-to-eye and agree -instead of the usual Washington
'gridlock.'

What is your take on this issue? -- And, what about my post
was offensive to motivate you to delete it?

June 2,
2011

Dennis
Ross

I toko it down because I
wanted my constituents to see the post about the balanced budget hearing
going on right now. Nothing offenseive, just didn't want that post mvoed
down the page so far.

As for HR 5043, I do not support it. Allowing
discharge in bankruptcy for student loans would cause a sharp decline in
availability of loans. I also do not supoprt the federal government being
the only student loan lender, as it is now after last
year.

June 2,
2011

Gordon Wayne
Watts

I *want* a sharp decline in
the availability of student loans (ideally, I would eliminate ALL of the
government's interference in the Free Market -and get the Federal Government
*out* of Higher Education altogether!)

You see, Dennis, every time
Congress raises the loan limits (thus enabling students to be saddled with
more debt), dishonest liberal colleges find new excuses to raise tuition
(even though they're not justified, since quality of education has actually
gone down).

In the 50's US colleges were tops in the world, in
tuition could be paid for by a part time job in the cafeteria over the
summer.

Now-days, tuition is unbearably heavy -with some students
even committing suicide -- have you ever wondered why tuition is
skyrocketing much faster than inflation's rate?

Liberals who support
gov't interference in the free market make unrealistically large loans
available, and colleges simply charge more because they can.

But I
don't see how a conservative such as you or I could support this
interference in the Free Market by the Government.

If the gov't got
out of guaranteeing loans (which would occur to some small degree if HR5043
passed -since bankruptcy would partly cancel out past loans -and discourage
future ones from being unrealistically large), then tuition would drop
-since colleges would know they could no longer price-gouge students without
repercussions.

If drug users & criminals with credit cards can
get bankruptcy, why not students?

Also, when bankruptcy protections
were in place for student loans just a few years ago, lender were not so
irresponsible, and the default rate was not high -but when bankruptcy
protections were removed, the default rate skyrocket.

Lastly, the
conservative Tampa Tribune 'got it': (Beware the debt trap, Tampa Tribune,
Oct 18, 2009)
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/oct/18/co-beware-the-debt-trap/news-opinion-letterday
or:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/TampaTrib10-18-2009.jpg
or:
http://GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/TampaTrib10-18-2009.jpg

You're
just as conservative as the Tribune, I trust – here is documentation and
clarification of my claims about HR5043:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html
or:
http://GordonWatts.com/Higher-Ed-Tuition-Costs.html

You
know I'm a conservative, and I don't want to 'get out' of paying for my
college education (eg getting a 'Free Handout'), but tuition is,
technically, a tax, since it goes to state-owned universities in most cases
--and Federal/State regulated colleges in all cases, and students have been
over taxed now for some time. You don't support this over-tax which resulted
from liberals' intefering with the free market, do you? (Hint: Colleges of
the 50's were low because the gov't didn't intefere in the Free
Market.)

June 2,
2011

Gordon Wayne
Watts

I was a little emotional
earlier --rest assured I am not mad or offended at your deleting my post.
(But since I see you did delete my 'regular' email -probably afraid the
attachment might infect your computer, I will hope to gain your ear just a
little longer.)

Anyhow, we've tried it the liberals' way --and all
those 'Student Loans' did nothing but enable a skyrocketing
tuition.

So, that's why I want to go back to the way it was: Either
no loans at all -or, if there are loans, standard consumer protections (eg
bankruptcy) --like it was back in the 50's --when quality of education was
high, and tuition was low.

What has, at root, caused this lending
system to grow in to the predatory beast it has become, caused the schools
to loose their honor in favor of greed, hurt the students, etc. is #1: the
removal of standard consumer protections from student loans & also #2:
the creation of draconian collection powers. Combined, these two actions
made defaults the preferable outcome for the entire lending system, and took
away the motivation to help the students from the people running the system
(most importantly the people at the Department of Education).

When
the people making the loans (the guarantors for the loans & even the
Department of Education) lost the financial interest to help the students,
but instead were given a financial incentive to want students to default
& fail, the entire system became predatory, corrupted, inflationary,
etc. This is the most fundamental cause that explains the unchecked greed
that came to dominate the colleges/universities. Simply returning the
standard consumer protections that were taken away (e.g., those HR 5043
reactivated) will fix this defect, and, over time, the various horrible
things that were created will go away, and this includes the raping of the
students by the schools.

Government interference in the Free Market
has not worked, as we see --I want the Federal Government out of Higher Ed
altogether, and students who were over-taxed to be
reimbursed.

June 2,
2011

Gordon Wayne
Watts

I was wrong on some of what I
said regarding HR 5043... and I wanted to apologise:

As I was heading
out the door for lunch earlier today, Jacob Walsh, a friend I haven't heard
from in years call me up because he wanted my help in helping him apologise
to Alan Collinge the head of Student Loan Justice -and it was because he
changed his views on student loan bankruptcy.

I was freaked out
because of the timing of this -- since I had planned, while I was at lunch,
to drop off a copy of my letter to the editor that you deleted in your AOL
email (you prob. deleted it because it had an attachment --and I don't
totally blame you).

Jacob has been a student loan officer for many
years now, and so I took the chance to ask his opinion of the issue, so that
if you and I discussed it further, I would know if I had taken a "common
sense" approach.

Jacob looked up H.R. 5043 on the computer while we
talked, and he brought to my attention that this affects only private
student loans -not subsidised ones, such as Stafford.

I relayed to
him your concern that bankruptcy protections would chill the market, and, as
you say, cause a sharp decline in availability of loans; Jacob pointed out
that credit card loans are typically on the same terms (interest, payment
options, fees, etc.) as these private loans, and yet credit card loans have
continued unabated -and that even someone with bad credit can find a
lender.

He also pointed out that there would still be Stafford and
other Federally-guaranteed loans available to student -and that they would
not have any bankruptcy protections.

So, he concluded that your fears
of a sharp decline in availability of loans were unfounded.

He also
took a swipe at your stance on the issue, saying that you were not a 'true'
republican, since he believes you are bought out by the big lenders to allow
these loans to students, but I tried to defend you on this point, saying I
believed you were truly conservative. Jacob lives in Indiana, and thus not a
constituent in your district, but I fear other constituents might sympathise
with the views he espoused.

Anyhow, now that I've clarified that HR
5043 doesn't touch public or backed loans, as they call them, and that even
the private loans would be affected no differently than credit card loans
(which are done all the time -with no difficulty), are your fears
allied?

Lastly, if what you're saying is true about bankruptcy
protections causing a sharp decline in student loans, then how did colleges
get by in the 50's without soaking student -and ruining their creidt with
super high loans that could not be discharged short of a full disability or
the like? (My guess is the colleges learned to live within their means -and
obeyed free market pressures.)

You'll enjoy my letter to the Tampa
Tribune --it is quite short and to the point.

June 20,
2011

Gordon Wayne
Watts

I saw your post about
your father's health problems... )-;

I am so sorry
to hear of the health problems of your father, Dennis. -- While I am not a
specialist regarding Parkenson's disease, I do know that America's
diet/lifestyle is far worse than that of many other countries which actually
spend less on healthcare but live longer, have lower cancer rates, etc. --I
studied this on college, and would encourage you to check out my health research
page regarding simple diet changes that have helped other countries to be
healthy --America (and you & your father) can be healthy too --I hope and
*pray* for the best blessings upon you and all other people -- here is my
research page:

(not rhetorical: I do *pray* for my leaders, neighbours,
friends, & even enemies -and I do have them)

http://GordonWayneWatts.com/#health
or:
http://GordonWatts.com/#health
or
even:
http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/#health

If you are distracted
& don't have time to read my research, here's the long-story made short:
Vegetarian diet is underrated & very good --and regular supermarket milk
(both 2%, regular, and even fat-free) are horrendously bad for your health
--VERY bad: You might drink Soy, Rice, Almond 'Milk' or even calcium-fortified
Orange Juice.

Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The Register
http://www.gordonwaynewatts.com/ / http://www.gordonwatts.com/

ALWAYS
FAITHFUL - To God
BS, The Florida State University,Biological & Chemical
Sciences
double major with honours at FSU
AS, United Electronics
Institute
Valedictorian at UEI
(plus deep college debt & no job to
show, but at least my knowledge can help my friends stay healthy)

Dennis Ross is typing
...

You can no longer message Dennis Ross. Learn
more.