Make Sure You Can Repay What You Borrow

In the article "In Grim Job Market, Student Loans Are a Costly Burden", author Tara Siegel Bernard touches on a subject that is very important to everyone trying to get an education. Borrowing money to pay for education means that at some point you will have to start repaying those loans. For most of us that are not fortunate enough to be able to pay for our education without borrowing, we have a daunting task in front of us. We have to repay those loans after we graduate. The article recommends that you don't borrow more money than you expect to make as a starting salary at the job you hope to land after you graduate.

The problem facing recent graduates today is the lack of quality jobs in this time of recession. Graduates are coming out to find the job markets to be not very friendly. Companies are downsizing and cutting back in response to the flailing economy, and not that many jobs are out there to be found. The loans still come due, however, and many grads are taking whatever jobs they can find in order to just make ends meet. When you add in loan payments, many just can't make the payments.

Student loans are some of the most rock-solid loans that can be obtained. They have to be paid back, and even bankruptcy can't remove those debts. Most federal loans are impossible to escape, and private loans are also difficult to get relief from. Default on these loans and you can have your wages garnished at up to 15%, and tax refunds can be taken. This is an unfortunate reality for some.

It is very disheartening to find out that your education that you worked so hard to get won't make you enough money to pay back the loans you took out to pay for said education. There are some alternatives for payment, even some that forgive debt after a set number of years of making reduced payments. I guess the moral of the story is get a good paying job if you are going to borrow money to pay for the education.

He's Trying, But Not Everybody Wants to Play Ball

In the article "Trust Is Issue, Pakistan Tells U.S.", author Jane Perlez points out the strained relationship between our government and the Pakistanis, especially in relation to attacks by the U.S. on suspected Al Qaeda forces in Pakistan's tribal regions. This tension comes somewhat on the heels of the President's mildly successful trip to Europe, where he hoped to repair damaged international relationships and garner support for the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Two government officials in particular are the focus of the minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's ire, Adm. Mike Mullen and Richard C. Holbrooke. The minister is angry over the issue of the U.S. using remote drones to attack Al Qaeda positions in tribal areas adjacent to Afghanistan. According to the minister, "the bottom line is the question of trust". This does not bode well for relations that are already strained in that part of the world. The Pakistani military leaders and intelligence operations are also upset about U.S. military leader's suggestion that the Pakistani intelligence agency was still supporting Taliban fighters that cross over the border to attack American troops. Pakistan and the U.S. have long been allies, and Washington still plans to back Pakistan.

Tension in the middle east is not something anyone needs right now, especially the U.S. We are trying to get out of an unsuccessful war in Iraq, and have our hands full in Afghanistan. We need all the allies that we can get in this region, especially if we ever plan to leave there in force. U.S. officials should plan on coming clean on past issues, with respect to the safety of national security. We must rebuild these relationships in order to be successful in this region of the world.

I personally feel that our role in Middle Eastern affairs should be limited. Most all of them hate us for interfering in their lives, and trying to force Western morals on to people who are not at all interested in fitting in the American picture of a "good neighbor". There has been war in the middle east for thousands of years, and I don't see it stopping any time soon. I agree that we can't let it become a launching pad for attacks against the U.S., but I also don't think we should plan on occupying the area with military force for the next couple thousand years. Maybe there isn't any decent answer to this problem. I'm probably not the first person to come to that conclusion.

Is the Senate Broken?

In the article "The Senate is Broken", author Christopher Hayes asks the question that is on a lot of people's minds here lately: Is the Senate Broken? HE mentions the founding fathers and their intentions to keep the mob from ruling, while also keeping out the riff-Raff, and their apparent feeling that maybe we would have more trouble governing ourselves than we thought. In most respects, they were successful in their goals. However, one aspect has not been so successful, the Senate. It has grown more undemocratic over the years and the imbalance of representation is much more severe. According to Hayes' article, California has 68 times the population of Wyoming, but equal representation in the Senate. Filibusters have evolved into "de facto super majority requirement", and one individual can essentially bring the entire body to a halt. Is it time to look at our processes and make some changes?

This article was appropriate this week due to our classroom viewing of the Bill Moyers Journal this week. Some of the same points that were brought up on that journal are made in the article from The Nation mentioned above. The fact that people in all media sources are arriving at the same conclusion lends credence to the thought that maybe it is time to evaluate our processes and possibly change some aspects of government.

I personally feel that the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves. They never could have anticipated the future we live in now, nor could they have anticipated the way that money makes the world go around. The idea of the republic and democracy still thrives, but it is mired in the endless money grabbing that goes with politics these days. It's a shame that something so idealistic could be bastardized by monetary concerns, but that is a fact of life in this day and time. Special interest groups and lobbyists make large campaign donations, and in return, expect consideration from their pocket Senators in the form of legislation and earmarks. Rarely is it the public best interest that Senators move and shake. The fact that any overhaul in the system would probably have to originate in the body of government that needs to be overhauled means that it will probably never happen.