Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


#liberalmediabias
April 25, 2012 9:50 AM   Subscribe

Jimmy Fallon and The Roots (ft. President Obama) - Stafford Loan Interest Slow Jam
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 (57 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite

 
This is going to be one of those things we hear about for decades afterwards, isn't it?

cf. "Sock it to me?"
posted by Sys Rq at 9:55 AM on April 25, 2012


I had seen some links/buzz about this but had ignored them thinking...what...no way. Finally went to see it because it's on The Blue.

Awesome. Just awesome. Thanks.
posted by Xoebe at 9:59 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Ba-Roch Ness Monster. Nice.
posted by fatbird at 10:02 AM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


To be fair, Romney's rebuttal backed up by his barbershop quartet, The Trickledowns, was just devastating.
posted by R. Schlock at 10:04 AM on April 25, 2012 [60 favorites]


I've been cranky about this all day. Sure, it's cute, but it's a promise not to improve the lives of student borrowers except in the most empty, negative sense of not making them even worse. Why not #LowerMyRate?
posted by gerryblog at 10:06 AM on April 25, 2012


I guess that's one way to get the disillusioned young people attention after they've lost interested over the past 3.5 years of disappointments.
posted by DU at 10:10 AM on April 25, 2012 [3 favorites]


To be fair, Romney's rebuttal backed up by his barbershop quartet, The Trickledowns, was just devastating.

I wish we lived in a world where he COULD do that. It would be comedy gold.
posted by DigDoug at 10:12 AM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


Your archetypical Republican representative who you want to vote to lower the interest rate:

"I went through school, I worked my way through, it took me seven years, I never borrowed a dime of money. He borrowed a little bit because we both were totally on our own when we went to college, totally. [...] I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there’s no reason for that."

Of course, when Virginia Foxx went to UNC, she paid 87.50 (671.30 in 2012 dollars) for tuition per semester.

posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 10:12 AM on April 25, 2012 [31 favorites]


I, too, am angry about Obama trying to dissuade Congress from making my life worse
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:14 AM on April 25, 2012 [17 favorites]


DigDoug: "To be fair, Romney's rebuttal backed up by his barbershop quartet, The Trickledowns, was just devastating.

I wish we lived in a world where he COULD do that. It would be comedy gold.
"

The Singing Senators.
posted by mkb at 10:15 AM on April 25, 2012


Of course, when Virginia Foxx went to UNC, she paid 87.50 (671.30 in 2012 dollars) for tuition per semester.

And for that, she learned the mastery of fire, how to knap flint, and propitiate angry spirits.

Not a bad deal, I'd say.
posted by R. Schlock at 10:16 AM on April 25, 2012 [21 favorites]


East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94, don't you think he should be trying to make it better? Did we really vote in the guy on a CHANGE platform in the hopes that'd he'd maintain the status quo?
posted by gerryblog at 10:17 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


It is sad that essentially the least he could do to alleviate student loan issues will probably end up being a hard-fought battle.
posted by graventy at 10:18 AM on April 25, 2012


I really like the sentiments in here, but I have to confess, I was hoping Obama would sing.
posted by chatongriffes at 10:19 AM on April 25, 2012 [8 favorites]


The other guys are still trying to get tax cuts for millionaires. Why can't Obama advocate for one of his own core constituencies?
posted by gerryblog at 10:19 AM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


I, too, am angry about Obama trying to dissuade Congress from making my life worse

I, too, love deliberately misunderstanding the complaints in order to score cheap points.

The complaint is not "Obama is trying to prevent something bad, boo". The complaint is: Attack after attack after attack comes from the right wing and the best the Left can do is weakly defend, which causes the entire country to ratchet rightwards regularly. We can do better than this.
posted by DU at 10:20 AM on April 25, 2012 [10 favorites]


I believe this must take precedence over the former Most Entertaining Thing Jimmy Fallon Has Ever Been Associated With (deskology) and move into first place.
posted by elizardbits at 10:23 AM on April 25, 2012


Wow, that Virginia Foxx Link is stunning, how devious is she! In England, it was all free back then. Now it costs tens of thousands of £s.

"The other guys are still trying to get tax cuts for millionaires. Why can't Obama advocate for one of his own core constituencies?"
posted by gerryblog

Ours have already had theirs.
posted by marienbad at 10:25 AM on April 25, 2012


I agree, we can do better. The more actual Democrats and in particular communists progressives we can elect to Congress, the more votes the Left will have to make the interest rate change (passed by a Democratic House in '07) permanent.

Last night was a great start, with two Blue Dog Dems in Pennsylvania (Rep. Tim Holden, Rep. Jason Altmire, both of whom voted against healthcare reform) losing to more progressive candidates in the primaries.
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 10:28 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


The way to make it better is to think and vote, but most people aren't too interested in that.
posted by demiurge at 10:31 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


Romney goes negative; Obama goes slow-jam.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:31 AM on April 25, 2012 [3 favorites]


Must be Campaign Season!

Anyway I'm not going to complain about minor stuff like this, but it's still kind of sad that rather then the huge promises we were expecting when he got in, you get minor penny-anny stuff.

It's amazing how partisans can completely lose their minds when it comes to policy, for example the other day Lawrence O'Donnell said that if Obama got a second term in office, he'd legalize weed.

Given the fact that Obama has been more conservative on marijuana then his campaign position that makes little sense. So the rest of the TYT segment basically involved psychoanalyzing O'Donnell to try to figure out why he was having such an insane idea. It was entertaining.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


penny-anny

That's penny ante, but I thank you for introducing me to an eggcorn I've never seen before.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2012 [5 favorites]


I wish that he would also do something about losing subsidized loans next year (which is a huge deal - possibly bigger). I'm going to vote for him regardless, because the rock of Romney is a lot less appealing than the hard place of a second Obama term, but I'm still disappointed that his commitment to affordable higher education seems to be making things very worse instead of very very worse while making link-bait videos to convince Redditors to vote.
posted by codacorolla at 10:37 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


I, too, am angry about Obama trying to dissuade Congress from making my life worse
There is nothing wrong with that, except it's a relatively minor thing to get excited about.

In fact Romney is also opposed to the interest rate hike. So why would you vote for Obama on this basis?

That said, why is it that loan rates are going to double on july 1st of this year? Is it just due to an increase in the underlying treasury bill rate?
posted by delmoi at 10:44 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


... better than "...bombbombbomb, bombbomb Iran...), but not as good as Gerald Ford trying to roll a joint on vintage SNL. ("...if they're going to legalize this stuff I might as well learn how to roll one...")
posted by mule98J at 10:47 AM on April 25, 2012


No other generation has been socked with trillion dollar student loan debt. Whether the interest rates are +/-2% who gives a shit.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 10:49 AM on April 25, 2012 [10 favorites]


Well, budget cuts may have eliminated bread, but it looks like we'll always have circuses.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:49 AM on April 25, 2012 [8 favorites]


That said, why is it that loan rates are going to double on july 1st of this year? Is it just due to an increase in the underlying treasury bill rate?


These interest rates (for subsidized undergrad Stafford loans) were progressively reduced starting in 2007 as part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. It wasn't a permanent change, however, and rates were always scheduled to rebound to 6.8% in 2012.
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


My wife has private Stafford loans, and I just refinanced them with the Department of Education, thanks to Obama's reforms. That lowered the interest rate. So Obama has already lowered my interest rate. Additionally, the law he was able to get through Congress means that from 2014, student loan payments will be capped at 10% of disposable income. Obama has asked for this to be applied to existing students, and Congress has said no.

The claim that Obama is not trying to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans is simply false.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


Ah, here we go, from the WaPo article:
A: Acting on a Democratic campaign promise in 2006, Democrats in 2007 crafted the law to progressively lower the interest rate from 6.8 percent to the 3.4 percent rate — where it is this school year — and then return to the original 6.8 percent in 2012. Republican President George W. Bush signed the deal into law after it was approved by bipartisan but Democratic-heavy majorities in both chambers. Congress wrote the law this way for one simple reason, says Jason Delisle, director of the federal education budget project at the New America Foundation: cost. It would cost an additional $6 billion annually to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent.
So yeah, another stupid legislative timebomb placed by the democrats. It's obviously not Obama's fault, as this happened in 2007 and was signed by bush. But still, quite pathetic.

Serious question: is the best we can expect from the democrat time limited laws that make things slightly better, yet requiring us to vote for them so that they can be 'renewed'.

If you look at unemployment insurance extensions, they kept getting extended for a few months at a time requiring a renewal and a big fight each time. It was ridiculous.

Everyone complains about the influence of lobbying and all this nonsense, but the flip side of that is that congress frequently
... better than "...bombbombbomb, bombbomb Iran...), but not as good as Gerald Ford trying to roll a joint on vintage SNL. ("...if they're going to legalize this stuff I might as well learn how to roll one...")
Yes, but the question now is whether or not its better then Mitt "Worked with Ted Kennedy to bring about Universal Healthcare" Romney healthcare, who also opposes this rate hike.

It's kind of funny. Obama's major accomplishment was also accomplished by Romney on a state level years before. And now that the primary is over, Romney is going to be reaching out to the middle of the road voter rather then the Santorum lovers of America.

So what does Obama bring to the table that Romney doesn't?
posted by delmoi at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2012


I am reminded of Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio. Pell yeah.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:52 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


The claim that Obama is not trying to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans is simply false.
The claim that Mitt Romney is not trying to reduce interest rates on Stafford loans is also simply false.

So why is this a reason to vote for Obama over Romney?

(And as far as I can tell, no one is even claiming that Obama isn't trying to do it)
posted by delmoi at 10:54 AM on April 25, 2012


Sure, it's cute, but it's a promise not to improve the lives of student borrowers except in the most empty, negative sense of not making them even worse. Why not #LowerMyRate?

Even that is just whistling past the graveyard. The combination of Income Based Repayment and stagnant middle class wages (to say nothing of declining working class wages) means that in approximately 22 years the federal government is going to be on the hook for untold billions in forgiven student loan debt. Every year thereafter is only going to get worse as student indebtedness increases.

IBR is a temporary solution at best and corporate welfare at worst.* Long-term we are going to have to either massively cut the real cost of higher education or move to a fundamentally different funding model.

* Think about it. Folks on IBR spend 25 years paying 15% of their income to the student loan companies, who then get the balance paid off by the government. The vast majority of them have no hope of ever making enough money not to be on IBR, much less to actually pay off the balance. The only reason not to short-cut the process and forgive the balance right now (instead of 25 years later after it's grown significantly due to capitalized interest) is to give the loan companies 25 years of gravy.
posted by jedicus at 10:55 AM on April 25, 2012 [3 favorites]


Because Obama belongs to the party that's actively pressuring to keep student rates low, whereas Romney belongs to the party that characterizes this reduction as "studentloanfare"?
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 10:57 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


Out of Obama and Romney, only Romney has previously called for the Department of Education to be eliminated. He's since changed his mind and merely wants to shrink it, because otherwise he wouldn't be able to undermine the teacher's unions.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:00 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


It also appears that Romney has endorsed getting rid of subsidized loans altogether:

“The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school.”

Has the President endorsed ending subsidized loans? That alone seems like a major difference between the two.
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 11:01 AM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


Even that is just whistling past the graveyard. The combination of Income Based Repayment and stagnant middle class wages (to say nothing of declining working class wages) means that in approximately 22 years the federal government is going to be on the hook for untold billions in forgiven student loan debt. Every year thereafter is only going to get worse as student indebtedness increases.
The student loan situation is totally unsustainable. If it were up to me, universities should be responsible for forgiving debt, above a baseline tuition (based on, inflation adjusted 1990 rates).

After all, they're the ones who failed to provide education that was worth what they were charging. Tuition rates have been skyrocketing. The university of florida is trying to cut computer science and asking the state legislature to be allowed to raise rates by more then 15% a year (which they're not legally allowed to do)

When I was in college they raised rates by 19%, and then 19% again. And then gave people a break and hiked tuition by only 9%.

The universities see students as unlimited supplies of cash, because they are. They can just keep getting as much loan money as they need.

So now educations cost far, far more then what students could afford without loans, and in many cases more then the education is even worth from a financial perspective.

So what I would say is that over 20 years or whatever, the school itself should be the ones to bare the burden of graduates who don't make much money.

Now of course, like wall-street you could have a situation where someone goes for short term gain while screwing the future. They increase tuition now, make tons of money, and then leave the school to bankruptcy in the future.

So I think school administrators should be personally liable, to some extent, if students can't pay back their loans. Obviously not the whole amount, but some
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


It also appears that Romney has endorsed getting rid of subsidized loans altogether:

“The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school.”

Has the President endorsed ending subsidized loans? That alone seems like a major difference between the two.
You may be suffering from politically induce reading comprehension issues.
“Now that the government’s taking over the student loan business, I think you’ll get less competition. I’d rather have more competition, with private lenders as well as government lenders,” Romney said. “The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school.”
Clearly, he said there would still be government loans, right before the part of the quote you excised. He's saying something about interest rates - what specifically does he mean? Probably, nothing at all. It's just vacuous political blather.

In any event, Romney is the King of the Flipflops. There is really no way to know what he really thinks. I don't really think he's planning on rocking the boat very much. The supreme court is a serious issue, but other then that I don't really think there would be much difference in the way the country is run depending on whether or not Obama or Romney were president.

My view is that politicians should be judged based on what they do, not what they say. Unfortunately for democrats, the one major thing Romney has "Done" was implement Universal Healthcare.

Anyway, it annoys me how people turn off their brains when it comes to politics.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


“The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school.”
posted by drezdn at 11:23 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


And where did I ever say that Romney endorsed getting rid of government loans? I said he appears to have endorsed getting rid of subsidized loans, which he pretty clearly did. Specifically, he wants the interest rate to be high enough so that the taxpayer is not picking up one cent of the government provided loans.

In any case, I was answering your query "Why should this stance make me vote for Obama over Romney?". I am a voter with subsidized government loans. My choices are:

a) a candidate who's never said anything about eliminating subsidized loans, and whose party were the ones who campaigned on and passed a bill lowering student loan rates, or
b) a candidate who has recently articulated that he believes that taxpayers shouldn't subsidize student loans, and members of his own party are actively hostile to the idea of subsidized government student loans.

I'm going to pick A. I understand that you feel comfortable rolling the dice by believing that candidate B "won't rock the boat", or you want to project his unknowable national policy stances based on his one term as governor of the most liberal state in the US. I don't think that ignoring legislative context is a good strategy for trying to place where Romney might ultimately stand on this issue.
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 11:27 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


can we talk about The Roots now
posted by shakespeherian at 11:29 AM on April 25, 2012 [8 favorites]


Ok, I might be easily pleased but that segment might just make me vote for Obama again.
posted by bluesky43 at 11:32 AM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


The way to make it better is to think and vote, but most people aren't too interested in that.

Emphasis mine, because as far as I'm concerned those who vote don't think, and those who think don't vote.
posted by Blue_Villain at 11:34 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


The way to make it better is to think and vote, but most people aren't too interested in that.
posted by demiurge


I actually do both with increasing regularity. And I know a lot of other people who also do. In fact, a pretty decent percentage of the population does both. Yet here we are. I'm open to other suggestions.
posted by kingbenny at 11:39 AM on April 25, 2012


shakespeherian: Yes. Here, have this. It is awesome.
posted by jbickers at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2012


The supreme court is a serious issue, but other then that I don't really think there would be much difference in the way the country is run depending on whether or not Obama or Romney were president.

"So, other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
posted by zombieflanders at 11:54 AM on April 25, 2012 [9 favorites]


the school itself should be the ones to bare the burden of graduates who don't make much money.

Somewhere, an aged grammar school teacher is trembling at the thought of this precedent.
posted by R. Schlock at 11:57 AM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm torn between the awesomeness of Obama's mic drop and the timidity of his execution.
posted by pjenks at 12:11 PM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


I believe this must take precedence over the former Most Entertaining Thing Jimmy Fallon Has Ever Been Associated With (deskology) and move into first place.
posted by elizardbits at 1:23 PM on April 25


Voted for Obama, still love him, think he's doing a great job, thought this was hilarious. HOWEVER, having missed it the first time around, Deskology is way way funnier and awesome than this.
posted by Kimberly at 12:17 PM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


a) a candidate who's never said anything about eliminating subsidized loans, and whose party were the ones who campaigned on and passed a bill lowering student loan rates, or
When has romney ever said he wanted to elimated federal loans. Here is the thing you quoted, again:
“Now that the government’s taking over the student loan business, I think you’ll get less competition. I’d rather have more competition, with private lenders as well as government lenders,” Romney said. “The right course for America is for businesses and universities and colleges to compete, and for us to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn’t have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to school.”
That statement is the exact opposite of saying he wants to Elimate student loans. If Obama had said that, would you believe it meant he wanted to Elimate federal student loans?

I don't get it: how can "private lenders as well as government lenders" possibly mean "no government lenders"? Clearly it doesn't. The statement is actually an example of nonsensical political speech designed to sound nice to people who want to hear what they want to hear, and mean nothing on detailed analysis.
b) a candidate who has recently articulated that he believes that taxpayers shouldn't subsidize student loans, and members of his own party are actively hostile to the idea of subsidized government student loans.
First of all, it's important to distinguish current loans, which are scheduled to have their interest rates hiked thanks to legislation that democrats wrote, and bush signed or future loans which is what Romney is talking about.

The other problem is the phrase "articulate". Politicians articulate all kinds of nonsense. Obama said, when he was running for Senate in '04, that he wanted to decriminalize marijuana. If someone was afraid of voting for him for that reason, it turns out they had nothing to fear.

The fact that the republican party is full of crazies is a problem, as he'll have to work with them to get things done. The fact that the democratic party is probably to the right of where Obama campaigned has dragged him to the right. So obviously there will be more liberal polices if Obama is elected. And again, supreme court.

My point is though 1) Romney didn't say what you are saying he said - he said the opposite and 2) Neither Obama or Romney are running for King, whatever they want to do is going to be constrained by congress. What I expect gridlock and not much of anything if either of them is elected.
posted by delmoi at 1:50 PM on April 25, 2012


Back to the Roots... After the Fallon gig, they decided to drop in on a local open mic that was going on that evening at a small venue around the corner. Let a few of the locals sit in with them while they did a thirty minute set consisting of "a string of disparate covers, including Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Lady Gaga's "Just Dance.""
posted by premortem at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2012 [4 favorites]


Hey Jimmy Fallon, Bill Clinton played the sax on TV and won the election, sure, and that was a famous act, but the show he did it on was Arsenio Hall's. Just sayin'.
posted by rhizome at 2:15 PM on April 25, 2012 [1 favorite]


The President has an impressive deadpan and ability to keep a straight face. I know he's sat through enough meetings and public events to perfect it, but in some ways that bit was riskier than it looked.
posted by oneironaut at 3:21 PM on April 25, 2012


Neither Obama or Romney are running for King, whatever they want to do is going to be constrained by congress. What I expect gridlock and not much of anything if either of them is elected.

How exactly would Romney be "constrained?" Barring an economic miracle, there's almost no chance the Democrats take the House back, and a very good chance they lose the Senate. With several Euro members on the verge of collapse, it's quite possible both of those come to pass. And frankly, if the economy is bad enough that Romney wins, then that's all but certain. Maintaining the status quo would mean gridlock, but a fully conservative government in all 3 branches means a lot of crazy stuff gets passed, especially with the restoration of reconciliation meaning one budget-related bill (and amendments) per year only needs a strict majority in both chambers.

You don't believe that will mean much of anything? The Blunt Amendment lost only 51-48 in the Senate, and the Ryan Budget passed the House with 10 votes to spare. That right there is at best pre-Roe v Wade abortion restrictions and the end of the social safety net as we know it, and Romney wouldn't even have to break a sweat chasing down members of Congress. And we haven't even got into the legislative and judicial rollbacks of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, DOMA, and a ton of other stuff that would be enabled by Congress and/or the 2+ Supreme Court nominees that are all but guaranteed the next term.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:05 PM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


delmoi: "
a) a candidate who's never said anything about eliminating subsidized loans, and whose party were the ones who campaigned on and passed a bill lowering student loan rates, or
When has romney ever said he wanted to elimated federal loans. Here is the thing you quoted, again:
"

Subsidized federal loans are a subset of all federal student loans, for which the government pays a portion of the interest.
posted by mkb at 6:58 PM on April 25, 2012 [2 favorites]


No other generation has been socked with trillion dollar student loan debt. Whether the interest rates are +/-2% who gives a shit.

That's the value of numerical literacy summed up right there.
posted by srboisvert at 6:58 AM on April 26, 2012 [1 favorite]


« Older How Creativity Connects with Immorality...  |  Around the world with Married.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments