There has been much controversy of late concerning student loan payback, where the government has decided to get out of the loan backing end of the problem.
A problem it is, the government knowing full well that these students that are taking out the loans are going to be shorted out at the end of their education term, simply because there are no jobs out there.
So to avoid the messy problem of collecting this overdue loan money, created because there is no way that the students can keep it current, our government has chosen to just step out of the picture and let the banks do the loaning and the collecting.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
This way the government isn’t directly in line for criticism for taking harsh measures to collect this overdue loan money, or just let it go unpaid and the taxpayers pick up the tab for the unpayable amount.
Either way, the government is on the hook for this unpaid money.
This is where the banks came in. No way the students are going to get at the banks, since they are in the loaning business, and subsequently the collecting end of it too. Even as unpopular as it makes them, it is part of their business, whereas the government has to account for its shortcomings at election time.
The easy way out (is) … just don’t back any more loans since we know very well that there not only isn’t any job opportunity out there but there never will be at the present rate of going, and the government has no intentions of changing the setup of work opportunity.
More jobs are being eliminated every day in large numbers in the name of advancement.
Advancement all right, advancing tens of thousands of working people to the welfare rolls.
That seems to be more effortless than creating jobs at a livable wage.
Most of our governments are quite famous at taking the easy way out. When our country can’t finance a portion with people working, then we most certainly will never do it with everybody on welfare, and that is exactly the way we are headed.
The computers do everything and they do not pay any income tax or any other form of tax, so how is it possible to survive with the government’s main source of income eliminated. Not very smart, I would say.
– Grant Bunce,
Pritchard, B.C.
Selling assets
To the Editor:
Selling off railways and co-operatives is the stupidest thing imaginable. And who has the right to sell off public property, especially without the shareholders having a vote on it?
The co-op members built up their equity over many years of contributions, interest free. No person has the right to sell a co-op! It belongs to the members that have contributed by supporting it.
The United Grain Growers started this stupidity. Now others want to follow like sheep following a goat. The UGG shares took a bad tumble on the stock exchange. Others want to experience a big loss as well. Not many gamblers are winners, most lose in the end.
Will someone try to sell the schools, hospitals and churches? We have been contributing there for a long, long time now! Is it time to skin the shmoos?
– Paul Kuric, Vega, Alta.
Record prices
To the Editor:
How deceiving it is to many people who are not in a hands-on farming situation.
Don’t get me wrong; it’s great to see grain prices on the rise but couldn’t the media and the Canadian Wheat Board along with grain companies tell the bottom line price “net to the farmer.”
Here is an example of a grain price at my local elevator at Kelvington, Sask. CWB initial payment $1 CW Red Spring wheat $160 per tonne or $4.35 per bushel.
But the net price the farmer receives is reduced to $3 per bushel because of freight and elevation.
I think this is record farmer gouging, especially when companies can raise or lower tariffs as they wish.
– Eugene Patenaude,
Kelvington, Sask.
Blame farmers
To the Editor:
This is in response to the comments by Roy Tweedle of Prince George (Open Forum July 20) wherein he quotes someone as saying “The water won’t clear till you get the hogs out of the creek,” and proceeds to point the finger at the farm community for what he regards as overuse of chemicals.
Now, with all due respect to the sensible use of fertilizers, etc. it is perhaps of interest to note that the European Union’s farmers have been observed as using up to 10 times the amount of chemicals that we do, and it may well be that their ground water is in danger. But in one case it is also necessary because of government catering to the public as regards a cheap food policy, that one returns because of the competition by areas such as the E.U. and the U.S., where with such as the Export Enhancement Program the price of our farmgate is such that every possible avenue of economy must be utilized. The much-lauded organic farming would collapse pretty quickly if it were not for “well to do” consumers being ready to indulge their fantasies by insisting on organic products and are willing and can afford to pamper their fancies even though it costs a lot more.
In the matter of “cheap food” Mr. Tweedle “Dee” might be interested to discover that this applies only at the farmgate as the loaf of bread that he pays a dollar (plus) for returns to me as a farmer a mere seven cents, so in answer to his query of why must one farmer be subsidized, I would ask “Just who is subsidizing whom?”
In one case (which is average) my two sons and I, on a land base of some 3,000 acres (cultivated on 21 quarter sections) along with a half million or more in equipment, grain and equipment storage as well as other required facilities, not including our private dwellings or vehicles, according to our 1994 income tax return had a net return of less than $50,000. This on a gross return of $320,000 worth of product sales less about $275,000 expenses, taxes, interest, etc. Admittedly the 1993 crop was badly weather affected, while a good yield was however of low quality. Best price wise, it was only a reflection of the past 10 years the result of the E.U. and U.S. price war, which dictates one price, while our costs are governed by domestic values such as the kind of wages he (Tweedle) probably receives. …
Regarding imported food stuff, he might realize that our processors and distributors are not about to pass by available profits on imported material from low-cost areas such as Mexico, Argentina and even the southern United States, where wage rates are reported near the slave level.
So again to Mr. Tweedle, I would say “Just who is subsidizing whom?”
– Philip Lindenback,
Weekes, Sask.
