The STATED reasons are as described here "The intention of government backed loans is to lower or control the cost of tuition as well as increase access to college for millions of young Americans". However that statement is simply a fill in the blank EXCUSE for more vote buying spending. Simply take a look -- The intention of government backed loans is to lower or control the cost of _____________ as well as increase access to _________________ for millions of _______________ Americans." Usually the programs are designed to provide wealth distribution 'assistance' to specific politically correct demographics. For decades such vote buying schemes (scams?) have been called 'entitlements' or 'assistance' or other 'nice' buzz words.

I recall an ad about soap that said "99 and 44/100% pure." I believe that the explanations about and justification for the 'fairness' of this act are likewise "99 and 44/100% pure.-- B/S" I allow that the 56/100% amount might be truth -- and mind you, I said MIGHT!!!

Now who actually BELIEVED him? The man has spoken falsely so many times,Mendacity seems to be his native language to which he reverts anytime he is called upon to inform us.

Each time I see Mr. Obama after he didn't get his way I am at a loss as to which descriptor to use to describe his demeanor - bad-tempered, cantankerous, crabby, grouchy, grumpy, huffy, ill-tempered, irritable, moody, peevish, petulant, querulous, snappish, snappy, sulky, sullen, testy, touchy.

Liberal/progressive politicians do not care about constitutionality or egregious side effects or even that their 'legislation' will cure the problems they say it will cure. The folks pushing these 'protective' laws KNOW that the 'safety' they provide is only an illusion.Such people have given the illusion of 'caring' for many decades when all they are really 'caring' for and want 'safe' is their own power structure and more control and more power. Folks who support these progressive/liberal 'protectors' and benefactors fail to look back at the goals and muscle inside the Democrat Party, particularly in the South where Democrat controlled state governments 'seceded' from the Union in order to keep their power and control of slaves.

I do not agree with the adjective 'most', although I believe the number is increasing. Don't get me wrong, I have encountered some who were obnoxious and overly aggressive, but most of the male officers I have encountered, regardless of the circumstances, have been completely professional.

The question of 'Who polices the police' is often trumped by the 'legal system' and judges who allow gestapo like tactics to be used on the innocent but are lenient on the real law-breakers, and this is not just limited to 'local' magistrates but seemingly all the way up to 'activists' on the Supreme Court who believe they they are the ultimate dispensers of 'rights' and 'justice' as those items fit their agenda.

As long as there are politicians who can use the Treasury to pay out bribes for votes and use their office to give out 'favors' there will be 'loopholes'. After all, look at the simplicity of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which were DESIGNED to limit the power and scope of the federal government, with amendments 9 and 10 specifically addressing the issues of 'rights of the citizens' and 'powers' of the federal government. Even the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was a direct statement of intent to prohibit 'government' from misconstruing and abusing the powers granted by the Constitution -- AND LOOK WHAT THE POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS ANDFEDERAL JURISTS HAVE DONE TO CIRCUMVENT THOSE LIMITATIONS AND PROTECTIONS.

It has become rather clear that under this Administration's leadership (?), when it comes to 'egregious' or 'not allowed' anything 'bad', it only applies to those who are not liberal/progressive politicians/ voters/contributors/supporters/darlings/lemmings. Sort of like blaming the 'egregious' basket because Mr. Obama didn't score more points.

Without hypocrisy, mendacity and hate-mongering liberals/progressives and all their lemming-like supporters would have no vocabulary and without 'double-standards' they would have no standards, IMO.

After Marbury v. Madison, wasn't it the same Thomas Jefferson who expressed grave concern about the 'Judicial Branch' becoming despotic and forcing interpretations on us that were totally contrary to the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?and didn't FDR try to implement a plan to pack SCOTUS so that his socialist plans wouldn't be overturned by a 1 or 2 vote ''majority'? Even the wording of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights indicates that a grave fear of government officials usurping and abusing their legitimate power -- and we seem to have seen a great deal of that misconstrued and usurped power since 2009..