These are some very serious allegations. Anyone know who this author is or the source group Russia-Insider is?

Wars and Rumors of Wars: “Obama Threatens Putin with Nuclear War”
Posted: 15 Oct 2016 07:35 PM PDT

“Obama Threatens Putin with Nuclear War”
by Eric Zuesse

“It’ll be at a time of our choosing,” says U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, on NBC’’s “Meet the Press,” to be aired on Sunday, October 16th. Interviewer Chuck Todd had asked him, “Why would he [Obama] send a message out to Putin?” ....
Obama is thus coercing us, before he coerces Putin. He’s telling us: If we vote against Hillary Clinton — if she loses this election — then President Obama has something in mind that we won’t like — and he won’t wait until the next President is inaugurated on 20 January 2017 to do it, whatever ‘it’ might be.

Obama here is threatening not only Vladimir Putin, but the American people. Even if Obama truly believes that he alone possesses all the power, he does not, unless he possesses the power to terrorize America’s voters to elect Hillary Clinton, even if we otherwise would not.”
- http://russia-insider.com/
◆
Related:
• “US Lights Fuse in Syria to World War III Countdown”
• "Obama Tells CIA To Prepare For Cyber War With Russia”
• "Russia Slams "Unprecedented, Insolent" US Cyber Threats, Vows Retaliation"
• "A Pretext Is Needed": A False Flag May Be Imminent To Drag U.S. Into War"

Oh, Gawd, Cut the drama. This story is not credible. One glass of orange juice out of 320 million people is not going to drive me to the nanny-state or labor union representation for justice.

https://fee.org/articles/student-loan-subsidies-cause-almost-all-of-the-increase-in-tuition/
Student Loan Subsidies Cause Almost All of the Increase in Tuition
Alex Tabarrok Monday, December 21, 2015

In a new NBER paper, "Accounting for the Rise in College Tuition," Grey Gordon and Aaron Hedlund create a sophisticated model of the college market and find that a large fraction of the increase in tuition can be explained by increases in subsidies.

“With all factors present, net tuition increases from $6,100 to $12,559. As column 4 demonstrates, the demand shocks — which consist mostly of changes in financial aid — account for the lion’s share of the higher tuition.

Specifically, with demand shocks alone, equilibrium tuition rises by 102%, almost fully matching the 106% from the benchmark. By contrast, with all factors present except the demand shocks (column 7), net tuition only rises by 16%.

These results accord strongly with the Bennett hypothesis, which asserts that colleges respond to expansions of financial aid by increasing tuition.

Remarkably, so much of the subsidy is translated into higher tuition that enrollment doesn’t increase! What does happen is that students take on more debt, which many of them can’t pay."

“In fact, the tuition response completely crowds out any additional enrollment that the financial aid expansion would otherwise induce, resulting instead in an enrollment decline from 33% to 27% in the new equilibrium with only demand shocks. Furthermore, the students who do enroll take out $6,876 in loans compared to $4,663 in the initial steady state…. Lastly, the model predicts that demand shocks in isolation generate a surge in the default rate from 17% to 32%. Essentially, demand shocks lead to higher college costs and more debt, and in the absence of higher labor market returns, more loan default inevitably occurs.

Sound familiar? Some of these results appear too large to me and the authors caution that they need to assume a lot of monopoly power to solve their model so the results should be taken as an upper bound. Nevertheless, the Econ 101 insight that subsidies increase prices (even net for those who are not fully subsidized) holds true."

What we have is a corrupt system of government bureaucrats promoting more of their like, an educated elite of communist indoctrination, deliberately dividing us into aa two class society. We need more trade schools, more apprentice ships, more charter schools, and an end to Common Core, not more college indoctrinated socialists. College degrees today do not reflect the work skills necessary for an industrialized manufacturing economy.

Uncle Jessie writes: "Yes, that's always a nice incentive but notice how it attracts an employer from one state to another and the net job nationwide is zero (creates jobs in incentive state, eliminates jobs in the moved-from state."

Wrong again. Some states offer much more opportunity for economic growth due to lower taxes, right to work labor laws, and better resources, access to transportation, or a skilled workforce.

When a communist government deliberately cripples its own population to subjugate them, then it is high time to overthrow that government. There is no opportunity to create growth under socialist dictatorships. The same government that cripples us is incapable of curing us. We need a reality check, Mr. Jesse.

Uncle Jesse writes: "To stimulate an economy, a government will cut tax rates while increasing its own spending, and to cool down an overheating economy, it will raise taxes and cut back on spending. When yunz talk about cutting taxes and cutting spending, it makes no sense at all, from a fiscal economic policy. What you propose is a myth that doesn't work. It sounds good to the public but when ever it is implemented, it fails miserably with a huge deficit because taxes are cut and a recession because spending is cut."

Because it is so easy to spend other people's money, the government is not cost driven. The government throws the market into an upward spiral of unaffordability. We simply do not need all of these government "services." By "subsidizing" student loans, college is unaffordable. Meanwhile, a hundred bureaucrats are hired to manage every one hundred dollars. The overhead is phenomenal. It reaches the proportion of the Clinton Foundation's charity, 10% to the suffering peons, 90% for the top-heavy administration.

Hiring government bureaucrats to do a job is not cost efficient.
* The government manages education, the cost goes up, the quality goes down. Our government pays the highest sum of money per pupil in the world and gets the least results.
* The government manages the energy supply, the cost of transportation and food skyrocket.
* The government manages health insurance, the cost of insurance skyrockets and medical care skyrockets.
* The government manages rent control, and the cost of building apartments skyrockets.

Under socialism, the cost of living goes up, the quality of living goes down. Remember the breadlines in the Soviet Union?
Centralized planned economies do not work. Some bureaucrat 3,000 miles away has no idea of what is happening locally.

Government corruption is way out of control with no consumer oversight. Look at the Federal Reserve Bank draining Fort Knox dry to spark the Great Depression. That was a government run on the government banks. Look at the corruption in the Federal Housing Authority Bank and the mortgage lenders in Fannie and Freddie! Look at the corporate cronyism in the Export Import Bank, Overseas Pacific Investment Corporation (Enron propped up by Bill Clinton), and the World Bank, just for starters. Whoever controls the money controls the company. Better the consumer control the money and the economy than unelected bureaucrats.

The Health Department, Department of Education, EPA, Department of Energy and FDA are failing us miserably. Class action lawsuits will straighten up the quality of life far more efficiently than corrupt bureaucrats on the dole. Congress is to pass the laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws. No more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We need to erase the 645 government bureaucracies and return this power to the consumers. The cost of living will come down, the quality of life will go up. The consumer must manage the market.

I could go on, and on. The insurance companies have been screwing us for years due to government regulations brought on by lobbyists, and bought politicians.
Now, the 'average' family who are betwixt, and between are screwed.
Kinda funny how none of this hurts the people at the top, and helps people at the bottom, and screws the middle ain't it?

Another point. If all of these government programs are so damn great, why don't any of the governing class participate in them?
You know, Obamacare, public education, green energy.