[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

Some people on the OJ jury didnt see evidence either. I guess that circumstantial evidence isn't enough... There is a series of articles on this. It was obvious this administration was hell bent on shutting ITT down. It was a political move and the reasons were not applied to others in the same way (Clinton involvement).

Dude it is about time this joke of a school got shut down. I don't know how familiar you are with ITT but it has been well known to be a sham school for years.

I also am not following this logic... there are hundreds of for-profit colleges that are nowhere near the chopping block. But this article is saying that the only reason Laureate was not shut down is because of the Clinton involvement? It operates schools around the world with good results... why would it be shut down in the first place.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

Dude it is about time this joke of a school got shut down. I don't know how familiar you are with ITT but it has been well known to be a sham school for years.

I also am not following this logic... there are hundreds of for-profit colleges that are nowhere near the chopping block. But this article is saying that the only reason Laureate was not shut down is because of the Clinton involvement? It operates schools around the world with good results... why would it be shut down in the first place.

In complete agreement. I'm not sorry to see it go.

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

In complete agreement. I'm not sorry to see it go.

That may very well be the case but be careful what you wish for. The point of the story is unelected regulators without proving any case can target and shut down whoever they please. If you feel comfortable under that precedent then you can't complain when a different party is in power shutting down stuff you may not want to "see go".

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

That may very well be the case but be careful what you wish for. The point of the story is unelected regulators without proving any case can target and shut down whoever they please. If you feel comfortable under that precedent then you can't complain when a different party is in power shutting down stuff you may not want to "see go".

What are you talking about... it's not like regulators arbitrarily decided this and then closed the schools. This was triggered by a lawsuit from the dean of one ITT campus alleging that the school was knowingly defrauding customers/students and taxpayers. Note that in previous years the SEC, the attorney generals of some states, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and others have also sued ITT over similar allegations. There have also been government and media investigations against the schools with similar findings. What more do you need than multiple lawsuits and investigations for "proving a case"? Also note the government did not shut down the schools. They are just saying, "you're not using taxpayer money to do whatever you're doing." As a tax payer, I say and good riddance.

Source: Blockbuster Lawsuit Claims Abusive Practices Persist at ITT Tech | Huffington Post

P.S. And to bring it back to CT... the attorney general of CT was one of 10 states to lobby the federal government to crack down on predatory for-profit schools last year. Hardly just the work of unelected regulators behind closed doors. http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=569636&A=2341

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

What are you talking about... it's not like regulators arbitrarily decided this and then closed the schools. This was triggered by a lawsuit from the dean of one ITT campus alleging that the school was knowingly defrauding customers/students and taxpayers. Note that in previous years the SEC, the attorney generals of some states, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and others have also sued ITT over similar allegations. There have also been government and media investigations against the schools with similar findings. What more do you need than multiple lawsuits and investigations for "proving a case"? Also note the government did not shut down the schools. They are just saying, "you're not using taxpayer money to do whatever you're doing." As a tax payer, I say and good riddance.

Source: Blockbuster Lawsuit Claims Abusive Practices Persist at ITT Tech | Huffington Post

P.S. And to bring it back to CT... the attorney general of CT was one of 10 states to lobby the federal government to crack down on predatory for-profit schools last year. Hardly just the work of unelected regulators behind closed doors. Attorney General: AG Jepsen Joins Multistate Effort Supporting Victims of Predatory For-profit Schools

Said lawsuits never concluded. What more do you need than a lawsuit? Really? And i'm not defending ITT or condemning them. I'm talking about PROCESS here.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

Said lawsuits never concluded. What more do you need than a lawsuit? Really? And i'm not defending ITT or condemning them. I'm talking about PROCESS here.

There is a process...... the SEC, attorney generals, etc. did their investigations and came to a conclusion. I'm saying, what more do you need than multiple regulatory investigations by multiple independent agencies? I'm not sure what you're looking for? For example, if there is an FDA investigation of a mad cow outbreak in a farm, they can shut the factory down without waiting on a lawsuit to conclude or even filing one. This happens regularly to protect consumers in an efficient manner. Frankly I'm appalled that the government has dragged their feet this long despite the multiple abuses that have come to light by all these investigations.

[RonaldusMagnus]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

There is a process...... the SEC, attorney generals, etc. did their investigations and came to a conclusion. I'm saying, what more do you need than multiple regulatory investigations by multiple independent agencies? I'm not sure what you're looking for? For example, if there is an FDA investigation of a mad cow outbreak in a farm, they can shut the factory down without waiting on a lawsuit to conclude or even filing one. This happens regularly to protect consumers in an efficient manner. Frankly I'm appalled that the government has dragged their feet this long despite the multiple abuses that have come to light by all these investigations.

The SEC, AGs etc need to prove their case, not come to a conclusion. Have you seen how often the SEC and AGs get shot down on over zealous prosecutions when it actually goes to court? You're advocating for a banana republic whereby unelected bureaucrats reign. And please outline the criteria of their "cases". The ironic part is that i'm all for the government getting out of the student loan business. It is a business they should never be in the first place and causes economic distortions, but to willy nilly politically target and pick and choose? Nah.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus

The SEC, AGs etc need to prove their case, not come to a conclusion. Have you seen how often the SEC and AGs get shot down on over zealous prosecutions when it actually goes to court? You're advocating for a banana republic whereby unelected bureaucrats reign. And please outline the criteria of their "cases". The ironic part is that i'm all for the government getting out of the student loan business. It is a business they should never be in the first place and causes economic distortions, but to willy nilly politically target and pick and choose? Nah.

Are you assuming that just because you (a member of the public) don't personally see the regulator "proving the case," this process didn't happen? I don't know if you've ever been a part of a government accrediting/regulatory agency investigation, but I have through work and it is a rigorous two sided process. I've even been a part of one resulting in sanctions. They don't just decide, hand down the decision, and that's it. They solicit information and hold numerous meetings with the other company to come to a consensus. The Dept of Education has had a dialogue with ITT for 2 years about its noncompliance and given it numerous opportunities to turn it around. And it hasn't. That 2 year plus process is the time for proving the case. They don't prove it to you or I (just like your IRS audit is between you and the IRS, not me).. this process is between the company and its regulator.

And, yes, we don't elect every single government employee. I don't know about you, but I find voting is tedious enough without adding a few hundred thousand regulating employees to add to it.

[BicoastalAnn]

And on the subject of regulators (and something more relevant to CT), I saw the CT Attorney General joined in the federal lawsuit to block the Anthem/Cigna merger. There goes the allegations awhile back that CT would let them skate by due to Malloy hiring the ex-Cigna lobbyist. With the feds and 11 other states now on this, it's hard to imagine it (merger) will still happen.

Attorney General: Statement from Attorney General Jepsen on Connecticut's Antitrust Lawsuit Seeking to Block Proposed Anthem, Cigna Merger

[East of the River]

The were forced out of business by having lost access to government backed loans. They could have gone on without the loans if they wanted they just couldn't do so because they relied too heavily on government backed loans as their business model. Technically the Feds didn't put them out of business, they just blocked access to corporate welfare.