We used to get food on flights, now you pay for it and it is not much.
Meaning you used to have to pay for it whether or not you wanted to.
I'm not saying all bundling is bad. Taken to an extreme (like most things taken to an extreme) unbundleing is unworkable and unreasonable. But not tossing in a "free" meal, is hardly taking your freedom away, and has essentially no connection to the 13th century or to religious fundamentalism.
Home loans, student loans all payola to the rich.
The loans primarily go to the less than rich. Perhaps your talking about the payments? They largely go to corporations, may of which are publicly owned, which means that many of their owners are less than rich (small shareholders, indirectly people receiving pensions etc.), but lets say that bank is privately owned by a single rich person. Should not he get money back when he lends it out?
In fact the borrowers get things like targeted tax benefits (mortgage interest deduction), federal gaurantees that lower interest rates etc. Those probably also benefit the "rich bank owner" (lower the price by subsidizing something and all else more of it get sold, lending money, is in a sense selling a loan for the cost of the interest, if it costs the consumer less, more gets borrowed, and possibly more profitably per amount lent as well), but that hardly makes the program something that's primarily payola. Besides I think that you support such loan subsidies, you don't want to end the mortgage interest deduction, or let student loan rates go up right? |
