What is going on with student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.

The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.

The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.

But it was Biden who curtailed it for 700k ppl, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.

The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.

But it was Biden who curtailed it for 700k ppl, no?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.

The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.

But it was Biden who curtailed it for 700k ppl, no?

No.

Yes.

Although it could be changed again, they're "working on" the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.

The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.

But it was Biden who curtailed it for 700k ppl, no?

No.

Yes.

Although it could be changed again, they're "working on" the issue.

They had to do it because of law suits by Republic states and private lenders. Loans from private lenders backed by federal guaranties are different than direct federal loans. If you consolidated the former into the latter, you are eligible. If you didn’t, you aren’t for now because the government isn’t the sole creditor. Blaming Biden for that is pretty stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.

How did you “lose eligibility”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out #86: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.moed.198213/gov.uscourts.moed.198213.1.0_1.pdf

Each state generally has a state-chartered corporation that originates and services loans and the complaint is that they lose revenue because they are the ones ultimately that have to write off the debt. Moreover the states complain that they lose income tax revenue since loan forgiveness is not considered income. This seems like legit to me for standing, imho.

The federal government doesn't handle the loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MOHELA is not a state agency. It is a separate entity. The state does not have standing on its behalf. MOHELA itself might have standing but it is not a plaintiff in this case. According to the conservative District Judge in Missouri:

This 'separate entity' has many appointments made by the governor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MOHELA is not a state agency. It is a separate entity. The state does not have standing on its behalf. MOHELA itself might have standing but it is not a plaintiff in this case. According to the conservative District Judge in Missouri:

This 'separate entity' has many appointments made by the governor.

Read the decision. It is explained clearly. It is established as a separate legal entity in the state law that authorized it, probably because the state didn’t want to be liable for its actions and potential losses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MOHELA is not a state agency. It is a separate entity. The state does not have standing on its behalf. MOHELA itself might have standing but it is not a plaintiff in this case. According to the conservative District Judge in Missouri:

This 'separate entity' has many appointments made by the governor.

Read the decision. It is explained clearly. It is established as a separate legal entity in the state law that authorized it, probably because the state didn’t want to be liable for its actions and potential losses.

Here, I did it for you:

… when it was established, MOHELA's revenues and liabilities were specifically and completely independent of the State of Missouri. The enabling legislations stated in relevant part that “[t]he proceeds of all bonds or other forms of indebtedness issued by the authority and of all fees permitted to be charged by the authority and of other revenues derived shall not be considered part of the revenue of the state...shall not be required to be deposited into the state treasury, and shall not be subject to appropriation by the general assembly.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.425. The statute also states that “[t] he state shall not be liable in any event for the payment of the principal of or interest on any bonds of the authority or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation, or agreement of any kind whatsoever which may be undertaken by the authority.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
MOHELA is not a state agency. It is a separate entity. The state does not have standing on its behalf. MOHELA itself might have standing but it is not a plaintiff in this case. According to the conservative District Judge in Missouri:

This 'separate entity' has many appointments made by the governor.

Read the decision. It is explained clearly. It is established as a separate legal entity in the state law that authorized it, probably because the state didn’t want to be liable for its actions and potential losses.

Here, I did it for you:

… when it was established, MOHELA's revenues and liabilities were specifically and completely independent of the State of Missouri. The enabling legislations stated in relevant part that “[t]he proceeds of all bonds or other forms of indebtedness issued by the authority and of all fees permitted to be charged by the authority and of other revenues derived shall not be considered part of the revenue of the state...shall not be required to be deposited into the state treasury, and shall not be subject to appropriation by the general assembly.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 173.425. The statute also states that “[t] he state shall not be liable in any event for the payment of the principal of or interest on any bonds of the authority or for the performance of any pledge, mortgage, obligation, or agreement of any kind whatsoever which may be undertaken by the authority.”

If it was so cut and dry, then why did the court order a temporary pause in Bidet's program?

They're asking for a response on Monday. The stay is over the weekend, when banks are closed anyway...

Why do this when it's clearly so cut and dry? I'm worried!!

[Anonymous]

He is such a liar!

He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is such a liar!

He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.

He has already said that he wants congress to do their job and make some changes. There are plenty of smaller and larger changes that congress can make to address college tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a liar!

He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.

He has already said that he wants congress to do their job and make some changes. There are plenty of smaller and larger changes that congress can make to address college tuition.

He claimed that his "loan redistribution" was a law that was passed. That is a blatant lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is such a liar!

He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.

He has already said that he wants congress to do their job and make some changes. There are plenty of smaller and larger changes that congress can make to address college tuition.

He claimed that his "loan redistribution" was a law that was passed. That is a blatant lie.

Biden: "It's passed. I got it passed by a vote or two."

At this point, I am beginning to think that someone in his administration (Klain?) told him that he signed this into law and he doesn't know any better.