What is going on with student loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always ROTC. Pays tuition, books, and stipend. Plus a job when you graduate.

Yep that's a fair exchsbge. If you are poor, you can be cannon fodder for all the wealthy elite kids who went to college and are in charge of policy.
Not to mention it is only recently that the government started programs to correlate veteran experience with private sector.

And don’t forget their wealthy Moms and Dads got PPP loans forgiven. Thousands+ much more.

The PPP loans went to businesses so they could pay their employees when they were shut down. (In reality a lot of it went to fraud overseas--especially that dispersed in California.) But, it wasn't "hadouts" to pocket the money.
This is a big difference.

Loan payments have been deferred without additional interest. Jobs are available. There is no reason not to pay back the loans.

The forgiveness portion of the PPP loans did not require documentation that they a) kept employees b) paid them c) used the additional funds not slotted for employees appropriately.
You had to show that you had employees and their salaries to get it but even that wasn't confirmed by most lenders.

[Anonymous]

You pay your student loans, that's what's going on..

[Anonymous]

So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are vile people, in large numbers. Gloating over sticking crippling debt to regular people instead of being offended by predatory lending practices that keep the poors in check their entire lives.

You people are disgusting.

What? Those "regular people" are the ones who stuck themselves with "crippling debt."

We just don't want the local lawn service guy to have to pay off that debt since he chose to enter the workforce and not take out loans for college.

He is probably on public assistance.

Not my lawn guy.
These are some of the same people who had to take out loans to start their business. No way I want to foot the bill for people who took loans for college.

I know plenty of students who took out excessive loans when they could have attended college for much less. When I was in school I had many friends who lived at home and commuted. I knew others who did a year or two at community colleges and worked. Students also chose majors where they were likely to find jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government is footing the bill for college, what incentive do colleges have to keep costs down? What stops them from just putting everyone they want on payroll and giving themselves big raises?

Well that’s been happening for 30 years without the government so it’s not like we can’t try a new approach based on that singular point.

30 years ago, the government passed a $10000 tax credit.
The colleges proceeded to raise their tuitions to capture a good chunk of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are vile people, in large numbers. Gloating over sticking crippling debt to regular people instead of being offended by predatory lending practices that keep the poors in check their entire lives.

You people are disgusting.

What? Those "regular people" are the ones who stuck themselves with "crippling debt."

We just don't want the local lawn service guy to have to pay off that debt since he chose to enter the workforce and not take out loans for college.

He is probably on public assistance.

Not my lawn guy.
These are some of the same people who had to take out loans to start their business. No way I want to foot the bill for people who took loans for college.

I know plenty of students who took out excessive loans when they could have attended college for much less. When I was in school I had many friends who lived at home and commuted. I knew others who did a year or two at community colleges and worked. Students also chose majors where they were likely to find jobs.

Not everyone’s parents live in a major metro area, let their kids live rent-free at home post high school, or have a public university in commuting distance.

[Anonymous]

Student’s cannot take out “excessive loans.” Only enabling parents can, or enabling parents can co-sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

Don't worry, the majority will either take pains to explain that this is a one off and not precedent or they'll wait until there is a lawsuit by democratic governors to reconsider

[Anonymous]

I guess that even though state flagships are public, they are also a luxury now. Maybe state legislatures should either figure out a way to make them affordable for all residents (Florida and Georgia seem to have no problem with this) or zero out funding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

Where did they find litigants that don't pay personal income taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's always ROTC. Pays tuition, books, and stipend. Plus a job when you graduate.

Yep that's a fair exchsbge. If you are poor, you can be cannon fodder for all the wealthy elite kids who went to college and are in charge of policy.
Not to mention it is only recently that the government started programs to correlate veteran experience with private sector.

And don’t forget their wealthy Moms and Dads got PPP loans forgiven. Thousands+ much more.

The PPP loans went to businesses so they could pay their employees when they were shut down. (In reality a lot of it went to fraud overseas--especially that dispersed in California.) But, it wasn't "hadouts" to pocket the money.
This is a big difference.

Loan payments have been deferred without additional interest. Jobs are available. There is no reason not to pay back the loans.

The forgiveness portion of the PPP loans did not require documentation that they a) kept employees b) paid them c) used the additional funds not slotted for employees appropriately.
You had to show that you had employees and their salaries to get it but even that wasn't confirmed by most lenders.

I work for a healthcare company that has a banner year during Covid and the owners received PPP loan. They also bought a Tesla and took a high end vacation to Italy. First class. It’s infuriating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

Where did they find litigants that don't pay personal income taxes?

Probably lowly paid think tank interns at Cato.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

Don't worry, the majority will either take pains to explain that this is a one off and not precedent or they'll wait until there is a lawsuit by democratic governors to reconsider

Yep. SCOTUS is now Calvinball. Anyone who thinks they will apply their reasoning consistently is a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in the opinion of the WaPo editorial staff, Biden made an unconstitutional order, but hey - all is good.
Hey, WaPo - this is what the courts are for.

Dumb and misleading Tweet.

The article does not argue that Biden's executive order was "unconstitutional." Instead, it argues that Biden is making a bad political decision - which he is allowed to do based on ambiguous language in the 2003 HEROES Act passed by Congress that basically gives the Sec. of Education carte blanche to amend student loan programs in during "national emergencies." The article argues that it's up to Congress - not the SC - to check Biden and clarify ambiguities in the law.

The article then goes on to argue that the SC should dismiss the case due to lack of standing because none of the litigants have a personal interest in the case. Instead, they have an ideological interest. If the SC lets this move forward, it will set a new precedent on standing and open the floodgates to ideologically driven lawsuits, further clogging up an already overworked judiciary.

Where did they find litigants that don't pay personal income taxes?

The litigants are state governments.