Anonymous wrote:Once the GOP wins in a few weeks, they will stop this nonsense. These court cases are meant to delay the inevitable.
Anonymous wrote:My guess is that investors of student loan asset backed securities will sue.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Y’all girl Amy didn’t stop this! But I don’t expect y’all stop trying.
And responsible people don’t expect you people to stop begging for handouts.
The Democrats seek to help people. The GOP makes it mother effing rain for their deep pocketed cronies. And you want to moan about “handouts”?
Anonymous wrote:My guess is that investors of student loan asset backed securities will sue.
Anonymous wrote:It’s simply a naked attempt to buy votes. It addresses none of the underlying issues around student debt and soaring education costs and is just the sort of political theater that has led to deep distrust in government. It’s truly shameful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.
Declarative statements aren't evidence. Care to share why you think it's a "shaky argument at best?"
The states wouldn’t get the revenue either way, so how are they harmed such that they would have standing? This won’t hold up?
DP, I don't follow your logic. State entities, like MOHELA, will not collect interest on the principal forgiven. Biden effectively increased prepayment risk for their portfolio of student loans.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.
Declarative statements aren't evidence. Care to share why you think it's a "shaky argument at best?"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.
Declarative statements aren't evidence. Care to share why you think it's a "shaky argument at best?"
The states wouldn’t get the revenue either way, so how are they harmed such that they would have standing? This won’t hold up?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.
Declarative statements aren't evidence. Care to share why you think it's a "shaky argument at best?"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.
Declarative statements aren't evidence. Care to share why you think it's a "shaky argument at best?"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Y’all girl Amy didn’t stop this! But I don’t expect y’all stop trying.
And responsible people don’t expect you people to stop begging for handouts.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Wrong! Shaky argument at best.