Anonymous wrote:I took out loans for 4 years of undergrad, then loans for 4 years of medical school. Yes, I make $250k/year now - but make no mistake that I owe $450k in loans. Just give me a break.

Anonymous wrote:I took out loans for 4 years of undergrad, then loans for 4 years of medical school. Yes, I make $250k/year now - but make no mistake that I owe $450k in loans. Just give me a break.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

DP
Hey, honey.

This is not a partisan issue. Lots of Democrats thinks this plan sucks.

And, to watch the people protesting at SCOTUS today - Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Randi Weingarten....... I know I am on the right side of this issue. Which means I am totally against it.
They were yelling at the crowd using inflammatory language..... "radicalized, extremist Supreme Court."......this is the kind of language that will cause some nutjob to act out against a Justice.
And, they had the nerve to call SCOTUS "unhinged." THEY are the ones who are unhinged.

Weingarten went off about the PPP loans. Well, Randi. Congress approved the PPP loans. Congress did NOT approve the forgiveness of these loans.

Estimates are this will cost taxpayers between $400 million and $1 trillion. Each taxpayer on the hook for at least $2500.
This is just not acceptable. It should be a unanimous ruling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, are we back to considering loan forgiveness ? !

Hey, let's start a train to have home mortgages forgiven!

Cut us a break!
We deserve it!
America has been cruel to us!
America needs to make life easier for us because we're snowflakes!

How else can we afford to buy Starbucks lattes, for pity's sakes?

SCOTUS is hearing the case today. Hopefully, they will do what is right and render a unanimous decision that this move by Biden is unconstitutional.

In 2003 when George W bush was president, congress passed a bill allowing for this to happen, like it or not this happened in 2003..
Go take it up with Bush and 2003 congress. We are all not Dc mom rich and don’t have money to pay the loan.

That was for military members.
If you signed for the loan, you should pay it back. That is part of the deal.

Um, not it was not just for military members.

Here's the statute:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education (referred to in this part as the “Secretary”) may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act [20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph (2).

(2)Actions authorized
The Secretary is authorized to waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as may be necessary to ensure that—
(A)recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals;
...
(2) Affected individual The term “affected individual” means an individual who— (A) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.

It will be interesting to see the tortured logic in the SC ruling. The statute clearly allows the Secretary of Education to enact sweeping changes and modifications to student loan programs in times of national emergency. It’s a very plain reading. What is the SC’s quibble?

Major Questions Doctrine

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, are we back to considering loan forgiveness ? !

Hey, let's start a train to have home mortgages forgiven!

Cut us a break!
We deserve it!
America has been cruel to us!
America needs to make life easier for us because we're snowflakes!

How else can we afford to buy Starbucks lattes, for pity's sakes?

SCOTUS is hearing the case today. Hopefully, they will do what is right and render a unanimous decision that this move by Biden is unconstitutional.

In 2003 when George W bush was president, congress passed a bill allowing for this to happen, like it or not this happened in 2003..
Go take it up with Bush and 2003 congress. We are all not Dc mom rich and don’t have money to pay the loan.

That was for military members.
If you signed for the loan, you should pay it back. That is part of the deal.

Um, not it was not just for military members.

Here's the statute:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education (referred to in this part as the “Secretary”) may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act [20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph (2).

(2)Actions authorized
The Secretary is authorized to waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as may be necessary to ensure that—
(A)recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals;
...
(2) Affected individual The term “affected individual” means an individual who— (A) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.

It will be interesting to see the tortured logic in the SC ruling. The statute clearly allows the Secretary of Education to enact sweeping changes and modifications to student loan programs in times of national emergency. It’s a very plain reading. What is the SC’s quibble?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

DP
Hey, honey.

This is not a partisan issue. Lots of Democrats thinks this plan sucks.

And, to watch the people protesting at SCOTUS today - Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Randi Weingarten....... I know I am on the right side of this issue. Which means I am totally against it.
They were yelling at the crowd using inflammatory language..... "radicalized, extremist Supreme Court."......this is the kind of language that will cause some nutjob to act out against a Justice.
And, they had the nerve to call SCOTUS "unhinged." THEY are the ones who are unhinged.

Weingarten went off about the PPP loans. Well, Randi. Congress approved the PPP loans. Congress did NOT approve the forgiveness of these loans.

Estimates are this will cost taxpayers between $400 million and $1 trillion. Each taxpayer on the hook for at least $2500.
This is just not acceptable. It should be a unanimous ruling.

You clearly know nothing about this. Congress did write a law that allows for forgiveness of student loans during a state of emergency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, are we back to considering loan forgiveness ? !

Hey, let's start a train to have home mortgages forgiven!

Cut us a break!
We deserve it!
America has been cruel to us!
America needs to make life easier for us because we're snowflakes!

How else can we afford to buy Starbucks lattes, for pity's sakes?

SCOTUS is hearing the case today. Hopefully, they will do what is right and render a unanimous decision that this move by Biden is unconstitutional.

In 2003 when George W bush was president, congress passed a bill allowing for this to happen, like it or not this happened in 2003..
Go take it up with Bush and 2003 congress. We are all not Dc mom rich and don’t have money to pay the loan.

That was for military members.
If you signed for the loan, you should pay it back. That is part of the deal.

Um, not it was not just for military members.

Here's the statute:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted with specific reference to this section, the Secretary of Education (referred to in this part as the “Secretary”) may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act [20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph (2).

(2)Actions authorized
The Secretary is authorized to waive or modify any provision described in paragraph (1) as may be necessary to ensure that—
(A)recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals;
...
(2) Affected individual The term “affected individual” means an individual who— (A) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain this to me: there are plenty of less expensive in-state schools and community colleges available in US. There are plenty of free college options available if you have financial need or have great grades. If these people chose to go to more expensive or private schools, I am fine with that. But should we apply the same approach to the people who chose private schools for their school age kids when the free public schools are an option? What is the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

DP
Hey, honey.

This is not a partisan issue. Lots of Democrats thinks this plan sucks.

And, to watch the people protesting at SCOTUS today - Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Randi Weingarten....... I know I am on the right side of this issue. Which means I am totally against it.
They were yelling at the crowd using inflammatory language..... "radicalized, extremist Supreme Court."......this is the kind of language that will cause some nutjob to act out against a Justice.
And, they had the nerve to call SCOTUS "unhinged." THEY are the ones who are unhinged.

Weingarten went off about the PPP loans. Well, Randi. Congress approved the PPP loans. Congress did NOT approve the forgiveness of these loans.

Estimates are this will cost taxpayers between $400 million and $1 trillion. Each taxpayer on the hook for at least $2500.
This is just not acceptable. It should be a unanimous ruling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

Republicans only care about corporations and rich people. They would never stand up for the poor.

Yes, we care about the poor.

That is why we don't want those who couldn't afford college, never attended college, and chose to enter the workforce, to have to foot the bill for these people.
Some of these people earn a hell of a lot less than those who would benefit from this action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

Republicans only care about corporations and rich people. They would never stand up for the poor.

Yes, we care about the poor.

That is why we don't want those who couldn't afford college, never attended college, and chose to enter the workforce, to have to foot the bill for these people.
Some of these people earn a hell of a lot less than those who would benefit from this action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

Republicans only care about corporations and rich people. They would never stand up for the poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol, SC is going to strike down this thing.

If course they are. They are partisan republicans. The outcome was never in doubt.