Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn’t Biden just modified his order to exclude anyone living in the 6 states that are suing. It will completely resolve the injury they allege.

Because then the same six a-hole states would sue because they are being treated differently. They will look for any excuse whatsoever to sue the Biden administration because they care more about scoring political points than they do about helping people.

I am thrilled they have filed this suit.
It is not fair to tax payers all over the country to have to foot the bills for those who chose to take a loan that they now want somebody else to pay.

Then why do I have to pay for the forgiveness of the business loans for some of the same greedy a$$holes who are fighting student loan forgiveness?

Liberty University has among the highest avg student loan debts.

Congress should just stop funding these student loans, if it means that future Democratic presidents will just cancel the loans.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You coujd pay that off 5 years. What break are you giving patients? How many hours a month, or even a year. Do you volunteer at neighborhood free clinics? None.

Collect a group of fellow new physicians, rent a group house together in a cheap part of town, drive clunkers, and do nothing but pay off loans for a few years. If you're earning $250K, you could pay off the loans fairly quickly by paring down your lifestyle. Or what am I missing?

Nothing. People do this all the time. The physician crying about their loans is an exceptionally weak argument for this plan that wouldn’t make any dent in $450k in loans.

What should be done is to allow loan payments of all kinds to be pre-tax regardless of income. Among a variety of other things to reign in costs.

There is a reason why costs have skyrocketed and it has little to nothing to do with the quality of the education now versus 30 years ago. Ironically, universities are mostly populated by liberals who are managing to saddle young people with tons of debt while living off the debt that’s being taken out in the form of their salaries and benefits. Quite the feedback loop going there.

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.

You coujd pay that off 5 years. What break are you giving patients? How many hours a month, or even a year. Do you volunteer at neighborhood free clinics? None.

Collect a group of fellow new physicians, rent a group house together in a cheap part of town, drive clunkers, and do nothing but pay off loans for a few years. If you're earning $250K, you could pay off the loans fairly quickly by paring down your lifestyle. Or what am I missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

Yes, it was. You read the law.

The law is full of the word “or.” Read it again.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/28/supreme-court-appears-skeptical-of-bidens-student-debt-relief-plan-00084793

Prediction: Supreme Court strikes down Biden's forgiveness plan.
Roberts, Thomas, Aliso, Gorsuch, Kavanagh will vote to strike down.
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett vote to hold up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

Yes, it was. You read the law.

The law is full of the word “or.” Read it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

Yes, it was. You read the law.

Here you go. It specifically includes anyone who “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.”
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:

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

Yes, it was. You read the law.

Anonymous wrote:

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

This must be the line on fox because these idiots keep coming here to repeat it.

That was for people who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq after airplanes crashed into buildings.

No, it wasn’t. Read the law, someone posted it here earlier today.

truckers and plumbers should not be paying off your student debt.

Some truckers and plumbers actually HAVE student debt. And this isn’t about me because I don’t have any.

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.

Most of the bill is being footed by wealthier people, not by people who barely finished high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So just some fake doctrine? Congress answered the Major Question in the original law. Or do only Democratic Presidents need to ask permission a 2nd time?

Yep, it’s the new go-to move whenever they don’t like the laws congress passes.

Going to be devastating ifot GOP f SCOTUS prevents $10k forgiveness for some conservative think tank bs. Biden can just resume student loans before the recession and blame it on GOP

Anonymous wrote:

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

So just some fake doctrine? Congress answered the Major Question in the original law. Or do only Democratic Presidents need to ask permission a 2nd time?

Yep, it’s the new go-to move whenever they don’t like the laws congress passes.