@AverageJoe1 saidNo you've just confirmed you're a stubborn idiot.
So, applying what you say here to the tuition thingy, I think you are acknowledging a need to recoup loan revenue. You mean then, to recoup what WOULD have been paid back by the borrower/student.
So, no money is coming from the students....but money (from govt) is in fact being used to pay that which the students do not pay. Am I right so far?
Your solution ...[text shortened]... rd games from the ever-lovin' high horse?
I know....you are a contrarian, that is all you know.
The holder of the loans is the Federal government as I've explained over and over and over to you.
191d
As far as "dictating", the National Education Act of 1965 gives the Secretary of Education the authority to "6) enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption." 20 USC 1082 (a)(6)(Emphasis added). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1082#:~:text=Legal%20powers%20and%20responsibilities,-U.S.%20Code&text=enforce%2C%20pay%2C%20compromise%2C%20waive,or%20any%20right%20of%20redemption.
This is quite separate from the language in the HEROES Act that the SCOTUS (mistakenly in my view) said was insufficient to grant the Executive the authority to forgive up to $20,000 per loan in Biden's first (never put in effect) plan.
True, right wingers are doing intellectual somersaults to try to claim that Congress didn't really mean what they said in the NEA, but time will tell if the courts buy that BS.
191d
@no1marauder saidRight. But whomever the entity, if they loaned to Einstein Student, and the student does not pay it back, the government/entity is out that money. So what is all this discussion about how much it is going to cost the Taxpayer?
No you've just confirmed you're a stubborn idiot.
The holder of the loans is the Federal government as I've explained over and over and over to you.
A new question: Does it cost the taxpayers? Is any money paid into the govt by taxpayers applied to these loans?
Or, what is the money, the cost, that all of the articles refer to?
191d
@AverageJoe1 saidThe "cost" is the anticipated revenue not collected, just like the "cost" of a tax cut.
Right. But whomever the entity, if they loaned to Einstein Student, and the student does not pay it back, the government/entity is out that money. So what is all this discussion about how much it is going to cost the Taxpayer?
A new question: Does it cost the taxpayers? Is any money paid into the govt by taxpayers applied to these loans?
Or, what is the money, the cost, that all of the articles refer to?
How many times does that need to be explained?
Of course that revenue is less than 1% of anticipated revenue, so it could be easily replaced either by cuts in spending (a 5% saving in military spending would do it) or fairly minor tax changes (simply ending the preferential treatment of capital gains would also do it - https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-study-suggests-congress-could-raise-money-increasing-capital-gains-tax-rates-47-percent).
191d
@no1marauder saidQuick take: We have not resolved the money going OUT to the borrowers, and being Re-paid by some entity OUTside of the government,...paid BACK to the government. I think you are saying the govt in effect pays itself back????? By creating some bookeeing entries like Trumps lawyer did,,,a lawbreak!
The "cost" is the anticipated revenue not collected, just like the "cost" of a tax cut.
How many times does that need to be explained?
Of course that revenue is less than 1% of anticipated revenue, so it could be easily replaced either by cuts in spending (a 5% saving in military spending would do it) or fairly minor tax changes (simply ending the preferential treat ...[text shortened]... taxvox/new-study-suggests-congress-could-raise-money-increasing-capital-gains-tax-rates-47-percent).
And add insult to injury...........You want to reduce the size of our military to do this. So Reduce strength in one place to build it up in another...all happening INSIDE the govt. Geez.
And you just willy nilly pick our mother military? Let us instead get rid of windmills , or free emergency rooms. Let us cut back on OSHA, we don't need to inspect EVERYTHING!!!
Geez again.
Your solution, in case you have not thought it through, is classic Pulling Yourself Up By Your Own Bootstraps.
The ole Rob Peter To Pay Paul.
191d
@AverageJoe1 saidI've explained as much as I can and in a way a non-moron would understand. That you either still don't or are pretending not to is your problem, not mine.
Quick take: We have not resolved the money going OUT to the borrowers, and being Re-paid by some entity OUTside of the government,...paid BACK to the government. I think you are saying the govt in effect pays itself back????? By creating some bookeeing entries like Trumps lawyer did,,,a lawbreak!
And add insult to injury...........You want to reduce the size of our ...[text shortened]... t it through, is classic Pulling Yourself Up By Your Own Bootstraps.
The ole Rob Peter To Pay Paul.
The US spends far too much on weapons of war for ourselves and for others. Whether there were any student loan forgiveness programs or not, military spending should be slashed substantially - 50% would be a reasonable target in line with what most industrialized countries spend on the military.
And our tax system favors non-work and economic rent seeking over wages. That, again, should be addressed rather than incessantly whining about a modest program to reduce student debt to the hard working sons and daughters of working and middle class Americans.
191d
@no1marauder saidWe have a nice discussion, and Marauder ruins it by opining that we 'pay too much on military". I googled it and we do not 'pay too much on military', there is no basis for his saying that. My uncle says we do not pay enough!!. So this comment of Marauder negates, or dilutes, his post. I could scream, I really could.
I've explained as much as I can and in a way a non-moron would understand. That you either still don't or are pretending not to is your problem, not mine.
The US spends far too much on weapons of war for ourselves and for others. Whether there were any student loan forgiveness programs or not, military spending should be slashed substantially - 50% would be a reasonabl ...[text shortened]... to reduce student debt to the hard working sons and daughters of working and middle class Americans.
Then note how, Marauder losing his points, he just throws in extraneous stuff that he, really , dreams up. Military??? THEN, he slides in the word modest, for this billions of dollars. Marauder has decided, after mulling over a glass of schnapps, that the military would be a good target to take down in the quest to 'recoup' (his words in prior posts) the money that is lost in the abyss of losers who promised to pay back a loan but will not now. What if 10,000 , or 190,000 homeowners band together and agree to not pay their mortgages.
Recoup? I thought he said nothing was lost to have to repay!!! Can anyone here join with Marauder, and, having understood his reasoning that the taxpayers are NOT going to be stuck with loser-loans, explain it to us???
YOu have been very entertaining, Marauder. I am no longer teaching economics, so cannot introduce this in a class for disemination but I am def going to give it to one of my contemporaries...HE will introduce it!
I obviously assume that you are going to move along to other threads:?
191d
OH!! Wait!! Before we all retire, did we answer this question...
Did Biden act as a dictator when dictating that the student loans be reduced, or paid, or whatever in the hell he decided to do, while he was taking a shower, or while he was straightening his beach chair?
Was that an act of dictating??? Don't all answer at once.
191d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou have no problem with rich guys declaring bankruptcy and not paying their loans and other obligations, but the sons and daughters of working and middle class families who might get some break on the outstanding balances of loans they had to take out to get an education (something you obviously never got) are "parasites" and "losers"?
We have a nice discussion, and Marauder ruins it by opining that we 'pay too much on military". I googled it and we do not 'pay too much on military', there is no basis for his saying that. My uncle says we do not pay enough!!. So this comment of Marauder negates, or dilutes, his post. I could scream, I really could.
Then note how, Marauder losing his points, he jus ...[text shortened]... s...HE will introduce it!
I obviously assume that you are going to move along to other threads:?
I'll waste no more time on this subject with you; you have no standards, it's all just hate based jealously of people younger, better educated and more capable than you ever were or ever will be.
@AverageJoe1 saidYes "we" answered this. It's a few posts up the page where I quote the specific section of law where Congress gave the Secretary of Education the authority to "waive or release" student loans.
OH!! Wait!! Before we all retire, did we answer this question...
Did Biden act as a dictator when dictating that the student loans be reduced, or paid, or whatever in the hell he decided to do, while he was taking a shower, or while he was straightening his beach chair?
Was that an act of dictating??? Don't all answer at once.
191d
@no1marauder saidEverhyone. Let us all stipulate that the govt is the holder of the loans, which we have already stipulated. 🤔
No you've just confirmed you're a stubborn idiot.
The holder of the loans is the Federal government as I've explained over and over and over to you.
191d
@no1marauder saidYou just categorically say that too much is spent on military. I say it is not enough. You say it like it is a fact, Marauder. Sonhouse does that a lot. Trump is a Dictator!!!! He says it like it is a fact. Sorry, we have to discount such statements on the Forum. You say we need to get money from the military budget and apply to the tuition crisis. Then, you say there is no need for money, that there is no taking money from the fund which is made up of taxpayer payments.
I've explained as much as I can and in a way a non-moron would understand. That you either still don't or are pretending not to is your problem, not mine.
The US spends far too much on weapons of war for ourselves and for others. Whether there were any student loan forgiveness programs or not, military spending should be slashed substantially - 50% would be a reasonabl ...[text shortened]... to reduce student debt to the hard working sons and daughters of working and middle class Americans.
Are we taking money from a fund created by deposits of the taxpayers, and USING said funds to cover the shortfall in the tuition department.?? A simple question, you will not answer it.
191d
@no1marauder saidYou have lost this silly position of yours (no money? No taxpayer money?), and I want to quit it too.
You have no problem with rich guys declaring bankruptcy and not paying their loans and other obligations, but the sons and daughters of working and middle class families who might get some break on the outstanding balances of loans they had to take out to get an education (something you obviously never got) are "parasites" and "losers"?
I'll waste no more time on this ...[text shortened]... ed jealously of people younger, better educated and more capable than you ever were or ever will be.
The people who do things the American way , like i did, borrowing and paying back tuition and living expenses, are not parasites and losers. Those people are not who we are writing about. You need to brush up on recognizing forum issues.
@no1marauder saidI'd have to see about the Ed dept stuff in comparison to Biden making a personal decision to get money from somewhere in the govt (about as plain as I can say it, no flowerdy language) to apply to loans taken out by people in college with 6 figure salaries today. All together now.....'something rotten in paradise'. Naaa, you think that is OK. Most curious.
As far as "dictating", the National Education Act of 1965 gives the Secretary of Education the authority to "6) enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption." 20 USC 1082 (a)(6)(Emphasis added). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1082#:~:text=Legal%20p ...[text shortened]... Congress didn't really mean what they said in the NEA, but time will tell if the courts buy that BS.
You say get it from military? I say get it from post office. Have no deliveries on Wednesday and Saturday, let's get the money there.
On another note you said I like Bankruptcy. Well, I certainly do. A wonderful tool. I bought a failing biz a few years ago, with the intent to, indeed, bankrupt it. Turned it around, hired actually more people.
So that tool enables a new business to arrive on the horizon and create more jobs. For the record, if you say creditors were hurt in the bankruptcy, that is simply because they did not watch their butts in creating the credit to the company.,
Business 101. Its business.
190d
@no1marauder saidnah…it’s just you trying to gloss over a vote buying scheme
You have no problem with rich guys declaring bankruptcy and not paying their loans and other obligations, but the sons and daughters of working and middle class families who might get some break on the outstanding balances of loans they had to take out to get an education (something you obviously never got) are "parasites" and "losers"?
I'll waste no more time on this ...[text shortened]... ed jealously of people younger, better educated and more capable than you ever were or ever will be.