04 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidMott was right. You are down for the count, but are you out?
As I explained in the other thread last year:
no1: We are a democratic republic; the government is elected by the People and stands as their proxy. The People elected Joe Biden knowing he promised to forgive a portion of student loan debts. By their votes, they consented to it.
Look objectively at your responses. It must be like looking at someone else. You are thinking ...am i really defending this govt decision....to turn their back on people of equal trauma due to covid?
NO1: 'by their vote, they consented to it.' You see, no where in this thread do I mention the votes, or opinions, of other people. I asked YOUR< YOUR opinion. For you to be honest about it would fly right in the face of your comrades who agree with whatever Biden does. You will not break ranks. You are all a mob with one singular shared brain.
@averagejoe1 saidThis post is ironic and nothing else.
Mott was right. You are down for the count, but are you out?
Look objectively at your responses. It must be like looking at someone else. You are thinking ...am i really defending this govt decision....to turn their back on people of equal trauma due to covid?
NO1: 'by their vote, they consented to it.' You see, no where in this thread do I mention the vote ...[text shortened]... h whatever Biden does. You will not break ranks. You are all a mob with one singular shared brain.
Like my Profile says, I'm confining myself to commentary on legal issues and have no interest in petty bickering and insult sharing with a nitwit. So unless someone has something to say regarding the legal issues in Biden v. Nebraska, I'll simply stand on my commentary in last year's thread which I already linked to for my opinion regarding the policy - which I referred to in this way:
no1: These people essentially had the take on the debt or forego the chance of getting a better education. These aren't the kids of the wealthy who didn't face such an agonizing choice, but the sons and daughters of working class and middle class families. Forgoing some miniscule revenue in the future from these people (about .5% of yearly total government receipts) so that they can more easily pay their bills and perhaps start businesses and families is a wise and humane policy.
AND:
no1: Forgoing a modest amount of future revenue from debt payments of working and middle class people to the government is likely to have societal benefits well in excess of such overall small payments (less than .5% of Federal government receipts).
EDIT: Those quotes are from here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/student-loan-forgiveness.194474/page-20
05 Jul 23
@no1marauder said......but is it wise and human to give this windfall to them so that they can pay their bills, when at the same time you pass over sons and daughters of middle class families who had no way to go to college? Kids who had to go straight to work out of high school due to extreme circumstances, helping to support their families? Is it human to ignore them? In my opinion, we should give THEM the money, not the grads who are off to see the world.
This post is ironic and nothing else.
Like my Profile says, I'm confining myself to commentary on legal issues and have no interest in petty bickering and insult sharing with a nitwit. So unless someone has something to say regarding the legal issues in Biden v. Nebraska, I'll simply stand on my commentary in last year's thread which I already linked to for my o ...[text shortened]... otes are from here: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/student-loan-forgiveness.194474/page-20
Your reference to whether someone comes from a wealthy family is quite irrelevant.
05 Jul 23
@averagejoe1 saidOf course it's "relevant" whether someone comes from a wealthy family or not for this discussion; someone who does is not required to take out debt in order to be able to get a good education. Only the sons and daughters of the middle class and lower classes have to.
......but is it wise and human to give this windfall to them so that they can pay their bills, when at the same time you pass over sons and daughters of middle class families who had no way to go to college? Kids who had to go straight to work out of high school due to extreme circumstances, helping to support their families? Is it human to ignore them? In my opinion, we ...[text shortened]... the world.
Your reference to whether someone comes from a wealthy family is quite irrelevant.
43 million well-educated people of voting age, perhaps 20-25% of registered voters, just had a lawless SCOTUS screw them out of debt relief that Congress authorized and that the People indirectly voted for in 2020. In addition, right wingers like yourself and your puppetmasters can't stop lying about and demonizing them. We'll see how smart that decision looks after the first week of November 2024.
@no1marauder saidYour first paragraph has socialist reasoning. "the rich don't have to borrow money, the poor have to'. That is, "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs."
Of course it's "relevant" whether someone comes from a wealthy family or not for this discussion; someone who does is not required to take out debt in order to be able to get a good education. Only the sons and daughters of the middle class and lower classes have to.
43 million well-educated people of voting age, perhaps 20-25% of registered voters, just had a lawless ...[text shortened]... and demonizing them. We'll see how smart that decision looks after the first week of November 2024.
You actually think that, which is Marxism. You believe that the government must make everyone equal, Marauder. Taken to logical conclusion, the poor will be brought up the level of the wealthy,,,,,, Don't give the child of the weatlhy any money. They already have enough money!!! (Bernie Sanders logic. Jesus.) Everyone of equal financial status. Unbelievable. You cannot deny this. I have been right about your marx tendencies.
05 Jul 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou haven't been right about a single thing on this board. You don't know what Marxism even is and you have ignored all attempts by me and others to educate your ignorant self.
Your first paragraph has socialist reasoning. "the rich don't have to borrow money, the poor have to'. That is, "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs."
You actually think that, which is Marxism. You believe that the government must make everyone equal, Marauder. Taken to logical conclusion, the poor will be brought up the level of th ...[text shortened]... financial status. Unbelievable. You cannot deny this. I have been right about your marx tendencies.
05 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidAhh, but note that you ignore my point of the post. YOu don't miss the point, but you ignoire the point. Everyone Equal!!! Marxism, Marauder. Please don't confuse your readers.
You haven't been right about a single thing on this board. You don't know what Marxism even is and you have ignored all attempts by me and others to educate your ignorant self.
05 Jul 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidJoe - it's you writing that things are unfair as they pertain to student loans.
Ahh, but note that you ignore my point of the post. YOu don't miss the point, but you ignoire the point. Everyone Equal!!! Marxism, Marauder. Please don't confuse your readers.
This ruling is ridiculous. The plaintiff had no standing. The action taken clearly fit within a congressionally authorized act. The case decided by a group of unelected bureaucrats impacts millions of people. Those affected people are looking at what happened with PPP and other federal loans and wondering why those were "allowed" to be forgiven by SCOTUS but not their loans. What logic does the court use?
"Major questions"
Only john Roberts knows what that means. The unelected bureaucrat. It's going to cause a lot of anger.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
05 Jul 23
@wildgrass said“The action taken clearly fit within a congressionally authorized act.”
Joe - it's you writing that things are unfair as they pertain to student loans.
This ruling is ridiculous. The plaintiff had no standing. The action taken clearly fit within a congressionally authorized act. The case decided by a group of unelected bureaucrats impacts millions of people. Those affected people are looking at what happened with PPP and other federal loans ...[text shortened]... ly john Roberts knows what that means. The unelected bureaucrat. It's going to cause a lot of anger.
No, it doesnt…how long are you going to continue with this absurdity?
@mott-the-hoople saidBecause that's a correct statement. The majority and minority opinion in the case both acknowledge this. Waive or modify federal loans in an emergency. It couldn't be more clear.
“The action taken clearly fit within a congressionally authorized act.”
No, it doesnt…how long are you going to continue with this absurdity?
The majority conclude the opinion by stating "we do not interpret this statute for all it is worth..." and invoke major questions as a rationale. They know the law would allow this but they just didn't like it.
05 Jul 23
I just read Justice Barrett's opinion. It is well written and revealing. She writes about "common sense" interpretations of the law that take away literal interpretation. In essence, the opinion to disallow student debt relief was not based on the words written by Congress in the statute, it was based on her own common sense understanding of what Congress meant to write. She's exchanged what was written by elected officials to something else that she thinks is more reasonable.
So... Is that her job?
05 Jul 23
@wildgrass saidIf the wording of the statute was ambiguous, she might have a point. But it is not and her belief that Congress in 2003 couldn't have intended what actually occurred pursuant to the language they used is mere post hoc mind reading which she and the other members of the SCOTUS have no qualifications for.
I just read Justice Barrett's opinion. It is well written and revealing. She writes about "common sense" interpretations of the law that take away literal interpretation. In essence, the opinion to disallow student debt relief was not based on the words written by Congress in the statute, it was based on her own common sense understanding of what Congress meant to write. Sh ...[text shortened]... by elected officials to something else that she thinks is more reasonable.
So... Is that her job?
06 Jul 23
@no1marauder saidYour first paragraph says that people who work hard and have more asets than another should NOT be able to get loans that are available to other people. You just said that. Why shouldn't they?
Of course it's "relevant" whether someone comes from a wealthy family or not for this discussion; someone who does is not required to take out debt in order to be able to get a good education. Only the sons and daughters of the middle class and lower classes have to.
43 million well-educated people of voting age, perhaps 20-25% of registered voters, just had a lawless ...[text shortened]... and demonizing them. We'll see how smart that decision looks after the first week of November 2024.
You want to punish the successful. By not giving them the same opportunities, you are punishing them. This dovetails into the oft-quoted Marx dictum....To each according to their needs, from those who can support them.**
You are a dyed in the wool Marxist.
** The money that they have borrowed is money that has been amassed by those who must support them. OPM, Marauder. Other Peoples' Money.
06 Jul 23
@wildgrass saidThe judges and I do not see how the plaintiff could prevail, since it is clear that a president is not King. No fiat, if you will.
This ruling is ridiculous. The plaintiff had no standing.
Oh, you must be one of those who think that there is a hidden phrase in some law about the military which says he can fiat about college loans. (is fiat a verb?). Naaa, nothing there.
Further, it is not fair to poor people, who were affected by covid as well, to not have their loans forgiven. My only question, which Marauder drove into oblivion,..... why was one group (people who acquired college degrees) favored over another.
NOT ONE of you turkeys even took a stab at it.
@mott-the-hoople saidFunny you say it was 'clear'. Why did legally trained judges not see that? You saw it. So did the Forum libs. But not the judges. Legally trained. Highest judicial office on earth. A group of the 9 best. You think you and Sonhouse and Kev kick their butts in a debate on this law you are talking about?
“The action taken clearly fit within a congressionally authorized act.”
No, it doesnt…how long are you going to continue with this absurdity?
If the judges relied on that law in your favor, they could use it for a whoooooooollllle lot of pesky problems that need to be funded.
Fools.