Debates
23 Aug 22
27 Aug 22
@averagejoe1 saidYes, exactly. The student loan borrowing program is now a contract between the student borrower and the government. IF the debtor decides to forego payment of some of the principal, that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do under any contractual agreement.
Contracts 101, N’est -ce pas?
27 Aug 22
@techsouth saidExplain the concept of a "dictator" who actually keeps the promises he was elected on.
@AverageJoe1
Biden is working on becoming a benevolent dictator (He may have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet).
He is our better. We cannot survive without handouts from government.
We are thankful for this graciousness that pays our loans for us and looking forward to more handouts. Then we will be free to use the money we earn exclusively for entertainment.
The Biden student loan foregiveness program is a fairly modest one which nonetheless will do quite a lot of good.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147486
27 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidthe debtor is congress, not biden
Yes, exactly. The student loan borrowing program is now a contract between the student borrower and the government. IF the debtor decides to forego payment of some of the principal, that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do under any contractual agreement.
@no1marauder saidYou waste time and energy to speculate 'economic effects', since you have no idea what they will be from day to day. Giving Ukraine another $2B next week would b4 an economic effect. (It would cause an even more negative balance of our treasury, but I digress). so your speculation is out the window. It smacks of Biden who, yesterday, told us that the Bill will not add to inflation.Is that a fatvct? So, he,, like you,, knows how are economy is going to play out over time? Two pretenders to the throne. Jesus.
You're speaking like a moron like you usually do.
Student loan debt forgiveness has the same economic effects as any other debt forgiveness including voluntary agreements and/or bankruptcy. It is closer to bankruptcy because it is government mandated forgiveness, but really it is conceptually the same. Your huffing and puffing doesn't change that.
Congress "took the ...[text shortened]... giveness when they elected a President who supported it in 2020. This is what is called "democracy".
I note you put 'risk' in quotes, it is a term that is foreign to you, makes you uneasy.
What congress did doesn't lessen my explanation. If a bank takes risk and loans me $10K, and I dont pay, they eat it. They eat it. They have no backup, unless you want to incorporate the FDIC in the argument, but that is a separate issue.
When the govt pays it, all taxpayers are paying it, which gets to the crux of the matter. Even though congress and presidents approved it, it remains that Suzy has to work, while the loser who has his loan paid gets to use the money he was going to pay off his loan with, and go visit the Vasa in Copenhagen.
27 Aug 22
@mott-the-hoople saidI misspoke; the government is the holder of the debt, not the debtor.
the debtor is congress, not biden
Congress gave broad authority to the Executive Branch to modify student loan balances during national emergencies in the HEROES Act.
27 Aug 22
@averagejoe1 saidJoe, the more you write, the stupider your "arguments" get.
You waste time and energy to speculate 'economic effects', since you have no idea what they will be from day to day. Giving Ukraine another $2B next week would b4 an economic effect. (It would cause an even more negative balance of our treasury, but I digress). so your speculation is out the window. It smacks of Biden who, yesterday, told us that the Bill will not add ...[text shortened]... id gets to use the money he was going to pay off his loan with, and go visit the Vasa in Copenhagen.
If a bank takes risks and loses out on a loan, they won't "eat it" unless they absolutely have to. They'll try to recoup it from others; from customers and/or workers. This is really ECO 101 which you obviously either never took or flunked out of.
But what you can't seem to grasp is that, like the bank, the government has accepted the risk of making the loans. If it now wants to modify the terms of the loans to make them easier to pay back, so what? If individual taxpayers don't like it, they should have voted for someone who didn't promise to modify the loans and take less. Otherwise, TFB; I don't like that the government wastes $800 billion a year on war but I have the same opportunity as everyone else to vote accordingly.
Really, what you have a problem with is "democracy".
27 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidThe "broad authority" language is interesting. We have seen recently the big court doesn't like it when congress delegates.
I misspoke; the government is the holder of the debt, not the debtor.
Congress gave broad authority to the Executive Branch to modify student loan balances during national emergencies in the HEROES Act.
27 Aug 22
@averagejoe1 saidJOE!!!
You waste time and energy to speculate 'economic effects', since you have no idea what they will be from day to day.
Listen to yourself. You are on here all the time arguing that sweetheart deals where my tax dollars are spent on billionaire vanity projects (i.e. stadiums) and failed business models (i.e. farming) are good for the economy.
How do you know that? You won't let the billionaire lose a few times. You won't let the farmer adjust his business practices to fit a changing economy. You won't let the bank fail.
But the student saddled with debt at age 17 who didn't even earn a degree?
You want gov't to fund stadiums but let that person fail?
27 Aug 22
Y'all conservatives never notice, but Republicans are the ones saddling the entire nation with debt. American history is now littered with trillions in spending on stuff that was never paid for. Way more than half of that is Republican spending.
We gave Republicans control of everything in 2017, after 8 years of O-bummer. What did they do? They accelerated deficit spending. That's it.
27 Aug 22
@wildgrass saidThere's no way to know what this lawless SCOTUS will do. It's very hard to find anyone with standing to challenge this action under established rules (limitation of standing has been a long term right wing judicial project):
The "broad authority" language is interesting. We have seen recently the big court doesn't like it when congress delegates.
"The first step to a legal challenge is finding someone with standing to sue. That means lawyers will have to demonstrate the decision to cancel student debt does concrete harm to at least one party and how a court blocking the handout will remedy that harm.
At the moment, finding someone that has been harmed by the decision looks difficult.
The Supreme Court has already stated that taxpayers do not have standing to sue the government, and neither does Congress. Borrowers who already paid off their loans and therefore will not qualify for the handout are unlikely to have standing either since they are not directly injured by the White House's action.
State governments similarly are viewed as not having standing since the student debt handout does not impose a burden on their finances or powers.
Legal experts say that loan services might have the best standing for a lawsuit since they will be directly impacted the handout. Loan servicers could argue that Biden overreached by issuing a blanket handout, instead of tailoring the proposal to individuals with proven economic hardship.
Some federal courts, though, have refused in the past to allow government contractors to sue against regulations that hurt their profit margin. "
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-ags-weigh-legal-challenge-against-bidens-500b-student-loan-handout
27 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidYes the owner of the debt is taking the loss, and we now pay twice.
OMG, what pathetic fools right wingers are!
When a debt is discharged in bankruptcy, the owner of the debt takes a loss. They will attempt to recover that loss from someone else - from other customers, from their workers or if that is not possible, the owners will have to absorb it in less profit.
How is that effect any different from what happens when part of a stu ...[text shortened]... ily agree to reduce the principal on debts all the time. That is really all that is being done here.
27 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidThank you I didn’t see this. So student loans are more difficult to get away from paying. Small wonder those who give them do if that is the case and why the costs keep going up.
It's quite difficult and few do:
"While it is far from impossible to get student loan debt cancelled through bankruptcy under current law, it is not easy. To be successful, most student loan borrowers have to show that they have an “undue hardship,” which is a challenging legal standard. The bankruptcy code does not define in detail what it really means to have an undu ...[text shortened]... uptcy-4-questions-answered-166308#:~:text=Due%20to%20a%201976%20law,card%20debt%20or%20auto%20loans.
I do appreciate your taking the time to answer me.
27 Aug 22
2 edits
@kellyjay saidHow are "we paying twice"?
Yes the owner of the debt is taking the loss, and we now pay twice.
The government already paid the colleges on behalf of the student-debtors or made direct payments to the student-debtors. Forgoing some of that debt is not an additional expense.
The net effect is like a targeted working and middle class tax cut.
28 Aug 22
@wildgrass saidDifficult to get past your first sentence. Biden just put on a $1 trillion saddle of debt! Inlaid with fine silver an 24karat thread. Why say that, you write like Sonhouse writes Trump.
Y'all conservatives never notice, but Republicans are the ones saddling the entire nation with debt. American history is now littered with trillions in spending on stuff that was never paid for. Way more than half of that is Republican spending.
We gave Republicans control of everything in 2017, after 8 years of O-bummer. What did they do? They accelerated deficit spending. That's it.