rgag12 said:
Get a load of this gemIn 2012, I graduated from Fordham Law School with $180,000 is student loan debt.
— Alessandra Biaggi (@Biaggi4NY) June 30, 2023
I’ve been paying loans for 11 years. Even paid two of them off completely.
In 2023, my balance is $206,000.
I understand that sentiment but consistent, strong reasoned support for our principles can win out in the long run. Like kids - just because they cannot comprehend all that they need to know at certain phases of life doesn't mean we back down from our consistent messaging. Then when they mature, those messages and truths ring through._mpaul said:Unfortunately, we're at the point where reason doesn't matter anymore. They call conservatives "close minded, but the left has moved to a position of framing the argument so that it can't be won with persuasion and changing the meaning of language so they can't lose. For example,Greener Acres said:
These tweets are funny, but I encourage everybody to read Gorsuch's opinion. He's a clever and concise writer. The conservatives have always pulled responsible adults into the fold, or people who finally become responsible, through well measured and rationale policies. The dreamy, utopian world view of young progressives eventually clashes with reality and that's were conservative policies shine.
Read the opinion (Here), so you can rebut these people with sound critiques. Gorsuch lays out the hypocrisy in Sotomayer's dissent and explains how she argues against her own point. Memes may win the day, but well-reasoned argument wins the war.That's essentially woke ideology in a nut-shell. It has nothing to do with well-reasoned argument.Quote:
Leftist: The US is systemically racist.
Me: Not it's not, because [gives reasoned position.]
Leftist: The fact that you can't see how systemically racist this US means you're racist, and I can disregard your arguments.
_mpaul said:Unfortunately, we're at the point where reason doesn't matter anymore. They call conservatives "close minded, but the left has moved to a position of framing the argument so that it can't be won with persuasion and changing the meaning of language so they can't lose. For example,Greener Acres said:
These tweets are funny, but I encourage everybody to read Gorsuch's opinion. He's a clever and concise writer. The conservatives have always pulled responsible adults into the fold, or people who finally become responsible, through well measured and rationale policies. The dreamy, utopian world view of young progressives eventually clashes with reality and that's were conservative policies shine.
Read the opinion (Here), so you can rebut these people with sound critiques. Gorsuch lays out the hypocrisy in Sotomayer's dissent and explains how she argues against her own point. Memes may win the day, but well-reasoned argument wins the war.That's essentially woke ideology in a nut-shell. It has nothing to do with well-reasoned argument.Quote:
Leftist: The US is systemically racist.
Me: Not it's not, because [gives reasoned position.]
Leftist: The fact that you can't see how systemically racist this US means you're racist, and I can disregard your arguments.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:Jesus christ. Godspeed to you on that brother.Quote:
Finally got rid of her, sold both houses (I had to pay a buyer $10k under the table to meet my ex-wife's ridiculous asking price),
No, 6 people in robes prevented you from stealing $20,000 from them to pay for your poor decision.GeorgiAg said:For those of you just tuning in: Six people in robes just stole $20K out of your pocket. #CancelStudentDebt
— Young Invincibles (@YoungInvincible) June 30, 2023
Jack Squat 83 said:rgag12 said:
Get a load of this gemIn 2012, I graduated from Fordham Law School with $180,000 is student loan debt.
— Alessandra Biaggi (@Biaggi4NY) June 30, 2023
I’ve been paying loans for 11 years. Even paid two of them off completely.
In 2023, my balance is $206,000.
So this lily white liberal wants the poor woman who scrubs her nasty toilets to pay her college loans so she could get a law degree. The lawn AND pool guy are expected to chip in too. Nice.
Zarathustra said:
Student loan forgiveness needs to be framed
focusing on the Universities, instead of the students.
Everyone needs to be asking - why in the age of digital information does the price for an education at a University keep getting more expensive? We need to direct the anger of the students at the universities where it belongs.
Edit: And why are universities charging so much for a product that has very little return value?
LOL Why are universities charging so much?!?
because they can?!?
ever since Obama and the lefties realized they can knock out the private banks and create a cradle to grave dependence for millenials by having the US GOVERNMENT take over student loans
of course the universities are going to keep raising costs! why wouldn't they when there is no competition and literally free money from the US taxpayer
bonus is that leftists then get to cancel the student debt burden and throw it again on the backs of the few workers and income producers!
win win win for the left.
The owner of MOHELA disagrees that there was no harm...Aggrad08 said:Logos Stick said:Aggrad08 said:Except that nonsense. And even the conservatives agreed that 6 states don't have standing.Logos Stick said:Aggrad08 said:
Regardless of your views on student loan forgiveness the Supreme court set a bad precedent here on standing. There was no standing for missouri.
Kagan summed it up;"Is there a person in America who thinks Missouri is here because it is worried about MOHELA's loss of loan-servicing fees? I would like to meet them."
It is established that MOHELA has standing and the other 6 states do not. Except that MOHELA didn't sue nor want to be part of this suit.
The Student Loan Case's Unwilling Participant - The American Prospect
You should not be able to sue on behalf of another entity, it's an absurd concept.
and no I don't care about the loans, Everyone I know and myself wouldn't qualify due to income anyway.
Disagree. The states are comprised of taxpayers. Every taxpayer in this country has standing.
But no, you do not have standing to sue the federal government for everything it does you don't like just because you pay taxes. that's not a workable system.Quote:
Tired of this new left wing nonsense that the Federal government can do whatever the **** it wants and no one has standing, just like with the open border we have now. States dint have standing in that per the court even though every illegal resides in a damn state.
yes, states didn't have standing there. There is a mechanism by which the populace can exert power in these instances. Suing the government for everything you don't like isn't it. This is the court going beyond it's bounds on extremely thin justification.
Standing is essential.
Stop with the strawman arguments.
This is not suing because citizens don't like something. This is not like suing because the Congress spends taxpayer money on something we don't like. The citizens are having to bear the burden of this unlawful action and are harmed by it, presto standing.
Thank God we have conservative justices who understand the concept of standing, unlike you and Kagan.
The conservatives reject your notion that citizens have standing here. They stated that MOEHLA has standing, and the state sued on their behalf. They conservatives said missouri doesn't have standing on it's own. So your entire argument is both false and rejected by the conservative wing of the court. Also, MOEHLA claimed no harm and explicitly wanted no part in the suit.
Aggrad08 said:Logos Stick said:Aggrad08 said:Except that nonsense. And even the conservatives agreed that 6 states don't have standing.Logos Stick said:Aggrad08 said:
Regardless of your views on student loan forgiveness the Supreme court set a bad precedent here on standing. There was no standing for missouri.
Kagan summed it up;"Is there a person in America who thinks Missouri is here because it is worried about MOHELA's loss of loan-servicing fees? I would like to meet them."
It is established that MOHELA has standing and the other 6 states do not. Except that MOHELA didn't sue nor want to be part of this suit.
The Student Loan Case's Unwilling Participant - The American Prospect
You should not be able to sue on behalf of another entity, it's an absurd concept.
and no I don't care about the loans, Everyone I know and myself wouldn't qualify due to income anyway.
Disagree. The states are comprised of taxpayers. Every taxpayer in this country has standing.
But no, you do not have standing to sue the federal government for everything it does you don't like just because you pay taxes. that's not a workable system.Quote:
Tired of this new left wing nonsense that the Federal government can do whatever the **** it wants and no one has standing, just like with the open border we have now. States dint have standing in that per the court even though every illegal resides in a damn state.
yes, states didn't have standing there. There is a mechanism by which the populace can exert power in these instances. Suing the government for everything you don't like isn't it. This is the court going beyond it's bounds on extremely thin justification.
Standing is essential.
Stop with the strawman arguments.
This is not suing because citizens don't like something. This is not like suing because the Congress spends taxpayer money on something we don't like. The citizens are having to bear the burden of this unlawful action and are harmed by it, presto standing.
Thank God we have conservative justices who understand the concept of standing, unlike you and Kagan.
The conservatives reject your notion that citizens have standing here. They stated that MOEHLA has standing, and the state sued on their behalf. They conservatives said missouri doesn't have standing on it's own. So your entire argument is both false and rejected by the conservative wing of the court. Also, MOEHLA claimed no harm and explicitly wanted no part in the suit.
These were not unintended consequencesGilligan said:
In March of 2010 Obama and the federal government took over Sallie Mae student loans.
Unintended consequences!
Nothing the guberment touches goes well.
Wanting others to pay for what you bought is not a struggleGhost of Andrew Eaton said:
If you take on a debt, you should pay it back.
Also, no need to revel in someone else's struggles.
Fightin_Aggie said:Wanting others to pay for what you bought is not a struggleGhost of Andrew Eaton said:
If you take on a debt, you should pay it back.
Also, no need to revel in someone else's struggles.
It's called theft
So true. Today's "modern" women do not make good wives.Street Fighter said:GeorgiAg said:
OMG, this has to be the most dramatic. ShE wOn'T GeT mArRied nOw!!!!Then CANCEL STUDENT DEBT!!! I had to talk a friend down a few times now. She's a teacher who has put off all her dreams so she could teach. Now she will not get married, have kids, ect bc of these loans. Honestly the thought has passed through my mind as well. #CancelStudentDebt https://t.co/XsVScW0T5M
— 🟥 Mrs. H. 🟥 (@CraftyTeacher91) June 28, 2023
Men everywhere rejoice! Another disaster averted.
hph6203 said:
Seems more like an argument for discharging debt under a Republican president and shouting from the rooftops that the other guys clearly took advantage of them by suggesting you needed an education in understanding or feeling sorry for people instead of just life experience. I'll pay you 60,000 to understand how bad it is to be poor rather than volunteering to see it first hand for free.
University degrees have become an enrichment method for ****head people and I'd really prefer exposing the absurdity of it and make them broke and unemployed and if the process for doing that is dissolving the debt we as a nation have acquired as a loan shark I'm all for it. Expose these people for being crooks. The proportion of degrees that contain the same value and information as perusing Wikipedia is out of control.
The framing of student loan debt dissolution should be you got hoodwinked by these people, rather than the way it's currently being portrayed that it's an avenue to success. Success is achieved by working hard.
Fightin_Aggie said:Wanting others to pay for what you bought is not a struggleGhost of Andrew Eaton said:
If you take on a debt, you should pay it back.
Also, no need to revel in someone else's struggles.
It's called theft
Quote:
Expanding income-driven repayment plans is the administration's main strategy for preventing loan balances from ballooning in the future, and while their new terms got less attention than mass debt cancellation, they could cost far more over time than a one-time cancellation plan would, according to estimates by the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
IDR plans were designed to help lower earners borrow for college, but in their current form, few have been able to use them effectively because of technical problems and onerous amounts of income-verification paperwork.
The administration's proposed changes would provide qualifying borrowers with more-generous options that could leave them debt-free sooner, while paying off only a fraction of their balances. The plan, which the Education Department finalized on Friday, will cut payments to zero for borrowers making $32,800 or less a year. The department estimated it will save all other borrowers at least $1,000 a year.
Quote:
The Biden administration is taking steps to help borrowers with the transition. For one year, beginning on Oct. 1, borrowers who miss payments won't be referred to collections agencies, reported to credit bureaus or put in default, according to the White House.
That last one is sneaky. They're not going to tell people that the interest that has NOT been accruing is going to start again and start racking up that year...YouBet said:
A few details from Biden's latest plan: https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-borrowers-after-three-year-reprieve-must-now-pay-be6ddb2dQuote:
Expanding income-driven repayment plans is the administration's main strategy for preventing loan balances from ballooning in the future, and while their new terms got less attention than mass debt cancellation, they could cost far more over time than a one-time cancellation plan would, according to estimates by the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
IDR plans were designed to help lower earners borrow for college, but in their current form, few have been able to use them effectively because of technical problems and onerous amounts of income-verification paperwork.
The administration's proposed changes would provide qualifying borrowers with more-generous options that could leave them debt-free sooner, while paying off only a fraction of their balances. The plan, which the Education Department finalized on Friday, will cut payments to zero for borrowers making $32,800 or less a year. The department estimated it will save all other borrowers at least $1,000 a year.Quote:
The Biden administration is taking steps to help borrowers with the transition. For one year, beginning on Oct. 1, borrowers who miss payments won't be referred to collections agencies, reported to credit bureaus or put in default, according to the White House.
