Biden overstepped his authority and SC stopped loan forgiveness

[CJD]

(06-30-2023, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but that would display a marked ignorance of how our government is set up.  Pelosi herself correctly pointed out that Biden didn't have the authority.  The legislative branch has ceded a lot more power to the executive than the Frames ever intended, they certainly don't need to continue to do so.

You say that, but this vote was along party lines, so if Hillary had been elected and those 3 R judges were instead D judges, chances are Biden's forgiveness plan would have been approved. 

Government is what we make it. Precedents only go so far, as we have seen in recent years. Law is not a science, it's an art and judges can interpret historical documents or intentions to do whatever they want to do in the present.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2023, 01:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You say that, but this vote was along party lines, so if Hillary had been elected and those 3 R judges were instead D judges, chances are Biden's forgiveness plan would have been approved.

I think you're 100% correct.  Disturbing, isn't it? 

Quote:Government is what we make it. Precedents only go so far, as we have seen in recent years. Law is not a science, it's an art and judges can interpret historical documents or intentions to do whatever they want to do in the present.

To a point.  Once the rules become more and more fluid they reach a point where they aren't rules at all.  At that point everything breaks down and a new set of rules are established.  This usually does not happen peacefully, so it is something to be avoided.

[KillerGoose]

(06-30-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now, something like UBI I could back.  If it affects every person then I'm all for it  I'd even back limits like no one who nets more than $1 million a year is eligible.  But the idea of poor people paying for other people's college degrees just rankles.  It's patently unfair, as is what you're describing.

I think UBI, or some variation of it is going to come to the forefront within our lifetime. Especially if advancements in artificial intelligence prove to be of serious value. Of course, new and unique jobs will be created from that but likely not enough to hold everyone over if we have mass job automation. That's a real rabbit hole to go down but yes, I agree with what you're saying. I have had brief conversations about this with some folks here in Oklahoma and it has been met with stiff resistance but I seriously think we are going to reach a point where some variation of it will be necessary. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2023, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's a trope like the welfare queen and its as lame as your excuse for using it.

No, it's not.  One is racially charged, the other is funny.

Quote:No, obviously, I don't want my tax money being used for bad cops and bad business decisions which why I mentioned them.  You're not dense enough to have not understood that.  I guess.

Ahh, so you agree with me.  See, that was easy.

Quote:I explained why it was lame.  You know why it's lame.  So I won't waste your time, or mine, re-explaining.

Can you use a less ableist word next time?  I'm offended.

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2023, 01:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Alternatively, people could keep their goals more reasonable, and thus more easily achieved.  

The only career advice I got from my old man was to "try to do something you don't hate."  Wise enough words.  

[CJD]

(06-30-2023, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're 100% correct.  Disturbing, isn't it? 


To a point.  Once the rules become more and more fluid they reach a point where they aren't rules at all.  At that point everything breaks down and a new set of rules are established.  This usually does not happen peacefully, so it is something to be avoided.

I think there have been much more disturbing decisions from the Supreme Court but I understand your position. 

The fears of a slippery slope are well documented and a one sided SC can make sweeping changes to the landscape of our society (as we've seen) but if a revolution occurs to change the set of laws, I don't think that revolution will occur via SC decisions. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2023, 01:58 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think UBI, or some variation of it is going to come to the forefront within our lifetime. Especially if advancements in artificial intelligence prove to be of serious value. Of course, new and unique jobs will be created from that but likely not enough to hold everyone over if we have mass job automation. That's a real rabbit hole to go down but yes, I agree with what you're saying. I have had brief conversations about this with some folks here in Oklahoma and it has been met with stiff resistance but I seriously think we are going to reach a point where some variation of it will be necessary. 

And it would be fair, something student loan forgiveness is most demonstrably not.  I also, agree, were coming up on a second industrial revolution type shift in the job market.  I'm already encouraging my nephews to go into fields that rely on human judgment.

[BengalYankee]

(06-30-2023, 01:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You say that, but this vote was along party lines, so if Hillary had been elected and those 3 R judges were instead D judges, chances are Biden's forgiveness plan would have been approved. 

If Hillary had been elected in 2016 only 2 of the 3 Judges would be installed. The last one would have to wait for the 2020 election results aka the 2016 election.   

[*pally*]

(06-30-2023, 02:37 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: If Hillary had been elected in 2016 only 2 of the 3 Judges would be installed. The last one would have to wait for the 2020 election results aka the 2016 election.   

why couldn't Hillary and the Democratic Senate have forced through the 3rd nomination just like Trump and McConnell did?  Though, in reality the 3rd seat at the last minute probably wouldn't have happened.  Odds are RBG would have retired sometime between 2016 and 2020

[BengalYankee]

(06-30-2023, 02:48 PM)pally Wrote: why couldn't Hillary and the Democratic Senate have forced through the 3rd nomination just like Trump and McConnell did?  Though, in reality the 3rd seat at the last minute probably wouldn't have happened.  Odds are RBG would have retired sometime between 2016 and 2020

I maybe wrong, but wasn't the GOP Senate still in charge before Nov 2020 election?
If so McDonell would do the same he did to Obama before Nov 2016 election.    

Which is why I wrote what I wrote. 

[CJD]

(06-30-2023, 02:37 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: If Hillary had been elected in 2016 only 2 of the 3 Judges would be installed. The last one would have to wait for the 2020 election results aka the 2016 election.   

If Hillary was president, I think it was fairly likely Ginsburg would have retired rather than die trying to wait out Trump's presidency. 

[BengalYankee]

(06-30-2023, 03:05 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If Hillary was president, I think it was fairly likely Ginsburg would have retired rather than die trying to wait out Trump's presidency. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2023, 02:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The only career advice I got from my old man was to "try to do something you don't hate."  Wise enough words.  

Your dad never told me that.  Wish he woulda.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2023, 03:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Your dad never told me that.  Wish he woulda.  

He'd be glad to know I don't hate my job.  He'd be pretty disappointed I spend so much time on the internet arguing with strangers about political crap, though.

[CJD]

(06-30-2023, 03:26 PM)BengalYankee Wrote:

Care to expound?

[Millhouse]

Was there a part of Biden's plan attempting to address as to why there has been a big influx of student debt these last 20-30 years now? Honestly I dont know. Otherwise this was nothing but a political voter grab scheme which could have costed all the taxpayers quite a few bucks.

[CKwi88]

If only the $700 billion plus in PPP loans forgiven were put under as much scrutiny as student loans.

'murica

[Luvnit2]

(06-30-2023, 12:46 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: If you really felt this way you probably wouldn't support student loan forgiveness. The rich ain't going to pay for it. The little guy is. Despite what the suits say in Washington, money talks. Doesnt matter if it's a Democrat or Republican administration. The purse strings are so tight on so many households, even an increase in the water bill is detrimental, let alone an increase in taxes to pay for student loans.

You are correct, the middle class always gets the brunt of money spent by the government sooner or later

[Luvnit2]

(06-30-2023, 01:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote:
I'll admit it's easier to hear this coming from you and not some GOP politician who accepted nearly half a million in PPP loan forgiveness.  

Again, we can be against student debt forgiveness, but people acting like this is some sort of surprise or insane idea that taxpayers should pay off other people's debt seems a bit self serving. This is pretty much what we as a country do...but we are good at deciding who deserves the tax payers' money and who is being greedy and stupid.

Paying off my debt is smart and helpful, paying off other people's debt is unfair and encourages poor work ethic and financial stupidity.

This is apples to oranges. The PPP was designed to keep small businesses from going out of business. It was not a loan forgiveness program. It was a program to encourage businesses to keep people working. The parameters were very specific on how a business can apply and get the funds. But, the employer (business) had to meet criteria like a loss of at least 20% in sales/revenue in ay given quarter (3 months0 and continue to pay employees. Some of the employees were paid by employers even though they were not working to meet the eligibility requirement.

The PPP program not helped employees keep their job, it was an investment in the future as these small businesses could survive and continue to pay tax revenue and add employees over time versus putting a whole lot of people out of work which removes tax revenue from those unemployed.

The Biden loan forgiveness is straight removal of around 430 billion dollars being paid to banks. It is actually the opposite of being a program designed to encourage college students and graduates to work. 

The bottom line is parents and students need to understand if they sign a contract, they will be held accountable to pay it back. However, there are programs available now for students to apply under hardships. A hardship is a thing like major medical bills. A hardship is not a graduate (they pay 6 months after graduation) that refuses to work and make money to pay back the loan.

[Luvnit2]

(06-30-2023, 01:13 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I am assuming you're not meaning this to be taken literally, but not everyone affected received a useless degree in gender studies or underwater basket weaving. There are plenty of genuine degrees that end up with the recipient not making enough to handle their loans effectively unless they make massive life changes, such as moving back in with their parents or something along those lines. That's always not an option, either. I graduated making roughly ~$52k with a Marketing degree. I didn't take out loans as I went to a community college and then a satellite campus, so I was able to work full time and pay it off with some assistance from work and the Choctaw nation. However, if I had went to a conventional college and accrued $100k in debt + interest, I would have been in trouble. That also would have been a massive financial decision that I honestly wasn't educated to make at 18, and no one really educated me about it. The consensus at the time was "Okay, you're graduating high school, now you go to college." 

I am not going to take a hardline stance that this should have happened, but I will say that something should be done about the loan situation. We can absolutely find ways to improve it. Even taking a step to make the loans no interest is a start. If they want to do a forgiveness package that is more palatable, they could propose a matching program where every dollar that is paid towards the principle is a dollar forgiven. I am of the opinion that higher education is only beneficial for the country and we are seeing financing issues with stagnating wages and rising cost of living. It would be beneficial to rectify that issue. 

You made a choice to work and pay off your college a you went. You made a decision to commute versus staying on campus. Others made a decision to stay on campus, get loans for everything from room and board to meal plans. You missed the party life more so than those on campus. You sacrificed and made decisions so you were debt free, many others made different decisions like not working all summer or a couple of days a week while in session.

Two different choices, 2 different outcomes.