This may be the biggest accounting fraud in history

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 10:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I read the actual WSJ editorial and you read an article about the WSJ article.  

Yes, I asked where the fraud was and you have yet to show any.  If the CBO makes a projection that turns out to be incorrect that's not accounting fraud.  Furthermore, the CBO projected a surplus of $114 billion from federal student loans in 2017, $8.7 billion in 2018, and $-31 billion in 2019.  Or a net change of $145 billion from surplus to deficit since Trump became president.  Now the government is considering selling off the debt, but any lenders considering buying the debt would want favorable conditions.  So if there is any sort of "collusion" I would point the finger at the Amway queen and the founder of Trump University looking to buy that debt to make a buck off of it.  But, of course, let's blame Obama for the CBO projection in 2017.

I've also tracked down the 2010 bill in question; Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, since the WSJ didn't give any specifics.  In section 4 of the bill, earmarks for savings are prohibited.  In section 5, any savings will be applied to deficit reduction.  Which means any claims by the WSJ or others that any savings from this bill are earmarked for Obamacare are unequivocally false.

In 2012, Congress enacted income based repayment plans and pay as you earn plans.  These don't pay for Obamacare either, but they do include debt forgiveness after paying for 20-25 years.  Possibly debt forgiveness for those that choose public service and the military option, but I'm not sure about these last two and I've spent too much time already trying to find actual facts instead of unfounded opinions and outright lies so I'm not going to verify the last part.

Also, there was no "nationalization" of the markets.  In 2010, the federal government offered direct loans instead of private loans guaranteed by the federal government.  Student loans from private lenders are still available although usually at higher interests rates.

So basically the WSJ editorial is a bunch of Wall Street advocates advocating for Wall Street and their readers believing everything they write without corroborating information.  Basically fake news, without the news since this is an editorial.

Of course it was an OP-ED. Did I ever state otherwise. You've asked a question "Where's the fraud"? and I provided an answer "Misrepresentation of financial stability/profit?" That has lead to a couple pages of White Noise. Let just end with; "You're Right" The WSJ is wrong.