Student Loan Forgiveness - US

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 218 comments
  • 14,671 views
Forgive me for waxing political here.
One way to cut the cost of college is to eliminate student lending.
In a way the forgiveness is unfair, but that money should never have been backed by the government, let alone lent out to begin with.
I took enough classes for an associate's degree and paid up front for them all. In real life I have two jobs: one is roughly 35 hours a week doing maintenance and repair, the second is as a musician. I also have military benefits and live comfortably. I do those jobs because I enjoy them. I enjoy the work and the people. Neither requires that degree though they do require training.
As much as I'd like a $20,000 check from the US Government, I'd like more to see someone who's stuck with student debt have that money.
Just IMO, I may be wrong, and we may see it differently.
 
Sorry you're ethnic group has a long history of " changing the deal " ,
Lol, you're way too focused on ethnicity to keep playing victim.
you want loan forgiveness pay me back my money , you can't just con people into paying and then go " you know what guy's it's all free now ".
Except it's not "all free now".
Like yeah you probably do feel good making young responsable college kids fork out 10 grand a year and then go " well you could have just not paid !"
Sorry, I'm not a Conservative boomer who would run this argument about not paying.
and then make ignorant assumptions that A . I was rich B. I'm old so I paid peanuts for college C. That I'm against free college or loan forgiveness D. That I'm somehow jellous .
Lol, never made any of these assumptions except you reek of jealousy like the rest of the people whining about how a younger generation might be getting cut a break with the ridiculous cost of a college education in this country. Again, you even actively touched on a primary issue regarding it, yet remained upset over "Well, how come he didn't have to pay & I did".

Edit* Speaking of ignorant assumptions, is that not what you did with the very quote I just shared assuming a white euro member is going to call you privileged?
If you are going to forgive loans , forgive them retroactivley too , federal loans have only been a thing for 20 ish years.
You might want to try that again. Federal loans have existed since the 1960's & this issue has been noted well before 2000.
10912075-cc6b-ca34-80cb-792760d4ab4f.png
 
Last edited:
Something about my username must trigger people, but I'm not a white guy lol. Unless "euro" applies to people of European origin in which case I have some bad news for him.

However, I'll leave this one to the US posters who are doing a great job so far.
This is literally in the opening post of this thread. No wonder he needs a refund on his college degree. :lol:
 
Last edited:
ut I know I'm gonna get so white euro telling me I'm privileged when I'm half Hispanic / native American suffering from dyslexia in a field that does not tolerate typos.
If you're half Native American, why did you even pay for college in the first place? There are millions of dollars in scholarships out there available purely for people who are Native American. I have a friend who's a quarter Ojibwe, he paid exactly $0 to get his Ph.D.
 
Because I paid my loans and will see a tax hike vs the person who did not pay at all , I pay twice they pay once. No one is asking for a tax break for people who did pay.
In the long term you're probably getting your money back. The debt forgiveness should help these people focus on moving on with their lives instead of just trying to survive, in some cases at least. That way they stand to be more productive and benefit society as whole.
Also not being able to pay your student loan is 100% irresponsability , you CHOSE to go to college!
College is a choice, but getting your degree just as a recession hits or the job market turns sour isn't. There are factors beyond the borrowers control that will impact their ability to pay. Pinning full responsibility on the debtor is unrealistic.
Your stupid idea is once again to punish people who do pay to cover for those who choose not to pay.
Point out where.
Explain to me how it's fair a poor person like me paid but some one who grew up middle class and doesn't pay gets a free ride.
Who is making this argument?
Also as for the interest . These loans are not unpayable , they are a average car bill note but have predatory interest . They go from affordable to unafordable real quick .
That's not a fundamental issue with interest, that's more of an issue with the interest rate. There are measures to offset this though such as grace periods where no interest is accrued. It's already possible to pay no interest on a school loan, but again luck factors into this. If you get a good paying job straight out of college, that helps. That is not a given though.
 
Sorry you're ethnic group has a long history of " changing the deal "

, seems a lot like what them dead whites did to my dead ancestors with them land treaties changing up the deal last second screwing good intentioned folks over. Justice and equality my booty.

What the actual. This is just about the most ill-conceived racist comparison I've seen in a very long time.

I'm 100% for it if I get paid all of what I paid during college with interest back, why should I have to pay for others who refused to work during college? I came from a poor family and busted my ass off to afford college while everyone else was out partying.

Me too. It's not fair. It's not intended to be fair. It's a legitimate criticism that it's not fair. It is an attempt to help some people out who need help in a particular way, and it ignores people who don't.

The people who are behind this want college to be free for everyone. If they could do that tomorrow, wave a magic wand and make college free, you'd be mad because you paid for it. That actually literally happened to me. I paid for kindergarten for 2 kids before my state made it free for the 3rd. I think it makes sense, and if it was going to happen, someone was going to be the last to pay for it. Turns out I was one of those people.

Not a penny should be forgiven, but I also believe with all my heart they shouldn't put interest on the loans, that's what makes these loans so predatory,

Predatory? Interest is not "predatory".

At the very least I want tax credits or something to be given to folks who did pay, it's simply NOT fair we paid, were responsible, diligent, and to a degree sacrificed ourselves to be this way, and get nothing from it.

It's good to see that your heart is in the wrong place here. "Someone is benefitting from something? If I can't get my taste, nobody should". If you see someone get help and your gut reaction is to get pissed, take a long look in the mirror. When you see Sally Struthers raising money for starving kids in Africa do you think "that's not fair, I just paid for my groceries?" It's an extreme example, but hopefully you see the parallel.

So go ahead, justify f'ng over a bunch of people who did the right thing

Nobody is getting f'ed over. Are you worse off for student loan forgiveness? No you are not. If you're going to cry about inflation, keep in mind that it erodes your law school debt.
 
Last edited:
Thank you republicans for the law suit , for nearly two years I have been paying off my law school loans off interest free and have saved thousands. Glad us hard working responsible people got rewarded today. Fools act as if poor people weren't paying into loans . All that money pissed away when you could have just been a irresponsible prick, never paid a penny and gotten 20g's wiped clean.

Also take the L losers. Sucks to be wrong 💪.
 
Last edited:
"If I can't benefit from something, nobody should" is right from the same brainworm as "I had to suffer [x] so you should too".

I guess that's why they're also sexist, racist, and homophobic.
 
"If I can't benefit from something, nobody should" is right from the same brainworm as "I had to suffer [x] so you should too".

I guess that's why they're also sexist, racist, and homophobic.
That's the most ignorant generalization you've typed yet.
Yeah, your team lost. As they should have. Clear as hell an overreach of power. It seems when your opinion is on the wrong side of a ruling, name call is the reaction.
Take the L.
 
That's the most ignorant generalization you've typed yet.
Yeah, your team lost. As they should have. Clear as hell an overreach of power. It seems when your opinion is on the wrong side of a ruling, name call is the reaction.
Take the L.
I'm not American, don't have a "team", and agree businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

What's your next dismal driveby?
 
Clear as hell an overreach of power

I haven't had a chance to read the majority opinion or the dissent. What's your reasoning for why it's a "clear as hell" "overreach of power"? Maybe you can save me the trouble.
 
Take the L from a member who regularly gets it every time he comes in here and then leaves for months. Just as he will after this week.
 
@Racer294

For what it's worth, I finally got around to browsing Biden v. Nebraska, which is the student loan forgiveness decision.

The text at issue is this:

"Under the HEROES Act, the Secretary 'may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.' §1098bb(a)(1)" [emphasis added]

The court seems to allow COVID as a legitimate presidentially-declared and linked national emergency. That leaves the decision to hinge on "waive or modify". The court seems to have decided that the forgiveness program was misusing "waive or modify" to "rewrite that statute". The minority and executive's position seems to be that "waive or modify" encompasses loan forgiveness, which is elsewhere within the executive's powers in many circumstances, including financial hardship of the student.

As you can see, reasonable minds can disagree. Both sides have a real argument. On the one hand, congress has made a law that permits broad presidential authority in light of an emergency. On the other hand, congress can't delegate lawmaking power, and if their law is too broad, their law is unconstitutional in the first place. Really it's not clear which side is correct, which leaves the court with lots of latitude to side politically.

TL;DR - it's NOT a "clear as hell overreach of power".
 
Last edited:
Figured this would be best place to put this nice story:

We need those tuition free programs. Yes they should demand hard work and an absolute commitment from the students.
In my time in the US Navy I was deployed three times. On the two longest ones I did school work, the first one to further my Navy career and the second to earn college credits. I've enough college credit to skip the first two semesters of an associate's degree. It cost me $250. That's right, two hundred fifty US dollars and that's it.
I have never had a student loan. With the military courses and PACE classes I never needed one.
 
Last edited:
Well **** lol. You should because mine got taken over by a different company. When I finally got the motivation to be poor again I found out I was one month delinquent but I got it sorted.
 
President Donald Trump rubbed salt on the wound of his recent Harvard international student ban by claiming a “lot of them” can’t even do basic math.
“A lot of the people need remedial math,” he said. “The students can’t add two and two and they go to Harvard... now, wait a minute. So why would they get in?”
A decade ago, it was a major accomplishment to be the first person in your family from a small rural town to go to college. You were the “smart” one in the family and would hopefully go on to do something great. Now college is seen as a liberal scam that’s only for elites used to brainwash people away from Christian and family values. It’s a waste of money and they view themselves on the same level as people who graduate from a university.

This is an example of Trump taking it further and painting even an Ivy League university as a joke. We will start getting “experts” with Harvard credentials get downplayed because in the eyes of many Republicans, those credentials won’t mean jack.
 
President Donald Trump rubbed salt on the wound of his recent Harvard international student ban by claiming a “lot of them” can’t even do basic math.

A decade ago, it was a major accomplishment to be the first person in your family from a small rural town to go to college. You were the “smart” one in the family and would hopefully go on to do something great. Now college is seen as a liberal scam that’s only for elites used to brainwash people away from Christian and family values. It’s a waste of money and they view themselves on the same level as people who graduate from a university.

This is an example of Trump taking it further and painting even an Ivy League university as a joke. We will start getting “experts” with Harvard credentials get downplayed because in the eyes of many Republicans, those credentials won’t mean jack.
The man definitely has a big mouth on him and he's not ashamed of it. In a way it's kinda like the schoolyard bully turning out as Miss America. He's got some good ideas and some bad ones although he's blunt and unapologetic about both. We have this preconceived notion they'll be all proper and polite in public. Trump's personality fits with that notion with all the grace of a good head stomp from a muddy combat boot.
For the record, the best drive by grouching is done from a fast car. Might I recommend the Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe?
 
More like "He occasionally stumbles upon some bad aspect of the political status quo that is advantageous for politicians of both parties to leave in place, then demands the first thing that comes to mind for it be fixed immediately and is regarded as a genius even if he quietly walks it back later"
 
Last edited:
I can answer that easily, with a very recent example.

De minimis exemptions for customs duties. The US' implementation of it was almost a hundred years old. The value attached to it was five times higher than the EU's and 10 times higher than Japan's; despite the US market buying far far more of the stuff that would fall under it than either of them. It was raised significantly about a decade after manufacturing companies started carving out a market in the US where they could send stuff directly to the US using bargain basement shipping rates purely because the US was too lazy to enforce it when it was that strict; directly leading to the uncontestable market positions of Temu and the like. It actually was a real problem that allowed Chinese factories to dropship things directly to Americans for a lower price than it would cost an American company just for the shipping of the item to the US if they wanted to sell out of inventory held in the US (for example, parts suppliers undercutting the company they designed the part for in the first place and dumping the product made in the same factory on the US market for far less than the OEM could afford to do so). Democrats didn't want to do anything about it because Obama was the one who had raised it 4 times higher than it had been previously. Republicans didn't want to do anything about it because they didn't want to hurt the economy during Trump's first term. It led to a perfect storm where Americans just don't know what customs duties/tariffs are because unless they are personally importing a car they probably never had to pay them no matter how many things they bought online directly from the factory that made them. That's probably what allowed him to say stupid nonsense about "we'll make country X pay the tariff" on the campaign trail and get so little pushback; because Americans just never have real experience with import tariffs. Big companies had eaten (or at least sucessfully hidden) the cost, and anything people were personally buying direct from China on eBay or whatever was probably cheap enough that the only price they paid beyond the listing price was state sales tax.



Come his second term, he notes that it's a problem (with racist and unrelated reasoning and boogeyman scare quotes about fentanyl which appeals to enough of his base already that they don't care how true it is). Says something has to be done with it. Does something about it (in an extremely stupid way by completely eliminating de minimis, that was obviously unenforcable and needed to be put on pause and then walked back entirely until recently when they actually knew how to do it). The problem as he described is (perceived to be) completely eliminated as a result, and very quickly at that. That is his allure, and it has always been his allure; and Democrats screaming about everything he does even when it's popular is remembered more than Trump quietly walking things back when he does something stupid.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back