Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, November 19, 2022

The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow its student loan relief plan to go forward ...

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I'm sure the non-partisan, totally co-equal branch of government will give it a fair consideration.

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-19 01:07 PM | Reply

'Fair' consideration?

#2 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-11-19 01:11 PM | Reply

"I don't see student loan debt in the Constitution. S-can it!" - SCOTUS

#3 | Posted by zarnon at 2022-11-19 01:16 PM | Reply

'Fair' consideration?

I was kidding. They will just say no.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-19 01:27 PM | Reply

Don't be too surprised if the Liberal branch of the court does not see "justice" in continuing a program that exclusively forgives debt for the privileged (college educated) while refusing provide any similar relief for the less priveleged (blue collar workers who did not receive the benefits and added income potential of higher education)

#5 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 01:38 PM | Reply

Liberal branch of the court

How could there possibly be such a thing? They are non-partisan, it's in the Constitution.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-19 01:42 PM | Reply

Hello

Greetings new poster! Welcome to the DR!

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-19 01:43 PM | Reply

while refusing provide any similar relief for the less priveleged (blue collar workers who did not receive the benefits and added income potential of higher education)

A significant portion of those eligible for student loan relief are those who never received degrees, and those who received loans for trade schools.

"Many Americans understandably, but mistakenly, assume that the vast majority of student loan debtors have 4-year degrees, when in fact about half do not," said Aaron Sojourner, a labor economist at the Upjohn Institute.

34% hadn't attained a degree; 11% graduated from a two-year program; and 10% received a professional certificate, like from a trade school.

His data is in line with the White House estimates that nearly one-third of borrowers have debt but no degree.

www.axios.com

So in short, you have no idea what you're pontificating about and your opinion is not only ignorant and ill-informed, it needlessly promotes class bias for no reason whatsoever.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-19 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

...while refusing provide any similar relief for the less priveleged(sic) (blue collar workers...)...
#5 | Posted by Miranda7

Except for all those that took out loans to go to beauty school, or to learn computer programing, auto mechanics, etc.
I looked into motorcycle mechanic school 20 years ago, it was ten grand back then, I would have needed a loan.

#10 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2022-11-19 02:46 PM | Reply

while refusing provide any similar relief for the less priveleged (blue collar workers
#5 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

I'm sure the new Republican House Majority will get right on that!

I'm also sure that when they don't, you'll still bemoan Democrats helping average people.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-19 03:27 PM | Reply

Sure looks like they didn't intend for it to pass! That rascal Biden just bought bites!

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2022-11-19 05:21 PM | Reply

"A significant portion of those eligible for student loan relief are those who never received degrees, and those who received loans for trade schools."

True, also a significant portion of those eligible for student loan relief are those who recieved POST graduate degrees. Why are you ignoring that?

You know who ISNT eligible for student loan relief? The MAJORITy of Black Americans who don't have any post HS education at all. Why are you ignoring them?

So in short, Tony, I know EXaCtly what I am pontificating about, the class warfare is very real. The liberal concern for lower income people is very fake.

Everyone eligible for this program has ALREADY benefitted from years of debt relief, and has also benefitted from,the enhanced earning potential they recieved due to their additional education. (Except those who failed to graduate, which they.must bear some responsibility for)

Everyone NOT eligible for this program (HS grads with no post HS education) recieved no debt relief help whatsoever. But they don't matter to you.

So spare me your --------, Tony, this is a program that helps the middle to upper middle class, while brazenly -------- on the lowest income workers, who only dreamed of going to college. These folks struggled throughout the pandemic to make ends meet on service Industry with no help whatsoever, trying to make rent and car payments. Where is their debt relief?

You want to trade this program in for one giving a similar benefit to the neediest workers, I'll jump right behind it and give it my wholehearted support.

#13 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 06:54 PM | Reply

"His data is in line with the White House estimates that nearly one-third of borrowers have debt but no degree."

Last time I checked, one third was not a majority. More than TWO THIRDS of these borrowers DO have a degree. Lots of them have masters degrees. Why do they need our help right now?

#14 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 07:00 PM | Reply

Crawl back under your rock.

#15 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-11-19 07:17 PM | Reply

Miranda, when you have to make up strawmen to use in argument against the facts already presented, you've lost the argument already, and I know you know this. And just how utterly ridiculous is it to bring up people who aren't impacted by an issue as the reason why those affected shouldn't have their problems addressed.

The people who have no post high school education do not have student loans, hence they have no need for relief. Does this really need to be said? Is EVERYONE eligible for most government programs designed to address specific problems? Your rant is nonsensical and irrelevant within the context of this issue. You have no idea the statistics of those receiving relief because you've never taken the time to seek actual information outside of memes, non sequiturs, and disinformation that you spout.

I'm not going to repeat all the statistics already discussed in the myriad threads about student loan relief, but you couldn't be further from reality about those eligible for relief. Student loan debt cannot be write off in bankruptcy. Why student loans, when every other debt can be discharged? Do you have any idea how many senior Americans are still paying for loans taken out decades ago?

one third was not a majority. More than TWO THIRDS of these borrowers DO have a degree.

The numbers were posted for you and yet you can't even comprehend them accurately while telling me I'm wrong: 34% don't have ANY degree; 11% have associate degrees - 2 year; 10% have professional certificates or graduate from trade schools - like cosmetology, medical/dental techs or auto mechanics, etc. the very blue collar workers YOU claimed weren't getting anything from this relief!

That equals 55% of those receiving relief, not 1/3rd. So there are ZERO individuals with either 4 year or advanced degrees within the majority of those eligible for relief.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-19 07:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...Posted by Miranda7

Yea, and why are all those farmers getting subsidies but I'm not? Just because I've never had a farm or tried to grow anything doesn't mean that program shouldn't benefit me.

#17 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2022-11-19 09:22 PM | Reply

"And just how utterly ridiculous is it to bring up people who aren't impacted by an issue as the reason why those affected shouldn't have their problems addressed."

The issue is DEBT, EVERYONE is impacted by debt. No matter how you parse oit the numbers, the 34% 11% + 10% all enjoy the ADVANTAGE of enhanced earning potential as a result of those student loans, increased income that is available to them to PAY for those loans. You want to reward ONLY those people, who borrowed, got several years reprieve from paying back their debt ALREADY, over and above others who recieved NO benefit if a post secondary education whatsoever.

And STILL you ignore the MILLIONS with graduate degrees who have benefited and will continue to benefit from this program while the waitressses, custodians, landscapers, service workers and others with HS diplomas struggle to pay THEIR debts ans support their children But I guess these are YOUR definition of people who "aren't impacted by the issue" so it's utterly ridiculous ... ..

#18 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 09:23 PM | Reply

". Student loan debt cannot be write off in bankruptcy. Why student loans, when every other debt can be discharged? "

Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would be a much better solution than blanket debt forgiveness which completely disregards need.

There is a big difference between a professional student who borrowed to pursue a doctorate in English Lit and a struggling parent who borrowed to get a welding certificate or cosmetology license. I'm with you on that. Biden is not.

#19 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 09:32 PM | Reply

"You know who ISNT eligible for student loan relief? The MAJORITy of Black Americans who don't have any post HS education at all. Why are you ignoring them?"

Student loan relief is ignoring them because they don't have any student loans.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-19 09:33 PM | Reply

You know what a Black person has to do to get student loan relief?

The same thing a White person has to do.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-19 09:34 PM | Reply

@#13 ... I know EXaCtly what I am pontificating about, the class warfare is very real. The liberal concern for lower income people is very fake....

Why, exactly, is the liberal concern for lower income people is very fake?

Channeling Alf, I'm all ears...

thx.

#22 | Posted by lamplighter at 2022-11-19 09:45 PM | Reply

@#19 ... Allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy would be a much better solution than blanket debt forgiveness which completely disregards need. ...

Maybe.

But your whole premise seems to be based upon a rather shaky foundation.

i.e.

... The liberal concern for lower income people is very fake. ...

So, at this point I'd proffer that your alias needs to justify that strategic comment before we can discuss any of the tactical issues your alias raises.

Yer up...

#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-11-19 09:49 PM | Reply

@#13 ... I know EXaCtly what I am pontificating about...

That's great.

So there should not be any issue with your alias answering questions poised of it.

#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-11-19 09:51 PM | Reply

"Posed to it", your alias meant ... .

#25 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-11-19 09:53 PM | Reply

So, at this point I'd proffer that your alias needs to justify that strategic comment before we can discuss any of the tactical issues your alias raises.
Yer up...
#23 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

You do go on and on and not say a dam thing. Why does someone need to justify "that strategic comment". You can't argue against it?

I can, but lets see if your current alias can toss up a fur ball.

#26 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-11-19 10:02 PM | Reply


Why, exactly, is the liberal concern for lower income people is very fake?

Because "Lumper" liberals, like you, unlike myself, allow Millions upon Millions to live in the shadows and not be allowed to legally work, thus creating second class citizens who must work for slave wages, driving down wages for all low income people.

Second ignoring the crime in their neighborhoods, only getting upset when there's a "school shooting".

At this stage, crime is the number one cause of poverty; companies won't invest, people won't invest in areas where crime is rampant.

#27 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-11-19 10:06 PM | Reply

#22 Who is Alf?

As it pertains to this issue, the justification of my comment is obvious. Biden's debt forgiveness plan expresses NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for lower income people who have not benefitted from higher education, compared to those with relatively higher income people who have.

It is really quite simple. Both groups have debt, but by choosing STUDENT debt as a category for special relief, Biden is selecting to help the more privileged and advantaged over the less privileged, needier people.

Debt forgiveness for incomes up to $125,000?? Seriously? Why does a college grad making $100k need a government bailout? But a HS educated service worker making $35k is ineligible for ANY sort of debt relief? That is ANTI-Progressive.

This was a gift targeted at middle class twenty somethings, to turn out their votes. Biden knows the lower income classes don't vote reliably, but I can tell you, that is the community I work in and they are pissed.

#28 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-19 10:20 PM | Reply

@#26 ... Why does someone need to justify "that strategic comment". You can't argue against it? ...

So, please explain, with evidence, your assertion that "The liberal concern for lower income people is very fake."

Yer up...

#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-11-19 10:22 PM | Reply

@#27 ... Because "Lumper" liberals, like you, unlike myself, allow Millions upon Millions to live in the shadows and not be allowed to legally work, thus creating second class citizens who must work for slave wages, driving down wages for all low income people.

Second ignoring the crime in their neighborhoods, only getting upset when there's a "school shooting". ...

Wow. So much anger.

So little facts.

If your alias wants to be taken seriously, supply data.

For example...

...allow Millions upon Millions to live in the shadows and not be allowed to legally work...

Yeah, let's discuss this.

What facts ya got?


#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-11-19 10:26 PM | Reply

#28 Why don't "lower income people", reliably vote? Are they simple? Are their votes suppressed? Not voting reliably is why the poor get almost nothing from government.

If Biden chooses to help people who do vote reliably how is that harming the others who don't?

Your "concern" about the poor is disingenuous. You don't give a damn about them. The whole pretense of that is a sham.

If you cared about the poor you would be helping them to vote reliably,are you?

#31 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-11-20 03:21 AM | Reply

Biden's debt forgiveness plan expresses NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for lower income people who have not benefitted from higher education

No policy proposal will solve all problems. More importantly, there is even less statutory authority for Biden to act without Congress on student debt than there is to address the debts of poor non-students. So your entire argument is a sham. Just stop pretending to be objective, it's embarrassing.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-20 04:24 AM | Reply

Well i worded that incorrectly. I'll blame the the hour.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-20 04:25 AM | Reply

#22 Who is Alf?
#28 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

You're not really an American, are you?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-20 12:04 PM | Reply

"Debt forgiveness for incomes up to $125,000?? Seriously? Why does a college grad making $100k need a government bailout? But a HS educated service worker making $35k is ineligible for ANY sort of debt relief? That is ANTI-Progressive."

You're one of those people who says "All Lives Matter" as a response to Black Lives Matter.

Your party is free to bail out whomever they please. Including the poor uneducated ones you cant stop weeping about for days in this thread.

Where is the GOP plan help them?

Oh, you're not a Republican? Where is the Libertarian plan to help them?

You don't have one because you're a joke.

You have no solutions. Only complaints. You're an awful person, and it shows.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-20 12:09 PM | Reply

"It is really quite simple. Both groups have debt, but by choosing STUDENT debt as a category for special relief, Biden is selecting to help the more privileged and advantaged over the less privileged, needier people."

Every flat tate tax in existence has the same effect.
You probably don't even realize it, that's how far your head is up your right wing virtue signaling ass.

Do those other poor disadvantaged groups have the kinds of debt Biden can discharge as easily as student loan debt?

You'll never answer that question because you don't like it when your pouty little smirkface gets called on the carpet.

You're truly insufferable. You're a toothache of a woman.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-20 12:15 PM | Reply

Toothache reference: apnews.com

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-20 12:16 PM | Reply

"Biden's debt forgiveness plan expresses NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER for lower income people who have not benefitted from higher education, compared to those with relatively higher income people who have."

So you gonna GET REALLY MAD and >B?HOLD YOUR BREATH until the GOP comes up with a better debt forgiveness plan, or what?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-20 12:19 PM | Reply

#31
You know nothing about me. The majority of my working hours and free time over the last 30 years ahas been dedicated to DIRECTLY helping the poor, including helping them vote. What have YOU done for the poor lately.,..or ever?

#39 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-20 08:04 PM | Reply

Joe, I don't "pretend to be objective" I have no need to pretend to be anything at all. I have my own set of opinions and strong feelings about many situations. This is one of them. Sorry I don't fit into any of the little boxes you prefer to classify people in.

#40 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-20 08:09 PM | Reply

"You know nothing about me."

Can't speak for others here but the fact that you don't even know or care enough to know that Biden has other plans to help the poor in rural areas and the disadvantaged tells me all I need to know about you.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-20 09:21 PM | Reply

Biden has lots of plans, this thread doesn't cover all things for all people. this thread is specifically about debt relief. In particular, debt relief that is tied to the pandemic. Where is the debt relief for the lower classes, Donner?

Tells me all I need to know about many of you ... .your ONLY answer to my concerns about those who need debt relief the MOST is to claim *I* don't really care about those people. Ad Hominem much?

It's a vote buying scheme for the privileged. PERIOD. If the intent was to help those who actually need it, it would have been cut at a much lower income even, say those making $50k or less, not $100k. People making $100k don't need a government handout, and no matter how you slice it, giving it to them takes away from those with greater need.

The fact that is ok with you tells me all I need to know about you ... ..

#42 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-20 10:17 PM | Reply

Miranda, all anyone needs to know about you is that you're both loud and ill informed. You keep insinuating that this relief is skewed to help the affluent and you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you continue to spout lies easily disproven if you simply would research the topic instead of pulling dung out of your hindquarters.

87% of the money would go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. None would flow to individuals earning more than $125,000.

Leveraging this data, Biden said the plan would target poor and middle-class people - "families who need it the most."

This is true in at least two senses: The policy sets an income cap for forgiveness, ensuring the wealthiest households can't participate. And recipients of Pell Grants, a type of financial aid for lower-income families, qualify for double the maximum relief, or $20,000, relative to other borrowers.

Economists at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School estimate that households with annual income below about $82,000 would receive the bulk - 74% - of the total forgiveness funds. These families fall in the bottom 60% of wage earners.

There are also a host of financial benefits from loan forgiveness that would mostly accrue to low and middle earners but which can't be captured in these data analyses, according to education experts.

www.pbs.org

Black borrowers are among those who are most impacted by student debt. While white students make up the majority of college students and thus borrowers, Black college students often take on larger amounts of student debt and are more likely to struggle to repay their loans after graduation.

According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Black and African American college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than white college graduates. Four years after graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 12.5% more than they borrowed and 29% face monthly student loan payments of $350 or more.

The Brookings Institution estimates that on average, Black college graduates owe $52,726 in student debt while white college grads owe closer to $28,006.

When CNBC Make It spoke with Nicole Smith, chief economist at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, in 2020, she pointed out that student debt holds some borrowers back from building intergenerational wealth - thus exacerbating the existing racial wealth gap.

"To build intergenerational wealth, a lot of that is bundled up in homeownership and having the ability to buy and own a home. If you're saddled with too much student loan debt, your ability to actually save up enough for your down payment is influenced by that," she says. "The average Black household has about 1/13th the wealth of the average white household. And if you view student loan debt as negative wealth, as money that could have been used to save for wealth or to purchase a home or to invest in the stock market to accumulate wealth, that potential wealth is now used to repay loans."

www.cnbc.com

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-20 11:27 PM | Reply

Here are other links with copious information on how this program was designed to target those with lower incomes and particularly black and Hispanic borrowers: www.pbs.org abcnews.go.com

You don't even realize that the lawsuit brought by conservatives in Wisconsin was based on their view that this relief was intentionally targeted toward lower income blacks:

A group in Wisconsin claims President Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt violates federal law by intentionally seeking to narrow the racial wealth gap and help Black borrowers.

There are no racial criteria for loan forgiveness. But because of the disparities in who holds student loans, the cancellation policy could have an outsize effect on Black borrowers, who shoulder a disproportionate share of the debt and frequently receive Pell Grants because of a lack of financial resources to attend college.

www.washingtonpost.com

I already know none of this will change your mind because that's something you simply will not do. But those who read this seeking actual facts and information will be able to discern the truth from your misdirectives.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-20 11:28 PM | Reply

I'd be much less opposed if congress passed this and POTUS signed it. I know, I know....crazy talk.

#45 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-11-21 12:01 AM | Reply

I know, I know....crazy talk.

It is. Get used to government by temporary executive orders cuz that's what ya got.

#46 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-21 12:10 AM | Reply

Executive orders is one thing - $500 Billion at the stroke of a pen which could be as much as $1.7 trillion as the only limitations claimed by the Executive were self-imposed.

I'll take a hard pass on that. We have a divided government for a reason.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-11-21 12:47 AM | Reply

"I'd be much less opposed if a Republican congress passed this and a Republican POTUS signed it.

FTFY.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-11-21 12:57 AM | Reply

We have a divided government for a reason.

And because of that, Executive Orders are how things will go.

#49 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-21 01:07 AM | Reply

"FTFY.

#48 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Quit projecting. If Dems had followed established procedure I would have ripped this as bad policy, but it would have been legitimate policy.

#50 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-11-21 01:23 AM | Reply

Danforth - as much as I thought a fence/wall at our Southern border was an OK idea I vehemently opposed it when Trump (R) did an end-around congress and secured $2 Billion via unconstitutional means. My guess is you went ballistic over that move. Yet, here you are clapping like a circus seal over ~ 30 times that amount being appropriated under similar terms - but it's all OK because (D).

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-11-21 01:30 AM | Reply

" but it's all OK because (D)."

No dumfuq, all okay because an entire generation and a half got screwed by outrageous higher education costs. The letter after the name has nothing to do with it. Just like it has nothing to do with the fact the wall was an insulting waste of money, and not aimed at the root of the problem.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-11-21 01:44 AM | Reply

"an entire generation and a half got screwed by outrageous higher education costs."

Agreed, yet once again you move the goalposts - that doesn't get fixed by the stroke of the pen by POTUS.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-11-21 01:51 AM | Reply

"Miranda, all anyone needs to know about you is that you're both loud and ill informed. You keep insinuating that this relief is skewed to help the affluent and you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you continue to spout lies easily disproven if you simply would research the topic instead of pulling dung out of your hindquarters."

While I always appreciate your effort, absolutely nothing you mentioned is news to me. I have done a great deal of research myself and am well aware of the MANY MANY data points involved. Your statistical dump adds absolutely nothing to change the points I have made. It is and was a vote buying scheme.

Statistics can be used to support virtually any position and I see you have mastered the art of complex spin. I have never doubted that this program will help many people, Some of the lower income, some of them affluent. Arguing what percentages of which is tedious and irrelevant to the primary point.

I have never argued that it was "skewed" to help the affluent, but it sure as hell was DESIGNED to help a lot of them, and COMPLETELY ignore the lowest income people who didn't get the benefit of higher education, many of whom have lost their homes, vehicles and livelihoods due to the pandemic.

Statistics can be used to support virtually any position and I see you have mastered the art of complex spin. I have never doubted that this program will help many people, Some of the lower income, some of them affluent. Arguing what percentages of which is tedious and irrelevant to the primary point.

Drop the income cap to $50k per borrower. Use the savings to give each borrower more relief. Then he will have my support. If the true intent was to help those most impacted by COVID, it was preposterous to set the income cap so high.

#54 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 06:35 AM | Reply

"No dumfuq, all okay because an entire generation and a half got screwed by outrageous higher education costs."

Did someone force them to go to college?

For most of us, college is an investment in ourselves. A way to earn more money. But if the cost of the education can't be recouped through the additional vale it provides, it's not an investment.

That's not to say that you shouldn't go to college if it's not value-added, but in that case it's more like a hobby or something. Not an expense that should be forgiven.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 06:55 AM | Reply

And Tony,
When you start losing an argument you dump about a hundred numbers then call me a liar, as though your statistics, which I have never disputed, establish my opinions as "lies". I don't lie or have reason to lie. If you will kindly point out the "lies" you are alleging, I will be glad to respond. Opinions are not lies.

"Ill informed" is another of your go tos. By leveling that accusation, you assume that if I don't mention it I must not know it. I don't post about things I don't understand and care about, and if I do find I am I incorrect, I am the first to admit it and apologizes.

My posts are wordy enough without including an additional 400 lines of background research with each one just to PROVE to you I am "informed" about every possible related fact. I try to narrow an argument down to a specific issue, whereas you prefer to explode a narrow argument into broader, wider terrain.

#56 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 06:58 AM | Reply

"No dumfuq, all okay because an entire generation and a half got screwed by outrageous higher education costs."

Another point that is being lost, this debt forgiveness program has been justified as necessary due to the impact of COVID, which has been around about 3 years, not an entire generation and a half, dumfuq"

If it is REALLY about COVID relief, target it to those most impacted by COVID, which does not include those borrowers making $100K.

#57 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 07:04 AM | Reply

The income cap was placed that high for a couple of very salient reasons. One, depending upon where one lives - ie., in more expensive areas within the U.S. - the small percentage at the top end (5%) are indeed negatively impacted by student loan debt due to their higher cost of living. These people may have 6 figure salaries, but they by no means aren't equally as needy as lower income debtors. And two, Department of Education estimates that, among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year.. www.whitehouse.gov

And perhaps most importantly, are those relief recipients who also received Pell Grants.

Nearly every Pell Grant recipient came from a family that made less than $60,000 a year, and Pell Grant recipients typically experience more challenges repaying their debt than other borrowers.

Pell Grant recipients are more than 60% of the borrower population. The Department of Education estimates that roughly 27 million borrowers will be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief, helping these borrowers meet their economic potential and avoid economic harm from the COVID-19 pandemic. (same link as above)


I have never argued that it was "skewed" to help the affluent, but it sure as hell was DESIGNED to help a lot of them, and COMPLETELY ignore the lowest income people who didn't get the benefit of higher education, many of whom have lost their homes, vehicles and livelihoods due to the pandemic.

The US Government spent trillions of dollars providing widespread relief - including cash infusions and rent forbearance - during the height of the pandemic. To imply that this particular program is somehow unnecessary is to completely ignore the unique factors encompassing student loan lending and the very predatory nature of how millions will never get out from under one of the only debts not dischargeable in bankruptcy, something no corporation nor wealthy person faces no matter how reckless and feckless their debts may have been compiled. Due to the way repayment is structured, many recipients will never repay their loans and many will end up paying their principle amounts multiple times over.

I have done a great deal of research myself and am well aware of the MANY MANY data points involved. Your statistical dump adds absolutely nothing to change the points I have made. It is and was a vote buying scheme.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to conclude that every one of the tens of millions of student loan debtors will choose their political candidates simply because of this relief. Why wouldn't that have been true of the trillions in relief checks sent to almost every household in America? Weak minds create their own reality. Voters are more sophisticated than those who try to pigeonhole them out of their own political biases and jealousies. Every transfer of money done on behalf of the government can be viewed as "buying votes." What do you think high end tax cuts do, make the rich vote for the party NOT giving them more money that the rich don't need? When people use this canard, it only confirms their points are not to be taken seriously for they're not serious people to begin with.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 07:05 AM | Reply

"Drop the income cap to $50k per borrower."

Is income really important?

A 22 year old who just graduated and is starting off in the workforce is likely going to be making less than $50k per year, especially in taxable income. But that doesn't mean they will be making $50k ten years down the road.

A better option would be to mirror the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness program, which requires that one has made ten years of qualifying payments in order to be eligible for loan forgiveness.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 07:06 AM | Reply

Yes income is important for a program that is allegedly need based. On the other hand, I have a cousin carrying debt from an Ivy League school who has chosen to be a starting artist, so there is no perfect solution. Loan Forgiveness tied to public service is also a good thing, IMO.

If just one person can justify how giving $10k to forgive the student debt of a person making $100k is a responsible use of government resources, I'll stop arguing.

Of course someone will present a "progressive" version of Reagan trickle down economics.

#60 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 07:25 AM | Reply

"These people may have 6 figure salaries, but they by no means aren't equally as needy as lower income debtors."

ROFL I may as well stop there. 100k+ salary is way above "needy" even in Los Angeles.

"Department of Education estimates that, among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90% of relief dollars will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year.. www.whitehouse.gov"

So why didn't they just make the cap$75k? They brought in that $75-$125k demographic for a reason? Why? Oh that's right, because they are "equally as needy as lower income debtors"

#61 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 07:38 AM | Reply

So why didn't they just make the cap$75k?

Because if they had lowered it to that point the case could have been made that it was solely based on helping minority students, hence it would be illegal. (See the case mentioned in post 44)

If you go to the whitehouse.gov link the entire goal of the relief program to mainly target lower income and less affluent students is made in painstaking detail. It's starts with the actual title:

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 07:46 AM | Reply

Tony always seeking to distract from a simple argument by exploding it into a million other things, I'll bite,

"The US Government spent trillions of dollars providing widespread relief - including cash infusions and rent forbearance - during the height of the pandemic. "

And lots of that was also poorly targeted, mismanaged, reckless giveaway programs, and here we are with out of control inflation thanks in part to that effort.

"completely ignore the unique factors encompassing student loan lending and the very predatory nature of how millions will never get out from under one of the only debts not dischargeable in bankruptcy, "

I've made it clear that I support allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy

"Due to the way repayment is structured, many recipients will never repay their loans and many will end up paying their principle amounts multiple times over."

And that needs fixing too. I'm a big fan of restructuring loans and bringing down internet rates, and spending government money to do that. I'm also in favor of programs that lower higher education costs and increasing financial aid opportunities.

Forgiving student debt doesn't solve ANY of those problems. It's a short term giveaway for some people, right now. What about current students? Will their loans be forgiven later? If so, will their even BE loans?

"It takes a special kind of ignorance to conclude that every one of the tens of millions of student loan debtors will choose their political candidates simply because of this relief. "

Yeah it would. I didn't say that. You did.

"Voters are more sophisticated than those who try to pigeonhole them out of their own political biases and jealousies. Every transfer of money done on behalf of the government can be viewed as "buying votes."

Sure some are, but a whole bunch of them will vote for their own self interest, especially when it literally comes down to a well publicized election year blitz waving a $10,000 check in their faces, with an application portal opening simultaneous with the polls, and lots of talk that the other party wants to take it away.

#63 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 08:04 AM | Reply

"Because if they had lowered it to that point the case could have been made that it was solely based on helping minority students, hence it would be illegal. (See the case mentioned in post 44)

That is just total --------, as is the Wisconsin group argument to that effect. A $75k income cap cannot be construed as a race based cap, no matter how you try to spin the "potential disproportionate outcome"

"If you go to the whitehouse.gov link the entire goal of the relief program to mainly target lower income and less affluent students is made in painstaking detail. It's starts with the actual title:

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most"

Yeah,they worked real hard to make you believe that. Hard to take you seriously when you tell me the only reason they included the $75-$125k demographic was so they wouldn't be accused of duscr8minatingnagai st white people. Seriously? That's pathetic.

#64 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 08:10 AM | Reply

You could have saved that entire diatribe because not only is relief a part of the program, so is needed reforms in the entire repayment structure. It's not the be all to end all, but it's a start down the road to a more sane and fair system. But as with everything, the first step has to be taken somewhere, and this is it.

That's fine Miranda, you've proven yourself immune to actual fact-based debate. Many of your "what ifs" are answered in the plan that you say you've read so much about without actually reading the plan itself because doing so would eliminate virtually all the ancillary argumentative points you continue to fall back on.

Have a great day.

#65 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 08:12 AM | Reply

Hard to take you seriously when you tell me the only reason they included the $75-$125k demographic was so they wouldn't be accused of duscr8minatingnagai st white people. Seriously? That's pathetic.

You can't educate someone who refuses to learn. Do you realize why the Pell Grant component is so important?

Students of color are more likely to be Pell Grant recipients, with nearly 60% of Black students and roughly half of American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic students receiving a grant each year, compared with just under one-third of white students.

African American 58%
Hispanic / Latinx 47%
American Indian / Alaska Native 51%
White 32%

www.nasfaa.org

The doubling of relief for those eligible for Pell Grants was indeed an intentional effort to address the disproportionate wealth disparity and impact of student loan debt upon households with THE LEAST income. If you fail to see how this helps blacks and POCs more than whites then you're intentionally ignoring the obvious.

#66 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 08:19 AM | Reply

There again, I see you assume I haven't read "the plan" I have. It's weak, fluffy and full of platitudes and empty, non-actionable campaign promises, each designed to capture the attention of a particular special interest group. The whole thing reads like a campaign infomercial which is exactly what it is.

#67 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 08:23 AM | Reply

#67

That proves you haven't read it. It has comprehensive statistics, charts, analysis, and explanations of existing issues and systemic problems within the student loan industry along with the whys and wherefores the entire program is based upon, addressing the specific problems each resultant action was designed to address and deal with.

That anyone would say what you just did only shows your unquestioned bias and lack of seriousness in addressing the issue. Kindly point me to any other white paper that delves into this issue with the depth and probity of the White House fact sheet.

Back up your assertions with actual content from the paper showing that it's "fluff and platitudes". I think you're not commenting on the copious details and statistical breakdowns within the Sheet, you're referring to your own feather-lite commentary and fantastical narratives invented within your own psyche.

#68 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 08:33 AM | Reply

Not sure we are referring to the same documents when you speak of "the plan". Nevertheless I'd prefer to evaluate an actual Legislative Bill, or Executive order. It doesn't become reality without those.

I'm not going to debate every aspect of education reform with you. We agree on more issues than we disagree on. My argument has always been narrowed to two significant issues. Your copious details don't address these two arguments AT ALL.

1) Flashing "debt relief" specifically COVID related relief which EXCLUDES those MOST impacted by COVID was a slap in the face to the LOWEST income workers who have never had the opportunity to pursue higher education at all. These folks, mostly service level workers, were FAR more negatively impacted than the targeted group.

2) including the $75-$125 demographic adds insult to injury, and was clearly a vote buying strategy. You have offered no other plausible explanation for including these people, other than your preposterous claim that it was done to avoid being accused of discrimination against white people.

#69 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2022-11-21 08:51 AM | Reply

A bitter righty who's pissed they're not getting a piece of the pie isn't going to acknowledge the thought behind this policy from the people who actually crafted it.

They're going to see what they want to see, which is cynical partisan nonsense spoon fed to them by the rage peddlers they listen to.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2022-11-21 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"a slap in the face to the LOWEST income workers who have never had the opportunity to pursue higher education at all"

And curing someone's cancer is a slap in the face of all the people with cancer that has no cure!

What is the reason you are absolutely insistent that there must be a Victim in this story?

Because you need Biden and the Dems to your boogeyman

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"including the $75-$125 demographic adds insult to injury, and was clearly a vote buying strategy."

You really think that demographic was leaning Republican?

LOL

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 11:37 AM | Reply

"And lots of that was also poorly targeted, mismanaged, reckless giveaway programs, and here we are with out of control inflation thanks in part to that effort."

Whaaa! You guys got a lot of gall that's for sure.

Someone is really upset that the world ain't perfect yet and Biden isn't helping everyone at financial risk. Do you even know what he is up against in Congress or care?

Ok you Nay Bob of negativity. Where were you and were you that upset when Republicans ended universal school lunches that definitely helped millions of hungry poor children? How many words did you post declaring your outrage at McConnell? I may have missed it.

How's that republican health care plan to replace the ACA coming along?

Let's hear the plan republicans have to help the poor and then maybe you might be in to something. I guarangodamntee no republicans will help any poor or disadvantaged Americans but only be designed to help the wealthy and maybe just possibly it might "trickle down" on someone in need.

Seriously ... if you guys can't come up with something better and get it passed then STFU.

Lead follow or get the hell out of the way.

You got no plans yourself but to whine whenever the Dems do try to help someone but Republicans will move heaven and earth so we can finally find out what kind of porn Biden Hunter prefers.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-21 11:43 AM | Reply

Executive orders is one thing - $500 Billion at the stroke of a pen which could be as much as $1.7 trillion as the only limitations claimed by the Executive were self-imposed.
I'll take a hard pass on that. We have a divided government for a reason.
#47 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

20 USCA 1082 very clearly and broadly delegated this authority to the Ed Secretary. There isn't a dollar limitation in the statute. They could wipe out 500 Trillion in student debt if that's what they wanted to do. You have never articulated any basis on which this statute does not provide such authority. Why do you hate law and order?

#74 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-21 11:51 AM | Reply

"If just one person can justify how giving $10k to forgive the student debt of a person making $100k is a responsible use of government resources, I'll stop arguing."

With the $800 a month payment gone, they could afford a house.

That's good for the economy.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 11:51 AM | Reply

Is income really important?

#59 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2022-11-21 07:06 AM | FLAG:

I put entire semesters on my AMEX, pay it off at the end of the billing cycle, get the bonus points, and have zero debt. Yet I qualify for debt forgiveness if I had it. While not the most important factor, the cap is a bit high if it applies to me.

#76 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-21 11:59 AM | Reply

"I'll stop arguing."

lol

I forget. How many poor and disadvantaged did republicans help while in power?

How many of the poor did Trumpy's tax cut for the wealthy help again? I forget.

Now that republicans control the house how many plans do they have to help the poor? I forget.

How's that replacement for Obamacare coming along? I forget.

But now that republicans control the House we can thank the gods the poor will finally get to see what's on Hunter Biden's laptop!

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-21 12:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

and the average undergrad payment is $243/month. Definitely not enough to get you from apartment to house.

#78 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-21 12:06 PM | Reply

and the average undergrad payment is $243/month.

And nearly half of borrowers are seeing their balances RISE due to the very structure of student loan repayments being based on the borrower's ability to pay - unlike other loans - meaning interest continues to increase the debt total faster than the principle can be paid down.

Below is a list of more notable student loan payment statistics from the Federal Reserve's report:

Average student loan debt: $39,351
Median student loan debt: $19,281
Average student loan monthly payment: $393
Median monthly payment on student loan debt: $222
Percentage of borrowers with growing loan balances: 47.5%
Percentage of borrowers who are more than 90 days delinquent: 4.67%
Average debt load for 2021 graduates: $30,600

Despite hundreds of dollars going to debt each month, balances aren't shrinking. Among borrowers who still owe money on their student loans, just 37% of all borrowers saw their student loan balance shrink according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That means a large majority of borrowers, unfortunately, aren't making any progress.

thecollegeinvestor.com

#79 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#79

He doesn't care, Tony.

#80 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-11-21 12:17 PM | Reply

While not the most important factor, the cap is a bit high if it applies to me.
#76 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Sure but you gotta put the cap somewhere.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 01:12 PM | Reply

"and the average undergrad payment is $243/month."

My payments started around $350. And the interest was just over $350 a month. The system is designed to keep you paying forever if you pay the minimum.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 01:25 PM | Reply

First, you had this to say:

"Because if they had lowered it to that point the case could have been made that it was solely based on helping minority students, hence it would be illegal."

You followed that statement up with this one:

"If you fail to see how this helps blacks and POCs more than whites then you're intentionally ignoring the obvious."

So it sounds like you're saying the president was intentionally trying to get around something that might be illegal and racially biased. Is that the case?

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 01:44 PM | Reply

"With the $800 a month payment gone, they could afford a house."

Is buying a house important?

Then why not give that $800 to low-income earners who have no degree, rather than give it to those that are better postured to buy a house on their own?

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 01:46 PM | Reply

"You really think that demographic was leaning Republican?"

I think many of them lean independent or are not really interested in politics.

Writing them a yuge check sure isn't going to hurt dem chances.

#85 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 01:48 PM | Reply

He doesn't care, Tony.

#80 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Do you?

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2022-11-21 01:49 PM | Reply

"Percentage of borrowers with growing loan balances: 47.5%"

That's the true devil in the details.

Is there any attempt being made to require the terms of these loans change to be less unfavorable for the borrowers, which is the reason for this in the first place?

Seems to me that the most help could come in the form of reducing the interest owed and reducing the interest being charged.

But wait....the banks get to do this and the govt wants the banks to keep offering these loans so they don't want to get in their way.

So......is it fair to say this is nothing but a subsidy for greedy banks who are allowed to impose these absurd and unfair terms?

This is ensuring that the banks continue to keep getting paid their high rates, correct?

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2022-11-21 01:58 PM | Reply

I gotta say that $250,000 for a married couple does seem too high an income cut off point to me as well:

To be eligible, your annual income must have fallen below $125,000 (for individuals) or $250,000 (for married couples or heads of households).

studentaid.gov

#88 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-11-21 02:02 PM | Reply

This is ensuring that the banks continue to keep getting paid their high rates, correct?
#87 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Privately held loans aren't eligible for forgiveness.

This policy does nothing to affect banks and their income streams.

#89 | Posted by jpw at 2022-11-21 02:14 PM | Reply

I gotta say that $250,000 for a married couple does seem too high an income cut off point to me as well:

It (along with many other government benefits, and the minimum wage) should really be scaled to cost of living. $250k is enough for a couple to live like royalty in some parts of the country; not so much in others.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-21 02:15 PM | Reply

"Is there any attempt being made to require the terms of these loans change to be less unfavorable for the borrowers, which is the reason for this in the first place?"

Riiiight.
I'm sure the GOP led House will get right on that!

Just like ending the Afghanistan war, Biden is acting where Congress won't.
Only Conservatives dredge up reasons to be unhappy about it, like student loan relief isn't being extended to people without student loans, so it's unfair. Exactly the kind of whining they never make about the Farm Bill or the GI Bill or tax cuts for the rich.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 02:15 PM | Reply

"It (along with many other government benefits, and the minimum wage) should really be scaled to cost of living."

I mostly agree but there will still be people upset by the cutoff -- no matter where you put the cutoff.

But if moving from CA to PA would cost me $10K in debt relief, would I have moved? Very possibly not.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 02:17 PM | Reply

89

Thanks for the clarification. So, the loan terms people are complaining about regarding loan balances actually increasing.....who issued or controls those loans?

are the govt or private? both?

#93 | Posted by eberly at 2022-11-21 02:19 PM | Reply

I think many of them lean independent or are not really interested in politics.
Writing them a yuge check sure isn't going to hurt dem chances.
#85 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Okay. Republicans can play that game too. Maybe offer free guns to everyone making less than $125K.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 02:20 PM | Reply

This policy does nothing to affect banks and their income streams.
#89 | POSTED BY JPW

Ehhh... it likely means they get a lot less in future interest payments from affected borrowers. But that's pure profit since the money they "loaned" was never theirs to begin with and was given to them by Uncle Sam.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 02:23 PM | Reply

Then why not give that $800 to low-income earners who have no degree, rather than give it to those that are better postured to buy a house on their own?
#84 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

$800 doesn't make a low income earner able to buy a home.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 02:24 PM | Reply

"$800 doesn't make a low income earner able to buy a home."

Then why did you state that it did?

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 02:41 PM | Reply

I mostly agree but there will still be people upset by the cutoff -- no matter where you put the cutoff.

Of course. That doesn't change the fact that scaling for COL is a more accurate way of means testing.

#98 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-21 02:44 PM | Reply

And I just found a house in Mena Arkansas that you could buy for less than $500 per month. I found another for just $320 per month. Technically, you could take your newfound wealth and buy a few houses.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-21 02:46 PM | Reply

$800 doesn't make a low income earner able to buy a home.
#96 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Then why did you state that it did?
#97 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

$100k-$125k is a low income?

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 04:16 PM | Reply

-And I just found a house in Mena Arkansas that you could buy for less than $500 per month.

As our population continues to skew to higher cost of living areas, we are going to continue to see significant differences in costs of living.

$125K in Mena AR is like $350K+ in Southern California.

I don't for sure if that same difference existed 30 years ago but I would suspect the gap is getting wider and wider between the 2.

#103 | Posted by eberly at 2022-11-21 04:25 PM | Reply

"$125K in Mena AR is like $350K+ in Southern California."

Yeah. So then $125K in Southern California is like $45K in Arkansas. Not exactly rich.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 04:35 PM | Reply

So, the loan terms people are complaining about regarding loan balances actually increasing.....who issued or controls those loans?

It's both, but only federal loans are being forgiven by this action. The issues that make student loans different than every other loan is multifaceted. First, everyone that qualifies will receive one, and the interest accrual begins instantly even though payments aren't required under after the person either finishes with a degree or drops out of school. 34% of those eligible for relief do not have any degree whatsoever but still have student loan debt from their attempt to obtain one.

Secondly, loan recipients repayments come with allowed pauses along with repayment plans based on income - which in many cases means that the interest continues to grow regardless, often leaving borrowers with much higher balances than what they actually borrowed, and for many of those who've paid as agreed for years or decades, they still owe more than their original loan amounts even if they've already made payments equal to or greater than the principal.

Lastly, due to the insistence of Republicans - the same group most vehemently against this relief - student loan debt was made non-dischargable in bankruptcy proceedings, meaning that 5% of outstanding student loans are owed by senior citizens, many who have their Social Security checks garnished for repayment. Can you imagine Republicans overhauling bankruptcy to exempt entrepreneurial borrowing? Well, isn't that precisely what people seeking college degrees are doing for themselves by trying to improve their own marketability? It's reprehensible that these loans were even targeted in the first place and only again proves that the GOP will do everything possible to make life harder for those already with the odds against them.

#105 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-11-21 04:48 PM | Reply

And nearly half of borrowers are seeing their balances RISE due to the very structure of student loan repayments being based on the borrower's ability to pay - unlike other loans - meaning interest continues to increase the debt total faster than the principle can be paid down.

#79 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2022-11-21 12:13 PM | FLAG:

That's how interest on loans works, but the federal rate is only 4.99%. That's a great rate for somebody with no credit. If they went out and tried to put it on a credit card they'd be looking at 17%+.

#106 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-21 05:39 PM | Reply

Not that any of this matters now. Infrastructure and other bills were more important than higher education reform.

The Justice Department has to go argue it has authority because of the ongoing Covid emergency to forgive loans, that it already went to and argued it did not have to enforce other laws because the ongoing Covid emergency had ended, and is loaded with Republicans to begin with. Not happening.

#107 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-21 05:47 PM | Reply

The majority of my working hours and free time over the last 30 years ahas been dedicated to DIRECTLY helping the poor, including helping them vote.
#39 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7

That's truly great if you have helped overturned the systems of oppression that hold the poor down.

But, student loan forgiveness isn't one of those systems.

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 07:28 PM | Reply

"That's how interest on loans works, but the federal rate is only 4.99%."

My interest rates are all around 5.6 to 6.8%

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 07:32 PM | Reply

(And that's after Obama lowered them with the ARRA.)

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-21 07:32 PM | Reply

"That's truly great if you have helped overturned the systems of oppression that hold the poor down."

What systems are those? Student loans?

Now student loans are tools of the bourgeoise?

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-22 12:47 AM | Reply

My interest rates are all around 5.6 to 6.8%

#109 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-11-21 07:32 PM | FLAG:

0% until the program expires next month because there is no Covid emergency. Or it gets extended again because there is a Covid emergency like the last 9 times.

#112 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-22 10:39 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort