Again you are inventing a false reality and arguing against it. Nowhere did I say the democrats controlled congress his entire term. You added that. They had control during his term and did nothing about loan forgiveness. This president has had control for 18 months and waited until now. Why? We both know why. Also if the President has the power through executive order he doesn’t need to control congress to do it. Both Biden and Obama could have done it at any time during their administration and didn’t until now. Conservatives have always opposed student loan forgiveness. PPP has nothing to do with this. It was a different set of circumstances and one can oppose one while supporting the other., in spite of what you say. Both are poor policy.
Should Student Loans Be Forgiven or Enforced?
- Thread starter College#19
- Start date
I told you why. They don’t have to have the votes to do it. You said Obama had total control which is a leading statement and you know it. If you were being authentic, you would have flat out said he only had control for 4 months. Your intitial post as I said is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. This second attempt to deflect from that changes absolutely nothing.
There is no deflection. You just have no where else to go in your argument. Obama and Biden were in control of this issue from the first minute they took office until the last minute they serve. If the executive order is a valid way to forgive the debt, both could have done it anytime during their term. Those are facts, no matter how you spin it. They didn’t until now. We both know why they waited.
I just read that the average student debt in Kentucky is $32, 800. That's hardly even the price of a new car, so get a job & pay your bills, you bunch of deadbeats!
Deflect deflect deflect. Republicans the world over would be proud of you. You may have just earned your full fledge membership card.
BTW, the Heroes Act is what gives the authority (as is being argued by the president’s attorneys) to do this then Obama couldn’t do it since that legislation wasn’t enacted until 2020. Now Biden may have been able to use it prior to now but I’m guessing attorneys have been hard at work ti make sure the act authorized to him to do so. Also, let’s not forget Biden was also working to fix Trumps inept handling of Covid when he took office which was a more pressing issue. And save the it’s just a cold nonsensical argument or it’s not a that big of a deal position because it wasn’t just a cold and it was a big deal at the time.
Now I know you can’t be taken seriously. Biden ran on fixing Covid and the infection rates were worse during his term than under Trump. If you seriously believe a President can cure an infectious disease then you are completely delusional. Biden has done absolutely nothing that has improved Covid from what it otherwise would have been. Nice deflection though.
I didn’t say he cured it. I said he had to fix the mistakes Trump made in addressing it. Nice try though. Stick with Dr. Seuss books. Those seem to be more on your level.
It was even less than that. I believe it was exactly 23 days of actual Congress being in session where they had a supermajority in the Senate.
Lol, what did he fix? When someone has to resort to insults that’s pretty much proof they can’t go beyond what the media and their party tells them they need to think.
Exactly right since you called me delusional. It was you that resorted to insults. Does that mean you only think what Trump tells you to think? Certainly seems that way. Head on out to pasture and graze with the other sheep.
You most certainly did. Said if I believed x, then I was completely delusional. You made the assumption I believed X even though I never said it. It is you that needs to work on your reading comprehension.
Time to add another arrogant *** to my ignore list. Buh bye!
Have a good friend whose son went to a private catholic HS just like his dad. School and parents expected college and sent him to UK and paid 5 years to graduation. Son worked a couple years in business and wasn’t happy. Quit and has just finished an apprentice program to become an electrician. Now married and expecting a child in his house he bought and is personally remodeling. Best of all he’s happy! Making a good salary with a good employer. Kid likes working with his hands.
Parents still complaining about their son who wasted their money and his college degree.
Obama had total control for way more than 4 months. The Massachusetts special election didn't happen until January 2010. Up to that point, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate and also controlled the House to boot.
My problem is I graduated college without taking out student loans to graduate debt free. And what about the majority that didn't go to college. Let's get them some debt relief. This is coming from an independent who leans left. Those loans do have ridiculous interest rates and are predatory. My dad made it through college with it costing ,242 dollars a year. I think it's good for people with that debt but what about the people who didn't go to college?
Except he didn’t. Read the article I linked. Here. I’ll even link it again. Google is an amazing thing. You can find stuff like this. You are flat out wrong.
Why should anything be looked at in any way other than matter of factly?
Last edited:
You are incorrect. The Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate and control of the House for exactly 23 working days.
When Specter switched parties the election Franken would eventually win was still under a recount, so there was only 59 seated Dems (including the two Independents who caucus with the Dems). Kennedy started his health leave on June 9, bumping it down to 58, and then Franken was seated in July, bringing it back to 59. The Dems didn't have 60 until Kennedy's replacement, Paul Kirk, was sworn in on September 25. There were 11 days and then the Senate took a recess on October 9. The Senate was not in session from October 9 through the end of the year according to this schedule.
In 2010 they met for 10 days before Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to formally replace Kennedy. So a total of 13 days in 2009 and 10 days in 2010.
So the strawman here is the equation of "total control" to super majority. That intellectual dishonesty is exactly why noone takes some of these shill post(er)s seriously.
The action at hand is definitely ripe for challenge although I don't think it will happen because it's a poor political move. The other issue is ripeness. Once it's actually gone from the ledger, not sure you can add that back; making the legal dispute moot
The action at hand is definitely ripe for challenge although I don't think it will happen because it's a poor political move. The other issue is ripeness. Once it's actually gone from the ledger, not sure you can add that back; making the legal dispute moot
Total control means a super majority. Without the super majority, you can’t control Congress since you don’t have the guaranteed 60 to even bring legislation for a vote in the Senate. It isn’t a straw man argument. It’s the facts.
NOBODY forced them into going to college to get a worthless degree...you make your bed you should lie in it and make it up!!!
And, everyone’s BS meter just registered off the charts as the uber partisan decided to teach people about the “vast majority of Christians.” Meanwhile, I have atheist friends who are upset with this decision from the party that once claimed they represented the working class.
I didn't say it was solely Christians. I didn't even say that Christians were the largest group upset. They probably aren't because all the Republicans upset that claim to be Christians aren't actually Christian in the first place. I said the vast majority of Christians are upset about it. That is a factual statement. Nice to see my stalker is back. I still hope and wish for you to have a miserable existance.
This analogy is promulgated by Dem surrogates who are trying to avoid the real problems with this plan. TC merely parroted them here.
I agree but that wasn't what the poster meant. They were arguing the majority, which was true. Also you don't need 60 for everything, but iirc they were only a vote or maybe two shy; so they were right there.
At the end of the day, there was nothing on the agenda that didn't get passed. For two years, Obama got everything he wanted. That's what the poster meant by total control.
Now to tie covid into it calling it an emergency 2 years later is a gigantic stretch. If there is a legal challenge (which I don't think would be wise) I don't know how it stands. That said, if the amounts come off the ledger, I don't know how you put them back on while getting around due process.
I can’t comment on what the poster meant. He said total control of Congress which is factually inaccurate so I called him out on it. He has yet to post again which tells me he knows he was wrong about what he said.
and, I said your post was BS, in addition to attempting to divert the discussion to a silly ad hominem argument, rather than focus on the facts.
I only respond when you make asinine comments. Sorry if that feels like every time you post.
New flash...simply disagreeing with me doesn't make my comments asinine. Your petty comments do make you an *** though. What about my post wasn't factual? Was it that Biden is forgiving student loan debt or that Christians believe that Jesus paid a debt they couldn't pay? Which one of those aren't factual?
I stand by every single comment I make.
Please stop with this silly attempt to divert.
As I said earlier, the borrower should be required to pay back the principle, but forgive the ridiculous piles of interest. No one should have to pay back a loan nine times over.
Which one wasn't factual since you said I didn't focus on the facts. That statement was focused on facts. So enlighten me Oh Wise One. Which one wasn't factual?
I have. Multiple times. But it falls on deaf ears, because what you have fixed in your mind as "fundamental" is a distinction without a difference.
The problem with any type of program like this, is it brings out huge numbers of others saying "what about me", many of whom have a legitimate reason to say that. For example why reward someone who put themselves in debt getting a liberal arts degree in "Ancient Languages" but was in college for the sole purpose to find herself a husband; compared to the struggling single mom working two jobs that incurred debt when she got breast cancer. And you could come up with an infinite number of examples.
Essentially why are some "more worthy" of debt relief than others, and "who determines who is more worthy"?
So is someone (person A) who only went to classes "more worthy" than someone (person B) who went to classes AND took on a night time job meaning B couldn't go out and party like A could. That's F'ed up.
But total control does mean super majority. It means you can do whatever you want without worrying about the filibuster. If you don't have 60 in the Senate everything you do outside of reconciliation needs to be at least a little bipartisan.
This action put restrictions on the interest too. Paying the minimum each month but still having the loan amount get larger and larger won't happen for those on income based repayment.
Was clear what the poster meant and they were right. There was nothing on the Obama agenda that didn't go through.