POTUS 46.10: A New Hope

[Handyman]

Don't take the bait. Just ignore him.

I couldn't help myself :^(

 

[SJHovey]

Like the farmers amirite? Or the PPP loans...

Not sure which farm loans you’re talking about not getting paid, but I assume you will enlighten me. As for the ppp loans, they were specifically deemed by Congress (you know, the branch of government that writes laws) to be forgivable if certain conditions were met. Because the government took away the businesses ability to generate income, they were intended to let businesses continue to pay wages and such. Don’t think Congress made any similar legislative determinations for student loans.

 

[Kepler]

I suppose repaying a loan that you received, and promised to pay back, is too obscene to contemplate.

Yes, I'm sure you would respond with equal flippancy if the USG cut your fellow Nazis a break, then reneged on it because one liberal went venue shopping to kill it out of sheer spite.

You do your side proud. You are a fine spokesperson for the ideology of petulant, envious cruelty. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Guys, he's just adding your posts to his spank bank.

 

[Kepler]

Guys, he's just adding your posts to his spank bank.

He's back on Ignore.

 

[aparch]

Not sure which farm loans you’re talking about not getting paid, ...

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=farm+loan+forgiveness

 

[SJHovey]

He's back on Ignore.

Haha. Perfect

 

[psych]

If you’re paying any attention at all, you’d know that if student loan forgiveness gets thrown out in these conservative-leaning courts, it’ll have nothing to do with the underlying legal soundness of the law passed by a Republican trifecta in 2003 to make waiving or modifying student loans during national emergencies an option in the first place.

 

[Handyman]

Not sure which farm loans you’re talking about not getting paid, but I assume you will enlighten me. As for the ppp loans, they were specifically deemed by Congress (you know, the branch of government that writes laws) to be forgivable if certain conditions were met. Because the government took away the businesses ability to generate income, they were intended to let businesses continue to pay wages and such. Don’t think Congress made any similar legislative determinations for student loans.

Gee...This Took All Of A Second To Find

Look I get that you tend to like to ignore things you can't whine about but maybe pay attention to the news once and a while. Or I don't know, maybe fucking read when people around here post it in threads like this like we did when this passed. AND NONE OF US FUCKING CARED AND WHINED LIKE 2 YEAR OLDS BECAUSE WE DON'T QUALIFY FOR IT! (except to mock the RW talking points) We didn't pretend it was some moral outrage, or that the farmers were losers because they couldn't pay off the loan often for reasons beyond their control. Then again I don't qualify for student loan forgiveness either and support that too...because I am not a fucking azzhole.

BTW, the farmers get more in forgiveness than the students you apparently have zero respect for on a per loan basis. They also get way more in subsidies in general than is economically feasible.

And while you will get all pedantic and say "Congress passed that" that isn't even the point nor is it even relevant to the discussion and you know it. (like the RWNJ or you would say "well Congress said it is cool so I will leave it be" ) The point was why do some people deserve forgiveness and others don't? Why should my tax dollars go to a bunch of lazy azz farmers (no I dont really think that but that is the bullchit argument people make about the students) who took out too much money in loans and can't pay it back like a bunch of deadbeats? Why are the people whining loudest about student loans also the ones who are the first to have their hand out when it helps them?

With the amount of money this country wastes helping out those that have debt issues is a drop in the bucket. I would rather waste billions on that than giving it to the Pentagon to burn.

 

[Slap Shot]

Ignore the troll.

 

[SJHovey]

And while you will get all pedantic and say "Congress passed that" that isn't even the point nor is it even relevant to the discussion and you know it.

It is exactly the point, and you know it.

There are two things that I find really funny about the your position.

First, you and many others on here are constantly running around shrieking that we're heading towards some sort of autocratic, fascist dictatorship in this country, 1930's and '40's Germany and Italy. While I don't tend to share your hysterics, I do agree that I prefer a more democratic form of government as opposed to governing by decree of our dear leader. If a President came in and unilaterally declared that because of a national emergency we're delaying elections, everyone would agree that's bad and illegal. But if the same President came in and declared that everyone who would like $10,000 from the government should get it, you'd be all fine with that.

That gets to the second point. These legal challenges would have all been moot had you guys just done your fucking jobs. For two years you controlled Congress and the White House. Pass a bill that expressly authorizes the Secretary of Education to forgive student loans and we wouldn't be having this conversation. In fact, Joe literally begged Nancy and Chuck to do exactly that. Ah, but they didn't want the political backlash from it, so they did what you guys do best. Promise the world, then sit on your fucking hands.

Personally, I don't really care which way the case turns out. In the grand scheme of things it's a relatively small amount of federal money, and I think it's actually something that will come back to bite Democrats in the a s s because it doesn't solve the underlying problem, it's going to cause future borrowers to be less likely to pay back their loans, and the Democrats are going to have a steady stream of future college attendees standing on their doorstep demanding that they too have their loans forgiven, people who are going to be a little bitter when the same isn't done for them.

But notwithstanding my lack of any real interest in this lawsuit, I couldn't resist a snarky response to Kepler when he gets all offended that someone should dare suggest that a promise be kept.

 

[Swansong]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

 

[dxmnkd316]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

"Oh, but I generally always oppose them. I shouldn't have to vocally oppose all of them. Do ou want me to disavow every EO ever? That seems like a lot of work."
-Hovey, probably

 

[SJHovey]

So not a peep about the 220 EOs that Trump signed (a record for a 1-termer... a record with a bullet). But now... NOW it's a problem.


Ok. Noted. Dismissed.

Long before Trump ever set foot in the White House I posted, maybe a couple of different times, that I thought the practice of EO's was bad, and criticized the Bush's, Clinton, etc..., for the practice. Unlike others around here, I tend not to come in and post the same thing every day.

 

[MichVandal]

Hovey
You are doing the exact same deflection that Sic did with security. Because you can hide behind *something*, you completely ignore the hypocrisy of your position, especially noting that the people you defend get far, far more support than the people who you think should pay up.

Worse, you propose that hiding behind that excuse is just as good as paying the loan off, which it hardly is.

Really, you are just another radical republican- make laws that people who don't really need massive government benefits get them, complain about the ones who have been massively impacted by tax cuts to the rich by having to take huge student loans- and then justify your position because some "conservative" group of people passed a law.

Mind you, it's even worse that the people getting the benefit are the loudest in complaining about government help to pretty much anyone else in the country. Hilarious.

Stop standing behind silly laws that your fellow radical repubicans passed and stand up the policy that you pretend to hate. You are very much not conservative if you are ok with farmers getting that much of your tax dollars.

 

[SJHovey]

If you’re paying any attention at all, you’d know that if student loan forgiveness gets thrown out in these conservative-leaning courts, it’ll have nothing to do with the underlying legal soundness of the law passed by a Republican trifecta in 2003 to make waiving or modifying student loans during national emergencies an option in the first place.

I don't know what's going to happen in this case. A lot of times they seem to get decided on something like standing or something other that what all of the rest of us might think is the real issue.

As for the "legal soundness" of the law passed in 2003, I don't know if that'll even be the issue. The law in 2003 was passed and signed into law, and I don't think anyone questions whether that was a legally passed piece of legislation.

As I understand it, I think a lot of it will have to do with interpreting how broad was the power extended by Congress to the Secretary of Education. That is always open for interpretation.

Unlike most posters here, I actually still believe that Courts make decisions on non-politically partisan basis. Hence, Trump's repeated losses with his frivolous election lawsuits before judges he appointed, or even the recent decision by the Supreme's compelling him to produce his tax returns. In fact, I think repeated and public proclamations that the courts decide things only on a partisan basis, as are made repeated here in Cafe, do more to harm the Republic than anything any of our elected clowns ever dreamed of doing.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Lolol

 

[dxmnkd316]

"Oh, but I generally always oppose them. I shouldn't have to vocally oppose all of them. Do ou want me to disavow every EO ever? That seems like a lot of work."
-Hovey, probably

Long before Trump ever set foot in the White House I posted, maybe a couple of different times, that I thought the practice of EO's was bad, and criticized the Bush's, Clinton, etc..., for the practice. Unlike others around here, I tend not to come in and post the same thing every day.

.

 

[psych]

I don't know what's going to happen in this case. A lot of times they seem to get decided on something like standing or something other that what all of the rest of us might think is the real issue.

As for the "legal soundness" of the law passed in 2003, I don't know if that'll even be the issue. The law in 2003 was passed and signed into law, and I don't think anyone questions whether that was a legally passed piece of legislation.

As I understand it, I think a lot of it will have to do with interpreting how broad was the power extended by Congress to the Secretary of Education. That is always open for interpretation.

Unlike most posters here, I actually still believe that Courts make decisions on non-politically partisan basis. Hence, Trump's repeated losses with his frivolous election lawsuits before judges he appointed, or even the recent decision by the Supreme's compelling him to produce his tax returns. In fact, I think repeated and public proclamations that the courts decide things only on a partisan basis, as are made repeated here in Cafe, do more to harm the Republic than anything any of our elected clowns ever dreamed of doing.

Bless your heart.

 

[Swansong]

What about the legal victory granted by the judge he appointed to his own district? The one that requires being slapped down over and over?

Or by any of the others? Like Dobbs. Or the decision to overturn the OSHA vaccine mandates? Or, like, all of the past few years of "jurisprudence"?