Comment on Biden to defy Supreme Court in second attempt at sweeping student loan handout
gregorum@lemm.ee 7 months agoThe money was not confiscated. It was legally collected. If you don’t like that, contact her congressperson and vote in November. That is your recourse.
And while, yes, those loan companies should be paid back, it is not your role, alone, to determine what the government’s job is. It’s all of us together, who say that. And you get as much of a vote as anyone else. That’s democracy.
The thing is, that it benefits all of us as a society to forgive that debt, so that those people are free to spend money on products and services and pay their taxes. That benefits, the economy, which helps everybody. But here you are, selfishly only thinking of yourself. In doing so, you ignore the benefits you would receive, if the student loan was forgiven for these other people. For some reason, you foolishly think that helping these other people hurt you in someway. It doesn’t.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I dont think you know what confiscated means, taking something from someone against their will illegally is called theft, taking something from someone legally is called confiscation.
It’s not Biden’s role to determine this either, the courts have all ready told him what he’s doing is illegal.
Money is not created with this move, the same amount of money will be in the economy either way, other things go unfunded to pay irresponsible people’s debts.
gregorum@lemm.ee 7 months ago
AKCHUALLY
You are compensated by the services those taxes provide.
No, but the fact that you think it is only speaks to your ignorance. It’s a rule of Congress, who has the job of approving tax bills and spending bills and so forth. That’s why I recommended that you contact your congressman if you’ve got a problem with how your taxes are spent. Again, your argument is based on misinformation and fallacies.
Not only does that speak to your profound ignorance of how these bills are paid for, and you really should look into that because you obviously don’t understand this at all the irresponsible parties were the lenders who should not have lent this money in the first place to be who couldn’t pay for it. The risk was there to take, Not those to whom the money was lent. Once again, your ignorance of how our economy works, our laws work, and even how the finance world works is extraordinary. No wonder your argument so so terrible, lol.
I’m still waiting on the citations, by the way. Of course, if you can’t back up one word of your argument, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 months ago
So you’ve proven you don’t know what confiscation is, twice. More than the government can confiscate, it doesn’t have to be perminanent, and compensation does not factor in. A teacher can confiscate a toy from a child and give it back at the end of the day. In 1934 FDR signed the gold reserve act and all privately owned gold was confiscated, the gold owners were reimbursed but that doesn’t change that their gold was confiscated.
There is no student loan forgiveness law or even a bill, so I don’t need to contact my congressmen. It’s just one man who is breaking the law with his edicts.
The lenders were many things but irresponsible is not one of them. Student loans have to be paid back, bankruptcy doesn’t get rid of the debt. Signing things you don’t understand is irresponsible, expecting others to pay your debt is irresponsible.
Ciataions for what? The definition of confiscate? That there is not infinate money? That there is no student loan forgiveness law?
gregorum@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I gave you the legal definition of confiscate. You whining about that doesn’t change the facts.
And I explained how the student loans would be paid back. You whining about that doesn’t change that either.