Posted on Jul 14, 2023
Biden Nixes $39 Billion In Student Debt For More Than 800,000 Borrowers
1.25K
64
20
6
6
0
"The act is the result of fixes to the federal student loan system’s income-driven repayment plans, which cancel certain borrowers’ debt if they make payments for 20 or 25 years. In the past, failures in the program resulted in qualified payments not being counted towards forgiveness, the administration said."
Biden Nixes $39 Billion In Student Debt For More Than 800,000 Borrowers
Posted from huffpost.com
Joe Biden
Loans
Education
Posted 10 mo ago
Responses: 9
13
13
0
As long as it is legal (instead of the illegal attempt he tried last time), there should be no issue. The loan repayment averages out to $48,507 per borrower. From the article it 'sounds' like it's fixing a mistake where those who have been faithfully paying for decades weren't getting credit for paying on their loans and missed out on having a portion forgiven.
But do I trust that he would do it legally? Nope.
He's proven time and again that he absolutely views the ends as justifying the means. Did the adjustments he do to the student loan repayment plan (SAVE) are adjustments he's allowed to do or is it more creative interpretation of something that was put in a law for something else like he tried to do with the Heroes Act (which was clearly intended to be applied individually for veterans or those impacted - https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1412)?
But do I trust that he would do it legally? Nope.
He's proven time and again that he absolutely views the ends as justifying the means. Did the adjustments he do to the student loan repayment plan (SAVE) are adjustments he's allowed to do or is it more creative interpretation of something that was put in a law for something else like he tried to do with the Heroes Act (which was clearly intended to be applied individually for veterans or those impacted - https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/1412)?
(13)
(0)
CPL Douglas Chrysler
48K and they can't pay it off in 20 plus years? How are people ever going to buy 100K electric cars and pay them off in 5 years.
(4)
(0)
10
10
0
Yet another overreach that won't pass the Supreme Court. This kind of charge to the citizens requires passage in the House and Senate. He's just trying to keep the young engaged and hopeful so he can garner votes next year. It's really pathetic pandering.
(10)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
MSG (Join to see) - But without consumers who can buy products, businesses won't exist. Without demand, a market won't exist. Where demand exists, supply will develop to meet it. Why help the supply side (businesses) when you would be better off helping the demand side (customers)? You should look at the research on the relationship between tax cuts and economic growth. The research is far from definitive that tax cuts spur economic growth. We've had economic growth after tax cuts and tax increases. We've had economic recessions after tax increases and tax cuts.
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
LTC Kevin B. -
Businesses and customers are like the argument for chicken and eggs. They both need each other. However, a business does not absolutely need to be in 1 specific geographic location. This is why businesses are moving out of high tax areas such as California and Seattle. The politicians in those areas that raise high taxes on businesses end up losing taxes when the businesses move to a more favorable location.
In the end, it is the consumers and potential employees who lose when a business moves away or refuses to build in a location.
Regarding tax increases, that is non-sustainable. At some point, you run out of other people's money and the programs that you funded will have to be cut or eliminated.
Businesses and customers are like the argument for chicken and eggs. They both need each other. However, a business does not absolutely need to be in 1 specific geographic location. This is why businesses are moving out of high tax areas such as California and Seattle. The politicians in those areas that raise high taxes on businesses end up losing taxes when the businesses move to a more favorable location.
In the end, it is the consumers and potential employees who lose when a business moves away or refuses to build in a location.
Regarding tax increases, that is non-sustainable. At some point, you run out of other people's money and the programs that you funded will have to be cut or eliminated.
(1)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
MSG (Join to see) - Who said anything in favor of tax increases? I'm saying that if taxes are going to be cut, spending should also be cut. If spending isn't cut, that's just taking money from kids and grandkids and transferring it to their parents and grandparents (other people's money). That's a wealth transfer, or "Socialism" as many conservatives put it. And, if that transfer is sent primarily to business owners and wealthy investors, that's a supply-side tax cut that ignores the fact that consumer demand drives the economic engine. There needs to be more demand-side focus on tax policy and less funding through debt.
(4)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
LTC Kevin B. -
I may have misunderstood your post.
I am against handouts to anyone. I support the government giving limited tax breaks to businesses if the benefit to the community is 10 fold or more in the form of jobs or similar economic benefits. I don't support big tax breaks to wealthy people but I am cognizant of our history. Anytime politicians propose big social spending with it being paid by only "billionaires", it is almost always the middle class that is stuck with the bill. I am against paying more taxes to support a political or social agenda.
I am for cutting the budget smartly meaning focus on the important stuff, cut out the fluff.
I may have misunderstood your post.
I am against handouts to anyone. I support the government giving limited tax breaks to businesses if the benefit to the community is 10 fold or more in the form of jobs or similar economic benefits. I don't support big tax breaks to wealthy people but I am cognizant of our history. Anytime politicians propose big social spending with it being paid by only "billionaires", it is almost always the middle class that is stuck with the bill. I am against paying more taxes to support a political or social agenda.
I am for cutting the budget smartly meaning focus on the important stuff, cut out the fluff.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google