Biden’s student loan cancellations to cost taxpayers $559B as households earning $300K benefit the most: study

[Marener]

Provide the US code citation that provides for Biden's cancellation of legally binding loan contracts.

What US code reference can you provide that allows Biden to transfer those loan amounts to the National debt?

20 U.S. Code § 1098e - Income-based repayment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Marener]

The study cited by Hollie says otherwise

“ Aside from the new $559 billion price tag, the Penn Wharton Budget Model finds that the new plan “will also relieve some longer-term student debt for about 750,000 households making over $312,000 in average household income.”

How does that quote “say otherwise”?

Some higher in come households will benefit. The vast majority of the forgiveness goes to lower income people.

 

[Marener]

Feel free to point out the exact citation for your numbers. You claimed you use Wharton data but refuse to provide the citation.

I just did. I quoted directly from the NY Post article. Supposedly the NY Post is publishing the data from Wharton, but I supposed that rag of a newspaper could be lying. Is that what you’re going on about?

 

[Hollie]

20 U.S. Code § 1098e - Income-based repayment

www.law.cornell.edu

Nothing about cancellation of payments and unpaid commitments assumed by the taxpayer.

Is that why the USSC ruled Biden's vote buying scheme was illegal?

 

[Mac-7]

How does that quote “say otherwise”?

Some higher in come households will benefit. The vast majority of the forgiveness goes to lower income people.

If someone is making $300,000 a year they dont deserve loan forgiveness

On the other hand, if they borrowed a lot of money and have nothing to show for it they made a bad choice and blue collar taxpayers should not foot the bill for it

 

[Hollie]

I just did. I quoted directly from the NY Post article. Supposedly the NY Post is publishing the data from Wharton, but I supposed that rag of a newspaper could be lying. Is that what you’re going on about?

You still refuse to provide the exact citation from the Wharton data you claim you used.

That's really dishonest.

 

[Marener]

Nothing about cancellation of payments and unpaid commitments assumed by the taxpayer.

Is that why the USSC ruled Biden's vote buying scheme was illegal?

You clearly don’t read it.

 

[Marener]

If someone is making $300,000 a year they dont deserve loan forgiveness

On the other hand, if they borrowed a lot of money and have nothing to show for it they made a bad choice and blue collar taxpayers should not foot the bill for it

You’re entitled to your opinion on what someone “deserves”.

But the law says otherwise.

Still waiting for you to explain how the story “says otherwise”, or are you just full of shit?

 

[Hollie]

You clearly don’t read it.

View attachment 933353

You clearly didn't read what you copied and pasted. Nothing in the above speaks to cancellation of student loan contracts.

That might be why the USSC ruled Biden's actions are illegal.

Identify for us how the USSC got their ruling so wrong?

 

[Marener]

You clearly didn't read what you copied and pasted. Nothing in the above speaks to cancellation of student loan contracts.

That might be why the USSC ruled Biden's actions are illegal.

Identify for us how the USSC got their ruling so wrong?

It literally said cancel in the part that I quoted.

The USSC ruling had nothing to do with income driven repayment plans.

Are you trolling?

the Secretary shall repay or cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest due on all loans made under part B or D

 

[OldFlame]

20 U.S. Code § 1098e - Income-based repayment

www.law.cornell.edu

That's describing PSLF, and is a program, not something done by the stroke of a presidential pen.

 

[Mac-7]

You’re entitled to your opinion on what someone “deserves”.

But the law says otherwise.

Still waiting for you to explain how the story “says otherwise”, or are you just full of shit?

750,000 students is hardly a tiny percentage

If you are into numbers there are far more low income taxpayers supporting the college students

And that is wrong

 

[Hollie]

It literally said cancel in the part that I quoted.

The USSC ruling had nothing to do with income driven repayment plans.

Are you trolling?

the Secretary shall repay or cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest due on all loans made under part B or D

You didn't read what you copied and pasted. The section above refers to specific conditions, not blanket contract cancellation and transfer of debt.

Please take the time to understand what you copy and paste.

Cite the part that says a president can make a blanket transfer of such student debt to taxpayers?

How did the USSC get their decision so wrong?

 

[Marener]

750,000 students is hardly a tiny percentage

If you are into numbers there are far more low income taxpayers supporting the college students

And that is wrong

Low income people barely pay taxes and will take far more from the government than they pay into it.

They are highly subsidized by the higher earning college educated workers.

 

[OldFlame]

It literally said cancel in the part that I quoted.

The USSC ruling had nothing to do with income driven repayment plans.

Are you trolling?

the Secretary shall repay or cancel any outstanding balance of principal and interest due on all loans made under part B or D

With certain requirements, you idiot, you left that part out. It's describing the PSLF program.

 

[OldFlame]

Low income people barely pay taxes and will take far more from the government than they pay into it.

They are highly subsidized by the higher earning college educated workers.

Still no answer for why these 'higher earning college educated workers' need to have their debt erased? Still waiting...

 

[Marener]

You didn't read what you copied and pasted. The section above refers to specific conditions, not blanket contract cancellation and transfer of debt.

Please take the time to understand what you copy and paste.

Cite the part that says a president can make a blanket transfer of such student debt to taxpayers?

How did the USSC get their decision so wrong?

The plan talked about in the NY Post article is about the SAVE program which is an income driven repayment plan.

It’s not a blanket cancellation.

 

[Hollie]

The plan talked about in the NY Post article is about the SAVE program which is an income driven repayment plan.

It’s not a blanket cancellation.

The so-called SAVE program is another term for "Vote Buying Program".


So we're back to Biden attempting to dump more than $1/2 Trillion dollars onto the taxpayers when the USSC has ruled that such debt transfer is illegal.

 

[Marener]

The so-called SAVE program is another term for "Vote Buying Program".


So we're back to Biden attempting to dump more than $1/2 Trillion dollars onto the taxpayers when the USSC has ruled that such debt transfer is illegal.

SCOTUS did no such thing. The SAVE program is clearly based on legislation passed years ago.

 

[Lesh]

I already explained it. The article says that the 750,000 households making over $300k will get an average of $25,000. Multiple that and you get about $19 billion. Divide that by the overall package costing $559 billion and you realize this is less than 4% of the overall package that you're outraged by.

Thes are all numbers given to us in the article. All I did was some critical thinking.

I will note that it didn't provide any links to the model they're referencing, which is suspicious.

Did you not read the article?

It also noted that the most event loan forgiveness program has a 84 Billion price tag