Proof Biden ignores the Constitution.

[Clipper]

You really are stupid. EVERY Republican in the House and Senate could have voted against it and it would still pass.

What a moron.

They're expiring in 2025 in any case, dope.

Trump's ass is calling you. Get going, assface.

 

[Concerned American]

Well, if you looked in to it, the government actually dicked many of the students over in many many ways with the student loans.... Biden was trying to help them, but in too broad of a way in my opinion, and only would give a patchwork of help and not solve the govt mistakes they made previously in the loan legislation, and all new loans would continue in the same bad manner.... It wasn't well thought out by whomever came up with the plan, again in my peon opinion.... Granted the right way to actually help the situation is more complicated, but it would have cost us, a lot lot less than the easy button they tried to press.

but this is not the thread to go in to it, via a hijacking.

Solution? No more government backed student loans to ANYBODY.

 

[Marener]

~~~~~~
As a Democrat would tell you, if it isn't mentioned it isn't included.

Correct. The law doesn’t mention limitations on the authority to waive or modify, therefore it doesn’t include limitations.

SCOTUS put on their magical x-ray specs and saw text in the law that didn’t exist.

 

[Care4all]

Please link to when Trump illegally appropriated funds.

when Trump took funds passed by Congress for the Military allocated budget, and other agency allotted funds, and used it to fund a few miles of border wall, which Congress under Republican rule, would not give to him for the first two years he was in office.

 

[Concerned American]

They're expiring in 2025 in any case, dope.

Trump's ass is calling you. Get going, assface.

What does that say for your claim that "only the rich got tax breaks in that law." LOL, I know that's diiiiferent, eh?

 

[Nostra]

Ah, so you were lying when you said it wasn’t a link to the statute.

Thanks for admitting that.

No stupid, it wasn’t a link to the statute.

Did you really think that would fly, vermin?

 

[Concerned American]

when Trump took funds passed by Congress for the Military allocated budget, and other agency allotted funds, and used it to fund a few miles of border wall, which Congress under Republican rule, would not give to him for the first two years he was in office.

He redirected that money with the approval of the officials who were charged with disseminating it for LEGAL US security measures. You folks always seem to forget that. I don't think the people who guaranteed those loans approved of Biden giving it away.

 

[Nostra]

Then they should have specified that in the language.

As it stands, the law gives the secretary that authority.

Cite the law.

 

[Clipper]

What does that say for your claim that "only the rich got tax breaks in that law." LOL, I know that's diiiiferent, eh?

I never said that, dupe.

 

[Nostra]

They're expiring in 2025 in any case, dope.

Trump's ass is calling you. Get going, assface.

Because your handlers duped you, Moron.

 

[Nostra]

Correct. The law doesn’t mention limitations on the authority to waive or modify, therefore it doesn’t include limitations.

SCOTUS put on their magical x-ray specs and saw text in the law that didn’t exist.

Yes it does. Waive and modify are clearly defined, and neither includes forgiveness, Simp.

 

[Clipper]

Because your handlers duped you, Moron.

You have one job. Hint. Guess what that is, asscrack.

 

[Nostra]

You have one job. Hint. Guess what that is, asscrack.

 

[Clipper]

Because your handlers duped you, Moron.

Like Trump & Mitch did screwing the middle class in 2025, assface?

 

[Nostra]

Like Trump & Mitch did screwing the middle class in 2025, assface?

And Piglosi, Schumer, and Tater…

 

[Marener]

Cite the law.

It was in the link you didn’t read. Page 4.

 

[Marener]

Yes it does. Waive and modify are clearly defined, and neither includes forgiveness, Simp.

Cite the part of the law that clearly defines it.

 

[Foxfyre]

All you have to do is read this in its entirety. Whining about the source won’t work here. If you disagree prove anything in the article wrong with credible links.

This documents several actions that prove he ignores the Constitution.

Joe Biden and the left are putting the rule of law at risk

Last year, President Biden announced a $500 billion cancellation of federal student loans but the Supreme Court ruled in June that Biden’s loan cancellation was an illegal power grab.

nypost.com

Excellent article and factual on every point. Unfortunately nobody on the USMB left gives a damn that they support a neo-Marxist government hellbent on eliminating due process and the rule of law to achieve totalitarianism. They'll hate the results if it happens, but they'll do everything in their power to make it happen just the same.

 

[Marener]

Excellent article and factual on every point. Unfortunately nobody on the USMB left gives a damn that they support a neo-Marxist government hellbent on eliminating due process and the rule of law to achieve totalitarianism. They'll hate the results if it happens, but they'll do everything in their power to make it happen just the same.

The article is piss poor. It fails to mention the methods in which the student loans were forgiven, having nothing to do with Nebraska v Biden, but by competently executing the laws.

Lies by omission to give the suckers on the right something to be outraged by.

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2023-12-06/biden-administration-cancels-5-billion-in-federal-student-aid-for-80-000-borrowers

 

[Foxfyre]

The article is piss poor. It fails to mention the methods in which the student loans were forgiven, having nothing to do with Nebraska v Biden, but by competently executing the laws.

Lies by omission to give the suckers on the right something to be outraged by.

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2023-12-06/biden-administration-cancels-5-billion-in-federal-student-aid-for-80-000-borrowers

You can try to wiggle out of it as much as you want, but Biden ignored SCOTUS who ruled he had no authority to forgive student loans.

The OP challenged you to dispute any point in the article. I'm pretty darn sure you cannot do that with any credible source.