Pay Ur Student Loans Back

[dewilson58]

Thank God.

[tophcfa]

Imagine the horror, actually having to take on some personal responsibility and repay an obligation willfully taken on.

[Chi-Town]

I paid off my student loan; didn't think much about it. Back then it was pay or don't pay and suffer the consequences and the stigma of a deadbeat. It took me five years to pay it back, but it was an investment in my future that had a lifetime benefit.

[gatorbill1]

I guess the Supreme Court does get some things right, but not too many.

[Jayhawk]

Thank God.

The former news channel known as CNN is clearly not pleased with the last 3 court rulings over the past 24 hours.

[retiredguy123]

Imagine the horror, actually having to take on some personal responsibility and repay an obligation willfully taken on.
Yet, some people think they shouldn't need to pay it back, including three Supreme Court justices. What a country.

[Rainger99]

We also had a win for freedom of speech. Praise the Lord..

However, if you watch certain networks and read certain websites, they all claim that it limits LGBTQ rights. However, it expands freedom of speech and religion for everyone.

As stated in the decision,

Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait. The government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.

[Bill14564]

However, if you watch certain networks and read certain websites, they all claim that it limits LGBTQ rights. However, it expands freedom of speech and religion for everyone.

As stated in the decision,

Consider what a contrary approach would mean. Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic—no matter the underlying message—if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait. The government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.

I think you mean it creates a freedom to discriminate. But in reality, we'll have to see who is allowed to post the signs that say, "____ not welcome here."

[Rainger99]

I think you mean it creates a freedom to discriminate. But in reality, we'll have to see who is allowed to post the signs that say, "____ not welcome here."

If you get your facts from MSNBC, the plaintiff (Ms. Smith) is a bigot who hates all gays.

However, if you read the decision, it states that "Ms. Smith stated that she will gladly conduct business with those having protected characteristics so long as the custom graphics and websites she is asked to create do not violate her beliefs. Ms. Smith stresses that she does not create expressions that defy any of her beliefs for any customer, whether that involves encouraging violence, demeaning another person, or promoting views inconsistent with her religious commitments."

Would you require a bakery owned by a person who is pro-abortion to bake a cake for a pro-life person that says "abortion is wrong"?

[ThirdOfFive]

I paid off my student loan; didn't think much about it. Back then it was pay or don't pay and suffer the consequences and the stigma of a deadbeat. It took me five years to pay it back, but it was an investment in my future that had a lifetime benefit.
Ditto here.

Back in the day (way back in the day) colleges offered work-study programs to supplement loans. My particular job was basically KP: peeling potatoes for 12 hours on Saturday for a buck an hour, two hours dishroom duty Monday through Friday after the dinner meal, and doing various and sundry other tasks at the whim of whomever happened to be in charge of the kitchen that day. Almost always large matronly women in white aprons who were pretty nice people. A buck an hour doesn't sound like much (come to think of it, it wasn't much) but considering that at that time a burger, fries and a coke at McDonald's meant that you got change back from your dollar and 15 gallons of gas set you back less than $6, it wasn't that bad.

And yeah. I paid back my loans. I'd have been ashamed not to.

[Bill14564]

...
Would you require a bakery owned by a person who is pro-abortion to bake a cake for a pro-life person that says "abortion is wrong"?

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

[manaboutown]

"We can refuse service to anyone." should be the right of any business. The exception is "protected classes" and their numbers are multiplying like rabbits. Protected group - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group)

[Pairadocs]

Imagine the horror, having to take on some personal responsibility and repay an obliactually gation willfully taken on.

Hopefully (some think) we will still be able to avoid that nasty "r" word (responsibility). It's not been 24 hours since the HALF TRILLION "idea" was struck down by SCOTUS, and the "interpreters" have begun. Our Secretary of "Education", Miguel Cardona has been on every major network already, telling students how the administration will not give up, and they should not either, that they will now try the higher education act to see if they can find a loophole that will allow debt forgiveness. One poor student, just 2 years out of grad school, had managed to save 12K, a small but steady amount he saved from part time work during his student days, and a significantly larger amount since he began his career in finance after completing his MBA. He was going to use this money for a down payment on a home, now, he said, it's all going to be depleted to pay back his loans, are you weeping for him yet ? Maybe the story of a young lady will bring the tears. She JUST graduated, also from grad school, also MBA. She had used part of her student loan to purchase her first brand new automobile (explained she has driven old, beat up cars all of her life, are you brought to tears now ?), and now she said, she "might" have to let this car, she called her "dream car", go back in order to pay her student loans ! Dang, wonder what made me think I had any obligation to work in the IGA super market, in the doughnut shop, and use any time I could have gotten some sleep, to work in the university library ? And, I deeply believe I am the fortunate one to have gone to school at a time when one had no choice but to pay one's debt, I am eternally grateful for having had that pressure, or as some call it, "responsibility".

[Caymus]

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

Are you referring to a restaurant such as the Red Hen in Lexington VA. I'm sure you remember who they discriminated against.

[Tvflguy]

So many Bills etc are simply a measure to buy votes at all taxpayers expense. The most perfect example was the college loan debt. Simply awful IMO. Imagine those many thousands who just paid off their loans and this thing went through. And those who did not go to college, but their taxes are used for buying votes. How the politicians can justify this is terrible.

I for one applaud the SC for their ruling. But they will no doubt attempt to do workarounds.

[Bill14564]

Are you referring to a restaurant such as the Red Hen in Lexington VA. I'm sure you remember who they discriminated against.

Nope, had to look it up. No inconsistency here, what happened was wrong.

[manaboutown]

Bring back debtors' prison. Debtors' prison - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison#:~:text=A%20debtors%27%20prison% 20is%20a,unpaid%20debt%20in%20Western%20Europe).

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

No idea why my post ended up in this thread, I was replying to the thread about Lorie Smith, the web designer.

So on topic:

I was not in favor of universal loan forgiveness. What I was in favor of, was this:

100% full loan forgiveness to anyone whose student loan paid for school at either a defunct school, a school that was accredited when they took out the loan and ceased to be accredited while they attended or the year after graduating, or whose school was proven to have been deceptive in their recruiting and advertising (such as claiming they had a 90% hire-rate in the degreed field when they only had a 4% hire rate, for example).

Any federal school loan should be deferrable, with the student paying only interest during the year it's deferred, and the student should be allowed to defer up to two years total, at six month or one-year intervals.

Any short-term federal school loan should be allowed to refinance for a longer term. Example - a 5-year loan should be able to refi to a 10 or 15 year.

Any student loan taken out at fixed rates over 5.0% will have an adjustment of the interest rate, down to 5.0%.

[Pairadocs]

So many Bills etc are simply a measure to buy votes at all taxpayers expense. The most perfect example was the college loan debt. Simply awful IMO. Imagine those many thousands who just paid off their loans and this thing went through. And those who did not go to college, but their taxes are used for buying votes. How the politicians can justify this is terrible.

I for one applaud the SC for their ruling. But they will no doubt attempt to do workarounds.

You think they will actually begin "workarounds" ? Our Secretary of Education didn't wait 6 full hours to hit all the major networks with, "DO NOT be discouraged, we only chose the Heroes Act because it appeared to be the FASTEST way around, but we will immediately begin to examine the higher education act for a pathway (that was his double speak for meaning "loopholes". Frankly I think we need to put Machiavelli back on the mandatory reading list in schools, public schools, so even those who do not go on to higher education ARE "educated" in the ways of deception: how to appear to be fighting for a cause that will benefit a very large voting contingency, while at the same time, knowing it won't pass muster (or the U.S. Constitution if that matters ?) and it's not important anyway, it's the illusion of "fighting" for a benefit during the campaign season of a major election. What "if", what if books like Machiavelli's The Prince, Orwell's Animal Farm, Sun Tau's The Art of War, were not only read during the 12 years of FPE, but actually "taught", with discussion and illumination of the lessons contained in those books ? For that matter, what would our country be like if we did something as radical as make 12 years of free public education mandatory ? Not as it is today, but with a classical education in the Greek sense, reading, mathematics, science, philosophy,literature, civics and even history ! What if basic reading and writing were a requirement ? What if students were not permitted to leave school until literate ? Would any of this at least help to "fundamentally transform" our country ? If everyone studied The Opium Wars in public schools, would they at least be able to understand how the Chinese culture, thousands of years of being an "advanced" culture, would never forget and never forgive the devastating tragedy of opium addiction the western world introduced. Would it help us better understand what is going on today ? Yes, actual education may not be able to solve all our problems, but it would certainly be worth a try ! We've got nothing to loose by educating our youth ! What if... we even ended up with fewer homeless ? Fewer addicts ? Fewer people who rejected the very idea of personal responsibility for such things as home loans, education loans, auto loans, etc. There is a great deal of "buzz" out there about a plethora of "new think" books in our schools to teach the new "science", but there are some long forgotten books that need to go BACK into the curriculum. Many of them would enlighten students in such a way that they would recognize when they were being "gas lighted" only to obtain their votes ! Maybe "we the people" don't WANT that to happen ? ? Educated population, I don't know, it could be "dangerous" !

[retiredguy123]

The magnitude of this executive order is outrageous. For one person to be able to spend $500 billion, which is $1,500 per person for every man, woman, and child in the country, is absurd. One person should not be able to commit that much money with the stroke of a pen.

[jebartle]

We, as others on this forum, paid our student loans in full, the difference, our loan was 1/10th of the loans accrued by college graduates NOW, granted, they accepted the conditions that the benefits a college education would enhance their future EVENTUALLY, and of course it SHOULD BE PAID and not by the tax-payer that fulfilled their obligation but by the college graduate, not by forgiveness of loan but a financial plan that allows the graduate a timely solution.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

We, as others on this forum, paid our student loans in full, the difference, our loan was 1/10th of the loans accrued by college graduates NOW, granted, they accepted the conditions that the benefits a college education would enhance their future EVENTUALLY, and of course it SHOULD BE PAID and not by the tax-payer that fulfilled their obligation but by the college graduate, not by forgiveness of loan but a financial plan that allows the graduate a timely solution.

Except in the case of a school that loses its accreditation, or goes out of business, or otherwise renders their degree invalid. In that case, it's the school that should return the funds to the government, not the student.

[kp11364]

To me, a "loan" (student or otherwise) is borrowing something that is not yours that you have agreed to return at a specified time with recompense to the lender for depriving him/her of that something.

And you need to use the "R" word (responsibility) and (gasp!) common sense. If you take out a student loan with a major of Etruscan dance therapy, don't expect me to feel sorry for you if you can only get a job as a dog walker. YOU made that decision and YOU signed the agreements.

Similarly, the previous entries with the MBA graduates who have to put off buying a house or giving up their "dream car" I don't feel sorry either - don't spend more money than your expenses and if you have to put off a big-ticket item, so be it!

[Number 10 GI]

I've related this story before on another thread about student loans. The granddaughter of our friends went to a small university in their home town. She lived at home with her parents and worked during the summer and school breaks for her tuition and spending money. Her parents aren't rich by any standard so there was no financial help from them. Her grandparents aren't rich either, but they were able help a bit with tuition. She worked her butt off in high school graduating with an excellent grade point average that helped her get a small scholarship. She was taking advertising courses and got her Bachelors in that field. Then she started taking online classes for an MBA because it was much more affordable than in school classes. She paid for this by working at various jobs while still living at home.
Finished her MBA and got a job at the corporate headquarters of Caterpillar in Texas working in their marketing department. Excellent salary and no student loans. Didn't need a degree from some ivy league school that costs thousands of dollars in tuition to get a job with a large multinational corporation.

[mtdjed]

I guess the Supreme Court does get some things right, but not too many.

Some of the Justices got it right. The other 3 obviously have not had a chance to ever review the constitution. Ladies, please read the US Constitution. Articles I and II could be a starter.

It is OK to have a personal preference, but you were selected to uphold the law. It would be presumed that you had a chance to glance at that sometime to believe that you could fairly serve as a Supreme Court Judge for the rest of your life. Your vote on this issue and your dissenting statement shows that to have been a very poor presumption.

Your dissenting statement doesn't even address the issue of law, but talks to wants.

Everyone knew this program was illegal when it started. Money was spent to get people qualified. Who pays for that dumb decision. Any student with a loan and believed this scam, obviously missed a few classes.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

I applaud this decision of the SC. Any person that receives something for free won’t value it. Imagine if all the engineers, doctors, physicists etc . . . didn’t take their degrees seriously?

The bill only said $10,000 would be forgiven - hardly makes a drop in the bucket, but still. Nobody paid mine except me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

To me, a "loan" (student or otherwise) is borrowing something that is not yours that you have agreed to return at a specified time with recompense to the lender for depriving him/her of that something.

And you need to use the "R" word (responsibility) and (gasp!) common sense. If you take out a student loan with a major of Etruscan dance therapy, don't expect me to feel sorry for you if you can only get a job as a dog walker. YOU made that decision and YOU signed the agreements.

Similarly, the previous entries with the MBA graduates who have to put off buying a house or giving up their "dream car" I don't feel sorry either - don't spend more money than your expenses and if you have to put off a big-ticket item, so be it!

If you got a loan for a major in Etruscan dance therapy, and when you look for a job in the field all the employers tell you "we don't honor degrees from THAT school anymore because that school no longer has accreditation with any educational organization and have been deemed fraudulent" - then you should not have to pay back the loan. The school should have to pay back the loan. They're the ones who have the money, who committed fraud, and cheated both the student and the lending group.

[tuccillo]

Not really. A degree earned from a university, before the loss of accreditation, is certainly valid. There is nothing fraudulent about the degree. Do you actually have a college degree? It certainly is not a desirable situation and may require some explanation to potential employers. The situation may not be that much different than having a degree from a university that has closed. What happens to the school after you have attended/received your degree should not impact whether you are responsible for your student loans. I would certainly make sure I have a copy of my transcript. As you get older, it is typical that your documentable career accomplishments, publications, networking, etc. are more important than where you went to school. I have been on numerous selection committees. Where someone went to school was certainly looked at but it was by no means the only thing I looked at. If you are currently attending a university that is losing or has lost it's accreditation then you may have some issues. Transferring as soon as possible to another institution may be advisable. Accreditation can be lost for a number of reasons. To claim there is fraud involved without knowing the details is nonsensical.

If you got a loan for a major in Etruscan dance therapy, and when you look for a job in the field all the employers tell you "we don't honor degrees from THAT school anymore because that school no longer has accreditation with any educational organization and have been deemed fraudulent" - then you should not have to pay back the loan. The school should have to pay back the loan. They're the ones who have the money, who committed fraud, and cheated both the student and the lending group.

[Kelevision]

If you get your facts from MSNBC, the plaintiff (Ms. Smith) is a bigot who hates all gays.

However, if you read the decision, it states that "Ms. Smith stated that she will gladly conduct business with those having protected characteristics so long as the custom graphics and websites she is asked to create do not violate her beliefs. Ms. Smith stresses that she does not create expressions that defy any of her beliefs for any customer, whether that involves encouraging violence, demeaning another person, or promoting views inconsistent with her religious commitments."

Would you require a bakery owned by a person who is pro-abortion to bake a cake for a pro-life person that says "abortion is wrong"?

The problem isn’t only MSNBC, it’s also Fox, and any extreme right or left leaning “news”. If you want real news, BBC, APNews, Reuters are all good choices.

[Kelevision]

If you got a loan for a major in Etruscan dance therapy, and when you look for a job in the field all the employers tell you "we don't honor degrees from THAT school anymore because that school no longer has accreditation with any educational organization and have been deemed fraudulent" - then you should not have to pay back the loan. The school should have to pay back the loan. They're the ones who have the money, who committed fraud, and cheated both the student and the lending group.

This has been a sticky subject for a lot of people. I understand the idea behind it. But you bring up a great point. Not all student loans are created equal. Also, if it’s the interest that’s killing them, then do something about that. College isn’t free and it’s insulting to the thousands of people who couldn’t afford to go and couldn’t’ get a loan. Not to mention the ones who paid their loan off.

[Sabella]

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

It’s very simple if a business doesn’t want to perform a service for you just go somewhere else. Remember this used to be a free country. That is the basis of our republic. PS there are three female judges on the Supreme Court who don’t understand the constitution and what their job actually is what is disgrace.

[Doc Akron]

The rich get richer.

[Joe C.]

How about getting the legislature to enact a law that allows all those poor college graduates with these opressive loans to WORK OFF THEIR DEBTS.

On the other hand, once you've gotten what you want (diploma) why do you need to pay for it?

Then again, I like the idea of debtor's prison. That would really teach them a lesson that they didn't learn in college.

[Ponygirl]

A better fix would be to reform the way the loan companies collect on the loans Since they were privatized the interest rates are over 9 percent and the way they calculate the payments are criminal. Navient was forced out for unjust practices. Why are we allowing these companies to make so much money off the people who are working hard to pay back the loans

I am still paying on a parents plus loan and have been paying for over 12 years My records show I paid it off 6 years ago When I print out the spreadsheet and calculate what I have paid it is well over the original loan. Some months the interest payment is 40% of the monthly payment and some months it is 80% and some months 100%. No rhyme or reason. I have asked many time for an audit and am not able to get one

Also the addition to the balance with something called capitalized interest which they can never explain

So sorry for the long note but a reform of how college loan debt is collected would be an important fix. Why allow companies to get rich which is not fair to the college borrows

BTW previous loans were federally secured at abt 3 % before privatized and todays loans have no comparison to those that many of us took out all those years ago

[Ponygirl]

Forgot to add the the allure of public loan forgiveness is nearly impossible to achieve.
It is supposed to be a program where say a doctor worked in an underserved area can get some of their loans forgiven

Applies to public health and other fields

With lots and lots of paperwork and changing requirements little more than 1% have gotten any parts of the loans forgiven

[oneclickplus]

It’s very simple if a business doesn’t want to perform a service for you just go somewhere else. Remember this used to be a free country. That is the basis of our republic. PS there are three female judges on the Supreme Court who don’t understand the constitution and what their job actually is what is disgrace.

Exactly!! What if you ran a bakery (open to the public) that specializes in cupcakes ... or donuts and a prospective customer comes in asking for a birthday cake. Your normal business reply would be "we don't make cakes - try another baker". And no one would question that. Just because you are a baker and run a baking business and have the skills to bake a cake does not obligate you to bake a cake just because you are "open to the public".

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

No one asks Dunkin' Donuts to uphold the fact that their product line does not include cakes by insisting that they evidence their religious beliefs that cakes are objectionable. It's just their business decision. And I totally agree with the SC that her business decision stands.

[NoMo50]

If you got a loan for a major in Etruscan dance therapy, and when you look for a job in the field all the employers tell you "we don't honor degrees from THAT school anymore because that school no longer has accreditation with any educational organization and have been deemed fraudulent" - then you should not have to pay back the loan. The school should have to pay back the loan. They're the ones who have the money, who committed fraud, and cheated both the student and the lending group.

So, to replicate your logic...if a person buys a new home, finances the home with a mortgage, and the home builder subsequently goes bankrupt. Should the mortgage then be forgiven?

When one signs a loan contract, he/she is legally obligating him/her self to repay the loan. Period. The vast majority in our generation did just that, with never a thought of trying to somehow weasel out of it.

[bigeasy]

You nailed it. The loan amount is not the problem. It’s the predatory interest rates that make it difficult to ever pay off the debt.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Why did the SCOTUS even weigh in? This woman was not even asked yet to provide any service, so there was no damage to be settled. The SCOTUS is way out of line and also drunk with power, were never voted in and won't even disclose thousands of dollars from billionaire "dear friends" they never had BEFORE becoming justices. Corruption at its best.

[Tonydivo]

Thank God.

Just printing money

[NoMo50]

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

Businesses that are open to the public discriminate all the time. Motorcycle shops discriminate against non-riders. BBQ joints discriminate against vegans. Hairdressers discriminate against bald people. You get the idea. It is discrimination against protected classes of people, based solely on their protected status, that is unlawful.

[Bill14564]

Exactly!! What if you ran a bakery (open to the public) that specializes in cupcakes ... or donuts and a prospective customer comes in asking for a birthday cake. Your normal business reply would be "we don't make cakes - try another baker". And no one would question that. Just because you are a baker and run a baking business and have the skills to bake a cake does not obligate you to bake a cake just because you are "open to the public".

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

No one asks Dunkin' Donuts to uphold the fact that their product line does not include cakes by insisting that they evidence their religious beliefs that cakes are objectionable. It's just their business decision. And I totally agree with the SC that her business decision stands.

Except her argument wasn't that she was being asked to make a cake. Her argument was that she wanted to create websites for weddings but the Colorado law said that if she wanted to run a public business creating websites for weddings then she could not discriminate against "those people" and would have to create a website for their wedding too. Even if the website looked exactly like her mock-up (she wasn't/isn't in that business yet) she objected so using it for a wedding for "those people."

If she only wanted to create websites for her friend's weddings or perhaps weddings in her church that would be one thing. She wanted to create wedding websites for everyone except "those people" and that is illegal discrimination.

Some of the arguments in the dissent are worth reading.

[Bill14564]

Businesses that are open to the public discriminate all the time. Motorcycle shops discriminate against non-riders. BBQ joints discriminate against vegans. Hairdressers discriminate against bald people. You get the idea. It is discrimination against protected classes of people, based solely on their protected status, that is unlawful.

None of those are examples of discrimination. Discrimination is not telling a customer you don't sell vegan BBQ. Discrimination is telling a customer you won't sell your product/service to them while you continue to sell it to the person standing next to them. That type of discrimination is wrong but yes, it is only when a protected status is used that it becomes illegal.

[DonnaNi4os]

Thank God.

I paid for four years of college for four children as a single parent. Not one of them
graduated with a student loan hanging over their head. I don’t want to pay for any body else’s, although I would consider helping my 8 grandchildren go to college if I could. Considering we recently came very close to a government shutdown because we didn’t have the money to run it, how will the government pay for all of those “forgiven student loans”? Oh yes, WE TAXPAYERS will foot the bill. It ludicrous!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.


Actually, we don't have that. She is an amateur web designer and has never designed any wedding website at all. She hasn't ever refused to create one for someone in the LGBTQ++ crowd, because no one from the crowd has ever asked her to make one for them.

The entire "case" was based on a hypothetical and should never have made it to the Supreme Court.

[Bay Kid]

I pay my own debts, you pay yours.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

How about our lawmakers that took out PPP loans pay those back too, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, each! Each loan was forgiven and nobody said a word.

Some were in the millions.

[Normal]

Wow, the economy almost suffered more inflationary pressure. Great job SCOTUS. 400 billion isn’t chump change. It would fund half of the Department of Defense for a year. It would pay for almost 1/3 of Social Security benefits for an entire year.

[tuccillo]

The job of the SC is not to do what the majority wants. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and other laws. The Legislative Branch makes the laws and "the majority" is free to elect those who will create actual laws that they want. It is, however, unfortunate that the SC has to spend time reining in the Executive Branch when it oversteps it's authority.

The Supreme Court is so full of corrupt judges, who have an agenda. They perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings, hide taking money and gifts from billionaires, then rule in their favor, go against what the majority wants.

<sigh>

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So, to replicate your logic...if a person buys a new home, finances the home with a mortgage, and the home builder subsequently goes bankrupt. Should the mortgage then be forgiven?

When one signs a loan contract, he/she is legally obligating him/her self to repay the loan. Period. The vast majority in our generation did just that, with never a thought of trying to somehow weasel out of it.

Wrong logic. We'll use your example:

Someone gets a loan for a new home build in the Villages. They get the mortgage for the lot and the home design, the money is handed over to the Developer. A month after the house is built, the government sends you a notification that the entire property, and the six blocks around it, is condemned due to hazardous waste that the Developer knew about, but conveniently forgot to mention to you.

Now you owe $300,000 on a mortgage for a property that was sold to you fraudulently and deceptively. You owe $300,000, AND you still have no home, because you can't live there. You'll now have to buy ANOTHER home - but what lender will loan you money while you're already $300k in debt, with no collateral to secure it?

The Villages should be paying that loan back. They're the ones who cheated both you and the bank. The bank only lent the money because they were ALSO deceived into believing it as a sound business decision to lend the money.

[Rainger99]

The problem isn’t only MSNBC, it’s also Fox, and any extreme right or left leaning “news”. If you want real news, BBC, APNews, Reuters are all good choices.

Not sure if the BBC provides real news.

Richard Sharp, who was chairman of the BBC, admitted that the broadcaster “does have a liberal bias.”

And I watched the BBC this morning. They had a Democratic congressman, a reporter from Politico, and a law professor who worked in the Biden administration. Not one guest defended the decisions.

As for Reuters, this is the headline for yesterday’s story.

US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case.

The term “Deals blow” to LGBT rights appears to show a political slant. A more objective headline would say

US Supreme Court rules in LGBT case.

I agree that Fox has a conservative bias but they will frequently put a liberal on the panel to present the liberal argument. I have never seen that on MSNBC.

[Wondering]

Thank God.
Thank "God" for what? Student loans today are unmanageable compared to student loans when most of us went to college or grad school. The hypocrisy of Congress is beyond the pale. Many Congressional Representatives and US Senators got millions of dollars in PPP loans forgiveness, which totaled double the cost of the college loan forgiveness. If there was only a real "God"!

[FloridaGator]

Read the facts and not just the headlines. Justice Roberts basically said he doesn’t disagree with the intent, but the president just doesn’t have the authority to do it.

Yet, some people think they shouldn't need to pay it back, including three Supreme Court justices. What a country.

[Susan1717]

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

It may seem businesses should not discriminate yet many people saying this, at the same time run companies with a democratic thinking culture and feel they can fire or not do business with republicans. Pay pal is just one to name. Therefore this is quite hypocritical.

[Bill14564]

A better fix would be to reform the way the loan companies collect on the loans Since they were privatized the interest rates are over 9 percent and the way they calculate the payments are criminal. Navient was forced out for unjust practices. Why are we allowing these companies to make so much money off the people who are working hard to pay back the loans

I am still paying on a parents plus loan and have been paying for over 12 years My records show I paid it off 6 years ago When I print out the spreadsheet and calculate what I have paid it is well over the original loan. Some months the interest payment is 40% of the monthly payment and some months it is 80% and some months 100%. No rhyme or reason. I have asked many time for an audit and am not able to get one

Also the addition to the balance with something called capitalized interest which they can never explain

So sorry for the long note but a reform of how college loan debt is collected would be an important fix. Why allow companies to get rich which is not fair to the college borrows

BTW previous loans were federally secured at abt 3 % before privatized and todays loans have no comparison to those that many of us took out all those years ago

You should find an accountant to help you understand what is happening with the loan.

As with any loan, because of interest you will end up paying back more than you borrowed - that's just the way loans work. With most loans the monthly payment will be calculated to include all interest plus some principle. However, with student loans there are many schemes to stretch out the term of the loan to keep payments low or to defer payments entirely. Nothing comes for free (not much anyway) and these schemes result in you paying much more than was originally borrowed. You need to talk to an accountant who can help you understand how you came to be in the position you find yourself in and how to dig your way back out of it.

[mikempp]

3 good rulings for a change.

[paqdkq]

If the debt relief is eventually passed, I’m going to request a refund of $10,000 for the loan I previously paid off.

[Caymus]

Thank "God" for what? Student loans today are unmanageable compared to student loans when most of us went to college or grad school. The hypocrisy of Congress is beyond the pale. Many Congressional Representatives and US Senators got millions of dollars in PPP loans forgiveness, which totaled double the cost of the college loan forgiveness. If there was only a real "God"!

And why is that? Have colleges drastically increased costs by adding useless courses and overpaid faculty?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It may seem businesses should not discriminate yet many people saying this, at the same time run companies with a democratic thinking culture and feel they can fire or not do business with republicans. Pay pal is just one to name. Therefore this is quite hypocritical.

Not hypocritical at all. Your political party, or lack thereof, is not a protected class. Anyone who learns I'm unaffiliated is absolutely allowed to not let me into their business, if their business is exclusively for one or another political party. I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it, because it is allowed by law.

However, they may not tell me I can't buy a can of furniture wax from their store that sells furniture wax, because I'm a woman. Or because I'm white. Or because I'm Jewish. Or because I'm heterosexual. Or because I'm hearing impaired. All of these things are protected classes - race, gender, religion, sexual preference, disability. All protected classes.

[msirianni]

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

What about "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" isn't that discriminating against the shirtless and shoeless?

[retiredguy123]

Read the facts and not just the headlines. Justice Roberts basically said he doesn’t disagree with the intent, but the president just doesn’t have the authority to do it.
Correct, it needed to be done by an act of Congress, like the PPP loan forgiveness act. Apples and oranges.

[scooterstang]

i loved the courts decision, and it was the right one! These kids nowdays are just looking for handouts it seems. Both my daughters have loans that I have helped with and they both still have small balances to pay. Instead of taking their money and time to protest, they should have been working to pay their loans. Sorry freeloaders because now you have to take responsibility for your choices.

[tophcfa]

What about "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" isn't that discriminating against the shirtless and shoeless?

Your eating at the wrong place : )

[Freeda]

Agree! I think you should pay for your own mortgage, college loans, food and cell phones.

This isn't because
I'm a conservative;.
It's because l'm an adult.

[MrFlorida]

I paid mine, you pay yours....but watch them try all kinds of work arounds....not a fan of our leaders right now.

[waterflower]

Wish the banks had to pay back their bail-in. Corporation should not be allowed the file bankruptcy. Mortgage companies have to prove they have the money they lend you. Audit the federal reserve (not federal). Stop printing FIAT money. Home school your kids.

[Dahabs]

Legislating and budgeting are the jobs of Congress and not a power the president has . The supreme court case was about the separation of powers in our government. Maybe someone should inform those three females on the Supreme Court and tell them to stop trying to legislate from the bench. We also had a win for freedom of speech. Praise the Lord..

Maybe Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch need to be informed as well.

[airstreamingypsy]

Hmmm, the corrupt judge Thomas benefitted from the same thing he just denied others. Affirmative actions wasn't about admitting unqualified black kids, it was about qualified kids getting accepted in spite of systemic racism. Unqualified admissions are about legacy admissions, like how Kavanaugh got into Yale.

[airstreamingypsy]

The corrupt judge Thomas, denied helping students getting help with their loans, yet he secretly took $150,000.00 in tuition payments from rightwing billionaire Harlan Crow.

[Johnsocat]

You think they will actually begin "workarounds" ? Our Secretary of Education didn't wait 6 full hours to hit all the major networks with, "DO NOT be discouraged, we only chose the Heroes Act because it appeared to be the FASTEST way around, but we will immediately begin to examine the higher education act for a pathway (that was his double speak for meaning "loopholes". Frankly I think we need to put Machiavelli back on the mandatory reading list in schools, public schools, so even those who do not go on to higher education ARE "educated" in the ways of deception: how to appear to be fighting for a cause that will benefit a very large voting contingency, while at the same time, knowing it won't pass muster (or the U.S. Constitution if that matters ?) and it's not important anyway, it's the illusion of "fighting" for a benefit during the campaign season of a major election. What "if", what if books like Machiavelli's The Prince, Orwell's Animal Farm, Sun Tau's The Art of War, were not only read during the 12 years of FPE, but actually "taught", with discussion and illumination of the lessons contained in those books ? For that matter, what would our country be like if we did something as radical as make 12 years of free public education mandatory ? Not as it is today, but with a classical education in the Greek sense, reading, mathematics, science, philosophy,literature, civics and even history ! What if basic reading and writing were a requirement ? What if students were not permitted to leave school until literate ? Would any of this at least help to "fundamentally transform" our country ? If everyone studied The Opium Wars in public schools, would they at least be able to understand how the Chinese culture, thousands of years of being an "advanced" culture, would never forget and never forgive the devastating tragedy of opium addiction the western world introduced. Would it help us better understand what is going on today ? Yes, actual education may not be able to solve all our problems, but it would certainly be worth a try ! We've got nothing to loose by educating our youth ! What if... we even ended up with fewer homeless ? Fewer addicts ? Fewer people who rejected the very idea of personal responsibility for such things as home loans, education loans, auto loans, etc. There is a great deal of "buzz" out there about a plethora of "new think" books in our schools to teach the new "science", but there are some long forgotten books that need to go BACK into the curriculum. Many of them would enlighten students in such a way that they would recognize when they were being "gas lighted" only to obtain their votes ! Maybe "we the people" don't WANT that to happen ? ? Educated population, I don't know, it could be "dangerous" !

Agree, a Classical education will help bring back our Citizen's the ability to reason and think critically.

[manaboutown]

Best and most honest court we have had in a long time for the most part. There are exceptions, especially the totally incompetent Jackson.

[Captainpd]

CNN=Clinton News Network

[Rainger99]

I think you mean it creates a freedom to discriminate. But in reality, we'll have to see who is allowed to post the signs that say, "____ not welcome here."

I think it means freedom of speech. Colorado wants to force people to agree with their view of gay marriage. As stated in the decision,

Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting ideas about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith.

[Bill14564]

I think it means freedom of speech. Colorado wants to force people to agree with their view of gay marriage. As stated in the decision,

Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting ideas about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith.

Colorado wasn't taking away anyone's free speech. Smith was always free to say she didn't approve of same-sex marriage. What Colorado law did was tell Smith she could not discriminate against gay people in the marketplace. She could say, "I don't agree with you," or she could say, "I don't like you," and she could also choose to not give her best effort on a project. What she could not do was say, "I do not accept gays as customers," as that is illegal discrimination.

What the Supreme Court essentially decided is that if you want to discriminate against a protected class then what you need to do is find a way to incorporate the phrase "free speech."

We really can't go much further with this since this was all a hypothetical case anyway. Smith did not (and does not as far as I know) design wedding websites. No one asked her to and in particular, no same-sex couple asked her to. It is reported that in her complaint she named an individual who is already married to someone who is clearly not the same sex but I haven't read the complaint to confirm that. This case is all about would-have, could-have, or should--have but with no basis in any actual event.

[DennisDee]

Root cause is excessively high college cost. There would be less or no issue if college was priced fairly. Elites (politicians) protect this scheme. Think about it!

[retiredguy123]

Root cause is excessively high college cost. There would be less or no issue if college was priced fairly. Elites (politicians) protect this scheme. Think about it!
The problem is that colleges will raise the tuition to match the students' borrowing ability. The solution is to eliminate the Federal student loan program completely. Then, you would see tuitions decrease dramatically.

[CODYCAT]

Yet, some people think they shouldn't need to pay it back, including three Supreme Court justices. What a country.
If people can’t figure out simple things like what a woman is how are they going to do the the complicated math that comes with paying your bills?

[Regorp]

Thank God.

We paid ours back, I should not pay yours back with my taxpayer dollars. Stop whining and pay it back.

[Normal]

The Constitution comes first, and was applied correctly to the rule of law. Congress controls the purse strings, not a royal el presidente. The president needs to fall in line, now! He’s an executive, not an emperor.

[mtdjed]

None of those are examples of discrimination. Discrimination is not telling a customer you don't sell vegan BBQ. Discrimination is telling a customer you won't sell your product/service to them while you continue to sell it to the person standing next to them. That type of discrimination is wrong but yes, it is only when a protected status is used that it becomes illegal.

It does not appear that you are addressing the issue that the Supreme Court was deciding.
They were not addressing any change in selling standard items.
If I sell BBQ, bicycles, lawn service, etc, then I cannot discriminate against anyone who wants to buy those items.

They were addressing sellers creates something unique, and are saying that I cannot be forced to create something that is against my beliefs. If I plan to sell basic Website creation software, then I should sell it to all buyers. If I specialize using my skills, I am allowed to specialize under conditions of my personal beliefs.

Some say that the Supreme Court should not have considered this case because there was no standing. The "standing" was the law that Colorado created.

[Rainger99]

These facts were stipulated to by the state of Colorado and the plaintiff.

1. Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation.

2. She will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it.

3. Her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held religious conviction.

4. All of the graphic and website design services Ms. Smith provides are “expressive.”

5. The websites and graphics Ms. Smith designs are “original, customized” creations that “contribut[e] to the overall messages” her business conveys “through
the websites” it creates.

6. Just like the other services she provides, the wedding websites Ms. Smith plans to create “will be expressive in nature.”

7. Those wedding websites will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and they will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303
Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage.

8. Viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are [Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s] original artwork.”

9. To the extent Ms. Smith may not be able to provide certain services to a potential customer, “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”

[mtdjed]

Wrong logic. We'll use your example:

Someone gets a loan for a new home build in the Villages. They get the mortgage for the lot and the home design, the money is handed over to the Developer. A month after the house is built, the government sends you a notification that the entire property, and the six blocks around it, is condemned due to hazardous waste that the Developer knew about, but conveniently forgot to mention to you.

Now you owe $300,000 on a mortgage for a property that was sold to you fraudulently and deceptively. You owe $300,000, AND you still have no home, because you can't live there. You'll now have to buy ANOTHER home - but what lender will loan you money while you're already $300k in debt, with no collateral to secure it?

The Villages should be paying that loan back. They're the ones who cheated both you and the bank. The bank only lent the money because they were ALSO deceived into believing it as a sound business decision to lend the money.

To use a quote from a previous post - The entire "case" was based on a hypothetical and should never have made it to the Supreme Court.

Although your stated case above is hypothetical, it does not relate directly to the government unless you build more hypothetical conditions.
First, the loan was an agreement between you and a bank. As a buyer you would likely have paid for a Title Search and Home inspection to assure the property was clear to sell. In the agreement to buy, your lawyer would ensure that words were included ensure the seller properly described the conditions for sale.

Sale made. Now you find notice from government about property condemnation. Not likely, since those hazardous waste issues are not instantaneous. But 6 block radii? You are not alone. Starts to sound ridiculous. That is why hypothetical is not acceptable.

To the issue. You take out a loan and you are responsible to pay. If you have valid complaint, call a lawyer. Don't expect government rescue.

[Taltarzac725]

Colorado wasn't taking away anyone's free speech. Smith was always free to say she didn't approve of same-sex marriage. What Colorado law did was tell Smith she could not discriminate against gay people in the marketplace. She could say, "I don't agree with you," or she could say, "I don't like you," and she could also choose to not give her best effort on a project. What she could not do was say, "I do not accept gays as customers," as that is illegal discrimination.

What the Supreme Court essentially decided is that if you want to discriminate against a protected class then what you need to do is find a way to incorporate the phrase "free speech."

We really can't go much further with this since this was all a hypothetical case anyway. Smith did not (and does not as far as I know) design wedding websites. No one asked her to and in particular, no same-sex couple asked her to. It is reported that in her complaint she named an individual who is already married to someone who is clearly not the same sex but I haven't read the complaint to confirm that. This case is all about would-have, could-have, or should--have but with no basis in any actual event.

I do not see why anyone would have standing if no harm was involved to any party.

Lawyers should have any easy time distinguishing this from their cases.

[Rainger99]

I do not see why anyone would have standing if no harm was involved to any party.

The court found that she did have standing.

For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.

[Kelevision]

And why is that? Have colleges drastically increased costs by adding useless courses and overpaid faculty?

capitalized interest on student loans perhaps?

[Kelevision]

Not sure if the BBC provides real news.

Richard Sharp, who was chairman of the BBC, admitted that the broadcaster “does have a liberal bias.”

And I watched the BBC this morning. They had a Democratic congressman, a reporter from Politico, and a law professor who worked in the Biden administration. Not one guest defended the decisions.

As for Reuters, this is the headline for yesterday’s story.

US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case.

The term “Deals blow” to LGBT rights appears to show a political slant. A more objective headline would say

US Supreme Court rules in LGBT case.

I agree that Fox has a conservative bias but they will frequently put a liberal on the panel to present the liberal argument. I have never seen that on MSNBC.

Richard Sharp? The Richard Sharp who got fired for helping Boris Johnson get over 800 million in donations? I wonder why he’d say that. Lol BBC has also been accused of right leaning.
As for the headline “deals blow” it’s absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better.

I would never ever ever ever watch fox or msnbc. My brain might melt. Fox is lie after lie, hence the millions they had to fork over due to the lies they told and msnbc is just so left leaning it’s annoying.

[Rainger99]

As for the headline “deals blow” it’s absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better.


Or it could have said that the decision helps the LGBTQ community.

[Bay Kid]

If you borrow money, you pay it back or get foreclosed on. Doesn't matter if you borrowed too much, paid too much interest. Even though you couldn't afford the payments, YOU borrowed the money.

Hopefully you enjoyed the party at college while the rest of us worked.

[LuvNH]

My Granddaughter and her parents paid for her college. When she wanted to go on for her Masters she worked and paid for that. So what are they doing for someone like her who paid her own way, are they going to refund her payments?

[retiredguy123]

My Granddaughter and her parents paid for her college. When she wanted to go on for her Masters she worked and paid for that. So what are they doing for someone like her who paid her own way, are they going to refund her payments?
No, but the secret to becoming wealthy is to pay your own way and stay out of debt. Most people who depend on debt, never become wealthy.

[tophcfa]

My Granddaughter and her parents paid for her college. When she wanted to go on for her Masters she worked and paid for that. So what are they doing for someone like her who paid her own way, are they going to refund her payments?

Same thing with our daughter. No, they have no plans to treat the responsible equitably, only to send the wrong message to others.

[billethkid]

What's next?
Moaning and crying about not being able to afford the mortgage they also, signed for and agreed to pay?!?

__________________________________________

:censored:

[kp11364]

I made the decision when I went to college that I did not want to take out student loans. Yes, I got a partial scholarship, but I worked two part-time jobs as well. I came in thinking of one major, and on career day during freshman year, when I saw how little representation that major had, I switched to something that had many more opportunities.

[Normal]

I worked 18 hours a day with very poor sleep conditions to get through my undergraduate program, but I graduated with little debt. I have zero sympathy for those who think it is uncomfortable to pay back what they owe. There are plenty of jobs, find one and get it done.

[Michael 61]

I recruited and worked with lots of recent college graduates before retiring. I was always amazed at those who came out of college with huge debt - Many made very foolish decisions. 1) Could have gone to community college for their first two years of college, saving thousands, and then transfer to a 4-year university their Junior year. 2) Those that insisted on going to an expensive private “boutique” college, paying 3 and 4 times the tuition for the same degree that could have been obtained at a State University. 3) Those that had the option of living at home and commuting to a close-by university, but insisted on going to college far away or out-of-state and now having to pay room/board (any possibly out-of-state tuition). 4) Those that took out loans to do stuff like “spend the summer in Europe”.

And don’t get me started on those that chose majors like “Gender studies”, “Art History”, “Romantic French Literature”,etc, and wonder why they are working at Starbuck’s after graduating.

I realize college is more expensive than when most of us attended, but you can still limit your tuition and room/board burden by making wise choices.

[oldtimes]

I recruited and worked with lots of recent college graduates before retiring. I was always amazed at those who came out of college with huge debt - Many made very foolish decisions. 1) Could have gone to community college for their first two years of college, saving thousands, and then transfer to a 4-year university their Junior year. 2) Those that insisted on going to an expensive private “boutique” college, paying 3 and 4 times the tuition for the same degree that could have been obtained at a State University. 3) Those that had the option of living at home and commuting to a close-by university, but insisted on going to college far away or out-of-state and now having to pay room/board (any possibly out-of-state tuition). 4) Those that took out loans to do stuff like “spend the summer in Europe”.

And don’t get me started on those that chose majors like “Gender studies”, “Art History”, “Romantic French Literature”,etc, and wonder why they are working at Starbuck’s after graduating.

I realize college is more expensive than when most of us attended, but you can still limit your tuition and room/board burden by making wise choices.

I have a neighbor and her granddaughter's roommates decided to go on vacation rather than pay the rent.

[Michael 61]

I have a neighbor and her granddaughter's roommates decided to go on vacation rather than pay the rent.

There are too many young people living in the “here and now”, and unwilling to delay personal gratification. Very little thought about the future. Parents of many of these young adults are complicit by “enabling” this behavior.