[Bay Kid]

I pay my own debts, you pay yours.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

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.

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

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]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

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]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

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]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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

[Susan1717]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Wondering

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]

Originally Posted by Susan1717

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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?