August 22, 20233 yr 11 hours ago, Procus said: Man, that one would be funny, except for the fact that hunter Biden is being investigated. So, you’re just a moron.
August 22, 20233 yr I was half-joking in the Maui thread about him being a real-life super hero, but maybe there's some truth to it after all...
August 23, 20233 yr On 8/16/2023 at 1:22 PM, vikas83 said: At what point does anyone point out that the $700 is the defined amount under Critical Needs Assistance as administered by FEMA. It's what the law and regulations say. Sending more money would require an act of Congress. Or are we now cool with the executive branch just sending money without getting Congressional approval now? https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/critical-needs-assistance-0 Anything extra will require a bill passing Congress. While that is true, it hasn’t stopped Biden from repeatedly trying to bypass congress to forgive student loan debt:
August 23, 20233 yr Flash poll: @VanHammersly would respond to my posts if I made a Snuffleupagus clone. True or False?
August 23, 20233 yr 9 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: Flash poll: @VanHammersly would respond to my posts if I made a Snuffleupagus clone. True or False? I don’t think anyone’s gonna vote. Everyone else has you on ignore.
August 23, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, VanHammersly said: I don’t think anyone’s gonna vote. Everyone else has you on ignore. but look at that big, pink, come-hither tongue. would that I had a Costco-sized barrel of peanut butter
August 23, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Blazehound said: While that is true, it hasn’t stopped Biden from repeatedly trying to bypass congress to forgive student loan debt: "The relief is targeted at people who enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, which allow student loan debts to be forgiven by the federal government once payments have been made for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. But because of well-documented errors in tracking payments, many borrowers enrolled in IDR plans have been left paying well beyond their payment end dates, with no forgiveness in sight.” The government abiding by contracts that were made 20-25 years ago has nothing to do with bypassing congress.
August 23, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said: "The relief is targeted at people who enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, which allow student loan debts to be forgiven by the federal government once payments have been made for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. But because of well-documented errors in tracking payments, many borrowers enrolled in IDR plans have been left paying well beyond their payment end dates, with no forgiveness in sight.” The government abiding by contracts that were made 20-25 years ago has nothing to do with bypassing congress. Interesting. It’s not an outright cancellation of debt (already struck down by the Supreme Court) but a scheme to reduce and stretch out debt repayments to achieve more student loan forgiveness than what was already afforded under current law. The question is, how is the administration planning to fund the tax payer cost of the plan given the loss of interest and additional debt forgiveness it will generate? Higher taxes, more deficit spending? Both?
August 23, 20233 yr 11 hours ago, Blazehound said: Interesting. It’s not an outright cancellation of debt (already struck down by the Supreme Court) but a scheme to reduce and stretch out debt repayments to achieve more student loan forgiveness than what was already afforded under current law. The question is, how is the administration planning to fund the tax payer cost of the plan given the loss of interest and additional debt forgiveness it will generate? Higher taxes, more deficit spending? Both? It’s not a "scheme” to do anything other than abide by the already agreed to terms of the repayment plans these people agreed to 20-25 years ago. Did you even read the article you posted? Clearly not…
August 23, 20233 yr 3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: It’s not a "scheme” to do anything other than abide by the already agreed to terms of the repayment plans these people agreed to 20-25 years ago. Did you even read the article you posted? Clearly not… He’s revising already-in-place repayment plans. It's within his rights to do so (for now). But let’s be clear. The new formula, implemented by executive fiat, is a back door loan forgiveness scheme to buy votes in exchange for greater student loan repayment concessions, which will end up costing taxpayers. It’s a scam that a person who earns $60,000 per year and has a loan balance of $50,000 can get away with paying $1,500 per year for 20 years and then have the remaining balance forgiven (that is roughly the required payment under the new plan). Just keep spending like there is no tomorrow.
August 23, 20233 yr 42 minutes ago, Blazehound said: He’s revising already-in-place repayment plans. It's within his rights to do so (for now). But let’s be clear. The new formula, implemented by executive fiat, is a back door loan forgiveness scheme to buy votes in exchange for greater student loan repayment concessions, which will end up costing taxpayers. It’s a scam that a person who earns $60,000 per year and has a loan balance of $50,000 can get away with paying $1,500 per year for 20 years and then have the remaining balance forgiven (that is roughly the required payment under the new plan). Just keep spending like there is no tomorrow. These IDR plans are actually pretty bad for the consumer. It's essentially a ploy to trick people into thinking they're actually saving money by "reducing" their monthly payments and stretching it out to 20-25 years. All that does is actually increase the amount of interest you end up paying while at the same time discouraging these people from earning higher incomes. It's something you would think a stereotypical "evil" big bank would do. Just another in the long line of examples of the government hurting the very same people they are claiming to be helping. And the people share the blame in this as well for not sitting down and doing the math when they sign up for these deals.
August 24, 20233 yr 8 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: And still, we all lose. we are going to get the same two choices. you ain't pumped like i am about that ?
August 24, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Procus said: He’s old. Not hard to see why anyone in the poll would say no to "Do you want to see President Biden run again in 2024?” How many of those no votes are still going to vote for Biden in 2024 if trump is the other option? Biden should have ran in 2016, maybe we could have avoided the sorry state we are in all together… 41 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: And still, we all lose. If you’re losing right now, it’s not Biden’s fault, or anyone else you can’t see from the mirror…
August 24, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, MidMoFo said: He’s old. Not hard to see why anyone in the poll would say no to "Do you want to see President Biden run again in 2024?” How many of those no votes are still going to vote for Biden in 2024 if trump is the other option? Biden should have ran in 2016, maybe we could have avoided the sorry state we are in all together… A well reasoned coherent response. I doubt Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016. He was an equally uninspiring candidate as was Hillary's candidacy.
August 24, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, Procus said: A well reasoned coherent response. I doubt Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016. He was an equally uninspiring candidate as was Hillary's candidacy. He would have easily beaten trump. Trump only beat hillary by barely winning the rust belt states. Biden would have definitely held MI, WI, and PA making him president.
August 24, 20233 yr 5 minutes ago, Procus said: A well reasoned coherent response. I doubt Biden would have beaten Trump in 2016. He was an equally uninspiring candidate as was Hillary's candidacy. Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in Michigan or Wisconsin and said using social media as part of the campaign was unnecessary. Her presidential campaign was one of the most poorly run campaigns in recent memory.
August 24, 20233 yr 1 minute ago, Gannan said: Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in Michigan or Wisconsin and said using social media as part of the campaign was unnecessary. Her presidential campaign was one of the most poorly run campaigns in recent memory. The only candidate bad enough to lose to Donald Trump -- Hillary Clinton. The only candidate bad enough to lose to Hillary Clinton -- Donald Trump. Both parties picked their worst option.
August 24, 20233 yr 3 minutes ago, Gannan said: Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in Michigan or Wisconsin and said using social media as part of the campaign was unnecessary. Her presidential campaign was one of the most poorly run campaigns in recent memory. comey sending the letter to congress on 10/28/16 sealed her doom.
Create an account or sign in to comment