SO since there has not been a peep - I am guessing #SCOTUS is planning to hear The Student Loan frivolous cases just at the end of June when everything closes for the Fourth of July.
Does anyone know any different? If it is so, it's going to be another "Rule and Dash" against The Constitution. Right?
Just mere coinicidence Repugnicans came out with a "Student Plan plan" just now before they "ruled in June", right?
#StudentLoans ##SJC #Law #Constitution #Biden #FrivolousLawsuit
🇳🇱
@SameGirlie I really need to catch up on this.. I thought it was ruled unconstitutional a while ago?
@freemo Cases are up before The Supreme Court of the U.S. This will be a final judgement on the matter. We've been told June for the judgement. hope that helps a bit
@SameGirlie Ahh interesting.. I will be curious to hear the results.
Personally I hope they say the loan forgiveness is unconstitutional and I hope the result is that the government passes laws that make college free or cheap the right way (paying FUTURE college bills, not past, and paid by the government not loan agencies).
::fingers crossed::
@freemo My fingers are crossed that SCOTUS does not rule the use of actual laws unconstitional. It is wrong and it is a hijacking of our RIghts, Government, and Process by appointees of a Criminal.
Keep in mind that Congress wrote their appropriations bills based on reliance that these student loans would be paid back.
By law, Congress regularly cites these payments as part of the legal budget, no different from any other tax.
Biden cannot legally decline to collect this money any more than he can just decide not to collect corporate taxes any more.
That these student loan payments are part of the legal funding of government is a point all too often overlooked.
@volkris @SameGirlie @freemo Forgiving a loan is spending. Only the House can spend. Biden has no right to forgive a loan without an appropriations bill.
No, forgiving a loan is not spending. That's getting the math backwards.
If I don't bring in money I haven't spent. Wrong side of the balance sheet. My lack of income isn't an expense; it's a lack of income.
Yes, sometimes people engage in legal or accounting fictions surrounding this, but I think we need to push back and remember when we're speaking in convenient analogies.
It's like saying if I don't mug my neighbor I've lost the $100 that's in his pocket. No, that's just funky accounting.
If I give you 100$ as a loan, and then the loan disapears, all I did was spend 100$ on you.
The fact that you have to dish out the money first to make a loan is exactly why it is spending.
They are two different transactions.
You spend money to me purchasing the idea that I'll pay back the loan with interest.
I spend money to you when I write you a check in exchange for retiring my debt.
The fact that I might not write those checks (I might die or drag us through court or have a president unilaterally declare that I don't have to) shows that those are independent transactions.
In this case, the US already spent the money on these loans. For better or worse. That's over and done with.
Now the issue is whether debtors pay back into the US Treasury as per the legal obligation, so it's no longer about the US spending but rather the US receiving.
