Biden's America

[Archy1221]

54 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

  And...completely ignore the rest of what I said.

Well ya, because it’s irrelevant up until the time clawed back interest on those specific borrows is a thing. 

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's what Archy does repeatedly. Avoid the parts of a post that refute what he's said and focus on minor details to try to move the discussion to quibbling over the insignificant word choices.

   Which part of his post showed this claw back is going to happen, which I agreed with him that if it does it wouldn’t be right.  
 

Word choices in bills, is a little bit important.  I’m this case, words choices on what the bill means for interest and who it impacts would be important.   

[Archy1221]

No worries, Twitter Victor  says the young one are voting so all will be good.  
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Word choices in bills, is a little bit important.

Yes it is.  And, omitting that the interest is not retroactive....is an important omission....meaning, it's not clarified....which means it's retroactive....because this bill basically says the debt forgiveness never happened.

 

Words left out are just as important as words put in.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This bill lists "One-Time Federal Student Loan 6 Debt Relief".  When I google that, I get:

 

https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/debt-relief-info

 

If there's debt relief, then that would include interest.  So, anyone who was lead to believe their they received debt relief, would also assume that the interest was not accruing.  So....the Republican's bill is taking away the debt relief.....and retroacting the interest accrued.  

I'm not in favor of forgiving the loans.  But, it's also unfair to tell people the the loans have been forgiven, only to then go back and retro accrue interest.

 

If they are going to go back and take away the forgiveness, then they need to make them accrue interest starting now, and not make it retroactive.  

 

 

The whole idea of taking it back is bats#!t f#&%ing insane, the interest part just being the worst of it. 

[JJ Husker]

These topics sure do get discussed longer than required when one party can’t fathom that if no debt relief happened (as in the bill passes) then obviously interest was not suspended during that timeframe, and therefore people who were told “paused payments without interest” would owe that interest. But no, somebody in the discussion doesn’t see that specific wording, intentionally left out no doubt, so they keep going like they have a leg to stand on. 

FYI, he’s not going to get it, ever, because he doesn’t want to, so it’s probably best to ignore any further contributions.

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

meaning, it's not clarified....which means it's retroactive....because this bill basically says the debt forgiveness never happened.

If your going with Not clarified, it does not mean retroactive, it means not clarified.   
 

Now if you want to follow through on the argument you are making, why is no one making a big deal about saying GOP is making people have late payment fees then?  If everything is retroactive, then they missed payments and late payment fees would likely apply.  

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The whole idea of taking it back is bats#!t f#&%ing insane, the interest part just being the worst of it. 

The whole idea of it being legal is being litigated.   So no, it’s not bats#!t insane.   

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If your going with Not clarified, it does not mean retroactive, it means not clarified.   
 

Now if you want to follow through on the argument you are making, why is no one making a big deal about saying GOP is making people have late payment fees then?  If everything is retroactive, then they missed payments and late payment fees would likely apply.  

Why doesn't Republicans come out and simply clarify what will happen with interest by modifying the bill?  Or, better yet, why wasn't it in the bill to begin with?

 

If it's not in the bill, the way the bill is written, interest is retroactive.  I get that you don't understand that.

 

Good question on the late fees.  Are people going to instantly get slammed with late fees if they don't immediately pay all missed payments?

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

If it's not in the bill, the way the bill is written, interest is retroactive.  I get that you don't understand that.

 

Good question on the late fees.  Are people going to instantly get slammed with late fees if they don't immediately pay all missed payments?

Why are you even asking the question about late fees?  According to your logic, that is actually settled because the language isn’t in the bill.   According to you that means late fees are going to be assessed.   And that being the case, why isn’t Clyburn b!^@hing about it too?  

[suh_fan93]

 

[RedDenver]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

 

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[knapplc]

Yikes.

 

 

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

Yikes.

 

 

Point to Trump for better balance