Closest any of us on here are going to get though lol
Biden doesn't want to fight for 50,000 student loan relief. It's too hard
- Thread starter 850credit
- Start date
Follow everything listed.
Consumer Advisory: Opportunity to cancel student loan debt ends soon | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Many student loan borrowers have an opportunity to have their entire student loans cancelled or receive more credit towards cancellation, but they must act before April 30, 2024.www.consumerfinance.gov
Biden got niggas jumping through hoops and running through hamster wheels for debt "forgiveness."
Most of the people are old af and the government knows they'll never be able to pay it all back. Dude is 77 years old talking about he can finally start "thinking about retirement."
Reality is that these people have already paid the shit back in fees and interest. Biden ain't doing shit for the 25-to-50 year olds who really need the debt forgiveness so they can LIVE!
The people in that video represent the main issue with student loan debt in the first place. This has been a problem before Biden and Trump. The system was always fucked up. You take out a loan for 50K and then it ballons to 200K because of interest....Biden got niggas jumping through hoops and running through hamster wheels for debt "forgiveness."
Most of the people are old af and the government knows they'll never be able to pay it all back. Dude is 77 years old talking about he can finally start "thinking about retirement."
Reality is that these people have already paid the shit back in fees and interest. Biden ain't doing shit for the 25-to-50 year olds who really need the debt forgiveness so they can LIVE!
Also, this ain't touching the surface of people that got loans discharged. I got mines wiped out before my 40th birthday...I know plenty of people that are in their late 30's early 40's that got their loans discharged.....This video shows the impact of what relief a person can get when they don't have that debt over their heads...
Niggas want participation trophies vs. trying to figure out how they can come up with a plan of action to get their loans taken care of....
The issue with people BITCHING is that niggas took out loans and want Biden to cancel them and haven't paid a damn dime back on their loans.....That's the real issue that niggas don't want to talk about....
Niggas thinking they took out 100K and can keep hitting DEFERMENT, DEFERMENT, and miraculous have their shit Discharged. IT don't work like that...
AT the end of the day, NIGGAS DO NOT WANT TO TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.....
Oh yeah under TRUMP he had a bitch in the Dept. of Education that wanted to say FUCK A STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS...Atleast Biden is working to create a solution...
Niggas bitching and complaining but if it wasn't for BIDEN and Betsy Devos had her way, WE WOULDNT BE GETTING NO LOAN FORGIVENESS.
Education Secretary Betsy Devos calls student debt forgiveness 'a truly insidious notion' and free college 'a socialist takeover'
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Aarthi Swaminathan
·Reporter
Updated December 1, 2020·4 min read
Outgoing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos presented a spirited defense of her record after four years and skewered proposals from progressive politicians related to student debt cancellation and free college at the virtual 2020 Federal Student Aid (FSA) Training Conference on Tuesday.
“After nearly four years on the job, I want to take a few moments to reflect on the remarkable transformations that we led at FSA in recent years,” DeVos said at the beginning of the keynote speech, “and then discuss what still needs to be done for students.”
Read more: How to repay student loans: The full breakdown
‘A socialist takeover of higher education’
DeVos took aim at proposals to cancel student debt, a proposal that the incoming Biden administration campaigned on, calling debt forgiveness “the truly insidious notion of government gift giving.”“We’ve heard shrill calls to ‘cancel,’ to ‘forgive,’ to ‘make it all free,’” Devos added. “Any innocuous label out there can’t obfuscate what it really is: wrong.”
She also condemned the Democrat-supported idea of providing free college to lower-income Americans, calling the proposal “a socialist takeover of higher education.”
U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., September 28, 2017. REUTERS/Mary Schwalm
“Now, depending on your personal politics, some of you might not find that notion as scary as I do,” DeVos said. “But mark my words: None of you would like the way it will work.”
The way the government has handled student loans was a case in point, she argued.
“The first step was monopolizing student lending,” DeVos said. “$1.5 trillion later, can anyone say with a straight face that students are better off? That taxpayers are better off?”
Making college free would water down the quality of American higher ed, DeVos claimed, adding: “If the politicians proposing ‘free college’ today get their way, just watch our colleges and universities begin to resemble a failing K-12 school, with the customer service of the DMV to boot.”
DeVos also asserted that it would be “fundamentally unfair to ask two-thirds of Americans who don’t go to college to pay the bills for the mere one-third who do. And it’s even more unfair to those who have held up their end of the bargain and paid back their student loans themselves to subsidize those who don’t save, plan, and pay.”
Instead, she proposed making FSA, which holds the trillion-dollar loan portfolio, a standalone government agency with its own Board of Governors.
“Today, FSA has more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding loans on the books,” DeVos noted. “Too many of those loans are either delinquent, in default, or are loans on which borrowers are paying so little [that] their loan balance continues to grow.”
(Graphic: David Foster)
‘It was a deeply inappropriate speech’
Reaction to her speech was both swift and sharp.“It was a deeply inappropriate speech to be given at an apolitical training conference,” Eddy Conroy, associate director of institutional transformation at Temple University’s Hope Center College, Community, and Justice, told Yahoo Finance. “It was a nakedly political speech which is very on brand for Betsy DeVos…. [and] it also frankly feels very anti-higher education.”
Devos’ comments on forgiveness being “insidious” was also concerning, Conroy added: “I kind of am sort of gobsmacked by that. …. Fundamentally, this was a Secretary of Education who didn't feel like students deserved much support of all. And this is just an extension of that general feeling.”
US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos attends the "Getting America's Children Safely Back to School" event in the State Room of the white House in Washington, DC, on August 12, 2020. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, told Yahoo Finance that the comments “show a real lack of understanding of what the average college student looks like and on the issue of the cost of higher education. It appears she has not spent her time as secretary studying the data and the issues but has instead chosen to hang her hat on partisan policy one liners.”
Mayotte added that to say loan forgiveness is not fair to those who paid off their loans is also a misunderstanding, as that is “assuming that the playing field is equal to begin with.”
Amid the largely political speech, DeVos mentioned one topic that everyone seems to agree on right now: The cost of higher education is becoming out of control.
“Institutions must also take a long look in the mirror,” DeVos said. “The higher education industry needs to deliver products that are worth the price tag.”
—
Let's not forget, BIDEN did TRY and do a sweep but the Supreme Court turned that shit down....Nigga don't be mad at Biden, be mad at those folks on the SUPREME COURT..
OPINION ANALYSIS
Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
on Jun 30, 2023 at 12:31 pm
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court in Biden v. Nebraska on Friday. (William Hennessy)
This article was updated on June 30 at 4:00 p.m.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans. The Biden administration had said that as many as 43 million Americans would have benefitted from the loan forgiveness program; almost half of those borrowers would have had all of their student loans forgiven.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in Biden v. Nebraska, characterizing the decision as a straightforward interpretation of federal law.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.
President Joe Biden’s decision to permanently cancel up to $20,000 in loans for borrowers who qualify would have fulfilled a pledge that he made during his 2020 run for president. But after federal courts in Missouri and Texas put the program on hold last year, the Biden administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.
The challengers – six states with Republican attorneys general and two individuals with student loans — had urged the justices to strike down the debt-relief plan, arguing that it does not comply with the HEROES Act and other federal laws. But before the court could reach that question, it had to determine whether any of the challengers had a legal right to sue, known as standing.
To challenge a government policy in federal court, it is not enough that a plaintiff disagrees with the policy. Instead, the plaintiff must show (among other things) that she has been injured by the policy. If there is more than one plaintiff in a lawsuit, it can go forward as long as at least one plaintiff has standing.
In a 15-page opinion issued shortly before the Roberts opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, the court ruled unanimously in Department of Education v. Brown that two individual borrowers lacked standing to challenge the debt-relief plan.
But in the states’ case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year that Missouri has a right to sue because it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, one of the country’s largest servicers and holders of student loans. If the debt-relief program goes into effect, the states contended, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which will in turn limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs.
Chief Justice John Roberts with Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (William Hennessy)
On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri. Missouri created MOHELA to help state residents obtain student loans to pay for college, Roberts reasoned. It is operated by “state officials and state appointees, reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.” If the debt-relief program goes into effect, he observed, MOHELA’s revenues will fall, “impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students” – which in turn “is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
Having determined that Missouri (and therefore the rest of the states) had a right to challenge the debt-relief program, the court then turned to the heart of the case – whether the debt-relief program complies with federal law. Here the court agreed with the challengers that it did not. The HEROES Act, Roberts emphasized, gives the secretary of education the power to “waive or modify” laws and regulations governing the student-loan programs. Congress’s use of the word “modify” means that the Biden administration can make “modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions,” Roberts wrote, “not transform them.” But the debt-relief program, Roberts stressed, instead “created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” The plan “modifies” student-loan laws and regulations, Roberts suggested, “only in the same sense that the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility — it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.”
Roberts rejected the Biden administration’s contention that the secretary of education also has the power to “waive” laws and regulations relating to the student-loan program. When the secretary has invoked this power in the past, Roberts observed, he has done so for a specific legal requirement, such as the requirement that a student provide a written request for a leave of absence. But in this case, Roberts noted, the secretary has not indicated that he is waiving a specific provision.
Roberts also rebuffed the Biden administration’s argument that the debt-relief program is consistent with the purpose of the HEROES Act – that is, to give the secretary of education the power to provide relief to borrowers during a national emergency. “The question here,” Roberts countered, “is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it.” On this point, Roberts invoked the “major questions” doctrine, which is the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must say so clearly. But in this case, Roberts said, the HEROES Act did not authorize the debt-relief program at all, much less clearly.
Roberts concluded his 26-page opinion with a broader discussion of the dynamics on the court that appeared to be directed at both his dissenting colleagues and concerns about public perception of the court more broadly. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions,” Roberts wrote, “to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary.” But Friday’s decision, Roberts insisted, relied on “traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking.” Although “[r]easonable minds may disagree with our analysis,” including the court’s liberal justices,” Roberts acknowledged, “[w]e do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”
Barrett joined the Roberts opinion but also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she emphasized that the major questions doctrine “reinforces” the court’s conclusion that the HEROES Act does not give the Biden administration the power to adopt the debt-relief plan “but is not necessary” for it to reach that conclusion.
Barrett then discussed the major questions doctrine more generally, indicating that she took “seriously the charge” – made by Kagan in an opinion last year – “that the doctrine is inconsistent with textualism.” For Barrett, the doctrine is a tool that judges should use to try to determine “the text’s most natural interpretation.” And in particular, she suggested, judges should use common sense about whether this is the kind of question that Congress would have intended to delegate to an administrative agency. In this case, Barrett continued, it does appear that the Biden administration “has gone far ‘beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted’ in the HEROES Act.”
In Kagan’s view, the court should not have reached the merits of the states’ claims at all because none of the states had standing. The theory of standing advanced by the states, and accepted by the majority, she explained, “points to MOHELA as the proper plaintiff,” because MOHELA – rather than Missouri – would be injured by the debt-relief plan. But although MOHELA could have filed its own lawsuit, it did not, she stressed.
In any event, she continued, the debt-relief plan is authorized by the text of the HEROES Act. The act, she contended, “provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules” – precisely what the Biden administration did. The majority reaches the opposite conclusion, she contended, only by “picking the statute apart, and addressing each segment of Congress’s authorization as if it had nothing to do with the others.” That construction, she wrote, “makes the Act inconsequential,” leaving the secretary “with no ability to respond to large-scale emergencies in commensurate ways.”
Kagan also took aim at the court’s invocation of the major questions doctrine, arguing that Friday’s decision reflects “the Court’s own ‘concerns over the exercise of administrative power.’” Kagan explained that Congress “delegates to agencies often and broadly” for a variety of reasons, ranging from the expertise of those agencies to their ability to keep up with changing times and circumstances and the limits on Congress’s own ability to address everything that needs to be done. The Supreme Court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine, Kagan asserted, overrules Congress’s decisions about when and how to delegate. “And that is a major problem,” Kagan argued, “not just for governance, but for democracy too,” because when the Supreme Court steps in, it “becomes the arbiter — indeed, the maker — of national policy.”
In a statement issued by the White House, President Joe Biden called the court’s decision “wrong” and promised that “[t]his fight is not over.” He indicated that he planned to discuss the decision and “provide more detail on all that my Administration has done to help students and the next steps my Administration will take” in an address on Friday afternoon.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, one of the state officials who brought the challenge to the program, praised the decision. In a statement, Hilgers said that Friday’s decision “is a timely reminder that the President is no king” but must instead “work with, and not around, Congress.” “Our elected federal representatives are closest to the people, have the power of the purse, and are entrusted with the responsibility of tackling difficult policy issues.”
OPINION ANALYSIS
Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
By Amy Howe
on Jun 30, 2023 at 12:31 pm
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court in Biden v. Nebraska on Friday. (William Hennessy)
This article was updated on June 30 at 4:00 p.m.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans. The Biden administration had said that as many as 43 million Americans would have benefitted from the loan forgiveness program; almost half of those borrowers would have had all of their student loans forgiven.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in Biden v. Nebraska, characterizing the decision as a straightforward interpretation of federal law.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.
President Joe Biden’s decision to permanently cancel up to $20,000 in loans for borrowers who qualify would have fulfilled a pledge that he made during his 2020 run for president. But after federal courts in Missouri and Texas put the program on hold last year, the Biden administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.
The challengers – six states with Republican attorneys general and two individuals with student loans — had urged the justices to strike down the debt-relief plan, arguing that it does not comply with the HEROES Act and other federal laws. But before the court could reach that question, it had to determine whether any of the challengers had a legal right to sue, known as standing.
To challenge a government policy in federal court, it is not enough that a plaintiff disagrees with the policy. Instead, the plaintiff must show (among other things) that she has been injured by the policy. If there is more than one plaintiff in a lawsuit, it can go forward as long as at least one plaintiff has standing.
In a 15-page opinion issued shortly before the Roberts opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, the court ruled unanimously in Department of Education v. Brown that two individual borrowers lacked standing to challenge the debt-relief plan.
But in the states’ case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year that Missouri has a right to sue because it created and controls the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, one of the country’s largest servicers and holders of student loans. If the debt-relief program goes into effect, the states contended, it could cost MOHELA as much as $44 million per year, which will in turn limit the company’s ability to contribute funds to support the state’s higher-education programs.
Chief Justice John Roberts with Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan. (William Hennessy)
On Friday the justices upheld that ruling, finding that Missouri has standing to challenge the debt-relief program because the financial harms to MOHELA from the program will also harm Missouri. Missouri created MOHELA to help state residents obtain student loans to pay for college, Roberts reasoned. It is operated by “state officials and state appointees, reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.” If the debt-relief program goes into effect, he observed, MOHELA’s revenues will fall, “impairing its efforts to aid Missouri college students” – which in turn “is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
Having determined that Missouri (and therefore the rest of the states) had a right to challenge the debt-relief program, the court then turned to the heart of the case – whether the debt-relief program complies with federal law. Here the court agreed with the challengers that it did not. The HEROES Act, Roberts emphasized, gives the secretary of education the power to “waive or modify” laws and regulations governing the student-loan programs. Congress’s use of the word “modify” means that the Biden administration can make “modest adjustments and additions to existing provisions,” Roberts wrote, “not transform them.” But the debt-relief program, Roberts stressed, instead “created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” The plan “modifies” student-loan laws and regulations, Roberts suggested, “only in the same sense that the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility — it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.”
Roberts rejected the Biden administration’s contention that the secretary of education also has the power to “waive” laws and regulations relating to the student-loan program. When the secretary has invoked this power in the past, Roberts observed, he has done so for a specific legal requirement, such as the requirement that a student provide a written request for a leave of absence. But in this case, Roberts noted, the secretary has not indicated that he is waiving a specific provision.
Roberts also rebuffed the Biden administration’s argument that the debt-relief program is consistent with the purpose of the HEROES Act – that is, to give the secretary of education the power to provide relief to borrowers during a national emergency. “The question here,” Roberts countered, “is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it.” On this point, Roberts invoked the “major questions” doctrine, which is the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must say so clearly. But in this case, Roberts said, the HEROES Act did not authorize the debt-relief program at all, much less clearly.
Roberts concluded his 26-page opinion with a broader discussion of the dynamics on the court that appeared to be directed at both his dissenting colleagues and concerns about public perception of the court more broadly. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions,” Roberts wrote, “to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary.” But Friday’s decision, Roberts insisted, relied on “traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking.” Although “[r]easonable minds may disagree with our analysis,” including the court’s liberal justices,” Roberts acknowledged, “[w]e do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”
Barrett joined the Roberts opinion but also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she emphasized that the major questions doctrine “reinforces” the court’s conclusion that the HEROES Act does not give the Biden administration the power to adopt the debt-relief plan “but is not necessary” for it to reach that conclusion.
Barrett then discussed the major questions doctrine more generally, indicating that she took “seriously the charge” – made by Kagan in an opinion last year – “that the doctrine is inconsistent with textualism.” For Barrett, the doctrine is a tool that judges should use to try to determine “the text’s most natural interpretation.” And in particular, she suggested, judges should use common sense about whether this is the kind of question that Congress would have intended to delegate to an administrative agency. In this case, Barrett continued, it does appear that the Biden administration “has gone far ‘beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted’ in the HEROES Act.”
In Kagan’s view, the court should not have reached the merits of the states’ claims at all because none of the states had standing. The theory of standing advanced by the states, and accepted by the majority, she explained, “points to MOHELA as the proper plaintiff,” because MOHELA – rather than Missouri – would be injured by the debt-relief plan. But although MOHELA could have filed its own lawsuit, it did not, she stressed.
In any event, she continued, the debt-relief plan is authorized by the text of the HEROES Act. The act, she contended, “provides the Secretary with broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers, including by altering usual discharge rules” – precisely what the Biden administration did. The majority reaches the opposite conclusion, she contended, only by “picking the statute apart, and addressing each segment of Congress’s authorization as if it had nothing to do with the others.” That construction, she wrote, “makes the Act inconsequential,” leaving the secretary “with no ability to respond to large-scale emergencies in commensurate ways.”
Kagan also took aim at the court’s invocation of the major questions doctrine, arguing that Friday’s decision reflects “the Court’s own ‘concerns over the exercise of administrative power.’” Kagan explained that Congress “delegates to agencies often and broadly” for a variety of reasons, ranging from the expertise of those agencies to their ability to keep up with changing times and circumstances and the limits on Congress’s own ability to address everything that needs to be done. The Supreme Court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine, Kagan asserted, overrules Congress’s decisions about when and how to delegate. “And that is a major problem,” Kagan argued, “not just for governance, but for democracy too,” because when the Supreme Court steps in, it “becomes the arbiter — indeed, the maker — of national policy.”
In a statement issued by the White House, President Joe Biden called the court’s decision “wrong” and promised that “[t]his fight is not over.” He indicated that he planned to discuss the decision and “provide more detail on all that my Administration has done to help students and the next steps my Administration will take” in an address on Friday afternoon.
Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, one of the state officials who brought the challenge to the program, praised the decision. In a statement, Hilgers said that Friday’s decision “is a timely reminder that the President is no king” but must instead “work with, and not around, Congress.” “Our elected federal representatives are closest to the people, have the power of the purse, and are entrusted with the responsibility of tackling difficult policy issues.”
Trying to downplay and act like the loans being forgiven have hardly any impact is disingenuous as fuck. That's some goal post moving - now the problem is that he didn't do anything about the previously accrued interest ??? Fees huh. Dislike the administration but as mentioned the Trump admin wasn't doing shit about it.Biden got niggas jumping through hoops and running through hamster wheels for debt "forgiveness."
Most of the people are old af and the government knows they'll never be able to pay it all back. Dude is 77 years old talking about he can finally start "thinking about retirement."
Reality is that these people have already paid the shit back in fees and interest. Biden ain't doing shit for the 25-to-50 year olds who really need the debt forgiveness so they can LIVE!
Don't be too quiet about those student loan servicers not doing their jobs and fucking up a well intended debt forgiveness program.
Miss me with the Trump shit! It’s always “Trump this” and “Trump that” and “under Trump yadda yadda yadda”.
There is $1.6 trillion dollars of federally-held student loan debt affecting 44 million ppl and Biden has “forgiven” $143 billion of it for less than 4 million. This is statistical FACT!
So less than 10% of debt has been forgiven for less than 10% of the debtors. LESS THAN TEN PERCENT!! I can’t even call his policy half-ass because he can’t even do half of it. That is the real issue you “niggas” don’t want to talk about! And the problem with Black Demobots in general. Just accepting crumbs as “progress.”
And now you want to blame “niggas” who defer their loans and “don’t want to take accountability for their actions” (sounding mighty conservative Republican btw) rather than acknowledging that Black debtors experience student loan debt differently and that Biden’s administration has a myriad of ways that it could discharge student loan debt.
What to know about the SAVE plan, the income-driven plan to repay student loans
More than 7.5 million student loan borrowers have enrolled in the U.S. government's newest repayment plan since it launched in August. President Joe Biden recently announced � that he was canceling ...
www.dailykos.com
Republican states file lawsuit challenging Biden’s student loan repayment plan
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A group of Republican-led states is suing the Biden administration to block a new student loan repayment plan that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.
In a federal lawsuit filed Thursday, 11 states led by Kansas argue that Biden overstepped his authority in creating the SAVE Plan, which was made available to borrowers last year and has already canceled loans for more than 150,000.
It argues that the new plan is no different from Biden’s first attempt at student loan cancellation, which the Supreme Court rejected last year. “Last time Defendants tried this the Supreme Court said that this action was illegal. Nothing since then has changed,” according to the lawsuit.
The Education Department declined to comment on the lawsuit but noted that Congress in 1993 gave the department the authority to define the terms of income-driven repayment plans.
“The Biden-Harris Administration won’t stop fighting to provide support and relief to borrowers across the country — no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us,” the department said in a statement.
READ MORE
Biden announced the SAVE repayment plan in 2022, alongside a separate plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for more than 40 million Americans. The Supreme Court blocked the cancellation plan after Republican states sued, but the court didn’t examine SAVE, which was still being hashed out.
The new lawsuit was filed this same week the White House hosted a “day of action” to promote the SAVE Plan. The Biden administration says more than 7.7 million borrowers have enrolled in the plan, including more than 5 million who have had their monthly payments reduced to $100 or less because they have lower yearly incomes.
The challenge was filed electronically in federal court in Kansas by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who requested that any trial be in Wichita, the state’s largest city. The lawsuit asks a judge to halt the plan immediately. Along with Kansas, the suit is backed by Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.
“In a completely brazen fashion, the president pressed ahead anyway,” Kobach said during a news conference at the Kansas Statehouse. “The law simply does not allow President Biden to do what he wants to do.”
Biden’s new repayment plan is a modified version of other income-based repayment plans that the Education Department has offered since the ’90s. The earliest versions were created by Congress to help struggling borrowers, capping payments at a portion of their income and canceling any remaining debt after 20 or 25 years.
FILE - President Joe Biden speaks on student loan debt forgiveness at the White House, Oct. 4, 2023, in Washington. A group of Republican-led states filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, March 28, 2024, suing the Biden administration to block a new student loan repayment plan that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
FILE - People demonstrate outside the Supreme Court, June 30, 2023, in Washington. A group of Republican-led states filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, March 28, 2024, suing the Biden administration to block a new student loan repayment plan that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
The new plan offers more generous terms than ever, offering to reduce monthly payments for more borrowers and canceling loans in as little as 10 years. Unlike other plans, it prevents interest from snowballing as long as borrowers make their monthly payments.
The plan’s provisions are being phased in this year, and the quicker path to cancellation was originally scheduled to take effect later this summer. But the Biden administration accelerated that benefit and started canceling loans for some borrowers in February.
Biden said it was meant “to give more borrowers breathing room so they can get out from under the burden of student loan debt.”
Instead of creating a new plan from scratch, the Education Department amended existing plans through federal regulation. Supporters saw it as a legal maneuver that put the plan on firmer grounding, anticipating a challenge from Republicans.
But in the new lawsuit, Kobach argues that Biden needed to go through Congress to make such significant changes.
The states argue that Biden’s plan will harm them in many ways.
With such a generous repayment plan, fewer borrowers will have an incentive to go into public service and pursue the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the states argue. They predict more state employees will leave their jobs, and it will worsen public schools’ struggles to recruit and retain teachers.
They argue the plan will inject hundreds of billions of dollars in loan relief into the U.S. economy, which would require states to increase fraud protection efforts. The plan “will create enormous opportunities for fraudsters to exploit student debt borrowers that would not otherwise exist,” according to the suit.
If successful, it would effectively kill the last remnant of Biden’s first attempt at widespread student loan relief. After the Supreme Courtblocked his wider plan last year, Biden ordered the Education Department to craft a new plan using a different legal justification. The agency is now pursuing a more limited plan for mass cancellation.
___
Binkley reported from Washington___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
President Joe Biden Outlines New Plans to Deliver Student Debt Relief to Over 30 Million Americans Under the Biden-Harris Administration
April 08, 2024Today, Biden-Harris Administration leaders will fan out across the country as President Biden announces his Administration’s new plans to cancel student debt for tens of millions of Americans. The plans, if implemented, would provide debt relief to over 30 million Americans when combined with actions the Biden-Harris Administration has already taken to cancel student debt over the past three years. While Republican elected officials try every which way to block millions of their own constituents from receiving student debt cancellation, President Biden has vowed to use every tool available to cancel student debt for as many borrowers as possible, as quickly as possible. Today, President Biden will travel to Madison, Wisconsin to announce these new plans, while Vice President Harris will travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff will travel to Phoenix, Arizona, and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona will travel to New York City to meet with borrowers benefitting from the Administration’s student debt relief actions.
President Biden from Day One has worked to fix the student loan system and make sure higher education is a ticket to the middle class – not a barrier to opportunity – because he knows that debt cancellation not only benefits borrowers, it benefits the entire economy.
To date, the Biden-Harris Administration has approved $146 billion in student debt relief for 4 million Americans through more than two dozen executive actions. That includes fixing Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Income-Driven Repayment plans, so borrowers finally get the relief they are entitled to under the law. It also includes launching the most affordable student loan repayment plan ever – the SAVE plan – which cuts undergraduate loan payments in half, ensures borrowers never see their balance grow from unpaid interest, helps drop millions of borrowers’ monthly payments down to $0, and cancels debt for low-balance borrowers faster. Nearly 8 million borrowers have enrolled in the SAVE plan, 4.5 million borrowers have a monthly payment of $0 under the plan, and an additional 1 million borrowers have a monthly payment of less than $100. The Biden-Administration has also secured the largest increase to Pell Grants in a decade and has taken significant steps to hold colleges accountable for leaving borrowers with mountains of debt and without good job prospects.
Last June, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision blocking the Biden-Harris Administration’s original student debt relief plan, President Biden vowed to keep fighting to deliver student debt relief to borrowers held back by the burden of student loan debt. Immediately following that, the Department of Education began pursuing an alternative path to debt relief through negotiated rulemaking under the Higher Education Act.
Today’s announcement lays out the plans the Biden-Harris Administration is pursuing through that effort. In total, these plans would fully eliminate accrued interest for 23 million borrowers, would cancel the full amount of student debt for over 4 million borrowers, and provide more than 10 million borrowers with at least $5,000 in debt relief or more.
Canceling runaway interest for millions of borrowers
More than 25 million borrowers owe more than they originally borrowed, including many who have made years of payments, due to the interest rates on Federal student loans. President Biden will announce plans that, if finalized as proposed, would cancel up to $20,000 of the amount a borrower’s balance has grown due to unpaid interest on their loans after entering repayment, regardless of their income. Low and middle-income borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan or any other income-driven repayment (IDR) plan would be eligible for the entire amount their balance has grown since entering repayment to be canceled under the Administration’s plans. This group of borrowers includes single borrowers who earn $120,000 or less and married borrowers who earn $240,000 or less. No application will be needed for borrowers to receive this relief if the plan is implemented as proposed.
Millions of the borrowers who could be helped by these plans have continued to see their balances grow because of accrued interest, despite making their monthly payments. Many have also had this unpaid interest capitalized, meaning it is added to their principal balance and borrowers are now paying interest on that higher amount. The Administration’s plan would forgive interest balances built up to date for 25 million borrowers, with 23 million likely to have all of their balance growth forgiven.
This plan builds off the actions the Biden-Harris Administration has already taken to prevent the negative effects of excessive interest accrual on student loans going forward by eliminating all interest capitalization not required by law. The SAVE Plan does not charge unpaid interest for borrowers who make their monthly payments, and has canceled interest for at least 4.5 million borrowers to date.
Automatically canceling debt for borrowers eligible for loan forgiveness under SAVE, PSLF, closed school discharge, or other forgiveness programs but not enrolled
Too many borrowers eligible for relief – including immediate cancellation –have not been able to overcome paperwork requirements, bad advice, or other obstacles. Since its first days in office, the Biden-Harris Administration has worked to get borrowers the relief to which they are entitled.
Today, the Administration is proposing to automatically cancel debt for borrowers otherwise eligible for relief through the SAVE plan, Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or other forgiveness opportunities like closed school loan discharges but who have not successfully applied for that assistance.
Under SAVE, borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less in loans and have been in repayment for 10 years are eligible to get their remaining debt canceled. For every additional $1,000 in loans they took out (up to $21,000 total for undergraduate loans and $26,000 total for graduate loans), a borrower is eligible for relief after an additional year of repayment. For example, if a borrower took out $13,000 in loans, they would be eligible for debt cancellation after 11 years in repayment.
Under Public Service Loan Forgiveness, borrowers in public service for 10 years who have made 120 months of qualifying payments can get their remaining student debt canceled.
The Administration’s plans would allow the Department of Education to use data it has on hand to identify borrowers otherwise eligible for this type of relief without requiring them to apply for these programs. The Administration expects this action would cancel debt for around 2 million borrowers across the country.
Canceling student debt for borrowers who entered repayment over 20 years ago
More than 2.5 million borrowers have had their share of student loans for two decades or longer and still carry debt from long-ago loans. The Biden-Harris Administration has already cancelled $45.6 billion in student debt so far for nearly 1 million borrowers who have been in repayment for at least 20 years, but never got the relief they were entitled to because of administrative problems with income-driven repayment plans. The Administration’s new proposals, if finalized as proposed, would cancel student debt for borrowers who first entered repayment 20 or more years ago. Borrowers with only undergraduate debt would qualify for forgiveness if they first entered repayment 20 years ago (on or before July 1, 2005), and borrowers with any graduate school debt would qualify if they first entered repayment 25 or more years ago (on or before July 1, 2000). Both Direct Loans and Direct Consolidation Loans that repay only undergraduate study or graduate study for 20 or 25 years respectively are eligible for relief in this proposal. Borrowers would not need to be on an income-driven repayment plan to qualify.
Canceling student debt for borrowers who enrolled in low-financial-value programs
One of the Biden-Harris Administration’s top priorities when it comes to higher education is holding colleges accountable when they leave students with mountains of debt and without good job prospects. To this end, the Department has taken significant steps to crack down on colleges that provide low-value programs to borrowers, when they cheat students and families, and when they close unexpectedly – leaving borrowers and taxpayers to foot the bill.
Today, President Biden is announcing his Administration’s plans that, if finalized as proposed, would cancel student debt for loans associated with institutions or programs that lost their eligibility to participate in the Federal student aid program or were denied recertification because they cheated or took advantage of students. Further, borrowers who attended institutions or programs that closed and failed to provide sufficient value— for example that leave graduates with unaffordable loan payments or earnings no better than what someone with a high school diploma earns— would be eligible for relief under this proposal.
Canceling student debt for borrowers experiencing hardship paying back their loans
President Biden and his Administration recognize that the current student loan system and repayment programs don’t reach all borrowers, and for many Americans student loans continue to be a barrier for them participating in the economy, accessing economic mobility, or pursuing their dreams. The Administration’s plan for student debt relief will also include a plan that would cancel student debt for borrowers experiencing hardship in their daily lives that prevents them from fully paying back their loans now or in the future.
This plan could provide relief to millions of borrowers who experience hardship—such as borrowers who are at high risk of defaulting on their student loans, who could be eligible for automatic relief, or families who are burdened with other expenses like medical debt or child care who can apply for relief in the future.
Providing relief to millions of borrowers this year
The Biden-Harris Administration plans to release proposed rules on these plans over the coming months. If these plans are finalized as proposed, this fall the Administration would begin canceling up to $20,000 in interest for millions of borrowers and full loan forgiveness for millions more.
Building off unparalleled record canceling student debt under President Biden
Today’s announcements follow historic actions the President and his Administration have already taken to approve student debt cancellation for nearly 4 million Americans and make student loan payments easier for millions more through the SAVE plan. These actions have benefited borrowers from all 50 states and U.S. territories, borrowers from different walks of life, and borrowers of all ages. To date:
- The Administration has canceled over $62.5 billion in student debt for 871,000 public service workers, including teachers, firefighters, nurses, and more. Prior to the Biden Administration, only 7,000 people in total had received debt forgiveness through Public Service Loan Forgiveness in the over 15 years since the program was put in place. The Biden Administration implemented fixes to make sure public service workers received the relief they are entitled to under the law, helping nearly 900,000 public service workers receive relief to date.
- The Administration has approved $45.6 billion in debt cancellation for nearly 1 million borrowers through fixes to income-driven repayment. For too long, as a result of administrative failures and loan servicer errors, borrowers never got credit for being in repayment. The Biden-Harris Administration fixed that, and has approved debt cancellation for over 930,000 borrowers who have been in repayment for over 20 years.
- The Administration has approved $22.5 billion in debt cancellation for borrowers cheated by their schools, who saw their schools abruptly close, or who were covered by related court settlements. The Administration has approved borrower defense and closed school discharges to provide debt cancellation for students that attended and were cheated by for-profit institutions like Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute. Less than $600 million in debt relief had been approved through borrower defense, closed school discharges, and related court settlements from all prior administrations combined, compared to the $22.5 billion approved under the Biden-Harris Administration alone.
- The Administration has approved $14 billion in debt cancellation for over 548,000 borrowers with a total and permanent disability. Through automatic matches with the Social Security Administration and other actions, the Biden-Harris Administration has approved debt cancellation for over half a million borrowers with total and permanent disabilities.
- The Administration launched the SAVE plan – helping borrowers of all ages and walks of life manage their monthly payments, not charging interest for millions of borrowers, and setting $0 payments for 4.5 million borrowers every month. To date, nearly 8 million borrowers have enrolled in SAVE, and 4.5 million of them have a monthly payment of $0, meaning they are also not accumulating interest that would otherwise be due. An additional million borrowers have a monthly payment of less than $100. Already the Administration has canceled debt for 153,000 borrowers enrolled in SAVE who took out low balances and have been in repayment for at least 10 years. And in July, the SAVE plan will cap monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of income compared to the 10% threshold now – which will save many young borrowers money on their monthly payments. The Administration continues to encourage borrowers to sign up for the SAVE plan at studentaid.gov/SAVE to save money on their monthly payments and reach loan forgiveness faster.
- The Administration secured the largest increase to Pell Grants in a decade, and has expanded eligibility for the maximum Pell Grant to 1.7 million more Americans. The President has taken historic steps to bring college in reach for more Americans, including low-income Americans. The President secured the largest increase to Pell Grants in a decade, expanded eligibility to Pell to 665,000 new students, and expanded eligibility for the maximum Pell Grant to 1.7 million more students. The President has also proposed making community college free so more Americans can access the promise of higher education.
###
But but Biden is worst than Trump. GTFOH
Man, some people hate Dems so much they can't even admit when they do something that helps people. Their identity is tied up in being too smart, enlightened to be a dem so by the default, they have to shit on everything dems do.
Last edited:
Yea man I need that interest relief at the very least. Shit been haywire for a minute.
Right and these people call themselves religious or believing in a higher power.
Well isn’t the Golden Rule “do unto others as you would want them to do unto you?”
To have the means to help someone or bless someone that needs it just gives you a good
ass feeling.
I’ve learned though you just have miserable people in the world and I just try not to surround myself with those folks.
Game changer bro
Wondering if the people who are posting so much are getting paid to do so.
Not going to mention names. But I think bits pretty obvious who's on payroll.
Funny how massa likes to pick and choose his pets.
The junta in Chad turned down $100M not to sell out his people.
Being a Democrat is a death march to the extinction of the American black. I doubt the people posting this have little to any ADOS pride or heritage and subscribe to the global government that controls the places they came feom
You wanna be liberal white. All it's going to lead to is low birth rates and the importing of more 3rd world people to replace them.
Next time one of your friends immigrants kills someone just remember the American who got slaughters most likely wouldn't be able to conduct themselves or get the benefits the immigrants would give them if the role were reversed.
But you guys keep typing your little fingers off.
Good to see you guys working so hard even though you are losing badly. Losing an entire third of the black vote has to be the most incompetent move Ive ever seen.
But since logic and reasons doesn't rule the party anymore I have a suggestion for them. Even though they are going to lose they can always "feel" like winners. That what REALLY matters. You guys can pretend like you won just like a man can pretend to be a woman. Problems solved and feelings unhurt.
All you have to do is "feel" like you won and everything will solve itself. Are you guys "feeling" better now? Because that's what really matters to you guys, feelings. Feelings!!!
Not going to mention names. But I think bits pretty obvious who's on payroll.
Funny how massa likes to pick and choose his pets.
The junta in Chad turned down $100M not to sell out his people.
Being a Democrat is a death march to the extinction of the American black. I doubt the people posting this have little to any ADOS pride or heritage and subscribe to the global government that controls the places they came feom
You wanna be liberal white. All it's going to lead to is low birth rates and the importing of more 3rd world people to replace them.
Next time one of your friends immigrants kills someone just remember the American who got slaughters most likely wouldn't be able to conduct themselves or get the benefits the immigrants would give them if the role were reversed.
But you guys keep typing your little fingers off.
Good to see you guys working so hard even though you are losing badly. Losing an entire third of the black vote has to be the most incompetent move Ive ever seen.
But since logic and reasons doesn't rule the party anymore I have a suggestion for them. Even though they are going to lose they can always "feel" like winners. That what REALLY matters. You guys can pretend like you won just like a man can pretend to be a woman. Problems solved and feelings unhurt.
All you have to do is "feel" like you won and everything will solve itself. Are you guys "feeling" better now? Because that's what really matters to you guys, feelings. Feelings!!!
MOHELA STINKS!
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and TEACH Grant Updates
Beginning May 1, 2024, The U.S. Department of Education (ED) will transition servicing of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program and the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program from MOHELA to ED via StudentAid.gov. This means that if you are already working toward PSLF, are interested in PSLF, or are a TEACH Grant recipient, you will work directly with ED. Your federal student loans will remain with a loan servicer.
What You Can Expect as of May 1, 2024
- To allow for the transition of PSLF and TEACH program servicing to StudentAid.gov, the processing of all PSLF and TEACH grant documentation will be temporarily paused beginning May 1, 2024. For document processing related to PSLF, this pause is expected to last through July 2024. The pause on processing of TEACH Grant documentation is expected to last through September 2024.
- Beginning May 1st, 2024, MOHELA will no longer have any specific PSLF or TEACH Grant data related to your account or loans, including PSLF qualifying payment counters, PSLF employment information, or information related to the status of your TEACH Grant application. If you want to save screenshots and correspondence for your personal records, we recommend doing this by April 30, 2024.
- All pending requests and applications will be processed by the U.S. Department of Education once the transition is complete and the processing pause ends.
- After the pause ends, you will be able to log in to your StudentAid.gov account to find information about all your eligible and qualifying payments for PSLF. For more information, please visit StudentAid.gov/streamlining.
The irony.
My brothers and sisters allegiance to liberal Democrats is very disappointing. I'm in the Bay Area of California and in my observations, liberal white folks are just as racist as conservatives, but alot more persuasive. San Francisco has a long standing reputation of acceptance but but the black folks lived in the worst living conditions and with the worst schools. We just watched Biden tell us that "we aint black" if we didn't support him and then proceed to not do anything for us throughout his term. We called Bill Clinton an honorary Black man, then watched him support clearly racist crime bills that incarcerated our brothers and sisters and broke up families for generations. Now we are stuck with Biden vs Trump and our brothers are calling us "coons" if we dont support a senile Biden who is quoted to not support Reparations. Nobody is saying to vote for Trump, but we should definitely sit this vote out and demand clear support for Black folks before we give our voting support to any candidate. Every other group that has lapped us in political clout has done this.
I might be inarticulate in this response:
First I'm not a Biden supporter but I currently support his admin and the efforts of his Dept heads(except Garland).
Are numbers are dwindling already from not participating from the minimum effort of voting.
What happens if Biden wins anyway on the backs of "Moderates"? We would no longer have influence.
I'm not saying give blind allegiance to Biden or down ballot candidates but primary season is over and at it's most important time, Black people already sat out(voting and presenting candidates that meet closer to our needs) and the results are present in the general.
IDK what part of the country you're in but I'm assuming you haven't took a look at the Ballot to see what is snuck on it.
Show me an example of one group sitting out votes then gaining political clout.
The biggest group of non voters in the country are the poor, and they have ZERO political clout.
The "don't vote crew" literally repeats this same stuff you just said, over, and over, and over, and over. Doesn't matter how many times it gets debinked.
Your choices are:
1. A party that is actively dismantling all of the protections gained during the civil rights era, removing every program designed to help Black people, removing all oversight of police over police brutality, and erasing the horrors of racism and slavery from being taught in schools.
2. A party that is fighting against the attacks on those protections, that tried to pass new protections, but were blocked, and hasn't passed reparations.
You and other keep saying those are the same. Which is insane and just cover for you to help Republicans get elected.
Not participating is not the way to achieve our goals.
People don't wanna face that to gain political power we need more MONEY. We're dead last in household income therefore the only power we have is in voting numbers. If we don't vote we don't even have that. No reason to even give us cursory actions like hot sauce, eating chicken, doing a speech from a Black Church, etc.
For more money we need more education and more business ownership. That's gonna take generations. People wanna see generational changes right now.
Yes we deserve reparations and other groups got them. We need a legal defense fund to focus on that while the rest of us focus on improving ourselves and educating our kids so that we or they can maximize the benefits of that if it comes.
Until then we need to vote, get certifications, designations, learn trades, get 1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees, hell go to the FREE public library and read business books. And vote.
People don't wanna face that to gain political power we need more MONEY. We're dead last in household income therefore the only power we have is in voting numbers. If we don't vote we don't even have that. No reason to even give us cursory actions like hot sauce, eating chicken, doing a speech from a Black Church, etc.
For more money we need more education and more business ownership. That's gonna take generations. People wanna see generational changes right now.
Yes we deserve reparations and other groups got them. We need a legal defense fund to focus on that while the rest of us focus on improving ourselves and educating our kids so that we or they can maximize the benefits of that if it comes.
Until then we need to vote, get certifications, designations, learn trades, get 1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees, hell go to the FREE public library and read business books. And vote.
The Democrats have be the downfall of ADOS.
Nothing but liars you can't trust. They need to understand who they depend on. You don't win election on donations by themselves.
I worry they will try to stay in power by manipulating the voters roles by having dead/sick people vote by absentee ballots. Any election with any close margins will suddenly get 10-20k votes in favor of what the Democrats want.
Gays and white women are the biggest scammers on earth. I don't trust them for shit nor do I want to be affiliated with them.
The Democrats have to choose. Us or them. There is no in-between. If you want to build a party on single childrenless women and gay then go right ahead. Just don ask my black straight ass to vote for you. We have nothing in common nor do I support their agenda.
ADOS are leaving the DNC and this is only the beginning. Once the DNC got away from it working class roots it was done. Rich gay people shouldn't run shit let alone a political party.
The unity has been destroyed and the Dems are going to be on life support in less than 5 years.They fucked up royaly and now it time from them to lose their jobs because of their incompetence . When people look back at history, this is going to be an example to other generations that this was one of the worst administrations in history and how NOT to run a political party.
So much potential all wasted because you couldn't tell the gays and white women NO.
Oh well. Losers gonna lose.
Niggas are a fucking Joke. Posting information that can help brothers out is considered being paid by anyone.....
I Wish someone was paying me.....BIDEN CUT ME A CHECK!!!!
See I live my life through my university's MOTTO - Enter to Learn, Depart to Serve
The Serve part is what I never see ADOS, FBA, China Man, or any other these GRIFTERS do in our community....Talk is cheap where I am from....
But regardless, I will say this for the 100th time, if you all about hold your vote and you not in these streets or not cutting a check to organizations that are actually putting in the work, SHUT THE FUCK UP......
Not voting can have negative effects whether you like it or not...
See I know to many righteous brothers that are going to do for their community regardless of who is in the administration.....
It's funny how the following have never mentioned the Black Alphabet Crew - FBA, ADOS:
RIP to our ancestors
Dick Gregory
Asa Hillard
Ivan Van Sertima
Runoko Rashidi
Dr. Frances C. Welsing
Dr. Leonard Jeffries
Chairman Fred Hampton Jr.
Go listen to Dr. Fox's video and book called: Addicted to White: The Oppressed in League with The Oppressor.
Fox intends this to be a workbook for Victims of Racism to utilize to study the ways we’ve been conditioned to envy, worship and identify with Whites.
So if you not giving your TIME, ENERGY, or Money to causes that benefit our community, your opinions don't matter.....Just go up to DC and march with your DADDY and let this nigga pull a Jay Morrison on your dumb asses
In the meantime, if you have a problem with black supporting blacks, go get you a dose of some Bobby Hemmitt and free your mind...
Niggas are a fucking Joke. Posting information that can help brothers out is considered being paid by anyone.....
I Wish someone was paying me.....BIDEN CUT ME A CHECK!!!!
See I live my life through my university's MOTTO - Enter to Learn, Depart to Serve
The Serve part is what I never see ADOS, FBA, China Man, or any other these GRIFTERS do in our community....Talk is cheap where I am from....
But regardless, I will say this for the 100th time, if you all about hold your vote and you not in these streets or not cutting a check to organizations that are actually putting in the work, SHUT THE FUCK UP......
Not voting can have negative effects whether you like it or not...
See I know to many righteous brothers that are going to do for their community regardless of who is in the administration.....
It's funny how the following have never mentioned the Black Alphabet Crew - FBA, ADOS:
RIP to our ancestors
Dick Gregory
Asa Hillard
Ivan Van Sertima
Runoko Rashidi
Dr. Frances C. Welsing
Dr. Leonard Jeffries
Chairman Fred Hampton Jr.
Go listen to Dr. Fox's video and book called: Addicted to White: The Oppressed in League with The Oppressor.
Fox intends this to be a workbook for Victims of Racism to utilize to study the ways we’ve been conditioned to envy, worship and identify with Whites.
So if you not giving your TIME, ENERGY, or Money to causes that benefit our community, your opinions don't matter.....Just go up to DC and march with your DADDY and let this nigga pull a Jay Morrison on your dumb asses
In the meantime, if you have a problem with black supporting blacks, go get you a dose of some Bobby Hemmitt and free your mind...
Fire ass post hometeam.
SERIOUSLY!!!!
Niggas are a fucking Joke. Posting information that can help brothers out is considered being paid by anyone.....
I Wish someone was paying me.....BIDEN CUT ME A CHECK!!!!
See I live my life through my university's MOTTO - Enter to Learn, Depart to Serve
The Serve part is what I never see ADOS, FBA, China Man, or any other these GRIFTERS do in our community....Talk is cheap where I am from....
But regardless, I will say this for the 100th time, if you all about hold your vote and you not in these streets or not cutting a check to organizations that are actually putting in the work, SHUT THE FUCK UP......
Not voting can have negative effects whether you like it or not...
See I know to many righteous brothers that are going to do for their community regardless of who is in the administration.....
It's funny how the following have never mentioned the Black Alphabet Crew - FBA, ADOS:
RIP to our ancestors
Dick Gregory
Asa Hillard
Ivan Van Sertima
Runoko Rashidi
Dr. Frances C. Welsing
Dr. Leonard Jeffries
Chairman Fred Hampton Jr.
Go listen to Dr. Fox's video and book called: Addicted to White: The Oppressed in League with The Oppressor.
Fox intends this to be a workbook for Victims of Racism to utilize to study the ways we’ve been conditioned to envy, worship and identify with Whites.
So if you not giving your TIME, ENERGY, or Money to causes that benefit our community, your opinions don't matter.....Just go up to DC and march with your DADDY and let this nigga pull a Jay Morrison on your dumb asses
In the meantime, if you have a problem with black supporting blacks, go get you a dose of some Bobby Hemmitt and free your mind...
No. Not really. I really don't think any ADOS should anything for college. Zero. Zlitch!! We can speak on reparations later but college education should be part of it. Native Americans don't have to pay for school then why should we. Same for reservations with our own law enforcement laws and judges. But I'm not going to focus on that.
The most of the debts tied to college education are connected to highly inflated debt schemes used to benefit white liberals.
If you wonder why the average housing project doesn't have money to meet basic maintenance needs is because low income housing money is being sucked up for "low" income whites in the form of college students.
Your typical new big city college dormitories are built of off mix of low income housing funding that used to go towards family housing. Between section 8 sucking up money and developers scheming ain't shit low cost about most of the "projects". If I have to paid college tuition to live there, how is it low cost and accessible to most when you have to be admitted to a school?
Anyone can damn near be considered low income once they initially moved from their parents home. It's a lot of middle upper class and up people in "low income housing". Just look at what's consider low in NYC/California and see how much money it drains from real low cost housing where it could be directed towards family growth.
The DNC rather have low cost immigrants who don't pay taxes sucking up more money that could go towards building family units could actually make cities for affordable. Now they are begging the Feds to print more money so they can get low cost day care and construction workers for their flip and gentrification games they play with the banks that wont give blacks that live in the same neighborhoods a loan.
The facts are showing that the "liberals" ain't shit but shady ass whites/teathers who have driven up the cost of essentials like health care and education in the cities. While subscribing to globalism that have destroyed the manufacturing base of America.
The schools are straight shit while you pay high ass taxes to liberal whites and incompetent sista girl/teachers politicians.
Health care is higher than ever while 55% of todays kids are obese, the birth rate has decreased,50% of all Americans are fat as fuck, and the average age of Americans at death is going down. Why are we paying these people more money to die sooner.
Why are we paying people more for education when the kids are dumber?? I will tell you why. Your DNC ran cities that are shitty as fuck right now and the future are ran by incompetent white men and women along with their handpicked niggas.
Lastly, Nobody from gentrified places like California and DC should tell her other black people how to conduct political business.
They got schemed out of their neighborhoods now they want to give you same the bad advice that got them gentrified out of their own neighborhoods. Now white people live in the same places they used to stay and have better access to better resources now that they kicked their black asses out of California and DC.
I'm glad the people in Chicago are waking up faster than most. They see the game plan is the same as aways. Infiltrate us take down our leaders and insert theirs. Lori Lightfoot and Brandon Johnson are showing how many black politicians have sold and are more concerned about self-interest than the people who vote for them.
Just listen to the beta in the niggas. "If we don't vote for them and they win they won't listen to us in the future"
Anybody with any mathematical knowledge knows that's not true and understand that somebody's lying about something. It's part of the scheme it's part of the deception and it's part of the fear mongering.
But fears is all you have other than results. The point the conversation is pretty much over with. They're losing the election and if there's very little they can do about it at this point. Inflation alone gets most guys kicked out the white house. Biden is involved in two wars with a third on the horizon. Kennedy probably is the best choice but Biden is not an option. He's not even physically fit for the job.