comment: >
  
  Why don’t they make it a charity and whoever wants can donate and get a tax break.
context: Cancel PPP forgiveness. I’m a small business owner w/ no employees. Why didn’t I get PPP? >
  
  You need to be the hero sue someone to get rid of PPP loans for the rest of us. Should be a slam dunk by citing the Supreme Court decision about to come out. >
  
  This is an executive action versus direct congressional action. Granted this EA seems well within the scope of previous legislation, but PPP is directly from congress which gives it even stronger legitimacy in court >
  
  PPP was/is legit no doubt BUT what more than a few did with the money (vs intended purpose - to keep them afloat during tRumpvid20) was and is FRAUD! Kinda like if I'd have used my GI Bill payments to buy a new Bass boat without enrolling in any classes. >
  
  Worse. It would be if you impersonated a former service member, got the GI bill and spent that money on a new bass boat and then the government just decided it wasn’t important to investigate >
  
  True - I keep forgetting Nixon killed the draft to stop STUDENT protests, so there's a bunch more folks who never served except in their local militias. Nixon knew you had to placate those who had learned to think rationally, the rest could be simply distracted with BS, a lesson well learned at Fox. >
  
  I'm sure the two "plaintiffs" are being amply compensated by the billionaire sponsors of this suit. >
  
  Assholes like this do it for free, or for clout in the movement. They are ideologues, not mercenaries. >
  
  Yeah, like the gun rights activist that keeps suing everything fun in Atlanta. Goodbye Music Midtown. I hope that guy gets spit upon every time he shows his face in public. >
  
  My school loans are paid off but I’m all about student loan forgiveness.  It’s not right to send young people into adulthood in crippling debt simply for getting educated.  
  I’d much rather my tax money go toward helping people (and by extension, our country) than going into an already-bloated military budget or used to offset the loss of tax revenue from keeping billionaires rich.  Too many people don’t realize that raising the floor on the standard of living in this country makes life better for everyone - even if one specific policy doesn’t affect them directly.  Economics trickle up, not down. >
  
  
  Too many people don’t realize that raising the floor on the standard of living in this country makes life better for everyone - even if one specific policy doesn’t affect them directly. 
  
  Unfortunately we live in a country full of selfish assholes who 1) are against things that help people because they themselves won’t benefit and 2) against things that help people because those other people would benefit. >
  
  Too fucking right. Not just content to get theirs and pull the ladder up after them—they want to be allowed to take the ladder and beat the shit out of the people after them. >
  
  
  Not just content to get theirs and pull the ladder up after them
  
  Isn't this exactly what is happening with this one time payment?  What about the people who incur debt to enter college next year and don't benefit from this order? >
  
  Not saying it’s a perfect fix. 
  I just paid off my debt from undergrad and med school (almost 300k all told) 12 years after I graduated, and I know people who have it way worse. My fiancé is older than I am and still has about $30k from his masters.
  But this forgiveness would help millions of people right now, would be good for the overall economy, and if used correctly it could be a springboard for creating change to the entire system. 
  Something this big can’t help but knock over a lot of dominos. It won’t help me, but it will help others. >
  
  If debt forgiveness is good for the economy, why not forgive mortgage debt, car loan debt, or both!
  There's a lot of ifs in your statement that I don't think are likely to actually happen.
  It will help people, just not people who really need help. >
  
  Debt incurred educating people to serve in higher level aspects of society is not the same as debt incurred for material things.
  I get what you’re saying, but this is apples and fruit bats. 
  But I do think keeping people out of debt for basic life needs is a thing that needs to happen. One goal being reached doesn’t mean the other goals aren’t important and can’t be reached, too. >
  
  Every dollar handed to college graduates making $120k is a dollar that isn't handed to someone making $40k that never went to college and has a fraction of the earning potential of the college graduate.
  College isn't a basic life need.  The entire system needs an overhaul, not a windfall for an almost random group that is relatively well off overall.  
  Helping current and future members of the upper middle class with their financial obligations should be near the bottom of the list of goals, not near the top. >
  
  I’m a surgeon. I spent my entire life up until 31 in school or training, racking up enormous debt in order to be able to do one very specific and extremely important job. 
  I know many other people who could have been amazing surgeons and doctors, but were not lucky enough to be able to take on the debt I did to get where I did.
  Make college and higher level education like med school affordable and more accessible, and people way better than me will get my job next. >
  
  We agree completely on making college more affordable, but I don't see how a one time payment to a very specific group that also effectively punishes people who were more financially responsible accomplishes that. >
  
  Can we sue to claw back the forgiven PPP loans under the same principles? >
  
  Not the same principle. It's about Congress having the Power of the Purse and passing a bill authorizing the PPP in accordance with the constitution vs. a dictatorial fascist in the White House that has overstepped his constitutional authority and is being put back in his place. 
  Can you reference any legislation that was brought to the floor for a vote that would authorize student loan forgiveness? 
  Even Pelosi said the president doesn't have the power: 
  “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness,” she said. “He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power.” Pelosi argued that student loan forgiveness can only be accomplished through “an act of Congress.” >
  
  But the standing is the issue too, these people shouldn't really have standing to sue about this principle. >
  
  So executive overreach shouldn't be addressed or challenged because they may have found a "standing" loophole? It seems two courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding standing. >
  
  I mean it's also not fair now that I'm 40 and can afford my first home, that starter home prices in most cities have doubled, and a decent house in my area is 400-500k. My sister rjust bought her first home, 564,000$ and well over 3500$/month mortgage payment. 
  I remember my parents buying a home 20 years ago for 120k, even 10 years ago 220k. Their home is now worth 720,000$ and I'm living in a damn apartment. They have a 1500$/month mortgage, while I'm paying over 2200$/month to rent a two bedroom. 
  Doesn't mean I think everyone should have their houses taken away, ND no one should get a deal or assistance getting a house because I can't. 
  I effing sucks, but that's the reality. If some people get help getting into homes and I can't, I'm not going to sue someone. >
  
  Move away from the city. My home was half that and it's not a shack. There's home in my area that even cheaper, new builds. >
  
  That's not super practical advice.  It's very difficult to just up and move on a whim. >
  
  Sure, but if you're already contemplating purchasing a home like OP, it's realistic and practical advice. >
  
  Is it though?  Typically people are looking for homes in a particular area for a reason (job, family, access to certain services) that may only be found in that area.  Personal anecdotes, but I live in a fairly large town and just recently bought a house.  Were there houses cheaper in neighboring, smaller towns, absolutely, however, because of my job as a teacher, a 45-60 minute commute is not practical for me (which is where those cheaper houses work).  I want to live in the community I am serving so I can more practically and efficiently do my job.  I also have a friend that works remotely but needs to stay in his (relatively expensive) hometown so he can take care of his mother when needed. >
  
  So you're making the choice of not commuting and staying in your community over a cheaper mortgage. Those things aren't a must, those are nice-to-haves. You pay for nice-to-haves. 
  It's completely practical for you to move further out and pay for a cheaper house, drive a little bit further, you just don't want to. It's not that it isn't practical for you to drive that far, I did all the time and so do a lot of people, you just don't want to. 
  The thing is that when your budget is important you can trade for commute time. I'd rather pay for my commute than pay 200,000 more to save 20 minutes everyday. >
  
  
  It's completely practical for you to move further out and pay for a cheaper house, drive a little bit further, you just don't want to. 
  
  You ever worked in an actual big city before?
  
  I'd rather pay for my commute than pay 200,000 more to save 20 minutes everyday.
  
  That type of saving would be adding 3 hours to my daily commute (each way). Not 20 minutes. That's not practical or reasonable at all. >
  
  I worked in Dallas and spent a lot of time commuting. 
  Like I said, I enjoy the disposable income and switched electric to save even more money, then remote for no commute. 
  If you're budget minded, your not going to spend an extra 1000 - 2000 dollars a month to save 3 hours a day. But I guess it's not practical to save that money for other things versus sitting in traffic - maybe that's why people feel so stuck.
  EDIT: Life is a bunch of trade offs. Being 15 minutes from your work is a benefit you pay for. Having access to all amenities within 15 minutes is a benefit. People pay for those benefits. But what people should realize is that those benefits are nice-to-have, they aren't necessities. >
  
  More disposable income doesn't mean anything if you don't have time to enjoy it.  An extra 1.5-3 hours commuting a day would mean at most 2 hours on my own after work a day to exercise, cook, and relax.  Living only to work is pointless and long commutes mean you are doing just that. >
  
  If your considering time based on days or weeks, we have a lifetime to live though, several years to live. Tons of time to enjoy. Tons of time to reap the benefits of early hard work, which I'm now able to do. >
  
  Can’t wait to be let down again in February >
  
  They were included, they were just too dumb to realize.  What are all of those college kids going to do with that new disposable income now, put it in a mattress? Fuck no, they're going to buy things they need and want. That money goes back into the economy where people who make, and provide those goods and services are taxed on everything they do and buy then the money goes back into the government. >
  
  If economic stimulus is the touted benefit, shouldn't we just give everyone a check? The people with debt can use it to pay off the debt and the people without debt can also participate in buying things that they want >
  
  If everyone gets a check you create inflation.  You literally just move the bar up that amount of money.
  This one relatively small group of people would be an economic ripple rather than a tide change. >
  
  We are talking about a $600,000,000,000 handout here.
  Nobody will take you seriously if you try to claim that won't create inflation. >
  
  I'm curious, are you shouting down farm subsides? 
  You know the two programs are pretty close on price, granted the edge going to student loan forgiveness over a ten year span.  Though farm subsidies doubled under Trump after his stupid trade war. 
  No one will take you seriously if you don't realize incentivising college educations will pay dividends toward the future of this country.  We've shifted primarily to a service based economy and if we ever want to get our manufacturing sector to grow again we need educated people to design and create new technologies that can be made here. >
  
  That seems to be why a lot of people don't want benefits for the less fortunate. "I didn't have help so why do you get to have any? It builds character!"
  Well, your character sucks. Maybe you wouldn't be so miserable if you did have help.
  Edit: some real jerks responding lol >
  
  It's not fair that they get 15k debt relief that they were essentially duped into getting when they were 17, when others have to fight tooth and nail to keep receiving their unemployment checks. >
  
  And this is where Americans have lost their way. It's all me, me, me, and some more me nowadays. >
  
  E pluribus unum has turned into "fuck you, got mine". >
  
  Just wait til people who got those letters saying their debt is forgiven from the DOE but it gets yanked.  That’s actual harm which gives them standing no? >
  
  How would they be able to sue for not benefiting from a government program that was deemed unconstitutional by the courts? >
  
  Because they WERE going to get debt relief but were then harmed by NIMBYS. See how that logic works? It’s the same logic being used to argue against debt relief. >
  
  If the program is illegal/unconstitutional in the first place, you can't claim harm from it not being implemented. >
  
  Hold my beer >
  
  Good luck with your case >
  
  I guess with this logic we should never ever make anything better for the people that come behind us. 
  Humans can be so fucking dumb. >
  
  I mean, forgiving current student debt does zero to help the people that come behind us. In a few years we will be right back in the same boat. >
  
  This is true. I think the real solution is that we actually need to invest in our people and educating them is an invaluable resource. It's honestly no different that payong for new roads. >
  
  My mother died of breast cancer.  The hell if I'm going to let them come up with a cure now! >
  
  Wonderful analogy! >
  
  Idk how this will end but if SCOTUS fucks him, Biden has two-six more years to prepare a farewell gesture of including student debt in bankruptcy. >
  
  Why can’t the student loans system be reformed into a sort of an interest free loan?
  I understand that this wouldn’t be exactly the brightest lucrative business model but it could be viewed as a sort of a government subsidy and an investment back into the population through their taxes >
  
  Maybe some agreement where people who get interest free loans agree to pay more taxes. >
  
  It's a logically flawed approach that is often used to deflect from the reasons for Federal spending programs of all sorts.
  
  
  There is a problem that should be addressed, or an opportunity for investment by the Federal government that will benefit 'the people'
  
  
  If I'm not affected by that problem, and thus don't get something extra, why should I support Federal intervention for anyone else?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Some people got federal assistance after a flood wrecked their homes and I didn't get flooded but I also didn't get anything.
  
  
  Some people got federal assistance like food stamps and subsidized housing and I didn't lose my income but I also didn't get anything.
  
  
  Some people got federal bankruptcy protections and wrote off tons of debt and I didn't go bankrupt but I also didn't get anything.
  
  
  Some people got a new federal highway bringing millions of dollars in economic growth and I don't live near a new highway but I also didn't get anything.
  
  
  Some people got tax breaks for children and I don't have any children but I also didn't get anything. >
  
  Conservatives whining about "responsibility" knowing full well they would be first in line for a handout >
  
  They already were.  There was quite a. number of conservative politicians who had their PPP "loans" forgiven. >
  
  The Child Tax Credit is unfair. I can't collect it because I don't have children. Guess I have to sue the federal government. >
  
  Careful, you are not pointing out how ridiculous this is, you are identifying another of their goals. >
  
  To be fair, it's not like they let this one sneak by -- they just haven't gotten around to it yet. I've heard old people for years say things like, "My kids are adults now, why should I pay property taxes to fund schools?"
  It's the same as the ACA complaint of "Why do I have to carry insurance for pregnancy and birth control, I'm 60 years old!?" 
  This mindset isn't new and they already have a list. >
  
  Meanwhile they salivate at the thought of rich people getting money. >
  
  You could just be poor like I was going to school and get a bunch of Pell grants....Remember-Just be poor! >
  
  Was, did, still am. >
  
  i feel like that was the life lesson starting with MAGA and progressing through the covid years.  People might have that superficial niceness when you encounter them (particularly based on your skin color) but by and large deep down odds are they are assholes. >
  
  Absolute four year old behavior. Pitching a fit because someone else got a cookie and they didn’t. Grow the fuck up. >
  
  But they did get a cookie... Ask them how much they paid for college. >
  
  Harvard tuition in 1970 went up $200 to $2,600 annually. >
  
  Damn. Should we sue for not getting the PPP loans? >
  
  Nitpick.  IIRC they're suing because they didn't get a chance to complain about not being included. >
  
  If they haven't been harmed, then what's their standing in court? >
  
  Hey, the Texas judge, member of the Federalist society, didn't care about standing. >
  
  Or they are upset that they would have to pay taxes on it...because of their conservative state implementing it. Our country is really fucked. >
  
  The people who aren’t included already don’t pay much taxes along with getting high wages >
  
  The fact that they're not included isn't really why they're suing. They are just a front for the republicans trying to block this. >
  
  Would they also trash the GI Bill because they didn't get that either? Probably. >
  
  The GI Bill is earned by serving in the military. Student loan forgiveness was given for political points to people that screwed around for four years.   
  If you don't understand the difference, you should stay out of political debates. >
  
  They can all fuck right off. >
  
  This would have been a moot point if the Democrats passed Educational Debt Reform when they held the house, senate and White House. >
  
  You don't think that someone would have sued at that time as well.  There is always going to be someone who feels like they are getting the short end of the stick. >
  
  As somebody without a vehicle, I'm going to sue car companies because it's not fair that I have to walk everywhere. >
  
  I don't know why people are pushing for the debt relief first. We need to totally reform the reason why people get into so much debt in the first place. Then fix the actual debt, or the colleges are just going to keep increasing the rates because hell it will just get written off anyway. >
  
  ... It's already been reformed. The major part of the legislation isn't the $10k forgiveness, it's the changes to the income driven repayment which max out at 5% of discretionary income - with a huge change in how discretionary is calculated, meaning that the most people who take out a loan, or who have a current loan, will pay less than 50% of the principle over the life of the loan. >
  
  Wait is this 5% thing true? Where can I find that? It said 10% when I applied last week. >
  
  My grandmother setup a trust to allow me to go to college and graduate school without needing loans.  I cannot imagine thinking those who were not so lucky deserve to be screwed by predatory loans.  
  If you paid your loans off, good for you. If you did and think you deserve more, go learn some empathy. >
  
  So you're saying that those of us that worked our way through college in 6 or 8 years should have no opinion or thoughts on this matter?  You're an idiot.  Those that got loans thought they needed them to get to a better life.  Those that didn't still had a goal of having a better life.
  The problem here is not those that got loans vs those that didn't.  The FUCKING PROBLEM here is the universally high cost of getting an education.  How about writing a story on the actual problem vice pitting the two sides against each other. >
  
  Yeah I think there's a lot of people who aren't willing to admit this isn't a perfect program, even when there a lot of people who stand to benefit like me. >
  
  We live in a system of political realities, and unfortunately one party is opposed to doing anything. If you wait for the perfect, it will never arrive. >
  
  Agree.  But there should be equal priorities of lessening the debt owed by those that borrowed (or even eliminating it) and lowering the unacceptably high cost of college.  Doubt we'll ever see that.  But those priorities should exist as side by side continuous efforts. >
  
  This program does that as well, fwiw. Again, it may not be in the manner you're looking for because we have to work with EOs, but it is there. >
  
  How does this program reduce cost of college?  If anything the new IBR plan just further incentivizes colleges to charge more. >
  
  Colleges should just be funded at a universal rate per pupill like public primary and secondary education. That will never happen within current system. If you want to reduce the cost of colleges you must first dismantle the student loan system >
  
  It’s not because they want it for themselves, it’s because they don’t want it for anyone else. >
  
  All they could have done is...just not sue.  But noooo lets fuck over millions.  On top of that one of them got PPP loans forgiven.  The ultimate Fuck you, Got Mine. >
  
  Student debt forgiveness now without addressing the reason the debt is so high in the first place does nothing to address the problem, and just kicks the can down the road. If you cancel student debt without doing anything to lower the cost of tuition, we’ll just be in the same exact position in a few more years. 
  Debt forgiveness would help the top 20% more than the bottom 20%. AKA helping out wealthier people. 
  Debt forgiveness now would encourage people to go to college and rack up massive loans that they think will just be cancelled by the government in 10 years. What happens if they don’t do another round of forgiveness? An entire generation would bankrupt themselves on false hope. Lower tuition costs and then forgive debt, but don’t forgive debt first. It creates more problems than it solves. >
  
  Biden's executive order on student debt did include long-term fixes to the student debt crisis, in addition to immediate debt relief. >
  
  It didn’t address tuition costs, just repayments. >
  
  It addressed some things, not all things. >
  
  Yeah. And it’s not enough to prevent debt from building up again. >
  
  While I agree that it didn't go far enough to address the problems, I think they were trying to stay within their authority to do things at the moment. I don't think fixing everything wrong with our student loan/higher education systems could be done without involving congress. However, I sincerely feel that a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction and shouldn't be derided simply because it doesn't fix everything. All or nothing usually results in nothing and I would prefer something over nothing.
  Also don't forget that there was a provision in there which talked about how everyone who would qualify for Income Based Repayment would have any interest their payments don't cover be covered by the government as long as they remain in that system. So for low income people, that would stop their loans from ballooning more than they already have. >
  
  I didn’t go to college because it was too expensive, now peoples loans are being forgiven and I’m bitter about my decision. Still wouldn’t sue >
  
  Do you believe inmates currently serving time should be set free if their crime was marajuana possession if they were charged prior to it becoming legal to buy and posses?
  If so, you should understand why someone who has already paid off their loans would like to be included in this forgiveness (issued a tax credit at least) >
  
  Nice to see the court going on record saying that if a measure doesn't help everyone then it isn't legal. I'm sure they'll apply that standard fairly to all manner of government spending and entitlement programs... >
  
  I demand an oil subsidy! >
  
  The problem with student loans and why they are different than other types of debt is how they are treated. If I hear one more person say “wHaT aBoUt mY cAr LoAn?!?!” one more time I’m going to bang my head into a wall. If you can’t afford your car payment there are several options for you, the car can be repossessed, the loan can be renegotiated, etc. Same as mortgages. “Just pay it off!” sounds easy enough but doesn’t take into account recessions, job layoffs, unemployment. You can temporarily apply for forbearance, but the interest still accrues during that time and the interest rates are criminally high for such amounts of debt. Payment plans aren’t flexible and sometimes the only thing we can afford is the income based payment plan, which often is not enough to cover the interest accruing. As a result, the amount of interest you owe keeps going up and it becomes clear you aren’t going to be able to ever pay it off. I’ve been making payments for ten years now and the amount I owe is more than double due to periods of unemployment and runaway interest rates. Want to repo my degree? Please do at this point. >
  
  More dog whistling BS for "We're making money off those chains, I mean loans you took out in order to get a chance at a decent life in this dystopian hell hole of a society entering the last stages of capitalism." >
  
  Then they have no standing so big deal 
  I'm dubious about the relief myself but I'm not suing people over it. >
  
  Hiring representation while in debt? 🤣 >
  
  Many of the people who prioritized paying off their educational debts instead of purchasing a home are now priced out of the real estate market as a result. They will now be punished for their fiscal responsibility with no equitable measure to compensate them. 
  Maybe those crying over not getting money they never earned to relieve them of a financial commitment they made as an adult to increase their career opportunities are the real pity orchestra. >
  
  Kettle is that you? >
  
  It really mystifies me that they have standing. It doesn't make sense.
  The supreme court will go and remove the ability and then be seen as entirely unjust. >
  
  They want that money for their next tax cut. >
  
  It’s time like these that make me wish hell were a real place. Some people belong there >
  
  “I want to sue state lotteries because I didn’t win.” >
  
  
  “I want to sue state lotteries because I didn’t win.”
  
  FYI, this terrible logic is why people with loans can't find jobs.   
  Student loan forgiveness is nothing like a voluntary lottery. Honestly I think you should be quiet for the next four years, until you better understand things. >
  
  Maybe you need to go take some sarcasm lessons. >
  
  No, I understand you were trying for sarcasm. Sarcasm has to be funny and make sense. That's the part you missed.... >
  
  I still don't understand how now being helped constitutes harm and therefore standing.
  I should sue these people for damages for preventing me from being helped >
  
  They make a point.  Why can't I get a refund?  Makes a sucker out of anyone who struggled and paid off their loans.  If you can't pay you should be able to declare bankruptcy or at least prove fraud on the part of the school.  If you cannot justify Chapter 7 or 11 you can pay your debt. >
  
  So the most privileged among us, want their debts paid for by creating more inflation? And they want more money than what American's received as covid stimulus? 
  That's ridiculous. Go pay your debts. >
  
  "The most privileged among us" aren't the ones with student loan debt, I assure you. >
  
  Can you please qualify that statement. >
  
  I thought it was pretty clear. The most privileged among us don't have student loans -- not most of them, anyway. What more would you like...? It's possible were using different definition of "most privileged." >
  
  So....you believe that doctors, lawyers, etc. don't have student debt? The reason that the cap is $15k and the income limit is $100k is because they carry the highest student debt loads, often well over $100k. >
  
  This is quickly devolving into an overly semantical argument brewing from a pretty silly "bumper sticker philosophy"-style comment. The fact that the student loan forgiveness was income-capped at all points directly to the fact that this forgiveness wasn't meant to specifically help the "most privileged." Privileged individuals will (would have?) received forgiveness as well, but doctors, lawyers, etc., typically make more than the income cap. >
  
  well why would people support it? it doesn’t fix the problem, just helps the ones who currently have loans >
  
  The order itself handles that. Read it. >
  
  I paid my loans I still wouldn’t be happy if they gave me 10k they are just going to creat Resentment of future generations. Lower interest rates would be better >
  
  The executive order has several changes to interest rates that address many of these concerns. Loan forgiveness is only part of the deal. >
  
  Ok let’s keep the good stuff and Axe the forgiveness bull shit
  Forgiveness isn’t even the right word it’s passing the buck onto responsible Americans who choose to not go to college or paid their debt.
  Call it what it is! Debt redistribution >
  
  The timing is bad … lost a few $100k in my retirement this year (market drop) … directly affects my retirement. The less talked about other end of life… maybe when the country is in a growth period makes more sense…otherwise people not getting money feel cheated >
  
  What do you figure will happen to the economy and recovering your market losses when a bunch of people have more money to spend? >
  
  Possible stimulus…maybe…but better to address economic growth by addressing key issues >
  
  You play you pay!  No debt relief! >
  
  Ah yes. Let’s ignore the Biden administration trying to unconstitutionally hit student debt and instead mock anyone who tries to stop them. >
  
  Sorry, what part of the constitution covers obligatory crippling debt for college students again? >
  
  That’s just about as disingenuous of a comment as I expected. >
  
  That's not an answer. >
  
  I wasn't included, if I was going to sue it'd be for some of my money back. >
  
  So, if they bring back the relief can we include this semester…or are we SOL. >
  
  Sorry, couldn't read this. The list of 'legitimate interests' buttons to tick is longer than the Dead Sea scrolls. >
  
  Here’s how you eliminate student debt - make a dollar for dollar tax credit for student debt up to $10000 a year and have the government collect it and then no tax return - all the “tax” money is used to offset the debt.  Can’t avoid taxes so collect it like it’s part of your tax. >
  
  Why even pay the student loans back? its not like someone going to come break your legs if you don’t pay >
  
  They can and will garnish wages >
  
  That is not true! >
  
  It absolutely is true if you default on payments >
  
  I’m not an American.  But why would anyone want to pay off student loans for people who went and got loans for stupid courses that don’t lead to jobs. If you got an art degree and can’t find work that’s your problem,  I’d much rather feed the hungry. >
  
  There is a way to have all college education paid for with ZERO out of pocket cost. 
  Start at an entry level position. Have the education be sponsored and reimbursed by the employer. Have that education unlock career advancement opportunities.
  Be an apprentice or paid intern. Choose a profession where education is valued. 
  But, to sign on the line for all that debt, go to college, get the piece of paper to hang on the wall, and then demand that everybody else pay for something they earn zero benefit from? 
  No. It simply should not work that way. 
  Reform the industry full of vultures that is burdening kids with a lifetime of debt... 
  s somebody who built my resume through work sponsored credits and full reimbursement for courses passed.. I did my part. I took that risk. I paid my bill. I reaped the reward. I worked for it. I earned it. 
  And, nothing stops anybody from following that same path. 
  The people demanding student loan forgiveness are drunk with entitlement. Sober up. Pay your debt. And, if you can't. Well, bankruptcy is the legal option. Either way, own that responsibility. 
  Not my bill to pay. Sorry. >
  
  I didn’t go to college but pay a mortgage, are you going to pay my mortgage since I’m paying a dropout’s college? >
  
  Cue the people who are correct and will win their suit