I hope you realise that not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal.
Technically, they didn't take any money.
If a country is not for the welfare of its citizens, then what is it for?

There is nothing wrong with subsidised education. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying keep you under control.

My four-year degree cost a benevolent candy company about $13,000 because I was "out of state." (In-state: about $5,000 out the door.) Full-tuition scholarships like these were quite common. There is no logical reason for "a college degree" to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The physical plant of a university is no different than that of a high school, and professors do not drive Lamborghinis.

The actual reason for student loans is Wall Street: "SLABS = Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities." Which they began to peddle when they could no longer sell securities based on "sub-prime" (worthless ...) mortgages. They conveniently arranged the law so that these debts could not be discharged in bankruptcy – thereby effectively bankrupting millions of students with debts incurred for diplomas which will never be worth the price.

But, Wall Street has now sold trillions of "dollars' worth" of these "securities," even though this amount is much less than the total amount of debt which they supposedly "represent a security interest in," and they can't actually be tied back to any existing loan. So it goes, when your last name is "Rumpelstiltskin" ... Just take your "gold" and admire it, and ignore the smell of straw. Tell yourself that you are "rich beyond your dreams," and ignore that you are dreaming.

Thanks for the clarification. I left out a few parts. Congress drafts laws, the laws are voted in by the Senate, and signed by the President. A lie is a bit harsh, but, I accept it.

I think investing in higher education is a good way to support students and bolster the economy. There are several countries in Europe that provide free university education. These days a university education in North America is for the rich, or for students whose parents have deep pockets, or for students who take on staggering debt.
Anyway we're getting off topic here. My bad.
The jury for former President Trump has now been sworn in. Today the remainder of the alternate jurors should be sworn in. When the jury is in place they will be presented with the evidence. I'm curious to see if the former President is formally sanctioned by the judge for his gag order violations.

Good point. And part of the justifications for this action is that system was mismanaged so that most of those applying for and qualified for debt forgiveness had been rejected. NOT AT THE BEGINNING, but after committing to and satisfying the requirements and then not receiving the debt forgiveness they were promised and entitled to.

More in the line of recognizing the crime and returning the stolen goods to the victims.

If you have difficulty with people disagreeing with you, don't read the threads.

If this is a reference to the E. Jean Carroll suit, it was filed in November of 2019 while Mr. Trump was president, not a candidate. The investigations in New York/Georgia began long before Trump announced his candidacy.

Never heard that before. It was always my understanding that people with student loans complained about it and that resulted in the 'forgiveness'. The banks of course are being paid for the forgiveness given students and taxpayers end up paying for it. Money could have been better spent elsewhere.

I think the forgiving student loans was a bad idea and a good part of the problem is the high cost of education. Loans for training at trade schools are available and I think more focus should be placed there.

You guys are fibbing me again.

"Technically, they didn't take any money." They did fill out forms and agree to paying it back. Period. It is theft even if the school took the money. They are crooks too but that is a different issue. 66 of the Texas School Superintendents are making over $300K. Some of them defaulted on their loans. Why they make that much is beyond me. Seems the children could use that money for food.


Welfare state? Sure, pay me to go to college then. I am an honest person and I'd have paid my bills because that is just the way I am.
Why promote creeps that don't pay back their obligations? Why pay them more. The folks who are harmed here are the people that didn't have the money to get a degree. Pay them too.

Imagine if they could go and get a degree for free...

In most other first world nations you can get an education for free. In some they PAY you to get educated (recognizing that it IS hard work!). It has become VERY clear that having a higher level of education and preparation in your population makes them a better resource for your economy, your government, your military: basically your entire country. Then there is that word: innovation. There is a good reason Linux was not created in the USA, and BSD was created at a US University. You invent better new things if you are better educated and prepared for life, and you have less stress doing it if you know you can support yourself without worry about a $200,000 USD debt that will take 200 years to pay off!

Education debt is a drag on the economy directly, but the indirect drag effects appear FAR more damaging. US economy is dependent upon immigrant labor from bottom to top, form picking crops to starting new successful industries. Perhaps if we educated our OWN people better that would be less critical, at least at the top end!

We have fallen behind the rest of the first world nations in many ways, and it is about time we at least TRIED to catch up!

(Sorry for the rant. I was a professional educator in a previous life.)

I retired as a professional educator in January 2016(32 years). I too have strong feelings about the availability of higher education. I have two children going through university at the moment. It's a real drain on the bank account. I would like them to graduate without a massive debt. So far, so good.
Back on topic.
Next week all alternate jurors should be selected. Then the jury will be hearing the evidence. I will be surprised if Former President Trump testifies as that would put him in legal jeopardy.

Last night I heard that Jury Selection was completed, but they had to approve some additional alternates.

Also: on a current events group elsewhere discussing the case there was a quote form Trump that he would testify. The consensus was that if he offered to his legal team would tackle and gag him before he got halfway to the witness stand. I would pay to see that, actually. SNL should consider the concept.

I'll bet that the former President would like to testify. His legal team shouldn't permit it. If they do they're not representing his interests properly. The Manhattan DA would *really* like it if the former President chooses to testify.

You, as an individual, were single-handedly responsible for this forum being filled with political threads. And now you’re complaining.

Not 'complaining', 'replying', sadly it seems that you and @yancek don't know the difference, lol. If I cared a whit about people in this forum who disagree with me about something I would almost never post. I do enjoy intelligent repartee with people who have a different perspective than mine and will post anything I care to, within the boundaries set by the forum rules. You folks are an almost endless source of mirth.

Yes mjolnir has posted political threads. I've posted counter narratives in his threads. All in all some good discussions. Let's stay on topic please.
Now that the jury is in place I'm very curious to see what happens next week. Will former President Trump be sanctioned for gag order violations? The Justice system seems to be afraid to really sanction him. Will the former President be able to restrain himself when Cohen or Clifford testifies?

Thank you. Trump would be an idiot to get on the stand. Sadly, he's not the 'brightest' bulb in the room.