|
Is there a link to find out if your loans qualify and if so can we put this in the OP? I have both private and public loans and I am not sure which is which with all the servicers.
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Application appears to have gone live: Currently maxed out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Very fun how nobody even bothers pointing out that the Democrats have the ability to legislate until January and could just...pass a bill that does this. Because they can't. If it doesn't have 60 votes in senate, they don't pass any bills. Like, don't try to be a reality check and then pretend that reality doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The existence of the 60 vote threshold is a choice. Not if they don't have the votes to remove it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:They’ve had the ability to do a lot of things for a very long time. What they lack is the will or the motivation. Also the votes
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:That’s exactly what I said. Perhaps I missed it? This is exactly what you said: ozmunkeh posted:They’ve had the ability to do a lot of things for a very long time. What they lack is the will or the motivation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Yes. They’ve had the ability but not the will or the desire. Not sure what’s confusing you here. The part that's confusing me is where you said "that's exactly what I said" and then it wasn't exactly what you said. If you said "that's the gist of what I said", that would be different. But you said "exactly". VitalSigns posted:It's been a canard at least since the Obama years that "not having the votes" is some kind of external limitation that's physically impossible to overcome, and not equivalent to "they just didn't want to". It's not physically impossible to overcome. You either replace the "no" votes or elect more "yes votes". If you want to say "they", ie the entire Democratic caucus, as a whole, "didn't want to", then you can go ahead and prove that. I don't think that's true. I suspect what you mean is something more like "the leadership and/or many more votes than Manchin/Sinema" don't want to, in which case why don't you say that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't even need to do that, the ones there already could choose to vote "yes", they've still got two more months. I mean if they could but they seem like firm no's so the options I talk about come into play, not sure why you are talking about magic or biochemical reactions and whatnot. quote:This just seems like a semantic quibble, like complaining that someone says Republicans oppose gay marriage even though hashtag not ALL Republicans, but sure whatever enough of the caucus and/or leadership didn't want to pass student loan forgiveness therefore it didn't happen. I mean whether or not ALL republicans oppose a thing, or just most, or just a few, is a relavant thing in a congressional system, just as it is for Democrats. If only a few votes are the difference, that's a lot less of a problem than if a larger portion of Democrats oppose a thing. How many votes oppose a thing isn't semantics, it's literally how politics works.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
It's always easier to obstruct a thing than do a thing, especially when you can shop around whatever insane chudge you got Trump to install.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because someone said they didn't want to and you corrected them and said they didn't have enough votes as if those were different things, I was just explaining why some people treat not wanting to and not voting to do something as though they were different because it tends to be confusing the first time someone encounters it. One statement was that "democrats" wanted a thing, my correct. One asserts a quasi-hivemind in order to make assertions, the other accurately describes reality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 07:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nobody asserted a quasi-hivemind. I'm open to other interpretations of how "the democrats don't want a thing" is not that, as opposed to talk about how they don't have the votes? Are we saying they don't have the votes because they don't want a thing, or that they don't have the votes and can't pass a thing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because it just isn't that's not how the language works. Talking about the goals of an organization does not mean its members are a hivemind. A quick search shows you use the same construction (bolding mine): I think I make the same mistakes of lazy thinking that others do. I can be honest about that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh ok so you did always understand nobody was asserting anything about a hivemind No I think that both I and the other person were.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2022 19:59
|
|