“The Hypocrisy is Stunning”: Biden’s Displays Stunning Denial Psychosis Over Student Loans

“The hypocrisy is stunning.” Those words from President Joe Biden after his student loan forgiveness program was found unconstitutional were . . . well . . . stunning. Indeed, they may stand as the greatest example of transference in history.

Ever since President Biden first announced that he would unilaterally forgive roughly half a trillion dollars in student debt, many of us have noted that he lacked that authority under the Constitution. We were not alone: we had Joe Biden himself.

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden admitted that he needed congressional approval for such a massive loan forgiveness. Likewise, as cited in the opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated the obvious: “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.”

The problem is that he could not get this measure through Congress and, despite his earlier acknowledgment of the obvious, Biden simply claimed that he could give away hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional authorization.

He is now crying hypocrisy when the Court said he was right all along.

Of course, denial is a common defense mechanism, the “unconscious forms of self-deception we use to avoid anxiety and emotional pain, or to ensure we are ‘acceptable’ to others.”

Transference is a common form of denial when a “fact is admitted to, but the person will deny their responsibility.”

However, in presidents, it is a costly habit.

From the outset, Biden’s use of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003 was questioned by a wide array of observers given the clear intent before the Act. Congress passed this short piece of legislation to assist military personnel deployed abroad in combat zones. No one seriously argued that Congress ever intended or even contemplated such a massive debt forgiveness program under the Act.

However, necessity is the mother of invention and Biden knew that there was no way that he could get Congress to approve such an unprecedented give-away. Many Americans opposed the proposal. Many elected not to go to college but to get jobs. Others spent years paying off their debts.

Instead of turning to Congress, Biden turned to some of the same experts who have green lighted past unconstitutional programs. For example, the Biden Administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  The President admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him that the move was unconstitutional. However, at the urging of then Speaker Pelosi, he called Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe who assured him that he had the authority to act alone. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.

When Biden faced the prospect of having to negotiate with Congress over raising the debt ceiling, some of the same experts surfaced to assure him that he did not. In other words, he could skip negotiating the raising of the debt limit and unilaterally borrow and spend billions. It was a position that would effectively gut the power of the purse and literally lacked a single supporting case as precedent. Yet, Tribe and others insisted that he could ignore Congress and just start spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yet, the President enablers in his denial psychosis. When Biden faced his past view against unilateral loan forgiveness as well as the view of others (including a prior DOJ memo), he again broke the glass for emergency legal support.

Tribe and others like University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck assured the president or the public that the authority was clear and obvious. It was not even a close interpretive question.

President Biden has now lost again 6-3 before the Court.

Despite his own stated view that this would violate the Constitution, he chose politics over principle. Even the Washington Post said that the move was presumptively unconstitutional, but hoped that standing questions would prevent the Court from striking down the program.

Now that the Court has found that he has again violated the Constitution by refusing to go to Congress, Biden responded by declaring that he would take a “new path.” That path, of course, does not lead to Congress. The problem with Congress is that it requires a democratic vote and the majority oppose this program.

So Biden is turning to Plan B and will try to do the same circumvention through the Higher Education Act of 1965. That was the law rejected earlier in favor of the HEROES Act by the Administration. The law would not support this broad loan forgiveness effort. Even if successful, it would excuse only some of these loans and would take a long time in the rulemaking process.

There is no Plan B under the Constitution. Congress controls the power of the purse and the President cannot govern alone. In the end, the President may want to take a sec with Stuart Smalley and understand that “denial is not just a river in Africa.” The fact is that he was once “good enough and smart enough” . . . to go to Congress.


184 thoughts on ““The Hypocrisy is Stunning”: Biden’s Displays Stunning Denial Psychosis Over Student Loans”

  1. Oh wow.
    “However, at the urging of then Speaker Pelosi, he called Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe who assured him that he had the authority to act alone. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.”
    One of the tribe corrupting the country again.
    So surprised.


    Student loans are not “the Debts,” “common Defense” or “general Welfare of the United States…” enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

    Congress has no power to tax for student loans.

    Congress has no power to provide student loan “forgiveness.”

    The Supreme Court, by Judicial Review, must have struck down student loans when Congress originally taxed for and funded them.

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;…

    “…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…”

    “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

  3. Maybe joe should start wearing a football helmet when he goes on TV to speak at America. He might get more support wearing one of those old leather helmets, appropriate for his age.

    1. His bdsm constituency is already in the stree4ts for a month every year we don’t need them losing control sniffing Joe’s head and worse.
      Joe would sniff them back, doesn’t make it right.

  4. The rule of law means nothing to the Bidens. They are authoritarian thugs and will do whatever they can to defy the Supreme Court. The administration is the most corrupt in over a century

    1. And the most monumental thug in history is “Crazy Abe” Lincoln who killed one million Americans over the exercise of the constitutional right and freedom of unprohibited secession.

      1. Re:”And the most monumental thug in history is “Crazy Abe” Lincoln..” Having followed George for all these many months I wonder that had George attended the performance of ‘Our American Cousin’ at Ford’s Theatre that evening, if the President would have had a concern beyond Mr. Booth.

        1. Abraham Lincoln was fewer than “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” through the liberal application of heinous, brute, kinetic and unconstitutional military force.

          General Secretary Lincoln was much closer to being pro-communist than anti-slavery and pro-black.

          Karl Marx was genuinely gracious and benevolent in his letter of commendation and congratulation to Lincoln.


          “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.”

          “[Should blacks be made] politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this, and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

          – Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854

  5. If Trump couldn’t Executive Order $5 Billion for a wall, this buffoon can’t order $500 Billion lost to banks.

  6. Let no one pretend Biden’s efforts are anything but a partisan charade. This should be called an “Act to Bribe Students and their Parents to vote Democrat” Act. Biden knew it was unconstitutional from the start. His new scheme is probably just as unconstitutional. All that matters is to SHOW his good intentions before they get struck down. This is not governing, this is the illusion of governing.

  7. Somewhat OT: Roberts wrote the opinion in the recent voting rights case in effect requiring that states rig their districting to create majority black districts so as to give blacks proportional representation in Congress. Yet in the affirmative action case he applied the equal protection clause to declare the Constitution colourblind, limiting the use of race to remediation of specific unlawful discrimination and to prevent violence in prisons, and explicitly to outlaw the use of race in college admissions. How are these two decisions compatible?

    1. They’re not different but too much change too fast won’t work. One man/one vote is a canard and the suspect legal notion destroyed true community representation as the SCOTUS bent over backwards to appease a faction with the majority being damned.

      1. Ah, ha! Now you see. Strict adherence is imperative for good reason.

        Affirmative action, bias and favoritism in law is thoroughly anathematical to the Constitution, having nothing to do with citizens enjoying their rights and freedoms of choice, discrimination, free thought, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of segregation, private property rights, etc.

        People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom; freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.

        The purveyors of unconstitutional dictates that deny rights and freedoms to citizens are unconstitutional dictators doing “not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

        “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

        “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

        “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

    2. Good question Daniel. I don’t think Roberts adequately explained the military academies and individual essay exceptions to the colorblind constitution in the affirmative action case either. This would be a good question for Professor Turley to address if he had a practice to follow-up on questions from commenters.

      1. CC, in a footnote Roberts said that the US argued that special considerations might apply in favour of racial diversity in the military academies, and the court decided to withhold judgment on that. He doesn’t explain why, especially when all sorts of functions could make the same plea. Regarding the essays, I believe Roberts is saying that race may be a factor to showcase overcoming adversity in individual cases, just like any other factor might be. The universities will drive a truck through this, and he should not have opened the door.

  8. On becoming president Biden swore to uphold the Constitution. Didn’t believe him then, and now we have added proof of it. Biden’s approach to the Constitution is to say, “The Hell with it. I’ll do things my way and/or the way I’m told.” Of course he is a hypocrite. Always has been and always will be.

    1. Trump did the same. The moment he started making false claims about voter fraud and attempted to overturn the election he too violated his oath to the constitution.

      1. So, by your logic, Biden should be allowed to do the same thing. This sounds like playground logic and totally fails to address the separation of powers detailed in the Constitution.

      2. Did Al Gore’s attempts to overturn the 2000 election violate his oath to the constitution?

      3. Biden took the oath at noon and by 1 o’clock signed an “executive order” suspending deportations “for the first 100 days”, thereby simultaneously missing the historical significance of the first 100 days of an administration (which involves Congress) and expressly failing to enforce immigration law.

      4. He didn’t attempt to overturn the election. That’s propaganda. The election is not complete until the electors are certified, which is officiated by the VP. It is compliant with the constitution to investigate numerous allegations of fraud, cheating, and rigging for evidence: oral, physical, and documentary to determine the extent of shenanigans before certification. The machinery in place to do that (Dems and Reps) was simply not going to do that so propaganda replaced investigation.

        1. While you are correct – It does nto matter.

          Attempting to overturn an election is not inherently illegal.

          Bribing people to overturn an election is illegal.
          Blackmailing people to overturn and election is illegal.
          If Trump actively encouraged his supporters to march on Congress with the hope that protests would motivate congress to reject the 2020 election
          So long as the conduct he advocated was legal – attempting to overturn an election is legal – and frankly is done all the time.

          All Gore tried to overturn the results in FL and therefore the nation in 2020.
          All Franken loast the election on election night – but over the course of a full year of litigation managed to “find” an additional 5500 votes to flip the outcome of the election. Many of those ballots were “found” and had very little in the way of demonstrable provenance.
          Regardless, Franken tried and succeeded in overturning an election.
          A 2018 house election in NC was overturned as a result of allegations of balot harvesting that were TINY compared to the massive illegal ballot harvestign that we know occured in 2020.
          Hillary Clinton implored electors to flip their votes in 2016 – something that is actually illegal in most states. And the Electors who did so were Fined.
          The supposed 2020 Trump Plan – by Eastman was actually conceived by Lawrence Tribe for Hillary Clinton and closely mirrored what actually happened in the 1876 Election – also riddled by Fraud. The 1876 Election also had the same competing slates of electors that we had in 2020 – and ultimately Congress decided which slates of electiors to chose – altering the outcome of the election.
          Stacy Abrams has tried to overturn every election she has ever lost.

          What each of these examples – except 2020 and 1876 have in common is that DEMOCRATS were the ones trying to overturn the election.

          Attempting to overturn an election is NOT illegal.
          Fraud is illegal.
          Extortion is illegal.
          Ballot harvesting is illegal.
          Govenrment censorship is illegal.
          The participation of government employees in their official capacities in Elections is illegal.

          The claim that the Social Media Censorship directed by various alphabet agencies of the federal govenrment was not a crime because it was not coercive is Bogus.
          First that is not the standard.
          But more importantly Government employees were participating in elections in ways barred by the hatch act.
          But it gets worse – because driven by rules changes implemented by Obama as lame duck – Government was paying NGO’s to engage in political censorship.
          It is hard to get more illegal than that.

          There is no crime of attempting to overturn an election.
          The punishment for a failed attempt to overturn an election is that voters treat you as a sore loser – But that requires that the beleive that you legitimately lost.

          Super Majorities of people beleive that one or another type of misconduct by democrats altered the outcome of the election.

          If a tiny fraction of the democrats who say they would not have voted for Biden had they known about the Hunter Biden laptop actually changed their votes – Trump would have won.

          Trump lost GA by 0.25% of the vote. There are several states Trump lost by less than 1% of the vote. Every 1% of democrats who declined to vote shifts the totals by 2%.
          The smallest number of democrats who claim they would not have voted for Biden is 10% – and the number is higher among independents.

          While that is not the only reason to beleive the 2020 election was stolen.
          That alone is enough to get Trump past the sore loser obstacle.

          No Political candidate in My life has faced the incredible level of dirty tricks by their opponent as Trump has.

          It is pretty trivial to beleive Trump would have won a free and fair election.

  9. You just don’t understand. The King can distribute the coin of the realm as he desires. Be careful what you say. The King’s guard will be taking down your license plate number in the church parking lot. When are you going to realize that the King has the power to do as he wishes. Take heed your circumstances may become dire.

  10. Democrats are playing a dangerous game of “good cop, bad cop.” They promise different identity groups benefits they have no legal authority to give, and when the conservatives on the Court or in Congress shoot down those illegal perks, the Democrats claim moral superiority vis-a-vis those cruel Republicans. The problem with this strategy is, it’s divisive and will create expectations that will ultimately lead to violence. Just wait until the black community is told there will be no million dollar checks in the mail.

  11. As an American citizen I make loans to students to allow them to eventually provide them the ability to make the nation better. I have given them the opportunity to have a higher standard of living than the average American. In giving these loans, I expected to be repaid because I am not these students mommy and daddy. Instead of receiving gratitude for making these loans I’m supposed to be happy with a big “F” you I’m not going to pay you back. The federal government does not own anything it is only the distributer of my tax dollar and it has no right to take my money and give it to its chosen few. I said yes to loans not to charity for the future upper class. I thought that the socialists where defending the little guy but the little guy works, he prays and he always pays under their system. Somehow they just keep selling the lie.

    1. Technically you don’t loan students anything. Banks do. All the government does is guarantee the loans are backed by the government. That’s why those loans don’t require any collateral.

      Private companies service those loans and make a profit off of them. They stand to lose money if loans are forgiven. They don’t want to lose a guaranteed stream of profit that students can’t declare bankruptcy for. After a while it becomes a form of indentured servitude. The degrees and jobs don’t pay enough to pay off those loans within a reasonable time.

      The solution would be to significantly lower higher education costs so students won’t have to borrow so much. Government needs to go back to subsidizing higher education as it once did. When student loans were rare.

      1. If the jobs associated with the degree don’t pay enough to repay the loan, the borrower made a bad choice. Pick a degree that leads to a well-paying occupation or profession. The solution would be “Don’t borrow your way through college. Get a job and save your money.”

        1. SkipKirkWood,
          I would add, the higher education system needs to be streamlined.
          If someone was seeking a major in engineering, then they dont need to take some totally unrelated class like gender studies, or 16th century French lit.
          Same thing with a medical related course of study.
          Need to dump these useless classes to bring down the cost of college.

        2. It doesn’t matter anymore, they have too high a percentage shoved in college.
          Not enough high paying jobs here.

      2. The degrees and jobs don’t pay enough to pay off those loans within a reasonable time. </i

        Why would tax payers subsidize such jobs? I mean, if the taxpayer want to, pass the legislation. That's really how democracy works.

        Good to know large swaths of college teaching is worthless.

      3. No, higher education needs to get their costs under control, we don’t need to subsidize it more.
        If the ROI on your college education is so low that you can’t earn enough to pay back the loans you made, you made a poor financial decision to pursue that degree.

      4. So, its really not “loan forgiveness”, because Biden (the government) didn’t loan it to begin with. It’s paying off SOME of their loan. Actually, its not even that. Its a $10k to $20k check given to the debtor to DO WITH AS THEY PLEASE. Libtards keep trying to insinuate that the loan holders are somehow behind the court’s decision, when those banks know full well that those checks won’t be used to pay off jack shit.
        Biden himself ironically touted all the money would be put “back into the economy”. Yea, no shit. In the form of a cruise to the bahamas or kitchen makeover. Even if Mr and Mrs Joe BS Degrees paid the 20k towards their $100k combined debt, Biden says they will use their newfound windfall to buy a house or a new car, not increase their payments on the other 80k they owe. So f-ing typical.

  12. Seems pretty easy to me.
    You want something but cannot pay for it up front, in cash, you take out a loan. Car. House. Education.
    Thing is, when you take out a loan, you are expected to pay it back. It is all right there. Up front in the fine print.
    You take out a loan and then find out that car, or house payment is more than you can afford? Who’s fault is that? Not mine.
    Same thing with education. Major in some useless degree that does not pay what you think it should pay? Who’s fault is that? Not mine.
    This is called real life. Reality.

    One issue that keeps coming up but no one actually talks about is why has higher education costs gone up in the past decade or two?
    As someone else mentioned, it is a business.

    1. The cost of higher education has been increasing because states have been cutting their share of government subsidies forcing state universities to increase tuition. To reduce the dependence on student loans states should be increasing their subsidies to state universities. The share of state funding used to be much much higher. Tuition was affordable and needing to borrow money was rare.

      This is done in other countries. Being saddled with lifetime student loan debt is unheard of in other countries. Here it’s just as guaranteed stream of profit for private loan servicers.

      1. Anonymous, Pell grants are given through the Federal government. If you have federal student loans and earn less than $125,000 (or $250,000 for married couples), you can qualify for up to $10,000 in debt cancellation. But if you had a Pell Grant, you could receive up to $20,000. These grants are paid for with tax dollars. Amazing what you can find with five minutes of research. You should try this new fangled thing known as the inter webb.

      2. states have been cutting their share of government subsidies forcing state universities to increase tuition.

        Look at professor to administrator ratio. Thats your answer. Dean of diversity offices run into the $10s of millions.

      3. Mind numbing logic here. So tell me this…did these institutions have insane endowments when the gov’t subsidies were higher??? Did they have administrators making jaw dropping salaries?? Did they have entire departments devoted to DEI?
        Your brilliant solution for the people here wondering why Joe Plumber should have to pay for Mr and Mrs Joe BS Degrees loans is that they should go back to subsidizing them upfront???
        Let me finish the thought for you…”Don’t worry Joe Plumber, we won’t take the money from you, we will either print more or confiscate it from Jeff Bezos”

    2. Higher education costs have gone up so much because the government has made borrowing easy. Now more than ever there is an increasing supply of people with money (from loans) to buy higher education. So the college raise their prices, because there are more people with money to spend.

    3. Upstate, that’s correct! The rising costs of a college education have outpaced the rate of inflation for decades. I would attribute the increasing costs in more recent years to the additional costs associated with the hiring of administrative personnel who are hired to promote the DEI narrative. It’s administrative bloat.

      1. Catherine Cassidy,
        My daughter was forced to take/pay for a DEI class in order to graduate.

    4. @Upstate

      It really is, which is why I have come to view modern degrees, even advanced ones, as nothing more than a receipt for a transaction.

      Even Google years ago used to require degrees for even the paltry entry level positions, and when their company began to slip due to employee incompetence, they initiated a hiring freeze and reversed that position. People need to dig deeper: even the companies promoting the most egregious ideas within their company culture do not follow this idiocy in the upper echelons.

      Wokeness is one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever unleashed on the West, and it’s hysterical to me that given schools are basically now businesses, students have the temerity to complain that they very knowingly got entangled in the corporate devil’s deal by signing on the dotted line. We learned nothing from the real estate crash. Nada.

  13. Law Quiz: What do you call a serial, intentional violator of the US Constitution?
    Answer: an ______________ of the country.

    (Hint for Dims: it rhymes with the name of the NFL’s Washington “Commanders” new assistant head coach’s last name. He’s Eric Bieniemy.)

    1. professor mespo…….(hand raised) “ooo! ooo! ooo!!…I know!! Enemy!”…… from the Latin “enema”? Right? 🙂

  14. Jonathan: You say Pres. Biden suffers from a “common defense mechanism” –“unconscious forms of self-deception we use to avoid anxiety and emotional pain, …”. Gee, I thought you were describing Donald Trump.

    I say this because Trump is facing an existential crisis–the growing realization that he may go to prison for some or all his crimes. So how is the Trumpster responding? He is engaged in self-deception. He lies, evades, blames others for his problems–a “common defense mechanism”. And he attacks those who are prosecuting him–calling them “communists and marxists”, “thugs” who are out to to prevent him from being re-elected next year. So he threatens judges, the prosecutors and their families. Trump bizarrely still claims all the docs he took to Mar-a-Lago “are mine”.

    You can attribute all this to both narcissism and “self-deception”. Trump spends a lot of time on Truth Social further incriminating himself. And he is doing this despite admonitions by his attorneys to just stay quiet. But Trump just can’t himself—he can’t stay quiet. In his book “Trump on the Couch”, Dr. Justin Frank describes Trump this way: “Trump’s psychopathic behavior reflects the disturbing fact that to him (and his cult followers), the only ‘truth’ is whatever comes out of his mouth in any given moment…Trump’s behavior is dangerous in a democracy and to democracy”.

    So now the Supreme Court has told Pres. Biden he can’t by-pass Congress in trying to forgive student loan debt. But Biden says he is going to find a way to by-pass not only Congress but the Supreme Court. I would call Biden “obstinate” but not engaging in self-deception. He just wants to help students facing debts they can’t pay.

    If you want to engage in amateur psychoanalysis the guy on the couch should be Donald Trump. Trump is a dangerous psychopath who actually believes he is above the laws that apply to everyone else. As his several trials move forward Trump will likely become more out of touch with reality–insisting he is god-like being persecuted by evil men (and women). This is the “Trump Derangement Syndrome”–a malady involving “self-deception” suffered by many on this blog!

    1. Hey look! Dennis has another rambling epistle directed at JT that neither he, me nor anyone with any sense will read,

        1. No. I did not.
          I did read the first few lines of his other comment, only after seeing the various others comments in reply.
          And when Lin does an epic take down of Dennis, then one has to go back and read his comment to understand Lin’s take down in context.
          Lin’s responses are always worth reading. And she does it with such elegance.

          1. UpstateFarmer: Just admit it. You just can’t wait for my next post–just like the ones from Gigi and Anonymous. We are a breath of fresh air on this blog. We are not the fawning disciples of Herr Turley you most frequently encounter on this blog. We actually think for ourselves. We don’t engage in conspiracy theories. Truth be known, and in the interest of full disclosure, we ARE paid by the “communists and marxists” to make your life miserable! That’s our job No. 1.

            I have only one Q for you. You say you did “read the first few lines of his (mine) other comment, only after seeing other the comments in reply”. You mean you must read the comments of others before reaching your own conclusions? Doesn’t say much about you ability to think critically. You really ought to read me in the original rather than depending on Lin. It’s like not reading Shakespeare but relying on others to help you make sense of Hamlet. You would not last long in an English literature class!.

      1. Yep. In a post about Biden and higher education, we can count on Dennis for a long irrelevancy.

        How about keeping your posts on topic, and stop wasting our time with your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      2. mespo727272. You really need a new moniker. I can’t make any sense of the numbers. That said I so appreciate you reading my posts. You have more sense than a lot of people on this blog give you credit for!

        1. Dennis:
          72 is a mystical number in all the world’s religions, my favorite year in ancient Roman history and one of my jersey numbers. Repeating a mystic number three times is good luck. Now you know.

          1. mespo7*, which 72? 72 BCE or 72 CE? Neither seem particularly distinguished to me…

          2. mespo727272: Now I get it. Thanks for the lesson in ancient Roman history. As a student of that history would you compare Donald Trump to Nero?

            1. Dennis McIntyre — Nero has had a reputation given by his enemies. He had the philosopher Seneca as an advisor but finally committed suicide.
              Trump is beneath comparison.

              1. Re:” As a student of that history would you compare Donald Trump to Nero?” Negatory….I compare Joe Biden to Nero. The parallels are there along with all the trappings of moral and ethical turpitude a corrupt politician could possibly muster.

                  1. Re:”ZZDoc — It would be helpful if you knew something:..” I read that too, and these as well. It’s in the way that you read it. Separate the wheat from the chaff and they pretty much support what I’ve written .I suppose it depends whose writing the notes for your press secretary’s binder. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nero-Roman-emperor :https://rome.us/roman-emperors/nero.html: pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/nero.html newyorker.com/magazine/2021/06/14/how-nasty-was-nero-really

  15. “The Hypocrisy is Stunning”: Biden’s Displays Stunning Denial Psychosis” is nothing more than standard operating procedure for the entire prog/left. Without that how could they continually dupe their tools into voting for them, again and again with little to show. Is anyone truly surprised???

  16. The issue with unilateral loan forgiveness is that it is unconstitutional. Congress, by law, has the power of the purse. The President, no matter who delusional he is, does not have that right. Period. This was never done out of compassion. It was done as a campaign issue. “See? I was going to forgive your loans by making those who get up every day and go to work pay for it. But the mean conservatives took that away from you!”

    This issue of student loans and the exponential rise in secondary education costs is another issue entirely. Yes, there is a dark side to the student loan industry. The students must pay these back and it is a harsh lesson to learn that what a worker makes, they don’t keep and the more they make, the more the government keeps. They also learn a harsh lesson about compound interest and the volatility of market rates. They also learn that they cannot walk away from this burden and declare bankruptcy to escape. This is a serious problem and it is easy to be lured into the trap when a young student suddenly gets a nice loan check.

    This is the dark side of the university system. They are a business. They need and want customers to pay for the institution. But what is their product? It should be successful and gainfully employed graduates. They get paid mostly though tuition. If there is a steady flow of customers (students) what do the they care how the students pay back their loans. They are not held financially liable if they do not produce a good product. They get their payment today and the school year begins. Why counsel a student about the average income they will likely make with a degree in women’s studies or many other degrees that do not lead to gainful employment? What are the graduation rates? Where are the graduates a year from now? What are the average salaries? What is the expected take home pay? Many institutions fail at this juncture and the student takes the loans not knowing that this could be a ball and chain for many years to come or that they must be extremely conservative in how they use their money. That means an older car, no vacations, summer jobs, working on weekends, no trips to Starbuck, no professional manicures or designer clothes.

    This nation still has good opportunities for students of all socioeconomic situations to have a shot at a good education. They may not get to attend an “elite” private or state university but they can get an excellent education. The state and community college institutions hold the same accreditation status with the Department of Education as the elite schools. The only serious advantage of going to an elite private institution is the status and the possibility of being admitted into the “boys club” for future career opportunities. Once a student is beyond five years of their training, their experience and continuing education supersede their university training.

    These serious issues of higher education can only be solved by a functional congress and senate, but that is another issue entirely.

  17. Two things they could do that would be more palatable to most people is to consider student loans the same as most loans. They should be able to be refinanced and discharged through bankruptcy. Making them “go away” is a symptom of some other agenda.

  18. “Biden simply claimed that he could give away hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional authorization.”

    Biden’s basic premise since at least law school (where he was busted for plagiarism) has been: Can I get away with it?

    Fortunately, SCOTUS ruled: No, you can’t. Not this time.

    Tragically, his administration’s premise remains: Do whatever it takes to get away with it.

  19. While “Joe Biden” may be showing sings of transference, to actually attribute that it him would presuppose a brain that is able to do more than read from a teleprompter.

Leave a Reply