this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
542 points (98.9% liked)

News

29254 readers
4268 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dude... I think you are literally just making this up (or repeating it from someone who made it up.)

I looked into the 2005 bankruptcy bill which they are arguing about in this clip. I couldn't even find anything in it about student loans. I searched the text, and followed the links to read the article Mother Jones wrote about the issue. Nothing about student loans. The Wikipedia page does have a single sentence claiming that it impacted student loan formulas in some way, with a "citation needed." Where in the text does it do that?

I have found some pages (one, two) that claim that the 2005 bankruptcy reform included making private student loan debt non-dischargeable. So maybe there is something to this argument? Like I said, I couldn't find it in the actual text.

As far as I can tell, deciding whether student loans are dischargeable mostly roots back to a 1987 court case and has to do with having to prove certain elements in bankruptcy court. I don't really know. But regardless, this whole bankruptcy bill had a huge impact on a wide variety of stuff, Biden didn't create it or sponsor it. It does look like he went to bat for it, which was probably bad, but the student loan stuff was a tiny part if it even existed in the bill at all. (Which, maybe it did, I reached my limit for wanting to look into this.) And saying that he was "the Senator" who was most responsible for this thing is just weird, even if he supported it. Presumably, a lot of people supported it, including the authors of the legislation.

Also, micro-focusing on just whether student loan debt is dischargeable in bankruptcy, and saying that is the issue that is competitive with the issue of forgiving loans for the vast majority of people who are paying them who are not bankrupt, is super weird.

Also, you know what Biden is responsible for? In 2022, the DOJ released new guidance indicating that they would not oppose in bankruptcy court anyone who wanted it discharged and could prove that it would be a hardship otherwise.

I have reached a firm conclusion that you are twisting facts around to bad-mouth Biden on this issue.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I couldn’t even find anything in it about student loans.

See "Sec. 220. Nondischargeability of certain educational benefits and loans." Also, the following is from the Wikipedia entry on BAPCPA.

BAPCPA amended § 523(a)(8) to broaden the types of educational ("student") loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy absent proof of "undue hardship." The nature of the lender is no longer relevant. Thus, even loans from "for-profit" or "non-governmental" entities are not dischargeable.

Also, you know what Biden is responsible for?

Yes I do, and I spoke to it in another thread. President Biden was a huge improvement over Senator Biden, and I give him full credit for that.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

See “Sec. 220. Nondischargeability of certain educational benefits and loans.” Also, the following is from the Wikipedia entry on BAPCPA.

Got it. Where did he come out specifically in favor of this one specific provision?

President Biden was a huge improvement over Senator Biden, and I give him full credit for that.

Yeah, I'll make sure not to go back in time to 2005 and elect him for anything back then. Back then, I didn't support Democrats either, they were mostly shit with Al Gore as a rare exception. Now they're getting significantly better, and you are casting this massive multi-decade net to try to find little individual things somewhere in the history that you can bring up and make this freakout about, and misrepresent.

Like I say, now that I understand the full scope better, it is impossible for me to see this any other way than just finding random bullshit to throw at Biden.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Got it. Where did he come out specifically in favor of this one specific provision?

Let me turn it around since the opposing claim is that he worked with Republicans to soften the bill. Where did he come out specifically against it? Finding clips of Biden back then is near impossible with all the results that come up from his presidency, and I honestly don't care enough to keep digging.

Yeah, I’ll make sure not to go back in time to 2005 and elect him for anything back then.

Is he running for something now? I hope you are aware that we aren't talking about a current or future Democratic candidate for anything.

Now they’re getting significantly better.

Biden was among the most conservative Democrats in congress. As president he was one of the furthest left office holders in the party. Biden got way better in the context of the Democrats. I don't see Democrats as a group getting better at all, with rare exceptions that the establishment does everything they can manage to suppress. You Don't Hate The Democrats Enough.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Let me turn it around since the opposing claim is that he worked with Republicans to soften the bill. Where did he come out specifically against it? Finding clips of Biden back then is near impossible with all the results that come up from his presidency, and I honestly don’t care enough to keep digging.

Okay so you have literally no idea whether he even ever expressed any specific approval for the part of the bill you're blaming him for being more responsible for than any other US senator. He didn't write it, he didn't make that amendment, and he supported some other parts in debate. But you definitely know he's most responsible. Out of everyone.

Good to know.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Okay so you have literally no idea whether he even ever expressed any specific approval for the part of the bill

Dude. I've put up with your demands for evidence and proved you wrong several times. I'm not your fucking man servant and I figure at this point it's your turn to prove that he opposed that particular section of a bill he championed through congress. The bill did what I said it did, and he backed it. If you think he opposed that section, then I think it's on you to show that me made some effort to fix it.

But you definitely know he’s most responsible. Out of everyone.

Three prominent Democrats pushed the bill through congress, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton. Of the three, only Joe Biden ended up voting for the final bill. That's about as much of a smoking gun as your ever going to find.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Now we're down to the ad hominem. I'll just point out that you got there first and leave it at that.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

"I have evidence by reputable places to prove your beliefs wrong."

"You're an asshole, no one likes you."

Thank god we're not in a place where Philip can mod, or they'd ban you and then say they're sorry. Check !yepowertrippingbastards@lemmy.dbzero.com

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 6 hours ago

Um, what? I find your reply incoherent and your link doesn't work.