Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
June 30, 2026
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
High Finance Applications
Guaranteed
Get at least one offer GUARANTEED
- 1:1 support
- 92% success rate
- 2,000+ mentor network
- Unlimited Live bootcamps
- AI for resume + LinkedIn
- Networking automation tools
- HireVue simulation tool
- Full course library
- Private Slack community
- 20hrs of mocks
- + much more...
trump was totally worth it for the conservatives he packed onto the court
great week
Hundo P. Can't say I agree with all the SCOTUS rulings but they delivered on the most important ones
I miss the tweets tho
Good chance he returns -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/06/28/trump-is-reportedl…
As of last week, he isn't exclusively bound to Truth Social and Twitter is much friendlier towards him w/ Elon at the helm. So would guess it's a matter of when, not if given you want wide distribution and to reach supporters directly (vs. the media which could choke him off like they are with RFK)
This was his biggest achievement.
Ugh, I loathe Donald Trump and MAGA, so I hate to agree with this. His picks have been mediocre, but their mediocrity as conservatives is infinitely superior to the liberal justices.
Personally, I'm conflicted about the decision. I think that it would have been ridiculous to absolve a large amount of people from their debts they incurred to pursue a degree that would never allow them to pay off that debt (a generality) but I actually think the decision was wrong. One of the elements that need to be satisfied would be that the plaintiffs were harmed. It was clear that those who brought the suit were not harmed and in Kagan's dissent she noted that this suit was brought simply because they disagreed with the ideology.
I also think that a majority feel the student debt / loan structure is broken and this decision doesn't help in trying to figure out how to actually address the underlying problems in student loans. I believe if they passed it through, Congress and the like would have been up in arms and thought, "well we cant let that happen again" and decide a different way to address these issues so that people can't just have their debts discharged freely
The system is 100% broken and the incentives are perverse to the maximum. But at the end of the day, people chose to take out a loan and should be responsible for it. My only compromise would be forcing schools that accepted said money and continually raised prices be forced to use their endowments to bail out all the useless degrees they sold if they want to continue receiving government support in the form of backed loans or funding. If they can't, better start selling off pointless assets and buckle down on teaching the folks who actually generate an ROI.
Totally agree but I think this is exactly the logic that Biden was trying to exploit. All the PPP loans that businesses got and were forgiven they figured they could argue is the same as the students who took on the debt. One of the Plaintiff's that actually contested the forgiving of loans was a business owner from Texas who had some crazy $$ amount of PPP loans discharged.
https://theintercept.com/2022/11/09/student-debt-relief-lawsuit-ppp-myr…
If we think that 18 year olds aren't mentally competent enough to drink beer how can we say they are mentally competent enough to take out that much loan debt? Especially when our education system doesn't teach them real life skills?
I’ve been against it because it doesn’t address the root of the problem which is schools raising tuition at ridiculous rates. If democrats are all for regulation, why haven’t they done anything about rising tuition costs? Quit making it so easy to get student loans. If they made it where government funded loans could only go up by annual inflation, schools wouldn’t be able to raise tuition the way they have. The government really shouldn’t be in the loan business and they definitely shouldn’t be funding masters degrees. If you’re going for a masters that makes sense, you’ll have no problem getting funding from a bank.
100% it's on the schools for making the situation as big as it is by unsustainably rising prices. But it's still at the end of the day government's fault for perverting market incentives with these idiotic loans being backed by tax payers.
Have you checked the political affiliation of most people working of college campuses? I think you have your answer.
I couldn't possibly disagree more with this assessment--it's even worse than arguing for the principle of student loan forgiveness because it's a complete surrender of the entire constitutional order. Joe Biden attempted to use "standing" as a legal weapon to do an end-run around the law as no one is directly harmed by the state giving money to someone else. The plaintiffs narrowly tailored their complaints to successfully defeat the gross abuse of the principle of standing and the rule of law by the Biden administration. This is a total success for the rule of law.
No offense but you're looking at this the wrong way. The decision has nothing to do with whether student loan forgiveness is good or bad. That's an entirely separate discussion. It's simply saying that the executive branch is not the correct way to legislate this.
If the Democrats want loan forgiveness, they are free to pass a bill in House and Senate just like any other spending bill which is the appropriate area to do this.
I think that this is part of the problem with people complaining about SCOTUS lately. The SCOTUS is about interpretting the constitutionality of laws, not deciding whether they are good laws or bad laws. Similarly with the affirmative action decision, you could argue that affirmative action is a good thing but should still be struck down because it does not uphold the principles of equality set in other clear legal precedents.
Would echo other post below who mentions it's not the issue of of do we or do we not cancel it, it's not within the executive purview -- this must be decided by legislative branch. The president cannot magically wave a wand and make any law he wants real, that's why we have separation of powers
The other issue is that cancelling the debt would DESTROY the incentive structure beyond repair for universities. They've already been exploiting this free debt system for years with 5-6% annual price hikes, you're just incentivizing them to hurt future generations by doing even bigger hikes because they can now get away with it. That is ultimately unsustainable
Dear mods, are you going to take this one down too or did SCOTUS follow our guidelines on this one?
The mods here are the absolute worst, with the exception of Reddit, where you aren't allowed to express a conservative opinion at all.
You cant even begin the conversation of forgiving student loans without addressing the issue that caused it in the first place. Cheap and free (for a while) govt debt that directly goes to academic institutions who in turn jack up tuition costs and hire unneccessary administrative positions that serve as a safe haven for crazy idealogues that wouldnt last in the private sector without having their beliefs challenged. Instead they can fester with each other in their ivory towers and indoctrinate our youth. Every crazy story you here of some professor promoting these far left talking points are doing so at the tax payers expense. It's completely asinine.
You cap tuition increases for any insitution that uses public loan money exceeding a certain %, with strings attached on building new development and hiring practices for non-professors/teachers/TAs then we can talk student loan forgiveness. Until then, you have a person bleeding out on the ground and your solution is to grab a mop to clean the floor instead of supplies to fix the wound.
What I find ridiculous about recent SCOTUS decisions is that these questions even required the SCOTUS.
1. We can't discriminate on race in the U.S. What about Asians in school admissions? Read the first line. Not sure what there was to debate here.
2. Can the president just forgive hundrends of millions of student debt.....clearly the role of Congress through a legislative process.
#3. Obviously, people have a First Amendment right (no, a moral, natural right) not to make a website for a cause he or she finds morally objectionable.
clearly you have never met a liberal before
"why should we be able to defend the borders...they are just a construct, open borders for all!"
"they are not homless, just unhoused"
"they are not illegal immigrants, but "undocument migrants"
"hi my name is rachel, she/her are are my preferred pronouns, I acknowledge I am on the land of the Sunapee Peoples Nation ..."
Conservatives blocking student debt forgiveness, while not only forgiving PPP loans - but going great lengths to reduce oversight, is all you need to know.
This is crony capitalism of the worst kind.
This is arguing apples and oranges. The government forced businesses to shut down and provided a monetary grant system that they nominally structured as a "loan." The PPP money was a grant so long as it was used for the proper purposes--keeping the companies' workers employed. If they didn't use the money properly, only then would the grant money convert to a loan structure. In practice, the grant money wasn't "loan forgiveness"--it was the recipient utilizing the grant money in a way acceptable under the law, thus the government disclaimed its ownership in the funds granted. You, the Biden admin, and the rest of the proponents of student debt transfer are taking the words "loan" and "loan forgiveness" with respect to PPP literally and are then dishonestly comparing it to the student loan regime. They have nothing to do with each other except for superficial similarities with respect to vocabulary.
An honest comparison of student loan debt would be to mortgage debt, auto loans, or credit card debt, not to a grant program.
Sure, that's a very fair and legit argument - but my problem with the PPP loans is that it seemed to be designed to:
1) Help businesses that actually needed it
2) Fill the pockets of unethical business owners
It was a feeding frenzy. They literally held seminars on how to maximize the situation, whether you needed it or not.
This is actually a good representation of the argument on the loans.
Side note - I just think people are pissed because there's no handout.
Also, no one forced anyone into being in debt. Everyone had the conscious decision as an adult to get student loans.
Laborum molestiae pariatur nostrum ipsam asperiores. Dolores sit non quia molestias illo. Quia enim nulla doloremque sed. Et exercitationem iste aliquam quia enim veritatis. Dolores et omnis tempora id ea quod eligendi. Voluptas sint aspernatur possimus eum ut voluptatem ad.
Dolores accusamus et iusto voluptatem. Est odio architecto voluptas totam. Impedit voluptas aut quas aperiam. Quia nobis molestiae qui ut. Quis quo iure aspernatur odio earum ex molestiae quos. Est voluptates impedit deserunt occaecati assumenda.
Quia qui qui esse qui. Aperiam ullam eligendi perferendis nulla et sed eius et. Et dolorem ut est dignissimos omnis dolorem. Nihil ad possimus ut incidunt. Ut voluptas iusto harum enim rerum ipsum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Cumque aliquam nemo cumque quaerat ut eos. Modi quis quam dolores enim animi animi. Quia fugiat cupiditate laudantium. Aut culpa nemo ut explicabo a ut non.
Sequi aliquam consequuntur explicabo fugit dolorem aut esse. Id excepturi non sit. Libero quos eum veritatis quo. Illo in aperiam aut vel neque non nihil quis.