Eegore wrote on 07/15/23 at 12:45:47:


Another Inference.

Problem (of something not being simple) very often is:
"...multiple legal teams..."

My personal Observed Reality;
  Many Lawyers, MAKE/SAY, things are complicated,
 (When They Are NOT !)
and ONLY they can fix it.
And OBTY, they need MORE money to do it.

(Oh keep forgetting, Observed Reality, is not really, real)

Perhaps Arthur Train's, 80 years ago, personal observed reality is valid ?

 (He said: ' Put one Lawyer in a small town, they will make a good living. Put two Lawyer's in that small town, they both will get very rich !)

You just love to Deflect and Spin.

 You refuse to Observe this is two different loan issues made decades apart.  Receipts aren't the problem.

 
A person made the deal.
That person read, agreed to, signed the contract.
That person has a record of that deal/contract.
That person, followed all of the criteria in that contract.
If the 'other' person/entity did not fulfill the contract the other person signed.
The remedy IS SIMPLE.

 I disagree.  If it were SIMPLE then people wouldn't spend years battling broken contracts.  Thousands of humans have this problem and not one figured out your "simple" technique" of showing payment receipts.  Thus showing the balance.  This isn't even the problem, nobody is questioning they paid, but somehow showing receipts (balance) will resolve this.  Too bad not one other human on the planet thought of your SIMPLE method for solving their problem.



If a person signed a contract to borrow money.
Did Not read, (or have someone who could) understand it.
Signed that contract.
Has no record of that contract.
Has no record of payment/fulfillment of contract.
And the other person/entity decided to say, 'Tough Titty Kitty'.
Guess What, IT IS Tough Titty Kitty !

 Agreed.  That's not what happened with the older loans though.

 Jog is freely mixing the Supreme Court decision on current loan forgiveness with broken (by the government) loan agreements made 30 years ago that do not apply to that Supreme Court ruling.  The resolution logic of one does not directly apply to the other, although the current resolution proposal does need to be scrutinized.

LOLOLOLOL

Each post, I believe less and less of your, 'knowledge' of a subject.


 So you didn't think there was simple resolution that included checking the balance?  Who did?

Putting words in my mouth.
Changing things I/others said.
Saying/making, two different points.
As well as inferring.


 What am I misunderstanding then?  

 It appears to me that you think people could have checked their balance and somehow known the years were not calculated.  Once they found out there is a problem, the resolution is SIMPLE.  If it were SIMPLE, why won't anyone resolve their problem?

 Checking the balance won't help, that's not the problem.  You say "WRONG!" to that assessment:

Eegore:  The balance is irrelevant, there's no way you could have known the payments weren't counting towards the years.  ..."

MnSpring:  Wrong !


 How would people know then?  

 Either way, this issue was not ruled on by the Supreme Court.