If one takes out a loan,
Does the word,
   ‘RESPONSIBLE’
come into play here ?

Or does one hope a mush for brains POTUS will sprinkle some Fairy Dust and say, ‘POOF” your loan is now forgiven.
 (Then in gratitude you will vote for a bumbling puppet)


 You are mixing two DIFFERENT loan types.


 The humans who PAID for 25 years were "RESPONSIBLE" they met their agreed upon terms.  The Supreme Court ruling was NOT about these loans.  Claiming he defied the Supreme Court and that loan recipients qualified for forgiveness were not RESPONSIBLE makes no logical sense.


Implying he 'gave' forgiveness, when in fact he simply required the 'government' to honor the agreement made on 7,700 loans.
Then down played, the FACT that he wanted to GIVE AWAY more, and was told he could not.

  Two different issues.  The Supreme Court did not rule on this.  This could however explain why Webstermark saw no media information about this.


Oh, and this was the ONLY time, that ever has happened ?

 No.  Why would you even ask that?

 Incorrect.  If we look at the entire information and not just the first line it is clear that the Dept. of Education failed as well, not all borrowers besides the 157.  It is most likely a mix as without Judicial Order a human can not audit the Dept. of Education's calculation systems to begin with.  

 However, my statement was in regard to the lie that the Supreme Court ruled on this issue.  
'
 But lets deflect and argue about an issue nobody disagreed about to begin with.

The Department of Education approved forgiveness for a total of 157 loans under Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans as of June 1, 2021, but has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that all eligible loans receive IDR forgiveness. IDR plans generally lower monthly payment amounts and extend repayment to 20 or 25 years of qualifying payments, after which borrowers become eligible for forgiveness of their remaining loan balances without needing to apply. However, GAO found that about 7,700 loans in repayment (about 11 percent of loans analyzed) could be potentially eligible for IDR forgiveness. Education's repayment data do not provide enough information to definitively determine why these loans—totaling about $49 million in outstanding debt—had not been forgiven as of September 1, 2020 (see figure). Education officials said data limitations make it difficult to track some qualifying payments and older loans are at higher risk for payment tracking errors. Until Education takes steps to address such errors, some borrowers may not receive the IDR forgiveness they are entitled. This risk will increase as Education data show loans potentially eligible for IDR forgiveness will climb to about 1.5 million loans by 2030.


Again:

...has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that all eligible loans receive IDR forgiveness.


 The image you provide as reference is the Dept of Education's data.  The data established as inaccurate and insufficient.  Why are you using data that is an example of inaccurate counting?


Education does not provide information about the requirements for receiving IDR forgiveness, including what counts as a qualifying payment toward forgiveness, in key communications to IDR borrowers.


 Does not provide information about the requirements.  

 The entire document is how sh!tty the Dept. of Education's data is, and how they refuse to let humans with loans know how to calculate their loan parameters towards credit.  None of the article indicates humans had ample information and opportunity to audit their loan status.

 

Education determined these borrowers were eligible for IDR forgiveness after making a one-time IDR payment count revision to address past inaccuracies, among other issues. This included counting additional months toward forgiveness, including for certain statuses that our report identified as being hard to accurately track in the past. Education stated that it will continue to identify and notify borrowers when they reach the threshold for IDR forgiveness.


Again:  were eligible for IDR forgiveness


 No Supreme Court ruling though.

From information, you have supplied, to ‘prove’ your case,
That the Government was crooked, and Biden was a Hero.


 Incorrect, I never said Biden is a Hero.
 I said if Trump did this exact same thing people complaining that Biden approved this would call Trump a Hero.  This is a who a person likes as POTUS concept not a logic and ethics one.  Facts wont matter.

 Since it was Biden people will claim, incorrectly, that humans receiving the loans could have known they were not getting credit.  There is no way they could have known, that is acknowledged by everyone, except You of course.



Again the ‘proof’ you provided,
157 were responsible people who had a brain and could manage their own affairs.

 Incorrect.  157 humans receiving a forgiveness loan contract had it calculated correctly by random chance.  Those humans were not involved in managing those calculations in any way as there is no way they could.  The process does not exist.  They managed nothing different about their affairs than anyone else.  You refuse to Observe this even though it is referenced multiple times.  If you did, you can't claim it's their fault.

 So instead you "POOF" make up this scenario that they "managed their affairs" even though there is no way they could have in this case.  Not even the people holding the loans could.  You refuse to Observe this.


 
"7,700, just ‘cried’, then waited until a mush for brains POTUS sprinkled some Fairy Dust and said, ‘POOF’."

 If you had a contract with the Dept of education and they did not honor it due to their incompetence - would you just pay the extra thousands and thousands of dollars?  Again, you refuse to Observe this, but there is no way the humans paying loans could have known the Dept of Education was not calculating credit correctly.  There is no way they could have known, no method existed.

 Also there is no "POOF" the forgiveness is calculated in.  It's part of a contract, you are pretending this is the same as the newer loans where the forgiveness is magically created out of thin air.  Those loans are bullsh!t "POOF" loans.  The older loans are a contractual pre-funded agreement.  

 If you had a contract that after 20 years of paying on your house, they would forgive the last 10, would you "cry" if the bank said they miscalculated in their private accounting, they lost most of it, sold other parts, and now you have to pay?

 Would it make sense for someone to say You should have been getting search warrants to audit private networks and dumping thousands of dollars of your own money to investigate the loan integrity and accounting accuracy of multiple organizations even though literally every month you had proof of loan payment and that's all the contract you have says you need to do?


 None of this changes that there was no Supreme Court ruling on these loans, the claim on here is that there was a ruling on them.  This is incorrect.