Reply #151: You are wrong, but, like the issue above, prefer to hide in semantics, split hairs with definitions,

[apocalypsehow]

and then ask a bunch of irrelevant and non-responsive rhetorical questions only tangentially related to the issue at hand.

TARP has recouped more than 2/3rd's of the debt incurred, and how the rest will eventually be re-payed is outlined in the link provided, and which I would encourage you to study again. But my larger point was, of course, that those who benefited from TARP could at least claim that there was a mechanism in place to repay the money loaned, and, so far, at least two-thirds of it has been with a process in place to satisfy the rest; while, on the other hand, a student loan forgiveness scheme would not even plausibly be able to claim that a single penny would be repaid, and that, further would lead to the program being abolished to much right-wing glee.

But at this point you're just arguing for the sake of argument: when you were proven wrong in this very thread above, it was embarrassing, and you are simply extending an argument down here because you didn't get the better of it up there. Deal with my point here, to wit: a student loan "forgiveness" scheme would mean the end of the program, if it ever got past the Congress. Which (1) it won't so get past any Congress in our future, and (2) it would mean the end of the program if it did. That's the focus of this discussion.