US Supreme Court Rejects US Student Loan Relief. President Biden Responds (cnn.com) 365
After a three-year pause, U.S. student loan repayments are set to resume on October 1st — just three months from today. But CNN reports that yesterday America's Supreme Court "struck down President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program, blocking millions of borrowers from receiving up to $20,000 in federal student debt relief."
"The court's 6 to 3 conservative majority held that the secretary of education did not have that authority under existing law," writes the Washington Post. The Guardian quotes President Biden's response: "I think the court misinterpreted the constitution."
CNN reports: No debt had been canceled, even though the Biden administration had received about 26 million applications for relief last year and approved 16 million of them. The forgiveness program, estimated to cost $400 billion, would have fulfilled a campaign promise of Biden's to cancel some student loan debt. But a group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.
Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June...
The administration estimated that roughly 20 million borrowers would have seen their entire federal student loan balance wiped away.
UPDATE: CNBC reports the administration hasn't given up: President Joe Biden suggested on Friday that he was looking for another avenue to deliver student debt relief after the Supreme Court rejected his forgiveness plan.
"Today's decision has closed one path," Biden said during a briefing Friday. "Now we're going to pursue another."
A statement from the White House also points to other relief policies for students, noting for example that now "no one with an undergraduate loan has to pay more than 5 percent of their discretionary income." CNN reports: New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers. And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers' monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. The administration said this plan was finalized Friday and borrowers will be able to take advantage of it this summer, before loan payments are due. The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled. Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers....
[T]he Biden administration said Friday that it will provide a 12-month on-ramp period for borrowers reentering payment... Borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default or referred to collection agencies for late, missed or partial payments during the on-ramp period, according to a fact sheet from the White House.
"The court's 6 to 3 conservative majority held that the secretary of education did not have that authority under existing law," writes the Washington Post. The Guardian quotes President Biden's response: "I think the court misinterpreted the constitution."
CNN reports: No debt had been canceled, even though the Biden administration had received about 26 million applications for relief last year and approved 16 million of them. The forgiveness program, estimated to cost $400 billion, would have fulfilled a campaign promise of Biden's to cancel some student loan debt. But a group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.
Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June...
The administration estimated that roughly 20 million borrowers would have seen their entire federal student loan balance wiped away.
UPDATE: CNBC reports the administration hasn't given up: President Joe Biden suggested on Friday that he was looking for another avenue to deliver student debt relief after the Supreme Court rejected his forgiveness plan.
"Today's decision has closed one path," Biden said during a briefing Friday. "Now we're going to pursue another."
A statement from the White House also points to other relief policies for students, noting for example that now "no one with an undergraduate loan has to pay more than 5 percent of their discretionary income." CNN reports: New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers. And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers' monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. The administration said this plan was finalized Friday and borrowers will be able to take advantage of it this summer, before loan payments are due. The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled. Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers....
[T]he Biden administration said Friday that it will provide a 12-month on-ramp period for borrowers reentering payment... Borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default or referred to collection agencies for late, missed or partial payments during the on-ramp period, according to a fact sheet from the White House.
Combine the cases (Score:4, Funny)
Also the bible says any debt over 7 years old is automatically forgiven.
Another approach (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The government has taken over higher educational borrowing as the only lender. That's why they can't allow bankruptcy: they're a party to the original agreements. If government kept out of the educational loan business as they used to, then bankruptcy wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're probably thinking of in 2010, when President Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act [bankrate.com], which eliminated the Federal Family Education Loan Program by requiring all federal student loans to be Direct Loans, offered by the government's William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program.
The change to bankruptcy law [savingforcollege.com] making it all-but-impossible to discharge student loan debt was made in 1976 -- decades earlier.
In 1984, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 further t
Dangerous comment (Score:3)
Seems like lately all political sides like to complain that the constitution is misunderstood when rulings go against them. The president is dead wrong to say this. He can think it, and say that in private to his cabinet and advisors, but to say that publicly? That's not good. I've noticed the last few presidents have made manyinappropriate statements like this. Obama commenting on the judicial process with regards to the police killings and black lives matter, for example. And Trump, well, nearly every thing he said was inappropriate. To say these kinds of things feeds the division and distrust among Americans of different stripes. It suggests, inappropriately, that if a decision is not in line with your personal beliefs, it therefore must be wrong and thus the system that supports it is wrong, and people who support it are wrong and should be literally fought against (civil war really). Burn it all down until everyone comes around to my point of view.
As for constitutionality, the court's message to the Biden administration is clear: if you want to forgive student loans, congress must pass a law to do it. That is the correct and constitutional way to do it.
Personally I think many, many students have been taken advantage of by predatory lenders and for-profit degree purveyors, and that loan forgiveness is a good idea which will actually benefit the entire economy and country by allowing them to be productive participants, rather than fail under the load of debt. The secondary educational system is quite broken in the US when compared to other countries. But I recognize that many/most do not see it this (my) way.
That boat has long since sailed (Score:2, Interesting)
Presidents have sulked publicly about Supreme Court ruling since forever. FDR's New Deal was resisted by the court for some years until the grim reaper allowed him to get a more compliant court. What's happening now is that liberals, having indulged in imposing their agenda from the bench for the past 90 years, are discovering what it's like when the Court follows the other side's agenda. The result is a serious breakdown in legitimacy in the US political system, and this is getting really really scary.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very simple case:
1) the congress has the power of the purse. They can cancel student debt if they want.
2) the executive does not have spending power; can not cancel debt.
The USSC did the correct, obvious, simple, only choice available thing to do.
To have allowed the executive branch to do this would have upended the entire 3 branch system of government, checks and balances, and so on.
They -had- to make this ruling as they did. We are not yet a banana republic. This was an anti-banana decision.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the jobs of the SCOTUS is to determine if the president's actions are constitutional or not. It's commonly referred to as "Checks and Balances." This is not legislation from the bench. If Congress wants to fund such an activity, they have the power of the purse and can undo the decision of the SCOTUS. Again, checks and balances.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not going to entertain any thoughts that the court is illegitimate. It is, and in this case the ruling is correct. Only the congress would have the power to forgive student loans. If the addled fool in the whitehouse was serous he should have worked with congress to make it so. He wasn't and just hand waved in a illegal order.
Re: (Score:3)
Simply on a legal ethics basis alone the current court is certainly not legitimate
rest of the bullshit deleted without being read.
The court is legitimate. Nothing you can say or do will change that. If you think otherwise, then you are just wrong.
Now we are going to go ahead and end this discussion now.
"I think the court misinterpreted the Constitution (Score:3)
OK, Mr. President. In which way precisely has the court "misinterpreted" the Constitution?
Here, let me help. Here's the full text of the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Are you saying your plan doesn't depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act? Are you saying you aren't establishing a brand-new program?
last laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden still had the last laugh, because the only real purpose of this was to get him elected and placate his left wing. It worked, proving again that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American voter.
Just pay your loans already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah bullshit to that. Bankruptcy exists for a reason.
Why do corporate boot lickers think companies should get special protection for giving unwise loans in this particular case?
One more fun fact (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously the student loan that forgiveness doesn't even make up for all the subsidies that were taken away back then. They were direct subsidies to the universities passed on to the students in the form of low cost tuition so everybody acts like they didn't exist. I was there when they were being taken away and I remember the college newspapers talking about them and how tuition was going to be over 10K in about 15 years. Literally no one else talked about it
Congress can always pass a law. (Score:2)
The Supremes ruled that the President did not have the authority under existing law.
The answer, of course, is for Congress to pass a law.
Of course the problem is then 535 people would have to actually show their support (or lack thereof), rather than do all this at arms length--meaning you'd have Democrats and Republicans actually voting up or down (rather than just bitching on Twitter). Meaning they'd have to put their money where their mouths are.
When birth rates continue to fall (Score:2)
Can't someone else do it? (Score:2)
Did you guys not learn from The Simpsons 'Trash of the Titans', Season 9 Episode 22? Nothing is free, and asking Bob the truck driver to pay for Billy's college sociology degree is as unfair as it gets. Common man! When did everyone get so stupid?
Fix the Problem at Its Root (Score:5, Insightful)
I know giving college students access to nearly infinite amount of money was done to prevent talented people from missing out on the opportunity to get a great education (and to prevent society from missing out on their contributions), but the result is that colleges just raised their tuition to absorb all of the money being offered through government-subsidized loans. I don't claim to know exactly what the solution should be, but given that many other countries can provide a similar level of education for far less money, we could start by seeing how they do it.
Conflicted (Score:2)
I must admit I am somewhat conflicted about student loan relief. On the one hand, it's not a bad idea, especially for those newly minted professionals in jobs that are vital and we as a nation want more people to pursue, such as K-12 education or for those people who have been ripped off by private colleges like—dare I say it?—Trump University. But, on the other hand, I went through grad school on student loans and I paid them off—and early. I feel a kind of a resentment brewing here.
Fucked up priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
The feds will give you 22% of your installation costs to put up solar panels and a battery. On top of that if you take out that 600k mortgage and pay 18k in interest per year they will even let you write off that entire 18k on your federal taxes. In other words if you own a house the government is basically giving you free money constantly.
A house is an asset.
A college degree is an asset.
Why do we give free money for owning one but not the other?
I'll just sit here eating my popcorn watching ya'll try to justify why we should keep having people paying a bank to discharge a loan instead of the rest of the economy.
USA (Score:2, Insightful)
How can he be such an idiot? (Score:3, Informative)
Biden has been in the federal government forever, in both the legislative and executive. He has a law degree. How is he so stupid to not understand that the ruling wasn't based on Constitutional issues, but statutory interpretation?
funny this isn't a problem in Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So our completely consistent capitalistic culture that has made us the wealthiest country in the world will fail any second now? Can you be more specific as to when? I'd like to put it on my calendar.
Don't get me wrong, healthcare and education both have issues over here but all you sound like is someone who has a stick up their butt about the US.
Basic Math and Reading Comprehension for the win (Score:4, Informative)
The short version:
Biden and Team Democrat lied their asses off about forgiving student loans knowing full well they didn't have the authority to do so.
Since, in the short term it gave them lots of votes, they went with it anyway.
Fast forward a bit and the Supreme Court officially tells Biden and the Gang to piss up a rope, they don't have the authority. Request denied.
Cue lots of staged anger and grandstanding from not only Politicians but the voters who were gullilble enough to believe the lie in the first place. Resort to the usual tactic of blaming everyone but themselves and promising to turn it into another election year lie that people will believe in all over again for the purpose of buying their votes :|
It's hard to see this when you're a young adult because you haven't been lied to enough times over the years. As you age, you'll eventually see the patterns and become just as jaded towards Politicians and Politics in general as the rest of us.
Is he buying my lunch too? (Score:3, Informative)
Because I'm pretty sure that even His Highness cannot cancel private debts, so we're actually talking about using taxpayer dollars to pay for stuff that people agreed to pay for themselves.
That's why they were called LOANS, not GIFTS.
In short, he promised something he's not legally entitled to deliver.
That doesn't mean our job now is to give him that power. That would be dumb.
(And to be clear,,I have 4 kids with a total of over $100k in remaining loans.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:5, Informative)
That's bullshit and you know it. You know how I know you know it? Because Biden and Democrats also know it, because they flat-out said that the President did not have the power to discharge student loan debt. The Supreme Court decision even quotes them saying, flat-out, that it would be against the powers of the Executive Branch to do exactly what they ended up trying to pull.
It would take an act of Congress to discharge student debt, but it will never happen, because they also know it's bad policy. Giving people free money is never a good idea. It's a blatant attempt at vote buying, and everyone knows it.
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:5, Informative)
Congress could do plenty of other things to help out the people stuck in debt hell that don't require blanket loan forgiveness, but they won't even do that. At the very least they should stop letting the problem continue to get worse. However, in some ways they're happy to have created a problem that they can promise to solve.
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
On republicans doing the same thing - I agree. It was a massive "dog catches car" moment when the SC overturned RvW. Suddenly the Democrats were all motivated, and all the stupid legislation that was only for show up until that point came into effect, and is causing problems all over.
Re: (Score:2)
Years later, Dems still uselessly rabbling about it like they're gonna change it (according to their fundraiser emails.)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the pro-lifers are quite pleased.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the pro-lifers are quite pleased.
Unless it ever dawns on them that the people who are being forced to pop out kids are really only the poors who couldn't afford to travel to a state where abortion is still legal.
When your entire political platform revolves around ending government handouts, perhaps you shouldn't encourage breeding more poor people in the first place?
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:4, Insightful)
I still remember the reactions of Texas's legislature when they were informed that due to them "saving money" by defunding planned parenthood, that their social services budget needed to go up by something like a billion dollars due to the extra kids, which were indeed, mostly by poorer people, ergo, costing more in welfare, medical coverage, school, daycare, and all the stuff that the government pays for so that poor people with kids can still work.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until they start seeing the increased welfare bills. Texas already showed this, they lamented heavily.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the republican party going to do for me? Do they have any policies or legislation to help with inflation or gasoline prices? How about cheaper healthcare? Isn’t that what’s causing all the shootings? Mental health crisis?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing. In theory they're not supposed to do anything for anyone, and instead let us do for ourselves, though we all know they have some buddies that benefit more than others.
That would work if the Democrats (Score:3)
The same thing happened with the railroad strike. Biden f
Re: (Score:3)
The law was written specifically for the cancellation of debts to active duty military members serving in a combat/war situation.
Re: (Score:3)
These are the same people [SCOTUS] that follow the constitution to the letter by the way.
You forgot the sarcasm tag. :-)
{And, yes, it's appropriate here.)
That is literally the exact opposite (Score:3)
Congress constantly delegates authority to the executive branch to implement laws. They've been doing that for centuries now. As
Re: (Score:2)
Congress only opened the door to cancellation of debts for active duty military serving in a warzone. That was what Biden was attempting to exploit to arbitrarily cancel debts for anyone he damn well pleased. And THAT was an overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
Free money is just for corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
The Heroes Act was intended for active duty military in a war. Not civilians.
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:5, Insightful)
What pile of manure. This is nothing to do with student loans and everything to do with the Constitution. The House has the power of the purse. No President is allowed to spend $400B on ANYTHING just because they want to. The Constitution is clear on this, the spending bill authorizing the $400B has to originate in the House and be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. The Supreme Court did not say the loans couldn't be forgiven, they simply said the President does not have the power to do it and if he wants to do it he has to get permission from the House. The US House is just down the street, go get them to authorize spending $400B.
“People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress,” Pelosi said at the time.
The house delegated that authority (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pile of manure. Was the legislative intent of the Heroes Act to spend $400B? Hmmm.... the CBO estimate for the cost of the Heroes Act was $1.52B.
Clearly the intent of the Act was not to spend $400B.
Re: (Score:2)
The CBO estimate was based on proper application of the Heroes Act: only active-duty military can be considered for student loan forgiveness, in the case that they are sent to a warzone.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is saying the loans can't be forgiven. You just have to follow the Constitution when doing it. The House has to write a bill which clearly states that it is their intention to spend $400B and that bill will be scored at $400B. The Senate can then pass it and the President can sign it. Really, no matter how hard Biden searches is he not going to find a House bill authorizing $400B for this -- that's because there isn't one. There have only been a handful of bills scored at over $400B, looking for loan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court didn't rule anything about the Constitution.
Wut? This was entirely about the separation of powers. As in:
What they ruled was that because this is so much money Congress doesn't have the right to delegate authority.
Right, sort of. That's constitutional issue. The court looks at the matter at hand, and then says, "Nope, what he's trying to do is unconstitutional." Note that the constitution doesn't spell out dollar amounts that make the power to raise and assign the spending of money a legislative activity. The threshold isn't in dollars, it's in statute. If congress doesn't pass a bill supporting a specific type of spending, nobody else gets to. The consti
Re: (Score:3)
You have to consider the intent of the Heroes Act. Congressional bills have costs assigned by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). The CBO scored the Heroes Act at $1.52B. The CBO is part of Congress and it reflects the intent of Congress. Congress clearly intended for the Heroes Act to spend $1.52B. That was the cost assigned to the bill when it was voted on.
The scoring for the Heroes Act is NOT $400B. It the Heroes Act had intended to spend $400B it would have been scored at $400B. Trying to later twist
Biden plan vastly exceeded what House delegated (Score:2)
The house delegated that authority. To the president using the heroes act.
They did not delegate Biden's $400 billion plan. They delegated $191 billion for both student loan relief AND funding higher education.
Biden vastly exceeded what was authorized. Therefore his plan was not delegated,
Only $22B authorized, not $400B (Score:2)
"Provide Student Loan Relief and Funding for Higher Education $191 billion
Forgive up to $10K in student loans for economically distressed borrowers (forgiveness excluded from income) $22 billion
Other higher education changes $169 billion
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/wha... [crfb.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It's ridiculous to claim Biden is simply acting on delegated authority when he vetoed a bill passed by the House and Senate to block his student loan plan [cbsnews.com].
So the same congress whose borrowed authority he would allegedly be acting under says he can't do it. But he insists he will anyway. That's no longer delegation, that is just a power grab.
Re: (Score:2)
Goodness. Well good thing we have an act of Congress then [vox.com]. Any more foolish objections?
Pro tip: don't play a lawyer on the internet. It wastes everyone's time and makes you look dumb.
Take your own advice. That quote was from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and a quite prominent and powerful Democrat.
Also the HEROES act only funded $22 billion for student relief of the economically distressed. Biden vastly exceed that act of Congress with a $400B plan.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the court ruled that only Congress may approve foregoing the collection of $430 billion in loan principal. In what possible sense is that "running roughshod over hundreds of years of precedence and law"? And, what in the world do you mean by "hundreds of years" anyway? The HEROS Act was only created in response to 9/11!
Using the techniques of textualism and originalism to interpret the plain meaning and scope of our federal laws and regulations is precisely how we will get back to a more stabl
Re:Once again this is a massive overreach (Score:5, Informative)
The primary issue at stake here is the HEROES Act, which gave the Secretary of Education authority to make amendments and waivers to any provision of federal student loans as may be necessary to ensure that relief is provided, but specifically calls out those who live and work in a declared disaster area or suffer direct economic hardship as a result of a national emergency. The language states that the purpose is that those on Federal student loans "are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of a disaster or emergency." In addition, the HEROES Act requires the Secretary to follow certain procedures including making any waivers or modifications available for negotiated rulemaking; ie before going into effect it must be made available for public comment and they must obtain advice and recommendations from a list of sources including student groups, higher education institutions, legal assistance organizations, lenders, etc. There are a very rare set of exceptions that the Secretary can bypass this required commentary process. So it's clear that the HEROES Act was built to help student borrowers if there was a disaster like a flood or an earthquake and required stakeholders from all sectors to provide comment as lending in this environment has many interested parties.
What the Secretary did, under the Biden administration's direction, was to claim Covid was a disaster, waive the comment period, and unilaterally declare relief to some student loan payers. Not all, only Federal student loan payers. That amounted to $400B in waiver of funds owed the government. That's akin to the DoD claiming they're going to unilaterally decide to buy a $400B jet fighter program without Congressional authorization; only Congress can make financial decisions of that magnitude. In fact it's pretty amazing Congress tried to pass a law to block it and Biden vetoed it; that law wasn't even necessary.
So just because you want relief, it doesn't mean it's legal or fair. Not only is it clear that the Secretary reinterpreted his mandate under the HEROES Act to make a $400B decision, but he bypassed the required stakeholder process under a very flimsy excuse. And why did he do that? Because many people were rightfully upset about this, and they wouldn't be able to address it. In the opinion, they heard arguments from groups who were not treated fairly under this policy. One respondent, by the name of Brown, made the argument that the Plan's scope didn't cover all students because many students have private loans, not Federal loans, and the plan does not address their issue. So because some have Federal loans they get special treatment, but those with private do not? The other respondent, Taylor, was only eligible for $10,000 and not $20,000 because he didn't receive a pell grant. So someone with income 5 times greater than his would receive more relief because they received a Pell grant and he didn't. Not to mention those of us who actually paid off their student loans; why do some who buried themselves in debt and now can't get a job get relief over those of us who used debt to build a good education and a good career, and responsibily paid it off? There is an entirely valid argument that those of us who were responsible with our student debt and worked hard to pay it off, thus contributing to society are the ones paying for the relief of those who contribute far less to society and took on far more debt less responsibly. What about those like me? This is the entire purpose of the comment period that was bypassed.
And finally, I'm sorry you have debt and need relief, but this isn'
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the primary provision of the Heroes act was for people called up for active military duty, as that may affect their ability to repay loans. That they might be called up to deal with a national emergency is largely incidental. But good call on pointing out how convoluted was the Biden administration's attempt at abusing the Heroes Act.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I don't think I would have had a problem with Biden saying "COVID was a shitshow and lets be honest these kids barely got an education, we're waiving that year of loans." That's actually kind of what that provision of the HEROES act was for. But trying to extend it well past the immediate crisis was ridiculous, and frankly I thought at least one or two of the liberal justices would have the common sense to say so as well. I'm disheartened that modern progressive philosophy seems so based around
Re: (Score:2)
the issue of student debt is a major national issue. And I don't think it's quite as simple as "those people were irresponsible". 18 year olds are irresponsible; why are they allowed to take on so much debt? Why has the cost of education risen so much above general inflation? There is a legitimate argument that many of these kids were sold a bill of goods, ie any form of education is bette
Re: (Score:2)
The Presidency shouldn't be directly making our fiscal policy as that is for congress, do it right or don't do it at all. Allowing him to do this would be no
The Republican party can't win at the ballot box (Score:2)
Really? So how come they got more votes at the mid-terms in 2022 than the Democrats. The Democrats like to believe that their leftist ideas the wave of the future, and that the Republicans will just fade away. Sadly for those liberals who believe that, it's simply not true; the Republicans are successfully recruiting among black and Hispanic conservatives who are buying their arguments.
Which is not to claim that Trump is a good thing by the way... just an observation about the delusional views of the libera
Re: (Score:2)
This program would have cost $430 billion. That's not just the "modification" envisioned in the law ("HEROES act") that Biden claimed gives him authority.
The massive overreach was by Biden. Biden himself previously said he did not think he had the authority to do this, and so did Pelosi.
Massive overreach was by President, not Court (Score:2)
Once again this is a massive overreach and it's legislating from the bench.
The massive overreach was attempted by the President, the Executive branch, not by the Court.
The Court correctly said that spending
Re: (Score:2)
The TL;DR of the ruling is "If you want this kind of relief, have congress pass a law. Presidents dont have the authority to do this."
So if you want relief, call your congresscritter.
Signed,
Somebody already paying for somebody else's student loans. (My wife's)
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I dont want somebody else to pay for her loans. She signed for them, She (we) is responsible for them.
Its called being a responsible adult.
Re:Also known as Biden lies. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed it's a mess of their own making. Still, it sends the wrong message if you start to arbitrarily cancel debts of some citizens.
Really? All kinds of card carrying Republicans got PPP debt written off [statesman.com]. Shit tons of conservatives and GOP backers got bailed out during the mortgage crisis, effectively getting their debts cancelled. I take it those are the convenient exceptions that prove your rule? This is a lose-lose situation for the Republicans. They could have either have supported debt forgiveness and faced slaughter in their primaries or have their puppets in the SCOTUS do this to appease the wingnut base that goes to vote in Repu
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Whataboutism. Yeah, sure, the Trump admin was extremely careless with the pandemic era help. They should be held accountable for what happened then, as it saddled the tax payer with horrible debt. But that's not what we're discussing here, is it? And does that make the Biden admin virtuous, and correct in trying to arbitrarily forgive debt? No. Just because most people are partisan hacks, don't assume your interlocutor is. Don't be tribal, recognize the errors on all sides.
"This just in. 75% of americans fa
Re: (Score:2)
And companies shouldn't give outloans they don't think should be paid back.
But at the moment the companies get special protection against bankruptcy for these loans unlike almost every other form of debt.
It's amazing how many people side with protecting corporate profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. The real evil here is that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I believe this was first passed under Gerald Ford, but most changes to the law were made under Democratic administrations.
The other evil is that under some programs, interest is effectively capitalized, causing the balance to grow despite making required payments. That is the issue behind borrowers complaining that their 10k loan is now 30k. The capitalized interest of course incurs interest as well, leading to expone
Re: (Score:2)
Always amusing to see the rabid dem mods out in force. Pelosi's quote about the move being illegal was cited in the opinion itself, and while on 60 minutes Biden said that it would never stand without pandemic emergency powers. Well, either that or college administrators are pissed off that I think their gravy train should be upended.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case they will be. I believe there is no way to get out of studentloans. They are immune from bankruptcy.
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This 'PPP loan' nonsense keeps coming up, and needs to be addressed, because it's a false equivalency.
Much like when you buy a car or a house, you have the option of paying out-of-pocket, or taking a loan. People got student loans voluntarily; they were not forced at gunpoint to take them. The government never came and said "You will be refused admission to all schools unless you take this loan", aka coercion. Like with any loan, they were expected to repay them, and agreed to the terms to do so of their own free will.
PPP loans were made because the government was forcing businesses to shut down due to COVID. To keep the economy running and preventing millions of people from potentially losing their livelihood virtually overnight, the government offered loans which did not require repayment if specific conditions were met. The terms under which PPP loans could be forgiven were listed here [sba.gov] and you need to go through a application process and submit supporting documentation for loan forgiveness.
Was there fraud in the PPP process? Yes. Should people who misused PPP funds be found and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible? Yes. None of that invalidates the fact that if you got a student loan, you need to pay it. It's that simple.
If you can't see the distinction between a taking a loan voluntarily vs forcibly to keep your business and your employees afloat, you shouldn't say anything, because you're not capable of rational thought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Note, I'm mostly a non-traditional student. IE going back to college in my 40s. I have to say, that unless unusually fiscally aware, most college students don't actually realize what the debt they're taking on actually means, and that it's a huge gamble.
You mention fraud and such with PPP loans. The problem here is that multiple schools have been proven to commit fraud in regard to student loans, to their post-graduation employment rates, actual costs, etc...
As for forcibly - well, we've also spent entir
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for forcibly - well, we've also spent entire generations telling kids that the only way to make it is to go to college. To the point that we're now short on trade workers. That's a lot of propaganda that isn't really true.
Fair enough, but what do you say to the people who could not afford to go to college, knew they would have trouble repaying the loans, so did not get one, then spent the rest of their lives competing with college grads?
Ha ha, the joke is on you, you should have just gotten the loan anyway?
They have likely earned less money for years. What relief do those folks get?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of the point, if they picked the right career field, they're making bank now. They aren't competing with college grads, because most college grads don't become electricians, plumbers, roofers, etc...
Unless they're trying to be a barista or such, in which case they likely get paid just the same as the college grad, and would actually be ahead because no debt and extra working years.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, now everyone wants Joe to be able to go to college, get a loan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for forcibly - well, we've also spent entire generations telling kids that the only way to make it is to go to college. To the point that we're now short on trade workers.
Trade jobs are hell on your body and you just end up busting your ass to make someone else rich, or you attempt to start your own business and discover that the existing rich business owners have already cornered the market.
Of course, that's just my perspective from a "right to work" red state where cutthroat capitalism is more highly valued than the ability to earn a decent wage for an honest day's work. YMMV
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Trade jobs are hell on your body and you just end up busting your ass to make someone else rich, or you attempt to start your own business and discover that the existing rich business owners have already cornered the market.
Even if that was true (I know a few electricians who get paid $60/hour) it's not as if you have to keep doing that forever. I started out as a network engineer, which pretty much only needs an industry cert to get hired anywhere. I stopped being a network engineer around 2018, and even at that time was making about $40/hour. Now I make somewhere north of $70/hour (unless you count my equity compensation as well, then it's somewhere well north of $120/hour) writing stuff in rust.
I paid for most of my own education out of my own pocket, graduated back in 2014. I didn't borrow shit, and all I really had were pell grants that basically any poor slob can get just by signing up for them. You DON'T need to go to an expensive school to do well. Lots of research has shown that it's much more about the dedication of the student than the quality of the school. You know where I went to school? Mesa Community College, and then Northern Arizona University for all of a whopping 30 credits.
Of course, that's just my perspective from a "right to work" red state where cutthroat capitalism is more highly valued than the ability to earn a decent wage for an honest day's work. YMMV
I'm in a very blue state (People's Republic of California.) If you want to talk about income, I make a lot more than you'll make in a typical union shop here. You want to know who makes the most money here for basically doing nothing? Los Angeles City Council. Most of them get paid more than the President of the United States does, and everything here is always broken. Some of them are openly racist too, but that doesn't seem to bother their constituents, or the labor union boss who said he wants to keep them in office.
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something very American about the attitude.
Spend 17.999 years stacking the deck one way then the second you turn 18 you get exposed to the full force of predatory business with no recourse because you are now officially an adult.
Still can't drink though.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden tried to force all the people averaging $30k annual income to help pay off the debt accrued by those averaging $52k annual income. I'm glad he failed.
And the average debt is entirely payable for most. $26K average for public and $36K average for private for-profit schools.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/... [ed.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
What about the people who went to college, decided they really weren't cut out for it, dropped out, then got stuck with a bunch of debt?
I also know a lot of folks where their degree didn't do shit to help them land a better job, and no, they didn't take something silly like "gender studies". They only committed the sin of daring to major outside one of the STEM fields that are all the rage these days.
Now, if you wanted to argue that loan forgiveness should be means tested, I completely agree. If your inv
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the people who went to college, decided they really weren't cut out for it, dropped out, then got stuck with a bunch of debt?
Why is that the taxpayer's fault?
I also know a lot of folks where their degree didn't do shit to help them land a better job, and no, they didn't take something silly like "gender studies". They only committed the sin of daring to major outside one of the STEM fields that are all the rage these days.
That depends on what this other field is, and their own talent. If it's a history major, they really shouldn't have expected to make ends meet after college unless they were willing to spend their career as adjunct faculty. Traditionally, any field of study that doesn't have a practical application has always been something that wealthy people just spend their extra free time on to entertain themselves.
And I'm hearing you (or is that rsilvergun?) shouting at the screen "Well, there ought to be a way for somebody to make ends meet no matter what their field of study is!" which is fine and all if that's your thing, but at some point you have to stop and ask yourself: "Do I see this person doing any services that I'd be willing to pay any actual money for?" and if your answer is no, then even under the Marxian school of economics, this person is just being a burden on everybody else. If your answer is yes, then there was never a problem to begin with.
And then of course, if this person you're talking about is doing work that has a practical application, then they really ought to ask themselves whether they're even talented to begin with. If not, they should probably quit their day job. Most people aren't good singers or basketball players, despite their protests to the contrary. This is true even if they're in a STEM field.
Now, if you wanted to argue that loan forgiveness should be means tested, I completely agree. If your investment in college did pay off, you absolutely should have to meet your end of the agreement.
It shouldn't even be that. At what point do you accept that people have to be accountable for themselves? If you take away accountability, then why should anybody even bother to think about the consequences before they act when they can always count on somebody else to bail them out? And I don't want to hear any "but what about..." because the answer remains the same.
Besides, student loan forgiveness is a terrible way to solve the problem of sky high tuition rates. In fact, all it does is make it even worse. Basically here you have a patient (being college students) that is hemorrhaging, and to fix the problem you offer them a bucket to bleed in and do nothing to control the bleeding. Regardless of whether you want student loans forgiven, your priority should first be about stopping the bleeding, not figuring out how to deal with what has already bled out.
Re: Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:3)
Re:Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can't see the distinction between a taking a loan voluntarily vs forcibly to keep your business and your employees afloat, you shouldn't say anything, because you're not capable of rational thought.
If we're going to go down that road, let's go the whole way, not just the way that's convenient.
Now, you do make an extremely valid point that Covid closings were compulsory, while college is optional. That certainly explains the loans. I've heard very little pushback on the loans being offered.
The point of departure is the *uncontested forgiveness* of those loans. The argument with not-forgiving student loan debt is "who's gonna pay for that?", because we didn't have the money. That was the argument in 2016 when Bernie Sanders was talking about free public college, the money just wasn't there. Okay, fine. But suddenly the PPP loans start coming due, and suddenly someone found a big pile of money to just forgive those loans? More to the point, the forgiveness of the PPP loans wasn't put up to a congressional vote, that was determined in a very similar way to how student loan relief was going to be implemented, but the folks who contested the executive overreach for student loan forgiveness were *real* quiet when PPP loan forgiveness was happening.
I work for a company that probably would have gone under, had it not been for those PPP loans. However, there were options. 10-year repayment terms, first two years interest-free with 3% simple interest thereafter and only on remaining principal, deferring repayment for three years or until revenue exceeded 2019 amounts, matching repayments with tax returns, making future business tax cuts apply to outstanding PPP loans before reducing payments...there were plenty of ways to ensure businesses weren't just stuck with untenable loan repayments besides outright forgiveness.
Yes, I absolutely grant your premise that the debts were incurred due to two different sets of circumstances. However, that's a philosophical reason, with a philosophical aversion, rather than a pragmatic one. If we didn't have the money to forgive student loans, we didn't have it for PPP loans. If student loan forgiveness is problematic due to the absence of a congressional vote, the PPP loans didn't get one either.
But ultimately, there are many government-coerced reasons for businesses to go into debt. If a product is deemed illegal to sell, they must dispose of existing inventory. A few years back, ADA compliance for websites were a government mandate that required a bunch of redesigns. A business might have to be closed due to repaving or other infrastructure work that makes it impossible for customers to frequent the establishment. Of course, there's always the taxes themselves. In each of these cases, the businesses don't get special loans, nor the ability to unilaterally defer those paving projects until the off season. 'Tis the nature of business to have to work through these obstacles, even government-mandated ones, which sometimes involves loans that the business will still be stuck repaying.
So...at least for me, *that* is why I equate the two. The PPP loans were due to a government decision, I grant you, but their source of funds is equally "print money and kick the can", and their cause of forgiveness is "because not-Congress said so"...and thus, I'm unable to make the source of the debt counterbalance the inequity of one being forgiven, and the other not.
Re: (Score:2)
It was most certainly put up to a congressional vote as one of the provisions in the CARES Act [wikipedia.org], and subsequently voted on again multiple times as part of the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 [wikipedia.org].
I appreciate the links, and they go halfway to my point, and halfway to yours. It was indeed voted in by Congress, and you're correct that the part that was voted on was the fact that the government loaned out the money with the express ability to forgive those loans later on. Consequently, you're correct, it was voted on under those auspices.
So then, the devil is in the details, in that the PPP loans didn't require separate Congressional approval to forgive, because forgiveness was baked into the initial b
Truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some other things that are also true:
Giving away lots of free money causes inflation to increase significantly.
Giving away free college education gives colleges a direct incentive to increase prices to scoop that money right up.
Giving away free college education removes incentives for students to choose practical degrees that will land them profitable jobs, and enables students to choose fluff degrees that are fun to get but won't give them any competitive advantages.
So, a lot of bad comes from this and very little good comes from it. Therefore, we should not do it.
What about all those poor graduates that are presently in debt? They can learn a valuable life lesson about making wise decisions and taking responsibility for their unwise decisions, and maybe pass that wisdom on to the next generation.
Re: (Score:3)
I know that if I don't pay my credit card debt, I get sued from New York City, and if I can't make the plane fare to that courtroom, a warrant is issued for my arrest.
No wonder you posted as anon, because this is entirely incorrect. I've been sued for unpaid credit card debt as a result of hitting rough times during the Great Recession, so I have personal experience with this.
The credit card company has to sue you in a local court, which means they retain lawyers in most major cities for that purpose. If you truly live out in BFE, they may not even consider it worthwhile to sue you. If you're like most Americans though, you probably do live in an area with enough popul
Re: (Score:2)
Every once in awhile I actually get people asking if they should apprentice in HVAC in Florida. My response:
Go work for the theme parks instead. Pay is better, benefits are better, and you won't have to crawl through fiberglass-filled attics that are hotter than Satan's ass crack in July.
Re:We made a college degree mandatory (Score:4, Informative)
Boomers turned housing and apartments into investment vehicles while slashing subsidies for college tuition.
Is there ANYTHING you won't blame on boomers?
A contract made under duress is null and void.
Which contract was made under duress?
White House concedes average only about $25K (Score:2)
Debts that can't be paid won't be paid.. 'nuff said..
Not really. The truth is that student debt is for the most part entirely payable. Average debt is $26K at public schools, $36K at private for-profit https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/... [ed.gov]
Even the Biden admin concedes debt is around $25K on the White House website.
"the typical undergraduate student with loans now graduates with nearly $25,000 in debt. "
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It's pure capitalism. If you think it's socialism, get a dictionary because school isn't working for you.
Re: (Score:2)
So why did then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say Biden did not have the authority to forgive some portion of these loans?
Chief Justice Roberts even quoted Nancy Pelosi saying just that in his Court opinion. And there are video clips of Nancy Pelosi say it. Or is that all fake news?
Re: You can tell everyone on this forum (Score:2)
You know, my neighbor has a bigger house than mine, a nicer car than mine, better-behaved kids than mine, and a wife with bigger titties than mine.
Perhaps I can think up some legal rationale for why I can kill him for sport, assume his identity, help myself to all his shit, and everyone has to go along with it.
And it's an absolute human rights violation if there is no such legal rationale under our system.
That's what guys like you sound like to me.
We're not talking about the joneses (Score:2, Insightful)
Aren't you ashamed of yourself? You're pulling the ladder up behind you and screwing an entire generation, and for what? You're not even wealthy enough to benefit from the tax cuts.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. The decision reinforced the First Amendment protections against being forced to express beliefs with which one does not agree. The result is that no one in the LGBT community will not be forced to create a website celebrating homophobia or other hateful speech. You really have to wonder why anyone would want to risk being forced to say something they don't agree with. I guess it boils down to the LGBT activists wanting to be able to force others to say specific things, and only those specific things.
Oh I see what the OP is grossing about.
No, the decision of the court was also correct here. Basically, they re-affirmed the right that you can't force someone to say or do something that goes against what they believe.
This of it like this. A white man going to a black own business and forcing them to clean his Klan robes. The business owner is well with in his rights to refuse. If this ruling would have stood, then the business owner couldn't have refused.
Speaking of, there is a video on youtube
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Other than the very limited exception related to creative/expressive services addressed by this case, businesses can't refuse service to a protected class. Indeed, the petitioner clearly stated that they had no problem doing work for LGBT customers, as long as they were not asked to create a message which was against their beliefs. All customers are treated equally - they're not going to make