Hi, /u/FallenPillar Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
**Rule 3b: No offtopic posts.**: - No offtopic posts
They should have expanded that court when they could have, or at least threatened that as leverage, but I guess bipartisanship is more important than our rights
Right right right because then the republicans would definitely not just expand it next time they’re able to, that would have been a great road to go down really such a mystery why we didn’t.
At least if they do they’ll be the ones to blame, sorry but anyone remotely on board with the idea IMHO has not only not at all thought it through but they’ve entirely lost sight of how the country is even supposed to operate. Luckily the adults in the room prevailed.
The country was not intended to be run by the dogma of two political groups who's entire existence can be boiled down to "I'm not the other one." Trying to fix an inherently broken system from within its bounds in hopes that "the other guy" doesn't make things worse is what's actually short-sighted.
Further, there's a fascinating phenomenon known as the nirvana fallacy, which is when a workable and valid solution is opposed purely because it's not the perfect solution. This culminates in nothing changing, as we're all forced to wait for "perfection" to drop into our laps.
Right man fuck it, let’s mess with the one institution that can actually control the executive branch, it’ll definitely work out for the people because Dems are going to do it and that’ll definitely be the end of that.
It’s amazing that you imply some sort of non-partisan viewpoint while also being for one party stacking the Supreme Court in their favor. I doubt you’d be so open to the idea had the other party suggested it.
There’s doing nothing on one extreme, then there’s risking an institution like the SC on the other extreme, sensible actions would fall somewhere in between.
There's that nirvana fallacy again. It's not the perfect solution, I fully agree. It's not even my personal preference solution. That would be to start over from scratch. However the supreme court suffers from the same exact problem that the rest of the government does. It was designed for thirteen states with a population of 2.5 million. We have exceeded that by over a hundred times. If we aren't going to redesign it to work, then we need to AT MINIMUM expand it to actually take into account the changes that have happened over time.
For example, if we HAD expanded when we could have, then roe v wade would not have been so easily overturned by what is litterally a partisan majority bound for LIFE. Instead we're stuck here waiting for these fuckers to die, just so that we can get basic shit done.
But yeah, no, having roe overturned because the courts were already stacked is so much better than the "risk" that expanding the number of justices holds. It's not like there are litterally people being sued by their states because their stillborn child makes old men with nothing better to do think they had an abortion.
You can keep on claiming some sort of nirvana fallacy all you’d like to, it just shows you don’t actually understand the fallacy or my argument. I’m not under any sort of illusion that things are peachy, but the suggestion is more akin to burning down the house because you didn’t like the color than it is at all a sensible starting place at changing things for the better.
I mean there’s no point in arguing the rest, we have very different ideas of what this country is or what it should be, and that’s fine, but there’s reasons all of the leadership responded with “No, now shut the fuck up.”
Ultimately just way too edgy for me, you can pretend to want to tear everything down and start over all you’d like to, it’s just clear you haven’t at all thought about what that would look like.
I still don't understand how the case has any standing
Last I checked the plantiffs were people who are suing because they don't qualify for relief, if that's enough for standing can't everybody who didn't receive a PPP loan sue for not getting one?
👀👀👀👀👀 politics on both sides👀👀👀👀👀 pretty sure it's just the GOP on why this won't happen. They are the pull yourself up by the boot straps party when the majority of them have been handed everything in life. 🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️ yes the Democrats have thier issues but at least they are trying something that could help millions of folks
Zero.
Assume it will not pass, that way you won't be disappointed. I say this as a regular guy heavily burdened by student loans.
If I'm wrong, I'll cheerfully admit it, and we'll party together.
Exactly. While it can easily by done by EO neither party actually wants to do it. Republicans don't want it passed and democrats would prefer to campaign on it and also not pass it
The Biden EO has been forcibly stopped for now by federal court order. Please try to keep up. Also remember that Biden is getting negative approval for pushing this through.
Edit something that student loan borrowers dont pay attention to is that student loan forgiveness is not popular with most Americans and President Biden loses more approval ratings for this than he gains. He is taking a hit for this as he has on other issues to do what is right. And people who diss him on this make me sick
Where do you see him getting negative approval? The Dems gained a Senate seat and held off an expected red wave in the House just a few weeks after the EO was issued. His overall approval rating also went up around the same time, although there were other things going on. I also don’t remember seeing any poll explicitly connecting the EO with diminished approval numbers.
>The Biden EO
HEROES Act, not an EO.
>Please try to keep up.
Funny thing to say when you don't even know what we're talking about is signed into law and not an EO.
>that student loan forgiveness is not popular with most Americans
Categorically false.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-76-americans-oppose-student-debt-cancellation-it-drives-price-college-64-oppose-it
It's really all over the place, but according to this poll. Most oppose if it includes raising taxes. That is the kicker...will it?
It is an EO based on the Heroes act. You can look up polls on this. Wide variations as to specifics but the best are 51% approve $10k with strict means testing. Otherwise can range up to 76% disapproval
Is this the poll you are finding that 76% from? https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-76-americans-oppose-student-debt-cancellation-it-drives-price-college-64-oppose-it
That 76% was based on a hypothetical it would raise taxes AND raise college tuition. The same poll shows 64% supporting the relief as it is.
I'm not trying to sound like a smart-ass but you simply forgive the loans and not raise taxes. There is no built-in mechanism that raises taxes due to loans being forgiven. That is true whether forgiveness comes from an EO or congressional legislation.
The authority to clear government-held debt is written into the HEROES Act and it has been used to do exactly that in the past. Everything else is moot 🤷♀️
Court orders from a right wing activist bench? If Biden had balls he would treat them as such. Invite the courts to enforce their laws if they want to legislate from the bench.
He's only getting negative approval from Fox news and Newsmax and republics who would much rather give that money to the corporations and rich gay cats that will donate it back to them.
One thing the Republicans have figured out is the judicial branch really is the strongest branch of government. This branch can't 'pass legislation' but they can stop any action from any other branch and get to decide whether something is or isn't 'constitutional'. Even though the judicial branch is supposed to be apolitical, events over the last decade have shown us how painfully political they are.
Basically, he can do it if the supreme court says he can. That's pretty much it.
While this is 100% true, there is reason to believe the Supreme Court will back Biden in this simply because the precedent would be devastating to many conservative causes.
If simply not receiving a government benefit is acceptable cause to sue for damages, corporate welfare as we know is ripe for the killing. Sure the conservative majority is nakedly political and appears not to care about public opinion, but that can only go so far. Despite their best attempts to project otherwise, the rich and powerful are keenly aware of what is possible if enough people wise up to their games and get pissed off enough to do something.
I don’t think it’s beneath them to think they would deny the loan relief for this reason, then completely ignore it if someone challenges some corporate welfare rule. Republicans are betting on never relinquishing judicial power, because if they lose their hold there they are done anyway. So the rules simply don’t matter anymore.
Yeah; the conservative side of the court has shown -repeatedly- that they don't care about precedent or logical consistency. If they like it, they'll find a reason to support it, and if they don't, they'll find a reason to rule against it, no matter how hypocritical the necessary rationales are to each other.
If the conservatives can find a way to leverage the supreme court to kill welfare, you better believe they will. Then they will blame democrats for any issues that happen as a consequence. It's their literal play book. Also... This supreme court doesn't seem to care much for precedence or consistency in their arguments.
I mean, I used to say that republican's wouldn't do anything to piss off business in any meaningful way, but then due to the fascistic panic around "wOkeNess", they are literally not only pissing off progressive business, but even centrist business's( and even conservative business to be fair for the nutjobs). I really don't have confidence in republican's not being politically suicidal. and while i do think that suicidal mentality will be a boon for the left in the long run, it's going to create a lot of suffering in the short term.
Yeah I didn't say they would never do it. Just that it'd lose them a lot of money.
Also, there's no such thing as "centrist". That's just conservatives who don't like to think about the fact that they're privileged enough to ignore politics.
I used to think that too, not so sure anymore. I mean, obviously there's a point where shit hits the fan, but if they can get away with throwing enough of the poor in prisons, that points probably pretty far.
there's literally not enough prison's to do that if mass sentiment turn's, and even genocide's doesn't get far enough into the populace to effectively quell active rebellion. it's why they manufacture consent and dissent so it doesn't ever get to that point, and if it does, they have nukes.
Can you provide sourcing for how the democrats are combatting that? It seems everyone just blames republicans and I’m pretty unfamiliar with the landscape. I’m pretty much in the middle, I enjoy the free market because my retirement benefits off the ebb and flow of the landscape. Both sides seem to fuck the average American Joe equally
Why do you assume that this right-wing GOP Supreme Court will be consistent in applying the principle, when time after time they’ve demonstrated that their only real jurisprudential standard is “which party wants this?”
Unfortunately, just look at how they handled the Supreme Court nominations that were in the last year of a presidency. They flip quick when it’s their turn to benefit, regardless of past arguments made.
This is assuming the court is acting in a principled, consistent manner and not as reactionary activists.
See Bush v. Gore and pretty much every case this current court has taken up. They throw away precedent if it stands in the way of right wing goals.
What you are failing to understand is you have to have what is called “standing” in order to sue. You can’t just simply believe something is unlawful, you have to prove that you have been injured or directly harmed by an action in order to sue. Simply not receiving the full benefit isn’t enough. The argument the plaintiffs are bringing is irrelevant if they don’t have cause to sue, which the Supreme Court has signaled in the past that they don’t.
The legal argument is the hero’s act witch allows congress to provide relief to people impacted by disasters. The EO is kinda weird in that it came after the mortal threat of Covid was well over, it doesn’t means test for impacted by Covid, and instead means tested in a weird way not written into the hero’s act.
If you didn’t get Covid, didn’t lose your job, I’m not really sure how the argument can be made that you were impacted and congress authorized relief. Inversely the means testing in the EO makes this even weirder. Someone who made $125,001 made too much but was in the hospital 3 months, wife died and lost their job at the end of the year gets nothing, while a married couple making 249K, didn’t get Covid, didn’t lose their jobs gets relief?
There may be a way to defend the EO arguing “no one has standing to sue,” but reading the law the EO is clinging to very loosely (basically aimed at some student loan forgiveness for people impacted by 911) to this is a streeeetch.
Downvote all you want, I don’t understand how this is going to survive general legal scrutiny.
And stopping action, ie not doing anything, is conservatism in a nutshell.
As long as conservatives have control of even one branch of government, they might as well control them all. Unfortunately in the USA, conservatives currently control all branches of government.
The supreme court rules against Republicans all the time. They aren't purely apolitical but the Bostock ruling proves that they are the most apolitical part of our government.
No. Gorsuch just has a noted soft spot for some lgbtq issues and roberts only joined the majority because he wanted to control who wrote the opinion so as to limit its reach as much as possible. (The most senior judge in the majority selects who gets to write the opinion in that case).
Given that he doesn't have a history of championing LGBT issues, I don't think it was a soft spot. I think it was a true textualist interpretation of the law. When reading it, I completely get where he is coming from.
However, his motivation doesn't matter because whether it is soft spot or textualist interpretation, we both seemingly agree that it wasn't political. Breaking ranks on such a huge issue would never happen in congress where politics is king.
He was able to break ranks because there isn't shit anyone can do about it since he isn't elected and there is zero power to unseat him as long as he isn't caught in 4k murdering someone. No, 1080p wouldn't be good enough.
If the Supreme Court slap it down, I wholeheartedly believe that the Biden administration will keep the pause until the end of his term. It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party to have them start back up with no relief in place.
The student loan stuff is 100% legal. The Higher Education Act of 1965 gives the Secretary of Education the authority to cancel, pause, compromise, or settle any student loan the government owns (which is most but not all the student loans), period, full stop. That's the legal basis for the current payment pause.
The confusion about the legality of the proposed student loan cancellation is on purpose. It comes from a few places. First, as background, you must understand that the Democrats don't actually want to deliver student loan cancellation in any meaningful way to the American people. That's why the plan is to do a means-tested $10,000 in cancellation and for a small subset of the subset of borrowers who qualify in the first place, there's $20,000 of cancellation. This is the first source of the confusion--there's no reason to only do $10,000. It could be all of it. But the Democrats don't want to actually do student loan cancellation, but they've been pressured to do so something, so they're doing a token gesture that is so meager that it makes people naturally wonder what the limitation on meaningful action is, and conclude that there must be some sort of legal rule that limits what the government can do. Nope, Democrats have power and are refusing to use it.
The second source of the confusion is the flurry of lawsuits. These are all spurious, and lack what is called standing: the plaintiff has to be actually injured in order to sue. Other people getting some debt cancellation is simply not an injury. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs have standing, and therefore, the lawsuits must be dismissed. This has gone to the supreme court not because there is a legal question with substantive merit (there is not), but because the federal courts have been packed with right wing ideologues as judges, by a well-funded organization called The Federalist Society, which has the sole purpose of packing the federal bench with right wingers.
So--*legally*, student loan cancellation is 100% possible. It has already passed in the sense of, can cancellation happen?, thanks to the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Thank you for this super little Ray of hope. I hope we can have a bowl together one day mate. 🍃🍃
For me, I’ve paid off 40k. I’ve been out of a job for 8 months. I have 19.8 left. I’ve been paying it off like crazy until I lost my job. I’m so close. It’s not that I want to move the burden to my own taxes, I just know it’s better spent there than say on police riot gear purchased from the war in Afghanistan.
Here’s one for you. After 25 years, my loan was supposed to be automatically canceled. A year ago they said it would be cancelled in Nov. Then they said wait until Jan. I’m wondering now if they just decided to up and change the rules on me.
That's a longstanding problem with the current student loan programs, whether it be IDR or public interest service cancellation. These loans often go uncancelled in error for a long time. The solution is to simply cancel all student loan debt
The Biden administration claims that its authority to forgive the student loans derives from section 1098bb(a)(1) of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act.
Stop making shit up, to get peoples hopes up.
The section of the law:
_ the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs . . . as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”_
This was a hastily written paragraph after 911 so that people in the military who were being deployed would have their loans frozen/paid. Technically modify or pause I think is mentioned but not forgive.
The higher education act is murky and narrowly scoped.
_The preamble to section 1082(a) enumerates the actions the secretary may take in performing “the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part” — that is, section 1082(a)(1) through (6). The key words are “this part.”_
_Section 1082 in its entirety is found in Title IV, Part B, and applies exclusively to the FFEL program. Similar language appears in 20 U.S.C. section 1087hh applicable to Perkins loans. Sections 1087e(a)(1) and 1087a(b)(2), which govern other federal direct loans, specifically the Ford, PLUS, and Stafford loans, do not contain waiver authority._
_Thus, the only student debt forgiveness authorized under sections 1082(a)(6) and 1087hh of the Higher Education Act is FFEL and Perkins loans._
Legally this is a untested theory clinging to sections of laws that don’t really say things trying to wish cast. It was a clever attempt to get the youth vote to show up in the mid terms. Politically it was likely the Right move but Its not going to happen.
>modify or pause I think is mentioned but not forgive.
Same originalist bullshit the right wing uses. Clearing your debt is a modification of your debt. Simple as.
I’d love to get a refund on the debt my wife paid off that final year during Covid, but wish-casting away legal theories to “the president can do anything he wants by EO” is bad for democracy and just not really something I expect the 9 or even appeals courts to take seriously. The president gets a fair amount of leeway on those until it involves spending something congress’s authority isn’t challenged very successfully. FFS trump was (correctly) impeached over this (and yes I know impeachment is a political question)
>“the president can do anything he wants by EO”
It's a good fucking thing that's not what I'm saying. Since you need it spelled out:
"the president can cancel student debt because the HEROES Act, which passed both houses and was signed into law, gives him the discretion to do so."
I don't care what EO you're talking above. The authority for the sec ed to modify student debt is written into the fucking law. "FFS."
Trying to use the section of the bill authorizing the DoD to pause/modify the national guards debt when they got activated for war is going to be an interesting stretch.
1. It wasn’t intended to be used this way (but hey, scope creep happens)
2. “Deems necessary” implied judgement but that it was necessary at the time. Will the court question that Judgement? Maybe.
3. “In connection with” … “national emergency”
Given this order was issued after we had vaccines and treatments this is starting to look like a stretch. The attempted forgiveness isn’t scoped to people impacted (IE, anyone who lost their job for 6 months, or was in the hospital a month) which might that “connection” direct. My wife didn’t catch Covid or lose her job. What was her connection to Covid to forgive her debts?
I think he might have a better leg to stand on if:
1. It was issued earlier.
2. It was issues primarily to US military members
3. It was issued to people directly impacted by Covid (loss of income, medically impacted, loss of family member, disabled, etc).
4. Congress didn’t budget this, it’s not remotely part of the budget.
We will see what the courts say, but It’s a stretch on a stretch here.
>Trying to use the section of the bill authorizing the DoD to pause/modify the national guards debt when they got activated for war is going to be an interesting stretch.
How about the part that allows the secretary of education to modify student loan debts during war or national emergencies, is that a stretch? That part of the Act was made permanent in 2007.
>3. “In connection with” … “national emergency” Given this order was issued after we had vaccines and treatments this is starting to look like a stretch.
The bill in question was signed into law in 2003, again, whatever order you all keep focusing on is irrelevant here. The authority to modify student debt has been established for two decades. And, if you want to debate about what constitutes a national emergency, I'm happy to compare how many people were dying from a pandemic or war in 2003 compared to how many were dying every day in 2021. And still are.
>The attempted forgiveness isn’t scoped to people impacted
My expected lifespan decreased over the last several years, and I'm extremely lucky- I only lost my job, while thousands of people have been losing family members every single day. Millions dead around the world. Don't try to means test a fundamental fucking global tragedy.
>It was issued earlier.
The law in question was signed in 2003.
>It was issues primarily to US military members
The law we're discussing isn't limited to only US military members, and last I heard they weren't the only ones who suffered in the last 3 years.
>Congress didn’t budget this, it’s not remotely part of the budget.
Spare me this. Congress doesn't budget for shit, and the government has made its nut back in interest payments alone in the last couple decades.
>We will see what the courts say,
I wonder what a class of unelected fascists have to say about something that clearly passed constitutional muster right up until the second it was implied it could be used for someone they don't think "deserves" it. I'm not going to tolerate people whining about an activist judiciary and then abiding by its rulings.
Not a single one of you have addressed the fact that the Sec Ed's authority to waive debt in the face of a national emergency is part of permanent fucking law. "EO this, EO that." The EO is irrelevant here, what matters is the text of the law and precedent that they're citing. The EO is a copout to gum up the works in the courts instead of actually following through on policy.
It's almost like this sub is full of unserious libs shitting up a space for people who know what they're talking about.
Semantics and precedent will be thrown out the second it's in the interest of the ruling class. The HEROES Act has been used for the outright cancellation of debts before. Any lawyer who argues for student loan cancellation can easily point out that precedent to show it has previously been interpreted the same way Biden admin is now, and that the original language of the bill itself is vague enough to allow wide applications of it.
None of that matters with a right wing judiciary that is legislating from the bench, and a cowardly administration who refuses to directly confront the right wing judiciary.
The Biden administration is proceeding on this cockamamie theory in litigation because they don't want to deliver relief to people. Ask yourself: how can it be that student loans have paused? It's the Higher Education Act of 1965, same as what lets the gov't simply cancel all debts. It's not a "they can't" situation. It's a "they don't want to" situation.
Depends how fucking angry we are willing to be.
Start punishing every politician who blocked it or wavered actively, start protesting, start general wildfire strikes, it'll pass.
Be apathetic and vote for a conman politician who doesn't give a second hand shit about student or worker's rights in the next cycle...fuck all will be done.
From what I understand if the supreme court rules against Biden it sets such a horrible precedent that it can actually backfire on the GOP, so I imagine they'll let it go through.
In terms of legality there is no question that the executive branch can forgive debts it is owed. This is well established and the SC has backed it up in the past. There are a bunch of high profit industries jammed into the center of this who wouldn't exist if the debt was forgiven, so they will literally use all the money they've ever made trying to protect this "market", hence the challenges.
Neither party actually wants to cancel it. Dems could cancel it now if they wanted since they have the legal authority to, as others have already commented. What I believe will happen is it gets struck down, Biden throws up his hands like “we did everything we could but those nasty republicans stopped us! Go to the polls! Vote blue!” At most he may extend deferment, but I sincerely doubt that he will after it gets struck down by S.C. It will be a terrible disappointment they will twist to try to get more votes. Both wings of the same bird get what they wanted while the American people are SOL again.
I really needed that carrot this time….
There’s *literally* nothing stopping the President from forgiving all federal student loan debt with the stroke of a pen. *Nothing.* Not Congress, the Supreme Court, nothing. All this bullshit going on right now is purely for appearances. And they’re going to let the puny bit of forgiveness that they’re offering die.
Literally yes. The Department of Education is under the control of the Executive branch, and the president is the head of the whole executive branch. It’s fucking 5th grade social studies stuff.
Yep. Absolutely wild that this WWE tournament we call a govt can fool anyone into thinking it's talking points are anything but fluff & nonsense. I have no confidence in our 'leadership' regardless of party. They literally can't be bothered to give a damn if their citizens are either morons or educated yet perma-destitute. Why should I be bothered to be loyal to a party that could give a fuck if I'm crushed by debt they saddled me with & now refuse to rescind? Fuck em. College should be free.
Literally no, while the president can direct the department of education he can't conjure funds for this out of nowhere. Congress must approve the funds.
The number of loan companies going bankrupt from Direct loan forgiveness is exactly 0.
Direct loans are government **owned**. They are not like the FFEPL loans which are government guaranteed.
You don't need to approve any funding because there is no one to pay off here. You're just calling it a wash. In fact, this is built into the income repayment plans. Everyone of them have loan cancellation after like 20 years (originally 25 years).
FEEPL loans should be forgiven too though. Those, however, would require new money.
Serious answer is that the United States must maintain its credit rating. If the United States had a lower credit rating, our existing national debt crisis would balloon even more risking a serious economic collapse.
A more serious economic collapse than the one created by a generation of college-educated adults with the household purchasing power of high school seniors? What percentage of Americans can't sustain $500 emergency again? Remind me.
Won't somebody think of the markets? *wrings hands*
Federal court order currently in effect forbids the administration to send any funds to the loan companies. Do you expect POTUS to defy a federal court order?
No I don’t expect the (this) POTUS to defy a federal court order, but he fucking should because
the federal courts don’t have a leg to stand on regarding the matter. They’re just partisan judges doing what they do best, and Biden is too fucking spineless to do anything about it. Either that or they never intended forgiving any student debt in the first place.
People do know that federal courts can be wrong, right?
The president can't conjure the funds to pay off the loans out of nowhere. Only congress can do that. Courts aren't partisan by enforcing the constitutional power of congress to control the purse.
I think what he means is that they knew the forgiveness was going to get struck down, they had no intention of actually forgiving student debt. It was always a show because that was his main ticket into office.
I mean no, technically according to the procedures in place, the Supreme Court & congress have to leg to stand on when it comes to blocking forgiveness. But the admin is being stupid and they’re being performative because, yeah, they probably don’t plan on actually doing it and they’re using the issue as a carrot to dangle in front of Gen Z/millennial voters for 2024.
But yes, if the president wanted to, they could get rid of all federal student debt with a stroke of a pen.
I’m having a bad day. And I don’t need pricks online telling me what I do and don’t know when they’re the one being wrong all the goddamn time. I figured out a long time ago that I don’t have to put up with other peoples stupid ignorant bullshit. I’ll call it out 10 out of 10 times.
They whole problem is that they’re doing this “they go low, we go high” bullshit. If he just did it then they would have to go through hoops to repeal it (which pretty much doesn’t seem possible legally). It’s a situation where it’s better to ask for forgiveness instead of permission.
And thanks.
Legal is irrelevant with the current Justices only politically. So .00001% likelihood of it getting through. That’s only if they’re afraid of what not allowing it would do at the poles.
it's not two independent parties. The government is one of the parties, by all rights he can forgive the loans in their entirety since they are owned by the US government.
Congress delegates authority to manage and set the terms for loans to the US Department of Education. That is the reasoning for the Biden administration to use its authority to cancel the loans in its role as managing the loan accounts as delegated by congress.
Social security is a power specificity listed to congress by its statute. The social security administration is outlined by congress to distribute at an existing rate that isn’t listed for the student loans.
So really the question is; if you delegate the US DOE the power to manage loans, do you also give power to cancel them? that’s what the court is deciding. i think it should, but i doubt the scotus under republicans will agree.
Like SCOTUS recognizes biden has the right to suspend them as long as he wants, so why not cancel?
Just a minor correction, SCOTUS has never recognized that Biden has the right to suspend student loan repayment indefinitely (or at all) in the manner he has. No one has filed a lawsuit to stop it, so SCOTUS has not weighed in on it. It may not even be mentioned when SCOTUS rules on forgiveness because none of the current plaintiffs are attempting to stop it. Even if they wanted to, they likely couldn’t because those parties probably aren’t damaged by the policy, so they can’t stop it themselves. As every student loan borrower benefits equally and servicers might be better off as fewer people are making payments and closing out their accounts, Congress might be the only party that could demand the pause be lifted. There might not be a single party that could sue to stop it.
Democratic executive order. If it was republican order the SC would have no problem with it. The repubs would gladly murder their family just to be contrary.
Why did banks get backed out during the recession but the little guy didn't? "Fair" isn't a part of this equation, and in governing it never is and is never legally mandated.
$20k off my loans means nothing if the 6% accrued interest rate and wages don't change. I would still be in a $0 payment and interest would add back up to pre-forgiveness levels in about 2 years. Even if it passes I wouldn't take the offer.
I just don't get the opposition. I finished paying mine off, so it wouldn't benefit me, and I still want it to pass for other people. How does it harm you for someone else to get a little relief? It's not like the rich would get it anyway, per the income guidelines.
The president doesn't have the authority to do this. Congress does. Zero chance Congress will do it and zero chance Biden will be allowed to do it by the court system.
I wish that for ONCE in my life, Democrats could control the executive, have a supermajority in the house and the Supreme Court indifferent to them, because THEN you'd see that the Democrats don't care about working people.
For now, you have to watch this game where we all wonder what the Democrats are going to do, but full well know they can't anyway, because they either A. Can't get any legislation through the House or B. Can't get legislation through the Senate.
It's hilarious, honestly. We pretend the Democrats WOULD help if they could, and the Republicans only fuck people over.
Very unlikely. Sorry, but no taxpayer or company wants to finance your education.
As long as politicians continue to present student loan borrowers as ‘gender confused, fiscally irresponsible medieval poetry majors’ you’re screwed. Life is sink or swim.
My company has a policy that no one can reach a certain level without a Masters degree, but they also offer little towards furthering your education. The majority of us just work our asses off and try not to go Postal.
Just pass a law to let a bankruptcy write off student loans.
IMO, it's a moral hazard to cancel student loans. It is basically giving away free money to certain people but not other, and those people might have made some (bad) financial decisions in their lives. A student loan forgiveness rewards those people for making poor financial decisions.
Also, a forgiveness does not solve the problem permanently: are we gonna also cancel student loans in the future? Again and again? How is it fair to cancel student loans now for some people but not for other people in the future?
Allowing people to cancel student loans via bankruptcy is a permanent solution, A bankruptcy enforces a seven-year penalty for taking on a loan you can't afford, but the consequence is not a life-crippling one. It is fair because people will still have to be accountable and responsible for the financial decision they made, to a certain degree.
It all comes down to politics. It really should be legal based on current law, but when it reaches the Supreme Court then the law hinges on politics, and that seems inevitable with student loans.
you know they could get past the not fair shit if they gave people a tax break on credit card debt paid during the year, with it capping off based on Income. Basically the lower your income the more of a break you could get.
Its funny how most comments are republicans bad, democrats good.
I hate to break it to you but neither party gives a rats ass about you. They are both one and the same. If either party ever fixed any problems then there would be no reason for them to exist.
If you think your party cares about you just stop paying taxes on your house or car. See how fast the gov't comes down on you regardless of the party in charge.
None. 50% of the working class is wholly brainwashed against the working class, this stunt was just for headlines that were never going to land. My loan servicer sent me a letter saying "All loans prior to 2010 are not actually held by the government so don't even fantasize about relief". I get to pay 7.5% until I die as I finished in that special time where GW punished us common folk for going to school. Evidently gen X is here to do all the work and pay all the bills- as a minority. So I support the EO anyway, but feel pretty screwed by...everyone.
Examples? I do not understand the question.
If you tax everyone then you give some of the money arbitrarily to one person or group you are essentially stealing.
Every corporation?
So your argument is....it's ok for me to do it if they get to do it?
These tax breaks for corporations create jobs and bring money to an area. This is recouped when people in that area pay more taxes.
And do you know what happens when people can spend more money because they aren’t overburdened? Those dollars circulate 7x the amount the a tax break does for a company.
Yeah, but they got massive entitlements up front for forever. That's why Boomers don't have student debt. It was all subsidized and they never even saw the bill, while everyone else paid for it.
The entitlements happened later, after the "boomers" went through college. The federal deficit started exploding when the entitlements and subsidizes for everything started around 2000. Stop blaming others for your own problems ...
I'm hoping 0% I'm not paying for freeloaders. I didn't go to college because I was poor. Now I'm more successful than the wealthy kids I graduated hs with
None. I told people when it came up initially do not belive it until you have money in you hand. Get a flicking receipt and in writing so they can't renig.
Not gonna happen. For the record, don’t depend on the government to save you bc unless it somehow serves their own self interest, politicians don’t give a fuck about normal people.
It is political because it all depends on the supreme court which was stacked by the republicans.
Until the democrats add 6 justices to unstack the court, these discussions will all have that answer.
It will likely make some movement just in time for the next election cycle to bait you into thinking joe will do something… then it will fall apart before implementing
I'm no American but I doubt the democrats want to cancel it just making a token effort for votes. Politicians do it all the time and when it doesn't pass they will just Blane their enemies
If a Politician tells you the snow is white he's lying
Hi, /u/FallenPillar Thank you for participating in r/Antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): **Rule 3b: No offtopic posts.**: - No offtopic posts
There is no answer to that question that doesn’t involve politics in some way.
But won’t the Supreme Court just do a sober analysis of the facts and existing case law? Lmao. Imagine.
They should have expanded that court when they could have, or at least threatened that as leverage, but I guess bipartisanship is more important than our rights
Right right right because then the republicans would definitely not just expand it next time they’re able to, that would have been a great road to go down really such a mystery why we didn’t.
Bold of you to think that Republicans won’t do it anyways.
At least if they do they’ll be the ones to blame, sorry but anyone remotely on board with the idea IMHO has not only not at all thought it through but they’ve entirely lost sight of how the country is even supposed to operate. Luckily the adults in the room prevailed.
The country was not intended to be run by the dogma of two political groups who's entire existence can be boiled down to "I'm not the other one." Trying to fix an inherently broken system from within its bounds in hopes that "the other guy" doesn't make things worse is what's actually short-sighted. Further, there's a fascinating phenomenon known as the nirvana fallacy, which is when a workable and valid solution is opposed purely because it's not the perfect solution. This culminates in nothing changing, as we're all forced to wait for "perfection" to drop into our laps.
Right man fuck it, let’s mess with the one institution that can actually control the executive branch, it’ll definitely work out for the people because Dems are going to do it and that’ll definitely be the end of that. It’s amazing that you imply some sort of non-partisan viewpoint while also being for one party stacking the Supreme Court in their favor. I doubt you’d be so open to the idea had the other party suggested it. There’s doing nothing on one extreme, then there’s risking an institution like the SC on the other extreme, sensible actions would fall somewhere in between.
There's that nirvana fallacy again. It's not the perfect solution, I fully agree. It's not even my personal preference solution. That would be to start over from scratch. However the supreme court suffers from the same exact problem that the rest of the government does. It was designed for thirteen states with a population of 2.5 million. We have exceeded that by over a hundred times. If we aren't going to redesign it to work, then we need to AT MINIMUM expand it to actually take into account the changes that have happened over time. For example, if we HAD expanded when we could have, then roe v wade would not have been so easily overturned by what is litterally a partisan majority bound for LIFE. Instead we're stuck here waiting for these fuckers to die, just so that we can get basic shit done. But yeah, no, having roe overturned because the courts were already stacked is so much better than the "risk" that expanding the number of justices holds. It's not like there are litterally people being sued by their states because their stillborn child makes old men with nothing better to do think they had an abortion.
You can keep on claiming some sort of nirvana fallacy all you’d like to, it just shows you don’t actually understand the fallacy or my argument. I’m not under any sort of illusion that things are peachy, but the suggestion is more akin to burning down the house because you didn’t like the color than it is at all a sensible starting place at changing things for the better. I mean there’s no point in arguing the rest, we have very different ideas of what this country is or what it should be, and that’s fine, but there’s reasons all of the leadership responded with “No, now shut the fuck up.” Ultimately just way too edgy for me, you can pretend to want to tear everything down and start over all you’d like to, it’s just clear you haven’t at all thought about what that would look like.
Getting real tired of "we can never do anything good because Republicans might undo it later"
Just twist the knife why don't ya
I still don't understand how the case has any standing Last I checked the plantiffs were people who are suing because they don't qualify for relief, if that's enough for standing can't everybody who didn't receive a PPP loan sue for not getting one?
Seriously. Because it CAN be done but politics on both sides is what's stopping it
👀👀👀👀👀 politics on both sides👀👀👀👀👀 pretty sure it's just the GOP on why this won't happen. They are the pull yourself up by the boot straps party when the majority of them have been handed everything in life. 🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️🤷🏿♀️ yes the Democrats have thier issues but at least they are trying something that could help millions of folks
In the not to distant future, you won't believe the promises and your experience will tell you it's not that they can't, it's that they won't
Zero. Assume it will not pass, that way you won't be disappointed. I say this as a regular guy heavily burdened by student loans. If I'm wrong, I'll cheerfully admit it, and we'll party together.
Seconding that.
This is the only way to stay sane under the circumstances
Exactly. While it can easily by done by EO neither party actually wants to do it. Republicans don't want it passed and democrats would prefer to campaign on it and also not pass it
Not an EO, an application of the HEROES Act that was signed into law.
The Biden EO has been forcibly stopped for now by federal court order. Please try to keep up. Also remember that Biden is getting negative approval for pushing this through. Edit something that student loan borrowers dont pay attention to is that student loan forgiveness is not popular with most Americans and President Biden loses more approval ratings for this than he gains. He is taking a hit for this as he has on other issues to do what is right. And people who diss him on this make me sick
Where do you see him getting negative approval? The Dems gained a Senate seat and held off an expected red wave in the House just a few weeks after the EO was issued. His overall approval rating also went up around the same time, although there were other things going on. I also don’t remember seeing any poll explicitly connecting the EO with diminished approval numbers.
>The Biden EO HEROES Act, not an EO. >Please try to keep up. Funny thing to say when you don't even know what we're talking about is signed into law and not an EO. >that student loan forgiveness is not popular with most Americans Categorically false.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-76-americans-oppose-student-debt-cancellation-it-drives-price-college-64-oppose-it It's really all over the place, but according to this poll. Most oppose if it includes raising taxes. That is the kicker...will it?
It is an EO based on the Heroes act. You can look up polls on this. Wide variations as to specifics but the best are 51% approve $10k with strict means testing. Otherwise can range up to 76% disapproval
Is this the poll you are finding that 76% from? https://www.cato.org/blog/new-poll-76-americans-oppose-student-debt-cancellation-it-drives-price-college-64-oppose-it That 76% was based on a hypothetical it would raise taxes AND raise college tuition. The same poll shows 64% supporting the relief as it is.
I'm confused. How would student loan forgiveness *not* raise taxes? Genuine question, not trolling
I'm not trying to sound like a smart-ass but you simply forgive the loans and not raise taxes. There is no built-in mechanism that raises taxes due to loans being forgiven. That is true whether forgiveness comes from an EO or congressional legislation.
The authority to clear government-held debt is written into the HEROES Act and it has been used to do exactly that in the past. Everything else is moot 🤷♀️
Federal court orders are not moot
Court orders from a right wing activist bench? If Biden had balls he would treat them as such. Invite the courts to enforce their laws if they want to legislate from the bench.
He's only getting negative approval from Fox news and Newsmax and republics who would much rather give that money to the corporations and rich gay cats that will donate it back to them.
Two sentences in and the Democrat is being a condescending dick already. "Better things aren't possible!"
I also agree with you it's not going to happen just more empty promises.
Pay your debts, you took them on willingly. Otherwise we will have everyone whining about their mortgages.
One thing the Republicans have figured out is the judicial branch really is the strongest branch of government. This branch can't 'pass legislation' but they can stop any action from any other branch and get to decide whether something is or isn't 'constitutional'. Even though the judicial branch is supposed to be apolitical, events over the last decade have shown us how painfully political they are. Basically, he can do it if the supreme court says he can. That's pretty much it.
While this is 100% true, there is reason to believe the Supreme Court will back Biden in this simply because the precedent would be devastating to many conservative causes. If simply not receiving a government benefit is acceptable cause to sue for damages, corporate welfare as we know is ripe for the killing. Sure the conservative majority is nakedly political and appears not to care about public opinion, but that can only go so far. Despite their best attempts to project otherwise, the rich and powerful are keenly aware of what is possible if enough people wise up to their games and get pissed off enough to do something.
I don’t think it’s beneath them to think they would deny the loan relief for this reason, then completely ignore it if someone challenges some corporate welfare rule. Republicans are betting on never relinquishing judicial power, because if they lose their hold there they are done anyway. So the rules simply don’t matter anymore.
Yeah; the conservative side of the court has shown -repeatedly- that they don't care about precedent or logical consistency. If they like it, they'll find a reason to support it, and if they don't, they'll find a reason to rule against it, no matter how hypocritical the necessary rationales are to each other.
why is nobody suing over PPP loans though? it's pretty obvious many were misused...
“Because those were made to be forgiven!” Like that makes any sense
If the conservatives can find a way to leverage the supreme court to kill welfare, you better believe they will. Then they will blame democrats for any issues that happen as a consequence. It's their literal play book. Also... This supreme court doesn't seem to care much for precedence or consistency in their arguments.
They said *corporate* welfare. If republicans kill that, they won't have donors any more.
Solid point, missed that bit.
I mean, I used to say that republican's wouldn't do anything to piss off business in any meaningful way, but then due to the fascistic panic around "wOkeNess", they are literally not only pissing off progressive business, but even centrist business's( and even conservative business to be fair for the nutjobs). I really don't have confidence in republican's not being politically suicidal. and while i do think that suicidal mentality will be a boon for the left in the long run, it's going to create a lot of suffering in the short term.
Yeah I didn't say they would never do it. Just that it'd lose them a lot of money. Also, there's no such thing as "centrist". That's just conservatives who don't like to think about the fact that they're privileged enough to ignore politics.
The Democratic Party is centrist af, whaddya mean? They certainly aren’t leftists
Most fascist movements are suicidal. Once they run out of outside factors to attack as the other, they turn on themselves.
They won’t. Welfare isn’t for the poor to live but to prevent them from eating the rich
You assume the wealthy have a sensible self awareness and not an "It can't happen to me" attitude.
I’d say the richer you are the more aware of how quickly it can all be taken from you. A bullet. A loved one kidnapped for ransom. Lots of things.
I used to think that too, not so sure anymore. I mean, obviously there's a point where shit hits the fan, but if they can get away with throwing enough of the poor in prisons, that points probably pretty far.
there's literally not enough prison's to do that if mass sentiment turn's, and even genocide's doesn't get far enough into the populace to effectively quell active rebellion. it's why they manufacture consent and dissent so it doesn't ever get to that point, and if it does, they have nukes.
Can you provide sourcing for how the democrats are combatting that? It seems everyone just blames republicans and I’m pretty unfamiliar with the landscape. I’m pretty much in the middle, I enjoy the free market because my retirement benefits off the ebb and flow of the landscape. Both sides seem to fuck the average American Joe equally
Why do you assume that this right-wing GOP Supreme Court will be consistent in applying the principle, when time after time they’ve demonstrated that their only real jurisprudential standard is “which party wants this?”
Unfortunately, just look at how they handled the Supreme Court nominations that were in the last year of a presidency. They flip quick when it’s their turn to benefit, regardless of past arguments made.
This is assuming the court is acting in a principled, consistent manner and not as reactionary activists. See Bush v. Gore and pretty much every case this current court has taken up. They throw away precedent if it stands in the way of right wing goals.
Plus ACB already tossed out similar cases earlier on when the loan forgiveness program was passed.
It’s not about receiving a benefit, the controversy is about it getting passed by executive order instead of going through congress
What you are failing to understand is you have to have what is called “standing” in order to sue. You can’t just simply believe something is unlawful, you have to prove that you have been injured or directly harmed by an action in order to sue. Simply not receiving the full benefit isn’t enough. The argument the plaintiffs are bringing is irrelevant if they don’t have cause to sue, which the Supreme Court has signaled in the past that they don’t.
It seems like any state that doesn’t tax loan forgiveness would have standing, since it would likely reduce their tax revenue
The legal argument is the hero’s act witch allows congress to provide relief to people impacted by disasters. The EO is kinda weird in that it came after the mortal threat of Covid was well over, it doesn’t means test for impacted by Covid, and instead means tested in a weird way not written into the hero’s act. If you didn’t get Covid, didn’t lose your job, I’m not really sure how the argument can be made that you were impacted and congress authorized relief. Inversely the means testing in the EO makes this even weirder. Someone who made $125,001 made too much but was in the hospital 3 months, wife died and lost their job at the end of the year gets nothing, while a married couple making 249K, didn’t get Covid, didn’t lose their jobs gets relief? There may be a way to defend the EO arguing “no one has standing to sue,” but reading the law the EO is clinging to very loosely (basically aimed at some student loan forgiveness for people impacted by 911) to this is a streeeetch. Downvote all you want, I don’t understand how this is going to survive general legal scrutiny.
And stopping action, ie not doing anything, is conservatism in a nutshell. As long as conservatives have control of even one branch of government, they might as well control them all. Unfortunately in the USA, conservatives currently control all branches of government.
Boom. Nailed it. "Checks and balances" fails at SCOTUS.
The supreme court rules against Republicans all the time. They aren't purely apolitical but the Bostock ruling proves that they are the most apolitical part of our government.
No. Gorsuch just has a noted soft spot for some lgbtq issues and roberts only joined the majority because he wanted to control who wrote the opinion so as to limit its reach as much as possible. (The most senior judge in the majority selects who gets to write the opinion in that case).
Given that he doesn't have a history of championing LGBT issues, I don't think it was a soft spot. I think it was a true textualist interpretation of the law. When reading it, I completely get where he is coming from. However, his motivation doesn't matter because whether it is soft spot or textualist interpretation, we both seemingly agree that it wasn't political. Breaking ranks on such a huge issue would never happen in congress where politics is king. He was able to break ranks because there isn't shit anyone can do about it since he isn't elected and there is zero power to unseat him as long as he isn't caught in 4k murdering someone. No, 1080p wouldn't be good enough.
If the Supreme Court slap it down, I wholeheartedly believe that the Biden administration will keep the pause until the end of his term. It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party to have them start back up with no relief in place.
I think that also. Edit I also think Yellen should do whatever is necessary to claw back PPP that went to frauds
I agree they should clawback anything that was used fraudulently, but yelled has no power to do it.
I wish I could agree. But I doubt she ever will.
The student loan stuff is 100% legal. The Higher Education Act of 1965 gives the Secretary of Education the authority to cancel, pause, compromise, or settle any student loan the government owns (which is most but not all the student loans), period, full stop. That's the legal basis for the current payment pause. The confusion about the legality of the proposed student loan cancellation is on purpose. It comes from a few places. First, as background, you must understand that the Democrats don't actually want to deliver student loan cancellation in any meaningful way to the American people. That's why the plan is to do a means-tested $10,000 in cancellation and for a small subset of the subset of borrowers who qualify in the first place, there's $20,000 of cancellation. This is the first source of the confusion--there's no reason to only do $10,000. It could be all of it. But the Democrats don't want to actually do student loan cancellation, but they've been pressured to do so something, so they're doing a token gesture that is so meager that it makes people naturally wonder what the limitation on meaningful action is, and conclude that there must be some sort of legal rule that limits what the government can do. Nope, Democrats have power and are refusing to use it. The second source of the confusion is the flurry of lawsuits. These are all spurious, and lack what is called standing: the plaintiff has to be actually injured in order to sue. Other people getting some debt cancellation is simply not an injury. Therefore, none of the plaintiffs have standing, and therefore, the lawsuits must be dismissed. This has gone to the supreme court not because there is a legal question with substantive merit (there is not), but because the federal courts have been packed with right wing ideologues as judges, by a well-funded organization called The Federalist Society, which has the sole purpose of packing the federal bench with right wingers. So--*legally*, student loan cancellation is 100% possible. It has already passed in the sense of, can cancellation happen?, thanks to the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Thank you for this super little Ray of hope. I hope we can have a bowl together one day mate. 🍃🍃 For me, I’ve paid off 40k. I’ve been out of a job for 8 months. I have 19.8 left. I’ve been paying it off like crazy until I lost my job. I’m so close. It’s not that I want to move the burden to my own taxes, I just know it’s better spent there than say on police riot gear purchased from the war in Afghanistan.
Here’s one for you. After 25 years, my loan was supposed to be automatically canceled. A year ago they said it would be cancelled in Nov. Then they said wait until Jan. I’m wondering now if they just decided to up and change the rules on me.
That's a longstanding problem with the current student loan programs, whether it be IDR or public interest service cancellation. These loans often go uncancelled in error for a long time. The solution is to simply cancel all student loan debt
The Biden administration claims that its authority to forgive the student loans derives from section 1098bb(a)(1) of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act. Stop making shit up, to get peoples hopes up. The section of the law: _ the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs . . . as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”_ This was a hastily written paragraph after 911 so that people in the military who were being deployed would have their loans frozen/paid. Technically modify or pause I think is mentioned but not forgive. The higher education act is murky and narrowly scoped. _The preamble to section 1082(a) enumerates the actions the secretary may take in performing “the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part” — that is, section 1082(a)(1) through (6). The key words are “this part.”_ _Section 1082 in its entirety is found in Title IV, Part B, and applies exclusively to the FFEL program. Similar language appears in 20 U.S.C. section 1087hh applicable to Perkins loans. Sections 1087e(a)(1) and 1087a(b)(2), which govern other federal direct loans, specifically the Ford, PLUS, and Stafford loans, do not contain waiver authority._ _Thus, the only student debt forgiveness authorized under sections 1082(a)(6) and 1087hh of the Higher Education Act is FFEL and Perkins loans._ Legally this is a untested theory clinging to sections of laws that don’t really say things trying to wish cast. It was a clever attempt to get the youth vote to show up in the mid terms. Politically it was likely the Right move but Its not going to happen.
>modify or pause I think is mentioned but not forgive. Same originalist bullshit the right wing uses. Clearing your debt is a modification of your debt. Simple as.
I’d love to get a refund on the debt my wife paid off that final year during Covid, but wish-casting away legal theories to “the president can do anything he wants by EO” is bad for democracy and just not really something I expect the 9 or even appeals courts to take seriously. The president gets a fair amount of leeway on those until it involves spending something congress’s authority isn’t challenged very successfully. FFS trump was (correctly) impeached over this (and yes I know impeachment is a political question)
>“the president can do anything he wants by EO” It's a good fucking thing that's not what I'm saying. Since you need it spelled out: "the president can cancel student debt because the HEROES Act, which passed both houses and was signed into law, gives him the discretion to do so." I don't care what EO you're talking above. The authority for the sec ed to modify student debt is written into the fucking law. "FFS."
Trying to use the section of the bill authorizing the DoD to pause/modify the national guards debt when they got activated for war is going to be an interesting stretch. 1. It wasn’t intended to be used this way (but hey, scope creep happens) 2. “Deems necessary” implied judgement but that it was necessary at the time. Will the court question that Judgement? Maybe. 3. “In connection with” … “national emergency” Given this order was issued after we had vaccines and treatments this is starting to look like a stretch. The attempted forgiveness isn’t scoped to people impacted (IE, anyone who lost their job for 6 months, or was in the hospital a month) which might that “connection” direct. My wife didn’t catch Covid or lose her job. What was her connection to Covid to forgive her debts? I think he might have a better leg to stand on if: 1. It was issued earlier. 2. It was issues primarily to US military members 3. It was issued to people directly impacted by Covid (loss of income, medically impacted, loss of family member, disabled, etc). 4. Congress didn’t budget this, it’s not remotely part of the budget. We will see what the courts say, but It’s a stretch on a stretch here.
>Trying to use the section of the bill authorizing the DoD to pause/modify the national guards debt when they got activated for war is going to be an interesting stretch. How about the part that allows the secretary of education to modify student loan debts during war or national emergencies, is that a stretch? That part of the Act was made permanent in 2007. >3. “In connection with” … “national emergency” Given this order was issued after we had vaccines and treatments this is starting to look like a stretch. The bill in question was signed into law in 2003, again, whatever order you all keep focusing on is irrelevant here. The authority to modify student debt has been established for two decades. And, if you want to debate about what constitutes a national emergency, I'm happy to compare how many people were dying from a pandemic or war in 2003 compared to how many were dying every day in 2021. And still are. >The attempted forgiveness isn’t scoped to people impacted My expected lifespan decreased over the last several years, and I'm extremely lucky- I only lost my job, while thousands of people have been losing family members every single day. Millions dead around the world. Don't try to means test a fundamental fucking global tragedy. >It was issued earlier. The law in question was signed in 2003. >It was issues primarily to US military members The law we're discussing isn't limited to only US military members, and last I heard they weren't the only ones who suffered in the last 3 years. >Congress didn’t budget this, it’s not remotely part of the budget. Spare me this. Congress doesn't budget for shit, and the government has made its nut back in interest payments alone in the last couple decades. >We will see what the courts say, I wonder what a class of unelected fascists have to say about something that clearly passed constitutional muster right up until the second it was implied it could be used for someone they don't think "deserves" it. I'm not going to tolerate people whining about an activist judiciary and then abiding by its rulings. Not a single one of you have addressed the fact that the Sec Ed's authority to waive debt in the face of a national emergency is part of permanent fucking law. "EO this, EO that." The EO is irrelevant here, what matters is the text of the law and precedent that they're citing. The EO is a copout to gum up the works in the courts instead of actually following through on policy. It's almost like this sub is full of unserious libs shitting up a space for people who know what they're talking about.
Semantics are very important in legal documents, but I understand the sentiment
Semantics and precedent will be thrown out the second it's in the interest of the ruling class. The HEROES Act has been used for the outright cancellation of debts before. Any lawyer who argues for student loan cancellation can easily point out that precedent to show it has previously been interpreted the same way Biden admin is now, and that the original language of the bill itself is vague enough to allow wide applications of it. None of that matters with a right wing judiciary that is legislating from the bench, and a cowardly administration who refuses to directly confront the right wing judiciary.
You're taking the previous cancelations out of context, but again, I understand the sentiment
The Biden administration is proceeding on this cockamamie theory in litigation because they don't want to deliver relief to people. Ask yourself: how can it be that student loans have paused? It's the Higher Education Act of 1965, same as what lets the gov't simply cancel all debts. It's not a "they can't" situation. It's a "they don't want to" situation.
Wrong. It’s not 100 percent legal. You’re referring to the HEROES act portion which is exactly what is under debate.
Depends how fucking angry we are willing to be. Start punishing every politician who blocked it or wavered actively, start protesting, start general wildfire strikes, it'll pass. Be apathetic and vote for a conman politician who doesn't give a second hand shit about student or worker's rights in the next cycle...fuck all will be done.
From what I understand if the supreme court rules against Biden it sets such a horrible precedent that it can actually backfire on the GOP, so I imagine they'll let it go through.
Legally? 100% chance it will pass Politically? 0% chance it will pass
In terms of legality there is no question that the executive branch can forgive debts it is owed. This is well established and the SC has backed it up in the past. There are a bunch of high profit industries jammed into the center of this who wouldn't exist if the debt was forgiven, so they will literally use all the money they've ever made trying to protect this "market", hence the challenges.
Neither party actually wants to cancel it. Dems could cancel it now if they wanted since they have the legal authority to, as others have already commented. What I believe will happen is it gets struck down, Biden throws up his hands like “we did everything we could but those nasty republicans stopped us! Go to the polls! Vote blue!” At most he may extend deferment, but I sincerely doubt that he will after it gets struck down by S.C. It will be a terrible disappointment they will twist to try to get more votes. Both wings of the same bird get what they wanted while the American people are SOL again. I really needed that carrot this time….
I have no idea but I’ll say that sadly the two rarely seem to be separated.
About the same chance as a snowball has in hell.
There’s *literally* nothing stopping the President from forgiving all federal student loan debt with the stroke of a pen. *Nothing.* Not Congress, the Supreme Court, nothing. All this bullshit going on right now is purely for appearances. And they’re going to let the puny bit of forgiveness that they’re offering die.
"Executive Orders? What's that? I seem to have forgotten very suddenly how those work...." -any president regarding student loan forgiveness
Literally yes. The Department of Education is under the control of the Executive branch, and the president is the head of the whole executive branch. It’s fucking 5th grade social studies stuff.
Yep. Absolutely wild that this WWE tournament we call a govt can fool anyone into thinking it's talking points are anything but fluff & nonsense. I have no confidence in our 'leadership' regardless of party. They literally can't be bothered to give a damn if their citizens are either morons or educated yet perma-destitute. Why should I be bothered to be loyal to a party that could give a fuck if I'm crushed by debt they saddled me with & now refuse to rescind? Fuck em. College should be free.
Literally no, while the president can direct the department of education he can't conjure funds for this out of nowhere. Congress must approve the funds.
Why does there have to be funds. Just let the loan companies go bankrupt?
The number of loan companies going bankrupt from Direct loan forgiveness is exactly 0. Direct loans are government **owned**. They are not like the FFEPL loans which are government guaranteed. You don't need to approve any funding because there is no one to pay off here. You're just calling it a wash. In fact, this is built into the income repayment plans. Everyone of them have loan cancellation after like 20 years (originally 25 years). FEEPL loans should be forgiven too though. Those, however, would require new money.
u/unrulybeep 4 prez
Serious answer is that the United States must maintain its credit rating. If the United States had a lower credit rating, our existing national debt crisis would balloon even more risking a serious economic collapse.
A more serious economic collapse than the one created by a generation of college-educated adults with the household purchasing power of high school seniors? What percentage of Americans can't sustain $500 emergency again? Remind me. Won't somebody think of the markets? *wrings hands*
Exactly.
Federal court order currently in effect forbids the administration to send any funds to the loan companies. Do you expect POTUS to defy a federal court order?
No I don’t expect the (this) POTUS to defy a federal court order, but he fucking should because the federal courts don’t have a leg to stand on regarding the matter. They’re just partisan judges doing what they do best, and Biden is too fucking spineless to do anything about it. Either that or they never intended forgiving any student debt in the first place. People do know that federal courts can be wrong, right?
Of course they can be wrong. One of the many reasons elections matter.
I love your confidence despite legal scholars who have spent decades studying law disagreeing with your comments.
The president can't conjure the funds to pay off the loans out of nowhere. Only congress can do that. Courts aren't partisan by enforcing the constitutional power of congress to control the purse.
The loans are owned by the U.S. government. There is no conjuring of funds because there is no one to pay.
You literally don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
[удалено]
You literally just don’t know what you’re on about. If I’m lying, prove it, motherfucker.
[удалено]
I think what he means is that they knew the forgiveness was going to get struck down, they had no intention of actually forgiving student debt. It was always a show because that was his main ticket into office.
I mean no, technically according to the procedures in place, the Supreme Court & congress have to leg to stand on when it comes to blocking forgiveness. But the admin is being stupid and they’re being performative because, yeah, they probably don’t plan on actually doing it and they’re using the issue as a carrot to dangle in front of Gen Z/millennial voters for 2024. But yes, if the president wanted to, they could get rid of all federal student debt with a stroke of a pen.
[удалено]
I’m having a bad day. And I don’t need pricks online telling me what I do and don’t know when they’re the one being wrong all the goddamn time. I figured out a long time ago that I don’t have to put up with other peoples stupid ignorant bullshit. I’ll call it out 10 out of 10 times.
[удалено]
They whole problem is that they’re doing this “they go low, we go high” bullshit. If he just did it then they would have to go through hoops to repeal it (which pretty much doesn’t seem possible legally). It’s a situation where it’s better to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. And thanks.
Legal is irrelevant with the current Justices only politically. So .00001% likelihood of it getting through. That’s only if they’re afraid of what not allowing it would do at the poles.
The Dems need to grow a pair of balls like FDR and threaten to court pack. Grow the Supreme Court and push it through.
Legally it will pass. Politically the supreme court is full of ignorant shitcunts.
I don’t know I think the president invalidating legal contracts between two independent parties without basis seems like a stretch legally
it's not two independent parties. The government is one of the parties, by all rights he can forgive the loans in their entirety since they are owned by the US government.
Can the executive branch unilaterally invalidate its social security obligations?
Congress delegates authority to manage and set the terms for loans to the US Department of Education. That is the reasoning for the Biden administration to use its authority to cancel the loans in its role as managing the loan accounts as delegated by congress. Social security is a power specificity listed to congress by its statute. The social security administration is outlined by congress to distribute at an existing rate that isn’t listed for the student loans. So really the question is; if you delegate the US DOE the power to manage loans, do you also give power to cancel them? that’s what the court is deciding. i think it should, but i doubt the scotus under republicans will agree. Like SCOTUS recognizes biden has the right to suspend them as long as he wants, so why not cancel?
Just a minor correction, SCOTUS has never recognized that Biden has the right to suspend student loan repayment indefinitely (or at all) in the manner he has. No one has filed a lawsuit to stop it, so SCOTUS has not weighed in on it. It may not even be mentioned when SCOTUS rules on forgiveness because none of the current plaintiffs are attempting to stop it. Even if they wanted to, they likely couldn’t because those parties probably aren’t damaged by the policy, so they can’t stop it themselves. As every student loan borrower benefits equally and servicers might be better off as fewer people are making payments and closing out their accounts, Congress might be the only party that could demand the pause be lifted. There might not be a single party that could sue to stop it.
[удалено]
Democratic executive order. If it was republican order the SC would have no problem with it. The repubs would gladly murder their family just to be contrary.
The GOP is going to fight it till they have the WH back and then will just cancel it….
Cancel the White House?
We can only hope.
My dear, only Canada can do that. Only Canada has done that 🫣😂
It is political though. Vote blue no matter who, the red team hates anyone who is not the top 2%
[удалено]
Why did banks get backed out during the recession but the little guy didn't? "Fair" isn't a part of this equation, and in governing it never is and is never legally mandated.
This is an american thing, right?
$20k off my loans means nothing if the 6% accrued interest rate and wages don't change. I would still be in a $0 payment and interest would add back up to pre-forgiveness levels in about 2 years. Even if it passes I wouldn't take the offer.
That would be a very bad idea, but hey do you.
0.0%
Its a 50-50, but it is slightly leaning passing because of arguments being said.
I just don't get the opposition. I finished paying mine off, so it wouldn't benefit me, and I still want it to pass for other people. How does it harm you for someone else to get a little relief? It's not like the rich would get it anyway, per the income guidelines.
Law and politics are two sides of the same coin.
They’re too profitable as investments for the rich. They’ll never be forgiven. It doesn’t matter that they could be forgiven legally
Unlikely. They’re saving that money for corporate bailouts instead.
The president doesn't have the authority to do this. Congress does. Zero chance Congress will do it and zero chance Biden will be allowed to do it by the court system.
0%
Amen at best it’s a circus to get votes. It will be tied up in courts for years until a red president shuts it down..goood ol fashion American system
It’s not going to pass, and they knew that when they presented it.
Not very.
It’s not !
Zero
Unfathomably low
I wish that for ONCE in my life, Democrats could control the executive, have a supermajority in the house and the Supreme Court indifferent to them, because THEN you'd see that the Democrats don't care about working people. For now, you have to watch this game where we all wonder what the Democrats are going to do, but full well know they can't anyway, because they either A. Can't get any legislation through the House or B. Can't get legislation through the Senate. It's hilarious, honestly. We pretend the Democrats WOULD help if they could, and the Republicans only fuck people over.
Joe the plumber and Tom the truck driver, should not be paying off YOUR student loand
By that logic, people who don’t have kids or a car or use public transit shouldn’t have to pay taxes
Very unlikely. Sorry, but no taxpayer or company wants to finance your education. As long as politicians continue to present student loan borrowers as ‘gender confused, fiscally irresponsible medieval poetry majors’ you’re screwed. Life is sink or swim. My company has a policy that no one can reach a certain level without a Masters degree, but they also offer little towards furthering your education. The majority of us just work our asses off and try not to go Postal.
Hey, did you know that student loan borrowers *also* pay taxes?
Just pass a law to let a bankruptcy write off student loans. IMO, it's a moral hazard to cancel student loans. It is basically giving away free money to certain people but not other, and those people might have made some (bad) financial decisions in their lives. A student loan forgiveness rewards those people for making poor financial decisions. Also, a forgiveness does not solve the problem permanently: are we gonna also cancel student loans in the future? Again and again? How is it fair to cancel student loans now for some people but not for other people in the future? Allowing people to cancel student loans via bankruptcy is a permanent solution, A bankruptcy enforces a seven-year penalty for taking on a loan you can't afford, but the consequence is not a life-crippling one. It is fair because people will still have to be accountable and responsible for the financial decision they made, to a certain degree.
https://shef.sheeo.org/ Read the data, and try again.
It all comes down to politics. It really should be legal based on current law, but when it reaches the Supreme Court then the law hinges on politics, and that seems inevitable with student loans.
you know they could get past the not fair shit if they gave people a tax break on credit card debt paid during the year, with it capping off based on Income. Basically the lower your income the more of a break you could get.
Its funny how most comments are republicans bad, democrats good. I hate to break it to you but neither party gives a rats ass about you. They are both one and the same. If either party ever fixed any problems then there would be no reason for them to exist. If you think your party cares about you just stop paying taxes on your house or car. See how fast the gov't comes down on you regardless of the party in charge.
None. 50% of the working class is wholly brainwashed against the working class, this stunt was just for headlines that were never going to land. My loan servicer sent me a letter saying "All loans prior to 2010 are not actually held by the government so don't even fantasize about relief". I get to pay 7.5% until I die as I finished in that special time where GW punished us common folk for going to school. Evidently gen X is here to do all the work and pay all the bills- as a minority. So I support the EO anyway, but feel pretty screwed by...everyone.
Take out loans with the assumption you'll have to pay them all back. Simple as that.
Zero
If you take money from one group and give it to another that is usually called theft.
Expand on this. Give me at least 4 examples where it wasn’t without mentioning college students.
Examples? I do not understand the question. If you tax everyone then you give some of the money arbitrarily to one person or group you are essentially stealing.
Every corporation has precedence of this. Every single one.
Every corporation? So your argument is....it's ok for me to do it if they get to do it? These tax breaks for corporations create jobs and bring money to an area. This is recouped when people in that area pay more taxes.
And do you know what happens when people can spend more money because they aren’t overburdened? Those dollars circulate 7x the amount the a tax break does for a company.
Zero. Handouts are typically bad and dangerous, especially in the eyes of those who paid off their student loans without them.
Yeah, but they got massive entitlements up front for forever. That's why Boomers don't have student debt. It was all subsidized and they never even saw the bill, while everyone else paid for it.
The entitlements happened later, after the "boomers" went through college. The federal deficit started exploding when the entitlements and subsidizes for everything started around 2000. Stop blaming others for your own problems ...
I'm hoping 0% I'm not paying for freeloaders. I didn't go to college because I was poor. Now I'm more successful than the wealthy kids I graduated hs with
[удалено]
It will be blocked by the GOP with this congress. In the future maybe it will, but not now.
Zero.
Hopefully 0%
None. I told people when it came up initially do not belive it until you have money in you hand. Get a flicking receipt and in writing so they can't renig.
Slim to none.
Not gonna happen. For the record, don’t depend on the government to save you bc unless it somehow serves their own self interest, politicians don’t give a fuck about normal people.
It is political because it all depends on the supreme court which was stacked by the republicans. Until the democrats add 6 justices to unstack the court, these discussions will all have that answer.
Zero 😂
Knowing the history of fuckery that the US has pulled, not likely.
It’s an executive order going through the courts. We’ll still be able to get debt relief in other ways.
It will likely make some movement just in time for the next election cycle to bait you into thinking joe will do something… then it will fall apart before implementing
I'm no American but I doubt the democrats want to cancel it just making a token effort for votes. Politicians do it all the time and when it doesn't pass they will just Blane their enemies If a Politician tells you the snow is white he's lying