Student Loan Forgiveness is Set to Expire: This is Going to be Painful for Many!

[fskimospy]

I agree with the "shifting standard" argument here. If you're going to go one way or the other depending on the case you really need to be able to support the reason. Or just pick one and stick with it like you're suggesting. I think more of the disagreement boils down to how conservatives and liberals literally process subjective thoughts and is not necessarily about pushing politics.

Does it bother you that the courts no longer rule based on the plain meaning of the law?

 

[Jaskalas]

Does it bother you that the courts no longer rule based on the plain meaning of the law?

Exactly how did the White House / Department of Education argue this before the court?

Let's see... Oh, a 2003 Heroes Act.

The issue presented in this case is whether the Secretary has authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for StudentsAct of 2003 (HEROES Act) to depart from the existing provisions of theEducation Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program thatwill cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly allborrowers. Under the HEROES Act, the Secretary “may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] asthe Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” §1098bb(a)(1).

Seems like a rather vague edict. The sort of thing a Court is meant to decide. The sort of thing a Congress is meant to correct.
I find your interpretation of the 2003 law is emotional, not logical. If this was its intended use, it would have been done shortly after passing. Not two decades later.

 

[nickqt]

Exactly how did the White House / Department of Education argue this before the court?

Let's see... Oh, a 2003 Heroes Act.


Seems like a rather vague edict. The sort of thing a Court is meant to decide. The sort of thing a Congress is meant to correct.
I find your interpretation of the 2003 law is emotional, not logical. If this was its intended use, it would have been done shortly after passing. Not two decades later.

“may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

Vague? Emotional?

Was there a "state of emergency" in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

Were student financial assistance programs waived or modified by the Secretary of Education in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

There's no vague language or emotions in there at all. Two yes or no answers determine whether it was a legal action.

Go ahead, answer the two questions with a yes or no answer, without giving an emotional argument like the 6 opinion SCOTUS majority made.

I'll wait here.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Vague? Emotional?

Was there a "state of emergency" in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

Were student financial assistance programs waived or modified by the Secretary of Education in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

There's no vague language or emotions in there at all. Two yes or no answers determine whether it was a legal action.

Go ahead, answer the two questions with a yes or no answer, without giving an emotional argument like the 6 opinion SCOTUS majority made.

I'll wait here.

And just in case anyone thinks there aren't any emergencies, there are actually quite a lot

List of national emergencies in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[fskimospy]

Vague? Emotional?

Was there a "state of emergency" in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

Were student financial assistance programs waived or modified by the Secretary of Education in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

There's no vague language or emotions in there at all. Two yes or no answers determine whether it was a legal action.

Go ahead, answer the two questions with a yes or no answer, without giving an emotional argument like the 6 opinion SCOTUS majority made.

I'll wait here.

Exactly. By the plain, easily understood language of the law this was authorized. SCOTUS just didn’t like the policy result so they decided to play Calvinball.

 

[akugami]

Vague? Emotional?

Was there a "state of emergency" in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

No. There was no state of emergency. Obviously it was all an evil plan by the libs to take power away from the rightful rulers of the United Fascist States of "Murica.

So, fake news. Let's throw in a both sides for good measure.

Were student financial assistance programs waived or modified by the Secretary of Education in 2022?
Yes or no. Pick one.

No. That was a fake Secretary of Education. Obviously it was one of them illegal migrants faking the funk and pretending to be the real Secretary of Education.

There's no vague language or emotions in there at all. Two yes or no answers determine whether it was a legal action.

Go ahead, answer the two questions with a yes or no answer, without giving an emotional argument like the 6 opinion SCOTUS majority made.

I'll wait here.

SCOTUS conservatives to the US population: I got a billionaire sugar daddy and you don't. So fuck you.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Probably been brought up before but this is the kind of shit that is going to bring inflation to a screeching halt and give us that recession all the economists have been hoping for.

Suddenly having an additional $300-$1000 monthly bill that goes off into the void instead of goods and purchases is gonna fuck stuff up well and good.

 

[ivwshane]

Probably been brought up before but this is the kind of shit that is going to bring inflation to a screeching halt and give us that recession all the economists have been hoping for.

Suddenly having an additional $300-$1000 monthly bill that goes off into the void instead of goods and purchases is gonna fuck stuff up well and good.

Unless you can find another reason why republicans wouldn’t be against that, it certainly seems like that’s the plan. A bad economy during an election year is bad for the incumbent, right?


Party before country.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Couldn't Congress pass a law that banned the major questions bullshit?

The current SCOTUS would just rule the law unconstitutional, no matter if it truly is, or isn't. They will Calvinball the a ruling to make the law go away.

 

[Homerboy]

Student loans kicking back in with interest is going to decimate the economy. Plain and simple

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Democrats can be so stupid, they ignore the stuff average people want.
While I agree student loans should at carry a lower interest rate and have sensible limits as to how much will be issued and I agree many need to be eliminated or greatly reduced.
They should have tied to loan reduction to enhanced veteran benefit. Take the loan debt away and you also take away the enhanced veteran benefit. That would shut Republicans the fuck up.
Also the debt forgiveness should have been explained far better as to why it’s not going to cost anyone extra money because the banks have already earned what they needed to cover these debts.

 

[Jaskalas]

Two yes or no answers determine whether it was a legal action.

You have clung to something that is beside the point.
The language in the SCOTUS ruling strikes at the heart of what modify and waive means to the judiciary.
According to them, this action exceeded that. They appear to cite various pre-existing precedents for such a decision on those words.

Furthermore, if Democrats actually believed that this was a legal action protected by existing law, they would not have tried to pass explicit language to enable this action in the 2020 Heroes act. It failed to pass the Senate, so then you take it upon yourselves to do it without legal authority. Tell me that's not how the cookie crumbled.

 

[Dave_5k]

Probably been brought up before but this is the kind of shit that is going to bring inflation to a screeching halt and give us that recession all the economists have been hoping for.

Suddenly having an additional $300-$1000 monthly bill that goes off into the void instead of goods and purchases is gonna fuck stuff up well and good.

~43 million borrowers, average payment of ~$400/month - and as you imply, most of that was being used for "real" economy purchases.

Same economic step-change impact as a new "$2 trillion" tax hike by Republicans (as congress defines it, $200 billion/yr over 10 years), primarily on lower and middle income America.

 

[brycejones]

~43 million borrowers, average payment of ~$400/month - and as you imply, most of that was being used for "real" economy purchases.

Same economic step-change impact as a new "$2 trillion" tax hike by Republicans (as congress defines it, $200 billion/yr over 10 years), primarily on lower and middle income America.

The people whose money actually drives the economy.

 

[sao123]

Student loan forgiveness was also in black letter law. The Supremes simply lied when they coughed up their major questions doctrine nonsense. The Supremes have been doing that a lot lately.

Oddly enough... Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. Directly quoting her.
"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not."

 

[Vic]

Oddly enough... Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. Directly quoting her.
"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not."

MAGA is politics as WWE.

IOW whatever Pelosi or any other politician (R or D) says isn't law and truly oddly enough no intelligent rational person gives a shit that you're stupid and partisan enough to think so.

 

[akugami]

Oddly enough... Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. Directly quoting her.
"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not."

Oddly enough, a Congressional act disagrees with you.

Granted, I'm not the greatest at legal speak, but those of you with better understanding of how laws are written, may read the text in the link below.

But based off what I see, in the Heroes Act, under Title V - Forgiving Student Loan Debt and Protecting Student Borrowers, it gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to pay off up to $10k of student loans for each student.

If you want to argue that you're correct, then on a technicality, it's strictly speaking the Secretary of the Treasury who was given that right, but as the Secretary of the Treasury works directly under the POTUS, to me it's the same thing.

Access the text of the H.R.6800 - The Heroes Act here

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Oddly enough... Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. Directly quoting her.
"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not."

I thought she was/is a dumb bitch? Is she right here? What else is she right about?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

NOW I know why the 'Pubs want this dead:

Retailers beware: Resumption of student loan payments could lead some buyers to pull back​

ABC|23 hours ago
Deutsche Bank analysts who follow the retail industry estimate that the resumption of the loan payments could shrink consumer spending by $14 billion a month, or an average of $305 per borrower. The biggest blow, they say, will likely be absorbed by online commerce and mail-order companies and by restaurants and bars.



They don't want a good economy going into next year and they hope this will drive sales down and debt up.

 

[Mai72]

The real issue isn't student debt. Well its part of the problem, but the real issue is college is so damn expensive. Even if congress wiped student debt clean, we'd be back in the same spot 1-2 decades from now. Why isn't Biden talking about the expense of college? Cost need to come down, but that won't happen unless Americans force the schools to change. The only solution: Send the majority of HS students to trade schools, or keep them out of college. IMHO, if you aren't going to college to pursue a degree in medicine, engineering, computers, education, and a few other fields that demand a college degree than you probably don't belong in college. I've met quite a few people over the years who aren't even workig in the field that they wen't to school for. You could make the argument that the peice of paper got them their current job. That could be possible, but is it worth 4 years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars in tuition?

Maybe, or maybe not.

 

[NWRMidnight]

The real issue isn't student debt. Well its part of the problem, but the real issue is college is so damn expensive. Even if congress wiped student debt clean, we'd be back in the same spot 1-2 decades from now. Why isn't Biden talking about the expense of college? Cost need to come down, but that won't happen unless Americans force the schools to change. The only solution: Send the majority of HS students to trade schools, or keep them out of college. IMHO, if you aren't going to college to pursue a degree in medicine, engineering, computers, education, and a few other fields that demand a college degree than you probably don't belong in college. I've met quite a few people over the years who aren't even workig in the field that they wen't to school for. You could make the argument that the peice of paper got them their current job. That could be possible, but is it worth 4 years of your life, and tens of thousands of dollars in tuition?

Maybe, or maybe not.

actually, all levels of education have gotten out of control. Lets take public schools k-12, for example. Taxes to fund the schools keep going up, more and more levies keep getting put on the ballot, yet, what those tax dollars cover gets smaller and smaller. The teachers, out of their own pockets, and the student's parents, flip the bill for nearly all aspects of teaching supplies now days, including those that should be covered by the school, not the teacher or parents. School supply lists use to be one page, with about ten items on it, that where basic items the student needed for the year. Now days you are looking at 3 to 5 pages of supplies, with up to 50 or more items on it, depending on the grade it was for, and such. With the majority being everyday items that the school use to provide, and/or the teacher will use thru out the year to teach properly. We are talking about printer paper that the school uses, staples, white board markers, foaming hand soap and such. And non of the items on the lists are for your student only, they all go into a community storage room. School supplies use to cost the parent's maybe at most $30 to $40 a year. now days, you are looking at $300 or more to cover the supply list at a minimum. And the kicker, is usually half way thru the year, another supply list is sent home for the parents to purchase even more supplies.. None of which are used by the students in many cases, but the teacher needs to do her job, because the school won't provide them.

That is just the supply lists, many other areas that use to be covered by the school's, such as field trips, some science projects (some chemistry experiments), etc, are now expected to be covered by the parents.. Parent's now days are constantly being hit up for money to fund various areas that use to be covered by our taxes. Even the basic decorations in classrooms have to be covered by the teacher, who in many cases are already under paid. Basically each year, parents end up paying thousands of dollars for their kids to go to public school k-12. It's become the normal that parents are oblivious of how much they spend for their kids "free" public k-12 education. That very education that use to be fully funded thru our taxes. But what do we expect, when education funding is usually on the chopping block when budget cuts take place.

 

[Puffnstuff]

NOW I know why the 'Pubs want this dead:

Retailers beware: Resumption of student loan payments could lead some buyers to pull back​

ABC|23 hours ago
Deutsche Bank analysts who follow the retail industry estimate that the resumption of the loan payments could shrink consumer spending by $14 billion a month, or an average of $305 per borrower. The biggest blow, they say, will likely be absorbed by online commerce and mail-order companies and by restaurants and bars.



They don't want a good economy going into next year and they hope this will drive sales down and debt up.

I tried to spend some money the other day but the retailers weren't having it. Neither home depot or lowes had what I was looking for as the power tools I was shopping for were not in stock and their web sites forced you to physically go to the store to see stock levels.

More importantly though are defaulting car loans which are responsible for a spike in repossessions which will only get worse with time. We need to go back on the gold standard which will nullify inflation like the pre '71 days where things were affordable in relation to wages.

 

[Pens1566]

Oddly enough... Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. Directly quoting her.
"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not."

No, but the Secretary of the Treasury did according to the law congress passed.

 

[ivwshane]

I tried to spend some money the other day but the retailers weren't having it. Neither home depot or lowes had what I was looking for as the power tools I was shopping for were not in stock and their web sites forced you to physically go to the store to see stock levels.

More importantly though are defaulting car loans which are responsible for a spike in repossessions which will only get worse with time. We need to go back on the gold standard which will nullify inflation like the pre '71 days where things were affordable in relation to wages.

Going back to the gold standard does not guarantee stable prices and it would make responding to major world events much harder.

 

[Meghan54]

I tried to spend some money the other day but the retailers weren't having it. Neither home depot or lowes had what I was looking for as the power tools I was shopping for were not in stock and their web sites forced you to physically go to the store to see stock levels.

More importantly though are defaulting car loans which are responsible for a spike in repossessions which will only get worse with time. We need to go back on the gold standard which will nullify inflation like the pre '71 days where things were affordable in relation to wages.

Maybe I’m confused, but if you know HD and Lowes are both out of stock for the tools you want before you go to either, why would you have to go in to check the stock levels…you already said both stores were out of stock. 😵‍💫