This is kinda off-topic, but all I ever hear about is Biden not forgiving student loans and how he's TERRIBLE and EVIL and all the homies hate him. I see the problem... but my school randomly...
This is kinda off-topic, but all I ever hear about is Biden not forgiving student loans and how he's TERRIBLE and EVIL and all the homies hate him. I see the problem... but my school randomly announced that they're giving enrolled students $600 checks to help with tuition or whatever we want—with funding from Biden.
My tuition this semester was literally $39,000 because I can't receive financial aid, so the quantity of money I'm getting is not revolutionary. The stipend also isn't critical for me personally as I don't have any big loans, thank God. But I know it is a very big deal for a lot of my classmates. That $600 can be groceries for like 10 weeks!! Having just a bit of extra flexibility with income relieves So Much God Damn Stress.
I wish we would celebrate things like this more, if only for our own mental health. I don't know anything about finance or economics really, so idk how this loan thing should work out, but every little thing does make a difference, even if it's not publicized.
The problem is more that he made some very specific campaign promises and has decided - with no prompting, as this is something he can do without congress - to just not do them. That's just...
all I ever hear about is Biden not forgiving student loans and how he's TERRIBLE and EVIL and all the homies hate him
The problem is more that he made some very specific campaign promises and has decided - with no prompting, as this is something he can do without congress - to just not do them. That's just straight up lying, and it's fucked up to lie to get into office no matter how you slice it.
I'm really glad you're getting some support, though! That's awesome.
Well, yeah, exactly - very specific, and in that specificity, has not broken any promises. That “promise” was a a statement on Twitter that he’d support Warren’s bill to eliminate 10k in student...
The problem is more that he made some very specific campaign promises and has decided
Well, yeah, exactly - very specific, and in that specificity, has not broken any promises. That “promise” was a a statement on Twitter that he’d support Warren’s bill to eliminate 10k in student debt. No such bill has gotten to his desk, and I don’t think there’s any indication that if it did, he would veto it.
He definitely did not promise to cancel student debt by fiat. It’s theorized by some legal experts that the executive could effectively cancel student debt, but that’s very different from “can”, and I at least don’t see it as a loophole or lie by omission to not want to pursue that route.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did, although I can't find record of it via googling, but I mean, he is tackling student debt. "Tackling" is only a specific term in american football. The US...
I wouldn't be surprised if he did, although I can't find record of it via googling, but I mean, he is tackling student debt. "Tackling" is only a specific term in american football. The US government has greatly expanded PLSF criteria, including retroactively calculating admittance, extended forbearance, increased Pell Grant, issued an executive order on Dec. 13th to streamline servicing of loans, and shifted student loan servicers.
Only one way to find out. What are they gonna do...impeach him twice? Or get it overruled to immense opposition to the populous at large? Methinks he has 0 interest in rocking the status quo, and...
He definitely did not promise to cancel student debt by fiat. It’s theorized by some legal experts that the executive could effectively cancel student debt, but that’s very different from “can”, and I at least don’t see it as a loophole or lie by omission to not want to pursue that route.
Only one way to find out. What are they gonna do...impeach him twice?
Or get it overruled to immense opposition to the populous at large?
Methinks he has 0 interest in rocking the status quo, and freeing up a huge chunk of people's incomes away from student loans has a big potential to rock things.
It’ll get sued in federal court, an injunction will be ruled as the case begins to immediately stop the debt relief, and then all the student loan holders are in limbo, you know who are making...
It’ll get sued in federal court, an injunction will be ruled as the case begins to immediately stop the debt relief, and then all the student loan holders are in limbo, you know who are making noise about federal overreach, and the case will likely drag onto the next presidency. Essentially the fate of many of Trump’s executive actions.
Not to mention those wouldn’t even be frivolous suits - the legal authority for the executive to do that is dubious at best, so there’s a very real chance they’d lose the case straight up.
The president can pardon crimes, I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them pardon debts either. I have 0 doubts there would be legal challenges. But mounting legal challenges against a very...
The president can pardon crimes, I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them pardon debts either.
I have 0 doubts there would be legal challenges. But mounting legal challenges against a very popular move is not likely to be a wise political decision on the behalf of anybody pushing them.
And better to try and fail than to whine "oh but what if it doesn't work".
I mean, that's just wrong, it definitely is. The power to pardon federal crimes is a power explicitly granted by the constitution. The power to pardon debt certainly is not. How much things sound...
The president can pardon crimes, I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them pardon debts either.
I mean, that's just wrong, it definitely is. The power to pardon federal crimes is a power explicitly granted by the constitution. The power to pardon debt certainly is not. How much things sound alike have little to do with their shared legality?
Popularity has little merit in court. Civil court is not a democratic process. As long as you have the will and the money to pay for lawyers, you can keep on trucking. And remember, the standard process in this kind of suit is for an injunction to be placed on the defendant preventing them from continuing the actions that are being used.
So as long as the court case goes on, the student loan relief cannot go through. And this ALSO applies to all appeals either way the case goes! I would note that the Supreme Court is, uh, kinda conservative right now.
It's not zero cost. The injunctions will effect other unchallenged student debt policies, like expansion of federal loan forgiveness programs, or the interest moratorium, while also introducing a gigantic amount of FUD for student borrowers ("Well, is my debt gone?" - most likely, no) and almost certainly accomplishing nothing in the end.
It also adds FUD to any new legislation around student loan relief.
Just a terrible idea imo with little upside (the tiny percentage chance that it'll somehow survive despite almost certainly being at minimum appealed to the conservative Supreme Court within the next 2 years of Biden's presidency) and significant downside .
More on the legal side of things, from politico
The key provision that advocates of cancellation cite comes from the Higher Education Act, which was originally signed in 1965 and has been updated since.
Specifically, the law grants a presidential administration, via the Education Secretary, authority to "enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release" government-held federal student loans. Indeed, the Higher Education Act provided the authority for President Donald Trump and Biden to pause student loan debt payments during the coronavirus pandemic.
However, experts disagree on whether the president can authorize widespread debt cancellation through an executive order. There’s enough of a legal question that any move by the president would likely prompt litigation, experts said.
"There are instances of presidents' executive orders being thrown out in the courts because they take actions that were not authorized by laws in the past," said Jason MacDonald, a political scientist at West Virginia University.
The Trump administration saw this kind of judicial pushback with its initial travel ban for people from Muslim-majority countries, MacDonald said.
While modest efforts to roll back student debt might not prompt legal obstacles, "the more ambitiously this authority is used, the greater the possibility of a legal challenge," said Judith Scott-Clayton, a professor of economics and education at Columbia University.
One of the contested issues could be Congress’ past changes to the Higher Education Act that cited narrow conditions under which student debt may be forgiven. Past federal legislation has addressed debt relief for teachers and workers in the public sector, cases in which schools close before a student earns a degree, and cases of a student’s death or disability. It’s not as clear whether blanket forgiveness would pass legal muster, experts said.
Similarly, the Higher Education Act’s authority to "compromise, waive, or release" has typically been used in the past for loans only in unusual circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, and for loans that are not expected to be repaid. Despite many recent graduates’ heavy debt loans, it’s not clear that all of their loans would be deemed unpayable.
"‘Compromise’ usually is used when someone cannot possibly pay a debt to the government, so the government cuts a deal," said Adam Looney, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "That’s very different from mass cancelation."
Meanwhile, a different law, the Federal Claims Collection Act, provides federal agencies with the authority to collect or compromise claims and suspend or terminate collection action.
However, this law "imposes a high standard for when the government can compromise a debt, to narrow circumstances like when the debtor is unable to pay and that inability is verified, or when the cost to collect the debt would be too high to justify the collection." Looney said.
Eh, I don't think that's a great idea. For one, it'd be quite cruel - the actual outcome of such a stunt is that you basically trick a bunch of student debt holders. You tell them that 10k of...
Eh, I don't think that's a great idea. For one, it'd be quite cruel - the actual outcome of such a stunt is that you basically trick a bunch of student debt holders. You tell them that 10k of their debt has been forgiven, they cheer and many will spend it on necessities, only to find out later that that in fact is not happening, and now they're going to be delinquent.
As we've learned through the Trump years, what "experts" say for these legal grey areas really doesn't matter.
I really feel like this is the opposite. Trump proved the fragility of executive actions. The reality is that he accomplished almost nothing permanent. His EAs only added some FUD and some (good for him, I suppose) newspaper headlines. A majority of his EAs were eventually strucken down in court, the rest were held by injunctions and erased by Biden on the first day of his presidency.
The vast majority of voters are not particularly politically conscious. They're going to get a letter saying that X amount of their debt was forgiven, and then get another letter saying JK it's on hold, then another saying JK it's canceled. They're going to be pissed at the government for bait and switching them.
Because defeat on this route is inevitable; the SCOTUS defeat is just the cherry on top. More likely it'll just mire in the courts, since not only do these cases take forever, but it'll be...
Because defeat on this route is inevitable; the SCOTUS defeat is just the cherry on top. More likely it'll just mire in the courts, since not only do these cases take forever, but it'll be appealed upwards until it hits SCOTUS. And all that time the injunction does nothing. It's not even just conservative obstructionism - this is genuinely very shaky legal ground.
That doesn't mean "giving up" for student debt relief in general. The proper channel for this is legislation. Don't muddy the waters or troll debters with false hopes - try to do it in the lasting manor. It's a longshot, but a much better one.
The other side is that you introduce FUD for debtors, complicate other measures to help people with student debt, and make any legislative solutions even more difficult to pass.
We've seen that a lot of people don't care about the law and we've also had a president who didn't care about the law, but I kind of think this is bad, and maybe at least the executive branch...
We've seen that a lot of people don't care about the law and we've also had a president who didn't care about the law, but I kind of think this is bad, and maybe at least the executive branch should get back to caring about laws?
That means finding arguments about what's legal that make sense, not saying "let's just see what we can get away with."
(Admittedly, though, it's up to the lawyers, not necessarily a conversation we need to have here.)
I have a double major in computer science and literature. People have a bad habit of "joking" to my face about how worthless the liberal arts are, so I don't usually mention the second one. (Yes,...
I have a double major in computer science and literature. People have a bad habit of "joking" to my face about how worthless the liberal arts are, so I don't usually mention the second one. (Yes, I am a little bitter.) I have a pretty cushy job lined up and I'm not worried about going into debt.
…my job happens to be in the software industry, but that's beside the point.
Sometimes I wonder why I paid so much for a degree. I don't even know what I'm going to spend money on once I'm done. I like nice things, and I like to go into the city for dinners and drinks, but I learned a long time ago that the best moments in life are free.
I don't intend on having children, but I know it'll happen eventually anyway, so I guess I'll set up a 529.
Not that it strikes back at those that joke about it to your face, but back before Bezos bought Whole Foods there was a "joke" that Whole Foods is where you went after you got your liberal arts...
I have a double major in computer science and literature. People have a bad habit of "joking" to my face about how worthless the liberal arts are, so I don't usually mention the second one. (Yes, I am a little bitter.)
Not that it strikes back at those that joke about it to your face, but back before Bezos bought Whole Foods there was a "joke" that Whole Foods is where you went after you got your liberal arts degree because to be an assistant store manager or above required a 4 year degree, but nearly the entire non-corporate-level-management consisted of liberal arts degree holders. Don't know what it's like now, but at the time my wife worked there maybe 10-15% of the assistant, store, region, and division managers were non-liberal-arts-degree holders.
Did make for some great friends and epic parties though as people knew how to switch off from work, play music, do art, and chill.
Sometimes I wonder why I paid so much for a degree. I don't even know what I'm going to spend money on once I'm done. I like nice things, and I like to go into the city for dinners and drinks, but I learned a long time ago that the best moments in life are free.
Save all of it, invest, and retire incredibly young?
I don't intend on having children, but I know it'll happen eventually anyway, so I guess I'll set up a 529.
I mean... children aren't a requirement to live your life and can arguably be more fulfilling without them.
It’s been two years since student loan forbearance began in March 2020—which marked a freeze for borrowers to make debt payments. Forbearance has been extended several times but was set to expire on May 1. But Education Department officials told federal student loan servicing companies to “hold off” on sending notices to borrowers about those payments restarting, Politico reported this week.
That’s the second hint in two weeks that the freeze on student loan payments could get extended again. Last week, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain told Pod Save America that “the president is going to look at what we should do on student debt before the pause expires, or he’ll extend the pause.”
This is kinda off-topic, but all I ever hear about is Biden not forgiving student loans and how he's TERRIBLE and EVIL and all the homies hate him. I see the problem... but my school randomly announced that they're giving enrolled students $600 checks to help with tuition or whatever we want—with funding from Biden.
My tuition this semester was literally $39,000 because I can't receive financial aid, so the quantity of money I'm getting is not revolutionary. The stipend also isn't critical for me personally as I don't have any big loans, thank God. But I know it is a very big deal for a lot of my classmates. That $600 can be groceries for like 10 weeks!! Having just a bit of extra flexibility with income relieves So Much God Damn Stress.
I wish we would celebrate things like this more, if only for our own mental health. I don't know anything about finance or economics really, so idk how this loan thing should work out, but every little thing does make a difference, even if it's not publicized.
The problem is more that he made some very specific campaign promises and has decided - with no prompting, as this is something he can do without congress - to just not do them. That's just straight up lying, and it's fucked up to lie to get into office no matter how you slice it.
I'm really glad you're getting some support, though! That's awesome.
Well, yeah, exactly - very specific, and in that specificity, has not broken any promises. That “promise” was a a statement on Twitter that he’d support Warren’s bill to eliminate 10k in student debt. No such bill has gotten to his desk, and I don’t think there’s any indication that if it did, he would veto it.
He definitely did not promise to cancel student debt by fiat. It’s theorized by some legal experts that the executive could effectively cancel student debt, but that’s very different from “can”, and I at least don’t see it as a loophole or lie by omission to not want to pursue that route.
I'm all but certain he used the words "tackle student debt for everyone" on a TV interview - I could be misremembering, though?
I wouldn't be surprised if he did, although I can't find record of it via googling, but I mean, he is tackling student debt. "Tackling" is only a specific term in american football. The US government has greatly expanded PLSF criteria, including retroactively calculating admittance, extended forbearance, increased Pell Grant, issued an executive order on Dec. 13th to streamline servicing of loans, and shifted student loan servicers.
Only one way to find out. What are they gonna do...impeach him twice?
Or get it overruled to immense opposition to the populous at large?
Methinks he has 0 interest in rocking the status quo, and freeing up a huge chunk of people's incomes away from student loans has a big potential to rock things.
It’ll get sued in federal court, an injunction will be ruled as the case begins to immediately stop the debt relief, and then all the student loan holders are in limbo, you know who are making noise about federal overreach, and the case will likely drag onto the next presidency. Essentially the fate of many of Trump’s executive actions.
Not to mention those wouldn’t even be frivolous suits - the legal authority for the executive to do that is dubious at best, so there’s a very real chance they’d lose the case straight up.
The president can pardon crimes, I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them pardon debts either.
I have 0 doubts there would be legal challenges. But mounting legal challenges against a very popular move is not likely to be a wise political decision on the behalf of anybody pushing them.
And better to try and fail than to whine "oh but what if it doesn't work".
I mean, that's just wrong, it definitely is. The power to pardon federal crimes is a power explicitly granted by the constitution. The power to pardon debt certainly is not. How much things sound alike have little to do with their shared legality?
Popularity has little merit in court. Civil court is not a democratic process. As long as you have the will and the money to pay for lawyers, you can keep on trucking. And remember, the standard process in this kind of suit is for an injunction to be placed on the defendant preventing them from continuing the actions that are being used.
So as long as the court case goes on, the student loan relief cannot go through. And this ALSO applies to all appeals either way the case goes! I would note that the Supreme Court is, uh, kinda conservative right now.
It's not zero cost. The injunctions will effect other unchallenged student debt policies, like expansion of federal loan forgiveness programs, or the interest moratorium, while also introducing a gigantic amount of FUD for student borrowers ("Well, is my debt gone?" - most likely, no) and almost certainly accomplishing nothing in the end.
It also adds FUD to any new legislation around student loan relief.
Just a terrible idea imo with little upside (the tiny percentage chance that it'll somehow survive despite almost certainly being at minimum appealed to the conservative Supreme Court within the next 2 years of Biden's presidency) and significant downside .
More on the legal side of things, from politico
Eh, I don't think that's a great idea. For one, it'd be quite cruel - the actual outcome of such a stunt is that you basically trick a bunch of student debt holders. You tell them that 10k of their debt has been forgiven, they cheer and many will spend it on necessities, only to find out later that that in fact is not happening, and now they're going to be delinquent.
I really feel like this is the opposite. Trump proved the fragility of executive actions. The reality is that he accomplished almost nothing permanent. His EAs only added some FUD and some (good for him, I suppose) newspaper headlines. A majority of his EAs were eventually strucken down in court, the rest were held by injunctions and erased by Biden on the first day of his presidency.
The vast majority of voters are not particularly politically conscious. They're going to get a letter saying that X amount of their debt was forgiven, and then get another letter saying JK it's on hold, then another saying JK it's canceled. They're going to be pissed at the government for bait and switching them.
Because defeat on this route is inevitable; the SCOTUS defeat is just the cherry on top. More likely it'll just mire in the courts, since not only do these cases take forever, but it'll be appealed upwards until it hits SCOTUS. And all that time the injunction does nothing. It's not even just conservative obstructionism - this is genuinely very shaky legal ground.
That doesn't mean "giving up" for student debt relief in general. The proper channel for this is legislation. Don't muddy the waters or troll debters with false hopes - try to do it in the lasting manor. It's a longshot, but a much better one.
The other side is that you introduce FUD for debtors, complicate other measures to help people with student debt, and make any legislative solutions even more difficult to pass.
We've seen that a lot of people don't care about the law and we've also had a president who didn't care about the law, but I kind of think this is bad, and maybe at least the executive branch should get back to caring about laws?
That means finding arguments about what's legal that make sense, not saying "let's just see what we can get away with."
(Admittedly, though, it's up to the lawyers, not necessarily a conversation we need to have here.)
That's a lot of money! What are you studying?
I have a double major in computer science and literature. People have a bad habit of "joking" to my face about how worthless the liberal arts are, so I don't usually mention the second one. (Yes, I am a little bitter.) I have a pretty cushy job lined up and I'm not worried about going into debt.
…my job happens to be in the software industry, but that's beside the point.
Sometimes I wonder why I paid so much for a degree. I don't even know what I'm going to spend money on once I'm done. I like nice things, and I like to go into the city for dinners and drinks, but I learned a long time ago that the best moments in life are free.
I don't intend on having children, but I know it'll happen eventually anyway, so I guess I'll set up a 529.
Not that it strikes back at those that joke about it to your face, but back before Bezos bought Whole Foods there was a "joke" that Whole Foods is where you went after you got your liberal arts degree because to be an assistant store manager or above required a 4 year degree, but nearly the entire non-corporate-level-management consisted of liberal arts degree holders. Don't know what it's like now, but at the time my wife worked there maybe 10-15% of the assistant, store, region, and division managers were non-liberal-arts-degree holders.
Did make for some great friends and epic parties though as people knew how to switch off from work, play music, do art, and chill.
Save all of it, invest, and retire incredibly young?
I mean... children aren't a requirement to live your life and can arguably be more fulfilling without them.