Supreme Court considers Biden’s student loan debt relief plan

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

8 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

I’m trying to figure out how increasing the home buyer pool will somehow make home ownership more affordable.

Just more expensive.  Yay banks! 

[TBayXXXVII 2,107]

47 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I care about injustice when people are harmed. I don’t buy the argument that when the government picks and chooses how to spend money that harm comes to those who don’t receive it. So I reject your analogy. 

Of course you reject it, because it proves you to be a bigot.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

Tim thinks misgendering someone is an injustice but criminals let out of jail to do more crime isn’t. 

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

The president signs all the bills into law, dummy.

No kidding?  You made a direct comparison between Trump and Biden.  Don't you remember?

15 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Trump just gave $800B in ppp loans that were forgiven to business owners, mostly rich white people.

Bidens student loan forgiveness is $300B over 30 years

Come on.

I gave you two reasons why it's not comparable:

A - One was economic relief to companies during a pandemic when the government forced those companies to shutter.  The other is economic relief just because.  

B - One was bipartisan passed through congress, both sides.  The other was done illegally without congress.

Can you grasp that?

[RogerDodger 797]

47 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I’m a real estate professional. 

No, not really.

[Engorgeous George 1,156]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

No, not really.

Two problems.  Tim is a commercial real estate manager not a broker for residential properties, if I remember his work history, which I remember as his managing, primarily, strip malls which are becoming obsolete.  I am not sure that perspective provides him any great degree of insight.  also, to the extent that he has insight and interests in residential real estate is he not saying he wants subsidies indirectly flowing to his pocket?  He wants his industry to thrive and he would like for others to pay for that.

 

I wonder, when the bill comes due, as it always does, and it is his kids and grandkids paying, will he share with them he advocated making them indentured servants to his sense of propriety?  Now Tim may argue we can service this debt, that it does not fall directly to me or others on this years tax bill.  The thing is, it falls to the productive, to taxpayers, and whether directly billed or not we pay for it, just look at the interest payment on our national debt.  Monry going to service debt, not people. 

[GutterBoy 2,277]

8 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

No kidding?  You made a direct comparison between Trump and Biden.  Don't you remember?

I gave you two reasons why it's not comparable:

A - One was economic relief to companies during a pandemic when the government forced those companies to shutter.  The other is economic relief just because.  

B - One was bipartisan passed through congress, both sides.  The other was done illegally without congress.

Can you grasp that?

Yes I grasp that, I never argued either of your points, and neither invalidates my point.  Can you grasp that?  Are you gonna sit here and tell me that the PPP program was a resounding success while the loan forgiveness program is the worst thing to happen to humanity with a straight face?

[RogerDodger 797]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Yes I grasp that, I never argued either of your points, and neither invalidates my point.  Can you grasp that?  Are you gonna sit here and tell me that the PPP program was a resounding success while the loan forgiveness program is the worst thing to happen to humanity with a straight face?

The president signs all the bills into law!!!!!!!!!!   

[GutterBoy 2,277]

3 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

The president signs all the bills into law!!!!!!!!!!   

He does.

[RogerDodger 797]

7 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

He does.

And completely irrelevant unless you're trying to argue Point B.  The logic synapses just don't fire in your brain, you should get that checked out.  

[GutterBoy 2,277]

7 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

And completely irrelevant unless you're trying to argue Point B.  The logic synapses just don't fire in your brain, you should get that checked out.  

My response was to your post about "it wasn't Trump it was all of Congress", but it was Trump, that's what I was pointing out, get it?

You gonna deny that Trump signed that bill?

See congress passes the bill, and the president signs it.  That's how it works bud.  Do you need a link?

 

[RogerDodger 797]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

My response was to your post about "it wasn't Trump it was all of Congress", but it was Trump, that's what I was pointing out, get it?

 

"I never argued either of your points".  

Science needs your brain to study.. 

[GutterBoy 2,277]

1 minute ago, RogerDodger said:

"I never argued either of your points".  

Science needs your brain to study.. 

I take this as you see where you focked up.

[RogerDodger 797]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I take this as you see where you focked up.

Of course you do, you're THE mental midget.  

[The Real timschochet 2,878]

40 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Two problems.  Tim is a commercial real estate manager not a broker for residential properties, if I remember his work history, which I remember as his managing, primarily, strip malls which are becoming obsolete.  I am not sure that perspective provides him any great degree of insight.  also, to the extent that he has insight and interests in residential real estate is he not saying he wants subsidies indirectly flowing to his pocket?  He wants his industry to thrive and he would like for others to pay for that.

 

I wonder, when the bill comes due, as it always does, and it is his kids and grandkids paying, will he share with them he advocated making them indentured servants to his sense of propriety?  Now Tim may argue we can service this debt, that it does not fall directly to me or others on this years tax bill.  The thing is, it falls to the productive, to taxpayers, and whether directly billed or not we pay for it, just look at the interest payment on our national debt.  Monry going to service debt, not people. 

Quite a bit of this is wrong but I don’t want to get into more personal history. Let’s just say that while my primary focus is commercial my office is involved in residential as well and I try to keep myself informed on trends. That’s how I was aware of the Barons article and others like it which shaped my thinking on this issue. 
 

Our national debt is terrible, our annual deficit is a calamity. The public will never put up with the spending cuts that would be needed to significantly reduce these. Therefore the only solution I can see is that we continue to try and grow our way out of it. But that means, in part, government investment in things that should result in a better economy. We can debate what those things should be: personally I’m in favor of a huge investment in nuclear fusion (most liberals are not). College debt relief is a relatively small item in comparison, but I’m generally for it for the reasons I’ve already stated. 

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

No kidding?  You made a direct comparison between Trump and Biden.  Don't you remember?

I gave you two reasons why it's not comparable:

A - One was economic relief to companies during a pandemic when the government forced those companies to shutter.  The other is economic relief just because.  

B - One was bipartisan passed through congress, both sides.  The other was done illegally without congress.

Can you grasp that?

Congress enacted the HEROES Act in 2003. It allows the education secretary to "waive or modify" student debt held by borrowers affected by an national emergency. 

So exactly what is illegal and how was it done without congress

[RogerDodger 797]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Congress enacted the HEROES Act in 2003. It allows the education secretary to "waive or modify" student debt held by borrowers affected by an national emergency. 

So exactly what is illegal and how was it done without congress

Stay tuned, SCOTUS is about to tell you. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

I remember when Clinton signed Nafta into law it was the republicans in congresses fault.  HT farms remembers. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

I remember when Bill Clinton signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” it was the republicans fault.  I also remember when Obama also bailed out the banks that was the republicans fault too. 

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I remember when Bill Clinton signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” it was the republicans fault.  I also remember when Obama also bailed out the banks that was the republicans fault too. 

When is anything that politicians fault, or for that matter the fault of their respective party....

They all lie.....

[Engorgeous George 1,156]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Quite a bit of this is wrong but I don’t want to get into more personal history. Let’s just say that while my primary focus is commercial my office is involved in residential as well and I try to keep myself informed on trends. That’s how I was aware of the Barons article and others like it which shaped my thinking on this issue. 
 

Our national debt is terrible, our annual deficit is a calamity. The public will never put up with the spending cuts that would be needed to significantly reduce these. Therefore the only solution I can see is that we continue to try and grow our way out of it. But that means, in part, government investment in things that should result in a better economy. We can debate what those things should be: personally I’m in favor of a huge investment in nuclear fusion (most liberals are not). College debt relief is a relatively small item in comparison, but I’m generally for it for the reasons I’ve already stated. 

I would agree you are well advised to be circumspect when it comes to personal history.  I am not a notebooker, like some, but I have a bit of your personal story.  I won''t bring that up here.  If you are involved even tangentially in residential real estate I stand corrected, or additionally informed, whichever is more applicable.

 

As for the only solution you can see being the very thing which got us in to this quagmire, well I could trouble you with the old canard about the definition of insanity.  

 

My belief is simply this.  This country was founded by those who sought to escape the economic and religious control of rulers. Folks wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families through hard work.  That supposedly has been the dream of wave upon wave of immigration ever sense.  Now, instead of rewarding individual initiative, instead of allowing persons to make their own economic destiny we have government, and supporters thereof like you, advocating that we do not enjoy the freedom to make our own destinies, success or failure, but that we are beholden to the collective, headed by government whose interest is to maintain power.  We allow the government to redistribute the fruits of our labor and they do so selectively to divide us and to maintain their own power.  What we have today is not freedom, it is servitude with the servants trying to curry the favor of the rulers for a few table scraps which we have been brainwashed into believing are something more than table scraps all while we, the sevants, make sure the banquet table of government is a veritable feast.  I oppose the enablers of that system.  We are not a collective.  I owe very little to my fellow citizens.  When I choose to share, and in which seasons of life, should be up to me, not government, and not others  That is freedom.  We have lost it, clouded in high-minded sounding justifications  which are little more than tools to keep us economically in thrall. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

When is anything that politicians fault, or for that matter the fault of their respective party....

They all lie.....

Of course. I’m talking about blame.  To this day leftists still think that Wall Street is alligned with just Republicans.  But thanks for letting me know politicians lie. Appreciate the info. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

The permanent power that exists is the reason for all of our economic problems.  But people can’t seem to figure out who holds the power. Hint: it’s the ones that keep winning, no matter what. 

[jerryskids 5,172]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I wanted to also respond to @TheNewGir| who yesterday doubted that once relieved of loan debt these people would buy homes. Most real estate analysts disagree with you which is where I got the idea in the first place- I’m a real estate professional. 

But in any case I would prefer a student loan debt relief program tied DIRECTLY to home ownership, which a few states have already enacted: 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/states-pay-off-student-loans-203800336.html

I think this is a really smart idea, which would remove your concern. It also might take away the “unfairness” complaint. Something like this on a federal level is, IMO, much preferable to Biden’s solution. 

Just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure you tagged an alias, not @TheNewGirl . The real one was the second that popped up, with the unicorn avatar.

But while I'm here, I share her doubt.  If somebody NEEDS that forgiveness, they are somewhat by definition not in a position to buy a house.  As you know, there are more expenses to home ownership than a down payment aided by loan forgiveness.  On a related note, you seemed to be arguing a Keynesian defense of helping the economy by giving people money to spend into it, which seems more like buying the latest iPhone than a down payment on a house.

[jerryskids 5,172]

31 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I would agree you are well advised to be circumspect when it comes to personal history.  I am not a notebooker, like some, but I have a bit of your personal story.  I won''t bring that up here.  If you are involved even tangentially in residential real estate I stand corrected, or additionally informed, whichever is more applicable.

 

As for the only solution you can see being the very thing which got us in to this quagmire, well I could trouble you with the old canard about the definition of insanity.  

 

My belief is simply this.  This country was founded by those who sought to escape the economic and religious control of rulers. Folks wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families through hard work.  That supposedly has been the dream of wave upon wave of immigration ever sense.  Now, instead of rewarding individual initiative, instead of allowing persons to make their own economic destiny we have government, and supporters thereof like you, advocating that we do not enjoy the freedom to make our own destinies, success or failure, but that we are beholden to the collective, headed by government whose interest is to maintain power.  We allow the government to redistribute the fruits of our labor and they do so selectively to divide us and to maintain their own power.  What we have today is not freedom, it is servitude with the servants trying to curry the favor of the rulers for a few table scraps which we have been brainwashed into believing are something more than table scraps all while we, the sevants, make sure the banquet table of government is a veritable feast.  I oppose the enablers of that system.  We are not a collective.  I owe very little to my fellow citizens.  When i choose to share, and in which seasons of life should be up to me, not government, and not others  That is freedom.  we have lost it, cloufded in high-minded sounding justifications  which are little more than tools to keep us economically in thrall. 

I love this last paragraph.  I wish I could give it more likes.   

Also FWIW, in my (admittedly quite) limited time at FBG, I drew the exact same conclusion as you did in your first paragraph regarding Tim's personal history -- manages/maintains strip mall(s) for his father's business.

[supermike80 1,285]

27 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Just wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure you tagged an alias, not @TheNewGirl . The real one was the second that popped up, with the unicorn avatar.

But while I'm here, I share her doubt.  If somebody NEEDS that forgiveness, they are somewhat by definition not in a position to buy a house.  As you know, there are more expenses to home ownership than a down payment aided by loan forgiveness.  On a related note, you seemed to be arguing a Keynesian defense of helping the economy by giving people money to spend into it, which seems more like buying the latest iPhone than a down payment on a house.

Yup..As  I mentioned earlier.  I'm willing to bet that a large % of these student loan beggars are in this position because of poor financial decisions they have made.   No not all of them of course, but a good %.  Not understanding what they were getting into, picking low income majors, the ones that seem to want to live in college forever.  Those that pee money away like it's nothing.    I don't see how those people are all of a sudden gonna make a, in many cases, prudent financial decision and buy homes.  What they will do however is continue to live with Mom And Dad rent free.  Buy things they simply cannot afford, not budget at all, go on expensive vacations and quiet quit because their "mental health" was bruised for an hour last Tuesday.

 

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Let’s just say that while my primary focus is commercial my office is involved in residential as well and I try to keep myself informed on trends.

  

Quote

I drive up to a Home Depot, approach some day laborers and say “I’ve got a shopping center a mile from here. Somebody dumped an old couch in the alley. I want you to follow me in your truck and remove the couch.” Guy says “$100.” I say OK; or I might say “that’s too much; I’ll give you $75.”

Real Estate Professional  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

The average student Lon debt is 30 k.  30 k knocks these people on their ass? Economy Cars cost more now.  

[dogcows 1,029]

20 hours ago, jerryskids said:

We can't allow a system where a POTUS can just give whatever he wants to whatever interest group he wants.  In such scenarios there are no single damaged persons, just the collection of taxpayers. To allow it would be the least "just" possible outcome.

Perhaps a valid question is the extent to which this was an emergency.  I argue it wasn't, and that the students don't "suffer" by being denied an unplanned free gift.

One could have made the same argument about Title 42 and Trump (and continued by Biden). One on hand, the administration was claiming the pandemic isn’t dangerous. On the other hand, they said it was an emergency requiring them to block all asylum seekers.

Most PPP loan recipients didn’t seem to have really needed the help, but that was also considered emergency help.

The law in this case is pretty clear, as Justice Sotomayor said. The executive branch can do this. But wait! The conservatives on the court have a doctrine they invented called the “major questions doctrine” and will probably base their decision on that. Funny how it has basically nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with their judicial agenda. For anybody not familiar, this “doctrine” insists that even if a plain reading of the law indicates an executive branch agency has authority to do something... the court can decide that some actions go farther than what the lawmakers intended. Now, this comes from the exact same “originalist" judges who insist we should only look at the letter of the law, and NOT at legislative intent. Funny how their philosophy changes quite drastically depending on the outcome they want...

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/supreme-court-embraces-the-major-questions-doctrine-as-limiting-but-leaving-the-door-open-for-power-sector-ghg-regulations/

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/student-loan-case-supreme-court-conservatives-wield-flimsy-doctrine-rcna72769

 

[Engorgeous George 1,156]

17 minutes ago, dogcows said:

One could have made the same argument about Title 42 and Trump (and continued by Biden). One on hand, the administration was claiming the pandemic isn’t dangerous. On the other hand, they said it was an emergency requiring them to block all asylum seekers.

Most PPP loan recipients didn’t seem to have really needed the help, but that was also considered emergency help.

The law in this case is pretty clear, as Justice Sotomayor said. The executive branch can do this. But wait! The conservatives on the court have a doctrine they invented called the “major questions doctrine” and will probably base their decision on that. Funny how it has basically nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with their judicial agenda. For anybody not familiar, this “doctrine” insists that even if a plain reading of the law indicates an executive branch agency has authority to do something... the court can decide that some actions go farther than what the lawmakers intended. Now, this comes from the exact same “originalist" judges who insist we should only look at the letter of the law, and NOT at legislative intent. Funny how their philosophy changes quite drastically depending on the outcome they want...

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/supreme-court-embraces-the-major-questions-doctrine-as-limiting-but-leaving-the-door-open-for-power-sector-ghg-regulations/

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/student-loan-case-supreme-court-conservatives-wield-flimsy-doctrine-rcna72769

 

I do not see a necessary conflict between being an originalist anchored in a strict and literal reading of the Constitution and considering legislative intent on legislation which is often written in greater haste, can be long, and often with less than well-defined terms.  I do appreciate, however, your analysis.  I believe the Supremes have done a poor job in delineating the difference between the Constitution and legislation during review, and like you I too believe there is rampant insincerity in the reasons for this.  Desired outcome should not impact reasoning, but reasoning is often little more than justification.  Few indeed the Justices controlled by reason and juduicial philosophy.  Common those who are politcal beasts merely trying to dress up a preconcieved outcome in precedent.

 

When I was a law clerk my judge would sometimes ask for an analysis of precedent.  More often he would direct me to find precedent justifying his desired outcome.  The beauty and tragedy of the law is there was always some precedent for any preconcieved notion. 

 

I have noticed you have well-considered views on the Court.  Are you a lawyer, or just an afficionado of the third branch.   

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

21 hours ago, jerryskids said:

We can't allow a system where a POTUS can just give whatever he wants to whatever interest group he wants.  In such scenarios there are no single damaged persons, just the collection of taxpayers. To allow it would be the least "just" possible outcome.

Perhaps a valid question is the extent to which this was an emergency.  I argue it wasn't, and that the students don't "suffer" by being denied an unplanned free gift.

POTUS didn't. Congress enacted the HEROES Act in 2003. It allows the education secretary to "waive or modify" student debt held by borrowers affected by an national emergency. Two presidents declared Covid a 'national emergency'. So exactly what was done that is illegal?

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

48 minutes ago, dogcows said:

One could have made the same argument about Title 42 and Trump (and continued by Biden). One on hand, the administration was claiming the pandemic isn’t dangerous. On the other hand, they said it was an emergency requiring them to block all asylum seekers.

Most PPP loan recipients didn’t seem to have really needed the help, but that was also considered emergency help.

The law in this case is pretty clear, as Justice Sotomayor said. The executive branch can do this. But wait! The conservatives on the court have a doctrine they invented called the “major questions doctrine” and will probably base their decision on that. Funny how it has basically nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with their judicial agenda. For anybody not familiar, this “doctrine” insists that even if a plain reading of the law indicates an executive branch agency has authority to do something... the court can decide that some actions go farther than what the lawmakers intended. Now, this comes from the exact same “originalist" judges who insist we should only look at the letter of the law, and NOT at legislative intent. Funny how their philosophy changes quite drastically depending on the outcome they want...

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/supreme-court-embraces-the-major-questions-doctrine-as-limiting-but-leaving-the-door-open-for-power-sector-ghg-regulations/

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/student-loan-case-supreme-court-conservatives-wield-flimsy-doctrine-rcna72769

 

I brought this up earlier but didn't go into detail about.  It would be almost funny that these "Originalists" came up with it if it weren't so damn scary. 

[The Real timschochet 2,878]

2 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

I would agree you are well advised to be circumspect when it comes to personal history.  I am not a notebooker, like some, but I have a bit of your personal story.  I won''t bring that up here.  If you are involved even tangentially in residential real estate I stand corrected, or additionally informed, whichever is more applicable.

 

As for the only solution you can see being the very thing which got us in to this quagmire, well I could trouble you with the old canard about the definition of insanity.  

 

My belief is simply this.  This country was founded by those who sought to escape the economic and religious control of rulers. Folks wanted to make a better life for themselves and their families through hard work.  That supposedly has been the dream of wave upon wave of immigration ever sense.  Now, instead of rewarding individual initiative, instead of allowing persons to make their own economic destiny we have government, and supporters thereof like you, advocating that we do not enjoy the freedom to make our own destinies, success or failure, but that we are beholden to the collective, headed by government whose interest is to maintain power.  We allow the government to redistribute the fruits of our labor and they do so selectively to divide us and to maintain their own power.  What we have today is not freedom, it is servitude with the servants trying to curry the favor of the rulers for a few table scraps which we have been brainwashed into believing are something more than table scraps all while we, the sevants, make sure the banquet table of government is a veritable feast.  I oppose the enablers of that system.  We are not a collective.  I owe very little to my fellow citizens.  When I choose to share, and in which seasons of life, should be up to me, not government, and not others  That is freedom.  We have lost it, clouded in high-minded sounding justifications  which are little more than tools to keep us economically in thrall. 

I don’t have a problem with your last paragraph as an ideal. The problem is that it doesn’t exist in reality; if it ever did, it hasn’t at least in 90 years when the New Deal began. Ever since that time government had been heavily involved in the marketplace. In fact, we are a collective. You may not like that fact but I don’t think you can ignore it, especially when you’re discussing policy issues. 
 

It’s not a question of saying “government don’t pick and choose because that’s unfair”; it’s a question of deciding which people and companies are going to be picked and chosen. That’s all. Your objection is therefore invalid IMO. 

[Engorgeous George 1,156]

42 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t have a problem with your last paragraph as an ideal. The problem is that it doesn’t exist in reality; if it ever did, it hasn’t at least in 90 years when the New Deal began. Ever since that time government had been heavily involved in the marketplace. In fact, we are a collective. You may not like that fact but I don’t think you can ignore it, especially when you’re discussing policy issues. 
 

It’s not a question of saying “government don’t pick and choose because that’s unfair”; it’s a question of deciding which people and companies are going to be picked and chosen. That’s all. Your objection is therefore invalid IMO. 

We have all heard the bastardize and often misattributed quote pertaining to democracies lasting only until such time as the people realize they can vote themselves largese.  I tend to ascribe to that belief whether onr attributes it to Ben Franklin, DeTocqueville, or as I do Alexander Fraser Tytler who similarly observed: It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.

 

If the people wake to the realization that we are battling ourselves through votes to take what the other has rightfully earned through personal industry while a ruling elite enjoys our distraction to remain in power the people will eventually revolt.  I believe your stance that we accept the apparent status quo as it is the status quo sows the seeds of a revolt.  I ultimately believe the people will wake from their slumber and enough will realize they are not sheep and will not line up to be sheared.  Freedom's light has often gone dormant, it has hibernated for generations, but it has yet to be extinquished, and when it recieves sufficient oxygen it becomes a conflagration which consumes nearly without discretion or remorse.

 

That all said i am no student of history such as yourself, so I will hope my ramblings are just those of a sociopath, a crazy man, and a pessimist. (Imagine that.  A pessimist saying he has a hope) 

[TheNewGirl 1,020]

Engorgeous George is engorging my parts.   

[Engorgeous George 1,156]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

Engorgeous George is engorging my parts.   

Well howdy maam.

[jerryskids 5,172]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

One could have made the same argument about Title 42 and Trump (and continued by Biden). One on hand, the administration was claiming the pandemic isn’t dangerous. On the other hand, they said it was an emergency requiring them to block all asylum seekers.

Most PPP loan recipients didn’t seem to have really needed the help, but that was also considered emergency help.

The law in this case is pretty clear, as Justice Sotomayor said. The executive branch can do this. But wait! The conservatives on the court have a doctrine they invented called the “major questions doctrine” and will probably base their decision on that. Funny how it has basically nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with their judicial agenda. For anybody not familiar, this “doctrine” insists that even if a plain reading of the law indicates an executive branch agency has authority to do something... the court can decide that some actions go farther than what the lawmakers intended. Now, this comes from the exact same “originalist" judges who insist we should only look at the letter of the law, and NOT at legislative intent. Funny how their philosophy changes quite drastically depending on the outcome they want...

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/supreme-court-embraces-the-major-questions-doctrine-as-limiting-but-leaving-the-door-open-for-power-sector-ghg-regulations/

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/student-loan-case-supreme-court-conservatives-wield-flimsy-doctrine-rcna72769

 

Thanks for the info.  A few things.

1. PPP was passed (near unanimously) by Congress to address this specific situation.  As such it doesn't seem like a good analogy.

2. I don't see the relevance of your first link, other than to introduce the concept of the major questions doctrine.

3. Regarding your MSNBC link, getting past the clear bias of the author, it says the following:

Quote

The “doctrine,” as such, is new. Before 2022, the justices did not even call it the “major questions” doctrine. It was simply the idea, rarely employed, that certain actions by the executive branch have such significant economic or political effect that a vague grant of legal authority claimed by the administration couldn’t be used to justify them.

Perhaps this is the first time that we've had a POTUS trying to buy votes by handing out hundreds of billions of dollars for something which in no way meets a reasonable definition of an emergency for such funds?  I certainly get the concept of deferring repayment for a time, and/or paying some interest on the loans during that time.  But flat out forgiveness?  Like I said, there needs to be some checks and balances.  Luckily for our country it hasn't been needed much... until now.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

On 2/28/2023 at 2:39 PM, The Real timschochet said:

 

Second, you and others seem to be focused on the injustice issue- and I get that. I am more focused on the question of whether or not debt relief is advantageous to us as a society- and I think it would be. 

Debt relief is not advantageous. 
Minimizing debt by working to avoid it in the first place (in this case, tackling the real issue of college tuition prices) is a great thing. 
Simply relieving peoples debt is not. It shows society that you can spend without thought and you won’t ultimately have to pay. 
Think back to the last crisis when banks were lending willy nilly to people who couldn’t really afford the mortgages. What if we had just said “well, your mortgage or a large portion of it is now forgiven”. That doesn’t help society. What helps society is tightening up loan practices and making them much more strict. 
You have to start at the source of the problem and work to fix the system, not just put a bandaid on the resulting wound. 

[dogcows 1,029]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

I have noticed you have well-considered views on the Court.  Are you a lawyer, or just an afficionado of the third branch. 

Just an aficionado for the past 20 years or so...

[Hardcore troubadour 12,595]

How about the banks just convert them to interest free for 5 years? That would be nice of them. Ha ha.