Supreme Court considers Biden’s student loan debt relief plan

[jerryskids 5,213]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

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?

Perhaps you are correct; perhaps it is a case of "too bad, write better laws", and such laws need to be amended to include a "Biden clause" such that if some POTUS egregiously misuses the power, there is an explicit mechanism to stop him.  Basically, maybe we can't have nice things because of the selfishness of Biden.

A reminder, both Trump and Biden paused loan repayments during the height of Covid, completely justifiable use of such powers.  And frankly had they chosen forgiveness early on, you could make a strong argument for it.  But since both presidents, and specifically Biden, had used a pause when the emergency was unambiguously worse, and later Biden cranked it up to 11 when the emergency was unambiguously better, a case can be made against such a use.

[dogcows 1,029]

34 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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:

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.

Thanks... yes I can see that PPP doesn’t seem relevant. But my point was simply that “emergencies,” whether addressed by law or by executive action, are relative.

Yes, the first link was simply to lay out the major questions doctrine in more detail, to supplement my short take on it.

And thanks for highlighting that section. It wasn’t really a “doctrine” before as the article says. It was a convenient argument in rare occasions when the judges wanted to rule a certain way. Now it’s become a doctrine because this court wants more power over the executive branch. At some point, there will be pushback if they keep eroding the power of the President and of Congress. They will see restrictions placed on them, either term limits, or an increase in the number of justices. SCOTUS is overruling Congress and the President too often now, and if they keep pushing their luck, the “checks and balances” will bite them hard.

As for handing out money to buy votes... I remember well the $300 “refund” check sent out by Dubya during his first term. Yeah, it was nice to get it, but why oh why didn’t he just use it to pay down the federal debt? Then he borrowed to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan...

As for my  non-legal personal opinion on the loan forgiveness, I think it’s reasonable for one big reason: college loans are the only loans excluded from bankruptcy protection. If you have a business and it fails, you can claim bankruptcy and get your loans forgiven (or partially forgiven, as in you pay back only pennies on the dollar). Since this doesn’t exist for college loans, a $20K forgiveness seems pretty reasonable to me. I bet it would be far more expensive to give student borrowers the option of declaring bankruptcy. So this seems like a good compromise.

Long-term, we need to reduce college costs. Maybe we should consider a system like Germany, where top students get into the best schools for free, and people who don’t make the cut can go to technical schools to learn a trade, or if they have the money, they can attend private colleges.

[Dizkneelande 839]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

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

How many borrowers are sitting there going “you know, if my student loan payments were $27 less per month, I could afford that 4K per month mortgage.”

[Hardcore troubadour 12,700]

Why do you people keep calling it forgiveness? The loan isn’t being forgiven. Basic stuff here people.  

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

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?

Well yeah, that's the Act Biden is trying to use to justify it.  I can just quote the states' argument in response:

Quote

“The act requires a real connection to a national emergency,” the states’ brief says. “But the department’s reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic is a pretext to mask the president’s true goal of fulfilling his campaign promise to erase student-loan debt. Hiding the real motive, the agency attempts to connect the cancellation to the pandemic by citing current economic conditions supposedly caused by COVID-19.”

Others agree:

Quote

“I’m highly skeptical that this 20-year-old law that they’re dusting off allows them to cancel $400 billion in debt for roughly 40 million borrowers,” said Jack Fitzhenry, senior legal policy analyst at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.

Quote

 

Christopher Walker, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said using HEROES to cancel student loans is “a pretty big leap.”

“It’s a really broad, aggressive reading of a statute that was meant to help during war and postpone payments on loans for the military or maybe for some national emergencies,” he said. “Does the text of the statute maybe allow it? Probably. But is that really what Congress was thinking when they created this program for military and national emergency relief? That’s part of what the courts will decide.”

 

Let's go SCOTUS!  

[Engorgeous George 1,201]

42 minutes ago, dogcows said:

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

You seem to understand the workings better than many attorneys I know, including me.

[The Real timschochet 2,989]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

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) 

I don’t think you’re crazy. You make a lot of good points. But IMO you’re being very subjective in your complaints about spending. 
 

Unless there is an economic calamity  (millions out of work and starving and no hope) there won’t be a revolt. People with full stomachs don’t revolt no matter how pissed off they are, except for extremists on both sides. Most of us just want the extremists to shut the hell up. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,128]

I have no problem with the government forgiving any accrued interest on student load debt from March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021.  That's all though.  Everyone should've been back to work by January 1, 2022.

[RLLD 3,455]

I think we are overlooking something here.  SCOTUS could significantly change presidential power......and then when a Republican gets into office he could wield this same power to great effect all over the place.....maybe this isnt such a bad deal. 

[Engorgeous George 1,201]

31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think you’re crazy. You make a lot of good points. But IMO you’re being very subjective in your complaints about spending. 
 

Unless there is an economic calamity  (millions out of work and starving and no hope) there won’t be a revolt. People with full stomachs don’t revolt no matter how pissed off they are, except for extremists on both sides. Most of us just want the extremists to shut the hell up. 

Well, as I said, I am no student of history. I do wonder at the unique time and place we find ourselves at in history with the old "pig in the python", the baby boomers, retiring and seeing their retirements dry up due to a suppressed market and inflation.  Couple that with increases in the charges from care facilities some will start relocating to and we may have some pressures not seen in a while.  Can the baby boomers be heard from one more time on their way out?  Will they be far more vocal than the greatest generation about their economic dissatisfaction? Will they take to the streets on their little rascal scooters and using their walkers and try that revolution they wanted back in the 60's, who can say?  I happen to believe we are at a crossroads as we are replaced by China in the world order and that nearly anything is on the table right now.

 

Right now we have a mix of division, anger, and uncertainty.  To my understanding that has historically been a volitile mix.  Of course I have often heard the axiom you are putting forth, that those with full bellies don't revolt and I lend some credence to that train of thought.

[Hawkeye21 1,858]

How about this strategy for student debt?

 

[TheNewGirl 1,036]

18 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think we are overlooking something here.  SCOTUS could significantly change presidential power......and then when a Republican gets into office he could wield this same power to great effect all over the place.....maybe this isnt such a bad deal. 

I made a similar comment when Nancy Pelosi was screaming about adding additional seats to the SCOTUS. That has the potential to back fire. 

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, TheNewGirl said:

I made a similar comment when Nancy Pelosi was screaming about adding additional seats to the SCOTUS. That has the potential to back fire. 

Agree.  But this is standard Democrat doctrine.  Play to the mob, scream, yell, vilify some group to scratch away a bit more power  to do something today.....with no regard for the later consequences.

Let's be clear that both sides have shown some propensity for this.  While Harry Reid eventually would lay the foundation for ending the appointment filibuster.

Way back in 2005, Bush was really frustrated with Democrats’ filibustering of judicial nominees. He and and the Republican-controlled Senate were threatening the “nuclear option” to end it.

It was the Republicans that turned  this meager procedural thing into a national crusade. They were in power and the system was stopping them, as it is supposed to do.  All they had to do was choose more moderate candidates. So their move was to foment partisan fervor against the filibuster.

Reid as the Senate minority leader, was determined to save it. He called Frist’s efforts to end the filibuster dangerous, radical, reckless, and the potential “end of the United States Senate,”

Seven years after saving the filibuster, in 2013 Reid did a 180 and eliminated the threshold for executive and most judicial confirmations. Why? Because now the Democrats could appoint, and they wanted to stack the court with THEIR ideological nominees...

So when either party steps up to defend or assail the court....its like.....       

[jerryskids 5,213]

50 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How about this strategy for student debt?

 

I wonder if that's true?

"Princeton can use a guy like Jack."   

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d5fdcff7-d66f-47a5-8f97-4d3fbe538f79

[TBayXXXVII 2,128]

45 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How about this strategy for student debt?

 

Something doesn't look right here.  I don't think you can just transfer personal debt to a business and be done, quick and simple.

[Hawkeye21 1,858]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Something doesn't look right here.  I don't think you can just transfer personal debt to a business and be done, quick and simple.

I have no idea.  There always seems to be some sort of loophole for things like that though.

[TBayXXXVII 2,128]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I have no idea.  There always seems to be some sort of loophole for things like that though.

I'd think that if there were, it would be more widely known.  The reason why I say that it doesn't smell right is because if you own an LLC, there's a process that you have to go through in order to transfer your personal debt.  The reasons for LLC's, is to separate your personal finances from your business finances, right?  So, if the two are separate, there's got to be a process to combine them.  I'm guessing that process is to have a "business account", that buys the debt.  I don't think it's as easy as, my business bought my debt, and now my business is bankrupt.  Now, it might be that easy, but I think it's also going to do damage to your personal finances as well, because that's where the debt was acquired.

[Engorgeous George 1,201]

14 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have no idea.  There always seems to be some sort of loophole for things like that though.

I am no expert in bankruptcy law.  I do seem to recall that in the 80's the bankruptcy laws were amended so as to not permit the discharge of student loan debt.  I may be misremembering, but I do not believe so.

 

I suspect this "advice" is about as valuable as Wesley Snipe's advice on not paying income tax prior to his conviction and jail time. 

[WhiskeyCash 65]

Instead of doing something we all know won’t happen. How about they fix the problem with colleges charging outrageous tuition and BS fees for students. No student who’s paying that much in tuition should have to also pay for a parking decal. Books shouldn’t be $1000+ for 3-4 textbooks that you get $10 when you sell them back to the bookstore. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,128]

1 hour ago, WhiskeyCash said:

Instead of doing something we all know won’t happen. How about they fix the problem with colleges charging outrageous tuition and BS fees for students. No student who’s paying that much in tuition should have to also pay for a parking decal. Books shouldn’t be $1000+ for 3-4 textbooks that you get $10 when you sell them back to the bookstore. 

Agree completely.  I understand that schools are also businesses, but like many things in this country, it can/should, be reigned in.  In order to get certain things done in this country, and for good reason, people need a licensed professionals stamp of approval.  Those are obtained through people getting college degrees making degrees a necessity... no different that gas, electric, food, water, etc.  For all of those things, we have caps on them.  Colleges/Universities should be no different.  No, I don't think they should be free to where the government is paying for them, but costs should at least be reasonable.

[WhiskeyCash 65]

41 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Agree completely.  I understand that schools are also businesses, but like many things in this country, it can/should, be reigned in.  In order to get certain things done in this country, and for good reason, people need a licensed professionals stamp of approval.  Those are obtained through people getting college degrees making degrees a necessity... no different that gas, electric, food, water, etc.  For all of those things, we have caps on them.  Colleges/Universities should be no different.  No, I don't think they should be free to where the government is paying for them, but costs should at least be reasonable.

Exactly. It’s not rocket science. It’s just basic common sense. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,700]

The education industrial complex is more powerful than the military industrial complex. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

Today is the day.  Very interested in this decision. 

[RLLD 3,455]

On 3/2/2023 at 12:57 PM, WhiskeyCash said:

Instead of doing something we all know won’t happen. How about they fix the problem with colleges charging outrageous tuition and BS fees for students. No student who’s paying that much in tuition should have to also pay for a parking decal. Books shouldn’t be $1000+ for 3-4 textbooks that you get $10 when you sell them back to the bookstore. 

Agree with this.   I hope we can also agree that the government is the source of the cost problem.

[dogcows 1,029]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:28 PM, TBayXXXVII said:

Agree completely.  I understand that schools are also businesses, but like many things in this country, it can/should, be reigned in.  In order to get certain things done in this country, and for good reason, people need a licensed professionals stamp of approval.  Those are obtained through people getting college degrees making degrees a necessity... no different that gas, electric, food, water, etc.  For all of those things, we have caps on them.  Colleges/Universities should be no different.  No, I don't think they should be free to where the government is paying for them, but costs should at least be reasonable.

We could try what many other countries have done: make college a public service just like K-12. In Germany, if you meet the standard, you go to university, paid for by the state. If you don’t, you go to trade schools, or if you have money, you can pay for private school.

Other than maintaining the status quo, what is the reason for college to be a personal expense, when K-12 is a public one? Could it be that it reinforces the class system and keeps the wealth in the hands of those who already have it?

[RogerDodger 797]

Let's go!

[Ultra Max Power 214]

55 minutes ago, dogcows said:

We could try what many other countries have done: make college a public service just like K-12. In Germany, if you meet the standard, you go to university, paid for by the state. If you don’t, you go to trade schools, or if you have money, you can pay for private school.

Other than maintaining the status quo, what is the reason for college to be a personal expense, when K-12 is a public one? Could it be that it reinforces the class system and keeps the wealth in the hands of those who already have it?

I think it boils down to prestige thing or what someone thinks a degree from each University is worth.

The reality is that someone can do two years of community college and a couple years with an on-line school and get a degree for the same price as one year at a major state university.   People think the name on the degree or education is better, so they spend the extra money on their own accord. 

[Tree of Knowledge 842]

Another L for The Big Guy. 

[RogerDodger 797]

Supreme Court blocks Biden's student loan forgiveness program

[Hawkeye21 1,858]

That's great news.

[RogerDodger 797]

Per CNN

Quote

The Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan on Friday, invalidating a program aimed at delivering up to $20,000 of relief to millions of borrowers struggling with outstanding debt in the aftermath of Covid. 

 

 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,700]

Down goes Biden! What a POS move to dangle this fantasy in front of young people.  

[RogerDodger 797]

Suck it deadbeats.  

[Gladiators 1,904]

Winning

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,545]

Unlike my other conservative brethren here, I'm actually for this. In fact, I don't think it goes far enough. I think we need to remove all student debt and start over. I still think we need to help people who didn't go to college, but Stick with me here:

What we need to fundamentally change is what these mostly liberal colleges are charging in the first place. It's all been a big scam for at least 50 or 60 years now and the same liberals that are crying about inequality are the same ones that are jacking up prices and filling their own pockets. I think we need to eliminate this debt and stick it to the colleges and reduce their fees by 75%.  That will, in turn, eliminate hundreds and thousands of useless positions at colleges, almost every single one of them filled by a worthless liberal. And maybe they'll actually start teaching propaganda-free subjects that matter instead of useless subjects like DEI crap and women's studies.  I'm sure there's more useless degrees out there that we can get rid of.

Also, we give businesses huge breaks all of the time but when it comes to the regular American people suddenly My conservative brethren are against it. I don't get this dichotomy.

Thoughts?

[Tree of Knowledge 842]

If you have a value added major or had to serve the country or local governments or schools for a certain period of time I would consider debt forgiveness.   These liberal arts majors wanting a bail out should have known better.  Many of these universities could also tap their huge endowments 

[RogerDodger 797]

Borrowers will need to pay student loan bills starting in October

[RogerDodger 797]

Quote

"I am a student loan borrower, the descendent of refugees and immigrants who really believe in education as the pathway to the American dream, and with the burden of student loan debt really holding back generations of families, we're seeing that American dream slip out of our hands,"

Chuck Schumer

Quote

“This disappointing and cruel ruling shows the callousness of the MAGA Republican-controlled Supreme Court. The hypocrisy is clear: as justices accept lavish, six-figure gifts, they don’t dare to help Americans saddled with student loan debt, instead siding with the powerful, big-monied interests,"

Quote

Justice Kagan says the Supreme Court majority is acting as an arbiter of politics — not cases

 

This is awesome.  

[jerryskids 5,213]

17 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Unlike my other conservative brethren here, I'm actually for this. In fact, I don't think it goes far enough. I think we need to remove all student debt and start over. I still think we need to help people who didn't go to college, but Stick with me here:

What we need to fundamentally change is what these mostly liberal colleges are charging in the first place. It's all been a big scam for at least 50 or 60 years now and the same liberals that are crying about inequality are the same ones that are jacking up prices and filling their own pockets. I think we need to eliminate this debt and stick it to the colleges and reduce their fees by 75%.  That will, in turn, eliminate hundreds and thousands of useless positions at colleges, almost every single one of them filled by a worthless liberal. And maybe they'll actually start teaching propaganda-free subjects that matter instead of useless subjects like DEI crap and women's studies.  I'm sure there's more useless degrees out there that we can get rid of.

Also, we give businesses huge breaks all of the time but when it comes to the regular American people suddenly My conservative brethren are against it. I don't get this dichotomy.

Thoughts?

My thought is that this has been said several times in this thread.   

I would be OK with some type of forgiveness but only if it was accompanied by an overhaul like you describe.  Since it isn't, the "forgiveness" is just a vote grab, and heck, the schools might charge MORE moving forward knowing the government will bail the kids out.   

[Ultra Max Power 214]

19 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Unlike my other conservative brethren here, I'm actually for this. In fact, I don't think it goes far enough. I think we need to remove all student debt and start over. I still think we need to help people who didn't go to college, but Stick with me here:

What we need to fundamentally change is what these mostly liberal colleges are charging in the first place. It's all been a big scam for at least 50 or 60 years now and the same liberals that are crying about inequality are the same ones that are jacking up prices and filling their own pockets. I think we need to eliminate this debt and stick it to the colleges and reduce their fees by 75%.  That will, in turn, eliminate hundreds and thousands of useless positions at colleges, almost every single one of them filled by a worthless liberal. And maybe they'll actually start teaching propaganda-free subjects that matter instead of useless subjects like DEI crap and women's studies.  I'm sure there's more useless degrees out there that we can get rid of.

Also, we give businesses huge breaks all of the time but when it comes to the regular American people suddenly My conservative brethren are against it. I don't get this dichotomy.

Thoughts?

I don't trust the universities to self-regulate.  Any change today will devolve over time IMO.  College is too expensive, but that was in part because the govt backed student loans, so the schools could charge anything they wanted.  We need to pull that govt backing from the loan process and the rates will come back to normal.  

I feel like these kids signed up for the loan and lived the life.  They got the college experience and now have an education and higher earning potential.  Its not right to forgive the cost associated with those things, especially when many were denied those same opportunities because they couldn't afford it.  How do you make it right for those people?

Businesses get their bailouts because they ultimately provide a service to the community.  Likely a service we can't do without, but I can 110% due without some of the degrees and "education" these kids are bringing to the community.