Psaki: Student loan borrowers likely to have to pay debt 'sometime'

[brooklynite]

Politico

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Sunday that she suspects student loan borrowers will have to start paying their debt at some point during the Biden administration.

“I suspect that sometime you will, but again, we are going to continue to assess every month, every few months on where things stand, both looking of course at Covid, but also economic data and where we need to continue to help give the American people some breathing room,” Psaki said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The Biden administration formally unveiled a fourth extension on the monthly loan payments and interest last week, pushing the date to Aug. 31. The White House also announced plans to expunge the defaults of millions of student loan borrowers who fell behind before the pandemic, to allow these payers to have a “fresh start.”

President Joe Biden’s latest extension fell short of a range of Democrats’ calls for the administration to continue the pandemic relief for borrowers through at least the end of the year — after the November midterm elections. Beyond the pause, there’s growing pressure on Biden to use executive authority to eliminate at least $10,000 in student debt for every borrower.

[qazplm135]

1. It's just going to lose young voters

To apathy.

This is clearly their top issue and the moment we abandon them on this, they are simply going to stay home in even larger numbers than they already do.

[mcar]

3. I do not understand this

Young women voters are about to have their human rights taken from them (when SCOTUS overrules Roe) and yet young voters will be apathetic because of their self-inflicted student loan debt issues? A problem that POTUS is trying to solve but Congress, especially the progressives in Congress, do nothing but whine about?

I've read that 40% of student loan debt is held by post-graduate students. So, young voters will be apathetic about voting because new Dr. Jones, who is likely making at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, has a lot of student loan debt?

[Walleye]

6. Getting fed up with the young people's excuses for not voting

I have come to the conclusion that they just don’t want to vote. Let somebody else carry all the responsibility. I think if you don’t vote it’s because you don’t actually support democracy. You don’t vote for tyranny, it happens. Sorry in a bad mood this morning

[JohnSJ]

23. So am I. This is the same perennial refrain that always seems to reappear. It is a threat. In 2016

it was you don't vote for my nominee, I will not vote for yours, or vote third party. That worked out real well.

The fact that in order to get loan forgiveness you need to have the votes, and right now the votes aren't there in Congress. If they cannot make that connection that you need to vote to get the representation you need to get things done, then they are useless.

I am in a foul mood also

[ck4829]

26. But Democrats have the majority

[JohnSJ]

27. Do you believe every Democrat in Congress will vote for student loan forgiveness, especially in the

Senate

Unlikely

Which is why we need to gain more seats to do meaningful change on this issue, and not voting will not make it happen sooner

[ck4829]

28. I believe that Democrats will prioritize people over debts, I hope I'm not wrong

[JohnSJ]

30. Then why don't Democrats introduce the bill in Congress? While many Democrats have said they

support student loan forgiveness, with limitations, some would not weigh in at all on this.

Specifically, Manchin and Sinema


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/student-loan-forgiveness-where-members-of-congress-stand.html

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. Why doesn't Biden just forgive the amount he said he could during the campaign?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

95. Because in the real world, Biden cannot forgive student loans by executive order

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

118. Candidate Biden never said that he would cancel or forgive student debt.

Candidate Biden called on CONGRESS to do so.

Congress has moved to help with the CARES Act, but they must do more.[...]It will have to extend unemployment benefits, and provide further direct cash relief, and take care of the people left out of the CARES Act, through an immediate cancellation of a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person, as proposed by Senator Warren.

https://medium.com/JoeBiden/joe-biden-outlines-new-steps-to-ease-economic-burden-on-working-people-e3e121037322

Biden's position that CONGRESS should act to forgive $10,000 immediately was reiterated through his press secretary in February 2021.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated Biden's past support for $10,000 of student debt relief per borrower through legislation, but cast doubt on whether he would take executive action to do so if Congress doesn't send him a bill.

"Debt relief is of course an important priority for the president," Psaki said, adding that Biden extended a Trump-imposed pause on federally held student loan payments and interest accrual through September hours after his inauguration.

"[Biden] already took a step through an executive action on the first day and he would look to Congress to take the next steps," Psaki added.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/537345-schumer-warren-introduce-bill-calling-on-biden-to-wipe-out-student-loan-debt


Where is the talking point that candidate Biden said he would forgive student debt even coming from?

Who benefits from the narrative that President Biden is breaking a "promise" that he never actually made?

Cui bono?

[betsuni]

119. Wah! Daddy promised!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

127. Yes he did. I know the spin now is that he was talking about signing legislation,

but, in response to a question about Warren wanting to forgiving $50k, Biden said that he didn't have the power to do that but he was prepared to sign away $10K of debt. Now, if you are going to tell me he was talking about signing legislation, why was he talking about not having the power to do $50K? If Congress gave him a bill forgiving $50K, was he saying he wouldn't sign that?

He said he was prepared to sign away $10K. He said he didn't have the power to do $50K. Young voters aren't stupid. They heard the same thing I everyone else did. And to tell them know that he was not talking about what he was clearly talking about doesn't help the situation.

[lapucelle]

133. Here is EXACTLY what candidate Biden said.

Congress has moved to help with the CARES Act, but they must do more. [...] It will have to extend unemployment benefits, and provide further direct cash relief, and take care of the people left out of the CARES Act, through an immediate cancellation of a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person, as proposed by Senator Warren.

medium.com/JoeBiden/joe-biden-outlines-new-steps-to-ease-economic-burden-on-working-people-e3e121037322

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden's position that CONGRESS should act to forgive $10,000 immediately was reiterated through his press secretary in February 2021.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated Biden's past support for $10,000 of student debt relief per borrower through legislation, but cast doubt on whether he would take executive action to do so if Congress doesn't send him a bill.

"Debt relief is of course an important priority for the president," Psaki said, adding that Biden extended a Trump-imposed pause on federally held student loan payments and interest accrual through September hours after his inauguration.

"[Biden] already took a step through an executive action on the first day and he would look to Congress to take the next steps," Psaki added.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/537345-schumer-warren-introduce-bill-calling-on-biden-to-wipe-out-student-loan-debt

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a link supporting the claim that candidate Biden said he was "prepared to sign away $10K in debt" without it being presented to him as legislation?

Who exactly benefits from any mischaracterization of what President Biden actually said? Not Democrats.

Cui bono?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

135. "I'm prepared to write off $10K debt, but not $50K because I don't think I have the authority..."

See post 33.

I fully realize that President Biden through his Press Secretary is saying something different, but Candidate Biden said something different. And young voters turned out for him at the highest percentage of all age groups. And they aren't stupid. And they, like everyone, hate spin.

[lapucelle]

146. President Biden has always maintained that he is prepared

to write off $10,000 through legislation. He said nothing new or different in the February 16, 2021 town hall.

Even the questioner says “potentially”.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/2102/16/se.01.html

[Cuthbert Allgood]

147. So you are telling me that's what he meant when he said that during the campaign?

Because, if so, he made it about us unclear as he could have. And the words he used to get it across mean actually the opposite.

[uponit7771]

155. OMG, so you think Americans believe the president can wave a wand and do what he wants all

... the time in every situation?

Come on people, the context of the US constitution is important.

If Biden could do it be EO he would have

[lapucelle]

163. I'm not telling you that. Candidate Biden told everyone that.

People who want debt canceled would be better served if their representatives and senators started doing the hard work to advance the legislation that has already been written and introduced to accomplish that end.

It’s time for folks to get off twitter and go to work.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

164. A lot of young people went to the polls because of his stance on student debt

He very clearly said he would eliminate $10K. Millennials voted for Biden at a higher percentage than any other age demographic. That won't happen again. They aren't stupid. They know they were played. He needs to make it right.

And he should also decriminalize weed, too, but that's a different discussion with the same result.

[lapucelle]

165. Biden's stance was that loan forgiveness was a matter for legislation.

He made that clear and also made it clear that he would sign the bill.

I don’t know any voters young or old who voted for Joe Biden because they thought he would cancel their loans.

I volunteered for Biden. Cancelling student debt was not part of his platform, and it was not one of our talking points.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

166. "I'm prepared to write off $10K debt, but not $50K because I don't think I have the authority..."

It was NOT a stance about legislation. Just stop. He made clear statements during the campaign. Gaslighting people isn't a good look.

And you need to talk to more young voters, then.

[TexasTowelie]

177. No, millennials did not vote for Biden at a higher percentage than other age groups

because of his statements on student debt, millennials voted for Biden because they did not want to vote for Trump. There were plenty of other reasons why millennials did not want to vote for Trump so I don't see how you can analyze any evidence (particularly, if little exists) and condense it down to just one talking point.

You are also condescending to millennials when you imply that they are so simple-minded that they are single-issue voters focused solely on their financial situation. You might want to rethink your analysis.

[lapucelle]

134. A direct quote is not spin. N/T

[uponit7771]

152. "Biden said that he didn't have the power to do that "

[Cuthbert Allgood]

154. He said he didn't have the power to do $50K but was prepared to write off $10K.

But, yeah, sure.

[uponit7771]

156. So the amount matters ?! No really, are you arguing EO would've done it? tia

[Cuthbert Allgood]

158. It was a campaign promise that was taken seriously by young voters

who turned out in the highest percentage for Biden. He needs to just do it.

Biden is the one that made the amount important.

[uponit7771]

159. The question is; is it your position an EO would've eliminated the 10k of debt? tia

[Cuthbert Allgood]

160. It is my position that he said he would write off $10K of student debt for all.

That's it. I'm not talking about anything else.

[uponit7771]

161. In context of constitution it doesn't make sense for willing to be conflated with able.

I read "I'm prepared ..." translate he can write off 10k if given the go ahead by congress ... in the context of the constitution.

That's calling US young really stupid if they think Biden can take a pin and eliminate debt all by himself.

My daughter is prepared to drive my car if I let her ...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

162. So why did he say he could do $10K but not $50K?

Was he confused? Did he lie? Was he just pandering for votes? He was pretty clear that he felt he had the authority to do 10 but not 50. And it's not like he's new to either legislative or executive branch to be confused about his powers.

[uponit7771]

167. Again, my daughter *CAN* drive my car if I let her ... and "was he confused" is a RW trope please

... stop that

[Cuthbert Allgood]

168. Then why did he say what he said? What did he mean?

If you are so sure that he has never meant that he could do it himself, what did that very important stance mean. And don't tell me what you think he meant, make sense of the words that were said.

[lapucelle]

173. Candidate Biden was clear in the editorial he wrote for Medium when he was running for President.

medium.com/JoeBiden/joe-biden-outlines-new-steps-to-ease-economic-burden-on-working-people-e3e121037322

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Candidate Biden's plan for increased accessibility to higher education at lower costs.

The Biden Plan for Education Beyond High School

https://joebiden.com/beyondhs/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's President-Elect Biden's stance:

Biden will call on Congress to forgive $10,000 in student debt for all borrowers

President-elect Joe Biden will ask Congress to immediately cancel $10,000 in student debt for all borrowers and to extend the payment pause that’s scheduled to lapse this month, an aide told reporters Friday afternoon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/student-loan-forgiveness-could-be-more-likely-but-challenges-remain-.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Congress waiting for? There are currently two bills in the House to address student debt forgiveness.

The legislation has been written. Anyone who thinks it should be enacted is free to contact their representative and their two senators. Put the bill on Biden's desk, and he'll sign it.

It's remarkable how many people (who believe so passionately in the issue) are unwilling to make that small effort.

[BradAllison]

31. Probably not

Joe Mansion likely has yet another parasitic child who happens to be an executive at Sallie Mae that depends on daddy to keep their diaper changed.

[JohnSJ]

32. I think you mean Manchin. While some Democrats on loan forgiveness, most are with limits and

restrictions, and some won't even comit how they feel


https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/student-loan-forgiveness-where-members-of-congress-stand.html

[qazplm135]

78. Here's what I believe

1. This is no different than BBB or BIF or anything else. You get people on the record. If they vote no, so be it, but you don't declare it impossible beforehand.

2. You don't have to have a complete loan forgiveness to pass something meaningful, you could simply do the 10K Biden campaigned on.

3. Biden can do the 10K on his own. There's nothing solid that says he can't. You do it, and then send it to the courts to figure out because right now it's an open area. If they shut it down, you tell voters you tried. If they allow it, you just brought tangible help to the same group of voters you need to turn out. There's no lose here.

[mcar]

59. Kinda think it would take 60 votes in the Senate

[qazplm135]

76. nope

you do the same thing McConnell did with Supreme Court justices.

[mcar]

87. You mean change the filibuster rule?

Please tell how that would work given the current makeup of the Senate.

[qazplm135]

91. the same way it always works

you know this has been done before very recently right?

And you don't have to change the filibuster, you can just do a reconciliation bill.

[mcar]

102. How does it work?

[qazplm135]

110. You do a reconciliation bill

Or you carve out a filibuster exception just like was done for SC judicial nominations.

The former being the more likely in this case since it deals with revenue changes.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

67. You need sixty votes in the Senate

We have 50 votes plus MVP Harris to break ties

[qazplm135]

74. no you can do exactly what the article talked about

carving out a filibuster exception.

Did you even read the article? I mean given your handle this position is pretty ironic.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

84. I do not expect an answer but I have asked the same two questions on several student debt threads

See the full explanation of my questions on this thread
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16585544
Basically, I would love to know the following:
1. What happens to the students who work hard and repaid their student loans?
2. What happen to future student loans?

No proponent of these loan forgiveness programs have answered these questions. I doubt that I will get an answer here

[qazplm135]

93. lol

first of all, what happened to all the people who had to pay for their own healthcare before medicare and medicaid took effect?
What about all the people who had to save for their own retirement before social security?

We didn't refund either of those folks just because we established a new social policy. Should we not have done them because some folks who came before didn't get the full benefit? Of course not.

second of all, I don't know what happens to future loans...but I also don't think it is a very relevant question.

People are hurting now. We can give them relief now. Or we can tell them no sorry, we can't give you relief now because someone later will have student loans in the future.

The real question you have is...won't those people be pissed at us? The answer is they probably will be jealous, but the ones that were with us ain't leaving us because Biden or Congress canceled a small percentage of loans, and the ones who would weren't likely with us to begin with...meanwhile, a whole lot of young people would see direct assistance to them from one of the two parties.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

97. So you want to call my son and others who worked hard and paid off their debt suckers

Your policy would lose a ton of votes from people who are donating.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

111. There are all sorts of benefits

That only go to some people and not others so I find this line of argument laughably disingenuous.

And if all it takes for your son or others to leave the party is someone else catching a break he didn't then he's not all that strong of a Dem now is he?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

112. If your concept of a policy is so fair, then get this bill adopted in the real world

As for my son, he only borrowed what he could pay back and has paid back his loans. My son has contributed a great deal for the party. Heck, he is on the same dialing for dollar lists that I am on (dialing for dollars is when candidates call you for money). Again, you are wanting a policy that is based on the concept that anyone who is responsible and pays back their student loans are suckers.

Again, you need to get Congress to adopt legislation for this concept and based on the answers given above, that is not going to happen unless you can show why such policy is fair to persons who paid off their loans and persons who will be incurring loans in the future. You have provided no explanation of the benefits to these parties or why it is fair to forgive only certain loans. Again, in the real world, you will need to get legislation adopted and that will not happen without cogent explanations as to the above questions.

The real world is a nice place, and you need to to justify a bill like this with real benefits to society and not to one special group. Your explanation would not be sufficient to get this proposal through congress in the real world.

[qazplm135]

144. Anyone who scrimped and saved for retirement

Before social security were suckers too right?

I paid student loans too. If current kids catch a break I'm not whining about it.

I pay for schools through property taxes even though I have no kids. What a sucker!

Real benefits to society?? I see so you haven't educated yourself remotely on skyrocketing education costs or predatory loans or the hit to spending or barrier to increased educational opportunities by people of color or the host of other "real" issues tied to student loans today.

Well, I'm not going to do the baseline work you should have done before entering this conversation with the ridiculous "suckers" argument you are trying now.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

149. Do you ever tire of being WRONG?

I am amused that you do not understand the concepts. Thank you for the laughs. Again, it is clear that you do not tire of being Wrong.

Your analogy on retirement was so bad that I was kind last night and left it alone. This analogy makes no sense but did amuse me. This policy appears to only apply to current debt and will not apply to persons who repaid their loans or person who incur future debt. Social security was a prospective program that applied to everyone going forward. People who saved for retirement prior to the adoption of social security still got social security benefits even if they saved for retirement. I was born well after the adoption of social security, and I have saved for retirement. Despite the fact that I have savings, I will get the benefit of social security. That is how things work in the real world. These benefits are in addition in the amounts saved. People who did not save still can get social security together with people who saved. Your analogy simply does not apply

You may want to read up on the concepts. This Forbes article may help. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/02/04/democrats-tweet-that-student-loans-should-be-cancelled-but-twitter-claps-back/?sh=5117abf23abd

Supporters of wide-scale student loan cancellation want one-time student loan forgiveness. In a perfect world, Biden (or Congress) would cancel all, or most, of the $1.7 trillion of outstanding student loan debt. That would be a major financial relief for current student loan borrowers. However, it wouldn’t help future student loan borrowers or student loan borrowers who already paid off their student loans. That doesn’t sit well with some in the latter group. “When and if Biden does cancel student loan debt don’t forget to send a refund to past federal student loan borrowers who worked hard to pay off their loans and delayed the same things you say current borrowers are delaying because they are paying off their loans.” Student loan borrowers who paid off student loans want their student loans paid for too. Many worked two or three jobs and made other financial sacrifices to pay student loans. Will they be included in any wide-scale student loan cancellation?

Again, it will take an act of congress to adopt such a policy and I doubt that such act can be adopted unless someone answers the questions set forth above. In addition, the cost of such a program has to be addressed

Link to tweet

We need to determine if canceling student loan debt for a limited group is the best use of such funds

[qazplm135]

171. and if the people

who scrimped and saved for retirement had access to that from the start, they might have used that money for other things.

There are a ton of social programs that everyone doesn't get. There have been plenty of one time assistance that everyone doesn't get. I don't have kids so I got less covid relief than those that did. But here's the deal, if future student loan recipients want free college or loans forgiven, there's now precedence and a path for that to happen. Past loan recipients who paid off their loans? You get nothing. Sorry, shit happens. I'm one of them and ya know what, not a big deal. Because if we can help some people it's alright if that doesn't include me. Guess you don't think the same way.

But now you've switched from "I'm mad someone else gets something I didn't get wahhhhh" to "well it's just too darn expensive!"

Yep, it will cost some revenue, just like ANY OTHER SOCIAL PROGRAM.

373 Billion one time is half of what we spend annually on the military.

Half.

It's a sixth of what we spent on Iraq/Afghanistan.

How very Republican to start talking about costs for something that will help 43 million Americans lose some of their debt, lower the amount they pay each month and allow them to save and yes spend helping the overall economy.

So the Wahhh not everyone gets to benefit argument was lame, and the oh it's so expensive argument equally so, what you got left?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

174. The people pushing for Biden to cancel this debt by executive action are doing this for a reason

This policy is so weak on its merits that no legislation implementing this policy would have a chance. The proponents of this policy know that they could never get Congress to pass this bill and so want to distract with bogus claims that this debt cancellation can be done by executive action. Such claim is false.

The defense of this policy and the utter inability or refusal to answer the two simple questions that I posed shows why such a weak policy is doomed to failure. Again if you want to get this policy to be considered in Congress, these two questions need to be answered
1. What will be done for the students who worked hard and paid off their student debt?
2. What will happen to any future student debt incurred?

These simple questions were not answered n this thread. If this policy is so great then *Why isn’t a bill being written?

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

179. more nonsense

1. We can't pass much of anything with Sinema and Manchin. So the idea that "if we can't pass it, it must not have merit" is patently nonsensical. There are all sorts of "bills that aren't being written" because everyone knows that almost nothing is going to pass Manchin and Sinema. We can't get the Trump tax cuts reversed for the rich, you good with that too? Is the reason why we can't get that bill written because "it's weak on it's merits?" Because it's "not a great policy?"

2. Debt cancellation is literally happening right now for various reasons, the very tweet and article you link notes that 15 billion has already been cancelled for various reasons. No one asked "what about the ones who paid off their loans" for those folks because it was the right thing to do for them and didn't require universal effing application to be done. Those two "simple" questions weren't asked for those cancellations because they are in fact "simple" questions and pretty silly.

3. If it can't be done by executive action, if that's so effing clear, then WHY did the WH examine whether Biden has the authority to do it? Something they still haven't apparently completed. Why examine something that "can't be done?" How is the debt cancellation actually being done by the executive branch any different? Spoiler alert, it isn't for anything OTHER than total excusal.

4. You continually, like others on your side, smush together smaller reductions like 10K with total reduction as if it's all one thing. Canceling 10K "because Covid" is a more than defensible reason that passes a basic smell test to get before a court to decide. TOTAL deduction MIGHT be a harder argument to make. Congress gave zero limits in the legislation as written on executive authority to dismiss. Zero. Nada. Bupkis. But certainly an argument can be made that Congress never intended blanket removal of all debt as a power. What CAN'T be made is that there's any limit to partial reduction by the executive, because, it, ain't, there.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

180. Do you ever tire of being WRONG?

It is really very amusing. The first is for people who attended bogus for-profit schools that defrauded them. That debt needed to be cancelled due to fraud. The second type is for students who preform public service after graduation. For example, the child of a friend is working for a state agency that is covered by this program and is on track to have a significant portion of student loans cancelled.

Link to tweet

Biden is changing the rules for forgiveness of debt for public service.

Link to tweet

See https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/politics/student-loan-public-service-forgiveness-waiver/index.html

The Department of Education said Wednesday that it has so far identified 100,000 borrowers who are eligible for student debt cancellation due to the changes the agency made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program in October.

The cancellations for those people are expected to total about $6.2 billion in federal student debt relief. Not all of the eligible borrowers have been notified of their debt relief yet. They are being notified on a rolling basis, and the Department of Education could not provide a date when all of them will have been contacted.

The announcement marks the latest effort by the Biden administration to make it easier for some borrowers to qualify for loan forgiveness under existing programs. But the administration's piecemeal approach still falls short of the President's campaign pledge to support canceling $10,000 for each of the roughly 43 million people who currently hold federal student loan debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program promises to wipe away remaining federal student loan debt after an eligible public service worker makes 10 years of monthly payments. It was created about 15 years ago, but a very small percentage of people who applied had received forgiveness before 2021.

Again, these types of debt forgiveness are provided for in the current law. Cancelling student loan debt for people who were NOT defrauded by bogus for-profit colleges is not allowed except for people who participate in the public service programs

Again, thank you for the amusement. I am truly amazed that you do NOT tire of being WRONG

[qazplm135]

183. lol

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-cancel-loan-debt/

Since it's clear you aren't a lawyer, it's also clear you don't know how to read a law. And if you are a lawyer, my god you need to ask for a refund.

"The president has broad authority to cancel federal student loan debt through the Higher Education Act. Passed by Congress in 1965, the act states that the secretary of education may “​​enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.” Legal experts, including those at Harvard Law, say that this provision would allow for an executive action that cancels federal student debt. And the precedent has already been set."

That language is BROAD. I bolded the relevant parts just for you.

The current law is right above. it gives unfettered authority to WAIVE or RELEASE ANY CLAIM to the Sec of Education.

It doesn't say "only certain claims." It doesn't say "any claim in some other subsection of this law." That section doesn't refer back to some other section of the law.

Here's the entire law which you clearly haven't read. I have. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle2/chapter13&edition=prelim

This is in the very first section. It doesn't come after other sections which lay out restrictions. It doesn't refer to later sections. It's a listing of the general powers of the Secretary of Education. Later sections don't limit this power.

Furthermore, the Sec of Education under 20 USC 1085(o)(1)(B) can redefine hardship criteria i.e. he or she can decide that COVID has created a hardship worth oh I don't know 10K dollars.

Even more, 34 CFR 685.205(b)(8) allows the U.S. Secretary of Education to provide administrative forbearance because of “a national military mobilization or other local or national emergency.” Ya know, like COVID. Yer ANOTHER area where he or she could simply cite COVID as a national emergency, which it is, and declare forbearance on 10K dollars.

How do we know all of this, because we know that both Trump and Biden have paused ALL payments because of COVID. Now where did that authority come from? Everything I listed above. Why did they do it? Because of COVID, a national emergency. No COVID, no pause.

The SAME authority that lets them pause it because of and only because of COVID allows them to give forbearance on at least SOME student loan debt. One can make an argument for all student loan debt, but because I ya know went to law school and can read case law, I know that Whitman exists and that a court could very well use that to determine that Congress didn't intend to give absolute authority to wipe out all debt.

Ya know, if you stuck to "I think it's too expensive" or "I think it's not fair" you'd be wrong but at least it's based on an opinion on equities. But your mocking derision over the legality isn't because you are schooled in the law, it's because you don't know what you are talking about. A whole lot of very smart people, lawyers, politicians, think otherwise. At the VERY least, it's a debatable legal issue. And this is why it's a waste of time to further engage with you.

[betsuni]

184. ...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

191. The fact that you think that this issue is clear amuses me

As noted in the article cited, Pelosi does not believe that you can cancel debt. President Biden has concerns https://fortune.com/education/business/articles/2022/02/28/is-biden-actually-going-to-cancel-your-student-loans-heres-what-policy-insiders-say/

One of the looming questions about federal student loan debt cancellation is whether Biden actually has the authority to do so through an executive order.

“I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing [an executive order],” Biden said during a CNN town hall on Feb. 17, 2021. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has also said she doesn’t believe Biden has the authority to cancel student debt by executive order. ......

“With a conservative Supreme Court, the idea that he could cancel all of it or even a significant part of it with a flick of the pen is more of an aspirational statement rather than one that would likely hold up,” Travis Hornsby, founder of Student Loan Planner, argues. “Therefore we do not expect significant action on this.”

It does not matter what a magazine thinks the law is. I trust Joe and Nancy here.

This legal issue as to Biden's authority is not clear in the real world https://thecollegeinvestor.com/35892/is-student-loan-forgiveness-by-executive-order-legal/

Can The President Cancel All Federal Student Loans?
The President does not have the legal authority to forgive student loans on his own. Only Congress has the power of the purse. Executive action can be used only when it has been specifically authorized by Congress.

The executive branch cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, per 31 USC 1301 et seq (Antideficiency Act (P.L. 97-258)) and Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

The claims that the President has the authority to forgive student loans are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6). That section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides the U.S. Secretary of Education with the authority to:

“...modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”

But that quote is taken out of context. The preamble to that section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 limits this authority to operating within the scope of the statute:

“In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—"

In other words, when Congress authorizes a loan forgiveness program, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, the U.S. Secretary of Education has the authority to forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of these loan forgiveness programs.

Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., (531 USC 457, 2001), Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”

In addition, the “this part” language refers to Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

There is similar language in Part E at 20 USC 1087hh for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.

The "parallel terms clause" in the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1087e(a)(1) (also, 20 USC 1087a(b)(2)) requires Direct Loan program loans to have the same terms and conditions as FFEL program loans. But this does not apply to the waiver authority because waiver authority is not part of the terms and conditions of the loans.

This legal issue is not clear. In addition, there are other issues why this policy will not be adopted. Inflation is a major concern and the cancellation of debt would add to these pressures https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/student-loan-forgiveness-is-an-idea-whose-time-has-gone/2022/04/10/f32d0f8c-b8ce-11ec-a92d-c763de818c21_story.html

Debt relief advocates used to recognize this logic. In June 2019, Representative Ilhan Omar called student debt relief “stimulus for working people across our country.” In April of that year, Senator Elizabeth Warren said it would “give our economy a boost.” The director of education, jobs and power at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning economic policy think tank, said in December 2020 that debt relief “can help stimulate the economy at a moment when we need economic stimulus.”

All this analysis was correct when they said it. But the same reasoning now applies in the other direction. The U.S. has since enacted trillions of dollars in stimulus and seen a dramatic improvement in the labor market — and the real value of student debt has been eroded by inflation. The country now needs to reduce the volume of consumer demand in the economy rather than increase it.....

Temporary student-loan forgiveness is an idea that was cooked up under different economic and political circumstances, and the case for it has been superseded by events. Some limited forgiveness for low-income borrowers who are genuinely in dire straits may be appropriate — but it should be paired with a return to debt collection from the affluent majority. It’s one of the best and fairest tools available to reduce inflation.

The fact that you think that this answer is clear really amuses me. Laypersons attempting to understand legal concepts are amusing. Again, the fact that an article states that the answer is clear is not binding on Biden or Congress.

If Biden tried to cancel debt by executive order, the SCOTUS would enjoin this action just as it did on the Biden OSHA vaccine mandate.

Again, thank you for the amusement. You really enjoy being WRONG.

[qazplm135]

193. this is kinda sad for you

1. I didn't say it was "clear." In fact, I said that at the very least it was "debatable." You were the one arguing it was clear it can't be done. This flip flop is as amusing as it is annoying.

2. I think it hilarious that you say it does not matter what a magazine says about the law, then immediately cite a magazine article against the law, written not by an attorney. But consistency isn't your strong suit.

3. I actually read the law and am an attorney. I have done defense, prosecution and appellate work. Hell, I've trained other attorneys. So no I'm not a "layperson," and I know how to look at statutes, and the citation by your magazine is simply wrong. “In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—" doesn't say what the magazine purports it to say. It gives an insane amount of heavy lifting to that phrase that is quite frankly nonsensical. It is really easy to write a law that says "The secretary may waive, etc for the following reasons. Congress. Didn't. Do. That.
If they did, please, cite it. Should be easy right?

4. At least we've finally moved on from your nonsensical "it can't be done" to "it's not clear" which is, ya know, progress. So good for you. The part that is clear is that the Secretary has very broad authority. The part that is not clear is whether that extends all the way to getting rid of ALL debt. NOT because of the plain text of the law, but because of Supreme Court case law which, ya know, I actually cited, that suggests that Congress usually doesn't intend to give away absolute power like that even if one could in theory interpret it that way.

5. If Biden tried to cancel all debt it absolutely would be enjoined and a legal battle would ensue. If Biden tried to cancel 10K no there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would get involved in that situation. Regardless, the fact that a conservative Supreme Court might or even assuredly would overturn something IS NOT A REASON NOT TO DO IT BY ITSELF. A conservative Supreme Court might very well overturn a bill that legalizes abortion nationwide, should Congress not do such a bill because there's a good chance it would get shot down? Should Congress avoid the chance to do gerrymander reform? Or campaign finance reform? What a nonsensical position to take.

6. Citing inflation? Really? Manchin would be proud of you.

So to sum up...

1. You either aren't an attorney, or you are a really bad one. I'm going with the former. You don't know how to analyze case law, or statutes, you rely on simply citing those in favor of your position with an argument from authority as oppose to doing analysis.

2. You aren't consistent in your arguments shifting them as I present facts and evidence, including going from this is clear you can't do to my position of no it isn't clear you can't while arguing I'm saying it's clear you can even as I've repeatedly presented a much more nuanced position of what you can and can't do. Which means you are being disingenuous.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

197. I am surprised that you are an attorney

Your attempt at analysis still amuses me. Your attempt at an analogy on prospective vs. retroactive legislation supports my belief. I am still seriously amused by that attempt at an argument.

I practice corporate law and mergers and acquisitions in addition to volunteering on voter protection issues since 2004. I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Biden in person twice in 2019 at the homes of two different attorneys. These fundraisers were fun given that most of the participants were members of the bar. One of the hosts is a good friend of my firm and I actually had fun arguing a summary judgment argument against this host on an issue on Delaware corporate law. Last cycle, I had fun taking a congressional candidate to meeting of a Democratic lawyers association (there is nothing more fun than watching a congressional candidate "mingle" in a room full of Democratic lawyers}. We are planning on going back to in person meeting this summer and so I can more fun bringing candidates to these meetings.

I have read the law also and I do not believe that Joe has the executive power to forgive this debt. Neither Speaker Pelosi nor Joe believe that he has the power to forgive student debt outside of the cases of fraud (as with the for-profit colleges who defrauded their students) or the public service provisions. At best there is a weak argument for an implied grant of such power that is not consistent with the other provisions of the statutes. The argument that the POTUS has such executive power is more a product of wishful thinking by persons who know that this proposal has no chance of passage in congress.

I was a Clinton delegate to the 2016 national convention and that is where I first heard Sanders delegates ranting about forgiveness of student loans. The main persons who pushed this program have been Sanders' supporters such the Justice Democrats/Our Revolution/Brand New Congress people (they are all part of the same core group) and some others like Warren. These groups are pushing the concept of using executive power to forgive this debt because there is no chance that these groups can get such a proposal through Congress. I hate to break it to you, but many Democrats in Congress do not support this concept.

Again, this proposal will not get out of committee unless good answers to these two questions are provided:
1. What happens to the persons who already paid off their loans?
2. What happens to persons who borrow in the future?
In addition, I have seen people posting asking why just student loans what about medical debt. Forgiving medical debt makes far more sense to me compared to forgiving student loan.

You completely failed in your attempts to deal with these issues. I am amused that you think that these issues do not matter.

If you read and understand the material from the Brookings Institute posted on both this thread and another thread, you will see why these questions need to be answered. See https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216585926 In addition to being on law review, I also passed the CPA exam and understand numbers. If you are able to read and understand the numbers you will see that the persons who will benefit from this program because they cannot pay their student loans are a small percentage of the persons who have student debt The people with the most debt are people like my older two children who borrowed for law school with a clear plan to pay off their debt. It will be easy to do negative ads showing that the people who are benefiting from this program are people who incurred debt with no real expectation of being able to repay such debt. Congress is aware of these demographics which is why there is almost no chance that a bill for cancellation of student debt will even get out of a committee.

As for the inflation argument, you should look at the polling on this issue. If inflation remains high, the Democrats will be killed in the midterms. I like the steps Joe is taking and I am hoping that the economists working with Joe are correct that inflation will abate. The Feds has raised interest rates already and there will be future rate increased between now and the midterms. Adding to inflationary demand is not a good idea unless you want Kevin McCarthy to be Speaker in 2023.

There is a great deal going on in Texas with respect to voter protection. I will be busy getting ready to work on voter protection efforts for two sets of elections in May and the general election in November. I am a member of two Democratic Lawyers Associations and there some interesting discussion at the last meeting concerning the DOJ redistricting case and the voter suppression/SB 1 cases. The rejection of over 25,000 rejected votes by mail ballots should help in the SB1 (SB1 is the voter suppression statute that several of my friends in the Texas legislature left Texas to try to block) lawsuits and there are some fun issues in the redistricting case that Elias, the NAACP and the DOJ will be raising.

While you are pushing a program that will never get through congress, I will continue to work on turning Texas blue. There are some provisions in SB1 that will be really nasty to deal with for the general election. Have fun pushing a program that has no chance of being adopted in the real world.

[qazplm135]

198. you haven't attempted any analysis

you've mostly mocked, belittled, derided and said "you're wrong."

The next time you do any legal analysis in this discussion will be the first time.

Biden hasn't actually SAID he doesn't have the authority, he is the one that requested that his authority be "looked into" and as of yet, that examination has either not been completed or not been publicized.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2022/03/03/biden-may-extend-student-loan-pause-and-is-considering-loan-forgiveness-says-white-house-official/?sh=6784732f1ee0

“The President is going to look at what we should do on student debt before the pause expires, or he’ll extend the pause,” said White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain in an interview posted by Pod Save America on Thursday. “Whether or not there is some executive action [on] student debt forgiveness when the payments resume is a decision we’re going to take before the payments resume.”

Doesn't sound to me like Biden has decided he doesn't have the authority, but maybe corporate lawyers read English differently than criminal lawyers do.

Again you cite argument to authority as if because some person says no that must be the answer. It's intellectually lazy. It is however convenient as you are adamantly against doing it at all, so of course you hand wave "you can't do it, or it can't pass" with no analysis or nuance. It's also pretty clear that you don't deal with issues directly you frame them as Sanders issues, well I voted for Clinton and Biden, so why not simply deal with the issue instead of trying to hippie bash.

1. Nothing happens to the people who already paid off their loans. Not everyone benefits from every thing the government does. Why this continues to be news to you is beyond me.
2. Nothing happens to people who borrow in the future. This is a one time benefit that may or may not be repeated in the future. Again, this happens all of the time. COVID relief is a one time benefit. We see that the expanded child tax credits have expired, thanks to Manchin, but we KNEW they were going to expire when the bill was written, should we have not done it? MOST benefits have an expiration date except for SS, Medicare and Medicaid, or limitations on who gets it and who doesn't, and those limitations change all of the time too.

Neither of these "questions" is anything but disingenuous.

IF inflation remains high? Spoiler alert, inflation is a global phenomenon, it's GOING to remain high and there's not going to be anything Biden or anyone else will be able to do with it unless you can wipe out COVID, supply chain disruptions from COVID and now supply issues from Ukraine and Russian sanctions. So, if inflation is going to wipe us out, well sorry pal but that's already baked in and it's not changing in 7 months, certainly not in any substantial way. And the idea that social programs are responsible for inflation is a very REPUBLICAN bit of nonsense unless the pretty modest amount of government spending we've done so far has somehow caused global inflation.

But this is where I'm out because the nonsense you are talking about is just conservative Democratic talking points. It's Manchinesque. Which is not surprising because Manchin and Sinema are the reason A LOT of things will never pass the current Congress. That's why we have executive action. To do things Congress can't or won't do. It's an open area of law AT WORST. It would be one thing if you simply said, I'm against it. It's another to make a pretty bad legal argument that "you can't do it."

See the difference between you and I is that I can recognize the legal nuances for and against even though I am for it, but you are against it so you simply glom on to anything that supports your position and mock anything that doesn't. Maybe that works in the corporate world, but it doesn't elsewhere.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

199. Thank you for the laughs

I am still amused that you are a lawyer. Did you get on law review? Your attempt at analysis reminds of the articles written by non-law review types. Again, you do not understand the concepts being discussed and you are WRONG.

As for your attempt at analysis, the Biden administration wants to do the right thing such as deal with student debt incurred by student attending fraudulent for-profit colleges and expanding the eligibility for persons performing public service to get their debt forgiven. The steps taken by the Biden administration has helped here. We will see if the Biden administration take steps that will go beyond what has already been taken. I doubt that the Biden administration will adopt anything that will easily enjoined by the current SCOTUS. I read the statutes and the case for using executive power to cancel significant amount of student debt is so weak that it would not survive challenge. As noted, I read the law that there is no power to use executive action to cancel student loans outside of the two areas specifically mentioned-fraudulent loans and the public service forgiveness program. If the Biden administration does propose a program, it is likely that such program will be based on means testing. I am amused that Sanders and other proponents of the student debt cancellation scheme do not like means testing which means that means testing is a good idea.

I am amused that you did not attempt to discuss the numbers from the Brookings Institute. Non law review types may not be able to deal with math or numbers. Basically, the facts set forth in the study from the Brookings Institute show that the vast majority of persons who incurred student loans are able to repay these loans and it is only a small minority who will get a major windfall from the proposed loan cancellation. Again, as I have noted many times in other posts, the main persons pushing for this cancellation program by means of executive actions are persons who incurred student debt without a clear plan to repay these loans. These same proponents also know that the blanket cancellation of student loans without means testing will never make it through Congress and so such programs have to be implemented by executive action.

Your attempt at answers to the two questions/issue poised show that you do understand the issue and how things work in the real world. I have been active in politics for a long time, and you need to understand what will happen in these questions are not addressed. The issue that I raised will be used in what will be very effective negative ads. We saw this last cycle with the ignorant "defund the police" slogan pushed by some progressives. The GOP used this ignorant slogan in very effective ads, and we lost a good number of seats in the 2020 races. I saw negative ads using this slogan used against candidates in Texas who were against the concept of defunding the police.

Let me translate your attempted answers into the arguments that will be used in the real world in very effective attack ads that will attempt to duplicate the success of last cycle's defund the police ads.

1. We do not care if suckers paid off their student loans in advance because the only loans that we care about are the student loans of people who support Justice Democrats/Our revolution and other similar groups. This forgiveness program is designed to only benefit persons who incurred student debt without a plan to repay such loans and we do not care about persons who incurred student loans with a clear plan to repay such loan get no benefit of this program/scam. People who paid off their loans will object to this program.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

2. We do not care about persons who have to incur student loans in the future. This is a program designed to only benefit persons who incurred student debt without a plan to repay such loans and we do not care about persons who incurred student loans in the future.

Link to tweet

As for the inflation argument, you clearly do not understand the issue and how inflation is being used in the real world to attack Joe Biden and the Democrats. Inflation will be an issue in the midterms without regard to the fact that inflation is a worldwide problem. I understand and agree with Joe Biden's arguments with respect to US inflation being less in the United States than the inflation in other countries, but current polling shows that the voters are not buying this argument.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I watched part of Joe's speech today in North Carolina where Joe discussed inflation and not student loans. That was a clear indication that the Biden administration is worried about inflation. You may want to actually read the polling in this area. It is scary

BTW, Texas Greg Abbott's truck inspection program was designed in party to help the GOP by increasing inflation in large part because inflation is such a good issue for the GOP

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I was at the same large law firm as Greg a long time ago and this is the type of stunt Greg would pull. Greg was in the toxic tort defense section and bragged about cheating widows and orphans. Abbott is worried and is pulling a number of stunts to try to stave off Beto.

Again, I remain amused that you do not understand the concepts being discussed. I like living in the real world and I care about turning Texas blue. Pushing a program that promises to be this cycle's equivalent of "defund the police" is not a good way to win races in the real world. I am still amused that you think that you understand the legal concept involved. Non-law review types often get the concepts wrong. We will have to agree to disagree on this. Have fun in your world and I will continue to work in the real world. I have meetings next week with the voter protection group and the democratic lawyers association .

Texas will turn blue and it would be great to vote Greg out.

[qazplm135]

200. yawn

cum laude tier one law school, graded onto law review, but declined since I already had a job lined up and didn't want to do the dog and pony show required to be on law review so wrote for the second tier review instead because it didn't require anything but a paper, of course published twice since then, and lead counsel on a 500 page capital appeal, but sure, I don't know how to do legal analysis.

You are, put simply, a guy who can only debate or discuss by trying to belittle and mock. You can't make actual arguments or consider other arguments (which you need to do to make decent arguments).

You're just not a serious person worth having a serious conversation with. Feel free to make the final post with the same lame attacks, it's all you are good at.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

201. I am surprised given the really poor quality of your attempts at arguments

I enjoyed law review and was summa and the high grade on the bar for my law school (one point off high grade for state). Doing all nighters was good practice for big law firm practice.

Again, I like living in the real world and I understand how dumb proposals can come back and hurt candidates. The fact that you think that you made cogent legal arguments really amuses me. Since you do not want to deal with the real-world implications of the conepts discussed, I agree that further discussions are waste of time.

The real world is a nice place and I will be working hard to turn Texas blue.

[Rob H.]

202. Four of the tweets you're using to bolster your arguments

are from hard-right conservatives, and random ones at that, so why would anyone here give any weight to what some Democrat-hating redneck lunkheads on Twitter have to say?

[JustAnotherGen]

192. Why couldn't it be done for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act?

[qazplm135]

194. you can use filibuster carveout for the JLVRA

Obviously you won't be able to use reconciliation, at least not with the current Parliamentarian.

You can use a filibuster carveout, in theory, for anything you want. Whatever the majority is willing to carve out for it.

[RobinA]

125. I Blame

the culture AND education for this young people voting problem. They don't seem to see the connection between them and the community at large. They want to worry about "their" issues, but don't seem to see that they live in a interlocking society. What hurts grandma or pre-school kid hurts them. They're all environment, environment, environment, which is one issue. OK. But there are other, just as significant issues out there that will be a part of their present and future. They whine that social security won't be there for them so why should they care about it. So what are you doing to make sure it is there? Or is that not your issue?

We've gotten away from the notion that we are all part of a a matrix (in the old-fashioned sense) where a ripple here creates a wave over there.

[ForgedCrank]

136. That pretty much

sums it up.
In my life at college age, the last thing on my mind was politics or voting. I had opinions, but I didn't care enough to bother with it. At that age, life was happening fast and I had other things to do, skipping over the importance of my duty to vote. I doubt the latest generation is much different in that regard.
It was really only when the responsibilities and liabilities of life hit me that I became aware of how important politics were to my life, and I was in my late 20's when I finally started to put those pieces together and care enough to vote.

[Walleye]

137. In my day boys were being drafted who are not old enough to vote

I couldn’t wait to be 21 years old and vote against Nixon. I just don’t understand what the hangup is. Voting is about the easiest thing you can do in life. If you don’t vote you don’t believe in democracy that’s it

[ForgedCrank]

139. That is an

unfounded blanket statement.
All I am saying is when I was a kid, I didn't realize the importance, and most kids in that age range don't either. It had nothing to do with me not believing in democracy.
Some (probably most) kids just don't understand the real importance of it, I was one of them along with most others my age. And of course, current events can have a dramatic affect on that mindset, things such as war.

[Walleye]

140. No I didn't mean it that way. I realize 18-year-olds have better things to think about.

But it seems we have a lot of grown-ass people who don’t believe in democracy at this point. And not just in this country. We’ll see what happens in France now that the young people didn’t get their candidate in the runoff

[ForgedCrank]

141. Everything I've said

aside, it is amazing to me that only roughly half the people in this country ever vote.
I do find that unacceptable.

[Walleye]

142. I can't begin to understand why people don't vote.

Willing to enjoy the blessings of living in the United States but not willing to lift a finger to participate. And the excuses they give are just so fucking lame

[JanMichael]

175. I am fed up with old people's excuses for voting for Republican.

I have come to the conclusion that they just don’t want to vote for Liberals. Let somebody else carry all the responsibility because they have got theirs (pull up that ladder). I think if you vote for Republicans it’s because you don’t actually support democracy. You vote for tyranny, it happens. Sorry in a bad mood this evening.

[Walleye]

176. That's OK I agree with that. The only way to beat them is to get more of our people out voting

Republicans have nothing left in their party but hatred. And they’re not gonna give that up. We’ve got to show up in greater numbers that’s all. We actually try to govern and pass beneficial legislation. I guess that’s too complicated. There really are more of us than them

[Effete Snob]

7. Here's the thing about loss of rights

It requires a series of hypotheticals for you to worry about them.

For example, when was the last time you exercised your right to counsel when accused of a crime?

It's a really, really important right, but you've probably never used it. The absence of it is unlikely to have affected your life.

Or maybe you have, but the fact remains that the vast majority of people will live their lives never being accused of a crime, and thus never having to actually care about the fourth, fifth or sixth amendment rights in any material way.

"Rights" matter to those unfortunate enough to have to put them to the test, which is always a relative minority of people.

[Sympthsical]

9. I was going to reply in a similar vein

Voters care about what is happening where they live. Of course what is happening in places like Florida and Texas is horrifying, but how many voters are actually being immediately, tangibly affected by the erosion of these rights?

How many voters are making choices about food, rent, utilities vs. student loans on a weekly or monthly basis?

It's a lot more.

People vote their lives, not their ideologies. If their lived experiences aren't improved by the people they elected, they will become less likely to pull that lever or even appear in the booth.

It's how humans work, how they've always worked. People should know that by now instead of grousing about it.

And if we need further ironic illustration. Look at all the people who did not have to deal with student loans, who received affordable education, who do not care at all about the issue and actually lambast those who bring it up. "Free stuff, help me daddy, bootstraps!" Oh, so it doesn't affect you, so you don't care and/or are actively hostile to those it does?

Now you know how others feel about your issues.

[Effete Snob]

18. "and actually lambast those who bring it up"

Those amaze me.

I paid full tuition for my kids and it was not easy. It was a real sacrifice. Quite a few tens of thousands of dollars a year.

But, c'mon, not every young person has parents who can do that. I don't understand how I'm supposed to begrudge them the opportunity to use that education in the best way they can, and not necessarily "what pays the loan". We all benefit from that.

We all benefit from it. It's utterly no skin off my back if their loans are forgiven. Yeah, sure, it would have been great not to spend all that money and put it elsewhere, but so what?

The argument against it is the argument against changing ANYTHING - "Oh, but people made assumptions based on the way things were" - yeah, they did. Not long ago, young people made life plans and assumptions on the proposition they weren't going to get killed in Vietnam too, but it happened. This is college tuition. Come on.

But, there's a lot of things I don't understand. People line up to vote against school tax increases because "I don't have kids" as if their social security is going to get paid by elves someday. It's those kids we are counting on. So, let's make sure they have what they need.

[Sympthsical]

53. I find the attitude completely baffling in ostensible Democrats

We're supposed to be the ones who agitate for education and economic relief. Yet somehow on this, the "got mine" attitude seems to permeate deeply. I do think it's largely an age thing. Older people simply did not have to wrestle with this monster, so they just don't seem to understand how economically crippling it can be. I do see some who say, "I paid off my loans, so why shouldn't they have to pay off theirs?" However, I thought one of the major things that categorizes a liberal is that we're supposed to lower the ladder after we've made it up.

I paid off my loans by the time I was 34. My partner, now in his late 40s, is still paying $800/month for his PharmD. I have friends in their early and late 40s still paying off similar loans.

I recently returned to school for a career change (going into nursing). I made a choice not to take out loans. I have savings and just couldn't imagine going through that whole mess again. My partner, however, has four nieces and nephews he helps look after because his brother, their father, died of brain cancer. They're ages 15-22. Every year it's just thousands and thousands, and that's with them doing community college, nursing, and MA programs (the whole family is pretty much in the medical field).

We've given a bunch of money for their education, but in the end, there are simply going to be loans. The system has made it completely unavoidable. We've cycled into a bizarre form of indentured servitude in this country, and it has a massive economic impact on everyone. All that money being sent to these loan behemoths is money that is not going into the wider economy.

I just don't understand the foot dragging and outright hostility on this issue. The attitudes seem to go against the grain of everything we claim to be. Here is an issue for the President and Democrats tied up with a big bow, and yet nothing.

Just, "free stuff!" Part of me thinks maybe this is just residual pissed offedness that young people liked Bernie. When I look at the people speaking against student debt relief, the names and level of hostility to Bernie are highly correlated.

Just something I've noticed over time.

[Effete Snob]

81. I agree it is baffling

[Budi]

109. Rofl.. 😄

Ageist much?

[betsuni]

115. ...

[mcar]

19. So once again we are putting women's rights on the back burner

How has that worked for us so far, hmm? In 2016, we were told that SCOTUS and Roe weren't important issues - I guess they were just "hypotheticals."

Did you see what happened in Texas this week? A young woman betrayed by healthcare professionals, arrested for murder, held on a half million $ bond for having an abortion? Now the charges have been dropped because, even in Texas she committed no crime.

But her mug shot was shown on media all over the country.

But yeah, women losing their human rights is far less important than wealthy doctors having their student loans forgiven.

[Effete Snob]

22. We?

I'm not captain of this ship.

I also don't decide what is important to other people.

Trump got the majority vote of white women - twice. I'm not a white woman, so I don't know why that happened. Do you?

[mcar]

24. White women voting for Trump is continually baffling to me

I will never understand that portion of my gender.

In 2016, we were told by many on the left that SCOTUS and Roe were not important and that, therefore, they were going to "vote their conscience" and vote 3rd party.

I fear that is what is happening here. Quite honestly, if the only thing that motivates younger voters is forgiving student debt, something that would affect only a small percentage of people, I kind of think they are looking for a reason to not vote.

That said, I think it's way past time the student loan system was completely overhauled - along with the college tuition system.

Forgiving student loan debt helps a small # of people right now. What about future students? And what do we say to all those people who are working in low-paying jobs because they couldn't afford to go to college?

[mcar]

58. 50% of student loans are held by post-graduate students

The vast majority of other loans are being handled OK by the former students.

I have said several times here that the system needs to be revamped completely, as does the college tuition aspect of it. Forgiving student loan debt for all students now does nothing to solve the problem.

And what about future students? If the system is revamped, they will be facing the same issue.

Bring student loan interest rates to 1%. There are many other ideas that will help.

But the reality is that much of that debt is being carried by doctors, lawyers, and other post-graduate students. No one forced them to take on this debt.

And if you really think that my standing up for women's rights as human beings makes my opinion shitty and uneducated, you may want to block me. I believe that issue is far more important than the student loan crisis (which is actually a crisis, but arresting women and charging them with murder for having an abortion takes precedence with me).

That's why I take my time to learn about issues before I comment on them. Makes me clean and educated.

[Sympthsical]

64. Hopefully you never need a doctor or lawyer

In the case of my partner, hope you don't need any medications. Pharmacy school wasn't cheap.

Seriously, the shit people say here . . .

[mcar]

66. Bless your heart

[iemanja]

106. What you're advocating is for redistributing wealth upward

and forcing those who are far less fortunate to pay for the comfort of doctors, lawyers, and hedge fund managers. It's not a winning or a moral cause. You are literally arguing that the poor and middle class pay more for the 1%, which is what the incomes of those groups fall in.

People imagine a rosy world in which college should be "free" because politicians tell them it exists in Europe, when the fact is university is for the few in Europe, subject to very strict entrance exams. Europeans--and by this I mean the middle class, not just the wealthy--pay some 50% of their income in taxes. They have made a decision to pool their resources for the betterment of society, and that's great. But it's very different from what some politicians promise this country can have.

[betsuni]

113. [phone]

[brer cat]

121. Amen!

[qazplm135]

10. Results

Try doesn't matter to most people, results do.

And whether you understand it or not polling is pretty consistent on what young voters care about and student loans are at the top.

So ignore it if you want or declare young voters not important like another posters appears to do, but a party does that at their peril.

[Doremus]

56. So think about your last lecture to your young adult child (not necessarily yours, but in general)

How well did it go over?

If we want to win we need to turn every stone and if it's doable, DO IT. This tuition forgiveness is easy, it'll make a lot of young people happy and more of them will find the enthusiasm to vote again. Isn't that better than standing on principle with your nether regions in your hand squawking about these spoiled young kids today?

[mcar]

60. Actually my 30 YO nephew was saying that he and his friends

were going to vote 3rd party because "Biden didn't forgive their student loans."

Here's what I said: "your pregnant wife and your pregnant sister are about to have their human rights taken away from them and you are going to hand Congress to Republicans because of your student loans?"

It was an eye-opening moment for him. He acknowledged that I was correct.

Isn't that better than standing on principle with your nether regions in your hand squawking about these spoiled young kids today?

What a sweet way to describe my standing up for women's rights. Bless your heart.

[Cha]

178. Good on You, mcar! Enlightening your

Nephew on the Big Picture.

"3rd party" is like Voting for Magats.

If they get power they won't only take Women's Rights Away.. they'll take SS Away.. 0ne issue voting is Bullshite.

💙💛

[JI7]

12. they didn't turn out for Sanders or Warren either

turnout was low even when there were candidates saying they would get rid of student debt .

[qazplm135]

14. So ignore

Them then?

Or try to get them with at least some sort of assistance?
Sorry but I don't understand the reluctance to at least try to bring them over with a policy move that doesn't have to involve getting rid of all debt.

[Celerity]

21. In 2024, Millennials + Gen Z will equal Boomers and up in terms of actual VOTES, add in Xennials

(born 1977-1980) and they will surpass Boomers and up.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/millennials-and-gen-z-will-soon-dominate-us-elections/616818/

Younger voters propelled Biden to victory over Trump in 2020, new study finds

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article251272304.html

[LetMyPeopleVote]

68. No, Biden Can't Forgive Student Loans By Executive Order

President Biden does not have the power to cancel student debt

Link to tweet

Advocates of debt cancelation by executive order point out that the Higher Education Act gives the Secretary of Education power to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired.” This provision would seem to give the Secretary broad power to cancel student debt.

But as financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz notes, another part of the statute limits the secretary’s authority. He only has the power to cancel obligations owed to the U.S. government “in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part.”

In other words, the Secretary of Education only has the power to forgive student debt when Congress gives it to him.

When President Biden has canceled student debt, it has always been under the authority of a specific program authorized by Congress. Borrower defense is one example: Congress gives the Secretary of Education authority to cancel debt after instances of outright fraud. Congress also allows the secretary to cancel debt when borrowers experience a total and permanent disability. Borrowers who work in public service for ten years can also receive a loan discharge.

In each of these circumstances, Congress created a specific provision for loan cancelation, and required borrowers to meet certain conditions before receiving forgiveness. If the Secretary really had the broad authority to cancel student loans whenever he saw fit, Congress wouldn’t need to create specific programs such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The very existence of those programs proves the limits of the executive branch’s authority.....

The debate over whether the President Biden can cancel student debt with the flick of his pen is a distraction. He can’t, but there are better solutions on the table. Congress and the Department of Education should work together to put them into practice.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. They're definitely going to extend past the mid terms

Borrowers have had a 2+ year break from payments right now. My hope is that Biden just keeps extending it throughout his entire term. Let the Republicans be the Grinches who reinstates payments if they ever get back in charge.

[SharonClark]

4. Did Biden run on eliminating $10K for student loan debtors?

Then he should just do it and move on.

[FBaggins]

16. No by executive fiat he didn't

Like many things that require congressional approval, he proposed a change that Congress has failed to send to his desk.

He also ran on most of the items in Build Back Better - but he can't just declare them to be law if Congress can't pass something.

[maxsolomon]

33. Apparently this needs to be repeated on DU multiple times a week.

Biden clearly said he'd sign legislation to forgive 10K. That nuance is disregarded in the Millenial binary world view.

But that legislation is nigh on impossible because Republicans remain intransigent fucks. DU keeps insisting he promised to eliminate it, as if a broken campaign promise is reason enough to give power back to a party composed of paranoid racists.

It may be bad news for a lot of younger people, but this nation is built on not forgiving debt.

[SYFROYH]

38. "I'm prepared to write off $10K debt, but not $50K because I don't think I have the authority..."

No, Joe led people to believe he could and would write off $10,000 but not more because he didn't think he had the authority to do so.

Link to tweet

Psaki has been trying to walk that back, but his words are clear to me.

[maxsolomon]

43. In the 2/16/21 tweet you posted, it is clearly referencing

a Schumer/Warren proposal. A senate proposal that has gone, and will go, nowhere in this Senate.

Assuming he said this on 2/16/21, it was AFTER he was inaugurated, AFTER the campaign.

That's not a campaign promise, but that's another nuance that is lost in the chorus demanding he does something he and his administration clearly believe the president can't legally do.

[SYFROYH]

44. How does that make sense in the context of not writing off $50K because of a lack of authority?

Yes, it was a campaign promise.

"I am prepared to write off $10K"

If what you're saying is true he would have said he needed to be granted the authority to write off $10,000, too.

[maxsolomon]

46. That's what he promised in 2020.

To sign legislation to write off 10K. It was not a campaign promise to do it via EO.

Why is this "broken" campaign promise (he's only in his 2nd year out of 4, BTW) the one that Young Progressives are going to abandon the Democratic Party over?

Why does he get no credit for the billions he's already "written off" via existing programs?

Does anyone think that Trump or some other GQP asshole is going to "write off" one red cent of student debt?

[SYFROYH]

49. They do give him credit for his promise to write off at least $10,000

Of course, they don't expect Republicans to do it, but it is the biggest financial anchor around their necks either way.

I can believe that Joe didn't mean what he said at the town hall. But he said it and said it very publicly and I don't blame people for being upset about the walk-back.

[maxsolomon]

50. I guess we'll just have to turn the country back over to the racist clown party

to teach Joe a lesson. That lesson being: IOKIYAR. Only Republicans can lie without consequence.

[SYFROYH]

51. Not necessarily, but I dont think gaslighting young people is the answer to securing their vote.

Joe can always promise he'll write off $15,000 next time.

[maxsolomon]

90. Gaslighting, huh?

As you can tell from my posting on this topic, I really don't believe that was Biden's intent, at any point.

Sometimes he misspeaks or isn't as precise as he should be, but that is far from the definition of Gaslighting.

[betsuni]

116. ...

[FBaggins]

123. An odd notion of "gaslighting"

At no time during the campaign did Biden advocate for (let alone promise) anything other than Congress passing a bill.

At no time between the campaign and taking office did he do so.

At one point, after taking office, he made a single statement which was immediately walked back and has not been repeated despite months of "squad" demands.

Yet those in your shoes continue to claim that not acting by executive fiat would be breaking his campaign promise? That the tiny verbal slip is actually to be interpreted as his real meaning all along? That (somehow) young voters across the country voted for him because of something he said after he took office?

And you have the nerve to talk about anyone else gaslighting?

[SYFROYH]

169. Well, at least you admit he said what he said, but didn't mean it.

"tiny verbal slip"

[qazplm135]

80. it's also clearly referencing "his authority"

Seems pretty clear to me he was talking about...wait for it...his authority, not Congress' authority and he clearly seemed to think it extended to 10K but not 50K.

If there's a question then do it and let the courts sort it out. It's not explicitly disallowed, so it's not like he would be acting blatantly unlawfully. At worst it's an open question, so do it and let the courts decide, and if they say no, then he can say he tried. And just maybe they might say yes.

[maxsolomon]

83. April 5th, 2021.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki left the door open on Monday to a potential executive order that would cancel up to $50,000 of student debt per borrower.

Psaki was asked what President Joe Biden's stance on the issue is after his chief of staff, Ron Klain, recently said Biden is looking into his "legal authority" to use executive action for such a move.

Biden's press secretary reiterated his willingness to cancel up to $10,000 if it were done through legislation in Congress, but grew more cautious on details for the rest of her answer.

"I think that would naturally be the first step before it's a larger amount beyond there," Psaki said. "What Ron Klain was referring to is the fact that there's an ongoing review.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-student-debt-50k-executive-order-rule-out-psaki-2021-4

[qazplm135]

94. stop

"his legal authority" has nothing to do with legislation through congress, you know it and so does everyone else, that was cover because they for whatever reason wanted to punt the ball over to Congress.

Biden directly used the same language so this isn't some Ron Klain misspeak that was cleaned up.

[betsuni]

117. ...

[betsuni]

47. It is very annoying.

I thank everyone who takes the time to keep correcting the "but he promised" whining.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

73. You are correct

[SYFROYH]

39. He did.

He said in the CNN Town Hall, "I'm prepared to write off $10K debt, but not $50K because I don't think I have the authority..."

For the people who have been trying to gaslight people about this, his words are clear.

[maxsolomon]

41. Via legislation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/01/27/no-biden-didnt-promise-to-cancel-everyones-student-loans/?sh=68f4f3c06929

Biden is supporting a proposal from Warren. If elected president, Biden is indicating that he would support, and sign, legislation that cancelled $10,000 of student loans for student loan borrowers. This is different than explicitly stating he would use executive authority, if he has such authority, to cancel student loans.

[SYFROYH]

45. That's nice, but that's not what he said at the town hall.

eta: I'm glad he would sign legislation that got through congress. That's kind of easy.

Writing it off himself, as he said in the townhall, was a bold promise.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

71. You are Wrong

Here are some facts

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[qazplm135]

145. I've never quite seen

A goalpost and strawman combo quite like this one.

No one is arguing he promised to get rid of 50k they are saying he promised to get rid of 10k.

Whether or not that's "broad student loan forgiveness" is in the eye of the beholder and not particularly important or part of the relevant discussion, although even that amount would help a whole lot of people.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

148. Again, you are WRONG

Read the material posted. Biden promised to sign legislation if passed by Congress. Biden has no power to do this without legislation. The clams that Biden can do this without legislation are simply false.

Again, you are WRONG in your claims

[qazplm135]

170. stop

no one talks about "my responsibility" when they are talking about Congress passing a bill.

I don't get all of this spinning just to try and protect Biden as if he's the Pope and you are the most devout Catholic in history.

He's not infallible, or perfect.

And if he has no power to do it, how has he canceled over 17 billion so far?
Of course he has the power to cancel some debt.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

70. If Congress were to send Biden a bill to cancel $10,000 in student debt, he'd be happy to sign it."

Cancelling student debt cannot be done by executive order. Biden campaign on having Congress pass a a bill to cancel student debt

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

185. No, Joe Biden did not run on canceling $10,000 of student debt through executive order.

Candidate Biden called on Congress to do it through legislation.

Congress has moved to help with the CARES Act, but they must do more.[...]It will have to extend unemployment benefits, and provide further direct cash relief, and take care of the people left out of the CARES Act, through an immediate cancellation of a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person, as proposed by Senator Warren.

medium.com/JoeBiden/joe-biden-outlines-new-steps-to-ease-economic-burden-on-working-people-e3e121037322

Biden promised support for student loan forgiveness during his presidential campaign in 2020.

Specifically, Biden had proposed a program to cancel the undergraduate federal student loan debt for borrowers with incomes under $125,000 per year who attended public institutions or historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and private minority-serving institutions (MSIs). He also said he would support initiatives to cancel $10,000 in student loans for borrowers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2022/02/15/student-loan-forgiveness-were-going-to-win-says-top-democrat-as-poll-shows-broad-support-for-debt-cancellation/?sh=4d7e9cc46a8e

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President-Elect Biden reiterated that call to Congress in January 2021.

Biden will call on Congress to forgive $10,000 in student debt for all borrowers

President-elect Joe Biden will ask Congress to immediately cancel $10,000 in student debt for all borrowers and to extend the payment pause that’s scheduled to lapse this month, an aide told reporters Friday afternoon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/student-loan-forgiveness-could-be-more-likely-but-challenges-remain-.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden's position that CONGRESS should act to forgive $10,000 immediately was reiterated through his press secretary in February 2021.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated Biden's past support for $10,000 of student debt relief per borrower through legislation, but cast doubt on whether he would take executive action to do so if Congress doesn't send him a bill.

"Debt relief is of course an important priority for the president," Psaki said, adding that Biden extended a Trump-imposed pause on federally held student loan payments and interest accrual through September hours after his inauguration.

"[Biden] already took a step through an executive action on the first day and he would look to Congress to take the next steps," Psaki added.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/537345-schumer-warren-introduce-bill-calling-on-biden-to-wipe-out-student-loan-debt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are currently two student loan forgiveness bill that were introduced in the House. Neither one has a single co-sponsor, and no Senator has stepped up to do the hard work and introduce a version in that chamber.

H.R.6708 - Student Loan Relief Act (Rep. Vincente Gonzalez)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6708?r=1&s=3

H.R.2034 - Income-Driven Student Loan Forgiveness Act (Rep. Al Lawson)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2034/cosponsors

If they put a bill on Biden's desk, he has pledged to sign it. What are they waiting for?

[betsuni]

186. +1

[Autumn]

5. Well then perhaps a certain amount should be forgiven and the whole predatory system be overhauled.

And make any new changes apply to all of the loans so that those loans can be paid off.

[maxsolomon]

34. That's a fine idea.

Perhaps Sen. Elizabeth Warren can get legislation through the Senate forgiving, say, $10,000 of debt and overhauling the predatory system?

Biden PROMISED he'd sign that legislation.

[leftstreet]

48. +1

Excellent idea

What gets lost in the "forgive" vs "don't forgive" debate is the predatory system itself

[mcar]

61. A lot has already been forgiven

but you are 100% correct - the entire system needs to be overhauled, including tuition rates.

[Autumn]

62. Not enough has been forgiven nt

[mcar]

65. Perhaps not, but the Administration is working on it

I'd love to see some actual legislation put forward.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

75. There are two types of debt cancelled or forgiven

The first is for people who attended bogus for profit schools that defrauded them. That debt needed to be cancelled due to fraud. The second type is for students who preform public service after graduation. For example, the child of a friend is working for a state agency that is covered by this program and is on track to have a significant portion of student loans cancelled.

Link to tweet

Biden is changing the rules for forgiveness of debt for public service.

Link to tweet

See https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/politics/student-loan-public-service-forgiveness-waiver/index.html

The Department of Education said Wednesday that it has so far identified 100,000 borrowers who are eligible for student debt cancellation due to the changes the agency made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program in October.

The cancellations for those people are expected to total about $6.2 billion in federal student debt relief. Not all of the eligible borrowers have been notified of their debt relief yet. They are being notified on a rolling basis, and the Department of Education could not provide a date when all of them will have been contacted.

The announcement marks the latest effort by the Biden administration to make it easier for some borrowers to qualify for loan forgiveness under existing programs. But the administration's piecemeal approach still falls short of the President's campaign pledge to support canceling $10,000 for each of the roughly 43 million people who currently hold federal student loan debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program promises to wipe away remaining federal student loan debt after an eligible public service worker makes 10 years of monthly payments. It was created about 15 years ago, but a very small percentage of people who applied had received forgiveness before 2021.

[lapucelle]

189. Senator Warren should write a Senate version of one of the two student debt relief bills

already introduced in the House. Neither bill has a single co-sponsor, and there is no Senate version.

President Biden has said many times that he would sign such a bill. It's time for members of Congress to stop tweeting and actually get to work.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

190. I would be curious to see what happens if she did draft such a bill.

I doubt that such a bill would get out of committee and would not pass in either the House or the Senate

[LetMyPeopleVote]

72. Go have someone propose a bill to do this

The concepts discussed need legislation to be implemented in the real world

[mcar]

88. Odd that no one calls for that

even members of Congress.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

92. People are starting to ask and they are being ignored

Link to tweet

[Autumn]

96. There are three bills in Congress. Is that real world enough for you?

Schumer and Warren have championed the leading proposal for wide-scale student loan forgiveness. There is no widespread support among both Republicans and Democrats for it. that alone speaks volumes. Marco Rubio introduced a bill which would eliminate interest rates on federal student loans. There is another that would allow student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy. That alone would change a lot of lives. It's good to know that at least a few Dems are working on what young people are asking for.

[mcar]

101. That's good news

Why are they not promoting their bills instead of constantly asking the President to do their jobs?

[Autumn]

103. If you pay any attention you will see that they do promote them. I guess I missed them asking Biden

to do their jobs.

[mcar]

104. They are all over Twitter, constantly

saying today would be a good day for President Biden to forgive Student debt.

I have yet to see one of them saying, hey, I just wrote this bill to forgive student debt.

Regardless of whether you follow Twitter or not, don't you think that's strange?

[Autumn]

107. They are right. Since Biden did mention doing it when he campaigned today would be a very

good day for President Biden to forgive Student debt. Any day would be a good day for it. I think if he doesn't that would be strange. Maybe get off Twitter and you might see one of them talking about the bills they have written on a show on TV.

[betsuni]

114. "Maybe get off Twitter and you might see one of them talking about the bills they have written

on a show on TV."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

182. Have any of these bills made it to committee?

None of these bills have a chance of passing in the real world

[Thrill]

8. This is going to mess them up with Young Voters

Mind boggling. Just cancel the shit. Not sure who’s advising them on this

[qazplm135]

11. People more afraid

Of pissing off older voters than capturing younger voters I'm guessing but those older voters who would be pissed off enough to not vote D were probably already not going to vote D anyways.

[Thrill]

13. In

[FBaggins]

17. "Young Voters" who went to college and took on debt that they haven't paid off yet

Young Voters who didn't go to college could be upset... as could those who went to more affordable colleges and didn't take on debt... or those who have recently paid those debts off.

[kcr]

36. There are always people who are going to be upset

There always have been. If we'd always pandered to the resentful nitwits, things like Social Security wouldn't exist.

[FBaggins]

37. The context here is critical

The poster I was replying to was clearly implying that the president should take action because it would help with a specific group of voters.

In that context - pointing out that it actually hurts with a potentially larger group of voters is entirely relevant.

If there's a rationale for forgiving student debt apart from buying the votes of younger citizens that's worth more than what those same dollars can do for the larger population (and I don't think that there is), then it's fine to say that doing the right thing sometimes comes with a cost. But that wasn't the context of the post that I was replying to.

[Effete Snob]

82. Imagine having been crippled with polio just prior to the vaccine

As frustrating as that would be, it is not a reason not to have vaccinated children when it became available.

[FBaggins]

105. That's a pretty ridiculous comparison

Nobody chooses to get polio - nor is forgiving debt parallel to a vaccine.

There will be 25 year old mechanics who couldn’t afford college who will know that their taxes are going to the 25 year old college graduate customer from an upper-middle class family

[Johonny]

15. Eliminating the interest would go a long way

Most people are fine with paying the loan. It's the abusive interest rates at far higher than the borrowing rate and the loan agencies that feast off the abusive system.

These loans should be considered grants with extremely low interest rates and managed by the government, not a for profit company. We don't need to make money on education, but we do need educated people.

Capped grants would also go a long way to reigning in runaway College costs

[Luciferous]

124. That seems fair.

[FBaggins]

126. Federal student loans are already at very low interest rates

They’re managed by a nonprofit company that doesn’t get the interest.

[uponit7771]

150. They're not all at zero. That seems to be fair for now.

[PufPuf23]

20. Why do universities cost so much now anyway?

Lower tuitions and fees, less student loans. Even the large scholarships available now, like student loans, sucked into paying tuition and fees.

[mcar]

25. That's right

Eliminating student loan debt for a small # of people now does not address the real problem - ridiculously high tuition rates and the completely messed up loan system.

Address those issues and make student loan interest 1% or something and we're helping even more people go to college.

[maxsolomon]

35. Republics have gutted state tuition subsidies.

That's one reason. Not the only reason, though.

[Sympthsical]

55. All my student debt didn't come from tuition

Which is kind of mind-boggling when you think about it. I had a full scholarship to a private university. The debt I took out was for books, fees, lab costs, and housing (the university required you to live on campus this first two years). My parents couldn't pay for any of it, and a part time job at the bookstore wasn't cutting it. So loans, loans everywhere.

I've paid mine off, but the fact I had to have debt without even counting tuition is ridiculous. And this was twenty years ago. It's only gotten worse.

I went back to school last year for a career change/nursing degree. I'm paying everything up front now because I can. However, the costs. $200 for a book? Workbook software. Materials. Lab fees.

When I saw the tab my books would cost - even used - I thought, "No, shan't," and immediately downloaded everything from the internet.

$800 for books for one semester. Get the fuck out of here.

[Generic Brad]

29. What's the interest on student loans?

I paid 8% interest years ago and it was not considered predatory. What changed? Did the interest go up or did the comprehension of what loans are decline?

[madville]

40. The only way eliminating student loan debt makes sense

Is to also prohibit the issuance of new debt. If the idea is that the loan practices are predatory and wrong to begin, and people should not have to pay it back, then how do they justify allowing entities to continue to offer that same product to new borrowers? Would the new/future borrowers expect theirs’ to also be forgiven at a later date and we’re right back where we started?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

79. What about the people who worked hard and paid off their student debt

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[manicdem]

52. Dont agree with eliminating $10k debt

I never took out student loans for my undergrad or masters degree. I worked 2 jobs, full time and part time while attending school full time so I didnt have any debt. I worked my ass off, sometimes 20 hours a day combined study and work. If we waive student loans, then that means im essentially paying for their debt.

[Sympthsical]

57. I'm a Democrat. I'm fine with this.

I paid off my debt and also worked my ass off.

It's about pulling up others behind us. The system sucks. It's a drag on our economy. We are messing with two full generations now who will end up struggling with retirement.

How much more damage needs be done before the, "Well, I'm fine, so screw them," attitude gets jettisoned?

[Mariana]

99. I'm curious, when was that? nt.

[Owl]

187. +1

[qazplm135]

195. so

we shouldn't give homeowners a tax exemption either right?

You are just paying for part of their debt after all.

There's a wide range of benefits that some people get that you don't get.

Why do you care if someone else catches a break?

[mcar]

63. 5 facts about student loans -

1. SIX PERCENT OF BORROWERS OWE A THIRD OF ALL THE OUTSTANDING DEBT.
A very small fraction of all student loan borrowers have very large loans. Six percent of borrowers owe more than $100,000 in debt, with 2 percent owing more than $200,000. This 6 percent owes one-third of the outstanding $1.5 trillion of debt. At the other extreme, 18 percent of borrowers owe less than $5,000 in student loan debt. They collectively owe 1 percent of the debt outstanding.

2. ABOUT ONE QUARTER OF STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS, WHO HAVE ABOUT HALF THE DEBT OUTSTANDING, BORROWED FOR GRADUATE SCHOOL.
Out of all households with student debt, only 26 percent are headed by an individual with a graduate degree. While only a small share of households with student debt have a graduate degree, loans associated with graduate degrees account for 50 percent of the total outstanding student loan debt. In contrast, 42 percent of households with student debt are headed by someone without a bachelor’s degree; they only account for ¼ of the total outstanding debt.

3. INDIVIDUALS WHO OWE THE MOST ARE NOT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DEFAULT ON DEBT.
Borrowers with graduate degrees have the lowest default rates despite accounting for about half of all student debt. Higher default rates are more common for students who went to for-profit institutions. Forty percent of borrowers from for-profit two-year programs default on their loans within five years of entering repayment, and 32 percent of those who went to for-profit four-year programs defaulted in this same time frame. Among students who went to public community colleges, about 25 percent default within five years of entering repayment. Defaults are much less frequent among those who borrowed to go to public or private non-profit four-year schools.

(My note here: The Biden administration has focused a lot of their forgiveness on these loans.)

4. MOST BACHELOR’S DEGREE RECIPIENTS GRADUATE WITH LITTLE TO NO DEBT.
Thirty percent of all bachelor’s degree recipients graduate with no debt, and another 23 percent graduate with less than $20,000 in loans. Fewer than 20 percent of all borrowers owed more than $40,000. Among for-profit schools, nearly half of all borrowers owed more than $40,000, but only 12 percent of those who attended four-year public colleges owed the same amount.

5. EVEN IF FINANCIAL AID COVERS THE WHOLE TUITION BILL, MANY STUDENTS STILL BORROW TO COVER LIVING COSTS.
Many students borrow to not only cover their tuition and fees but also to get cash to finance the cost of living while they are in school. An Urban Institute analysis conducted using the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study finds that student borrowing patterns among those for whom all tuition is covered by scholarships and grants (no net tuition) are similar to those who have to pay tuition. For students at public universities and colleges with no net tuition, 22 percent borrow $30,000 or more; on average, they borrow $24,000. In comparison, 23 percent of those who pay average net tuition of more than $5,000 borrowed $30,000 or more; on average, they borrow $28,000.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/11/12/five-facts-about-student-loans/

[betsuni]

69. Thank you.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

86. Thanks for posting this

I smiled because I had a full scholarship in law school that was subject to keeping up my grades. I borrowed a little for living and paid that off in two years after graduation

[mcar]

89. My kids have student loan debt

Actually oldest kid took on the debt we took out for his education when he was established in a career.

I recognize that it's a problem.

But for people to say they are apathetic or won't vote because of this one issue, when our democracy literally balances on the edge, is the height of selfishness.

[brer cat]

122. +++

"Give me my pony or I won't vote" for the greater good is not a Democratic attitude.

[mcar]

128. Exactly.

[iemanja]

108. Bookmarking

And you should make this an OP.

What in effect people are arguing for is a redistribution of wealth upward.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

77. This is a major issue/question that I have about the plans to cancel student debt

In the articles discussing the cancellation of student debt by magic or executive order, I came across an issue that has been pestering me. What is to be done on future student loan debt and how will persons who were responsible and pay off their student loans be treated. I was on scholarship in law school but still had to borrow some money. I paid off that loan many decades ago. My son was offered a full scholarship to one law school but went to a higher ranked law school. He paid off his student debt a long time ago. Another child is on track to have her student debt cancelled by working for a public agency.

As noted above, the current proposals will not help people who were responsible and repaid their student loans or people who will incure debt in the future. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/02/04/democrats-tweet-that-student-loans-should-be-cancelled-but-twitter-claps-back/?sh=5117abf23abd

Supporters of wide-scale student loan cancellation want one-time student loan forgiveness. In a perfect world, Biden (or Congress) would cancel all, or most, of the $1.7 trillion of outstanding student loan debt. That would be a major financial relief for current student loan borrowers. However, it wouldn’t help future student loan borrowers or student loan borrowers who already paid off their student loans. That doesn’t sit well with some in the latter group. “When and if Biden does cancel student loan debt don’t forget to send a refund to past federal student loan borrowers who worked hard to pay off their loans and delayed the same things you say current borrowers are delaying because they are paying off their loans.” Student loan borrowers who paid off student loans want their student loans paid for too. Many worked two or three jobs and made other financial sacrifices to pay student loans. Will they be included in any wide-scale student loan cancellation?

What will be done for such persons under these plans.

As for executive action, I remind you that the SCOTUS struck down Biden's OSHA rules for employers of 100 or more employees either being tested or vaccinated. The case on this issue is clear and that proposal should had been upheld by the SCOTUS. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would uphold the forgiveness of a very large amount of student debt by executive order in the real world. How do you propose getting around this problem in the real world?

I would love someone to explain how this works in the real world.

[mcar]

85. Good questions, LMPV

What happens to future students? What about all those who never attended college because they couldn't afford it?

But mostly, it doesn't truly address the problems of high tuition and the whole student loan system.

[ecstatic]

100. Nothing. You just have to wait for your turn

There will be some sort of tax credit or grant that you're eligible for, it may not be specifically related to student loans, but it will be something unique to your situation. Or maybe that moment has already come and you took advantage of it. If not, it will come eventually, just keep your eyes open. I'm 99.5% done paying off my student loans so I know how you feel. I could have paid them off years ago but I purposely slowed down because I was hoping for a mass loan bailout. lol.

My point is, not every program is going to help 100% of the population.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

98. I keep seeing demands that Joe Biden cancel student loans when we need legislation to do this

No one has shown that Joe has this power. I saw that there is at least one Congress person who is proposing a bill to accomplish this goal. https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-congressman-vicente-gonzalez-cancel-student-loan-debt-legislation-2022-3

A Democratic congressman wants to make one thing clear: Canceling student debt isn't a giveaway.

Texas Rep. Vicente Gonzalez told Insider that he graduated from law school in the 1990s with $100,000 in student debt. He said it prevented him from buying his first home "for a long time," from getting a better car, and from improving his living conditions.

"It was overwhelming," Gonzalez said. "I focused on nothing but paying that debt off because it really felt like I didn't own my degree without paying that debt off."

Now, he wants to make sure other Americans don't run into the hurdles that he did. On February 14, Gonzalez introduced a bill to allow the Education secretary to forgive up to $25,000 in student debt for every federal borrower. The press release said the bill would provide about $775 billion in relief for over 45 million Americans. It would forgive almost half of the $1.7 trillion in student debt held by borrowers in the US.

[lapucelle]

120. Two different student debt forgiveness bills have been introduced by Democratic representatives

this session.

H.R.6708 - Student Loan Relief Act (Rep. Vincente Gonzalez)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6708?r=1&s=3

H.R.2034 - Income-Driven Student Loan Forgiveness Act (Rep. Al Lawson)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2034/cosponsors

Neither bill has a single co-sponsor, and no one in the Senate has stepped up to write a Senate version of either bill.

There's lots of posturing on twitter by politicians (i.e. Republicans) who who seem more interested in growing their lucrative brands than addressing issues.

Maybe they should do the work they were actually hired to do or at least get on board with the reps who have already done the work for them.

[gulliver]

129. I don't think we should in any way "buy" young people's votes with student debt forgiveness

Young people need to vote, period. If they don't, that's their tough luck. They didn't do their duty.

Unreliable voters shouldn't rely on support for their views and interests. Do we beg young voters to vote and make student debt repayment their reward if they do? Nonsense. The year after they get "theirs," they hand the country to the Republicans. I don't think so.

Work for the interests of the voters who vote reliably first, I say. Those who don't vote election after election after election can't expect to have a seat at the table. They didn't show up at the table enough.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

130. You do know that in 2020 Millennials voted for Biden at the highest percentage?

58% went to Biden while 48% of Boomers went for Biden. So, thank you young voters is what you meant to say.

[gulliver]

131. Some people are putting down young voters in a disgraceful way by suggesting they won't vote...

...if they don't get more student debt forgiveness. Those people should be deeply ashamed, as should any small fraction of young voters who fit that unfair description.

And, of course, thanks for voting in 2020, young voters. Keep it up. It's obvious they've gotten a seat at the table. Keep it up to get a better seat.

[Owl]

188. Exactly.

[qazplm135]

196. lol

that's their tough luck?

Without young voters, it's OUR tough luck.

Republicans give their voters what they want, and our side talks about if you want to vote, vote, we ain't wooing ya.
That's an awesome formula for success lol

[AntivaxHunters]

132. A question for the naysayers about forgoiving student loans

How does not forgiving student loan debt help Democrats get MORE voters?

Serious question.

What does allowing student loan debt to continue do to grow the party & ensure upcoming election wins?
Exactly how does this ensure more people vote for Democrats? Because honestly I'm not seeing it when young voters are now the largest voting bloc in the country. This is a top headline issue with young people alongside climate change & healthcare.
Nope, not seeing how not forgiving student loans is going to help going forward & if anything you'll see a loss of votes on a large scale because young people are just going to say "fuck it!" & check out entirely.

This is a big forced error.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=lNqtrWGuOhAVP5CtJvCgDg

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=lNqtrWGuOhAVP5CtJvCgDg

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=lNqtrWGuOhAVP5CtJvCgDg

[Celerity]

138. Jeffrey Noordhoek, the CEO of Great Lakes parent firm Nelnet, is paid over 1.6 million per year

and has been given tens of millions of dollars worth of stock options

https://wallmine.com/people/38968/jeffrey-r-noordhoek

https://www.gurufocus.com/insider/NOORDHOEK+JEFFREY+R/name

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

151. 😲😲😲

[LetMyPeopleVote]

153. There may be better uses of the money needed

Forgiving student debt will cost a great deal and there may be better uses of such funds

Link to tweet

[AntivaxHunters]

172. Student loans

are the #1 drag on the economy & those most impacted are POC.
It's not about "not wanting to pay your bills" as that person says but rather they CAN'T pay their bills.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=QJ2DbIa18WYl91BC04Q-aw

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=srs9jXrPTa1SCSURTYlm1w

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=srs9jXrPTa1SCSURTYlm1w

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=srs9jXrPTa1SCSURTYlm1w

[Niphu]

157. I don't see the word "likely" in her statement

But Político needs a juice Reddit-worthy title.

[KWR65]

181. I have a relative with student loans..

they have been making their standard monthly payment while the deferment is going on their federal student loans. By paying them while not having to be charged interest they have saved about $5k in interest payments.