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

[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.