Biden is Canceling Up To $10K in Student Loans, $20K For Pell Grant Recipients (npr.org) 441
President Biden has announced a sweeping effort to forgive up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, and up to $10,000 for other qualifying borrowers. Biden also extended the federal student loan payment pause through Dec. 31. From a report: "In keeping with my campaign promise, my Administration is announcing a plan to give working and middle class families breathing room as they prepare to resume federal student loan payments in January 2023," Biden said in a tweet on Wednesday. U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement, "Today, we're delivering targeted relief that will help ensure borrowers are not placed in a worse position financially because of the pandemic, and restore trust in a system that should be creating opportunity, not a debt trap." To qualify for the $10,000 forgiveness, individual borrowers must earn less than $125,000 a year, or less than $250,000 a year for couples. To qualify for the $20,000 forgiveness, borrowers must meet those income requirements and must have received a Pell Grant in college. Pell Grants are designed to help low-income students pay for higher education.
Canceling (Score:3, Insightful)
Canceling as in taking other people's money to pay for it? That seems extremely unfair to everyone who scrimped and saved to cover their loans.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Insightful)
Its exactly that.
Some of it is going to people who got swindled by the for profit hi-edu hucksters; but mostly this is taking tax money from people who paid for school themselves, paid down their loans or choose not to go to school for cost or other reasons and giving it to people spent money they did not have, and education products that have been poor in terms of ROI.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep.
If they're going to do something they should give $20,000 to everybody who studied during the "let's ripoff the students!" period.
Those who worked? A $20,000 pat on the back, I'm sure most of them will use it well and productively.
Those who didn't work? They can pay off some part of their debt.
Nah, fuck it. Let's just give it to those who worked...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could've just passed a law making student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy and solved a whole bunch of these problems at the same time without screwing over responsible people.
Morality vs. practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it might be morally applaudable to reward those that worked hard and made the challenging financial sacrifices. However, not bailing out those hamstrung by onerous student loans is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Maybe (arguably) some of those in loan trouble don't deserve to be bailed out. However, keeping those people under loan distress means that millions of potential consumers are economically sidelined, leading to macro-economic burdens that hurt everyone, including those not in loan distress. In fact, those that worked hard to struggle through college without onerous loans but still haven't hit income pay dirt will be the ones most disadvantaged by the depressed macro-economics.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice spin, but it was clear from the beginning that Biden was using debt-forgiveness as a way of bribing a very large demographic into voting for him. Now he is just paying out the promised bribe (using our money, of course).
We have a broken education system that is ushering students into crippling debt in return for unmarketable degrees. Dumping taxpayer money into that debt doesn't solve the problem, it pours fuel on the fire, as the academic administrators are now being even more rewarded for
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone should be funding this, its the colleges who have been happily steering students towards popular degrees where the market is already fully saturated, selling them on completely unrealistic expectations about their employability prospects.
Nope, the burden of payment should rest on the shoulders of those responsible for handing out the never-ending flow of free money in the first place: The government and their lenders.
Those colleges and universities didn't print the free money themselves. Nor would they get to constantly raise the price of their services in a normal market. They had to have and continue to receive help to achieve both. That help came from the lenders losing all responsibility for the risk of default through the government
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem is this in isolation isn't improving things, it's a one time patch benefiting people who have recently gone through this, but does nothing for those now starting college, for example.
Cancelling debt should have come *after* some plan to mitigate ongoing financial failings in the current system. As it stands it's just a one-off gift to people to get near-future votes.
The thing is, they want to talk about cancelling student debt as a one off because that's "cheap" to do, but they don't dare talk about "but what about moving forward?"
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem is this in isolation isn't improving things, it's a one time patch benefiting people who have recently gone through this
...and not the ones who went through it responsibly.
This mostly rewards the ones who chose a worthless degree and spent the whole time playing beer pong.
Re: (Score:2)
My problem is this in isolation isn't improving things, it's a one time patch benefiting people who have recently gone through this
...and not the ones who went through it responsibly.
This mostly rewards the ones who chose a worthless degree and spent the whole time playing beer pong.
I see this argument thrown around a lot, but is there any real truth to it? What's the cut-off year for "having to bust your ass to stay in class" to "can just sit around doing fuck-all and still get credit?" I've known some people that went to college in the seventies that were worthless sacks of crap too. That doesn't mean everybody going to college from 1970 onward is a worthless sack of crap.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the cut-off year for "having to bust your ass to stay in class" to "can just sit around doing fuck-all and still get credit?" I've known some people that went to college in the seventies that were worthless sacks of crap to
It's not about a year. If someone wants to be a worthless sack of crap, it's a free country. I applaud them. It only becomes a problem when people ask us to pay for it.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's horse shit. It's the same bullshit as saying that the minimum wage can be low because it's for kids jobs... when 28% of minimum wage owners are parents.
Most of the people who have student loan debt are poor. Many people who have jobs will go to their graves still owing student loan debt. Is this the country we want to live in?
Enjoy (Score:5, Funny)
Hard-Working Plumber Looking Forward To Paying For His Neighbor’s Gender Studies Degree
https://babylonbee.com/news/ha... [babylonbee.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It does present a problem with respect to planning and participating in the student loan market.
If the 'new normal' is a 'tradition' of debt forgiveness, inconsistently executed by whoever the current president is, well that's a tricky thing to anticipate when making financial decisions, whether you are taking out a loan or potentially lending in that market.
If it's a one-shot, it's just so narrowly beneficial.
I just don't like such a nakedly populist short term move in the run up to a midterm, it doesn't i
Re: (Score:2)
Consdering the "new normal" is handing out trillions of taxpayer dollars to private industry whenever they suffer the least setback, it doesn't seem to affect their ability to make financial decisions knowing the taxpayers will be forced to c
Re: (Score:2)
there, fixed that for you.
You mean you broke it for them. They got it right themselves. And for what it's worth, taxes have always been about the people of the country paying for things that are designed to better the country as a whole. I get that some people will always rally against taxes that don't directly benefit them, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anyway.
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
Canceling as in taking other people's money to pay for it? That seems extremely unfair to everyone who scrimped and saved to cover their loans.
As someone else put it, "We're taking money from plumbers and bricklayers to pay the college loans of lawyers and office managers".
Re: (Score:2)
debt.
i am in the trades.
so how in hell am i paying for it
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Informative)
The money you contribute to the IRS, plus the money you lose to the inflation this will cause pays for it.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Informative)
You already paid for it. The Feds took on debt themselves to finance student loan money. If the student loans get paid back, the Feds can use the payments to service and retire part of their own debt, likely at a net profit (since the Feds can always borrow money more-cheaply than students). So you paid for it in inflation and/or taxes in the past. The payback would alleviate your future taxes and would do a little to reduce inflation.
Now you are not receiving the expected relief, since some of that money isn't being paid back to the Feds. Now the Feds have to engage in more borrowing to cover the debt they took on to finance someone else's education.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the cutoff is double ($250K total) for a married couple which means a $180K lawyer married to a $60K teacher will still get the benefit.
Balanced View (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone else put it, "We're taking money from plumbers and bricklayers to pay the college loans of lawyers and office managers".
True, but you are also taking more money from investment bankers, executives and CEOs to pay the student loans of nurses, paramedics and teachers....and given the much lower salaries compared to lawyers and office managers there are probably a lot more teachers, paramedics and nurses being helped by this than there are lawyers.
The ones I think got treated unfairly and the nurses and teachers who scrimped and saved to repay their loans and now are getting nothing. Overall through, the system they used to have in the UK where university tuition was free and paid for through taxes was a lot fairer. That way anyone with ability could go to university and those who ended up in high-paying jobs paid more through taxes to cover tuition than those who needed a degree for jobs like teaching and nursing that paid much less.
Re:Balanced View (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea why this is some well-guarded secret, but we have the same system here in Tennessee. We have free community college as long as you keep your grades up. While it doesn't cover all career options nursing is definitely an option, and maybe teaching. We have free college - but nobody seems to care because they want to go to a big school with a sports team and fraternities and all that. But that's not what "free college" ever was in Europe. Bluntly stated, people want the American experience at the European price.
New UK System Terrible (Score:3)
Loans repayable as an extra 10% tax payment based on your income above a certain level.
It's a terrible system because it means that high-earning graduates pay much less than those with low salaries. High-earners quickly pay off the loan minimizing interest whereas those on lower salaries basically have an extra 10% tax on their earnings for their entire career and pay much more - it only tops 40-years after payments start, not when you hit 40-years old.
If you want to know why the UK is struggling to find e.g. science teachers this new system is exactly the reason. Why would a science grad
Not from plumbers and bricklayers (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile when that plumber or bricklayer needs a heart bypass or back surgery they can see a doctor and their kids have teachers and their cell phones work because we have engineers.
Re: (Score:3)
to pay the college loans of lawyers and office managers".
Lawyers and office managers will not be covered by the loans scheme. More like it will pay down people who got stupid unemployable degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
But the military is so productive! The military are the future of the country! They make such heroic sacrifices for us all.
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
It's why the United States still exists. Be glad it's there to save all our asses.
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Informative)
Social Workers are a general occupation meant to basically help others. They exist in several contexts - in a hospital, they are available to help navigate, well, anything. If you got a devastating diagnose of some disease? Well, they can help pull together the resources you need to get through it - where to find counselors, where to find groups who are going through the same thing, etc. They're a bridge between the doctor who gives you the diagnosis and basically runs away, and "what do I do now"
There are other contexts too - perhaps you're leaving an abusive marriage, and now have to navigate family court and other things - they help you point out what you need to do, how to find a lawyer, how to pay for the lawyer and other things
Maybe you're so prepared for every eventuality - good on you. But rarely are people prepared for the worst news of their lives, and they need someone to help them find the necessary resources and other things, or just be there to help someone deal with the news (perhaps you have a social network strong enough to help you weather it - great, but many people find themselves unexpectedly lonely with no one to help them).
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It buys around 30 million voters (who probably would have voted Democratic anyway, being young college graduates), and pisses off 200+ million voters who have to pay for it.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Funny)
Hard-Working Plumber Looking Forward To Paying For His Neighbor’s Gender Studies Degree
https://babylonbee.com/news/ha... [babylonbee.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I got my degree in tourism, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Puppetry would have been better:
https://www.npri.org/graduate-... [npri.org]
99% of degrees aren't gender studies (Score:2)
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It looks like we just made a 300 billion dollar campaign contribution to the Democratic party. Not even counting the (almost impossible to calculate) inflationary impact.
Re: (Score:3)
Biden did campaign on forgiving $10K of student debt, so at least the electorate knew it going in.
Re: Canceling (Score:2)
With student loans a racket developed and got out of hand over the past quarter century. For much of the later 20thcentury ITT Tech was leader in student loan fraud then the university of phoenix got in the game. Both got fined millions over the past 20 years for fraud, ITT is gone while UofPx is still destroying lives by convincing gullible students to take massive loans.
Forgiving debt, stealing others money, is unsustainable .
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they are just opening up the spreadsheet and subtracting the numbers. This is money owed the federal government. Lowering inflation via debt service of student loans doesn't sound like a good idea to me because IMO the people who benefit from government programs should be the ones who pay for it. Who should pay to keep inflation low? Not people in their 20s and 30s who qualified for pell grants, that's for sure.
Full disclosure: I worked a full-time job while going to college to pay for it, and I
Re: (Score:2)
And no matter how it happens, it is always going to hurt.
Might as well do it sooner rather than later.
Gentle healers leave stinking wounds.
Re:Canceling (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems extremely unfair
Doesn't matter. It's vote buying season and the calculus is that this will render more votes for (D)s for the gimmes than votes against (D)s by principled people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
The worse part is that it does nothing going forward to work on lowering the cost for future college attendees. It's a really expensive band-aid that's going to piss off those not eligible, and ultimately piss off a whole new generation when they aren't able to partake in a few years.
Pretty much everything politicians do. Technically, he's addressing a campaign promise, but he's doing it in the dumbest and least ultimately effective way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canceling as in taking other people's money to pay for it? That seems extremely unfair to everyone who scrimped and saved to cover their loans.
Come on, you're the Greatest Country in the World. Surely you can afford to educate your populace without bankrupting them. But then once they're educated they're more likely to figure out that you're not quite as great as you believe, so I can see your dilemma.
It's better than making a few loan sharks richer.
(shrug)
Re: Canceling (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kind of a big FU to them.
Re: Canceling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The US government is funded by sale of treasuries.
However- the US government also needs to pay out those treasuries + interest.
This means the value of a treasury is based upon being able to get it back + interest. This means that ultimately, the tax payer is the one guaranteeing those treasuries, and the people who will pay for it if treasuries stop being purchased.
So while the tax payer doesn't immediately pay for government expen
You prefer a tax break to billionaires? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they going to go back and re-imburse all those people that DID pay off their student loans?
That's kind of a big FU to them.
It's an economic stimulus program. We can cut corporate taxes so megacorps like my employer can NOT invest that money and just buy back stock so the CEO can get a pay raise. Would you prefer that?
Regarding the money, I paid off my loans LONG ago, but don't view as a FU. I was successful and thus easily paid off my loans. I don't need help. However many do and more importantly, these people are my customers. Putting money in their pockets will eventually put them into mine in increased sales and reduced default on payment for goods and services. I don't know about you, but I have a useful job. My employer provides goods and services to businesses who directly collect money from consumers. If our customers profit, we profit.
I'd prefer to get a 10k debt reduction, but since I can't, I'll happily settle for increased local tax revenue and watching my investments increase in value from this stimulus if it's successful as well as watching our profits increase.
With Republican administrations, they've sought to cut taxes for the donor classes, corporations, and billionaires. History has proven them as having minimal stimulus effects, but most definitely cutting tax revenues and making the rich richer. Sorry, the tax cuts under the Bush and Trump administration have done little to nothing beneficial for me and have actively harmed the rest of us. We've had to foot the bill for billionaires to send penis rockets into space. We have to foot the bill for Elon Musk's musings about buying social media sites...in the form of increased taxes to cover what he's not paying. I'd much rather pay grads so they can use their earnings to buy goods and services from the local economy and pay local taxes rather than just give it to a bank...of give it to billionaires who hire the best accountants to go to extreme lengths to avoid taxes.
If some college grads can more easily pay off their debts, I think this will be a much better stimulus and better investment and can't wait to see how things pan out. I predict it will lead to better business for my employer and better outcomes for my investments and community...let's try trickle-up for a change! Trickle down has been an abysmal failure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Giving people the polio vaccine is a big FU to people who died from it. Giving people freedom is a big FU to people who were slaves. Giving people smartphones is a big FU to people who only had flip phones. Giving people internet is a big FU to people who only had BBSes. Giving people anything is a big FU to anybody who doesn't have that thing. Your argument sucks.
That's not even remotely comparable. Actually a better comparison would be the government buying monoclonal antibodies for people who refused to get vaccinated.
Just line declining the vaccine, taking out big student loans is a choice somebody has to make. It's not something you HAVE to do to get a good education. When you're going to college, you have a choice of which school you can go to. You can choose an expensive school, or you can choose a good but cheap school. There are LOTS of them. If you choose a
Re: (Score:3)
Giving people the polio vaccine is a big FU to people who died from it. Giving people freedom is a big FU to people who were slaves. Giving people smartphones is a big FU to people who only had flip phones. Giving people internet is a big FU to people who only had BBSes. Giving people anything is a big FU to anybody who doesn't have that thing. Your argument sucks.
Jeez, none of that is the least bit relevant. None of your examples are a choice between acting now and later, with the people that act earlier missing out on a benefit. For example: flip phone owners got value from their phones, and were not prevented from getting a smart phone later.
Nighttime is unfair to rodents that were already eaten by birds during the day.
I can make irrelevant analogies, too.
Re: Canceling (Score:4, Informative)
It's worse than that. Basically those of us who decided to go to a no-name university in order to save money, and not have to borrow a damn thing, got told that we're the idiots for not spending money that we don't have as if it doesn't matter. Unlike them, college wasn't a luxurious party time for us. We scraped by with the bare minimum and just made do with what we had.
Here's my case: Transferred 90 community college credits to a university you haven't heard of called NAU. The total cost for the bachelor's degree was less than $10,000 for a total of 30 credits. That's for tuition, books, and everything. Here I am, 8 years after graduation, making $200,000 per year.
Now, how much do you want to bet the typical Ivy league student that spent $300,000 for their bachelor's degree and graduated the same year I did is making less than $70,000 per year right now, and is currently complaining about how it's somebody else's fault (and/or society's fault) that they had to borrow so damn much? They're supposed to be smart people, so why do they do something so incredibly stupid?
But that's not even the best part. Biden, in an act of sheer stupidity, put a bandaid on a sliced artery, rather than trying to do something about the bleeding first. These guys put it best:
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
This mantra of "you must go to the most prestigious school possible" has to stop. Not only is it incredibly wrong, but it also functions as a stupid people tax. Only the problem is, now the stupid people aren't the only ones having to pay for their own stupidity. Thanks for that, Biden.
These people probably shouldn't even be going to university to begin with, odds are they would have been just as well if not better off of they had simply gone to a trade school. Our economy doesn't need more gender studies or music therapy majors. But it does need more plumbers, electricians, mechanics, and machinists, and I guarantee you that the latter three will be much better off in their careers than the former two.
They can spend their money on other things (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
elementary economics.
prices go up when there is less supply.
also when the supply is controlled.
fossil fuels are a controlled supply
Re: (Score:2)
10,000 is nice but it's not generational wealth and does little to nothing long term.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you can't afford to live because of a $20k loan, "
Do *not* run out and buy a car. I feel like a large number of these people crying about being crippled by student loan debt will not hesitate one second to turn around and sign up for more debt by buying a car. Maybe a $70K EV so they can get that sweet $7500 credit from Papa Joe, too!
WTF (Score:3)
You can't tell me that it was less costly to finance and forgive all that debt rather than force lenders that gave loans at predatory rates to refinance them at the current prime rate.
If a person spent 4 years at an institute of higher learning and can't figure out how to use the knowledge they gained to pay a loan back, forgiving their current debt is only going to prolong the inevitable of when they take another loan with no idea how to pay it back.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't tell me that it was less costly to finance and forgive all that debt rather than force lenders that gave loans at predatory rates to refinance them at the current prime rate.
But the latter would have very little effect. More than 90% of all student loans come from the federal government, not "predatory lenders" (aka private lenders).
Re: (Score:2)
ok.
so if making debt reduction works for the top 1 percent.
why does it not work for the other 99 percent
Effect on tuition fees? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that University administrators will notices that their prospective customers get free money to enjoy their services and adapt their prices accordingly.
Re:That's not the case (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true. From 1977 to 2019, in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars, state and local government spending on higher education increased from $110 billion to $311 billion, a 184% increase. cite [urban.org]. Meanwhile the population increased from 220 million to 328 million, a 49% increase. So the inflation-adjusted per capita spending on higher education rose from $500, to $948, in other words it almost doubled.
This fact is obscured by how the data is normally reported - per student rather than per capita. Enrollment went up a lot, and the cost per student went up a lot. So the share of all costs covered by tuition went up sharply. But it's not true that states pulled funding - they increased it. Sure if you were one of the lucky few attending college before then it was nice because it was mostly on the taxpayer dime. But that overlooks the more common case, which is people who went directly from highschool into the workforce only to pay taxes to support those lucky few students. The biggest change is now everybody feels entitled to go to college. It's a change for the better, but it is certainly expensive.
Student debt is a ticking timebomb (Score:2, Insightful)
Economies need consumers. The baby boomers have been making up the shortfall with their spending (having done very well over the years and having benefited from heavily subsidized colleges and tuition savings passed onto them from those subsidies). But they're about 10 years away from aging out (or outliving their r
This Is Not The way (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way out of this is to forgive student loan debt
I would say that's pretty damn unfair to every person in the U.S. who didn't attend college.
It strikes me as odd for you to say that the way out of a bad economy, is to add 900 *billion* (yes that is the estimate) of costs onto the backs of primarily people who didn't go...
Luckily it will be easy to find that money with 87000 new IRS agents who can squeeze the poor for even more money.
I disagree, for a couple reasons (Score:3)
Also, you directly benefit from a well educated population whether you have a degree or not. College grads are many times more productive. How do we raise wages
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Student debt is a ticking timebomb (Score:5, Insightful)
So the crux of your argument seems to be that college is important and everybody should go.
But this action does NOTHING to help with that. It rewards people who made poor financial choices in the past... which will just encourage them to do it again. And yes, borrowing money to pay for an overpriced university is a poor financial choice. And, of course, with "money" flowing freely while everybody just decided they could deal with the problem later, the universities just kept increasing their prices.
As someone said above, taking money from plumbers and bricklayers to pay the college loans of lawyers and office managers is horrible idea.
Re:Student debt is a ticking timebomb (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why I think the answer is to end the federal student loan program entirely. It would cause huge growing pains, but it would also lead to smarter decisions on selecting schools, picking a career, and would force schools to either reduce their rates or go all in on only the wealthy get educations.
Re: (Score:3)
The only way out of this is to forgive student loan debt and restore the subsidies the boomers (and older Gen X) enjoyed.
It's entirely possible to address this in ways that aren't as drastic.
If I were president, my means of doing so would be this:
1.) For the duration of this term, the burden will be paused. You can pay them or not, they won't default, they won't go to collections, and the absence of payment won't adversely affect your credit score.
2.) For that same time, they will be interest free. Any payment will be 100% a principal payment.
3.) For the next four tax years, federal income tax returns can be earmarked for loa
And the justification is "because covid" (Score:4, Informative)
Suckers... (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone that saved and worked their way through college or took out a Home Equity loan is just a big sucker... paying off other peoples loans...
slap in the face (Score:3)
I didn't finish college, in part due to the cost. This is a slap in the face to those that were fiscally responsible. Now I get to help pay for someone with poor math skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this analogy all those unmolested folks and previously molested folks alike have to give free hand-jobs to the molesters and there is no promise they won't go right back to fondling the next crop when they get the urge again.
Buying votes with other people's money (Score:4, Insightful)
Taking money from people who work and giving it to people who don't work, but vote majority democrat - fucking great. What about people like me who worked full time and went to school, paying off all debts? I didn't work my ass off and pay taxes so a bunch of sniveling twatty brats can live with their parents until they are 45, getting government handouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Run on sentence but that is the whole problem. The government gave out large loans and didn't actually regulate how that money was being spent at every level. The educators apparently have no incentive to make good productive students with all that fre
Encourages people not to pay loans off (Score:2, Troll)
student loan system leads to high book costs and o (Score:2)
student loan system leads to high book costs and other BS fees as the loans have no max.
50K+ an year for 4 years+ adds up.
And next year? (Score:2)
Are next years' college entrants just going to jump on the loan bandwagon? Or will this relief program be ongoing? If it's the latter, then what we have done is converted federal student loans into a grant program. And if it's a grant program, let's just bite the bullet and structure it as one. Along with all the administration that making the government the single payer for many peoples' educations.
Now go and ask educators and college administrations how they will like having to deal with a government bur
Government subsidies on education... (Score:2)
Unconstitutional? (Score:3)
Good grief.. (Score:3)
Pointless unless it fixes the underlying problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
If tomorrow colleges still charge the same fees then cancelling debt is pointless. This is an activity that should be done *after* addressing the underlying problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Under what Constitutional authority is he doing this?
20 U.S. Code 1087e
How will it be paid for?
deficit spending -> inflation
Re: (Score:3)
Section d.1.D authorizes the Secretary to come up with income contingent repayment plans, which this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Right nobody will stop him because nobody can - you would be told you lack standing.
Probably the only entities with legal standing would be the Congress itself , and they'd need a majority to there to agree to sue the executive in the first place.
This is a big problem with out current system IMHO its what allows the intelligence spooks to keep abusing the Public despite being told time and time again they lack the legal authority to collect the information they do. You can't prove you were personally harmed so you can't even do the legal discovery to find out. Its a loop hole in the rule-of-law the government bureaucracy can drive long lines of trucks thru.
Not exactly (Score:2)
This is buying time for the timebomb that is the boomers aging out. Right now younger generations have no discretionary spending. That means no consumer spending (and no babies either, save a handful of accidents, and no, criminalizing abortion won't help that).
Right now the boomers are driving all our consumer spending, but in 10 ye
Re: (Score:2)
That article completely ignores the means testing. How many of the folks in the states with higher per-person debt will qualify... those states are, for the most part, the states with the highest cost of living.
Saying that these people will benefit more because they owe more without factoring in if they qualify for the forgiveness is bunk (and they know it)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering it was the GSA that packed up those documents and gave him the all-clear to haul them off, it's hard to get too worried about it. Not like he had them stored electronically on a server in his basement that could be (and was) accessed by foreign powers and other unknown third parties.
Re: (Score:2)
president jackson.
louisiana purchase
Re: (Score:2)
But this is not an impeachable offense.It is not a high crime or misdemeanor and he is not personally profiting from this policy
Re: (Score:2)
He will profit from the policy if people show up to vote for his party in 2022 and 2024 due to getting a "free" $10k loan forgiveness. He will suffer from it if angry working-class people realize they've been bilked and throw him and his people out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. It might be illegal but as I stated earlier in the discussion here I don't think anyone will have standing. You can't show you were 'personally harmed' at least not to the degree a court will require. General arguments like more inflationary pressure won't pass muster because its not a simple p->q proposition.
You certainly can't say you were harmed if you actually get loan forgiveness. You can't say you harmed if you are school that received loan distributions, you still have your money. B
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, people shouldn't become teachers or social workers until the pay meets the cost of the education. We can just live without all those under 100k a year jobs that require degrees.
Re: (Score:3)
Best way to do that is to get government out of it completely.
It costs more because of the government's funding. They expect the funding, and then ask for more. This is clearly evident in the data.
Not sure what kindergarten has to do with this. Maybe women shouldn't have sex with random people if they want to remain in the workforce?