WARNING: Student Load Forgiveness is Very Unlikely to Pay for Your Next Elk Tag

[VikingsGuy]

Sometimes folks count unhatched chickens and they should be forewarned on this one. The early word is that SCOTUS arguments today did not seem supportive of the Biden proclamation of student loan forgiveness, and such a program likely will have to wait until it has support from 60 US senators (or until the demise of the filibuster), 218 Reps and 1 Pres at the same time - a situation that does not exist at this moment.

Interestingly, SCOTUS seems to agree with Biden’s original position during the primaries when he said POTUS does not have this type of authority. So in fairness, he was right once.

The hailmary hope is that a narrow majority fails to find standing by the plaintiffs, but that will just lead to a new suit with new plaintiffs.

 

[Marshian]

Good, it shouldn’t pass. It’s a shameful pandering to voters and a gross overreach of the office’s authority.

 

[Schaaf]

Maybe the lawyers should identify the student loan forgiveness clients as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan.

Gotta know your audience, this is elementary stuff.

 

[MThuntr]

Maybe the lawyers should identify the student loan forgiveness clients as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan.

Gotta know your audience, this is elementary stuff.

Or as PPP loans

 

[SAJ-99]

Sometimes folks count unhatched chickens and they should be forewarned on this one. The early word is that SCOTUS arguments today did not seem supportive of the Biden proclamation of student loan forgiveness, and such a program likely will have to wait until it has support from 60 US senators (or until the demise of the filibuster), 218 Reps and 1 Pres at the same time - a situation that does not exist at this moment.

Interestingly, SCOTUS seems to agree with Biden’s original position during the primaries when he said POTUS does not have this type of authority. So in fairness, he was right once.

The hailmary hope is that a narrow majority fails to find standing by the plaintiffs, but that will just lead to a new suit with new plaintiffs.

This action was always interest, although the arguments for and against are almost comical. Pandering to voters? Sure. Gross overreach of power? I doubt that, but when the legislature won't or can't do its job, any POTUS is going to keep reaching. Some of the stuff over the last 20yrs is quite questionable in terms of POTUS authority, but depending on who's in power of the various branches, it either gets a pass or is challenged. Do the States have standing? I always thought 'No' but I enjoyed seeing the creative arguments (and figure they will probably work, for obvious reasons).

 

[Marshian]

Or as PPP loans

The PPP comparison is inaccurate as the government forced the businesses to close down due to the pandemic, often against their will. No one forced the students to take out loans.

 

[ccc23454]

Cnbc couple hours ago had a guest already saying expect to return to payments end of summer. Telling you to contact your loan agent and start saving and prepareing for payments to resume. Good!

 

[MThuntr]

The PPP comparison is inaccurate as the government forced the businesses to close down due to the pandemic, often against their will. No one forced the students to take out loans.

And it was a LOAN that was forgiven costing billions without input. Plenty of abuses within that program and nobody batted an eye

EDIT: also I was playing on Schaaf's joke about what to call a bail-out

 

[Handlebar]

And it was a LOAN that was forgiven costing billions without input. Plenty of abuses within that program and nobody batted an eye

EDIT: also I was playing on Schaaf's joke about what to call a bail-out

The abuse started when they made them shutdown, agree that there has been plenty of malfeasance.

 

[Dougfirtree]

And it was a LOAN that was forgiven costing billions without input. Plenty of abuses within that program and nobody batted an eye

EDIT: also I was playing on Schaaf's joke about what to call a bail-out

Yup. Individual students are not “too big to fail.” As a whole though…? We will see.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

The hailmary hope is that a narrow majority fails to find standing by the plaintiffs, but that will just lead to a new suit with new plaintiffs.

If they don't fail to find standing our justice system is a f-ing joke.

2 plaintiffs are claiming harm because they don't get enough forgiveness... so ruling in their favor means they get none?

And then there is the states claiming harm... states who don't hold loans, Mohela does which isn't a gov entity and isn't a party in the suit.

I'm not arguing for or against Student loans forgiveness, but ruling on this seems like a massive miscarriage of justice and blatant politicking from the bench.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

The PPP comparison is inaccurate as the government forced the businesses to close down due to the pandemic, often against their will. No one forced the students to take out loans.

The issue here is the fed giving schools a blank check on tuition. Both Rs and Ds are at fault here, no one wants to turn off the money faucet, even now.

Tuition rates in 2023 are much higher than in 2019, Gen Z has the highest balance of loans. Given this fact forgiveness seems silly.

It's not about loan holders, though they are certainly one's who are suffering.

What's really ironic is that most folks who are against forgiveness have no clue how loans work and don't understand that new REPAYE is dramatically more powerful/impactful then this paltry 10k.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If they don't fail to find standing out justice system is a f-ing joke.

2 plaintiffs is harmed because they don't get enough forgiveness... so ruling in their favor means they get none?

And then there is the states claiming harm... who don't hold loans, Mohela does which isn't a gov entity and isn't a party in the suit.

I'm not arguing for or against Student loans, but ruling on this seems like a massive miscarriage justice and blatant politicking from the bench.

So if President Trump had signed a zero corporate tax executive order after failing to get it to pass in congress you suggest there is not a single person or entity in the United States that could challenge its legality? Wow - that would be the end of any illusions of a separation of powers or leave much of a role for an elected legislature.

Because we have a relatively limited history of huge exec overreach (remember the word relative) we haven’t needed a great way to deal with standing for executive overreach. Frankly, the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate should have automatic standing for claims that POTUS exceeded legislative authority. Otherwise we have a weak parliament strong monarch system.

The travesty would be to not find a way to hear the merits of the case. If he wins he win, if he loses he loses, but to allow the spending of $400 billion dollars by a one page executive order in the face of legislative refusal to do so eviserates any point in having a legislature for anything but the most trivial activities. And frankly, that is what both parties seem to be showing over the last decade (at least) - we are tired of trying a democracy and we just want a benevolent dictator (of course only “our guy” is benevolent).

 

[VikingsGuy]

The issue here is the fed giving schools a blank check on tuition. Both Rs and Ds are at fault here, no one wants to turn off the money faucet.

It's not about loan holders, though they are certainly one's who are suffering.

My answer is easy. Students can claim bankruptcy and the college and universities have to back the loans. Selling a defective pickup is way less costly than selling a $100,000 art history degree. Why hold Ford accountable and not UofMN?

 

[VikingsGuy]

The issue here is the fed giving schools a blank check on tuition. Both Rs and Ds are at fault here, no one wants to turn off the money faucet.

It's not about loan holders, though they are certainly one's who are suffering.

Let’s also not forget that rates were much much lower for students until Obama nationalized and built in elevated rates to fund part of Obamacare. It’s not banks that cheat people. It is human organizations with great power that cheat people. Sometimes that may be big banks, sometimes that is our government.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

So if President Trump had signed a zero corporate tax executive order after failing to get it to pass in congress you suggest there is not a single person or entity in the United States that could challenge its legality?

I'm not suggesting that, but finding a good test case is nothing new, everyone knows the name Rosa Parks and only a fraction of folks could tell you who Claudette Colvin was, so civil rights can wait but R's get to throw out the rules when they don't like stuff?

 

[VikingsGuy]

@wllm I call BS on the “haha” emoji. Answer the question posed - who has standing if a president spends $400,000,000,000 without legislative authority?


If the answer is no one, then I guess the next 10 presidents will be spending a lot of money outside our supposed constitutional system.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

My answer is easy. Students can claim bankruptcy and the college and universities have to back the loans. Selling a defective pickup is way less costly than selling a $100,000 art history degree. Why hold Ford accountable and not UofMN?

I honestly think that's a great solution, if schools are selling degrees as providing careers they need to actually prepare students for careers.

Let’s also not forget that rates were much much lower for students until Obama nationalized and built in elevated rates to fund part of Obamacare. It’s not banks that cheat people. It is human organizations with great power that cheat people. Sometimes that may be big banks, sometimes that is our government.

Totally Biden and Obama are as much or more responsible for this as any past administration.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not suggesting that, but finding a good test case is nothing new, everyone knows the name Rosa Parks and only a fraction of folks could tell you who Claudette Colvin was, so civil rights can wait but R's get to throw out the rules when they don't like stuff?

This is a perfect test case. The man himself said he didn’t have the power and worried about the precident.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not suggesting that, but finding a good test case is nothing new, everyone knows the name Rosa Parks and only a fraction of folks could tell you who Claudette Colvin was, so civil rights can wait but R's get to throw out the rules when they don't like stuff?

I am pro Parks and know the story of Colvin, but am missing the relavance here. Maybe I am just slow.