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

[Deleted member 28227]

@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.

How much did the Bush and Trump tax cuts cost... chit load more than $400MM.... which actually is a bullshit number.

It's a foreclosed house worth the price of the original loan + interest?

A massive portion of these loan holders have been in default for years. It's a turd being called an asset.

 

[406dn]

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.

Based on my increasingly cynical view of the SCOTUS, they will find a way to find standing, and issue a ruling.

On the merits, I oppose the loan forgiveness for many reasons.

1. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem with the cost of higher education.

2. It asks borrowers who busted a gut to repay their loans to also pick up a share of others who dawdled around about repaying their loans.

3. For young people who decided that a college degree was beyond their reach because it included just too much debt, they get nothing, except a piece of the bill to cover the cost of the forgiveness.

4. For parents who sacrificed so that they could put their children thru college, they get nothing, except a portion of the bill.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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

He did, but I feel like your being purposely obtuse about the plaintiffs having standing.

No one is suing Biden for executive overreach, which sure is occurring.

They are suing because someone says that they want 20K of forgiveness not 10k and that it's unfair to give Pell grant holders more forgiveness.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Based on my increasingly cynical view of the SCOTUS, they will find a way to find standing, and issue a ruling.

On the merits, I oppose the loan forgiveness for many reasons.

1. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem with the cost of higher education.

2. It asks borrowers who busted a gut to repay their loans to also pick up a share of others who dawdled around about repaying their loans.

3. For young people who decided that a college degree was beyond their reach because it included just too much debt, they get nothing, except a piece of the bill to cover the cost of the forgiveness.

4. For parents who sacrificed so that they could put their children thru college, they get nothing, except a portion of the bill.

These aren't the merits of these cases. These are issues you have with larger issue, but not the cases.

What I find pretty disturbing is folks not looking at the actual cases.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

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).

Third paragraph. Well said. Are you an attorney?

 

[VikingsGuy]

To me this is not an argument for or against student loan forgiveness. It is a case about holding the president accountable to his/her constitutional role. I thought we just spent 4 years making this very point about his predecessor. But this will be spun as a further attack on SCOTUS now that they no longer speak for the one party they used to speak for. If fear Americans no longer want democracy - we want an internet streamed reality TV show. Time to bring back the Colosseum and the lions i guess.

 

[406dn]

These aren't the merits of these cases. These are issues you have with larger issue, but not the cases.

What I find pretty disturbing is folks not looking at the actual cases.

I guess I was speaking to the issue, not the case.

Student debt is a huge generational problem. MY generation incrementally defunded higher education, letting students and their families to bear the cost directly.

We managed to swing it in real time. It took foresight to get ready for the gauntlet, and many overtime hours to cover all of it.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

Not a horrible idea. But it would make SCOTUS a little busy. I think he overreached with cancellation, but why not try it.
I proposed that the student loan program get rolled into Social Security and extend it to trade schools. It would end this kind of political bs. SS system would get assets (loans) with better returns and people who would be employable and this paying into the system. I have over-simplified and private lenders wouldnt like the idea, but screw them. They can do sub-prime auto loans.

 

[corndog1]

Until college is tax payer funded those taking loans should expect to have to pay the loan back or don't take the loan.

 

[VikingsGuy]

(1)nHow much did the Bush and Trump tax cuts cost... chit load more than $400MM.... which actually is a bullshit number.

(2) It's a foreclosed house worth the price of the original loan + interest?

(3) A massive portion of these loan holders have been in default for years. It's a turd being called an asset.

(1) You are way smarter than that - for good or bad the Bush/Trump cuts were duly passed by Congress. Absolutely irrelevant to the conversation of POTUS authority or legal standing.

(2) The bank has the loan on its books as an asset including interest and fines. The value of a financial instrument is not directly limited by the value of whatever it is the borrower purchased and the bank sure as hell writes it all as losses if bankruptcy happens and any collateral is insufficient to cover. Plus these are not secured by any parallel asset so a really stretched parallel.

(3) A majority are not in default and they are assets either way. And I am fine with write downs of those expected values like banks have to do, but then the govt has to raise other taxes to pay for the lost future Obamacare expected “profits” from these loans.

 

[Deleted member 39961]

To me this is not an argument for or against student loan forgiveness. It is a case about holding the president accountable to his/her constitutional role. I thought we just spent 4 years making this very point about his predecessor. But this will be spun as a further attack on SCOTUS now that they no longer speak for the one party they used to speak for. If fear Americans no longer want democracy - we want an internet streamed reality TV show. Time to bring back the Colosseum and the lions i guess.

Love this too.

 

[406dn]

Regarding presidential orders, I think they go back a good ways, but they are a poor way of governing.

Also, I think they are a logical outcome given how balled up the Congress is.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I guess I was speaking to the issue, not the case.

Student debt is a huge generational problem. MY generation incrementally defunded higher education, letting students and their families to bear the cost directly.

We managed to swing it in real time. It took foresight to get ready for the gauntlet, and many overtime hours to cover all of it.

The SCOTUS case has ZERO to do with whether student loans forgiveness is good policy or not. There are two questions at hand.

(1) Do the states or the two student loan holders possess sufficient interest in the matter to be considered to have standing. The most simplistic view is that it is hard to see, but a deep dive into jurisprudence shows that courts will often stretch the concept to make sure important issues do not go unheard. (There is a similar situation with “mootness”).

(2) Did President Biden have sufficient statutory authority to enacts the waiver (as he has no such direct presidential power absent congressional action - which is agreed by all parties). The administration hangs its hat on the HEREOS ACT which was directed to providing relief for soldiers serving abroad during Iraq/Afghan wars.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

(1) You are way smarter than that - for good or bad the Bush/Trump cuts were duly passed by Congress. Absolutely irrelevant to the conversation of POTUS authority or legal standing.

(2) The bank has the loan on its books as an asset including interest and fines. The value of a financial instrument is not directly limited by the value of whatever it is the borrower purchased and the bank sure as hell writes it all as losses if bankruptcy happens and any collateral is insufficient to cover. Plus these are not secured by any parallel asset so a really stretched parallel.

(3) A majority are not in default and they are assets either way. And I am fine with write downs of those expected values like banks have to do, but then the govt has to raise other taxes to pay for the lost future Obamacare expected “profits” from these loans.

(1) I mean... technically

(2) Exactly? It's a bad debt, it's being construed as an asset instead of a liability. I was unclear it what I was trying to convey.

(3) I think this assumes a lot, folks can refinance privately with a better interest rate and then the gov loses taxes, folks could be waiting to see how this plays out and then just pay them off early... again no taxes. The tax argument doesn't hold much merit in my mind as it's wildly speculative. Which is entirely my problem with Obama and Biden using it as a means of paying for Obamacare in the first place.

 

[VikingsGuy]

He did, but I feel like your being purposely obtuse about the plaintiffs having standing.

No one is suing Biden for executive overreach, which sure is occurring.

They are suing because someone says that they want 20K of forgiveness not 10k and that it's unfair to give Pell grant holders more forgiveness.

No - the underlying suits specifically claim illegality of presidential overreach and then also raise allegations of harm to meet standing requirements. ”Lack of standing“ is the loophole here, not the other way around.

Standing requirements are largely court made and they make all kinds of twists and turns to hear cases they want to hear (see mootness also). They should dismiss the stupid plaintiff standing stuff, dismiss these cases and invite the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader of the Senate to refile with acknowlegement of their essential standing in constitutional boundaries of the presidency.

 

[406dn]

The SCOTUS case has ZERO to do with whether student loans forgiveness is good policy or not. There are two questions at hand.

(1) Do the states or the two student loan holders possess sufficient interest in the matter to be considered to have standing. The most simplistic view is that it is hard to see, but a deep dive into jurisprudence shows that courts will often stretch the concept to make sure important issues do not go unheard. (There is a similar situation with “mootness”).

(2) Did President Biden have sufficient statutory authority to enacts the waiver (as he has no such direct presidential power absent congressional action - which is agreed by all parties). The administration hangs its hat on the HEREOS ACT which was directed to providing relief for soldiers serving abroad during Iraq/Afghan wars.

As it turns out in this instance, I don't condone the forgiveness policy, and generally speaking, don't often agree with those bringing the case.

IF the court shoots it down, it will be one more instance where their reputation takes a hit, as it will be easy to demagogue. Since, I think the court has stepped on its *ick more than once the last number of years, I'll be okay with that.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

All this stuff VG is saying is over my head.. But at some point we've got to stop finding ways to encourage people to be less responsible.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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

Colvin also refused to give up her seat and was arrested just like Parks but the judge dropped the breaking the segregation law charge and instead charged her with assaulting an officer. Therefore the NCAAP couldn't use her as a test case for the segregation law.

So again, lots of debate to be had on overreach and forgiveness, and I agree with you on pretty much every point.

I do find it total BS that the court would give these plaintiffs merit, they don't have grounds to challenge forgiveness. Does someone? I would imagine so, but they don't.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not a horrible idea. But it would make SCOTUS a little busy. I think he overreached with cancellation, but why not try it.
I proposed that the student loan program get rolled into Social Security and extend it to trade schools. It would end this kind of political bs. SS system would get assets (loans) with better returns and people who would be employable and this paying into the system. I have over-simplified and private lenders wouldnt like the idea, but screw them. They can do sub-prime auto loans.

The problems with student loans as they sit now are (a) unlimited access to debt that encouraged schools to engage in endless amenity wars to be paid by students spending money that wasn’t theirs or didn’t feel like theirs, and (b) Obamacare jacked the rates and penalties up to fund clear shortfalls in Obamacare funding projections. I am not sure how mixing this broken system with SS solves anything.

 

[CPAjeff]

I took out a student loan for my master's program. This additional degree, and some REALLY long hours have paid off in spades!

Paid my loan off long ago and haven't looked back since. Poor snowflakes should've listened to The Duke a little more: