7 ms·

Supreme Court seems ready to reject student loan forgiveness

34 points by mikhael 4y ago

MichaelZuo 4y ago
The enabling 'law' did seem a bit legally suspect given historical precedence.
Ancalagon 4y ago
> "Half a trillion dollars". Uhm, so how much were those tax breaks to the wealthy Trump enacted? And, uhm, how much did each of the Iraqi and Afghani wars cost individually? Oh, and how much was the development of that shiny new fighter jet? So all of those were more necessary than educating our population in a globalized and highly-competitive economy? Not that I should expect anything more of this supreme court administration. Edit: forgot poorly planned corporate Covid stimulus
- andrei_says_ 4y ago
  Strong nation = smart, educated, healthy population with sufficiently reliable safety net supporting entrepreneurship and healthy lifestyles.
- lockhouse 4y ago
  Congress voted to authorize all of that. They didn't vote to authorize this. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution and federal laws as they are written, not as people wish they were written. It's not their job to legislate from the bench. If you want student loan forgiveness, get Congress to do it.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it is written, not as people wish it was written. It's not their job to legislate from the bench. Legislating from the bench is all the Supreme Court does. Their decisions are literally personal interpretations of the Constitution as they wish it was written, because there is no objective interpretation of that document. That's why their decisions include dissenting opinions, and why they undo previous decisions.
  - dataflow 4y ago
    > Congress voted to authorize all of that. They didn't vote to authorize this. Didn't they vote on the HEROES Act? How do you read the relevant sections of the HEROES Act in a way that excludes this?
- yucky 4y ago
  And don't forget to add Ukraine onto that pile of useless wastes of billions, even more so since it's currently happening.
  - Ancalagon 4y ago
    Ironically I feel the spending in Ukraine is more justified than the other causes I mentioned if only to catch Putin with his pants down, make Russia show it’s hand, and keep Russian and Chinese expansionary dreams in check. In many ways I agree with you though. Education for the US population is probably a far better use of that amount of cash
    - yucky 4y ago
      This is how most people felt about Iraq and Afghanistan during the first Bush term. It isn't going to end the way they tell you. It never does.
- atonse 4y ago
  Ignoring the “what about <x wrong thing>” as an argument, I actually agree with you on the overarching principle that we should prioritize educating our populace. However, we aren’t arguing about making college free or incentivizing colleges to reduce their fees. I can see all your arguments in service of that point. We are talking about loan forgiveness: Releasing one group of people from fulfilling their part of a financial deal they consciously made to benefit themselves, by using the money of other people. The deal they made was, they borrow funds to pay for a purchase they made, but when it comes time to pay the funds back, they are backing out and want someone else to handle it. And that idea of making others clean up your mess fundamentally bothers me to the core, just as much as when it happens to corporations. I can even get behind student loan INTEREST forgiveness, let’s ease that. But paying off the principal seems to go too far and teaches the wrong life lesson about not having to keep your end of a deal, to millions of young adults. I’m not making a political argument. Just one based on the principle of being a responsible adult.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > and want someone else to handle it To be clear, nobody else has to handle it. The debt is owed to the federal government, and if forgiven is simply erased. It would mean that less money will be paid in the future to the federal government from student loan debtors. But the federal budget changes every year due to many different factors. There's no inherent requirement that the federal government has to spend $X rather than $X + Y or $X - Y. And of course general tax income various from year to year due to economic conditions, changing tax rates, etc. Moreover, a lot of student loan debt never gets paid back anyway, due to default, forbearance, or death of the debtor.
    - mech765 4y ago
      In today's inflationary environment, forgiving the loans will have an effect of increasing the money supply (roughly-quantity of dollars in circulation). Even if nobody ever pays increased taxes because of the loan forgiveness, everybody has to take on the burden of somewhat higher inflation to make up for it.
exabrial 4y ago
What bothers me is nobody is talking about who is profiteering on this whole plan. First thing it is not “forgiveness”. That would be telling creditors to take a hike and declare the loan contracts null/void. Instead, student loan companies are salivating at the opportunity to reap gold mines of taxpayer dollars. They wrote a ton of really bad loans and old uncle Biden wants to reward them for their crappy lending practices. I certainly understand the sentiment of taking out a loan at 18 years old and not realizing the consequences. But the solution isn’t paying off companies who know better to give you that loan so they can go afford more private jets and yachts for the C Suite. Let the loans default. These creditors are rich enough already. You made a $250k loan to an 18 year old studying hair design? Tsk. That’s on you.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Aren't something like 90%+ of the loans held by the US government on behalf of the taxpayers?
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    Yes, but the executive branch can't just wipeout debt without Congressional approval, due to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
    - staticman2 4y ago
      You have to read the statute approved by congress. You can't just assume they have not authorized this.
- lapcat 4y ago
  You misunderstand. This isn't a bank bailout. These are direct loans held by the federal government itself, otherwise there wouldn't even be a question about whether the administration had the authority to forgive them.
- jenkstom 4y ago
  You know that's a lie, don't you?
listenallyall 4y ago
Admittedly I am not a Biden fan or admirer but this was a savvy move politically. He makes the proposal, likely knowing he lacks the authority, but the actual blockage comes from the Republican-led Supreme Court, so Team Red gets the blame. And if it actually goes through? It's not like Pres. Biden has ever concerned himself about increased govt spending.
- ricktdotorg 4y ago
  agree that it is not looking good for Biden. US gov debt increased by ~$5.0 trillion in the 8 years of the GW Bush administration. US gov debt increased by ~$9.3 trillion in the 8 years of the Obama administration. US gov debt increased by ~$7.8 trillion in the 4 years of the Trump administration. US gov debt seems to have increased by ~$5.0 trillion in the 2 years so far of the Biden administration. (!!) of course, not all debt can necessarily be attributed to or blamed on a president or a party (congress, force majeure etc), but from a "amount of dollars added to US gov debt during a single 4-year presidential administration" perspective, Mr. Trump comes out as the winner -- so far. sources for above: waves hands take your pick of outlet/gov agency/etc.
johng 4y ago
How is this any different than any president in the future just telling people "If you vote for me, I'll forgive your auto loans, your home loans.... credit card loans. Any type of loans. Just let me buy your vote?"
- CmdrLoskene 4y ago
  Because the government doesn't underwrite auto loans and home loans, guaranteeing a return to the originators.
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    The executive branch still lacks the Constitutional authority to do this, despite how you feel about the merits of student loan forgiveness.
    - jenkstom 4y ago
      Cool... can we get that "too big to fail" bank bailout back then?
      - slaymaker1907 4y ago
        Also, the PPP loan forgiveness which was already a program with rampant fraud.
- dataflow 4y ago
  The difference is Congress has passed a statute explicitly saying "the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph," but no such statute for auto loans or credit cards.
  - junofan 4y ago
rcme 4y ago
What is the actual argument for / against allowing this?
- dataflow 4y ago
  Here's one side https://www.businessinsider.com/is-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-legal-george-miller-architect-heroes-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/is-biden-student-loan-forgiv...
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    Here's the other... "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." - Article I, Section 9, United States Constitution
    - dataflow 4y ago
      Confused. Law includes statutes. Are you suggesting the statute is unconstitutional?
      - endominus 4y ago
        AFAIK, it's literally the job of the Supreme Court to decide if laws are unconstitutional, and this news article suggests that they consider it so.
        dataflow 4y ago
        I haven't seen any sign that they think the statute was unconstitutional. It sounds more like they think the statute intended to have a narrower scope than a literal reading of the word "waiver" would imply. (Perhaps in their eyes it meant "on an individual basis", or something that doesn't apply to the majority of the subjects, etc.)
    - lapcat 4y ago
cragfar 4y ago
Hopefully his new plan to bail out universities and basically institute an unavoidable tax on the middle class gets scrapped too.

34 points by mikhael 4y ago

The enabling 'law' did seem a bit legally suspect given historical precedence.

> "Half a trillion dollars". Uhm, so how much were those tax breaks to the wealthy Trump enacted? And, uhm, how much did each of the Iraqi and Afghani wars cost individually? Oh, and how much was the development of that shiny new fighter jet? So all of those were more necessary than educating our population in a globalized and highly-competitive economy? Not that I should expect anything more of this supreme court administration. Edit: forgot poorly planned corporate Covid stimulus

andrei_says_ 4y ago
Strong nation = smart, educated, healthy population with sufficiently reliable safety net supporting entrepreneurship and healthy lifestyles.
lockhouse 4y ago
Congress voted to authorize all of that. They didn't vote to authorize this. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution and federal laws as they are written, not as people wish they were written. It's not their job to legislate from the bench. If you want student loan forgiveness, get Congress to do it.
- krapp 4y ago
  >The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it is written, not as people wish it was written. It's not their job to legislate from the bench. Legislating from the bench is all the Supreme Court does. Their decisions are literally personal interpretations of the Constitution as they wish it was written, because there is no objective interpretation of that document. That's why their decisions include dissenting opinions, and why they undo previous decisions.
- dataflow 4y ago
  > Congress voted to authorize all of that. They didn't vote to authorize this. Didn't they vote on the HEROES Act? How do you read the relevant sections of the HEROES Act in a way that excludes this?
yucky 4y ago
And don't forget to add Ukraine onto that pile of useless wastes of billions, even more so since it's currently happening.
- Ancalagon 4y ago
  Ironically I feel the spending in Ukraine is more justified than the other causes I mentioned if only to catch Putin with his pants down, make Russia show it’s hand, and keep Russian and Chinese expansionary dreams in check. In many ways I agree with you though. Education for the US population is probably a far better use of that amount of cash
  - yucky 4y ago
    This is how most people felt about Iraq and Afghanistan during the first Bush term. It isn't going to end the way they tell you. It never does.
atonse 4y ago
Ignoring the “what about <x wrong thing>” as an argument, I actually agree with you on the overarching principle that we should prioritize educating our populace. However, we aren’t arguing about making college free or incentivizing colleges to reduce their fees. I can see all your arguments in service of that point. We are talking about loan forgiveness: Releasing one group of people from fulfilling their part of a financial deal they consciously made to benefit themselves, by using the money of other people. The deal they made was, they borrow funds to pay for a purchase they made, but when it comes time to pay the funds back, they are backing out and want someone else to handle it. And that idea of making others clean up your mess fundamentally bothers me to the core, just as much as when it happens to corporations. I can even get behind student loan INTEREST forgiveness, let’s ease that. But paying off the principal seems to go too far and teaches the wrong life lesson about not having to keep your end of a deal, to millions of young adults. I’m not making a political argument. Just one based on the principle of being a responsible adult.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > and want someone else to handle it To be clear, nobody else has to handle it. The debt is owed to the federal government, and if forgiven is simply erased. It would mean that less money will be paid in the future to the federal government from student loan debtors. But the federal budget changes every year due to many different factors. There's no inherent requirement that the federal government has to spend $X rather than $X + Y or $X - Y. And of course general tax income various from year to year due to economic conditions, changing tax rates, etc. Moreover, a lot of student loan debt never gets paid back anyway, due to default, forbearance, or death of the debtor.
  - mech765 4y ago
    In today's inflationary environment, forgiving the loans will have an effect of increasing the money supply (roughly-quantity of dollars in circulation). Even if nobody ever pays increased taxes because of the loan forgiveness, everybody has to take on the burden of somewhat higher inflation to make up for it.

exabrial 4y ago

What bothers me is nobody is talking about who is profiteering on this whole plan. First thing it is not “forgiveness”. That would be telling creditors to take a hike and declare the loan contracts null/void. Instead, student loan companies are salivating at the opportunity to reap gold mines of taxpayer dollars. They wrote a ton of really bad loans and old uncle Biden wants to reward them for their crappy lending practices. I certainly understand the sentiment of taking out a loan at 18 years old and not realizing the consequences. But the solution isn’t paying off companies who know better to give you that loan so they can go afford more private jets and yachts for the C Suite. Let the loans default. These creditors are rich enough already. You made a $250k loan to an 18 year old studying hair design? Tsk. That’s on you.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Aren't something like 90%+ of the loans held by the US government on behalf of the taxpayers?
- lockhouse 4y ago
  Yes, but the executive branch can't just wipeout debt without Congressional approval, due to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    You have to read the statute approved by congress. You can't just assume they have not authorized this.
lapcat 4y ago
You misunderstand. This isn't a bank bailout. These are direct loans held by the federal government itself, otherwise there wouldn't even be a question about whether the administration had the authority to forgive them.
jenkstom 4y ago
You know that's a lie, don't you?

listenallyall 4y ago

Admittedly I am not a Biden fan or admirer but this was a savvy move politically. He makes the proposal, likely knowing he lacks the authority, but the actual blockage comes from the Republican-led Supreme Court, so Team Red gets the blame. And if it actually goes through? It's not like Pres. Biden has ever concerned himself about increased govt spending.

ricktdotorg 4y ago
agree that it is not looking good for Biden. US gov debt increased by ~$5.0 trillion in the 8 years of the GW Bush administration. US gov debt increased by ~$9.3 trillion in the 8 years of the Obama administration. US gov debt increased by ~$7.8 trillion in the 4 years of the Trump administration. US gov debt seems to have increased by ~$5.0 trillion in the 2 years so far of the Biden administration. (!!) of course, not all debt can necessarily be attributed to or blamed on a president or a party (congress, force majeure etc), but from a "amount of dollars added to US gov debt during a single 4-year presidential administration" perspective, Mr. Trump comes out as the winner -- so far. sources for above: waves hands take your pick of outlet/gov agency/etc.

johng 4y ago

How is this any different than any president in the future just telling people "If you vote for me, I'll forgive your auto loans, your home loans.... credit card loans. Any type of loans. Just let me buy your vote?"

CmdrLoskene 4y ago
Because the government doesn't underwrite auto loans and home loans, guaranteeing a return to the originators.
- lockhouse 4y ago
  The executive branch still lacks the Constitutional authority to do this, despite how you feel about the merits of student loan forgiveness.
  - jenkstom 4y ago
    Cool... can we get that "too big to fail" bank bailout back then?
    - slaymaker1907 4y ago
      Also, the PPP loan forgiveness which was already a program with rampant fraud.
dataflow 4y ago
The difference is Congress has passed a statute explicitly saying "the Secretary of Education may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Act as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency to provide the waivers or modifications authorized by paragraph," but no such statute for auto loans or credit cards.
- junofan 4y ago

rcme 4y ago

What is the actual argument for / against allowing this?

dataflow 4y ago
Here's one side https://www.businessinsider.com/is-biden-student-loan-forgiveness-legal-george-miller-architect-heroes-2023-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/is-biden-student-loan-forgiv...
- lockhouse 4y ago
  Here's the other... "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." - Article I, Section 9, United States Constitution
  - dataflow 4y ago
    Confused. Law includes statutes. Are you suggesting the statute is unconstitutional?
    - endominus 4y ago
      AFAIK, it's literally the job of the Supreme Court to decide if laws are unconstitutional, and this news article suggests that they consider it so.
      - dataflow 4y ago
        I haven't seen any sign that they think the statute was unconstitutional. It sounds more like they think the statute intended to have a narrower scope than a literal reading of the word "waiver" would imply. (Perhaps in their eyes it meant "on an individual basis", or something that doesn't apply to the majority of the subjects, etc.)
  - lapcat 4y ago

cragfar 4y ago

Hopefully his new plan to bail out universities and basically institute an unavoidable tax on the middle class gets scrapped too.