3 ms·

Biden must really like this decision. He has never really supported large scale forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. This gives him the politi

Biden must really like this decision. He has never really supported large scale forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. This gives him the political cover to restart payments without upsetting his base. However, the Supreme Court appears to be hellbent to limit government powers in all areas other than those related to police powers, military, and foreign affairs. With an end to effective federalism as it pertains to domestic policy I think it will soon be apparent to everyone that the Constitution needs a rewrite. The structural representation imbalances will eventually necessitate a change of some sort. SCOTUS is doing what it can to make everyone aware of this.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Biden must really like this decision. He has never really supported large scale forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Yes, that’s why he immediately launched the process to redo debt relief this time under HEA rather than HEROES authority before the ink was dry on the ruling, just announced a payment on-ramp that reduces the impact of failure to pay after the Congressionally-mandated end of the pause, and has used other regulatory authority to launch a new income-based repayment program which will lead to $0 payments for low-income student loan debtors.
- synetic 3y ago
  The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. It’s been a political minefield in that he doesn’t want to piss off his base. It appears my impression is wrong but I do believe he wants repayments to start again. Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Okay, but what is the basis for this impression? > Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. The $10,000-$20,000 foregiveness plan (with an income cap) is less universal the “at least” $10,000 he called on Congress to provide all borrowers during the campaign, as President-elect after the campaign, and sought (but was rebuffed on) as President in the stimulus bill. It's what he thought he could justify as executive action under HEROES (and even that turned out to be wrong), not what he wanted. > We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. > Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base. Yes, but the claim that any particular proposal is merely a sop to the base should be backed by evidence; the fact that it is sometimes true does not, by itself, support ascribing that basis to any particular policy proposal.
    - synetic 3y ago
      I agreed that I was wrong. I think you missed that part. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. Give you an example. It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. They blustered and said they’d get rid of it but when they had control of both houses and the Presidency they didn’t get rid of it. I can’t point to a specific thing that gave me the impression they would not actually get rid of it but I was certain they wouldn’t follow through. People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word just because one doesn’t have specific, articulable, evidence based reasons. If you really operate in real life this way then you are a dupe.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
nradov 3y ago
Why would the Constitution need a rewrite? The several states are capable of defining their own education finance policies. There was no need for the Federal government to be involved in the first place.
- synetic 3y ago
  There is no proportional representation in Congress or for votes for President. Congress and the Supreme Court no longer operate in a way conducive to this state of affairs. The Constitution badly needs a rewrite. What worked in a 1800 no longer works today.
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Our country seems to be doing fine overall. What specifically are problems that need to be addressed?
    - synetic 3y ago
      The distribution of power is grossly unfair. North Dakota’s Representative represents far fewer people than one from California. The two Senators from there represent far fewer people than the ones from California. Since California and North Dakota have very much different views on the role and purpose of government this power imbalance will become acute in the coming years. The country is not doing fine. The majority view on abortion, guns, education, policing, etc. are being thwarted by low population states. The will of the people is not being done. Whenever a Democrat gets elected President state legislators in Texas threaten secession. Eventually California and other liberal states will think this is a good idea. I for one no longer wish to subsidize backwards Mississippi.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Biden must really like this decision. He has never really supported large scale forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Yes, that’s why he immediately launched the process to redo debt relief this time under HEA rather than HEROES authority before the ink was dry on the ruling, just announced a payment on-ramp that reduces the impact of failure to pay after the Congressionally-mandated end of the pause, and has used other regulatory authority to launch a new income-based repayment program which will lead to $0 payments for low-income student loan debtors.

synetic 3y ago
The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. It’s been a political minefield in that he doesn’t want to piss off his base. It appears my impression is wrong but I do believe he wants repayments to start again. Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The impression I’ve had is that he is against broad forgiveness and does want repayments to start again. Okay, but what is the basis for this impression? > Note though that the $10,000 forgiveness is less than what he campaigned on. The $10,000-$20,000 foregiveness plan (with an income cap) is less universal the “at least” $10,000 he called on Congress to provide all borrowers during the campaign, as President-elect after the campaign, and sought (but was rebuffed on) as President in the stimulus bill. It's what he thought he could justify as executive action under HEROES (and even that turned out to be wrong), not what he wanted. > We should not confuse, in general, new program initiatives as an indication that this is what the politician proposing the initiative wants. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. > Sometimes proposals have to be made to appease the base. Yes, but the claim that any particular proposal is merely a sop to the base should be backed by evidence; the fact that it is sometimes true does not, by itself, support ascribing that basis to any particular policy proposal.
  - synetic 3y ago
    I agreed that I was wrong. I think you missed that part. Absent specific, articulable, evidence-based reasons to believe otherwise, we certainly should take them as exactly that, especially when they keep coming back with different approaches when rebuffed. No. This is way too impractical. You yourself don’t follow this criteria. I suggest you read up on hunches, gut feelings, and things like that. Give you an example. It was always clear that Republican politicians, as a whole, didn’t want to get rid of Obamacare because Obamacare was a Republican plan all along. They blustered and said they’d get rid of it but when they had control of both houses and the Presidency they didn’t get rid of it. I can’t point to a specific thing that gave me the impression they would not actually get rid of it but I was certain they wouldn’t follow through. People, especially politicians, can’t be taken at their word just because one doesn’t have specific, articulable, evidence based reasons. If you really operate in real life this way then you are a dupe.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago

nradov 3y ago

Why would the Constitution need a rewrite? The several states are capable of defining their own education finance policies. There was no need for the Federal government to be involved in the first place.

synetic 3y ago
There is no proportional representation in Congress or for votes for President. Congress and the Supreme Court no longer operate in a way conducive to this state of affairs. The Constitution badly needs a rewrite. What worked in a 1800 no longer works today.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Our country seems to be doing fine overall. What specifically are problems that need to be addressed?
  - synetic 3y ago
    The distribution of power is grossly unfair. North Dakota’s Representative represents far fewer people than one from California. The two Senators from there represent far fewer people than the ones from California. Since California and North Dakota have very much different views on the role and purpose of government this power imbalance will become acute in the coming years. The country is not doing fine. The majority view on abortion, guns, education, policing, etc. are being thwarted by low population states. The will of the people is not being done. Whenever a Democrat gets elected President state legislators in Texas threaten secession. Eventually California and other liberal states will think this is a good idea. I for one no longer wish to subsidize backwards Mississippi.