SCOTUS kills Biden's student loan/debt relief plan...

$120k for 20 years? That doesn’t sound right.

 

Yep. A lot of those folks will only transition to a positive net worth when they inherit dad’s house. Dang, I’m in a particularly bad mood today since my daughter’s application to get out of $9K of debt has been blown up.

 

Are you familiar with the borrowing limits on guaranteed loans? There are other factors influencing tuition increases, including decreased state appropriations.

 

Likewise I wonder if the f&ckery the GOP has been employing to effectively pack the court and enforce these decisions on the American public that the MAJORITY of people don’t want will come back to bite them. Count on it.

 

Same here. Worked all the way through school, even had to take two semesters off to work full time to have enough money to go the next semester. Took a couple extra years to graduate and finished with only about $5K in debt. Paid that off in two years back in the late 80s. Cannot feel sorry for any bum not smart enough to postpone some immediate gratification for a better long term outlook.

 

You aren’t wrong on one point. If a Republican ever wins the White House again (increasingly unlikely), and the Democrats control the Senate, and the Supreme Court gets a vacancy, then the Democrats will be fully empowered to not bring the President’s nominee up for advice and consent. The Republicans won’t be able to bat an eye. Personally, I think they should have given Garland his hearings and then voted him down, but they didn’t, so they will reap what they have sown when the shoe is on the other foot.

Apart from that, the Republicans did nothing to “effectively pack the Court.” Vacancies came up, the President nominated replacements, and the Senate confirmed them. I understand not liking that a single President had three vacancies in a single term, giving him disproportionate influence over the Court, but that was nothing more than luck, zero nefarious about it. I have no doubt if Clinton had won the election and the Senate, she would not have done a thing differently.

 

Yeah except the turtle denied Obama an appointee because an election was upcoming (in 12 months) and then pushed one through ONE month before an election when RBG passed. It was pure (bs). And it will be repaid in full.

 

There are no perfect metaphors, but that one is not terrible. I note that all attempts to defy the Supreme Court on that issue ultimately failed and brought it greater attention nationally. Imagine, though, if instead of using his office to back the authority of the Supreme Court on Brown that Eisenhower had declared the Court illegitimate and actively supported the southern politicians in their resistance. What came to pass in reality was contentious enough. That scenario may have been even worse.

 

Good post, OK. It's not often enough that folks bring relevant facts, not to mention a thought-provoking Q. To your Q, I'm just gonna guess . . . . . . . not many.

 

You missed a key point that I specified: in both cases, the Republicans controlled the Senate. I don’t know if Democrats would have done the first thing in the same circumstances; we can only speculate. But if you want me to believe that Clinton, facing probable defeat and loss of the Senate, would not have rammed through a nominee of her choosing to replace Ginsburg, then that’s adorable.

 

Good post - you answered the Q in good faith. For disclosure, did you pursue any of the four options you propose?

 

we do know, because democrats in the post war era confirmed a dozen Republican scotus nominees while controlling the senate. the very first time the shoe was on the other foot, the republicans denied even a vote.

there’s no material difference between breaking a norm like that and direct court packing, or for that matter, ignoring what obvious politicians on the court say. it’s only a matter of time before either or both occur.

republicans might be patting themselves on the back for cleverly stacking the only purportedly unaccountable, unreviewable body with reliable political operatives, but all they’ve really done is set the stage for a post-judicial government.

 

Great option, but only for few who can make such lifestyle sacrifices. It's a tough sell nowadays, but for musicians (ex.) can be very good, esp. in the long-term. That's the tough sell.

 

Right, cause Pubs never did it.

 

Bullshit. McConnell’s moves were unprecedented.

 

Enjoy the win, GOPers. When the boomers die I don’t see any way this isn’t all reversed and then some. And with vitriol for the way it was carried out.

 

Disagree on not having to work. When I did it the wage rate was about $3 and an hour of school was about $30. Today you can hardly find a job for under $15 and the school rate is about $150, but a lot of kids are paying half rate due to the state’s Bright Futures program. Based on my math, which could be off, it’s close to a wash. Why isn’t work a good option?

 

So if student debt is reversed then it essentially goes to national debt. So you are taking away the debt from college debt holders and giving it to everyone else.

So why should me and my kids be liable for others student debt?

 

Not unlike buying a McMansion with no down payment and a low adjustable rate thinking you will never lose a job or have an economic hardship causing you to lose the house. If you can’t plan to live within your means you are gambling and it isn’t my responsibility to bail you out.