They also said a previous Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs Wade was wrong. Just like this ruling would be found if ever challenged in the future in front of a Supreme Court with Justices that are apolitical.
You are likely correct that a different Court would have found differently in the review of Roe, but I think the Courts of the last 20 preceding years would have ruled against the President on this case. It doesn’t help that the President himself and Speaker Pelosi both openly admitted that the law did not give the President the authority to forgive billions of loans via fiat. This was always a loser and always a political gimmick. I’ll say it again, draft a bill that does this but also has measures to prevent a recurrence of this issue, and I believe there will be sufficient bipartisan support for the law to pass. Speaking for self, I would support such a law. What I won’t ever support is a measure to buy votes for one party without addressing the underlying issue (oh, of course, except to say, “Borrow away, kids. We’ll just do this again as often as we need”) and I’ll certainly never agree with handing the power to do it over to one man. I mean, that one man might just make a decision that favors his party over the good of the country. My guess is, you might have a problem with that concept, too, if the shoe is ever on the other foot again.
One thing should be made clear about what Biden was doing. The effect would be that most borrowers would just have accumulated interest wiped from their account, not principal. No debt would be transferred to anyone else. Any suggestion otherwise is demagoguery.
Yep my best friend did 30+, made it to master chief. He’s pulling about 130k a year now much of which is tax free due to the disability ratings. It did cost him two marriages and a relationship with his daughter however.
This is demonstrably wrong, as the Supreme Court allowed trump’s border wall to move forward based on his emergency powers. Unlike COVID, the supposed “emergency” was the status quo for decades, and nothing in the relevant statutes even suggested he could build a multi billion dollar border wall. again, we’re not dumb. No one believes the outcomes of these cases aren’t 100% driven by politics.
We don’t always agree but you’re spot on here. Need to address the root cause of the problem, run away tuition. As you note public colleges are as much an issue. I also see “advanced degrees” now for jobs in things like healthcare that don’t need to be. BSN for one Masters or pHd for Physical therapy. Makes me laugh just a way for colleges to suck more money from students.
Fine. As you say. Whatever. But what now? Plan do another cute interpretation of a different law that gives the President authority to rule by decree? Spoiler alert: it’s dead on arrival for all real-world purposes except more whining about the Supreme Court. Plan to stack the Court? You know you need a law for that, too, right? President Biden can’t just do that by decree, either. It still leaves you right back here. Stop whining. Propose a bill that not only erases the debt but also addresses the actual problem. And I’m really confused why the people crying the the beloved country the loudest on this issue keep pointedly ignoring the underlined part. Seriously, was the plan just to keep forgiving the debt over and over, no matter how much the youth keep borrowing for whatever reason? I see how that’s good for Democrats in the short term for winning elections. I fail to see how that’s anything short of catastrophic for the country. Good thing one man does not get to determine that course of action, in my opinion.
Zero chance the Republicans are going to support any law of this nature. I hope Biden does keep looking for statutes that authorize this sort of action and doing it. Make the Republicans in robes overturn it. It'll only make a sizable chunk of America dislike them even more. "You get your free $100,000 trips, but you're denying us $10,000 in debt forgiveness?"
Lots of people on this board with dishwashing hands. Believe it or not, it is possible to graduate with no student loan debt. It means working while u drink /study. It’s really not impossible
As I stated earlier, prove it. Unless you’re not really all about solving the problem, and this just a gimmick. Then you’re on the right track. And, again, I note that you pointedly ignored any discussion on how to keep this problem from recurring. I strongly suspect it’s because you’ve got nothing.
Democrat With Million Dollar Home Complains About Having to Pay Her Student Debt (townhall.com) Democrat With Million Dollar Home Complains About Having to Pay Her Student Debt Former Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D-NY) complained about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Joe Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan despite having just moved into a swanky new million-dollar home. Biaggi took to Twitter on Friday to whine about paying back her student loans from attending law school— which she still owes $206,000. However, she purchased a $1.14 million home in leafy Bedford, New York, last summer. "In 2012, I graduated from Fordham Law School with $180,000 in student loan debt," Biaggi tweeted. "I've been paying loans for 11 years. Even paid two of them off completely." According to the New York Post, Biaggi's million-dollar upgrade is far from her usual digs. She previously lived in a $691,006 condo in Pelham, New York.
How do we make college more affordable? There are people who have expertise in that who can offer solutions. I'm sure you can google it and find plenty of discussions about it. How do we prevent future Presidents from not continuing to forgive debt without fixing the problem? Elections. It's why we have a democratic republic. Biden ran on forgiving the debt. The people voted him into office. If you think it's wrong, defeat the next guy or gal who runs on it. Don't run to your Republican superlegislature and ask them to veto Congress's and the President's policy decision because you're unhappy with the person the American people elected. As for the Republicans, you're delusional if you think they'll play ball.
He's also talking about the late 80s. The costs of college have risen significantly since that point. It explains why his opinion is very out of touch with the realities today. The Cost of Going to College Has Risen at Nearly 5x the Rate of Inflation Over the Last 50 Years – My eLearning World
There are ways to get an affordable college education. Community college is cheap. I went one year and it didn’t hurt my prospects. Then state schools. I think we really need to reform and limit government financial aid. We don’t need to give it to those who go to private schools. We should not give any to those that go to for profit entities. Financial institutions can make all the loans they want but don’t back them by the government. I’m not against reforming the process such that there are ways to refinance and even have a path similar to bankruptcy. But if we are going to do that then those types of loans should be largely not backed by the federal govt. One of the articles was interviewing some dude who racked up $80k at the university of Phoenix. Stuff like that shouldn’t be federally funded at all. Also, I think the academic institution needs to share in the financial exposure. If loans are reduced or forgiven, part of that cost should be borne by the institution.
Actually, no. The free market sent those jobs to China. There is no “taking” jobs back in a capitalist society. A communist or protectionist might think their government can “take” jobs back, but there isn’t exactly a great mechanism accomplish it in a free market. The govt can tariff certain goods where business practices can be shown to be unfair. One could even argue trade with China is in itself “unfair”, where 1st world workers compete against actual slaves. But the reality is the only way for govt to make “fair” is to levy tariffs or look to restrain trade. If you level tariffs on China, corporations will just go to the next least cost option like Bangladesh or Vietnam or whatever. I don’t much like the idea of “eliminating useless degrees” either. At least if you are suggesting big guv should in any way dictate which degrees are useful vs useless. Doesn’t sound like you value free enterprise or academic freedom. No, if the issue is with default rates, I think you start out looking at the institutions that lead the way on defaults. You may find some institutions are churning out useless people in majors that aren’t “art history”. Hell there are bottom tier *law schools* and lawyers stuck in debt because their income can’t match the cost of their schooling.
