The Biden administration is preparing to announce another attempt at widespread student loan forgiveness ahead of the election after the Supreme Court struck down its first.
I am against student loan repayments. A plumber should not be paying for your gender studies degree.
I don’t think this is an actual explanation of anything.
If anybody has any suggestions on where I can read up on this I’d be grateful. I think most news articles I have read are very scare on details and I’m interested in something more in-depth than “debt bad, Biden good” or conversely “Biden bad, system fine”
Is this a serious objection? Because I can remember a string of republican administrations back to Reagan that were very much in favor of tax cuts that disproportionately benefited wealthier Americans. Of course unfair benefits to wealthier Americans go back much farther than that, but I can only remember back to Reagan, and the destruction of the manufacturing sector in America and mass unemployment of Reganomics. I feel like this could be the beginning of when college diplomas started to become more expensive, and less valuable.
Looking at the broader picture: it is the whole system that has always disproportionately benefitted wealthier Americans. So this objection reads like: hey it’s not fair if he does what we have all been doing for the last 248 years! So really it’s those inherently unjust systemic power structures that should be dismantled, but democrats aren’t interested in that. Democrats collaborate with those inherently unjust power structures all the time, so fair criticism there, comrade.
Biden doesn’t have the legal authority to cancel student loans
I haven’t read the text of the Higher Education Act of 1965 but supposedly it “empowers the secretary of education to “compromise, waive, or release federal student loans”. So far I haven’t seen any legal analysis on that, just people saying “he can’t do that” without any justification for the claim, as in this article.
Biden has shown no commitment to wide-scale student loan forgiveness
Now here is some logic I truly don’t understand: This is bad for america because it helps rich people and it’s not legal and going to wreck the economy and cause the price of bread to rise to ten million dollars a loaf, and also, it ought to be much bigger and broader in scope. What?
Included in this section:
Yes, Biden has canceled $25 billion of student loans since becoming president. That student loan cancellation, however, has been targeted at specific borrowers, such as public servants or borrowers with a permanent
disability
Civil servants and the permanently disabled? Are these the wealthy people getting the disproportionate benefits? So it seems like theses arguments contradict themselves.
Biden should lower inflation rather than cancel student loans, which can increase inflation
I don’t really see any compelling evidence this will significantly increase inflation. Lots of doom talk about it but I don’t see it having a huge effect on the American economy either way. Yes I know you can find an economist who will predict a big jump in inflation and you can also find an equal number that say it won’t, or that " there’s too many moving parts" to make a reliable prediction.
To be clear: I don’t think it will have a big negative effect, and in reading and thinking about it I have come to believe it won’t have a much of a positive effect on America as a whole. It will certainly benefit the possibly 40% of people with student debt that didn’t get a degree.
Student loan forgiveness won’t lower the cost of college
Ok? So? Did someone claim it would? H.R.7836 if passed into law won’t lower the price that hardworking Americans are paying for basketballs, yet somehow this bill still got introduced.
Or is the objection really that student debt relief doesn’t address the deeper problem that a 4 year degree is largely unaffordable for most Americans, and for many that do go into debt and get their degrees they often can’t find jobs in their chosen field, but are still saddled with burdensome debt? Well this is a position I can get behind, however it seems to be an admission that the current system is not fine. This was at least partly addressed in section 1.
Future student loan borrowers will borrow student loans and think they won’t have to pay them back.
If people are incentivized to apply for student loans and those that qualify actually get degrees and increase their income and find they have to pay back their loans afterall… this will somehow destroy democracy? I’m not clear on that.
I’m kidding of course. Graduates are having an increasingly difficult time finding jobs. What is the practical difference tho, between getting a loan you think you won’t have to pay back, and getting a loan for a degree you are tricked into thinking will pay for itself, but doesn’t?
It sends the wrong message about personal responsibility.
It gives such advice as securing internships and engaging in volunteer work. When you have monthly payments to make? Seems like it’s easier to get a job working for free when you’re not in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It also advises “Enrolling in professional development courses,” -even though you’re in debt you need to spend more on classes because the last 4 years of classes weren’t actually enough. What’s the message there?
It might as well advise you to ask your dad to check if any of his friends at the country-club are hiring.
Where does “personal responsibility” come in when “the importance of getting a good education” actually means being taken advantage of in a market so saturated with deplomas it’s not a good ROE?
At any rate, argument #5 has nothing to do with whether student debt relief is a good or bad idea, because it doesn’t meaningfully address the consequences of the policy. “It sends the wrong message” is moralizing nonsense without pointing to a practical effect.
As usual, I have written too long of a post that no-one will read.
TLDR:
My conclusion: despite dire predictions, student loan relief is probably not going to have much effect one way or the other. It is largely a performance for the purpose of getting votes. (I can hear several of you loudly saying “DUH!”) This is something that both democrats and republicans are guilty of, as a normal part of American campaign politics. God bless America.
It’s different from the HEROES Act. I’m pretty sure using the Higher Education Act of 1965 is part of his plan B, it’s a new thing that will surely be challenged, but hasn’t happened yet.
It’s looking like the President can ask the The Secretary of Education to do it. I just found the text and controll-f’ed section 432 that says the secretary may :
“enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
I don’t suppose I could talk my way out of that one, but perhaps those against such policy with friends on the judicial bench would fare better than I.
I don’t think this is an actual explanation of anything.
If anybody has any suggestions on where I can read up on this I’d be grateful. I think most news articles I have read are very scare on details and I’m interested in something more in-depth than “debt bad, Biden good” or conversely “Biden bad, system fine”
https://www.cato.org/blog/top-five-reasons-federal-student-debt-cancellation-bad-idea
The Cato Institute, formerly the Koch Foundation? Thanks but I was hoping for something with less of a “let’s exploit the working class” slant to it.
Here is Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/06/20/5-reasons-why-student-loan-forgiveness-is-a-bad-idea/?sh=47494a4dc999
Ok let’s look at this.
Is this a serious objection? Because I can remember a string of republican administrations back to Reagan that were very much in favor of tax cuts that disproportionately benefited wealthier Americans. Of course unfair benefits to wealthier Americans go back much farther than that, but I can only remember back to Reagan, and the destruction of the manufacturing sector in America and mass unemployment of Reganomics. I feel like this could be the beginning of when college diplomas started to become more expensive, and less valuable.
Looking at the broader picture: it is the whole system that has always disproportionately benefitted wealthier Americans. So this objection reads like: hey it’s not fair if he does what we have all been doing for the last 248 years! So really it’s those inherently unjust systemic power structures that should be dismantled, but democrats aren’t interested in that. Democrats collaborate with those inherently unjust power structures all the time, so fair criticism there, comrade.
I haven’t read the text of the Higher Education Act of 1965 but supposedly it “empowers the secretary of education to “compromise, waive, or release federal student loans”. So far I haven’t seen any legal analysis on that, just people saying “he can’t do that” without any justification for the claim, as in this article.
Now here is some logic I truly don’t understand: This is bad for america because it helps rich people and it’s not legal and going to wreck the economy and cause the price of bread to rise to ten million dollars a loaf, and also, it ought to be much bigger and broader in scope. What?
Included in this section:
Civil servants and the permanently disabled? Are these the wealthy people getting the disproportionate benefits? So it seems like theses arguments contradict themselves.
I don’t really see any compelling evidence this will significantly increase inflation. Lots of doom talk about it but I don’t see it having a huge effect on the American economy either way. Yes I know you can find an economist who will predict a big jump in inflation and you can also find an equal number that say it won’t, or that " there’s too many moving parts" to make a reliable prediction.
To be clear: I don’t think it will have a big negative effect, and in reading and thinking about it I have come to believe it won’t have a much of a positive effect on America as a whole. It will certainly benefit the possibly 40% of people with student debt that didn’t get a degree.
Ok? So? Did someone claim it would? H.R.7836 if passed into law won’t lower the price that hardworking Americans are paying for basketballs, yet somehow this bill still got introduced.
Or is the objection really that student debt relief doesn’t address the deeper problem that a 4 year degree is largely unaffordable for most Americans, and for many that do go into debt and get their degrees they often can’t find jobs in their chosen field, but are still saddled with burdensome debt? Well this is a position I can get behind, however it seems to be an admission that the current system is not fine. This was at least partly addressed in section 1.
If people are incentivized to apply for student loans and those that qualify actually get degrees and increase their income and find they have to pay back their loans afterall… this will somehow destroy democracy? I’m not clear on that.
I’m kidding of course. Graduates are having an increasingly difficult time finding jobs. What is the practical difference tho, between getting a loan you think you won’t have to pay back, and getting a loan for a degree you are tricked into thinking will pay for itself, but doesn’t?
Ok, but what message does it send to be in debt for a degree that doesn’t seem to benefit you? Here is another recent Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/02/15/why-is-it-so-hard-for-recent-college-graduates-to-find-a-decent-job/?sh=308419762f46
It gives such advice as securing internships and engaging in volunteer work. When you have monthly payments to make? Seems like it’s easier to get a job working for free when you’re not in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It also advises “Enrolling in professional development courses,” -even though you’re in debt you need to spend more on classes because the last 4 years of classes weren’t actually enough. What’s the message there? It might as well advise you to ask your dad to check if any of his friends at the country-club are hiring.
Where does “personal responsibility” come in when “the importance of getting a good education” actually means being taken advantage of in a market so saturated with deplomas it’s not a good ROE?
At any rate, argument #5 has nothing to do with whether student debt relief is a good or bad idea, because it doesn’t meaningfully address the consequences of the policy. “It sends the wrong message” is moralizing nonsense without pointing to a practical effect.
As usual, I have written too long of a post that no-one will read.
TLDR:
My conclusion: despite dire predictions, student loan relief is probably not going to have much effect one way or the other. It is largely a performance for the purpose of getting votes. (I can hear several of you loudly saying “DUH!”) This is something that both democrats and republicans are guilty of, as a normal part of American campaign politics. God bless America.
SCOTUS already said he can’t. Not sure why you don’t consider that a legal analysis.
Length is fine. I’ll read it. It’s just hard to reply back on a mobile device.
It’s different from the HEROES Act. I’m pretty sure using the Higher Education Act of 1965 is part of his plan B, it’s a new thing that will surely be challenged, but hasn’t happened yet.
I suspect it’ll be rejected. It just isn’t a power the president has. More power for him trying to buy votes.
It’s looking like the President can ask the The Secretary of Education to do it. I just found the text and controll-f’ed section 432 that says the secretary may :
I don’t suppose I could talk my way out of that one, but perhaps those against such policy with friends on the judicial bench would fare better than I.
Facts are facts. We tend to lean on conservative sources here
Where else is the money coming from if not the tax payer?