this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
327 points (100.0% liked)

News

49 readers
2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
 

The Supreme Court ruled Biden's student-loan forgiveness is illegal, meaning borrowers will resume payments without debt cancellation this year.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GataZapata@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

3rd World country wearing a Gucci belt lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Biden's loan forgiveness would have disproportionally benefitted the wealthiest Americans and acted as a wealth transfer upwards.

If the problem is that higher education is not affordable, a one-time debt forgiveness does not solve the problem, and it seems a lot like, "I got mine," then pulling the ladder up. I'd much rather we make higher education free for everyone like they do in Germany, permanently solving the problem by making higher education accessible to every American.

[–] axlc@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

These two ideas you present aren't mutually exclusive. Thinking that they are is limiting.

Example: "Oh hey, yeah the current system is predatory and unfair. [Bam, loans forgiven.] Also, because of that injustice, we never want to put anyone into that position again [Bam, affordable higher education]." Do the rich get "more forgiveness" than the poor? Yeah, that's not really a problem if 100% == 100%.

I get that the rich people who pulled up the ladder after getting a cheap college education feel that loan forgiveness is cutting into their earning potential. But the needs of the rich do not and should not outweigh the needs of the many.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I really don't think it's the rich that are driving a lot of the opposition to this. I'm originally from a very poor rural Missouri town where the vast majority of people don't go to college. As you can imagine, they're not huge fans of the idea of subsidizing loans for people who are statistically going to go on to make significantly more money than they are anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There's something very funny about ostensible progressives championing a blatantly regressive wealth transfer.

But I'm sure you know enough about online political discussions to know that this isn't the kind of realism that's going to be positively received.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] themadcodger@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not surprised they struck it down, but I guess the jaded side of me is surprised they allowed him a different avenue to do the relief instead of making the whole concept illegal.

Also, there was talk from the Republicans about try to force everyone to pay back the interest we would have been paying this entire time. Somewhat surprised they didn't agree to that as well.

[–] Hobovision@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There's nothing formal stopping the SC from doing anything, but courts are generally limited to ruling on the controversy in front of them in as narrow a way as practically possible. I haven't read any analysis on this ruling, but just from the little I have seen, it looks like they ruled that the HEROES Act didn't grant the federal government the ability to forgive the loans in the way they were attempting.

Biden could try using an authority from a different law or creating a different set of rules by which the loans may be forgiven.

My non-lawyer prediction is that if Biden tries again, the SC will find a new reason to stop it and will make a bigger ruling that takes more power away from federal agencies to make decisions. They've already been doing this with environmental and health decisions, and I'm sure other agencies have been impacted too.

[–] majkeli@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago
[–] stillnotahero@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So uhhh… if we all just don’t pay…. They can’t come after all of us, right?

[–] roofuskit@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you owe the bank one thousand dollars, that's your problem. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, that's their problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Darnov@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

With conservatives, the cruelty is always the point. Same applies here. SCOTUS is just enforcing death on the impoverished.

[–] axlc@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

When you start feeling hopeless about student loans not being forgiven, remember that PPP loans were all forgiven. PPP loans taken out by businesses and corporations. Domination is the point with all of the subhuman unwashed anuses leading this country. Never forget how they line their own pockets at our expense, and fight against us at every turn with the courts and all three branches of government. All of it has been weaponized against us and no longer serves us in any capacity.

[–] modulartable@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

They could've at least fed us dinner before we got fucked!

[–] TooL@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court is a fucking joke. Scratch that, this entire fucking country is a joke.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wsf@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why should people not have to pay back money they borrowed?

[–] nameless_prole@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, when are they going to start clawing back all of those forgiven ppp loans?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Meticulotron@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

And yet we are somehow allowed to issue billions in forgivable loans to churches that don't pay taxes.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Biden suspected this would happen, hence why he was previously doing student loan forgiveness in smaller increments. But people kept pushing him to do the entire thing and claiming that he was actively against students because he wasn't. No, he knew this happening was a high possibility.

And this case sets much bigger precedents than the specific subject, precedents in two areas.

  1. The specific claim that the Secretary was "transforming" the law rather than tweaking things is asinine, especially since the HEROES Act was incredibly vague in the first place. So this sets precedent that any usage of a law outside of explicitly what it says (difficult to even determine when a bill is so vague) gives leverage to reverse any executive action in enacting the law. Which will just allow massive conservative obstructionism even more on everything.

  2. The entire case having standing as it is. Why do 6 states have standing to sue on something done in regards to federal loans? The idea that states can sue on any federal issue now is concerning to the extreme.

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Welp, I'm fucked.

[–] Orionza@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Sorry guys you have to do like the Boomers you don't like and be responsible and pay off your debt like the rest of us did.

[–] naura@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a problem that boomers created.

We are just inheriting it while they all die.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Ouch. I am not looking forward to the economical impact of this.....

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›