|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Huh, never thought I'd see the day Danglars argued for keeping a tax in place
|
The comparison with taxes is not a good one because our system of tax laws is a singularly unique monster that divvies out authority and responsibility in all sorts of both general and specific ways. It even incorporates a court system into itself as a law-making channel that regularly updates itself.
Student loans are creatures of statute, but their stewardship and the accompanying authority/responsibility/discretion are much more in line with straight up rule-based administrative law that asks more simple questions like whether the act in question is arbitrary and capricious. The White House has far more leeway to do stuff with student loans than it does with taxes, at least as far as formal decision making goes. Questions of funding and executive office direction are a different beast.
It's worth noting that the head of Treasury can do all sorts of discretionary stuff with literally hundreds of billions of dollars depending on the underlying program or law, that's why Mnuchin is able to unilaterally move leftover CARES Act funds into an account that Yellen will be unable to reach later on.
|
On December 01 2020 06:12 farvacola wrote:
It's worth noting that the head of Treasury can do all sorts of discretionary stuff with literally hundreds of billions of dollars depending on the underlying program or law, that's why Mnuchin is able to unilaterally move leftover CARES Act funds into an account that Yellen will be unable to reach later on.
So who can access the money?
|
Yellen can (should she be confirmed), only she'll need congressional approval first. Basically there was free floating unusued and unclaimed CARES Act funds and Mnuchin is putting all of it into a lockbox that Congress has the key to. Note that many of these funds come from programs where there is ample evidence of all kinds of fraud having been committed.
Edit: I should add that the legal challenges of this move by Mnuchin are already developing, there's a good argument that the CARES Act itself bars this move.
|
On December 01 2020 06:19 farvacola wrote:
Yellen can (should she be confirmed), only she'll need congressional approval first. Basically there was free floating unusued and unclaimed CARES Act funds and Mnuchin is putting all of it into a lockbox that Congress has the key to. Note that many of these funds come from programs where there is ample evidence of all kinds of fraud having been committed.
Edit: I should add that the legal challenges of this move by Mnuchin are already developing, there's a good argument that the CARES Act itself bars this move.
So as long as Pelosi approves, we're good?
|
Assuming the legal challenges fail, use of the leftover funds in the lockbox requires a straight up both chambers, presidentially signed bill
|
On December 01 2020 06:11 Nevuk wrote:
Huh, never thought I'd see the day Danglars argued for keeping a tax in place
Presidents do not and should not have broad discretionary power over matters like forgiving taxes or student loans, or dispersing revenue. I leave that in the hands of the people’s representatives in Congress together with the elected President.
I would absolutely love to see Democratic candidates make student loan forgiveness made a core plank in their 2022 Congressional races platform so we can have it out in an election. Even if I lose in that fight, it would be worth it.
|
On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Didn't Trump do this exact thing with payroll taxes already as a pandemic response?
|
On December 01 2020 07:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Didn't Trump do this exact thing with payroll taxes already as a pandemic response?
He didn't really do anything with the payroll tax he just encouraged basically employers to not withhold it for the rest of the time until tax season.
|
United States10367 Posts
On December 01 2020 06:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 05:59 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 01:09 Nevuk wrote:On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot? You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport. Golfer stepping in to answer this: yeah pretty much. You "miscount" strokes, you improve your lie, you avoid penalties by "finding" your ball when in reality it went out of bounds or into a hazard. There's no doubt with Trump's swing that he's a liar, just like he's a liar in the White House. A golfer's personality translates directly to their playstyle, case in point: Patrick Reed is an asshole who has cheated many times on the tour (improving lie many times). The fact that he's not banned still pisses me off. On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Rather than just say that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, would you care to submit to us the Constitutional section or relevant USC rule that states the president cannot do something like cancel student loan debt via executive powers? Simply put, the power of the purse is in Congress. Tax, spend, appropriations, subsidies. You can appeal to some of the lawyers around these parts for the argument that something in the Higher Education Act can be twisted to support this. You should know when asking a conservative that it involves where in the constitution and its amendments that it grants the executive branch the power to do it, rather than deny him/her the power. The executive powers are not expansive such that they must be specifically constrained or the authority rests in that branch.
So the executive branch still controls quite a bit of the power that Congress has WILLINGLY given to the executive branch. You learn this stuff in statutory interpretations FYI. When Congress started shedding more and more of their power to the executive, now you enter a realm where these powers can be used for things that ordinarily would be left to Congress to decide. Here's some good information on the potential for the executive branch to forgive student debt. The Department of Education potentially has that power.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html
|
On December 01 2020 08:05 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 05:59 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 01:09 Nevuk wrote:On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot? You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport. Golfer stepping in to answer this: yeah pretty much. You "miscount" strokes, you improve your lie, you avoid penalties by "finding" your ball when in reality it went out of bounds or into a hazard. There's no doubt with Trump's swing that he's a liar, just like he's a liar in the White House. A golfer's personality translates directly to their playstyle, case in point: Patrick Reed is an asshole who has cheated many times on the tour (improving lie many times). The fact that he's not banned still pisses me off. On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Rather than just say that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, would you care to submit to us the Constitutional section or relevant USC rule that states the president cannot do something like cancel student loan debt via executive powers? Simply put, the power of the purse is in Congress. Tax, spend, appropriations, subsidies. You can appeal to some of the lawyers around these parts for the argument that something in the Higher Education Act can be twisted to support this. You should know when asking a conservative that it involves where in the constitution and its amendments that it grants the executive branch the power to do it, rather than deny him/her the power. The executive powers are not expansive such that they must be specifically constrained or the authority rests in that branch. So the executive branch still controls quite a bit of the power that Congress has WILLINGLY given to the executive branch. You learn this stuff in statutory interpretations FYI. When Congress started shedding more and more of their power to the executive, now you enter a realm where these powers can be used for things that ordinarily would be left to Congress to decide. Here's some good information on the potential for the executive branch to forgive student debt. The Department of Education potentially has that power. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html
A majority of justices on the Supreme Court now have a more originalist/textualist bent when judging on delegated powers. If we’re talking what I mentioned on the Higher Education Act, that hinges on the limitations of the act (written into the law) to existing authority and the details within the law on new powers. The question is whether the text and/or authors understood it to include authorizing up to actual forgiveness of 15 trillion in student loan debt, and whether the department of education was already understood to have that power. Both are quite a mighty big lift. Maybe you have another act that accidentally gave the president authority to forgive 15 trillion dollars in loans, compared to more common existing authority to alter aspects of repayment terms which you can read more about at your leisure. See, for example, Forbes summary. See also the dissents on Trump’s rescinding of the DACA order for how the new majority views executive orders made in light of Congressional indecision on the subject (or multiple bills proposed but electing not to pass).
The ordinary use of Congress delegating powers to executive departments is more applicable in less sweeping changes than the mass of student loan debt. See for example the Supreme Court decision this year on the clean water act and Hawaii. It was about this thing, but now they’re extending it to this (putatively) functionally equivalent thing, and even then there was disagreement.
|
United States10367 Posts
On December 01 2020 08:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 08:05 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 05:59 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 01:09 Nevuk wrote:On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot? You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport. Golfer stepping in to answer this: yeah pretty much. You "miscount" strokes, you improve your lie, you avoid penalties by "finding" your ball when in reality it went out of bounds or into a hazard. There's no doubt with Trump's swing that he's a liar, just like he's a liar in the White House. A golfer's personality translates directly to their playstyle, case in point: Patrick Reed is an asshole who has cheated many times on the tour (improving lie many times). The fact that he's not banned still pisses me off. On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Rather than just say that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, would you care to submit to us the Constitutional section or relevant USC rule that states the president cannot do something like cancel student loan debt via executive powers? Simply put, the power of the purse is in Congress. Tax, spend, appropriations, subsidies. You can appeal to some of the lawyers around these parts for the argument that something in the Higher Education Act can be twisted to support this. You should know when asking a conservative that it involves where in the constitution and its amendments that it grants the executive branch the power to do it, rather than deny him/her the power. The executive powers are not expansive such that they must be specifically constrained or the authority rests in that branch. So the executive branch still controls quite a bit of the power that Congress has WILLINGLY given to the executive branch. You learn this stuff in statutory interpretations FYI. When Congress started shedding more and more of their power to the executive, now you enter a realm where these powers can be used for things that ordinarily would be left to Congress to decide. Here's some good information on the potential for the executive branch to forgive student debt. The Department of Education potentially has that power. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html A majority of justices on the Supreme Court now have a more originalist/textualist bent when judging on delegated powers. If we’re talking what I mentioned on the Higher Education Act, that hinges on the limitations of the act (written into the law) to existing authority and the details within the law on new powers. The question is whether the text and/or authors understood it to include authorizing up to actual forgiveness of 15 trillion in student loan debt, and whether the department of education was already understood to have that power. Both are quite a mighty big lift. Maybe you have another act that accidentally gave the president authority to forgive 15 trillion dollars in loans, compared to more common existing authority to alter aspects of repayment terms which you can read more about at your leisure. See, for example, Forbes summary. See also the dissents on Trump’s rescinding of the DACA order for how the new majority views executive orders made in light of Congressional indecision on the subject (or multiple bills proposed but electing not to pass). The ordinary use of Congress delegating powers to executive departments is more applicable in less sweeping changes than the mass of student loan debt. See for example the Supreme Court decision this year on the clean water act and Hawaii. It was about this thing, but now they’re extending it to this (putatively) functionally equivalent thing, and even then there was disagreement.
One could argue that Trump v. Hawaii is a pretty massive sweeping change to what the President can do in terms of immigration policy.
|
On December 01 2020 08:44 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 08:40 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 08:05 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 05:59 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 01:09 Nevuk wrote:On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot? You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport. Golfer stepping in to answer this: yeah pretty much. You "miscount" strokes, you improve your lie, you avoid penalties by "finding" your ball when in reality it went out of bounds or into a hazard. There's no doubt with Trump's swing that he's a liar, just like he's a liar in the White House. A golfer's personality translates directly to their playstyle, case in point: Patrick Reed is an asshole who has cheated many times on the tour (improving lie many times). The fact that he's not banned still pisses me off. On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Rather than just say that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, would you care to submit to us the Constitutional section or relevant USC rule that states the president cannot do something like cancel student loan debt via executive powers? Simply put, the power of the purse is in Congress. Tax, spend, appropriations, subsidies. You can appeal to some of the lawyers around these parts for the argument that something in the Higher Education Act can be twisted to support this. You should know when asking a conservative that it involves where in the constitution and its amendments that it grants the executive branch the power to do it, rather than deny him/her the power. The executive powers are not expansive such that they must be specifically constrained or the authority rests in that branch. So the executive branch still controls quite a bit of the power that Congress has WILLINGLY given to the executive branch. You learn this stuff in statutory interpretations FYI. When Congress started shedding more and more of their power to the executive, now you enter a realm where these powers can be used for things that ordinarily would be left to Congress to decide. Here's some good information on the potential for the executive branch to forgive student debt. The Department of Education potentially has that power. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html A majority of justices on the Supreme Court now have a more originalist/textualist bent when judging on delegated powers. If we’re talking what I mentioned on the Higher Education Act, that hinges on the limitations of the act (written into the law) to existing authority and the details within the law on new powers. The question is whether the text and/or authors understood it to include authorizing up to actual forgiveness of 15 trillion in student loan debt, and whether the department of education was already understood to have that power. Both are quite a mighty big lift. Maybe you have another act that accidentally gave the president authority to forgive 15 trillion dollars in loans, compared to more common existing authority to alter aspects of repayment terms which you can read more about at your leisure. See, for example, Forbes summary. See also the dissents on Trump’s rescinding of the DACA order for how the new majority views executive orders made in light of Congressional indecision on the subject (or multiple bills proposed but electing not to pass). The ordinary use of Congress delegating powers to executive departments is more applicable in less sweeping changes than the mass of student loan debt. See for example the Supreme Court decision this year on the clean water act and Hawaii. It was about this thing, but now they’re extending it to this (putatively) functionally equivalent thing, and even then there was disagreement. One could argue that Trump v. Hawaii is a pretty massive sweeping change to what the President can do in terms of immigration policy.
Why pick a decision that had an act granting broad discretion to the president? You’re citing something where a group thought they could take back delegated powers (second guess their use, etc. ironically, another thing you would want an act of Congress to remove from the presidency, since it was granted), and acting like it’s the same as claiming Congress delegated matters like student loan forgiveness to the department of education.
Did I miss an act that says the department of education may nix any student loans backed by the fed for purposes of national security?
|
Considering Trump already paused interest and payments on student loans and no one raised a fuss about it, it seems silly to think Biden can't do it. Can he literally forgive the debts forever, in a way a future president couldn't undo? Maybe not.
He could, however, effectively forgive them. Presidents have already been playing around with them via IBR plans.
Once Trump paused them there was really no going back. I fully expect Biden to keep the interest and payments frozen for his entire term.
|
United States10367 Posts
On December 01 2020 08:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2020 08:44 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 08:40 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 08:05 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 01 2020 05:59 FlaShFTW wrote:On December 01 2020 01:09 Nevuk wrote:On December 01 2020 01:03 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 30 2020 20:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't even think there's a grand master plan. I think he's the equivalent of a 12 year old crying maphack, it doesn't really matter if you tell him that 'but we saw that your main base was one pylon short and that you hadn't started goon range, of course we're gonna scout for proxies', he just needs an excuse for losing. The guy is a notorious cheater in golf, I can't really picture him doing anything 'legit'. this is a slight derail but since i dont play or watch golf; how the hell do you cheat in golf? on a typical amateur course isnt your opponent walking along with you and seeing you take each shot? You just lie on your card at the end. On top of moving the ball around like Yurie said. While your opponent does watch you, it's not like they're really recording every single swing you make, and if they are, you just say "oh, I guess I miscounted" and accuse them of being a poor sport. Golfer stepping in to answer this: yeah pretty much. You "miscount" strokes, you improve your lie, you avoid penalties by "finding" your ball when in reality it went out of bounds or into a hazard. There's no doubt with Trump's swing that he's a liar, just like he's a liar in the White House. A golfer's personality translates directly to their playstyle, case in point: Patrick Reed is an asshole who has cheated many times on the tour (improving lie many times). The fact that he's not banned still pisses me off. On December 01 2020 05:57 Danglars wrote:
Canceling student loan debt would be unlikely to survive legal challenge if made by the president and not by act of Congress.
Imagine a Republican president deciding certain kinds of taxes were too high or unfair and dictating to the IRS to cease collecting them (let’s say payroll tax) or issue no penalties for nonpayment.
I don’t think it’s even desirable to give presidents that kind of power, assuming some court decides it’s constitutionally allowable. Rather than just say that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, would you care to submit to us the Constitutional section or relevant USC rule that states the president cannot do something like cancel student loan debt via executive powers? Simply put, the power of the purse is in Congress. Tax, spend, appropriations, subsidies. You can appeal to some of the lawyers around these parts for the argument that something in the Higher Education Act can be twisted to support this. You should know when asking a conservative that it involves where in the constitution and its amendments that it grants the executive branch the power to do it, rather than deny him/her the power. The executive powers are not expansive such that they must be specifically constrained or the authority rests in that branch. So the executive branch still controls quite a bit of the power that Congress has WILLINGLY given to the executive branch. You learn this stuff in statutory interpretations FYI. When Congress started shedding more and more of their power to the executive, now you enter a realm where these powers can be used for things that ordinarily would be left to Congress to decide. Here's some good information on the potential for the executive branch to forgive student debt. The Department of Education potentially has that power. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/21/can-joe-biden-forgive-student-debt-without-congress-experts-weigh-in.html A majority of justices on the Supreme Court now have a more originalist/textualist bent when judging on delegated powers. If we’re talking what I mentioned on the Higher Education Act, that hinges on the limitations of the act (written into the law) to existing authority and the details within the law on new powers. The question is whether the text and/or authors understood it to include authorizing up to actual forgiveness of 15 trillion in student loan debt, and whether the department of education was already understood to have that power. Both are quite a mighty big lift. Maybe you have another act that accidentally gave the president authority to forgive 15 trillion dollars in loans, compared to more common existing authority to alter aspects of repayment terms which you can read more about at your leisure. See, for example, Forbes summary. See also the dissents on Trump’s rescinding of the DACA order for how the new majority views executive orders made in light of Congressional indecision on the subject (or multiple bills proposed but electing not to pass). The ordinary use of Congress delegating powers to executive departments is more applicable in less sweeping changes than the mass of student loan debt. See for example the Supreme Court decision this year on the clean water act and Hawaii. It was about this thing, but now they’re extending it to this (putatively) functionally equivalent thing, and even then there was disagreement. One could argue that Trump v. Hawaii is a pretty massive sweeping change to what the President can do in terms of immigration policy. Why pick a decision that had an act granting broad discretion to the president? You’re citing something where a group thought they could take back delegated powers (second guess their use, etc. ironically, another thing you would want an act of Congress to remove from the presidency, since it was granted), and acting like it’s the same as claiming Congress delegated matters like student loan forgiveness to the department of education. Did I miss an act that says the department of education may nix any student loans backed by the fed for purposes of national security?
It has nothing to do with national security, but I'm not sure why national security has to be the only reason the executive branch has power. As if the executive could only act in power for the interest of national security.
"The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education. It assists the president in executing his education policies for the nation and in implementing laws enacted by Congress."
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what.html#:~:text=The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the,implementing laws enacted by Congress.
Huh... federal assistance to education... one might make an argument that loan forgiveness might assist education by allowing more access to education for those who might not necessarily be able to afford it. It would also be an educational policy to forgive student loans, or it could be a congressional bill. Either way, the idea that there is nothing in the Constitution to grant this power is an inaccurate argument at best. Surely, if it reaches the supreme court I doubt it would actually get through, but the Supreme Court is a joke in this era.
On December 01 2020 09:03 Nevuk wrote:
Considering Trump already paused interest and payments on student loans and no one raised a fuss about it, it seems silly to think Biden can't do it. Can he literally forgive the debts forever, in a way a future president couldn't undo? Maybe not.
He could, however, effectively forgive them. Presidents have already been playing around with them via IBR plans.
Once Trump paused them there was really no going back. I fully expect Biden to keep the interest and payments frozen for his entire term.
Nono, you misunderstand, the President has the power to do things that are convenient for my personal views, but anything past that is not allowed.
|
If Biden doesn't at least pause interest and payments, I'll be supremely pissed. I think a ton of people will be. Heads will roll if Democrats do less for student loan relief than Trump.
In that regard, I am not worried. Its such an easy thing to do and a total disaster if they don't.
|
So what's the magic plan for handling the hole in the budget left from either forgiving or permanently pausing payments on student loans? Bonus points if you can do it without Congress.
We already have one whopper of a debt crisis, why bother making more of one for the benefit of a cause as unworthy as "bail out 30 year olds that can pay but want to weasel out of the loans they took on?"
|
On December 01 2020 10:11 LegalLord wrote:
So what's the magic plan for handling the hole in the budget left from either forgiving or permanently pausing payments on student loans? Bonus points if you can do it without Congress.
We already have one whopper of a debt crisis, why bother making more of one for the benefit of a cause as unworthy as "bail out 30 year olds that can pay but want to weasel out of the loans they took on?"
I don't know what college grads you're talking to, but I sure as shit can't pay. I'm still out of work. Us recent hires were the first to go at my former company because they didn't want us to cut into their bottom line. And I got a "more valuable" degree than most.
|
On December 01 2020 10:11 LegalLord wrote:
So what's the magic plan for handling the hole in the budget left from either forgiving or permanently pausing payments on student loans? Bonus points if you can do it without Congress.
We already have one whopper of a debt crisis, why bother making more of one for the benefit of a cause as unworthy as "bail out 30 year olds that can pay but want to weasel out of the loans they took on?"
No idea what the magic bullet is, but student loans are a giant issue for the country and I would say clearly a net benefit for the economy to forgive/suspend. We don't need to have an amazing solution when the existing situation is extremely bad. Just needs to be an improvement. I'd say about 60% of the money my wife would spend on student loans would go directly into our local economy. The remainder savings.
|
On December 01 2020 10:11 LegalLord wrote:
So what's the magic plan for handling the hole in the budget left from either forgiving or permanently pausing payments on student loans? Bonus points if you can do it without Congress.
We already have one whopper of a debt crisis, why bother making more of one for the benefit of a cause as unworthy as "bail out 30 year olds that can pay but want to weasel out of the loans they took on?"
What was the plan to pay for the GOP tax cuts?
Oh right, "the cuts will pay for themselves" by increasing economic activity. Which was utter nonsense when it benefited the group least likely to actually spend money. This is basically the opposite, where the vast majority of beneficiaries would immediately spend the money elsewhere.
The US also doesn't really have a particularly bad debt crisis atm. That's just something of a sham GOP talking point they dust off when they lose power.
(Our deficit is a little high due to the tax cuts but we're still about 50 years away from that mattering).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
