Biden doesn't want to fight for 50,000 student loan relief. It's too hard

What I'm wondering is if the GOP was able to utilize a few "average Americans" to challenge the Biden student loan plan why can't Democrats find some individuals to challenge the PPL loan forgiveness granted to elected officials in court as well.

It may not be a case they can win but it would be a good countermeasure IMO.
You are out here really thinking the settler state at its laws are for your benefit. The Supreme Court always sides with money. Always!
 
20K wipes my student debt.

I don't care if they pull a Weekend at Bernie's with this octogenarian

GET ER DONE
All left up to SCOTUS
 
Couldn't have done all that, but it would have been better spent on that stuff here. But the American people so easily fooled. All that apple pie, iraq/afghanistan shit was crazy. Just like all the ukraine flags in the bio, cold war part 2 shit is crazy. American people always falling for a hustle to spend money on other shit but them. :smh:

So, you're looking at about 1.2 trillion give or take to end hunger, poverty, homelessness and universal college in America, and that's taking the high end of the college figure and adding 5 billion just to round out the numbers.

Roughly half of what was spent in Afghanistan alone.

So yes, we absolutely could if those were our priorities as a society.


We have money for Student Loan Repayment and Reparations. We can always come up with Billions when we “need it”. Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Covid we made it happen. I just can’t get the Black support for these CACs that continue to deprioritize things that benefit us. IMO Reparations is the most overdue payment issue in the US right now.
 
If anything this is the one thing that will get him reelected, Im certain of it.

Its why the GOP doesnt want it to happen so badly.

Which is why I'm confident there's a back up plan in the event the Supreme Court blocks his plan which is highly probable.

If the Supreme Court rules against him and his administration drops this it would be a catastrophic loss for him going into an election year which I don't think he can afford.
 
Here are key things to know as Supreme Court nears decision on Biden's student loan forgiveness

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month.

Annie Nova
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 16 2023 1:24 PM EDT
UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month. That decision will play a role in shaping the financial futures of 40 million Americans.

If the justices greenlight President Joe Biden's relief, many borrowers will immediately get $20,000 of their student debt cancelled – if they'd received a Pell Grant in college, a type of aid available to low-income families – and as much as $10,000 if they didn't.

Some 14 million people would emerge student debt-free from the plan, potentially making it easier for them to buy a first home, for example, start a family, or open a business.

"The decision would be potentially life changing," said Corey Shirey, 28, who's studying to be a pastor in Oklahoma and owes around $25,000.

Richelle Brooks, a single mother in Los Angeles who had a monthly student loan payment as high as $1,200 at one point, said she's been tied to her phone all of June.

"Waiting to hear whether or not it will pass is nerve-wracking at best, debilitating at worst," said Brooks, 35.

Here's what we know about the Supreme Court's deliberation over the plan, as of now.

1. Decision is expected before July

Borrowers shouldn't be stuck waiting on the justices too much longer.

A ruling from the high court should come by early July, before their term ends for summer recess, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

"The court is likely to issue a decision before the end of June, probably on a Thursday," Kantrowitz said, noting that that was the day of the week the justices had recently been publishing their opinions.

You'll be able to read the ruling on the Supreme Court's website, likely some time in the morning of decision day.

2. Presidential power to cancel debt in question

At an estimated cost of about $400 billion, Biden's plan to forgive student debt is one of the most expensive executive actions in history. The justices are likely examining whether or not the president has the power to implement such a sweeping policy.

The Biden administration insists that it's acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies. The country was operating under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19 when the president rolled out his plan.

Opponents of the debt jubilee say the administration is incorrectly using the law, which was passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and granted relief to impacted borrowers.

"It is not an across-the-board, get-out-of-debt provision that an administration can invoke at will," six Republican-led states wrote in their lawsuit against the plan.

Despite the large scale of the president's policy, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Biden administration at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, was adamant he was acting squarely within the law's scope to avoid borrower distress during national emergencies.

"There hasn't been a national emergency like this in the time that the Heroes Act has been on the books that's affected this many borrowers," Prelogar said during oral arguments at the end of February. "And so I think it's not surprising to see in response to this once-in-a-century pandemic."

A top Education Department official recently warned that resuming student loan bills without Biden's loan cancellation could trigger a historic rise in delinquencies and defaults. Those payments remain on hold from a pandemic-era policy that began in March 2020.

3. Issue of 'legal standing' could save plan

The Biden administration's forgiveness application had been open for less than a month when a slew of legal changes forced them to shut it. Biden's plan has now faced at least six lawsuits from Republican-backed states and conservative groups.

Two of those legal challenges made it to the Supreme Court: one brought by six GOP-led states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.

Some experts believe the justices could reject the lawsuits against the president's plan because the plaintiffs failed to prove they'd be harmed by the policy, which is typically a requirement to gain the right to sue.

The six GOP-led states argued that Biden's loan forgiveness plan would be a financial setback for them because of a reduction in business among the companies that service federal student loans in their states.

They said the decreased revenue for MOHELA, or the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, could leave the agency unable to meet its financial obligations to Missouri.

However, consumer advocates and legal experts said that charge was based on "false facts" and pointed out that MOHELA's revenue was actually expected to increase because of some student loan servicers recently leaving the space and it picking up extra accounts.

The justices also were perplexed as to why the servicers weren't bringing their own challenges, and how the states could claim harm on their behalf.

"Do you want to address why MOHELA's not here?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked during the oral arguments.

"MOHELA doesn't need to be here because the state has the authority to speak for them," Nebraska Solicitor General James A. Campbell said.

Barrett wasn't satisfied by that answer.

"Why didn't the state just make MOHELA come then?" she asked. "If MOHELA is really an arm of the state...why didn't you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you've got to pursue this suit?"

A request from CNBC for comment from the Nebraska attorney general was not immediately answered.

In the second legal challenge backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, the lawyers argued that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their "procedural rights" by the Biden administration because it didn't allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers say, Brown and Taylor were either partially or fully excluded from the relief.

Elaine Parker, president of Job Creators Network Foundation, insisted their plaintiffs suffered harm from the policy.

"If the administration had gone through notice-and-comment as the law requires, they each could have made their case," Parker said. "The program is a clear act of executive overreach."

The Heroes Act, however, exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, Kantrowitz said. Also, not getting loan forgiveness or not getting as much as others is not the same as being harmed, he added.

"The Supreme Court is likely to be very critical of the circular arguments made by the plaintiffs in the JCN case," Kantrowitz said. "You have to look at the law cross-eyed to argue for legal standing."

105590265-1543003701580gettyimages-655052984.jpeg
 
Here are key things to know as Supreme Court nears decision on Biden's student loan forgiveness

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month.

Annie Nova
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 16 2023 1:24 PM EDT
UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month. That decision will play a role in shaping the financial futures of 40 million Americans.

If the justices greenlight President Joe Biden's relief, many borrowers will immediately get $20,000 of their student debt cancelled – if they'd received a Pell Grant in college, a type of aid available to low-income families – and as much as $10,000 if they didn't.

Some 14 million people would emerge student debt-free from the plan, potentially making it easier for them to buy a first home, for example, start a family, or open a business.

"The decision would be potentially life changing," said Corey Shirey, 28, who's studying to be a pastor in Oklahoma and owes around $25,000.

Richelle Brooks, a single mother in Los Angeles who had a monthly student loan payment as high as $1,200 at one point, said she's been tied to her phone all of June.

"Waiting to hear whether or not it will pass is nerve-wracking at best, debilitating at worst," said Brooks, 35.

Here's what we know about the Supreme Court's deliberation over the plan, as of now.

1. Decision is expected before July

Borrowers shouldn't be stuck waiting on the justices too much longer.

A ruling from the high court should come by early July, before their term ends for summer recess, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

"The court is likely to issue a decision before the end of June, probably on a Thursday," Kantrowitz said, noting that that was the day of the week the justices had recently been publishing their opinions.

You'll be able to read the ruling on the Supreme Court's website, likely some time in the morning of decision day.

2. Presidential power to cancel debt in question

At an estimated cost of about $400 billion, Biden's plan to forgive student debt is one of the most expensive executive actions in history. The justices are likely examining whether or not the president has the power to implement such a sweeping policy.

The Biden administration insists that it's acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies. The country was operating under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19 when the president rolled out his plan.

Opponents of the debt jubilee say the administration is incorrectly using the law, which was passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and granted relief to impacted borrowers.

"It is not an across-the-board, get-out-of-debt provision that an administration can invoke at will," six Republican-led states wrote in their lawsuit against the plan.

Despite the large scale of the president's policy, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Biden administration at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, was adamant he was acting squarely within the law's scope to avoid borrower distress during national emergencies.

"There hasn't been a national emergency like this in the time that the Heroes Act has been on the books that's affected this many borrowers," Prelogar said during oral arguments at the end of February. "And so I think it's not surprising to see in response to this once-in-a-century pandemic."

A top Education Department official recently warned that resuming student loan bills without Biden's loan cancellation could trigger a historic rise in delinquencies and defaults. Those payments remain on hold from a pandemic-era policy that began in March 2020.

3. Issue of 'legal standing' could save plan

The Biden administration's forgiveness application had been open for less than a month when a slew of legal changes forced them to shut it. Biden's plan has now faced at least six lawsuits from Republican-backed states and conservative groups.

Two of those legal challenges made it to the Supreme Court: one brought by six GOP-led states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.

Some experts believe the justices could reject the lawsuits against the president's plan because the plaintiffs failed to prove they'd be harmed by the policy, which is typically a requirement to gain the right to sue.

The six GOP-led states argued that Biden's loan forgiveness plan would be a financial setback for them because of a reduction in business among the companies that service federal student loans in their states.

They said the decreased revenue for MOHELA, or the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, could leave the agency unable to meet its financial obligations to Missouri.

However, consumer advocates and legal experts said that charge was based on "false facts" and pointed out that MOHELA's revenue was actually expected to increase because of some student loan servicers recently leaving the space and it picking up extra accounts.

The justices also were perplexed as to why the servicers weren't bringing their own challenges, and how the states could claim harm on their behalf.

"Do you want to address why MOHELA's not here?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked during the oral arguments.

"MOHELA doesn't need to be here because the state has the authority to speak for them," Nebraska Solicitor General James A. Campbell said.

Barrett wasn't satisfied by that answer.

"Why didn't the state just make MOHELA come then?" she asked. "If MOHELA is really an arm of the state...why didn't you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you've got to pursue this suit?"

A request from CNBC for comment from the Nebraska attorney general was not immediately answered.

In the second legal challenge backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, the lawyers argued that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their "procedural rights" by the Biden administration because it didn't allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers say, Brown and Taylor were either partially or fully excluded from the relief.

Elaine Parker, president of Job Creators Network Foundation, insisted their plaintiffs suffered harm from the policy.

"If the administration had gone through notice-and-comment as the law requires, they each could have made their case," Parker said. "The program is a clear act of executive overreach."

The Heroes Act, however, exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, Kantrowitz said. Also, not getting loan forgiveness or not getting as much as others is not the same as being harmed, he added.

"The Supreme Court is likely to be very critical of the circular arguments made by the plaintiffs in the JCN case," Kantrowitz said. "You have to look at the law cross-eyed to argue for legal standing."

105590265-1543003701580gettyimages-655052984.jpeg
:please:
 
Here are key things to know as Supreme Court nears decision on Biden's student loan forgiveness

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month.

Annie Nova
PUBLISHED FRI, JUN 16 2023 1:24 PM EDT
UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan this month. That decision will play a role in shaping the financial futures of 40 million Americans.

If the justices greenlight President Joe Biden's relief, many borrowers will immediately get $20,000 of their student debt cancelled – if they'd received a Pell Grant in college, a type of aid available to low-income families – and as much as $10,000 if they didn't.

Some 14 million people would emerge student debt-free from the plan, potentially making it easier for them to buy a first home, for example, start a family, or open a business.

"The decision would be potentially life changing," said Corey Shirey, 28, who's studying to be a pastor in Oklahoma and owes around $25,000.

Richelle Brooks, a single mother in Los Angeles who had a monthly student loan payment as high as $1,200 at one point, said she's been tied to her phone all of June.

"Waiting to hear whether or not it will pass is nerve-wracking at best, debilitating at worst," said Brooks, 35.

Here's what we know about the Supreme Court's deliberation over the plan, as of now.

1. Decision is expected before July

Borrowers shouldn't be stuck waiting on the justices too much longer.

A ruling from the high court should come by early July, before their term ends for summer recess, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

"The court is likely to issue a decision before the end of June, probably on a Thursday," Kantrowitz said, noting that that was the day of the week the justices had recently been publishing their opinions.

You'll be able to read the ruling on the Supreme Court's website, likely some time in the morning of decision day.

2. Presidential power to cancel debt in question

At an estimated cost of about $400 billion, Biden's plan to forgive student debt is one of the most expensive executive actions in history. The justices are likely examining whether or not the president has the power to implement such a sweeping policy.

The Biden administration insists that it's acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies. The country was operating under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19 when the president rolled out his plan.

Opponents of the debt jubilee say the administration is incorrectly using the law, which was passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and granted relief to impacted borrowers.

"It is not an across-the-board, get-out-of-debt provision that an administration can invoke at will," six Republican-led states wrote in their lawsuit against the plan.

Despite the large scale of the president's policy, the lawyer who argued on behalf of the Biden administration at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, was adamant he was acting squarely within the law's scope to avoid borrower distress during national emergencies.

"There hasn't been a national emergency like this in the time that the Heroes Act has been on the books that's affected this many borrowers," Prelogar said during oral arguments at the end of February. "And so I think it's not surprising to see in response to this once-in-a-century pandemic."

A top Education Department official recently warned that resuming student loan bills without Biden's loan cancellation could trigger a historic rise in delinquencies and defaults. Those payments remain on hold from a pandemic-era policy that began in March 2020.

3. Issue of 'legal standing' could save plan

The Biden administration's forgiveness application had been open for less than a month when a slew of legal changes forced them to shut it. Biden's plan has now faced at least six lawsuits from Republican-backed states and conservative groups.

Two of those legal challenges made it to the Supreme Court: one brought by six GOP-led states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.

Some experts believe the justices could reject the lawsuits against the president's plan because the plaintiffs failed to prove they'd be harmed by the policy, which is typically a requirement to gain the right to sue.

The six GOP-led states argued that Biden's loan forgiveness plan would be a financial setback for them because of a reduction in business among the companies that service federal student loans in their states.

They said the decreased revenue for MOHELA, or the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, could leave the agency unable to meet its financial obligations to Missouri.

However, consumer advocates and legal experts said that charge was based on "false facts" and pointed out that MOHELA's revenue was actually expected to increase because of some student loan servicers recently leaving the space and it picking up extra accounts.

The justices also were perplexed as to why the servicers weren't bringing their own challenges, and how the states could claim harm on their behalf.

"Do you want to address why MOHELA's not here?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked during the oral arguments.

"MOHELA doesn't need to be here because the state has the authority to speak for them," Nebraska Solicitor General James A. Campbell said.

Barrett wasn't satisfied by that answer.

"Why didn't the state just make MOHELA come then?" she asked. "If MOHELA is really an arm of the state...why didn't you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you've got to pursue this suit?"

A request from CNBC for comment from the Nebraska attorney general was not immediately answered.

In the second legal challenge backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, the lawyers argued that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their "procedural rights" by the Biden administration because it didn't allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers say, Brown and Taylor were either partially or fully excluded from the relief.

Elaine Parker, president of Job Creators Network Foundation, insisted their plaintiffs suffered harm from the policy.

"If the administration had gone through notice-and-comment as the law requires, they each could have made their case," Parker said. "The program is a clear act of executive overreach."

The Heroes Act, however, exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, Kantrowitz said. Also, not getting loan forgiveness or not getting as much as others is not the same as being harmed, he added.

"The Supreme Court is likely to be very critical of the circular arguments made by the plaintiffs in the JCN case," Kantrowitz said. "You have to look at the law cross-eyed to argue for legal standing."

105590265-1543003701580gettyimages-655052984.jpeg

We already know Uncle Clarence and Alito decision. They ain’t helping nobody.

The question is what will be the decision of the other 7 on the court.
 
FUCK TRUMP and That Bitch Betsy Devo (Had to vent)

Him and that Bitch had me paying more than what I would be paying now. Not mad because my shits got discharged, but I had to work a part time job for 12 years because of no reform.....

I will forever hate that bitch....I would damn near be a millionaire if I didn't have to pay 10% of my income to student loans....

I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing, but not confidant...

 
Last edited:
If nothing else, I'm glad they cleaned up the PSLF program. People are getting 6 figures of debt forgiven and these other assholes want to prevent 10k to be forgiven because the majority of people it will help is black people.

FACTS!!!! I will always respect what they did with PSLF since this is how my loans were discharged.

Plus the 10% to 5% of income is a game changer.....That's for all Income Based Payment plans.....
 
Yeah man and a few people I follow in the education world are saying because of some of the recent decisions, it's not looking good, but we will have to wait and see....
I'm not expecting any favors at this point, but it'll be interesting to hear the decision broken down and explained by experts.

I just reached out to my new servicer yesterday to pre-emptively get acquainted. The rep told me that my next pay date would be Oct. 28th with the same rate I had pre-pandemic until July 2024. BUT the new-new repayment program may have something to say about that, right?
 
They gonna block it on grounds thatit ain't fair to anyone who doesn't qualify. Watch.

Just gonna have to knuckle up and knock it out.

20k would wipe my debt. Smh
 
I'm not expecting any favors at this point, but it'll be interesting to hear the decision broken down and explained by experts.

I just reached out to my new servicer yesterday to pre-emptively get acquainted. The rep told me that my next pay date would be Oct. 28th with the same rate I had pre-pandemic until July 2024. BUT the new-new repayment program may have something to say about that, right?

Yup. With the new IBR plan it would only be 5% and not 10%. I tell people all the time it's based on AGI so the more you put away in 401K and invest that lowers your AGI

So if you make 100K, but put 20K in your 401K you only would be paying $400 vs. $800
 
They gonna block it on grounds thatit ain't fair to anyone who doesn't qualify. Watch.

Just gonna have to knuckle up and knock it out.

20k would wipe my debt. Smh
If that's the explanation, then this economy gets what it deserves.

You about to have a few generations of consumers who's purchasing power is about to be put on hold. Seems counter productive for a system dependent on people buying shit.
 
Yeah man and a few people I follow in the education world are saying because of some of the recent decisions, it's not looking good, but we will have to wait and see....

I'm expecting the worse but hoping for the best.

I'm more concerned with what the Biden administration will do if the Supreme Court rules against him since there's no way they could just accept this loss heading into an election year.
 
Very much so
If that's the explanation, then this economy gets what it deserves.

You about to have a few generations of consumers who's purchasing power is about to be put on hold. Seems counter productive for a system dependent on people buying shit.
 
I'm expecting the worse but hoping for the best.

I'm more concerned with what the Biden administration will do if the Supreme Court rules against him since there's no way they could just accept this loss heading into an election year.

Yeah I am sure they have a back up plan..

I think the 2 mentioned regarding 5% of your income and stopping interest from accruing were 2 major items.....
 
If that's the explanation, then this economy gets what it deserves.

You about to have a few generations of consumers who's purchasing power is about to be put on hold. Seems counter productive for a system dependent on people buying shit.

That is the standing issue of one lawsuit that was filed.

It SHOULD pass but I'm not optimistic


In Department of Education v. Brown, Brown and Taylor are two individuals who have already repaid their student loans in full. They are arguing that Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan harms them because they would not be able to receive loan forgiveness under the plan. According to Rahdert, there is an obvious flaw in this argument. The Biden plan provides debt relief to other student loan borrowers but that doesn’t mean that Brown and Taylor are being harmed.

“What they’re asking for is an extra benefit, not relief from harm. Moreover, there’s no way to fix that through judicial action. It’s not like a federal court could order the secretary of education to expand the range of debt relief,” said Rahdert.

In Biden v. Nebraska, the states are arguing that the Biden plan harms them because they could lose out on tax revenue if individuals from their state are relieved of obligations to repay their student loans. Rahdert believes the problem with their argument is that it is speculative.

“Loan forgiveness hasn’t actually happened, so it’s not causing the states actual harm,” Rahdert said. “That claim also depends upon the behavior of a third party. It depends upon how the students who are being relieved of student loan debt behave and what the effect of their behavior would be on the states’ tax revenues.”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top