[flagged]
You were responsible and paid off your debt. Taking on unsustainable debt is a choice. It was not forced on anybody. Why do you think that the government should absolve responsibility of other debt holders?
PPP loans came about because the government interfered with the economy, forcing businesses to close at gun point in many states.
In addition, the PPP loans are written into law by Congress. Congress controls money, not the executive branch.
I don't recall being compelled at gunpoint to get a degree. It was a voluntary decision.
You're conflating forgiveness with fraud. The Small Business Administration, FBI, DoJ, and IRS are all investigating fraudulent loans.
> Everyone is arguing in circles on this or speaking past each other. The HEROES Act allowed for modifying loan terms.
The HEROES Act was passed by Congress. Congress can do whatever it wants with those tax dollars because they controls taxes, not the executive branch.
> Regardless, PPP loans should not have been forgiven as they where without following the law Congress passed. So, now, let's do PPP loans.
"Should not" is your opinion. And again, Congress can do whatever it wants with those tax dollars.
It seems like your position is Congress should do something about student loans, but lack a convincing argument to persuade the electorate and Congress.
To be fair, the Congress could have enabled this via statute during its Democrat-controlled phase. But it didn't, so a legally-dubious administrative fix was attempted. This issue is likely to be as spicy at the primary level as it will be in the general.
No, it wasn't, at least not clearly. The statute the Secretary of Education relied on is the HEROES Act of 2003, which lets them "waive or modify." It's a novel reading of that statute (and its intent) to say it permits large-scale forgiveness. (It's not textually inappropriate, hence the grey area.)
So "waive or modify" refers to a regulatory provision of the loans, not the loans themselves. This makes it far less convincing that Congress intended for the loans themselves to be waived.
At the time the HEROES Act was passed, forgiveness was separately considered by the Education Act. (For example, "bankrupt borrowers may have their loans forgiven.") There is the added complication that it's not a straightforward waiver of statute, but, due to the income qualification, a writing of provisions anew.
Based on my reading, saying student loans will be automatically forgiven in bankruptcy as well as increasing the number of professions considered "public servants" seems the savvier way to go.
That separate bill adds other authorities but doesn't restrict the ability to waive or modify during a national emergency. The heroes act of 2003 makes no reference to bankruptcy. https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ76/PLAW-108publ76.pdf
> There is the added complication that it's not a straightforward waiver of statute, but, due to the income qualification, a writing of provisions anew.
Waive and modify.
> Based on my reading, saying student loans will be automatically forgiven in bankruptcy as well as increasing the number of professions considered "public servants" seems the savvier way to go.
What test did you use to come to that being the limit of the powers here (or near)?
Not limit. That’s safely within the scope the opinion finds.
But this is a constitutional issue. It needs to be run by Congress.
Personally, I don't think forgiveness is worth much without structural changes behind it. It's just a one-off bailing effort while ignoring the gaping hole in the hull. Roll tuition back to 1980 levels (inflation adjusted), as well.
The right solution would be to halt the lending entirely.
Although not sure about halting it entirely. Imposing price limits on tuition and/or loans should be sufficient.
The guaranteed loans skew the market. They are a big banner to schools saying the government will pay you with tax dollars if you can get the loan qualifying kids to register. And, that is exactly what they did.
It's the same idea as the PPP loans -- for people who are struggling to make payments, this would have been incredibly helpful.
It's two separate issues.
I think part of it is that the Republican Party is largely dominated by elderly people who aren't aware just how exorbitant the cost of college is these days because it wasn't when they were young. You don't see the same hostility to Biden's student debt relief proposal or obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy among younger Republicans whose concerns tend to be more about what's happening in the culture (the "parents rights" messaging clearly isn't targeted towards elderly conservatives who presumably don't have children in K-12 school).
[0]: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/desantis-p...