I agree that this is the most insidious part of the ruling. Unlike some other countries, US courts cannot offer advisory opinions. Courts can’t simply decide themselves if and when they want to rule on the constitutionality of a law. It requires an actual case involving an actual controversy between parties brought by an individual experiencing actual harm. Watering down standing to allow essentially anyone to bring a challenge thrusts the Supreme Court into a role that is both constitutionally impermissible and corrosive to the proper role of the courts.
Interesting. Can you explain how any of the parties had standing? And, how Biden wasn’t following the plain text of the statute?
have said it before I will say it again: America has socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for everybody else
Those with long memories can recall exactly why student loans were specifically carved out from bankruptcy proceedings in the first place
For a time it was de rigeur to get a law degree on borrowed money, and then declare bankruptcy. There were college course that outlined the exact procedures to follow to help ensure success.
“Effective use of source material” eh? Frankly I can’t be made to care. I paid every penny of my loans back.
Where’s my fucking refund?
Yes, glad you agreed with me. You, too, were given capitalism as a solution. Glad you weren’t crushed by it.
Where’s your refund? Does it matter? Are you willing to condemn people to a failing system because you suffered through it? Just because your dose wasn’t fatal doesn’t mean that we should shut out our intellectual and professional classes from the benefits of said capitalism because society decided to load them up with the burdens of it.
Know how we’re taught about the value of saving early, capturing the magic of compound interest? How is that possible in situations where you are taking your early investable capital and using it to pay off interest expense?
This is the moral horror of the current system, that it shuts millions out of the capitalist investment system at the very time where minor investments can bring big, lifetime gains and places them in the debtor system, draining them of that investable cash. And, to your point and to use an example, just because I survived cancer doesn’t mean that I should condemn others to die of it.
Who gives a shit? Why should I be pissed someone got a break I didn’t? Good for them! I truly don’t get this attitude. Well, I had to suffer through shit and now somebody gets to have it a little easier. Boo fucking hoo. I’m happy for those, and I hope they do something nice for themselves with the extra money. Besides, I’m sure I’ve gotten breaks others haven’t, anyway. Their loans being partially forgiven does not in the least affect me, my happiness, or anything to do with me. It so much reminds me of a joke about Hungarians (though also I’ve heard it with other cultures), of two neighbors each with a cow, and one of their cows dies. The neighbor with the dead cow prays to God… for his neighbor’s cow to die, too.
Let me fix that for ya,
America has socialism for the wealthy and feudalism for everybody else.
What’s happening now is that the middle class is being squeezed out of higher education. If you’re poor, no problem- there’s need-based scholarships. If you’re rich, no problem your deep-pocketed parents can put you through. If you’re middle class and want say to be a teacher more than anything, you’ve got two choices. You can forget your dreams or you can saddle yourself and/or your parents with crushing debt to last a lifetime. The American Dream is dead, and democracy is close behind. But it’s alright ma, MGT got her PPP loans forgiven.
We can presumably legislate to allow the discharge of student loans in bankruptcy in ways that can mitigate this risk. A person with a law degree, for example, could be required as part of a bankruptcy to provide free legal aid for a certain amount of time (it typically takes a decade for a bankruptcy to be cleared off one’s financial record and credit rating, assuming that one does everything exactly perfectly during that time period). Or, the filer could be required to resume payments on the debt principle if their income exceeds a certain amount (say, $50,000) with an amount garnished on a sliding scale that goes up as the gross income goes up. This would avoid having someone file for bankruptcy and then a few years later be living a high flying lifestyle (of course, for many lawyers this is not how it works, but that is another discussion).
The bottom line here is that student debt is an issue that is not going away in this country. It drives me absolutely nuts to see article after article wondering why millenials and Gen Zers are not starting families and purchasing homes. There are way too many baby boomers out there who are stuck in a 1970s mindset of what life is like in the workforce anymore. You do not automatically get a raise every year even if you work for a large corporation; you may not even get health insurance any more (or, at least, health insurance that is anything approaching good). Even with still relatively low interest rates, you cannot afford to buy a house when all of your extra income is going to paying off student loans that may be tantamount to a mortgage.
I say all of this as a person who paid off $30,000 + in student loans myself. A hardship that is endured by one generation should not have to be continued by another when we all know the detrimental effects it is having on our society. That is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.
I think he just means that he agrees with this judicial activist ruling, not that he can defend it in any way.
There are generally two ways of responding to a hardship or obstacle. To work to clear that obstacle out of the way for others, or to work to ensure that everyone has to endure hardship.
One is better for society and people in general, and the other satisfies a form of self righteousness that seems to be becoming more prevalent.
You forgot the third way. You move the obstacle that’s in front of you to a place in front of somebody else. That way they have a hardship slowing them down and you don’t have to do as much work to stay ahead of them.
After all, you’re special. You’re entitled to advantages that those other people don’t deserve.
Let’s hear from real americans:
Should your student loan be partially forgiven if, as far as you knew, the classroom seat beside you might not even be occupied?
One thinks of Anatole France. ”The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I don’t think university education should be free. But the cost of it has multiplied so much faster than inflation. People should be entitled to fair profits, but giving a break to those in need recognizes education is what is going to pave the way to progress.
I’m calling this out - when? Where? I doubt that you can substantiate this claim.
Or this one.
It is true that some people have successfully discharged student loan debt in bankruptcy, but it was never a common practice or some rite of passage.
And even if it was common, this is just an argument against bankruptcy laws in general. Why should the guy who maxed out 15 different credit cards get a do-over, when I’m paying my bills every month? It’s unfair! We should have some kind of prison for people like that, we shouldn’t just be giving them free stuff!
Exactly. I went to a state school in the 80s. Tuition was about $500 per semester, dorm and dining hall about $600 per semester. My children went to state schools a couple years ago. Tuition about $10,000 per semester, dorm and dining hall almost another $10,000 per semester. You’re talking about starting off life as an adult 200K in the hole. Maybe student loan forgiveness is the answer, maybe not. But something somewhere needs to change. Our society is no longer a manufacturing society, people need a degree to escape a life of menial jobs.
I still think (whether or not you agree with the SCOTUS decision that Biden didn’t have the authority to follow the plain text of the HEROES Act) that is a fact that the suing parties didn’t have standing and they never should have made a ruling on the case as it was presented at all.