In fact, 73% of anticipated recipients say they expect to spend their debt forgiveness on non-essential items, including travel, dining out and new tech
Of course… 
Helps the economy 
Surprised even Biden said actual check in the mail
Counting chickens… Probably will be shot down by SC, and no chance of Congress passing anything now in lame duck session or later GOP taking over.
GOP thinks paying for their GF abortion is fine though, or they worry for the baby till birth then it’s on you mom!
yep, too bad the demographics are changing for the long term, esp. here in AZ…
Latest judicial ruling that’s blocking the loan giveaway.
That’s pretty funny when contrasted with the story I linked:
Any day now, federal student loan borrowers throughout the U.S. could see their balances reduced by up to $20,000 thanks to President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan. The administration is waiting on a green light from a federal judge to actually start reducing balances, but still says applicants can expect good news in the coming weeks
Any day now, my ass.
As a side note:
Today, a federal judge conspired with right-wing politicians and corrupt corporations to block life-changing student debt relief for tens of millions of families
It’s getting pretty old hearing how every court decision they disagree with is merely a political conspiracy, and couldn’t possibly mean you were doing something illegal. Especially after the previous 4 years, when certain judges were blocking the administration from enforcing longstanding, properly enacted law not even in dispute - that is what conspiracy to push partisan political agendas looks like (and yes. I know I just did what I said was getting pretty old…)
Thank you for your vote. See you in 2 years.
- BIDEN ADMINISTRATION STOPS TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS - CNBC
- STUDENT LOAN DEBT RELIEF IS BLOCKED - U.S. STUDENT AID WEBSITE
Screw standing, we’re GOP judges. I predict payment pause will be extended… till the next election See you in 2 yrs indeed. or till the cases make it to SC
“Such injury is needed to establish what courts call ‘standing,’” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor.
For that reason, Tribe said he was floored by the Texas judge’s ruling.
“Judge Pittman’s decision was about as wrong and weird as any federal court ruling I can recall reading,” Tribe said. “He was wrong to decide the merits without first deciding whether either of the two plaintiffs had standing.”
I’m just a layperson, but since this judge issued a ruling I would assume he determined the plaintiffs did in fact have standing. It’s not like the administrations argued that they didnt have standing, and the judge agree with that argument then proceeded to issue the ruling anyways. It’s quite the red herring to so adamently claim he ignored ‘standing’ when there is zero indication of such (beyond the fact you simply dont like the ruling).
At best you can state that you disagree with them having standing, but that also isnt a decision the peanut gallery is entitled to make. And as the old saying goes, “those who can, do, and those who cant, teach.”
This story deserves the label of misinformation as much as nearly anything that has been given that label over the past 4 years.
I believe I stated earlier that this should be the Democrat strategy. Loan forgiveness is a one-shot deal - you make people happy for a day, then they move on. While a perpetual pause is an ongoing entitlement that requires winning elections to maintain. What better way to secure a stranglehold on power than a program that hits millions of Americans directly in their wallets if the right people dont keep being elected. What better election slogan than “Vote for the other guy and you will have to start paying you debts again!” with tangible circumstances that makes that way more than just another hollow threat. It’s the deadman’s switch preventing the cops from shooting the terroist (which is a pretty fitting analogy).
2 Likes
There’s literally 4 pages of his opinion dedicated to his reasoning on why the plaintiffs have standing.
start on page 10
accurate
3 Likes
yep in one way you don’t want the carrot to be extended if you’re GOP. More Dems will vote in 2024… Let them have their crumbs…
Harvard Law school prof. is not “peanut gallery” If the appeals courts uphold this, expect Dem floodgates of litigation for any Rep. exec. action going forward for “wasting tax payer $” I for one would like to file lawsuits for any sports stadiums being built w/ tax payer $.
The admin did not just “use a pen and phone” they’re interpreting the HEROES act which gave the Prez authority to forgive loans.
What I do like about the litigation delay is more payment pauses (which is in admin control) They’re also counting this forbearance towards repayment periods…
If you are not part of the court, you are part of the gallery. He is on the outside looking in as much as any of us. Apparently even more outside than us, since he clearly didnt bother to even read the decision or contemplating the realities of the case before spewing his baseless accusations.
If the appeals courts uphold this, expect Dem floodgates of litigation for any Rep. exec. action going forward for “wasting tax payer $”
I think there’s a lot of people who would agree with this. It’s case-by-case, but it goes both ways.
I for one would like to file lawsuits for any sports stadiums being built w/ tax payer $.
There isnt a stadium in the nation that was built with taxpayer funding that was dispursed via executive action.
they’re interpreting the HEROES act which gave the Prez authority to forgive loans.
And it’s quite telling when instead of defending their interpretation, the focus is on the ‘standing’ (or lack thereof) of anyone who opposes the action. All along they’ve known that any legal decision is not going to go their way.
1 Like
This is really the gist of it. It shows whether people are consistent or not. When your argument fails on the basic merits (the Biden admin know it does and multiple democrats acknowledged this fact multiple times before just doing it), but you still want to get away with it, you try to claim that no one has standing. Either it’s constitutional or not, regardless of standing. I get that you @jesselivermore think the HEROS act allows it, but we both know that’s only because you want it to happen, not because you think that when congress passed the HEROS act, they thought it applied to you, or that COVID is an emergency that necessitates forgiving exactly $10,000 (or $20,000 if you got a pell grant) for almost everyone, but not quite everyone with outstanding student loans.
This already happened under Trump, so its not only expected, it’s the status quo. Where have you been?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/border-wall-blocked-california-new-mexico
If one party’s president tries to claim “EMERGENCY” in order to spend money on something he couldn’t get passed by congress and he is stopped in the courts because the other party filed a lawsuit, shouldn’t that other party expect the same thing to happen to them when they try it. This is literally a mirror image of Trump illegally trying to build the wall with DHS funds not appropriated for that purpose because its an “emergency.” Since congress didn’t appropriate any money for you @jesselivermore to receive debt relief, its just as illegal for Biden to claim he can do it under the HEROS act based on an “emergency.”
3 Likes
Carrot worked:
Question is whether if struck down carrot will be on the 2024 ballot. Payment pause will be extended while litigation continues too.
1 Like
1 Like
96% of ASU voted for Dems=Katie is AZ governor. Both senators are now Dems. This was a HUUGE Trump state not too long ago. Dem Senate= fed judges, although it takes Dems longer since they evaluate competency
Only thing left is Gerrymandered house seats. I know since I live in one. I guess that one will be hard to overcome w/ demographics… for now
What the GOP doesn’t realize that uncertainty actually gives Dems a boost for 2024 and the payment pause periods still count toward other forgiveness programs:
These grim figures led to comparisons to the 2008 mortgage crisis.
Federal student loan payments have been on pause since March 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic first hit the U.S. and crippled the economy. Resuming the bills for over 40 million Americans will be a massive task, and the Biden administration had hoped to ease the transition by forgiving a large share of student debt first.
However, since President Joe Biden announced his plan in August to cancel up to $20,000 for tens of millions of borrowers, conservative groups and Republican states moved quickly to try to block it.
Despite offering student loan borrowers forbearances during previous natural disasters, default rates still skyrocketed, Kvaal said in the filing.
″[T]he one-time student loan debt relief program was intended to avoid” that problem, he added.
18 million borrowers most at-risk for default
The borrowers most in jeopardy of defaulting are those for whom Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan would have wiped out their balance entirely, Kvaal said. The administration estimated its policy would do so for around 18 million people.
“These student loan borrowers had the reasonable expectation and belief that they would not have to make additional payments on their federal student loans,” Kvaal said. “This belief may well stop them from making payments even if the Department is prevented from effectuating debt relief.”
“Unless the Department is allowed to provide one-time student loan debt relief,” he went on, “we expect this group of borrowers to have higher loan default rates due to the ongoing confusion about what they owe.”
I expect the pause to continue if litigation does
All along there has been legal objections. The ONLY reason there was any expectation or belief is due to the mainstream media’s cheerleading.
3 Likes
That’s not true. 1st off, anyone with difficulty paying can sign up for an income based repayment plan. I have literally spoken to someone that is a stay at home mom with a working husband that pays less than $5 per month. 2nd, the logic doesn’t work. People with smaller balances have smaller payments. people with smaller payments are LESS likely to default.
YOU GAVE THEM THAT EXPECTATION WHEN THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD IT WAS REASONABLE TO BEGIN WITH!
If “I don’t want to pay because the democrats lied to me” is their reason for default, I really don’t care how many default. That’s not my problem.
This reads like:
“We lied to them about being able to give them money so they would vote for us. Now we need the courts to let us go through with giving them money because they believed the lie. Or else they aren’t going to pay back what they owe.”
Sounds like you f’d up. But that’s not the courts’ problem.
3 Likes