Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by chrisjm18, Oct 15, 2022.
Please do tell where, precisely, this judge erred in his interpretation of the Constitution.
The argument, as I understand it, is not that he erred in his interpretation of the constitution but instead erred in his interpretation of the law when he said that the law didn't give the executive branch the power to forgive $10,000 in student loan debt.
Here's an opinion article that addresses this issue. He makes a convincing argument that the two plaintiffs that brought the case don't have standing. It is the reason that many other cases filled against this action were thrown out of court.
The ironic thing is that (from what I understand in the ruling) is that the plaintiffs don't argue that the plan is unconstitutional...but that by excluding some borrowers for certain types of loans - the plan it isn't big enough and doesn't go far enough! LOL. . It's the old "don't chew gum unless you brought enough for the entire class" scenario, LOL. I just wonder where all of this outrage was when the government bailed out Wall Street, Citibank, Fannie Mae, etc. And of course, now everyone is a constitutional scholar on the matter.
The Wall Street bailout was passed by Congress.
The bailout money was virtually all paid back, so it ended up costing no money.
It appears that a large segment of the population doesn't understand the basics of how the constitution works, doesn't respect the rule of law, and has a moral deficiency.
1. Although some of the bailout was passed by congress, the biggest money bailout to the biggest banks...was never voted on by congress. It was issued as "emergency lending" - I believe by the Federal Reserve...I can't remember if that was by executive order or not, but congress did not vote on that.
2. Although a lot of the bailout was issued as "loans" - those loans were issued at ROCK BOTTOM interest rates - often at LESS THAN 1%. AND the loans could be perpetually rolled over. So, okay - instead of 10K in forgiveness per borrower- why not just give us the same deal they gave Wall Street? Put all of my loans together in one lump sum and set my interest rate to less than 1%? That would probably be just as good or better than a blanket $10K reduction. The true cost of the bailout can never really be known due to write offs and other accounting processes. But if those institutions had to seek financial rescue outside of taxpayers funding the float, they would have been charged double-digit interest rates (since they were a huge risk at the time). So, the difference between what they would have paid and what the taxpayer fronted is not necessarily a "cost" but it is LOST REVENUE . In addition, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) who issued a report in 2015 stating that it estimated that the bailout will have cost the federal government about $28 billion. That's not "no money."
In a nutshell, those huge Wall Street banks took advantage of the US taxpayer's money by getting it at less than 1% interest, and issuing millions of dollars in bonuses to those at the top of their respective firms as they tried to fix the mess they themselves created and that hurt thousands and thousands of Americans. In addition to that, there was evidence of money laundering, insider trading, and predatory short selling - that was just never really thoroughly prosecuted.
Well, you said "the government bailed out Wall Street" so that is what I responded to.
The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government, they are independent.
For this case, I feel like this is splitting hairs - as the real issue at hand is the impact on taxpayers. Regardless of whether the Fed was acting as a "lender of last resort" and whether it is "independent" within the government. Taxpayers were called upon to foot the bill for various efforts during that time - whether it was subsidies that were written off, or lost interest in super low interest loans. Heck, I don't even disagree with helping some of these entities out only for the simple fact that regardless of the institution, millions of average Americans would be adversely affected if they didn't help them out, but I don't remember anyone challenging any of these "bailouts" like they are the student loan debt forgiveness.
Even if one were to grant grossly irresponsible bailouts, loans, loan forgiveness, etc., it simply does not follow that the president has the authority/or should "forgive" (i.e., force the taxpayer to pay for) student loans.
I received the following email this evening:
This email provides you with an update on the one-time Student Loan Debt Relief plan that President Biden and I announced on August 24th.
We reviewed your application and determined that you are eligible for loan relief under the Plan. We have sent this approval on to your loan servicer. You do not need to take any further action.
Unfortunately, a number of lawsuits have been filed challenging the program, which have blocked our ability to discharge your debt at present. We believe strongly that the lawsuits are meritless, and the Department of Justice has appealed on our behalf. Your application is complete and approved, and we will discharge your approved debt if and when we prevail in court. We will update you when there are new developments.
The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to helping borrowers as they recover from the pandemic.
Education is a great equalizer, and we will never stop fighting for you!
Miguel A. Cardona
U.S. Secretary of Education
I expect that email was sent out to about 100,000,000 people.
Not a surprise, given that lawsuits have at least paused that initiative.
Really?! I thought I was the only person in the U.S. that received it. Bummer!
Funniest thing I read all week, them being “independent.”
Ditto, I received the email as well.
If anyone on here knows anyone incarcerated and looking for information related to the student debt forgiveness, there's an upcoming discussion panel about this that would be worth attending:
Separate names with a comma.