The Secretary’s Legal Authority for Broad-Based Debt Cancellation
October 30, 2021 10:23 AM Subscribe
What Biden Can’t Do on Student Debt—and What He Won’t Do (New Yorker, web archive version): "The Debt Collective activists developed a theory: that the lawyers at the Department of Education had already written their memo, that they had advised Biden that he did have the authority to cancel debt [...] So Gokey, one of the organizers, submitted a request through the Freedom of Information Act. If a memo had already been drafted, then he asked the Department of Education to send it to him. On August 20th, he got the results: dozens of pages of e-mails among Department of Education officials, including a seven-page memo called 'The Secretary’s Legal Authority for Broad-Based Debt Cancellation.' The memo’s contents were redacted—in hot pink, for some reason—but it was proof that a memo existed."
Hey thank you! Waiting for a post like this. Got any more?
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:34 AM on October 30, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:34 AM on October 30, 2021
We've had numerous Republican administrations straight break the law in numerous ways. I remember my first brush was the Bush admin sending out "news stories" created by the admin that were made to look like they were made by a national news group. They pushed this propaganda all over the country for nearly three years before news stations were alerted that they were essentially running propaganda. There was minimal punishment for pushing administration backed propaganda.
I'll never understand this constant hand-wringing from Democrats. "We have to explicitly follow every rule we've made up for ourselves that makes getting the job done harder."
I'm not saying the Democrats should become the criminals the Republicans are, but when they want to get something done, maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have to hold themselves to the letter of the law when they're up against literal fascists who will put all of us under their boot, given the chance.
Sometimes you don't get to choose to be ethical to save the day, sometimes trying to take the "high road" literally just means you lose and lose hard.
The endless hand-wringing about whether they have the legal authority when every time the Republicans come into power they do no such thing and break the law and ask forgiveness later seems like literally giving the other team the opportunity to cheat to win, all while telling yourself the only way you can win is by playing fair. It's fucking bonkers stupid.
Do something, Democrats. Put up or shut up. We know they're getting fucked six ways to Sunday by Manchin and Sinema, but if they don't change the game and get SOMETHING done for Americans, that likely makes 2020 our last "free" election, period.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2021 [64 favorites]
I'll never understand this constant hand-wringing from Democrats. "We have to explicitly follow every rule we've made up for ourselves that makes getting the job done harder."
I'm not saying the Democrats should become the criminals the Republicans are, but when they want to get something done, maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have to hold themselves to the letter of the law when they're up against literal fascists who will put all of us under their boot, given the chance.
Sometimes you don't get to choose to be ethical to save the day, sometimes trying to take the "high road" literally just means you lose and lose hard.
The endless hand-wringing about whether they have the legal authority when every time the Republicans come into power they do no such thing and break the law and ask forgiveness later seems like literally giving the other team the opportunity to cheat to win, all while telling yourself the only way you can win is by playing fair. It's fucking bonkers stupid.
Do something, Democrats. Put up or shut up. We know they're getting fucked six ways to Sunday by Manchin and Sinema, but if they don't change the game and get SOMETHING done for Americans, that likely makes 2020 our last "free" election, period.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2021 [64 favorites]
Widespread student loan forgiveness was one of the most intelligent concepts I noticed to date.
The idea it's only halfway being done is kind of maddening. It'd solve so many concerns.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:45 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
The idea it's only halfway being done is kind of maddening. It'd solve so many concerns.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:45 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
That's an excellent article. Particularly this part:
“We’re a signature away from wiping out everyone’s federal student loans, and Biden apparently just doesn’t want to,” Gokey said. “We’ve given him a magic wand, a way to help millions of people and get them excited to come out to vote for him. Who wouldn’t want to do that?” The President’s party almost always loses seats during a midterm election—which would mean, in this case, that the Democrats would lose control of one or both houses of Congress next year. A way to prevent that, Astra Taylor said, “would be to materially improve people’s lives in ways that are intelligible to them. And, believe me, if you cancel forty-five million people’s debt, they will notice.”
It's hard to fathom how much good it would do to people's lives if even $10,000 of student debt were cancelled across the board. It would narrow the racial wealth gap significantly. It's an idea that's good policy, good politics, and flat-out good morally. And it frustrates me so much that none of this matters to the people in charge.
posted by Gadarene at 10:51 AM on October 30, 2021 [58 favorites]
“We’re a signature away from wiping out everyone’s federal student loans, and Biden apparently just doesn’t want to,” Gokey said. “We’ve given him a magic wand, a way to help millions of people and get them excited to come out to vote for him. Who wouldn’t want to do that?” The President’s party almost always loses seats during a midterm election—which would mean, in this case, that the Democrats would lose control of one or both houses of Congress next year. A way to prevent that, Astra Taylor said, “would be to materially improve people’s lives in ways that are intelligible to them. And, believe me, if you cancel forty-five million people’s debt, they will notice.”
It's hard to fathom how much good it would do to people's lives if even $10,000 of student debt were cancelled across the board. It would narrow the racial wealth gap significantly. It's an idea that's good policy, good politics, and flat-out good morally. And it frustrates me so much that none of this matters to the people in charge.
posted by Gadarene at 10:51 AM on October 30, 2021 [58 favorites]
It's not very different from safety nets like pandemic unemployment - it's so sensible, why wouldn't someone do it? (Forgive loans)
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:58 AM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:58 AM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
In my fantasy scenario, Biden punts student loan repayment starts from February 2022 to later, then cancels the debt in mid-September 2022 before early voting starts.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 11:04 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 11:04 AM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
Biden Concerned Ambitious Agenda Could Be Stalled By Him Not Really Caring If It Happens Or Not
posted by bleep at 11:09 AM on October 30, 2021 [40 favorites]
posted by bleep at 11:09 AM on October 30, 2021 [40 favorites]
"redacted in hot pink" is a great user name.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:12 AM on October 30, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:12 AM on October 30, 2021 [21 favorites]
There has been exactly one time in modern history where the incumbent's party had a Congressional majority and kept it after the midterm: FDR's first term. He did this by basically giving the regular folk everything that they needed. It is so disheartening to see Biden continually give more and more ground to the Republicans with this upcoming election.
posted by nushustu at 11:17 AM on October 30, 2021 [36 favorites]
posted by nushustu at 11:17 AM on October 30, 2021 [36 favorites]
In my fantasy scenario, Biden punts student loan repayment starts from February 2022 to later, then cancels the debt in mid-September 2022 before early voting starts.
Alternatively, Biden-adjacent people start hyping debt cancellation right before the election, and it's quickly forgotten after.
posted by ryanrs at 11:20 AM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
Alternatively, Biden-adjacent people start hyping debt cancellation right before the election, and it's quickly forgotten after.
posted by ryanrs at 11:20 AM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is there any justification for classifying and redacting the contents of that memo? Other than the obvious conclusion that the US is in a state of war against the indebted, of course.
posted by Vulgar Euphemism at 11:29 AM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Vulgar Euphemism at 11:29 AM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
Is there any justification for classifying and redacting the contents of that memo? Other than the obvious conclusion that the US is in a state of war against the indebted, of course.
The deliberative process privilege, probably. But if it's a final draft, then that arguably shouldn't apply.
posted by Gadarene at 11:49 AM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
The deliberative process privilege, probably. But if it's a final draft, then that arguably shouldn't apply.
posted by Gadarene at 11:49 AM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
You think Biden's a little skittish about doing anything now. Wait until November and Virginia wakes up to Youngkin as Governor. Hell there's even a State House GOPer who is basically running on 'All that is wrong in Virginia is Amazon's fault'.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Honestly at this point I don't know why they don't say they're going to convert student debt to progressively higher marginal tax rates from the 24% tax bracket and upwards for college students in place of debt.
Other countries do that, which makes it immediately impossible to attempt in the US and probably Stalinist.
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:18 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
Other countries do that, which makes it immediately impossible to attempt in the US and probably Stalinist.
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:18 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
Also I can't find a recent reference now because google sucks but I've seen a couple of times that the administration of student debt costs more than it brings in in payments so not only would letting people keep their money so they can spend it on stuff be huge for the economy, it would also be in theory something that people who were "concerned about government spending" would want to eliminate. But you know none of this is really about "concern about government spending" or "wanting the economy to do well". It's about keeping people in misery makes it easier to keep stealing from them.
posted by bleep at 12:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
FDR did have one distinct advantage over Biden in terms of legislative support.
Now, yes, we are now in the Green Lantern Presidency phase of American governance, where legislative bodies are made up and the points don't matter, and everything that's substantial happens either as a SCOTUS decision, as an executive order, or as a last-ditch under-duress must-pass-or-the-country-fails kind of hideous compromise. But Joe Biden, professional bank puppet for many decades, a "system" guy, Mr. I Will Find A Way To Get Republicans To Participate In Bipartisan Processes, is going to:
a) decide to upend existing financial protocols on a massive scale
b) give Republicans an opening to point and shriek "See? He IS a dictator! He can't pass any legislation so he's ruling by fiat!"
c) do the above on a hunch that the support of the Little People will matter more than the opinions of Massive Corporate Interests and their affiliated media?
I'm willing to be surprised. I don't expect to be.
To put it a bit more charitably, I would imagine that wiping out massive amounts of debt probably feels to Biden the way that wiping out abortion coast-to-coast feels to many conservative politicians. If it happens, it's something that they would probably appreciate, but hell if it's going to happen with their name on it because of the shitrain that might well follow.
posted by delfin at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
Now, yes, we are now in the Green Lantern Presidency phase of American governance, where legislative bodies are made up and the points don't matter, and everything that's substantial happens either as a SCOTUS decision, as an executive order, or as a last-ditch under-duress must-pass-or-the-country-fails kind of hideous compromise. But Joe Biden, professional bank puppet for many decades, a "system" guy, Mr. I Will Find A Way To Get Republicans To Participate In Bipartisan Processes, is going to:
a) decide to upend existing financial protocols on a massive scale
b) give Republicans an opening to point and shriek "See? He IS a dictator! He can't pass any legislation so he's ruling by fiat!"
c) do the above on a hunch that the support of the Little People will matter more than the opinions of Massive Corporate Interests and their affiliated media?
I'm willing to be surprised. I don't expect to be.
To put it a bit more charitably, I would imagine that wiping out massive amounts of debt probably feels to Biden the way that wiping out abortion coast-to-coast feels to many conservative politicians. If it happens, it's something that they would probably appreciate, but hell if it's going to happen with their name on it because of the shitrain that might well follow.
posted by delfin at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
To put it a bit more charitably, I would imagine that wiping out massive amounts of debt probably feels to Biden the way that wiping out abortion coast-to-coast feels to many conservative politicians. If it happens, it's something that they would probably appreciate, but hell if it's going to happen with their name on it because of the shitrain that might well follow.
He may be scared of this. He probably is scared of this. But it is a fundamentally weak and passive way to view the world, and one that necessarily pairs with a mostly white, mostly male, wholly privileged-ass view that, in the end, the status quo isn't so bad and we shouldn't try to change it if doing so carries with it any risk of backlash whatsoever.
Plus I think it's absolutely wrong. You think people won't remember who's just made their lives immeasurably easier? I had an Uber driver yesterday who went on and on about how incredible it was to get expanded COVID unemployment benefits and how it allowed him to put his efforts into his passion of sustainable living...and that when those benefits expired, how dispirited and exhausted he felt with the increased financial burden.
You better believe that student loan relief would be an unmitigated and sustained winner for the Democrats among the Little People--wait, I mean the "voters". I seem to recall them being important.
posted by Gadarene at 12:55 PM on October 30, 2021 [15 favorites]
He may be scared of this. He probably is scared of this. But it is a fundamentally weak and passive way to view the world, and one that necessarily pairs with a mostly white, mostly male, wholly privileged-ass view that, in the end, the status quo isn't so bad and we shouldn't try to change it if doing so carries with it any risk of backlash whatsoever.
Plus I think it's absolutely wrong. You think people won't remember who's just made their lives immeasurably easier? I had an Uber driver yesterday who went on and on about how incredible it was to get expanded COVID unemployment benefits and how it allowed him to put his efforts into his passion of sustainable living...and that when those benefits expired, how dispirited and exhausted he felt with the increased financial burden.
You better believe that student loan relief would be an unmitigated and sustained winner for the Democrats among the Little People--wait, I mean the "voters". I seem to recall them being important.
posted by Gadarene at 12:55 PM on October 30, 2021 [15 favorites]
Also I can't find a recent reference now because google sucks but I've seen a couple of times that the administration of student debt costs more than it brings in in payments so not only would letting people keep their money so they can spend it on stuff be huge for the economy, it would also be in theory something that people who were "concerned about government spending" would want to eliminate.You won't find a reference for that - it's totally false.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [10 favorites]
This is infuriating.
Partly because erasing some more or all of student debt would be a humanitarian victory.
Partly because the Biden team is clearly waffling on it, hiding their deliberations, and probably hoping it goes away.
posted by doctornemo at 1:06 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Partly because erasing some more or all of student debt would be a humanitarian victory.
Partly because the Biden team is clearly waffling on it, hiding their deliberations, and probably hoping it goes away.
posted by doctornemo at 1:06 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
You better believe that student loan relief would be an unmitigated and sustained winner for the Democrats
Why are you confident that it would be an electoral winner? It might be good policy, it's probably the right thing to do, but those things have a terrible track record at winning elections. Big spending legislation that doesn't directly benefit a majority of the population would be really, really easy to campaign against.
posted by skewed at 1:30 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
Why are you confident that it would be an electoral winner? It might be good policy, it's probably the right thing to do, but those things have a terrible track record at winning elections. Big spending legislation that doesn't directly benefit a majority of the population would be really, really easy to campaign against.
posted by skewed at 1:30 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'll never understand this constant hand-wringing from Democrats. "We have to explicitly follow every rule we've made up for ourselves that makes getting the job done harder."
At the end of the day, they have mostly the same bosses as the Republicans. Dole out a few pennies for the plebes, get half the country on one side and half on the other, and the bosses laugh all the way to the banks (that they own).
posted by chaz at 1:36 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
At the end of the day, they have mostly the same bosses as the Republicans. Dole out a few pennies for the plebes, get half the country on one side and half on the other, and the bosses laugh all the way to the banks (that they own).
posted by chaz at 1:36 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
The deliberative process privilege, probably. But if it's a final draft, then that arguably shouldn't apply.
If drafted by counsel, very likely attorney work product (FOIA Exemption 5). This is a recurring issue in litigation.
I had been hesitating to make an FPP, but for people reading this who have somehow missed the news--this month we got a radical, but temporary, expansion of eligibility for PSLF. If you would otherwise be eligible but were told that you had "the wrong kind of loans" (that is, FFEL instead of Direct), or you overpaid tiny amounts and were told you were in "paid ahead status", or if you "lost credit" for payments because you consolidated, or if you were (sometimes) "in the wrong plan," you can get this fixed. But you need to file an ECF with ED before October 31 2022. (The PSLF Help Tool hasn't yet been updated to reflect the change with FFELs, but is supposed to be before the end of the year.) Even if you've given up after you got the bad news because you thought you could never climb that mountain, if you've continued to work in public service or had enough time in to qualify (for these purposes only, you won't have to be still working in public service to get forgiveness), or even might go back, do yourself a favor (and take advantage of the shitload of work done by certain public interest and government attorneys over the past eight-plus years, ahem) and file the ECF.
posted by praemunire at 1:55 PM on October 30, 2021 [18 favorites]
If drafted by counsel, very likely attorney work product (FOIA Exemption 5). This is a recurring issue in litigation.
I had been hesitating to make an FPP, but for people reading this who have somehow missed the news--this month we got a radical, but temporary, expansion of eligibility for PSLF. If you would otherwise be eligible but were told that you had "the wrong kind of loans" (that is, FFEL instead of Direct), or you overpaid tiny amounts and were told you were in "paid ahead status", or if you "lost credit" for payments because you consolidated, or if you were (sometimes) "in the wrong plan," you can get this fixed. But you need to file an ECF with ED before October 31 2022. (The PSLF Help Tool hasn't yet been updated to reflect the change with FFELs, but is supposed to be before the end of the year.) Even if you've given up after you got the bad news because you thought you could never climb that mountain, if you've continued to work in public service or had enough time in to qualify (for these purposes only, you won't have to be still working in public service to get forgiveness), or even might go back, do yourself a favor (and take advantage of the shitload of work done by certain public interest and government attorneys over the past eight-plus years, ahem) and file the ECF.
posted by praemunire at 1:55 PM on October 30, 2021 [18 favorites]
Biden was one of the few Democratic senators that supported the Republican bill that stripped student loans of bankruptcy protections. So consider the fact that maybe he’s just a bad person.
posted by moorooka at 1:58 PM on October 30, 2021 [37 favorites]
posted by moorooka at 1:58 PM on October 30, 2021 [37 favorites]
“We’re a signature away from wiping out everyone’s federal student loans, and Biden apparently just doesn’t want to,” Gokey said.
They are speculating that a memo written by progressive democrats says what they want it to say, and then converting that to "we're a signature away" from a massive policy shift.
Regardless of what the memo says, I would assume that in reality they are a signature away from triggering a series of lawsuits. Those would end with a conservative Supreme Court saying no, the mainstream current of legal thinking is correct and this is beyond the power of the presidency. It's a case where they have both some conservative legal tenets and partisan desires on their side. Given that partisan needs are more than enough: We'll need legislation to do this in practice.
I don't quite get the point of claims that try to convince people that nigh impossible things (like cancelling debt through executive fiat) are simple. There's an element of "fire up the troops" I suppose, but often followed by resentment.
posted by mark k at 2:06 PM on October 30, 2021 [13 favorites]
They are speculating that a memo written by progressive democrats says what they want it to say, and then converting that to "we're a signature away" from a massive policy shift.
Regardless of what the memo says, I would assume that in reality they are a signature away from triggering a series of lawsuits. Those would end with a conservative Supreme Court saying no, the mainstream current of legal thinking is correct and this is beyond the power of the presidency. It's a case where they have both some conservative legal tenets and partisan desires on their side. Given that partisan needs are more than enough: We'll need legislation to do this in practice.
I don't quite get the point of claims that try to convince people that nigh impossible things (like cancelling debt through executive fiat) are simple. There's an element of "fire up the troops" I suppose, but often followed by resentment.
posted by mark k at 2:06 PM on October 30, 2021 [13 favorites]
Look if conservative can tie up their horseshit in the court for two decades until it's a moot point, so can the Democrats. Who gives a shit what the final say is as long as they keep using every procedural opportunity they can to keep the case going, and then when push comes to shove, the programs that the whole country unequivocally loves will be difficult to dismantle, Supreme Court opinion be damned. It's really difficult to dismantle things like the ACA after they've been around a long time simply due to social popularity.
Who gives a shit what the final legal outcome is if you can run the program long enough for idiot conservatives to be angry when conservative politicians finally try to take it away. That's what I don't get. At least put it out and there and put up the god damned fight. "Oh no we'll spend money on fighting this in court oh no we need to spend money on the military instead" fuck that for once we need to spend money fighting shit in court for the sake of American citizens/workers.
Also, how do you "dismantle" student loan forgiveness? Go back and undo it and make people owe money again? How incredibly unpopular would that be?
posted by deadaluspark at 2:11 PM on October 30, 2021 [17 favorites]
Who gives a shit what the final legal outcome is if you can run the program long enough for idiot conservatives to be angry when conservative politicians finally try to take it away. That's what I don't get. At least put it out and there and put up the god damned fight. "Oh no we'll spend money on fighting this in court oh no we need to spend money on the military instead" fuck that for once we need to spend money fighting shit in court for the sake of American citizens/workers.
Also, how do you "dismantle" student loan forgiveness? Go back and undo it and make people owe money again? How incredibly unpopular would that be?
posted by deadaluspark at 2:11 PM on October 30, 2021 [17 favorites]
Like, literally tying shit up in court until no one cares anymore is 100% how Republicans do business, why can't we?
posted by deadaluspark at 2:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by deadaluspark at 2:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [8 favorites]
Look if conservative can tie up their horseshit in the court for two decades until it's a moot point, so can the Democrats . . . Who gives a shit what the final legal outcome is if you can run the program long enough for idiot conservatives to be angry when conservative politicians finally try to take it away
You likely can't, though. You get immediate court orders giving a stay on implementation. It's a questionable legal theory facing a (presumably) hostile court with long term effects if it proceeds--why would you think it wouldn't be blocked?
It's always easier to plan for a good outcome if you assume away all the hard problems, but it's not easy to execute on those plans when reality hits.
"Oh no we'll spend money on fighting this in court oh no we need to spend money on the military instead
Literally no one is worried about the monetary cost of a court battle.
posted by mark k at 2:16 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
You likely can't, though. You get immediate court orders giving a stay on implementation. It's a questionable legal theory facing a (presumably) hostile court with long term effects if it proceeds--why would you think it wouldn't be blocked?
It's always easier to plan for a good outcome if you assume away all the hard problems, but it's not easy to execute on those plans when reality hits.
"Oh no we'll spend money on fighting this in court oh no we need to spend money on the military instead
Literally no one is worried about the monetary cost of a court battle.
posted by mark k at 2:16 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Who gives a shit what the final legal outcome is if you can run the program long enough for idiot conservatives to be angry
When they go low, we go high.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:24 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
When they go low, we go high.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:24 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
daedaluspark : Do something, Democrats. Put up or shut up. We know they're getting fucked six ways to Sunday by Manchin and Sinema, but if they don't change the game and get SOMETHING done for Americans, that likely makes 2020 our last "free" election, period.
From the article: “The only thing that does continue to surprise me,” she said, “is the Democratic Party seems so unwilling, or unable, to act in its own self-interest.”
From historian Heather Cox Richardson's Letters from an American, Oct. 1:
In the face of this unprecedented obstructionism, the Democrats HAVE done something - several somethings. It's just that, like the press, most of us forget what they've done as soon as the next news cycle rolls around.
Unprecedented job creation. Unprecedented lifting of children out of poverty. Unprecedented assistance to state and local governments who were gutted by loss of income from the pandemic. Unprecedented boosts to health care - not just pushing vaccines and aiding hospitals, but enhancing Obamacare credits and availability. More than I can list in an already long comment -
and all in the face of utterly unprecedented obstruction from an overrepresented, anti-American party that refuses to make government benefit everyday Americans even on issues where Republican voters want them to.
Put the blame where it's due. The Democrats aren't the ones making it impossible to do what Americans want. Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have the power they're wielding if the Republicans weren't blocking every step forward the Democrats try to take.
posted by kristi at 2:25 PM on October 30, 2021 [32 favorites]
From the article: “The only thing that does continue to surprise me,” she said, “is the Democratic Party seems so unwilling, or unable, to act in its own self-interest.”
From historian Heather Cox Richardson's Letters from an American, Oct. 1:
In March 2021, the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion economic rescue package that has helped the administration produce more jobs in its first six months than any other administration in American history.Senators Manchin and Sinema are betraying the Democrats' efforts toward strengthening the country and its residents, but we should never forget - and never fail to emphasize - that the anti-American Republican legislators are the ones who are truly standing in the way of everything that the majority of Americans want - even, in many cases, obstructing things that the majority of Republican voters want.
Not a single Republican voted for that bill; it passed while they were focusing on the ungendered Potato Head kin and the decision of the Dr. Seuss estate to stop the publication of some of Theodor Geisel’s less popular books.
The economy has recovered in large part because of the Biden administration’s enormous success at distributing the coronavirus vaccines to every American who wanted one.
Republican lawmakers have worked against this process, and today we crossed the unthinkable line of 700,000 officially counted deaths from Covid-19.
In the face of this unprecedented obstructionism, the Democrats HAVE done something - several somethings. It's just that, like the press, most of us forget what they've done as soon as the next news cycle rolls around.
Unprecedented job creation. Unprecedented lifting of children out of poverty. Unprecedented assistance to state and local governments who were gutted by loss of income from the pandemic. Unprecedented boosts to health care - not just pushing vaccines and aiding hospitals, but enhancing Obamacare credits and availability. More than I can list in an already long comment -
and all in the face of utterly unprecedented obstruction from an overrepresented, anti-American party that refuses to make government benefit everyday Americans even on issues where Republican voters want them to.
Put the blame where it's due. The Democrats aren't the ones making it impossible to do what Americans want. Manchin and Sinema wouldn't have the power they're wielding if the Republicans weren't blocking every step forward the Democrats try to take.
posted by kristi at 2:25 PM on October 30, 2021 [32 favorites]
Those would end with a conservative Supreme Court saying no, the mainstream current of legal thinking is correct and this is beyond the power of the presidency.
Setting aside fascism, nope. (By the way, it's not the power of the presidency, exactly; it's the power of the Secretary of Education pursuant to the HEA.) The reason the Secretary hasn't done it hasn't been because "the mainstream current of legal thinking" is that he can't--it's because, until about two years ago, it was viewed as a completely fringe issue, so little work was done on it. Direct Loans are loans originated and held by the federal government. So there is no takings issue. And while the older FFEL loans, originated and often held (though the feds actually post-2008 crisis ended up owning a large chunk of them, too) by private entities, would pose a larger problem, FFEL borrowers are entitled to consolidate their FFEL loans into Direct loans, thus bringing them into the same scenario.
Looking at the statute, the HEA explicitly gives the Secretary of Education the authority to compromise, waive, or release student loan debt, so I think the Secretary can do it. The counterarguments articulated so far strike me as weak. That Congress created PSLF does not mean that's the only form of debt forgiveness available (that's very very obviously the case, as any time ED settles for less than the amount owed, it's engaged in some form of compromise); that it's normally done on a small scale doesn't mean it can't be done on a larger.
It's actually somewhat difficult to think of who would have standing to challenge such an executive order. Sure, Republicans could try bringing suit and our whacked-out Supreme Court could make any decision it pleases, but that is an argument against literally any meaningful action Biden could take as president.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [18 favorites]
Setting aside fascism, nope. (By the way, it's not the power of the presidency, exactly; it's the power of the Secretary of Education pursuant to the HEA.) The reason the Secretary hasn't done it hasn't been because "the mainstream current of legal thinking" is that he can't--it's because, until about two years ago, it was viewed as a completely fringe issue, so little work was done on it. Direct Loans are loans originated and held by the federal government. So there is no takings issue. And while the older FFEL loans, originated and often held (though the feds actually post-2008 crisis ended up owning a large chunk of them, too) by private entities, would pose a larger problem, FFEL borrowers are entitled to consolidate their FFEL loans into Direct loans, thus bringing them into the same scenario.
Looking at the statute, the HEA explicitly gives the Secretary of Education the authority to compromise, waive, or release student loan debt, so I think the Secretary can do it. The counterarguments articulated so far strike me as weak. That Congress created PSLF does not mean that's the only form of debt forgiveness available (that's very very obviously the case, as any time ED settles for less than the amount owed, it's engaged in some form of compromise); that it's normally done on a small scale doesn't mean it can't be done on a larger.
It's actually somewhat difficult to think of who would have standing to challenge such an executive order. Sure, Republicans could try bringing suit and our whacked-out Supreme Court could make any decision it pleases, but that is an argument against literally any meaningful action Biden could take as president.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [18 favorites]
(I mean, the tone of your comment is that for legal reasons this is a silly pipe dream that responsible leftists shouldn't get the people excited about, and it's just. not. that.)
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
Why are you confident that it would be an electoral winner? It might be good policy, it's probably the right thing to do, but those things have a terrible track record at winning elections. Big spending legislation that doesn't directly benefit a majority of the population would be really, really easy to campaign against.
As of 2020, approximately 30 percent of American adults have student loan debt. And how many of those who don't are married or otherwise closely connected to those who do and whose burdens would be lessened as a result?
Even if that's not a majority, it's damn fuckin' close -- and you're energizing lower-income and minority turnout in a big, big way.
I'm not confident that it would be an electoral winner, because the donor-class Democrats typically find a way to undersell and underdeliver on accomplishments that do tangible good for non donor-class Americans. But with a minimum level of competence and vision, it damn well should be.
posted by Gadarene at 2:45 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
As of 2020, approximately 30 percent of American adults have student loan debt. And how many of those who don't are married or otherwise closely connected to those who do and whose burdens would be lessened as a result?
Even if that's not a majority, it's damn fuckin' close -- and you're energizing lower-income and minority turnout in a big, big way.
I'm not confident that it would be an electoral winner, because the donor-class Democrats typically find a way to undersell and underdeliver on accomplishments that do tangible good for non donor-class Americans. But with a minimum level of competence and vision, it damn well should be.
posted by Gadarene at 2:45 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
You better believe that student loan relief would be an unmitigated and sustained winner for the Democrats among the Little People--wait, I mean the "voters". I seem to recall them being important.
Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. But set aside questions of "is this right" or "would this help people" or "is this good," because those are less relevant to this particular calculus as to whether it's GOING to happen.
Someone with a slide rule is working out whether tilting the economy in this manner will win then more votes than they lose. They are sure that the poor's votes are already theirs, and they are focused on moderates, to whom the opposition screams that socialism is happening and their futures are being robbed and their 401ks are about to tank because Biden wants to give all their money to illegal immigrants.
(Never mind that he doesn't.)
The person with a slide rule is not on our side.
posted by delfin at 2:48 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. But set aside questions of "is this right" or "would this help people" or "is this good," because those are less relevant to this particular calculus as to whether it's GOING to happen.
Someone with a slide rule is working out whether tilting the economy in this manner will win then more votes than they lose. They are sure that the poor's votes are already theirs, and they are focused on moderates, to whom the opposition screams that socialism is happening and their futures are being robbed and their 401ks are about to tank because Biden wants to give all their money to illegal immigrants.
(Never mind that he doesn't.)
The person with a slide rule is not on our side.
posted by delfin at 2:48 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
You better believe that student loan relief would be an unmitigated and sustained winner for the Democrats
I guess I am not sure I believe this. Younger people typically don't vote as reliably as older people do, so a policy that helps younger people at the expense of pissing off older people—and wiping out student debt absolutely will piss off a lot of people—doesn't strike me as exactly a slam-dunk.
Voting blocs who vote and vote reliably, get what they want. Voting blocs who don't... don't.
I get the argument that maybe this will cause a lot of young people to vote D in gratitude, but I'm suspicious of whether that actually works. People get out and vote when they're threatened, or feel that they're about to lose something; I've never really seen a lot of people turn out to vote to say "gee thanks, that was nice".
There's a non-trivial risk that the Democrats could push through debt cancellation, only to have the people whose debt got cancelled say "thanks!" and then go back to their regularly-scheduled lives, while the people who on some level feel like they're being forced to give out freebies to Zoomers that they didn't receive themselves turn out en masse and angry.
And yes, I know that here on Metafilter the hivemind consensus opinion is that "well, I paid my way and so should you" thinking is shitty. I'm not arguing about the moral rightness of the position. Moral rightness has only a very tenuous connection to the day-to-day trench warfare of US politics.
It doesn't matter that a lot of Boomers (and, tbh, probably a lot of Gen-Xers and Millennials—I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts) are morally wrong in being cheapass bastards who want to see everyone younger than them immiserated in exactly the same way they were. It only matters that they do think that.
That the Democrats couldn't even get free community college going forward, with no retrospective debt cancellation, suggests to me that there is virtually zero chance of any significant cancellation of existing debt happening. If they can't even prevent the accrual of new, future debt for low-cost community colleges, which doesn't hit the "moral hazard" of eliminating existing debt that was knowingly taken on, I think that basically tells you all you need to know about the issue.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:52 PM on October 30, 2021 [16 favorites]
I guess I am not sure I believe this. Younger people typically don't vote as reliably as older people do, so a policy that helps younger people at the expense of pissing off older people—and wiping out student debt absolutely will piss off a lot of people—doesn't strike me as exactly a slam-dunk.
Voting blocs who vote and vote reliably, get what they want. Voting blocs who don't... don't.
I get the argument that maybe this will cause a lot of young people to vote D in gratitude, but I'm suspicious of whether that actually works. People get out and vote when they're threatened, or feel that they're about to lose something; I've never really seen a lot of people turn out to vote to say "gee thanks, that was nice".
There's a non-trivial risk that the Democrats could push through debt cancellation, only to have the people whose debt got cancelled say "thanks!" and then go back to their regularly-scheduled lives, while the people who on some level feel like they're being forced to give out freebies to Zoomers that they didn't receive themselves turn out en masse and angry.
And yes, I know that here on Metafilter the hivemind consensus opinion is that "well, I paid my way and so should you" thinking is shitty. I'm not arguing about the moral rightness of the position. Moral rightness has only a very tenuous connection to the day-to-day trench warfare of US politics.
It doesn't matter that a lot of Boomers (and, tbh, probably a lot of Gen-Xers and Millennials—I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts) are morally wrong in being cheapass bastards who want to see everyone younger than them immiserated in exactly the same way they were. It only matters that they do think that.
That the Democrats couldn't even get free community college going forward, with no retrospective debt cancellation, suggests to me that there is virtually zero chance of any significant cancellation of existing debt happening. If they can't even prevent the accrual of new, future debt for low-cost community colleges, which doesn't hit the "moral hazard" of eliminating existing debt that was knowingly taken on, I think that basically tells you all you need to know about the issue.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:52 PM on October 30, 2021 [16 favorites]
Someone with a slide rule is working out whether tilting the economy in this manner will win then more votes than they lose. They are sure that the poor's votes are already theirs, and they are focused on moderates, to whom the opposition screams that socialism is happening and their futures are being robbed and their 401ks are about to tank because Biden wants to give all their money to illegal immigrants.
(Never mind that he doesn't.)
The person with a slide rule is not on our side.
They should also be fired, because that's a terrible and flawed way to analyze the electoral prospects of a policy.
Never mind that the point of winning elections is to effect change that improves the lives of your constituency, not just to win future elections. Or it, you know, SHOULD BE.
posted by Gadarene at 2:53 PM on October 30, 2021
(Never mind that he doesn't.)
The person with a slide rule is not on our side.
They should also be fired, because that's a terrible and flawed way to analyze the electoral prospects of a policy.
Never mind that the point of winning elections is to effect change that improves the lives of your constituency, not just to win future elections. Or it, you know, SHOULD BE.
posted by Gadarene at 2:53 PM on October 30, 2021
Sometimes I post "evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." I feel like I could post that in every single "why can't the Democrats do like the Republicans?" thread.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:54 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:54 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
I get the argument that maybe this will cause a lot of young people to vote D in gratitude, but I'm suspicious of whether that actually works. People get out and vote when they're threatened, or feel that they're about to lose something; I've never really seen a lot of people turn out to vote to say "gee thanks, that was nice".
"With federal student debt totaled at $1.57 trillion, the majority of federal student debt is concentrated with Generation X. The average Baby Boomer with student loans tends to owe more than the average Millennial. However, on the national scale, Millennials have a larger overall debt than Baby Boomers."
From here.
This isn't just, or even primarily, a young person issue.
posted by Gadarene at 2:57 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
"With federal student debt totaled at $1.57 trillion, the majority of federal student debt is concentrated with Generation X. The average Baby Boomer with student loans tends to owe more than the average Millennial. However, on the national scale, Millennials have a larger overall debt than Baby Boomers."
From here.
This isn't just, or even primarily, a young person issue.
posted by Gadarene at 2:57 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
so a policy that helps younger people at the expense of pissing off older people
I have friends who are definitely fans of anything Republican, but you mention cancelling student loan debt and....yeah there's a few folks who it would have helped 10 years ago but they paid theirs off and find it unfair others don't as well. I find the issue boggling, I too would have loved to have had my debt cancelled, it took way too long to pay it off, but I don't see why cancelling it now harms me.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:59 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
I have friends who are definitely fans of anything Republican, but you mention cancelling student loan debt and....yeah there's a few folks who it would have helped 10 years ago but they paid theirs off and find it unfair others don't as well. I find the issue boggling, I too would have loved to have had my debt cancelled, it took way too long to pay it off, but I don't see why cancelling it now harms me.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 2:59 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Never mind that the point of winning elections is to effect change that improves the lives of your constituency, not just to win future elections. Or it, you know, SHOULD BE.
Well, of course. But you are telling me how it should be, while I am relating how it is. That doesn't make either of us wrong.
posted by delfin at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
Well, of course. But you are telling me how it should be, while I am relating how it is. That doesn't make either of us wrong.
posted by delfin at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts
Let alone people who made large life decisions based on the amount of prospective student loan debt associated with them, including but not limited to where to go to college and whether to go at all.
posted by Selena777 at 3:13 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
Let alone people who made large life decisions based on the amount of prospective student loan debt associated with them, including but not limited to where to go to college and whether to go at all.
posted by Selena777 at 3:13 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
Well, of course. But you are telling me how it should be, while I am relating how it is. That doesn't make either of us wrong.
It's bananas how, according to the guy with the slide rule, the interests of these fabled moderates whose votes are the only ones worth courting seem to align so neatly with the interests of corporate America, the wealthy, and the institutional status quo, isn't it? I mean, just bananas. Time and time again, what are the odds?
posted by Gadarene at 3:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
It's bananas how, according to the guy with the slide rule, the interests of these fabled moderates whose votes are the only ones worth courting seem to align so neatly with the interests of corporate America, the wealthy, and the institutional status quo, isn't it? I mean, just bananas. Time and time again, what are the odds?
posted by Gadarene at 3:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [12 favorites]
Let alone people who made large life decisions based on the amount of prospective student loan debt associated with them, including but not limited to where to go to college and whether to go at all.
You can hear the ads now.
"You worked your fingers to the bone to give your kids a better life. To help them get careers that don't involve wearing paper hats. To give them the advantage that they needed to succeed. You spent within your means...
*Picture of Biden appears*
... But to this man, none of that matters. He wants people who spent recklessly to prosper and to TAKE YOUR JOBS.
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE.
This message paid for by Soulless Republican for Congress 2022"
posted by delfin at 3:20 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
You can hear the ads now.
"You worked your fingers to the bone to give your kids a better life. To help them get careers that don't involve wearing paper hats. To give them the advantage that they needed to succeed. You spent within your means...
*Picture of Biden appears*
... But to this man, none of that matters. He wants people who spent recklessly to prosper and to TAKE YOUR JOBS.
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE.
This message paid for by Soulless Republican for Congress 2022"
posted by delfin at 3:20 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
Republicans will literally say anything about Democrats anyway. They literally already claimed they all worship Satan and eat fucking babies.
Can we cut the shit and act like what the Republicans say actually fucking matters anymore? They said we couldn't have Bernie because they would label him a socialist and they labelled Biden a socialist anyway so seriously who literally gives one fucking shit because they're gonna do it fucking anyway.
Also to all the people "But it's actually the Republicans fault!"
No shit, folks, that's why we didn't want an idiot like Biden who genuinely thought he could get them to work across the aisle after twenty fucking years of them not. We wanted someone with some fucking balls who wouldn't let these criminal motherfuckers walk the fuck all over them.
posted by deadaluspark at 3:29 PM on October 30, 2021 [22 favorites]
Can we cut the shit and act like what the Republicans say actually fucking matters anymore? They said we couldn't have Bernie because they would label him a socialist and they labelled Biden a socialist anyway so seriously who literally gives one fucking shit because they're gonna do it fucking anyway.
Also to all the people "But it's actually the Republicans fault!"
No shit, folks, that's why we didn't want an idiot like Biden who genuinely thought he could get them to work across the aisle after twenty fucking years of them not. We wanted someone with some fucking balls who wouldn't let these criminal motherfuckers walk the fuck all over them.
posted by deadaluspark at 3:29 PM on October 30, 2021 [22 favorites]
You can hear the ads now.
"You worked your fingers to the bone to give your kids a better life. To help them get careers that don't involve wearing paper hats. To give them the advantage that they needed to succeed. You spent within your means...
*Picture of Biden appears*
... But to this man, none of that matters. He wants people who spent recklessly to prosper and to TAKE YOUR JOBS.
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE.
This message paid for by Soulless Republican for Congress 2022"
True, why try to change anything! A Republican might make an ad. I'm convinced.
Sorry, racial wealth gap. Looks like you're sticking around for good.
posted by Gadarene at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [14 favorites]
"You worked your fingers to the bone to give your kids a better life. To help them get careers that don't involve wearing paper hats. To give them the advantage that they needed to succeed. You spent within your means...
*Picture of Biden appears*
... But to this man, none of that matters. He wants people who spent recklessly to prosper and to TAKE YOUR JOBS.
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE.
This message paid for by Soulless Republican for Congress 2022"
True, why try to change anything! A Republican might make an ad. I'm convinced.
Sorry, racial wealth gap. Looks like you're sticking around for good.
posted by Gadarene at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [14 favorites]
I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts
Five-plus years of Biglaw torture working 60+-hour weeks sometimes without a day off of any kind for two months to get out from under not far off of $200K in student debt.
I say:
CANCEL THOSE DEBTS.
The people with the mean, crabbed hearts who would resent others not being forced to suffer the way you unnecessarily suffered weren't voting Democrat anyway. (I have some equity concerns primarily relating to debts tending to be most crushing for people with smaller private loans from "lower ed" schools, who couldn't be helped by this, but that is a side issue.)
posted by praemunire at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [28 favorites]
Five-plus years of Biglaw torture working 60+-hour weeks sometimes without a day off of any kind for two months to get out from under not far off of $200K in student debt.
I say:
CANCEL THOSE DEBTS.
The people with the mean, crabbed hearts who would resent others not being forced to suffer the way you unnecessarily suffered weren't voting Democrat anyway. (I have some equity concerns primarily relating to debts tending to be most crushing for people with smaller private loans from "lower ed" schools, who couldn't be helped by this, but that is a side issue.)
posted by praemunire at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2021 [28 favorites]
Five-plus years of Biglaw torture working 60+-hour weeks sometimes without a day off of any kind for two months to get out from under not far off of $200K in student debt.
Nine-plus for me, plus several years clerking and my current government gig, and I still have some. Debts are nasty.
Boggled that anyone could think this is a Zoomer issue.
posted by Gadarene at 4:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
Nine-plus for me, plus several years clerking and my current government gig, and I still have some. Debts are nasty.
Boggled that anyone could think this is a Zoomer issue.
posted by Gadarene at 4:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
You get immediate court orders giving a stay on implementation. It's a questionable legal theory facing a (presumably) hostile court with long term effects if it proceeds--why would you think it wouldn't be blocked?
I think we all got used to Trump being able to reliably get these stays lifted by a friendly SCOTUS. But of course Biden won't have that luxury, and all it takes is one Trump judge to issue a stay in a conservative circuit and the policy is stalled until the legal issues are resolved.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think we all got used to Trump being able to reliably get these stays lifted by a friendly SCOTUS. But of course Biden won't have that luxury, and all it takes is one Trump judge to issue a stay in a conservative circuit and the policy is stalled until the legal issues are resolved.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
For what it's worth, Raphael Warnock is one of the Senate's strongest and most passionate proponents of student debt cancellation, and he's up for reelection next year.
So I guess we'll see how the man with the slide rule pans out in Georgia.
posted by Gadarene at 4:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
So I guess we'll see how the man with the slide rule pans out in Georgia.
posted by Gadarene at 4:14 PM on October 30, 2021 [7 favorites]
It's hard to fathom how much good it would do to people's lives if even $10,000 of student debt were cancelled across the board. It would narrow the racial wealth gap significantly.
Hmm. Well, then, instead of across-the-board student-debt cancellation, maybe we should only forgive the debt of BIPOC, and restrict any future free-college programs to students of this group. That would really even things up.
posted by cinchona at 4:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
Hmm. Well, then, instead of across-the-board student-debt cancellation, maybe we should only forgive the debt of BIPOC, and restrict any future free-college programs to students of this group. That would really even things up.
posted by cinchona at 4:37 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
How many people who believe the statement The Supreme Court is dominated by hacks who put ideology (or even just partisan interest) above impartial legal reasoning also believe Biden can cancel student debt with the stroke of a pen?
Because those two beliefs seem pretty incompatible to me. I think a good segment of people who loudly say they believe the second thing are, to put it politely, indifferent to whether it's true or not.
The are argument to favor the executive order despite thinking it will have no policy affect, but game planning how popular it would be if people got it and who would get credit is kind of irrelevant.
posted by mark k at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2021
Because those two beliefs seem pretty incompatible to me. I think a good segment of people who loudly say they believe the second thing are, to put it politely, indifferent to whether it's true or not.
The are argument to favor the executive order despite thinking it will have no policy affect, but game planning how popular it would be if people got it and who would get credit is kind of irrelevant.
posted by mark k at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2021
Well, then, instead of across-the-board student-debt cancellation, maybe we should only forgive the debt of BIPOC students, and restrict any future free-college programs to students of this group. That would really even things up.
Glad this shit is so amusing to you, man.
posted by praemunire at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2021 [24 favorites]
Glad this shit is so amusing to you, man.
posted by praemunire at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2021 [24 favorites]
70% of people who don’t have loans or who paid them back will be furious if the 30% who have loans get all their debts forgiven. I can see the Republican attack ads now. How Biden used his powers to give a socialist a bailout to lazy kids who were broke from wasting their money on expensive cell phones and avacado toast and degrees in woke studies.
If you want a student loan relief bill it has to come through Congress and you have to work on getting folks elected in 2022. The left has made great strides in driving the Democratic Party; but we are still well short of a majority and we don’t have the votes in the Senate.
posted by interogative mood at 4:57 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
If you want a student loan relief bill it has to come through Congress and you have to work on getting folks elected in 2022. The left has made great strides in driving the Democratic Party; but we are still well short of a majority and we don’t have the votes in the Senate.
posted by interogative mood at 4:57 PM on October 30, 2021 [6 favorites]
To me, it doesn’t really matter if Biden has the authority to cancel student debt, because I don’t think he will do it - I don’t think he wants to do it. This is the administration that was “prevented” from raising the minimum wage by a “ruling” from the senate parliamentarian. It’s a charade.
posted by thedamnbees at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2021 [9 favorites]
70% of people who don’t have loans or who paid them back will be furious if the 30% who have loans get all their debts forgiven.
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
Second, how furious has that 70 percent been over corporate bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthy, or all the many, many, MANY ways and instances that they get screwed by the political system in this country relative to those with money and influence? Must be pretty furious, right?
posted by Gadarene at 5:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
Second, how furious has that 70 percent been over corporate bailouts, tax cuts for the wealthy, or all the many, many, MANY ways and instances that they get screwed by the political system in this country relative to those with money and influence? Must be pretty furious, right?
posted by Gadarene at 5:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
Like, the IRS famously audits lower income taxpayers at a much higher rate than wealthy taxpayers. This is an executive policy.
That same 70 percent must be absolutely rioting in the streets over that injustice, if they're going to have such a strong reaction to student debt forgiveness.
Not to mention how furious they must be over all the small and targeted student loan cancellations that the Department of Education has done under the law in question!
So much fury.
posted by Gadarene at 5:07 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
That same 70 percent must be absolutely rioting in the streets over that injustice, if they're going to have such a strong reaction to student debt forgiveness.
Not to mention how furious they must be over all the small and targeted student loan cancellations that the Department of Education has done under the law in question!
So much fury.
posted by Gadarene at 5:07 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Republicans will vote against Democrats regardless. They’re all up in their CRT fantasies. The question is, will more non-Republicans turn out if debt is cancelled? Or will people stay home in a snit because they don’t benefit?
This seems like a question that could be answered, one hopes in favor of cancellation. But I wouldn’t give up because Republicans will run nasty ads; they will vilify anything Dems do. Plus lots of things they don’t even do.
posted by zenzenobia at 5:09 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
This seems like a question that could be answered, one hopes in favor of cancellation. But I wouldn’t give up because Republicans will run nasty ads; they will vilify anything Dems do. Plus lots of things they don’t even do.
posted by zenzenobia at 5:09 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
And Jesus, instead of passively shrugging our shoulders about how we can't possibly effect positive change if some people are going to be mad about it, why can't we conceive of a world in which the Democrats actually change hearts and minds by making the affirmative case for why student debt cancellation is good for society and for the economy? People are persuadable, as those who are so alert to the possible influence of Republican attack ads can surely attest. Public opinion is not encased in amber.
posted by Gadarene at 5:13 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Gadarene at 5:13 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Because those two beliefs seem pretty incompatible to me. I think a good segment of people who loudly say they believe the second thing are, to put it politely, indifferent to whether it's true or not.
To put it politely, you seem to be struggling with the idea that the Supreme Court, while ever-increasingly politically motivated, might nonetheless operate within a framework that does not mean an automatic loss for any action of a Democratic administration that gets challenged in court. Indeed, if you fully believe your first claim, I'm not sure why you're still bothering to pretend this is a democracy, or why you think there's any point in Democrats doing anything.
I notice you don't seem to have anything to say to defend your prior claim that the mainstream legal establishment thinks such an action would be contrary to the HEA.
posted by praemunire at 5:49 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
To put it politely, you seem to be struggling with the idea that the Supreme Court, while ever-increasingly politically motivated, might nonetheless operate within a framework that does not mean an automatic loss for any action of a Democratic administration that gets challenged in court. Indeed, if you fully believe your first claim, I'm not sure why you're still bothering to pretend this is a democracy, or why you think there's any point in Democrats doing anything.
I notice you don't seem to have anything to say to defend your prior claim that the mainstream legal establishment thinks such an action would be contrary to the HEA.
posted by praemunire at 5:49 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
People are still mad as hell about a concept of welfare that ended 30 years ago, Gadarene. Consistency of rage is not a requirement. Writers have been attempting to make a popular case for student loan forgiveness in the media for decades now and it has only resulted in the idea that going to college costs everyone 100k in student loan debt and is therefore a dumb choice for everyone else’s kids that should be replaced by trade schools.
posted by Selena777 at 6:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 6:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
But who is this the last straw for, Selena777? What's the Democratic-voting constituency they'd lose by doing this?
posted by sagc at 6:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 6:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
So I admit I don't understand: is this a one-time jubilee? Or do we not do loans anymore? If not, how do students afford school?
What happens next year, when kids need more money to pay their tuition & fees? They'll have to get loan, right?
There is a vast blizzard of "paper money" that must keep moving for colleges & universities to not go bust: they charge a high list price, but then offer grants to cover a bunch of it, for example. Wiping out existing loans doesn't disturb this, but if there are no future loans, then what?
posted by wenestvedt at 6:07 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
What happens next year, when kids need more money to pay their tuition & fees? They'll have to get loan, right?
There is a vast blizzard of "paper money" that must keep moving for colleges & universities to not go bust: they charge a high list price, but then offer grants to cover a bunch of it, for example. Wiping out existing loans doesn't disturb this, but if there are no future loans, then what?
posted by wenestvedt at 6:07 PM on October 30, 2021 [11 favorites]
So I admit I don't understand: is this a one-time jubilee? Or do we not do loans anymore? If not, how do students afford school?
Yeah, as a parent of a high school senior, I'm really not understanding what this means for me and my kid. I'm completely behind cancelling student debt, but what does that mean for students about to enter college? It seems like tackling the stupidly high cost of college should be a part of this, too.
posted by mollweide at 6:21 PM on October 30, 2021 [15 favorites]
Yeah, as a parent of a high school senior, I'm really not understanding what this means for me and my kid. I'm completely behind cancelling student debt, but what does that mean for students about to enter college? It seems like tackling the stupidly high cost of college should be a part of this, too.
posted by mollweide at 6:21 PM on October 30, 2021 [15 favorites]
Agreed. Although a one-time jubilee sounds a lot easier than actually fixing how higher Ed is funded. I’d be a lot more shocked by any meaningful attempt at the latter.
Overall I won’t be completely surprised if some form of student debt forgiveness ends up happening under a Republican administration - throwing gobs of money at a temporary bandaid for an endemic issue without addressing the root problem is one of the few areas I’ve seen any genuine evidence for bothesidesism.
posted by aspersioncast at 6:44 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
Overall I won’t be completely surprised if some form of student debt forgiveness ends up happening under a Republican administration - throwing gobs of money at a temporary bandaid for an endemic issue without addressing the root problem is one of the few areas I’ve seen any genuine evidence for bothesidesism.
posted by aspersioncast at 6:44 PM on October 30, 2021 [4 favorites]
I work at a college and we decided some years back that loans were a PITA, and also a millstone on the neck of our students, so as I understand it we switched to all grants for FA. (Students can still get federal loans or private loans to cover their EFC.)
So clearly there's already some shift that way, buuuuut we still have the high "sticker price" that pays my salary and the mortgage on the new dorm.
So I can see the system starting to change, but I don't know how these two trends interact.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
So clearly there's already some shift that way, buuuuut we still have the high "sticker price" that pays my salary and the mortgage on the new dorm.
So I can see the system starting to change, but I don't know how these two trends interact.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:03 PM on October 30, 2021 [3 favorites]
Well, the new deal pissed a lot of people off, and it still does! And FDR had to bully the Supreme Court to get it done!
posted by thedamnbees at 7:42 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by thedamnbees at 7:42 PM on October 30, 2021 [1 favorite]
"maybe we should only forgive the debt of BIPOC students, and restrict any future free-college programs to students of this group. That would really even things up." please no-
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:26 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:26 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts
Two types of people:
Those who ask “why should others suffer like I did?”
and those who ask “why shouldn’t others suffer like I did?”
posted by moorooka at 9:04 PM on October 30, 2021 [9 favorites]
Two types of people:
Those who ask “why should others suffer like I did?”
and those who ask “why shouldn’t others suffer like I did?”
posted by moorooka at 9:04 PM on October 30, 2021 [9 favorites]
At the end of her NYT column today, Tressie McMillan Cottom announced she will be guest-hosting Ezra Klein's podcast Tuesday and one of the topics will be student loan forgiveness.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:27 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:27 PM on October 30, 2021 [2 favorites]
My feeling is that debt forgiveness would be used by some Republicans as a talking point and it will have some real effectiveness because there are some serious problems with how higher education works, or doesn't, in the US that aren't getting addressed and forgiving debt will more highlight than fix.
But as importantly to the Democrats and Biden is that they aren't able to get a lot of things Biden ran on done, thanks in no small part to two alleged Democratic Senators, so the need to fulfill this promise is also important in showing the base they are able to get something done and do what they said they would. Failing to deliver can be every bit as harmful to their election chances as whatever the Republicans can use if debt forgiveness happens. There's possibly even an added Democratic base bonus if the Supreme Court would rule a Biden action for making it feel like a stolen benefit.
Whatever the case, doing nothing isn't a winning strategy and wider ranging reform of higher education doesn't appear to be considered as an option so there's not a lot left to work with.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
But as importantly to the Democrats and Biden is that they aren't able to get a lot of things Biden ran on done, thanks in no small part to two alleged Democratic Senators, so the need to fulfill this promise is also important in showing the base they are able to get something done and do what they said they would. Failing to deliver can be every bit as harmful to their election chances as whatever the Republicans can use if debt forgiveness happens. There's possibly even an added Democratic base bonus if the Supreme Court would rule a Biden action for making it feel like a stolen benefit.
Whatever the case, doing nothing isn't a winning strategy and wider ranging reform of higher education doesn't appear to be considered as an option so there's not a lot left to work with.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:05 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
... FDR had to bully the Supreme Court to get it done!
posted by thedamnbees at 9:42 PM on October 30
Biden is absolutely not FDR, not even in the same neighborhood. FDR bullied ppl but did it with charm, finesse, gracefully.
~~~~~
I'll never forget sending in a check to completely wipe out the last of the student loan jive, wrote "Paid In Full." in the memo line of the check. I don't remember how deep I got into it, maybe twelve grand, fifteen maybe, which I am well aware is much, much smaller that many (most?) people are saddled with.
And the scumbags who worked at whatever bank bought all of those loans, no one would ever give me a name, or an employee number, damn sure not an email address -- this was in 98 and 99, and I'd bet seventeen thousand dollars that every employee had email, but never, ever did I get a way to get on paper what I'd just spent an hour clearing up on the phone, getting things squared away, and next month absolutely everything out of line once again, and the numbers kept getting higher.
These ppl are just unbelievably tacky, a huge collection of human garbage working there. Or maybe (certainly) that is what they are trained to do.
I hope their legs grow together.
I wish them ill.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:47 AM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 9:42 PM on October 30
Biden is absolutely not FDR, not even in the same neighborhood. FDR bullied ppl but did it with charm, finesse, gracefully.
~~~~~
I'll never forget sending in a check to completely wipe out the last of the student loan jive, wrote "Paid In Full." in the memo line of the check. I don't remember how deep I got into it, maybe twelve grand, fifteen maybe, which I am well aware is much, much smaller that many (most?) people are saddled with.
And the scumbags who worked at whatever bank bought all of those loans, no one would ever give me a name, or an employee number, damn sure not an email address -- this was in 98 and 99, and I'd bet seventeen thousand dollars that every employee had email, but never, ever did I get a way to get on paper what I'd just spent an hour clearing up on the phone, getting things squared away, and next month absolutely everything out of line once again, and the numbers kept getting higher.
These ppl are just unbelievably tacky, a huge collection of human garbage working there. Or maybe (certainly) that is what they are trained to do.
I hope their legs grow together.
I wish them ill.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:47 AM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
So I admit I don't understand: is this a one-time jubilee? Or do we not do loans anymore?
This is honestly a real question. I feel like to be equitable, student loan forgiveness needs to be paired with access moving forward and I have deep concerns about how this will be handled given now Biden’s loan forgiveness for disabled borrowers has operated recently.
For those who aren’t aware, there has been mass loan forgiveness for “totally and permanently disabled” borrowers, but those students are also now barred from accepting future loans. I worry that student loan forgiveness will be similar and that people midway through college will have to drop out.
posted by corb at 2:46 AM on October 31, 2021 [12 favorites]
This is honestly a real question. I feel like to be equitable, student loan forgiveness needs to be paired with access moving forward and I have deep concerns about how this will be handled given now Biden’s loan forgiveness for disabled borrowers has operated recently.
For those who aren’t aware, there has been mass loan forgiveness for “totally and permanently disabled” borrowers, but those students are also now barred from accepting future loans. I worry that student loan forgiveness will be similar and that people midway through college will have to drop out.
posted by corb at 2:46 AM on October 31, 2021 [12 favorites]
70% of people who don’t have loans or who paid them back will be furious if the 30% who have loans get all their debts forgiven.
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
I present my mother, an immigrant who has a great deal of pride in having lived a frugal life and looooves to preach about bootstraps and financial responsibility and is borderline Social Darwinist, but does vote Democrat because the Republicans keep putting up people like Sarah Palin and Trump.
For the last two years, she has been absolutely livid about expanded unemployment benefits, because someone's kid she knows is "gallivanting." If student debt is forgiven, I guarantee it will make her apoplectic, because she came here with less than $1000 but she worked hard and her kids worked hard and went to state schools and why should other people's kids get free money to party. I know this because my alma mater went no-debt recently (grants and scholarships, but no loans) in response to a main competitor going straight-up tuition-free. Angry phone calls for weeks.
Seriously, man, you do not want to incur the wrath of an Indian Auntie.
posted by basalganglia at 3:02 AM on October 31, 2021 [10 favorites]
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
I present my mother, an immigrant who has a great deal of pride in having lived a frugal life and looooves to preach about bootstraps and financial responsibility and is borderline Social Darwinist, but does vote Democrat because the Republicans keep putting up people like Sarah Palin and Trump.
For the last two years, she has been absolutely livid about expanded unemployment benefits, because someone's kid she knows is "gallivanting." If student debt is forgiven, I guarantee it will make her apoplectic, because she came here with less than $1000 but she worked hard and her kids worked hard and went to state schools and why should other people's kids get free money to party. I know this because my alma mater went no-debt recently (grants and scholarships, but no loans) in response to a main competitor going straight-up tuition-free. Angry phone calls for weeks.
Seriously, man, you do not want to incur the wrath of an Indian Auntie.
posted by basalganglia at 3:02 AM on October 31, 2021 [10 favorites]
I’ll counter as a person who made a bunch of difficult discussions to reduce the cost of my graduate degree, then made more difficult decisions to pay off the loans I had taken out. I know too many people struggling with student debt to feel otherwise, and I also see how the debt crisis isn’t something that just happened or was caused by too much partying, but was driven by all sorts of things from government disinvestment to predatory landlords.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:06 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:06 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
I wish them ill.
I think that this gets to why some of us just don't care what the response of Republicans or outraged Democrats might be. Those of us who have been through the loan repayment process and have experienced any hitches whatsoever, know just how brutal and ugly the system is. Corb mentioned the disability program, for instance. I applied for that back in my 20s when, after a while, it became clear my disability meant I wasn't going to get a job anytime soon. But no, I wasn't "permanently" or "totally" disabled. And so the decade I was out of work--which, granted, was not my entire life--the interest continued to accrue, continued to infect the principal, continued to metastasize the total amount due. Now I've been paying back for something like twenty years (including early on an income-based plan in which the interest still continued to grow faster than it could be paid down), and I won't be done for at least another twenty. If I'm alive when it's fully paid, I will have had this loan--for six semesters of school--hanging over my head for nearly fifty years, all because of the way it multiplied during a period of disability, and was not able to be cancelled in bankruptcy.
So yeah, Republicans and others might be outraged if my loans go away, but c'mon, I've spent decades being outraged over how they've built up and up and up, with zero recourse. Biden owes me.
posted by mittens at 5:36 AM on October 31, 2021 [15 favorites]
I think that this gets to why some of us just don't care what the response of Republicans or outraged Democrats might be. Those of us who have been through the loan repayment process and have experienced any hitches whatsoever, know just how brutal and ugly the system is. Corb mentioned the disability program, for instance. I applied for that back in my 20s when, after a while, it became clear my disability meant I wasn't going to get a job anytime soon. But no, I wasn't "permanently" or "totally" disabled. And so the decade I was out of work--which, granted, was not my entire life--the interest continued to accrue, continued to infect the principal, continued to metastasize the total amount due. Now I've been paying back for something like twenty years (including early on an income-based plan in which the interest still continued to grow faster than it could be paid down), and I won't be done for at least another twenty. If I'm alive when it's fully paid, I will have had this loan--for six semesters of school--hanging over my head for nearly fifty years, all because of the way it multiplied during a period of disability, and was not able to be cancelled in bankruptcy.
So yeah, Republicans and others might be outraged if my loans go away, but c'mon, I've spent decades being outraged over how they've built up and up and up, with zero recourse. Biden owes me.
posted by mittens at 5:36 AM on October 31, 2021 [15 favorites]
As someone who had the good fortune to be able to pay back their student loans, I would be THRILLED to see loans forgiven. It's a bullshit, predatory system that creates and exacerbates inequality while claiming to do the opposite, and just because I got out of it doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing that, and it is pretty insulting to suggest otherwise.
posted by solotoro at 5:51 AM on October 31, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by solotoro at 5:51 AM on October 31, 2021 [10 favorites]
And the scumbags who worked at whatever bank bought all of those loans, no one would ever give me a name, or an employee number, damn sure not an email address -- this was in 98 and 99, and I'd bet seventeen thousand dollars that every employee had email, but never, ever did I get a way to get on paper what I'd just spent an hour clearing up on the phone, getting things squared away, and next month absolutely everything out of line once again, and the numbers kept getting higher.
I had the exact same experience during that same time period. It's actually what made me instead choose to pay the loans off early (which isn't an option everyone has, obviously). I had been fine with being on the 10- or 15-year repayment plan, writing a check each month. But month after month they would screw it up, never in my favor, and I'd have to spend ages on the phone clearing it up just for it to get messed up again the next month.
At the time I was just personally frustrated; now I wonder how many people were caught in what in hindsight was an obviously rigged game. People should have gone to jail for that.
I'm personally in favor of debt forgiveness or relief, but it needs to be paired with a plan for the future, to solve what happens to the person starting school the year after other people's debts are forgiven. Otherwise we are back to the same problem in a few years.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:14 AM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
I had the exact same experience during that same time period. It's actually what made me instead choose to pay the loans off early (which isn't an option everyone has, obviously). I had been fine with being on the 10- or 15-year repayment plan, writing a check each month. But month after month they would screw it up, never in my favor, and I'd have to spend ages on the phone clearing it up just for it to get messed up again the next month.
At the time I was just personally frustrated; now I wonder how many people were caught in what in hindsight was an obviously rigged game. People should have gone to jail for that.
I'm personally in favor of debt forgiveness or relief, but it needs to be paired with a plan for the future, to solve what happens to the person starting school the year after other people's debts are forgiven. Otherwise we are back to the same problem in a few years.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:14 AM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
My wife and I graduated in 1994 and paid off our combined loans some years later. We scrimped and were diligent.
I would never claim that it was through superior character or discipline or whatever: we just had good jobs and good luck and good health and no life for a while.
We also recognized how much of a trap the loans can be, because banks are worse than the phone company crossed with the cable company, so we have done everything we can since then to limit how many loans our kids would have to carry. (Chief among these is my job at a .edu, because my kids can attend for waaaay less than at another school.)
I wouldn't ever begrudge anyone else's loans being forgiven, because educational loans are super dangerous whether or not you finish school. But I still don't understand what happens the following autumn, when a fresh crop of students arrives.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:20 AM on October 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
I would never claim that it was through superior character or discipline or whatever: we just had good jobs and good luck and good health and no life for a while.
We also recognized how much of a trap the loans can be, because banks are worse than the phone company crossed with the cable company, so we have done everything we can since then to limit how many loans our kids would have to carry. (Chief among these is my job at a .edu, because my kids can attend for waaaay less than at another school.)
I wouldn't ever begrudge anyone else's loans being forgiven, because educational loans are super dangerous whether or not you finish school. But I still don't understand what happens the following autumn, when a fresh crop of students arrives.
posted by wenestvedt at 7:20 AM on October 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
70% of people who don’t have loans or who paid them back will be furious if the 30% who have loans get all their debts forgiven.
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
I present my mother
If we're sharing personal anecdotes as representative proof, I present myself. I graduated 20 years ago, have been making monthly payments this entire time, and my loans were just paid off a few months ago. That debt was an albatross around my neck for decades, impacting career, housing, and lifestyle choices. I paid SO MUCH MORE than I borrowed because of all the interest.
I still want everyone else's loans to be forgiven. I don't want anyone else to have to go through what I did. Forgive them all.
posted by Nickel at 7:46 AM on October 31, 2021 [20 favorites]
First of all, this is a bare assertion with zero factual or logical support.
I present my mother
If we're sharing personal anecdotes as representative proof, I present myself. I graduated 20 years ago, have been making monthly payments this entire time, and my loans were just paid off a few months ago. That debt was an albatross around my neck for decades, impacting career, housing, and lifestyle choices. I paid SO MUCH MORE than I borrowed because of all the interest.
I still want everyone else's loans to be forgiven. I don't want anyone else to have to go through what I did. Forgive them all.
posted by Nickel at 7:46 AM on October 31, 2021 [20 favorites]
And the scumbags who worked at whatever bank bought all of those loans, no one would ever give me a name, or an employee number, damn sure not an email address
The history is too complicated to go into here, but the horror stories about the servicers are, generally speaking, true. Do you have any idea how bad you have to be at your job to be sued by both state AGs and another federal agency for your misconduct carrying out a federal program under the aegis of a federal agency?
posted by praemunire at 8:19 AM on October 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
The history is too complicated to go into here, but the horror stories about the servicers are, generally speaking, true. Do you have any idea how bad you have to be at your job to be sued by both state AGs and another federal agency for your misconduct carrying out a federal program under the aegis of a federal agency?
posted by praemunire at 8:19 AM on October 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
So I admit I don't understand: is this a one-time jubilee? Or do we not do loans anymore?
This is honestly a real question. I feel like to be equitable, student loan forgiveness needs to be paired with access moving forward and I have deep concerns about how this will be handled given now Biden’s loan forgiveness for disabled borrowers has operated recently.
Lots of real questions no real answers. Does anyone have any information on the one-time jubilee nature of this proposal? What does that mean for people going forward, for people entering the system now?
posted by Wood at 10:10 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
Honestly, I'm just now in a position where I can pay back a sizeable chunk of my student loans (some of which were taken out under the GW Bush Administration!) and I'm actually kinda terrified to do so as my loan processor FedLoan is jumping ship out of the processing business RIGHT as the freeze on paying back is lifted this January. I mean, talking about fucking timing. I have zero faith these people are gonna do this in a way that won't somehow negatively impact my loan pay back plans in someway that errs against my favor. I've also been diligently saving during the payment moratorium and want to send in a big check to just hurry up and get this shit over with as soon as possible, but again, I have zero faith that I won't get screwed in some way. There's also the fact that it seems kinda foolish to pay off a huge chunk of debt when some portion of it may or may not be canceled so I feel kinda paralyzed on what to do and I just want this 20-year long yoke around my neck OVER WITH!
Also, literally as I saw this post today I received a text from "Biden" asking me to send in $10 to the DNC. Yelling FUCK OFF! first thing on a Sunday morning was refreshing...
posted by flamk at 10:40 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
Also, literally as I saw this post today I received a text from "Biden" asking me to send in $10 to the DNC. Yelling FUCK OFF! first thing on a Sunday morning was refreshing...
posted by flamk at 10:40 AM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
Biden campaigned on forgiving $10 000, which I believe would have been a one-time jubilee. I think the reason there are no real answers is that the Biden administration has no real plan or proposal. Or rather, the plan is to do as little as possible while hiding behind made-up procedural barriers.
As I understand it, the proposal to forgive $50 000 by executive action is coming from activist groups.
posted by thedamnbees at 10:43 AM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
As I understand it, the proposal to forgive $50 000 by executive action is coming from activist groups.
posted by thedamnbees at 10:43 AM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yeah, no.
See, the problem here is that this proves two things.
1) Biden and the Democrats learned absolutely nothing at all from Trump's time in office.
and
2) They don't really want to do anything about student debt.
Because here's the thing, they're asking the wrong question.
The question is not "on what legal basis can President Biden cancel 100% of student debt?"
The question is "who is going to stop him?"
That's the question Trump asked repeatedly during his administration and it turns out the answer is "absolutely no one."
Since that's the answer, the question in all cases is not "does Joe Biden have legal permission to do X" the question is always "does Joe Biden **WANT** to do X".
And we've known his answer on student loans since Jan 12, 2018: No.
He explicitly said "I have no empathy" for young people being crushed by student debt.
Why is anyone acting shocked that Biden won't do anything about student debt?
We can see similar answers to any number of questions.
Does Joe Biden give a shit about the survival of the human species? Nope. If he did he'd have asked "who's gonna stop me" and started issuing climate change directives ex cathedra. He chose not to.
Does Joe Biden give a shit about police brutality? Nope. He could have asked "who's gonna stop me" and issued his orders. He chose not to.
Does Joe Biden want to decriminalize marijuana nationwide? Nope. He hasn't done it.
Does Joe Biden want to make abortion legal across the country? Nope. He hasn't done it.
All this yammer about legalisms no longer matters, if it ever did. I'm not sure what the actual limits of Presidential executive orders are. I'm not sure anyone does.
But we do know one thing: the actual, real, limits on executive orders are **VASTLY** broader than what these little bootlicking pissant bank agents are saying they are. The idea that if Trump could executive order an entire fucking new branch of the military into existence, that he could singlehandedly order the construction of a border wall and shift money from other parts of the government to fund it, and all the other things he did, but Biden can't cancel a little student debt is pure insanity.
Biden could end this with one signature. All the legal bullshit in the links doesn't matter any more than my post here on MeFi does in terms of the actual power Biden has and its limits.
He could end it.
He choses not to.
posted by sotonohito at 10:44 AM on October 31, 2021 [28 favorites]
See, the problem here is that this proves two things.
1) Biden and the Democrats learned absolutely nothing at all from Trump's time in office.
and
2) They don't really want to do anything about student debt.
Because here's the thing, they're asking the wrong question.
The question is not "on what legal basis can President Biden cancel 100% of student debt?"
The question is "who is going to stop him?"
That's the question Trump asked repeatedly during his administration and it turns out the answer is "absolutely no one."
Since that's the answer, the question in all cases is not "does Joe Biden have legal permission to do X" the question is always "does Joe Biden **WANT** to do X".
And we've known his answer on student loans since Jan 12, 2018: No.
He explicitly said "I have no empathy" for young people being crushed by student debt.
Why is anyone acting shocked that Biden won't do anything about student debt?
We can see similar answers to any number of questions.
Does Joe Biden give a shit about the survival of the human species? Nope. If he did he'd have asked "who's gonna stop me" and started issuing climate change directives ex cathedra. He chose not to.
Does Joe Biden give a shit about police brutality? Nope. He could have asked "who's gonna stop me" and issued his orders. He chose not to.
Does Joe Biden want to decriminalize marijuana nationwide? Nope. He hasn't done it.
Does Joe Biden want to make abortion legal across the country? Nope. He hasn't done it.
All this yammer about legalisms no longer matters, if it ever did. I'm not sure what the actual limits of Presidential executive orders are. I'm not sure anyone does.
But we do know one thing: the actual, real, limits on executive orders are **VASTLY** broader than what these little bootlicking pissant bank agents are saying they are. The idea that if Trump could executive order an entire fucking new branch of the military into existence, that he could singlehandedly order the construction of a border wall and shift money from other parts of the government to fund it, and all the other things he did, but Biden can't cancel a little student debt is pure insanity.
Biden could end this with one signature. All the legal bullshit in the links doesn't matter any more than my post here on MeFi does in terms of the actual power Biden has and its limits.
He could end it.
He choses not to.
posted by sotonohito at 10:44 AM on October 31, 2021 [28 favorites]
Absolutely fucking right.
posted by flamk at 10:48 AM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by flamk at 10:48 AM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
In case it's not clear, I am arguing not that the Presidency **SHOULD** have those powers, but simply that it does. We do not have to ask if Biden has the power to do all I talked about and more. Trump did worse, therefore Biden can do it if he chooses. QED.
If you wish to argue that the President should not be an elected monarch, I agree wholeheartedly.
But the President unquestionably, as proved by empirical evidence, is an elected monarch.
Denying ourselves the benefits of that power while allowing the Republicans to exploit it is not sensible, or taking the high road, it's either being a sucker or not wanting to do anything.
Trump did it. Therefore it can be done. Claiming that Biden should not use the power but being unable to stop Republicans from using it is nothing but surrender to the Republicans.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
If you wish to argue that the President should not be an elected monarch, I agree wholeheartedly.
But the President unquestionably, as proved by empirical evidence, is an elected monarch.
Denying ourselves the benefits of that power while allowing the Republicans to exploit it is not sensible, or taking the high road, it's either being a sucker or not wanting to do anything.
Trump did it. Therefore it can be done. Claiming that Biden should not use the power but being unable to stop Republicans from using it is nothing but surrender to the Republicans.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
I don't think anyone here advocating that Biden do something are advocating that Presidents should have unchecked power. It's rather that, yes, Trump and a litany of other Republican Presidents have proven that "When you're a Star President, they let you do it."
We're literally only advocating using the already-abused unchecked power to start checking fucking power. I guess fuck checks and balances.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:54 AM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
We're literally only advocating using the already-abused unchecked power to start checking fucking power. I guess fuck checks and balances.
posted by deadaluspark at 10:54 AM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
We stopped issuing student loans in a normal manner when the ability to discharge them in bankruptcy was removed. Anything that's happened since then has been done against the standard, traditional legal structure and process for lending that has been in place for generations, and without the normal safety valve that bankruptcy offers.
Cancelling student debt isn't a break with tradition, it's a step back towards having a sustainable lending environment, the one that generations before us lived in. (The other step is to ensure that student debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy again.)
posted by gimonca at 11:26 AM on October 31, 2021 [14 favorites]
Cancelling student debt isn't a break with tradition, it's a step back towards having a sustainable lending environment, the one that generations before us lived in. (The other step is to ensure that student debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy again.)
posted by gimonca at 11:26 AM on October 31, 2021 [14 favorites]
I don't think anyone here advocating that Biden do something are advocating that Presidents should have unchecked power. It's rather that, yes, Trump and a litany of other Republican Presidents have proven that "When you're a Star President, they let you do it."
When Trump overreached badly and without justification, SCOTUS had a habit of ruling against him. Not always, obviously, but often enough to be noticeable. Roberts in particular had a habit of veering in the direction of "I may agree with the sentiment of what it is that you want to accomplish with this, but you have given me no sound legal justification as to why it should/shouldn't happen."
But despite the occasional flashes of "we actually read the laws that we oversee" that Republican appointees have displayed, make no mistake; SCOTUS is considerably more conservative now than it was pre-Trump. If Biden ventures into untested territory, it will be illuminating to see what kind of pushback he receives even when his legal justifications are more sound than Trump's.
A bomb-throwing radical POTUS from the left might choose to say "screw 'em, I'm doing this anyway" and challenge them to strike it down. But as sotonohito pointed out rather eloquently above... Biden is anything _but_ a system-challenging rebel. We knew that long before he won the nomination.
posted by delfin at 12:06 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
When Trump overreached badly and without justification, SCOTUS had a habit of ruling against him. Not always, obviously, but often enough to be noticeable. Roberts in particular had a habit of veering in the direction of "I may agree with the sentiment of what it is that you want to accomplish with this, but you have given me no sound legal justification as to why it should/shouldn't happen."
But despite the occasional flashes of "we actually read the laws that we oversee" that Republican appointees have displayed, make no mistake; SCOTUS is considerably more conservative now than it was pre-Trump. If Biden ventures into untested territory, it will be illuminating to see what kind of pushback he receives even when his legal justifications are more sound than Trump's.
A bomb-throwing radical POTUS from the left might choose to say "screw 'em, I'm doing this anyway" and challenge them to strike it down. But as sotonohito pointed out rather eloquently above... Biden is anything _but_ a system-challenging rebel. We knew that long before he won the nomination.
posted by delfin at 12:06 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
SCOTUS is considerably more conservative now than it was pre-Trump
It's even more conservative than it was during the Trump years; Roberts can side with the liberals all he wants and there's still a 5-4 majority for whatever the other 5 ideologues want to do.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's even more conservative than it was during the Trump years; Roberts can side with the liberals all he wants and there's still a 5-4 majority for whatever the other 5 ideologues want to do.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:27 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
What does that mean for people going forward, for people entering the system now?
This has been my question all along, and I suspect it's why cancellation of current debt isn't a realistic option unless it's paired with fully-funded (i.e., tuition-free w/minimal additional cost) public colleges going forward--at least community/junior colleges, if not all public undergraduate education. You can't just solve the problem for the people who have suffered from it, you also have to solve the problem for those currently attending and yet-to-attend college; otherwise it's all just recreated in short order.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
This has been my question all along, and I suspect it's why cancellation of current debt isn't a realistic option unless it's paired with fully-funded (i.e., tuition-free w/minimal additional cost) public colleges going forward--at least community/junior colleges, if not all public undergraduate education. You can't just solve the problem for the people who have suffered from it, you also have to solve the problem for those currently attending and yet-to-attend college; otherwise it's all just recreated in short order.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2021 [8 favorites]
At this point, here is no real evidence that the current Supreme Court will reflexively overturn Biden's executive orders.
In the last term, "The court seemed to have defied predictions that the newly expanded conservative majority of six Republican appointees would regularly steamroll their three liberal colleagues."
46% of the last term's decisions were unanimous.
The three liberal judges were in the majority of 13 of the 28 non-unanimous decisions. Kavanaugh joined with the liberals in 11 out of these 13 decisions. Roberts joined in 9, Gorsuch in 8, Thomas in 6, and Alito in 3. Barrett participated in 10 of these thirteen decision, and joined with the liberal majority in 7 of them.
Point being, Biden shouldn't be making decisions regarding executive orders based on a fear of how that Supreme Court might react, but rather based on the merits.
posted by lumpy at 1:36 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
In the last term, "The court seemed to have defied predictions that the newly expanded conservative majority of six Republican appointees would regularly steamroll their three liberal colleagues."
46% of the last term's decisions were unanimous.
The three liberal judges were in the majority of 13 of the 28 non-unanimous decisions. Kavanaugh joined with the liberals in 11 out of these 13 decisions. Roberts joined in 9, Gorsuch in 8, Thomas in 6, and Alito in 3. Barrett participated in 10 of these thirteen decision, and joined with the liberal majority in 7 of them.
Point being, Biden shouldn't be making decisions regarding executive orders based on a fear of how that Supreme Court might react, but rather based on the merits.
posted by lumpy at 1:36 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
cancellation of current debt isn't a realistic option unless it's paired with fully-funded (i.e., tuition-free w/minimal additional cost) public colleges going forward--at least community/junior colleges, if not all public undergraduate education.
And fully funded public colleges, or undergraduate education requires oversight to make sure the costs are held to a reasonable level otherwise you're giving schools free reign to print money by continuing to raise tuition prices for whatever they deem necessary. Increasing tuition was already a problem, so just saying we'll cover it isn't a great plan.
There's also the real and serious problem of what this does to all the people who, for various reasons, don't go to college and see it more as an obstacle than path to a better life. Free tuition is giving those who are already better advantaged to deal with post school life by having the skills, aptitude, and/or backgrounds to succeed in college free job skills training worth tens of thousands of dollars in today's world and that will provide them a substantially better income on average than those who aren't equipped to succeed in higher education in later years, kinda like giving free money to those more likely to have higher incomes while giving the worst prepared nothing. That isn't exactly a progressive path.
Something needs to be done about the debt loads many students are facing, where those that found no great financial benefit to their degree but are burdened with enormous debt can escape the trap without penalty. A cancellation of debt should come with a plan to make schooling less necessary for a good income and reform the way higher education works to make sure it's a fairer process for everyone, but that's a big ask and doesn't appear to have even been considered beyond the debt talk, so at this point just ridding those suffering from the weight of excessive loans is the only option being presented it appears, as that's the promise they ran on. The rest would have to follow, because debt forgiveness without it doesn't fix the systemic issues at all.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:46 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
And fully funded public colleges, or undergraduate education requires oversight to make sure the costs are held to a reasonable level otherwise you're giving schools free reign to print money by continuing to raise tuition prices for whatever they deem necessary. Increasing tuition was already a problem, so just saying we'll cover it isn't a great plan.
There's also the real and serious problem of what this does to all the people who, for various reasons, don't go to college and see it more as an obstacle than path to a better life. Free tuition is giving those who are already better advantaged to deal with post school life by having the skills, aptitude, and/or backgrounds to succeed in college free job skills training worth tens of thousands of dollars in today's world and that will provide them a substantially better income on average than those who aren't equipped to succeed in higher education in later years, kinda like giving free money to those more likely to have higher incomes while giving the worst prepared nothing. That isn't exactly a progressive path.
Something needs to be done about the debt loads many students are facing, where those that found no great financial benefit to their degree but are burdened with enormous debt can escape the trap without penalty. A cancellation of debt should come with a plan to make schooling less necessary for a good income and reform the way higher education works to make sure it's a fairer process for everyone, but that's a big ask and doesn't appear to have even been considered beyond the debt talk, so at this point just ridding those suffering from the weight of excessive loans is the only option being presented it appears, as that's the promise they ran on. The rest would have to follow, because debt forgiveness without it doesn't fix the systemic issues at all.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:46 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
Cancellation of student debt by executive order is bad policy. It creates chaos for people in college or entering college — what happens to their loans? Will they be able to get loans? Should I take out maximum loans with the expectation I’ll never have to pay it back? There are poor people with loans but also wealthy people who should be able to pay back what they owe.
What does this do to college costs? If a school can expect the students will just get the debt written off in the future what stops them from raising tuition even more.
This is a complicated problem and it can only be solved with a legislative fix, not a one time jubile.
posted by interogative mood at 5:55 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
What does this do to college costs? If a school can expect the students will just get the debt written off in the future what stops them from raising tuition even more.
This is a complicated problem and it can only be solved with a legislative fix, not a one time jubile.
posted by interogative mood at 5:55 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
Cancellation of student debt by executive order is bad policy. It creates chaos for people in college or entering college — what happens to their loans?
Huh? You say "loans taken out on or before [x date]."
Will they be able to get loans?
Huh, pt. 2? Do you know who the #1 lender to current college students is, by an extraordinary margin?
posted by praemunire at 6:37 PM on October 31, 2021
Huh? You say "loans taken out on or before [x date]."
Will they be able to get loans?
Huh, pt. 2? Do you know who the #1 lender to current college students is, by an extraordinary margin?
posted by praemunire at 6:37 PM on October 31, 2021
(Thanks to everyone for not using a phrase that rhymes with "coral mazard.")
posted by wenestvedt at 7:39 PM on October 31, 2021
posted by wenestvedt at 7:39 PM on October 31, 2021
Colonel Mustard?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:59 PM on October 31, 2021
posted by ActingTheGoat at 8:59 PM on October 31, 2021
It doesn't matter that a lot of Boomers (and, tbh, probably a lot of Gen-Xers and Millennials—I think Mefi dramatically underestimates how unpopular debt cancellation would be among people who just finished eating ramen for years to pay off their own debts) are morally wrong in being cheapass bastards who want to see everyone younger than them immiserated in exactly the same way they were. It only matters that they do think that.
This. I'm a Gen Xer who only very recently paid off my student loans. I'd love to see total student debt forgiveness. But I was rudely awakened a few years ago to the fact that my views are not shared, even by people in my cohort who I've always thought of as progressive. A lifelong Xer friend expressed his outrage at the idea of loan forgiveness, because he and his wife had done the responsible thing and scrimped and saved for their own kids' college educations, and made payments on their own loans all the while.
I'm becoming more and more aware of the ideological bubbles that so many of us who lean left sometimes get stuck in. It really distorts political perceptions. I'm disheartened by how widespread the paranoid/conspiratorial evaluations of the Biden administration, and the Democratic party, are -- i.e., the belief that, if they're not doing what the left considers to be morally imperative, the explanation must "obviously" be that it's because they're bought and paid for by corporate interests.
More and more, I lean toward the simpler explanation that, in fact, Biden and many other highly successful Dem pols who have managed to get themselves reelected many times are simply more astutely aware of what most of their voters support than the Extremely Online Left is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:11 PM on October 31, 2021 [13 favorites]
This. I'm a Gen Xer who only very recently paid off my student loans. I'd love to see total student debt forgiveness. But I was rudely awakened a few years ago to the fact that my views are not shared, even by people in my cohort who I've always thought of as progressive. A lifelong Xer friend expressed his outrage at the idea of loan forgiveness, because he and his wife had done the responsible thing and scrimped and saved for their own kids' college educations, and made payments on their own loans all the while.
I'm becoming more and more aware of the ideological bubbles that so many of us who lean left sometimes get stuck in. It really distorts political perceptions. I'm disheartened by how widespread the paranoid/conspiratorial evaluations of the Biden administration, and the Democratic party, are -- i.e., the belief that, if they're not doing what the left considers to be morally imperative, the explanation must "obviously" be that it's because they're bought and paid for by corporate interests.
More and more, I lean toward the simpler explanation that, in fact, Biden and many other highly successful Dem pols who have managed to get themselves reelected many times are simply more astutely aware of what most of their voters support than the Extremely Online Left is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:11 PM on October 31, 2021 [13 favorites]
Put me in the camp that Biden just doesn't want to do it, just like he doesn't want to take any action on Marijuana decriminalization. He's always had a socially conservative streak, and I think it feeds to his previously expressed "lack of empathy" for young people struggling to pay back student loans. The image of young people smoking dope and freeloading in college while others performed activities like getting drafted into Vietnam was a huge culture wars touchpoint during his formative years. Of course his advisors got him to adopt the "I see you, I hear you" HR speak as a gesture of reconciliation to the younger wing of the party that mostly didn't vote for him after he rather convincingly won the primary, but I think in his heart he really doesn't give a damn. He did help usher in the legislation making it almost impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy if I recall correctly.
I think the perceived unfairness of forgiving student loans just points to the need for universal programs rather than piecemeal initiatives that nibble around the edges of problems and hide benefits behind a complicated bureaucracy and set of rules deciding who does and doesn't benefit. Ideally you'd pare student loan forgiveness with a program to ensure at least K-16 education is taxpayer funded, regardless of whether someone wants to adopt a trade (that training costs money too) or get a BA. Of course, what would amount to a several trillion dollar stimulus would have huge impacts on the economy - watch rents and housing prices shoot up even more than now - but it'd be long overdue considering the drag of student loan debt prevents people from performing activities that used to be markers of adulthood like buying homes and starting families. It would be a massive rubber band effect.
posted by eagles123 at 9:12 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think the perceived unfairness of forgiving student loans just points to the need for universal programs rather than piecemeal initiatives that nibble around the edges of problems and hide benefits behind a complicated bureaucracy and set of rules deciding who does and doesn't benefit. Ideally you'd pare student loan forgiveness with a program to ensure at least K-16 education is taxpayer funded, regardless of whether someone wants to adopt a trade (that training costs money too) or get a BA. Of course, what would amount to a several trillion dollar stimulus would have huge impacts on the economy - watch rents and housing prices shoot up even more than now - but it'd be long overdue considering the drag of student loan debt prevents people from performing activities that used to be markers of adulthood like buying homes and starting families. It would be a massive rubber band effect.
posted by eagles123 at 9:12 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
More and more, I lean toward the simpler explanation that, in fact, Biden and many other highly successful Dem pols who have managed to get themselves reelected many times are simply more astutely aware of what most of their voters support than the Extremely Online Left is.
But voters don't decide their values in a vacuum from first principles-- if voters believe that society is a zero-sum game where the total amount of misery can only be shifted around but never reduced, well perhaps that's partly because politicians (yes including Democrats) have spent the last forty years telling them this.
posted by Pyry at 9:25 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
But voters don't decide their values in a vacuum from first principles-- if voters believe that society is a zero-sum game where the total amount of misery can only be shifted around but never reduced, well perhaps that's partly because politicians (yes including Democrats) have spent the last forty years telling them this.
posted by Pyry at 9:25 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
Huh? You say "loans taken out on or before [x date]."
So the kids starting college after X date don’t get their loans forgiven? Even though tuition is higher? Or are they just supposed to hope for another round of debt forgiveness?
Will they be able to get loans?
Huh, pt. 2? Do you know who the #1 lender to current college students is, by an extraordinary margin?
Yes but do you know where the Federal Government gets most of the money to issue new loans? That money comes from people paying back their loans. If Biden issued a unilateral loan forgiveness; then there wouldn’t be any money for new loans. The whole system would fall apart. That isn’t good policy.
posted by interogative mood at 9:33 PM on October 31, 2021 [1 favorite]
That money comes from people paying back their loans.
I would like a citation for that, please. It had definitely been my understanding that student loan repayments went back into the general fund.
The whole system would fall apart.
Virtually no one has been making student loan payments for the past 1.5 years. Is the system falling apart?
posted by Not A Thing at 9:45 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
I would like a citation for that, please. It had definitely been my understanding that student loan repayments went back into the general fund.
The whole system would fall apart.
Virtually no one has been making student loan payments for the past 1.5 years. Is the system falling apart?
posted by Not A Thing at 9:45 PM on October 31, 2021 [5 favorites]
Thank you, Artifice_Eternity. Your comment flagged as fantastic, as a concise description of why so many MeFi conversations these days seem hermetic. Too many commenters up thread - and in so many other threads - seem unable to acknowledge the distinction between what we think is right versus what a majority of actual voters think is right. And I will quote you here verbatim to emphasize this point in particular:
I'm disheartened by how widespread the paranoid/conspiratorial evaluations of the Biden administration, and the Democratic party, are -- i.e., the belief that, if they're not doing what the left considers to be morally imperative, the explanation must "obviously" be that it's because they're bought and paid for by corporate interests.posted by PhineasGage at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think an interesting question would be whether Artifice Eternity's progressive Gen X friends would suddenly stop voting for Democrats and start voting for Republican's running against other progressive values. Obviously I don't know for sure, but my guess would be no. Certainly Democratic voters of many types have been asked to vote for Democratic politicians over the years who have supported positions they didn't agree with and in some cases found outright immoral. In fact, I'd say for many on the "left" that's been almost the rule since I've been alive (e.g. most things during the Clinton years; democratic politicians who supported the Iraq war; the bank bailouts ect.) This would be a rare case where the disappointment would run in a more right-wing direction.
In any case, there are plenty of examples of Democrats adopting positions that either were low down voters' priority lists (deficit reduction in the early 10's) or outright unpopular (the mandate), as well as failing to adopt policies that are extremely popular (e.g. prescription drug price negotiation). Marijuana decriminalization is pretty popular, but Biden has been openly hostile to the idea.
Overall, its a pattern that makes me question the idea that "centrist" Dem politicians always or even mostly operate with an eye towards public opinion rather than their own prejudices or the wishes of their donors.
posted by eagles123 at 9:58 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
In any case, there are plenty of examples of Democrats adopting positions that either were low down voters' priority lists (deficit reduction in the early 10's) or outright unpopular (the mandate), as well as failing to adopt policies that are extremely popular (e.g. prescription drug price negotiation). Marijuana decriminalization is pretty popular, but Biden has been openly hostile to the idea.
Overall, its a pattern that makes me question the idea that "centrist" Dem politicians always or even mostly operate with an eye towards public opinion rather than their own prejudices or the wishes of their donors.
posted by eagles123 at 9:58 PM on October 31, 2021 [4 favorites]
First of all, the man with a slide rule is a fucking idiot. It's 20 god-damned 21, he could be using the calculator app on his phone.
Yet, you sit and listen to him.
And you wonder why dems lose elections.
posted by evilDoug at 10:32 PM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yet, you sit and listen to him.
And you wonder why dems lose elections.
posted by evilDoug at 10:32 PM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
Ideally you'd pare student loan forgiveness with a program to ensure at least K-16 education is taxpayer funded
Honestly, I'd be much happier with a program that ensures that preK-12 education is taxpayer funded. Certainly for 3- and 4-year-olds, and possibly down to 1- and 2-year-olds. Not every family would participate in those programs, just like not every family sends their kids to college, but you have a much better chance of addressing both the racial educational disparity AND the gender pay gap if you provide families with young children a safe and stable and stimulating environment for 20 or 40 hours a week. In a sneaky way, it's reparations without saying the R word, which will piss off the other R-word people (Republicans or racists, though I'm not sure there's much difference these days).
This is a thread on student loan forgiveness, not universal preschool, so I don't want to derail too much, and maybe in an ideal world you could have both (and universal healthcare) but the US is no Utopia, and the Democrats have the slimmest margin imaginable -- and that's only if you count Manchin and Sinema who are Dem-lite. We've already seen paid family leave dropped in an effort to get Republicans on board. I think universal pre-K is still on the menu, though.
Student loan forgiveness by executive order is, in my mind, even worse, because while it definitely would help a lot of people right now, it introduces more confusion for students coming up right now. See the comments of several parents right here in this thread. Do their kids take out massive loans with the assumption that they, too, will be forgiven? Because that's not a whole lot different than the lies fed to my generation (college class of 2007), the ones that went, "Educational debt is good debt!" and "Don't worry the economy's great you'll get a job before you graduate and be able to pay it off in no time and also here's a subprime mortgage and five credit cards thrown in!" It's not sustainable unless you address the real problem which is the exorbitant cost of attendance. It's like saying "November 1 is Zero Emissions Day!" and then acting like you've solved the climate crisis.
I know lots of people who entered the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the last administration, and if that's what long-term student loan forgiveness (instead of at the President's whim) looks like, there's going to be a lot of resentment at whichever party happens to be in power when their loans are supposed to be forgiven but aren't.
posted by basalganglia at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I'd be much happier with a program that ensures that preK-12 education is taxpayer funded. Certainly for 3- and 4-year-olds, and possibly down to 1- and 2-year-olds. Not every family would participate in those programs, just like not every family sends their kids to college, but you have a much better chance of addressing both the racial educational disparity AND the gender pay gap if you provide families with young children a safe and stable and stimulating environment for 20 or 40 hours a week. In a sneaky way, it's reparations without saying the R word, which will piss off the other R-word people (Republicans or racists, though I'm not sure there's much difference these days).
This is a thread on student loan forgiveness, not universal preschool, so I don't want to derail too much, and maybe in an ideal world you could have both (and universal healthcare) but the US is no Utopia, and the Democrats have the slimmest margin imaginable -- and that's only if you count Manchin and Sinema who are Dem-lite. We've already seen paid family leave dropped in an effort to get Republicans on board. I think universal pre-K is still on the menu, though.
Student loan forgiveness by executive order is, in my mind, even worse, because while it definitely would help a lot of people right now, it introduces more confusion for students coming up right now. See the comments of several parents right here in this thread. Do their kids take out massive loans with the assumption that they, too, will be forgiven? Because that's not a whole lot different than the lies fed to my generation (college class of 2007), the ones that went, "Educational debt is good debt!" and "Don't worry the economy's great you'll get a job before you graduate and be able to pay it off in no time and also here's a subprime mortgage and five credit cards thrown in!" It's not sustainable unless you address the real problem which is the exorbitant cost of attendance. It's like saying "November 1 is Zero Emissions Day!" and then acting like you've solved the climate crisis.
I know lots of people who entered the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the last administration, and if that's what long-term student loan forgiveness (instead of at the President's whim) looks like, there's going to be a lot of resentment at whichever party happens to be in power when their loans are supposed to be forgiven but aren't.
posted by basalganglia at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Virtually no one has been making student loan payments for the past 1.5 years. Is the system falling apart?
It wasn’t done by executive fiat; but through the CARES act. The impact of the temporary suspension of interest and payments to the programs was accounted for during the legislative process.
posted by interogative mood at 5:17 AM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Artifice_Eternity, I agree that Dems are indeed aware of what voters want. That’s why Biden campaigned on forgiving $10 000 of student debt. Now, having won the election, the issue doesn’t seem to be important to him. I think the painfully obvious explanation for this about-face is that Dems know what voters want and promise those things in order to get elected, but once elected abandon them in order to serve their corporate masters. And I don’t think it’s ‘conspiratorial’ to think that politicians serve the people who bankroll their careers. I mean, doing things in exchange for money is literally the basis for the entire economy. Why should we expect politicians to behave differently?
posted by thedamnbees at 6:09 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 6:09 AM on November 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yes but do you know where the Federal Government gets most of the money to issue new loans?
Taxes and the sale of securities by the Treasury, mostly.
That money comes from people paying back their loans
Are you under the impression that any given federal program must be self-funding to continue to function? If so, you are confused about how federal funding works. Gently, without a good grasp of the mechanics you will find it difficult to make coherent arguments about "policy."
So the kids starting college after X date don’t get their loans forgiven?
More precisely, the kids taking out loans after X date don't get their loans forgiven. You were complaining that this would somehow be intolerably confusing. It's not. Others have correctly pointed out the need to address college costs going forward as a complement to forgiveness, which I certainly agree with, but that is a separate issue from whether someone understands what before and after a date means.
Because that's not a whole lot different than the lies fed to my generation (college class of 2007), the ones that went, "Educational debt is good debt!" and "Don't worry the economy's great you'll get a job before you graduate and be able to pay it off in no time and also here's a subprime mortgage and five credit cards thrown in!"
It's a lot different. "I am so foolhardy I will plan my life around this remarkable event being repeated" is different from "I am a victim of ~three decades of predatory finance and servicing." Note the absence of lies.
posted by praemunire at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Taxes and the sale of securities by the Treasury, mostly.
That money comes from people paying back their loans
Are you under the impression that any given federal program must be self-funding to continue to function? If so, you are confused about how federal funding works. Gently, without a good grasp of the mechanics you will find it difficult to make coherent arguments about "policy."
So the kids starting college after X date don’t get their loans forgiven?
More precisely, the kids taking out loans after X date don't get their loans forgiven. You were complaining that this would somehow be intolerably confusing. It's not. Others have correctly pointed out the need to address college costs going forward as a complement to forgiveness, which I certainly agree with, but that is a separate issue from whether someone understands what before and after a date means.
Because that's not a whole lot different than the lies fed to my generation (college class of 2007), the ones that went, "Educational debt is good debt!" and "Don't worry the economy's great you'll get a job before you graduate and be able to pay it off in no time and also here's a subprime mortgage and five credit cards thrown in!"
It's a lot different. "I am so foolhardy I will plan my life around this remarkable event being repeated" is different from "I am a victim of ~three decades of predatory finance and servicing." Note the absence of lies.
posted by praemunire at 7:39 AM on November 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's not sustainable unless you address the real problem
The current population of borrowers struggling under their debts is a very real and very large problem. I'm not sure what needs to be "sustainable" about a one-off forgiveness. One can't be hypnotized by talk about the need for systemic change into failing to recognize the very real and very important good of alleviating present suffering in the present when one can.
posted by praemunire at 7:43 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The current population of borrowers struggling under their debts is a very real and very large problem. I'm not sure what needs to be "sustainable" about a one-off forgiveness. One can't be hypnotized by talk about the need for systemic change into failing to recognize the very real and very important good of alleviating present suffering in the present when one can.
posted by praemunire at 7:43 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
To me the reason why all student loans need to be forgiven now is that it's not even possible to pay the loan off in many cases. Many people have already paid the balance they took out to start with but are still obligated to keep paying. It's not right. People need that money to buy food & shelter. And god forbid the cultural entertainment products that fuel our prosperity in the last century.
posted by bleep at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by bleep at 8:43 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
this is your occasional reminder that the United States, in its second republic, including things like the 14th amendment and basic voting rights, was formed while 5 million people in the confederacy were disenfranchised. It's always been necessary to disenfranchise white supremacists for the United States to function. they do not forget this--see the rants against the 14th amendment--and neither should we.
posted by eustatic at 9:07 AM on November 1, 2021
posted by eustatic at 9:07 AM on November 1, 2021
Re: student loans. It's far from ideal, but I'd be willing to settle for retroactively setting interest to zero and for people who have already paid enough to have covered the principle then calling the debt paid. I'd **LIKE** to claw back the usury they were forced to pay to the billionaires if they'd paid more than the principle, but I recognize that might be a bridge too far.
But we're quibbling over details on something that will never happen, so why bother?
re: Biden
I don't think Biden is paid off by anyone.
I think he's exactly what he's always openly said he is: a center-right establishment Democrat and I think his inaction stems from genuine belief not anything shady or underhanded.
His refusal to forgive student loans is rooted in his belief that student loans shouldn't be forgiven, all that Boomer stuff about how they paid so those lazy kids these days should too. He has the convenient excuse of Congressional inaction and that doing it by executive order would have been considered extreme overreach pre-Trump so he can do the "we take the high road" BS and do what that always means: nothing.
Same for marijuana reform. I don't think Biden is paid off by anyone, I think he just genuinely thinks marijuana should be illegal, or at least that its just a bunch of stupid hippie crap and the states can handle it and who gives a shit if a bunch of lazy kids get arrested for pot, back in **HIS** day it was a lot worse, the penalties were harsher, and they turned out fine so it's just not a big deal. Certainly not a big enough deal to take the extraordinary step of using the Executive powers Trump proved actually exist.
Etc.
No payoff needed. No corruption needed. Just a typical center right Boomer shaking his cane at kids these days and telling them metaphorically to get off his lawn.
His snippy anger, irritation, and harsh declaration that he has no empathy for people younger than him was the most honest moment in his campaign.
re: settling and what voters want
And here we reach one of those areas of deep disagreement both on MeFi and IRL.
I think I've got at least a somewhat different take than I used to.
The Democratic Party has been successful in getting reluctant leftist votes for so long, and doing it by telling leftists to STFU, vote blue no matter who, and just accept that they're hated and will never get what they want, that they think its the natural order of the universe.
From the POV of the Democratic decision makers that policy has been more or less succesful. And successful for so long that it's moved from being thought of as an approach or a policy to being thought of as just how things work.
Its similar to what employers are seeing with low wage jobs. They went so long paying shit wages for horrible conditions and getting workers anyway they thought it'd go on forever, that it was the natural order of things.
Now, just as workers are saying "nope, this doesn't sound like a good deal, pay more", the left is beginning to express discontent with their political situation.
We see it in the framing everyone uses. There's constant worry that the center-right won't be happy if the Democrats take the tiniest bit of leftist action, but no one has ever asked if the left is happy with the Democrats constantly pushing in a rightward direction.
Every war, every tax cut for the rich, every cut in services, every injustice, every restriction on abortion, every step back on civil rights, all are presented as necessary to appease the center-right voter. But no one ever asks if doing that will lose the left.
The votes of the left are simply taken as inevitable, the unquestionable property of the Democratic Party. Asking "will this be a bridge too far for the left, will the Democrats lose the leftist vote if we do this?" is simply unthinkable.
Except now it isn't.
The Democrats need to start reaching an accommodation with the left. I don't argue that means the Democrats have a political obligation to give the left everything, though obviously I'd like that. But at the very least the Democrats need to stop deriding the left, stop being contemptuous towards them, and start asking "what compromise do we on the center-right need to make to keep the leftist vote?"
Let me tell you, the left is watching Manchin and Sinema and we're learning.
Why is Biden willing to give those to absolutely everything they demand?
Because the power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it. Like Manchin said, he'd be fine with zero.
Biden and the other Democratic decision makers need to realize that pretty soon the left will be willing to destroy something they want.
You want our votes? Negotiate with us. You say if we don't vote for anti-choice Ben Sasse or pro-suicide via climate change Manchin then it's our fault if the Republicans win?
You're saying we can destroy Democratic control of government? That means you're saying we have power.
And that outrages a lot of center-right Democrats who have learned to simply presume that the left will always take their abuse and vote Democratic anyway.
Maybe that means I don't get all I want, but it should mean the left gets at least some concessions and Manchin and his lik have to learn to take the disappointment of seeing us get our way once and a while.
posted by sotonohito at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
But we're quibbling over details on something that will never happen, so why bother?
re: Biden
I don't think Biden is paid off by anyone.
I think he's exactly what he's always openly said he is: a center-right establishment Democrat and I think his inaction stems from genuine belief not anything shady or underhanded.
His refusal to forgive student loans is rooted in his belief that student loans shouldn't be forgiven, all that Boomer stuff about how they paid so those lazy kids these days should too. He has the convenient excuse of Congressional inaction and that doing it by executive order would have been considered extreme overreach pre-Trump so he can do the "we take the high road" BS and do what that always means: nothing.
Same for marijuana reform. I don't think Biden is paid off by anyone, I think he just genuinely thinks marijuana should be illegal, or at least that its just a bunch of stupid hippie crap and the states can handle it and who gives a shit if a bunch of lazy kids get arrested for pot, back in **HIS** day it was a lot worse, the penalties were harsher, and they turned out fine so it's just not a big deal. Certainly not a big enough deal to take the extraordinary step of using the Executive powers Trump proved actually exist.
Etc.
No payoff needed. No corruption needed. Just a typical center right Boomer shaking his cane at kids these days and telling them metaphorically to get off his lawn.
His snippy anger, irritation, and harsh declaration that he has no empathy for people younger than him was the most honest moment in his campaign.
re: settling and what voters want
And here we reach one of those areas of deep disagreement both on MeFi and IRL.
I think I've got at least a somewhat different take than I used to.
The Democratic Party has been successful in getting reluctant leftist votes for so long, and doing it by telling leftists to STFU, vote blue no matter who, and just accept that they're hated and will never get what they want, that they think its the natural order of the universe.
From the POV of the Democratic decision makers that policy has been more or less succesful. And successful for so long that it's moved from being thought of as an approach or a policy to being thought of as just how things work.
Its similar to what employers are seeing with low wage jobs. They went so long paying shit wages for horrible conditions and getting workers anyway they thought it'd go on forever, that it was the natural order of things.
Now, just as workers are saying "nope, this doesn't sound like a good deal, pay more", the left is beginning to express discontent with their political situation.
We see it in the framing everyone uses. There's constant worry that the center-right won't be happy if the Democrats take the tiniest bit of leftist action, but no one has ever asked if the left is happy with the Democrats constantly pushing in a rightward direction.
Every war, every tax cut for the rich, every cut in services, every injustice, every restriction on abortion, every step back on civil rights, all are presented as necessary to appease the center-right voter. But no one ever asks if doing that will lose the left.
The votes of the left are simply taken as inevitable, the unquestionable property of the Democratic Party. Asking "will this be a bridge too far for the left, will the Democrats lose the leftist vote if we do this?" is simply unthinkable.
Except now it isn't.
The Democrats need to start reaching an accommodation with the left. I don't argue that means the Democrats have a political obligation to give the left everything, though obviously I'd like that. But at the very least the Democrats need to stop deriding the left, stop being contemptuous towards them, and start asking "what compromise do we on the center-right need to make to keep the leftist vote?"
Let me tell you, the left is watching Manchin and Sinema and we're learning.
Why is Biden willing to give those to absolutely everything they demand?
Because the power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it. Like Manchin said, he'd be fine with zero.
Biden and the other Democratic decision makers need to realize that pretty soon the left will be willing to destroy something they want.
You want our votes? Negotiate with us. You say if we don't vote for anti-choice Ben Sasse or pro-suicide via climate change Manchin then it's our fault if the Republicans win?
You're saying we can destroy Democratic control of government? That means you're saying we have power.
And that outrages a lot of center-right Democrats who have learned to simply presume that the left will always take their abuse and vote Democratic anyway.
Maybe that means I don't get all I want, but it should mean the left gets at least some concessions and Manchin and his lik have to learn to take the disappointment of seeing us get our way once and a while.
posted by sotonohito at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
"...if the Democrats take the tiniest bit of leftist action..." Take another look at Biden's original legislative proposals this year, and even where things seem to be at the moment, after all this haggling with supervillains Sinema and Manchin. These two bills are utterly transformative.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:30 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:30 AM on November 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm fine with undergrad, but I don't love the idea of loan forgiveness for graduate and professional school. I feel like it is a giveaway to those already privileged enough to make it into grad/professional school. Broadly, and of course there are exceptions, but these are the children of the upper middle class. They were born to the "right" parents and went to the "best" public schools and did all the test prep and didn't need to wait tables/stock shelves ever and to maintain their class affiliation - to which they feel entitled - they over-borrowed.
I paid off sizable undergraduate loans. I have no problem with undergraduate loan forgiveness. And of course, even if law/biz/med school debt is forgiven, I won't oppose it and I won't vote GOP over it... but I sure am not gonna like it.
(Now, if we were talking universal pre-k or daycare or childcare or whatever, that broadly benefitted EVERYONE hoo-boy would I love some of that).
posted by everythings_interrelated at 9:35 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I paid off sizable undergraduate loans. I have no problem with undergraduate loan forgiveness. And of course, even if law/biz/med school debt is forgiven, I won't oppose it and I won't vote GOP over it... but I sure am not gonna like it.
(Now, if we were talking universal pre-k or daycare or childcare or whatever, that broadly benefitted EVERYONE hoo-boy would I love some of that).
posted by everythings_interrelated at 9:35 AM on November 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am so foolhardy I will plan my life around this remarkable event being repeated
Yeah, people in my educational cohort were plenty foolhardy to plan their life around the assumption that the bullish economy of the 1990s and 2000s was going to last forever. Except for a blip for the bursting of the Y2K bubble and a slightly longer downturn after Sept 11, the economy was solidly roaring for nearly 2 decades. That's indeed remarkable. I'm sure some of the grown-ups knew they were lying about the prosperity of the 90s and 2000s, but plenty of them believed their own lies too.
Intermittent reinforcement, with random but big rewards, is literally what produces financially foolish behavior. See also: every casino in existence.
I'm honestly surprised that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program hasn't gotten more airtime in all this talk of student loan forgiveness, because that was a program that was explicitly designed to address debt load without having to depend on the whim of the Executive. Did DeVos really just kill it completely?
posted by basalganglia at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yeah, people in my educational cohort were plenty foolhardy to plan their life around the assumption that the bullish economy of the 1990s and 2000s was going to last forever. Except for a blip for the bursting of the Y2K bubble and a slightly longer downturn after Sept 11, the economy was solidly roaring for nearly 2 decades. That's indeed remarkable. I'm sure some of the grown-ups knew they were lying about the prosperity of the 90s and 2000s, but plenty of them believed their own lies too.
Intermittent reinforcement, with random but big rewards, is literally what produces financially foolish behavior. See also: every casino in existence.
I'm honestly surprised that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program hasn't gotten more airtime in all this talk of student loan forgiveness, because that was a program that was explicitly designed to address debt load without having to depend on the whim of the Executive. Did DeVos really just kill it completely?
posted by basalganglia at 10:05 AM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm honestly surprised that the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program hasn't gotten more airtime in all this talk of student loan forgiveness, because that was a program that was explicitly designed to address debt load without having to depend on the whim of the Executive. Did DeVos really just kill it completely?
Huh? No, not at all, it's a program established by statute and hasn't been repealed at all. In fact, it has been slightly improved to allow for some of the people who didn't go about forgiveness the correct way to get forgiveness. It got a lot of bad press right around the period when the very first people thought they were eligible and it turned out they weren't. The system is needlessly complex, and requires someone to have the right kind of loans (federal, not private, is the big stumbling block for a lot of people), and the right kind of employment, and have made the right kind of payments (not late) on the right kind of payment plan (this is the other big stumbling block and has been mostly fixed by statute). Over the last 2-3 years, they've made the process a lot easier to figure out, and you can now get a running estimate from FedLoans about how many of the required 120 payments you've made to be eligible, which makes people feel a lot better. Of course, now FedLoans has decided to get out of the business and we pretty much have no idea who's going to be servicing those loans next year.
posted by skewed at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Huh? No, not at all, it's a program established by statute and hasn't been repealed at all. In fact, it has been slightly improved to allow for some of the people who didn't go about forgiveness the correct way to get forgiveness. It got a lot of bad press right around the period when the very first people thought they were eligible and it turned out they weren't. The system is needlessly complex, and requires someone to have the right kind of loans (federal, not private, is the big stumbling block for a lot of people), and the right kind of employment, and have made the right kind of payments (not late) on the right kind of payment plan (this is the other big stumbling block and has been mostly fixed by statute). Over the last 2-3 years, they've made the process a lot easier to figure out, and you can now get a running estimate from FedLoans about how many of the required 120 payments you've made to be eligible, which makes people feel a lot better. Of course, now FedLoans has decided to get out of the business and we pretty much have no idea who's going to be servicing those loans next year.
posted by skewed at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Are you under the impression that any given federal program must be self-funding to continue to function? If so, you are confused about how federal funding works. Gently, without a good grasp of the mechanics you will find it difficult to make coherent arguments about "policy."
Your comments suggest that you are unfamiliar with the mechanics of Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account and how it is governed by the the Federal Credit Reform act of 1990 and the OMB's rules that implement the law OMB Circular No. A–11 (2021) -- see section 185.
The program isn't self funding but that doesn't mean that the program will continue to function if you cancel all outstanding loans.
posted by interogative mood at 12:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Your comments suggest that you are unfamiliar with the mechanics of Federal Direct Student Loans Program Account and how it is governed by the the Federal Credit Reform act of 1990 and the OMB's rules that implement the law OMB Circular No. A–11 (2021) -- see section 185.
The program isn't self funding but that doesn't mean that the program will continue to function if you cancel all outstanding loans.
posted by interogative mood at 12:54 PM on November 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
On the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program Biden just issued a new executive order to make a lot more people eligible and eligible much more quickly. It even lets people who were previously rejected under the old rules reapply as long as they do so before Oct 2022. Under DeVos this program rejected a lot of people who will now qualify.
posted by interogative mood at 1:03 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by interogative mood at 1:03 PM on November 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
So, I was curious, and I googled some polling on student loan forgiveness:
Dec 2020 Harris Poll (source inside Higher Ed:
64% Support forgiving flat amount of student loan debt - ~24,000 appeared to be the most commonly given amount.
55% Forgive all student loan debt
63% Support forgive all debt for individuals in industries such as science, health care, and public service
Feb 2021 Harris Poll
46% percent support any level of forgiveness
April - May 2021 Gobankingrates poll
52% Forgive all debt
Jan 2021 Data for Progress
54% support forgiving 50,000 dollars in debt for those making less than 125,000 dollars per year
52% support forgiving 10,000 dollars for those making less than 125,000 dollars per year
May 2012 Center for Responsible Lending
63 percent support "reduction" by 20,000
That's all I could find with a quick google. Only one poll in February 2021 shows a majority of Americans opposed to debt relief. The others show between 52 and 64 percent support, with many supporting relief for even larger amounts.
It's not the most popular policy on the left, but the polling shows that support for debt relief skews young, which I guess isn't surprising. So if Democrats want to maintain enthusiasm amongst Gen Z and Millennials it might be something they want to pay attention to? It's another case of boomers and older Xers versus younger voters, which makes sense if you look at the economics. Even boomers supported measures like price controls on university tuition in some of the polls, though.
In any case I was curious. I get the feeling the left and Democrats in general are in for a tough few years starting tomorrow, so I imagine there will be many voices arguing that left wing issues and solutions aren't popular and anyone advocating them is a lone weirdo on the internet who should just shut up - as though the internet isn't the dominant communication mode of the 21st century.
posted by eagles123 at 8:46 PM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Dec 2020 Harris Poll (source inside Higher Ed:
64% Support forgiving flat amount of student loan debt - ~24,000 appeared to be the most commonly given amount.
55% Forgive all student loan debt
63% Support forgive all debt for individuals in industries such as science, health care, and public service
Feb 2021 Harris Poll
46% percent support any level of forgiveness
April - May 2021 Gobankingrates poll
52% Forgive all debt
Jan 2021 Data for Progress
54% support forgiving 50,000 dollars in debt for those making less than 125,000 dollars per year
52% support forgiving 10,000 dollars for those making less than 125,000 dollars per year
May 2012 Center for Responsible Lending
63 percent support "reduction" by 20,000
That's all I could find with a quick google. Only one poll in February 2021 shows a majority of Americans opposed to debt relief. The others show between 52 and 64 percent support, with many supporting relief for even larger amounts.
It's not the most popular policy on the left, but the polling shows that support for debt relief skews young, which I guess isn't surprising. So if Democrats want to maintain enthusiasm amongst Gen Z and Millennials it might be something they want to pay attention to? It's another case of boomers and older Xers versus younger voters, which makes sense if you look at the economics. Even boomers supported measures like price controls on university tuition in some of the polls, though.
In any case I was curious. I get the feeling the left and Democrats in general are in for a tough few years starting tomorrow, so I imagine there will be many voices arguing that left wing issues and solutions aren't popular and anyone advocating them is a lone weirdo on the internet who should just shut up - as though the internet isn't the dominant communication mode of the 21st century.
posted by eagles123 at 8:46 PM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
More and more, I lean toward the simpler explanation that, in fact, Biden and many other highly successful Dem pols who have managed to get themselves reelected many times are simply more astutely aware of what most of their voters support than the Extremely Online Left is.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:11 PM on October 31
Just a reality check here -- Biden is hardly a "highly successful Dem pol." Running against a character disordered, mentally ill, ranting raving ratbag lunatic and just *barely* squeezing into the presidency doesn't put Biden as a "highly successful Dem pol" but rather puts him as a man who only got into the presidency because even some people on the other side of the aisle could see Trump's insanity(s) and voted against their party line, in hopes of keeping this country from falling completely apart, which it is anyhow.
Biden and every other pol on the planet knows exactly what any sane person wants: Denmark. Free medical care, free schooling as far as your capabilities will carry you, housing when you are attending college, every person in Denmark speaks 5 languages (at least; you can easily get assisted in learning more), enough vacation time for a person to actually enjoy life, enough income to actually enjoy their vacation(s). They are not broke, there is a really great system to catch anyone any time they fall, they help you bring your children into this world and help you when your parents are leaving it. A thoughtful, considerate, truly caring system designed and implemented by thoughtful, considerate, truly caring people.
But our top 1% absolutely does not want to help that happen, not in any way, shape, form or fashion, and will run down like a dog on the freeway any pol who even likes Danish cookies.
posted by dancestoblue at 3:59 AM on November 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:11 PM on October 31
Just a reality check here -- Biden is hardly a "highly successful Dem pol." Running against a character disordered, mentally ill, ranting raving ratbag lunatic and just *barely* squeezing into the presidency doesn't put Biden as a "highly successful Dem pol" but rather puts him as a man who only got into the presidency because even some people on the other side of the aisle could see Trump's insanity(s) and voted against their party line, in hopes of keeping this country from falling completely apart, which it is anyhow.
Biden and every other pol on the planet knows exactly what any sane person wants: Denmark. Free medical care, free schooling as far as your capabilities will carry you, housing when you are attending college, every person in Denmark speaks 5 languages (at least; you can easily get assisted in learning more), enough vacation time for a person to actually enjoy life, enough income to actually enjoy their vacation(s). They are not broke, there is a really great system to catch anyone any time they fall, they help you bring your children into this world and help you when your parents are leaving it. A thoughtful, considerate, truly caring system designed and implemented by thoughtful, considerate, truly caring people.
But our top 1% absolutely does not want to help that happen, not in any way, shape, form or fashion, and will run down like a dog on the freeway any pol who even likes Danish cookies.
posted by dancestoblue at 3:59 AM on November 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Sorry, Biden defeated a broad range of other candidates in the Democratic primary before going on to beat the orange monster. And even among the Democratic electorate there was not winning support for any of the candidates who explicitly advocated the Danish model. Fulminate all you want about the "1%" and then remember the comment attributed to Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
posted by PhineasGage at 5:32 AM on November 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 5:32 AM on November 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Denmark isn’t a Democracy? And the overriding question for Dems in the 2020 primary was who they thought had the best chance of beating Trump.
posted by eagles123 at 5:58 AM on November 2, 2021
posted by eagles123 at 5:58 AM on November 2, 2021
Just a reality check here -- Biden is hardly a "highly successful Dem pol."
Let’s check your reality.
Joe Biden was elected to the US Senate at age 29 — one of the youngest people to win that office. He was re-elected 6 times. During his time in the Senate he served as a chairperson for two of the most powerful committees in the Senate — Judiciary and Foreign Relations. He then served as Vice President and now President.
The average tenure in the Senate is 11.7 years, Biden served 34 years placing him in the top tier of Senators. There have only been 46 Presidents in American history. Biden got more votes for President than anyone in history — more than 81 million.
So by any realistic measure Biden is one of the most successful Democratic politicians in US history. Also don’t pretend the 2020 election was easy to win. Trump was a dumpster fire but he still got almost 47% of the popular vote.
The depressing thing is that any progress democrats make in advancing a left wing agenda is rapidly shat by self appointed gatekeepers of the true left. We never get to celebrate a win.
posted by interogative mood at 6:10 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Let’s check your reality.
Joe Biden was elected to the US Senate at age 29 — one of the youngest people to win that office. He was re-elected 6 times. During his time in the Senate he served as a chairperson for two of the most powerful committees in the Senate — Judiciary and Foreign Relations. He then served as Vice President and now President.
The average tenure in the Senate is 11.7 years, Biden served 34 years placing him in the top tier of Senators. There have only been 46 Presidents in American history. Biden got more votes for President than anyone in history — more than 81 million.
So by any realistic measure Biden is one of the most successful Democratic politicians in US history. Also don’t pretend the 2020 election was easy to win. Trump was a dumpster fire but he still got almost 47% of the popular vote.
The depressing thing is that any progress democrats make in advancing a left wing agenda is rapidly shat by self appointed gatekeepers of the true left. We never get to celebrate a win.
posted by interogative mood at 6:10 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
any progress democrats make in advancing a left wing agenda
citation needed
posted by thedamnbees at 6:25 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
citation needed
posted by thedamnbees at 6:25 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Please tell us what you mean by "a left wing agenda?"
I wouldn't classify even the original $600 billion/year ask as leftist, not due to the dollar amount but due to the goals.
For example: Overturning the system that produces child hunger is leftist. Leaving that system in place and trying to get expanded school lunches is not.
posted by sotonohito at 7:11 AM on November 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
I wouldn't classify even the original $600 billion/year ask as leftist, not due to the dollar amount but due to the goals.
For example: Overturning the system that produces child hunger is leftist. Leaving that system in place and trying to get expanded school lunches is not.
posted by sotonohito at 7:11 AM on November 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
And the imagined perfect faces the good, with pistols, at ten paces, at dawn.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:20 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 7:20 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Our inability to imagine anything better is literally why we will slip into fascism.
Zizek used to talk about how we could envision the end of the world, but we couldn't envision the end of capitalism even with our post-apocalyptic stories. I think he's right, it's a lack of imagination.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:27 AM on November 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
Zizek used to talk about how we could envision the end of the world, but we couldn't envision the end of capitalism even with our post-apocalyptic stories. I think he's right, it's a lack of imagination.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:27 AM on November 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
We have imagined all kinds of great and wonderful things. But how many divisions does Zizek have? How many votes in the U.S. Senate? Unless we win more elections all these noble ideas will never be more than imaginings.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:33 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 7:33 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
PhineasGage, the Dems have won plenty of elections. They literally control Congress and the White House. It would be worth electing democrats if they ever advanced a left wing agenda, but they are (by international standards) a right wing party, and have been at least since the Clinton administration.
posted by thedamnbees at 7:59 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 7:59 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Our inability to imagine anything better is literally why we will slip into fascism. . . . I think he's right, it's a lack of imagination.
In our case, don't you think it might be the electorate's lack of discomfort with fascism? Seems like a simpler explanation. The current brand of the Republican party is just unbelievably awful in my opinion, yet it is evidently not enough of a turn-off to ensure a win for democrats outside of deep blue territory. That's the country we've got to govern, not one particularly inclined toward any flavor of progressivism, certainly not anything that would be called leftism.
We've got a Trump acolyte poised to win the Virginia governor's race today. Perhaps that's because the mainline democrats have failed to cultivate their base on the left--but it's not like there's been much success on the left at any level in Virginia, leftist candidates haven't gotten elected mayor in any major city, haven't established a foothold in the General Assembly, haven't won in the House. Maybe that's because they are a relatively small faction even in a state that's been consistently left-leaning for more than a decade?
posted by skewed at 8:00 AM on November 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
In our case, don't you think it might be the electorate's lack of discomfort with fascism? Seems like a simpler explanation. The current brand of the Republican party is just unbelievably awful in my opinion, yet it is evidently not enough of a turn-off to ensure a win for democrats outside of deep blue territory. That's the country we've got to govern, not one particularly inclined toward any flavor of progressivism, certainly not anything that would be called leftism.
We've got a Trump acolyte poised to win the Virginia governor's race today. Perhaps that's because the mainline democrats have failed to cultivate their base on the left--but it's not like there's been much success on the left at any level in Virginia, leftist candidates haven't gotten elected mayor in any major city, haven't established a foothold in the General Assembly, haven't won in the House. Maybe that's because they are a relatively small faction even in a state that's been consistently left-leaning for more than a decade?
posted by skewed at 8:00 AM on November 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Phineas, we obviously agree the Democrats need to win more elections, we obviously disagree as to how they can achieve that. Like most progressives, I think being bold and giving the populace what they want and not waffling for two years wins elections. Trump did that by handing out dumb shit like the "Wall."
I just don't think the current trajectory will win elections, even if I've voted "blue no matter who."
It's obvious we can't do anything about the blockaded Senate, and Biden is losing precious time to keep people invested in voting for Democrats. People like us will vote for Democrats because that's what we do, but that doesn't mean we won't lose other voters who will genuinely ask "What have they done for me lately" even if that misses that yes, the Democrats helped out many Americans with COVID relief and expanded unemployment. (Sadly, most people don't view that COVID-relief as a "gift" they viewed it as "necessary" and a "return for the fucking taxes I've fucking paid for thirty fucking years.")
Yes, we have to win elections, but we have very different opinions on how to get that done, and progressives like myself tend to think doing the same thing the Democrats have always done and failed with probably isn't the way forward when there's a very good chance that going forward Republican legislatures all across the country will just reject any Democratic wins . It's kind of ride-or-die time, you know?
So yeah, doing the same thing they've always done and failed with seems monumentally stupid and maybe it's time to be bold instead of taking the baby steps forward the Democrats usually take. Sorry we disagree on that point.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:10 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I just don't think the current trajectory will win elections, even if I've voted "blue no matter who."
It's obvious we can't do anything about the blockaded Senate, and Biden is losing precious time to keep people invested in voting for Democrats. People like us will vote for Democrats because that's what we do, but that doesn't mean we won't lose other voters who will genuinely ask "What have they done for me lately" even if that misses that yes, the Democrats helped out many Americans with COVID relief and expanded unemployment. (Sadly, most people don't view that COVID-relief as a "gift" they viewed it as "necessary" and a "return for the fucking taxes I've fucking paid for thirty fucking years.")
Yes, we have to win elections, but we have very different opinions on how to get that done, and progressives like myself tend to think doing the same thing the Democrats have always done and failed with probably isn't the way forward when there's a very good chance that going forward Republican legislatures all across the country will just reject any Democratic wins . It's kind of ride-or-die time, you know?
So yeah, doing the same thing they've always done and failed with seems monumentally stupid and maybe it's time to be bold instead of taking the baby steps forward the Democrats usually take. Sorry we disagree on that point.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:10 AM on November 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
...the Dems have won plenty of elections. They literally control Congress and the White House...Do the names Sinema and Manchin sound familiar?
I'm a fan of the Denmark model, too! I want UBI, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a tofurkey in every pot, cops that don't unjustly menace people based on their skin color (or for any reason at all), an electric car in every garage and no garages because we have free, ubiquitous mass transit! But none of that will even come close to happening until we win. more. elections. Which requires not just turning out the progressive Left but also attracting enough voters who don't yet share all of these views.
[on preview]Yes, deadaluspark, we disagree on how to win elections. There are plenty of other threads that have rehashed those arguments, and I am sure there will be many more. I will step away from this thread now, which started as an interesting discussion of student loan debt forgiveness.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:15 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Do the names Sinema and Manchin sound familiar?
Both democrats. Both right wing. That’s my point.
posted by thedamnbees at 8:18 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Both democrats. Both right wing. That’s my point.
posted by thedamnbees at 8:18 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
To be clear, your point is that because Sinema and Manchin are acting like right-wing politicians who slipped in to the democratic senate caucus, the entirety (or majority) of American democratic politicians are right-wing?
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:25 AM on November 2, 2021
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:25 AM on November 2, 2021
No. I'm saying that Sinema and Manchin are much closer to the mainstream of the democratic party than say, members of the progressive caucus or Bernie Sanders. That's why their every whim is being catered to in the infrastructure bill "negotiations" - which are basically theatre, providing Biden cover for making the compromises he was always ready and willing to make.
What's the difference between 'acting like a right-wing politician' and being a right-wing politician?
posted by thedamnbees at 8:35 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
What's the difference between 'acting like a right-wing politician' and being a right-wing politician?
posted by thedamnbees at 8:35 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think it's clear that, setting aside the wingedness of the Democratic party, there's certainly no majority in Congress who would like to take on loan forgiveness. That's why it keeps getting kicked around--Biden insisting it has to be done via legislature, reps and senators insisting Biden has the power to do it himself--rather than both branches rushing to get it done in their own particular way. It's convenient to blame Manchin and Sinema, but has every other Democratic senator expressed enthusiasm for forgiveness? No.
For me, the depressing part of this (other than just the existence of the debt itself) is that it shows a fundamental unseriousness on the part of our government. We're about to erase billions of dollars out of the consumer economy, for poorly-argued reasons. While we can say that the loan program is, in some sense, self-funding, we know enough about the way money works in the government to say that when loan payments resume, millions of us will begin shoveling money into a shredder where it will do no good for the economy. And this loss of income, this loss of spending, is somehow considered politically and financially responsible. The government will hurt the American people--not just borrowers, but everyone--and then, next year, the Democratic party will again exhort us to vote for them, to donate, to trust.
I can understand why people look at this and become doomers. There are such clear steps that could be taken to make everything better, except there are always a hundred Very Practical And Sensible Reasons why they cannot, must not, should not be done. And for all their vaunted political savvy, the democrats don't seem to understand that there are only so many issues where we can hear that message, before we give up. Hoping that maybe next time we'll elect precisely the right number of senators so that maybe something can be accomplished isn't much of a hope at all.
posted by mittens at 8:46 AM on November 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
For me, the depressing part of this (other than just the existence of the debt itself) is that it shows a fundamental unseriousness on the part of our government. We're about to erase billions of dollars out of the consumer economy, for poorly-argued reasons. While we can say that the loan program is, in some sense, self-funding, we know enough about the way money works in the government to say that when loan payments resume, millions of us will begin shoveling money into a shredder where it will do no good for the economy. And this loss of income, this loss of spending, is somehow considered politically and financially responsible. The government will hurt the American people--not just borrowers, but everyone--and then, next year, the Democratic party will again exhort us to vote for them, to donate, to trust.
I can understand why people look at this and become doomers. There are such clear steps that could be taken to make everything better, except there are always a hundred Very Practical And Sensible Reasons why they cannot, must not, should not be done. And for all their vaunted political savvy, the democrats don't seem to understand that there are only so many issues where we can hear that message, before we give up. Hoping that maybe next time we'll elect precisely the right number of senators so that maybe something can be accomplished isn't much of a hope at all.
posted by mittens at 8:46 AM on November 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
There is an old story about a philanthropist who gave an old Jewish man money, then sent someone to follow him to see how he would spend it. The man spent it all on lox, so the philanthropist summoned him once more and demanded an explanation.
"Look at it this way," the man said. "When I don't have money, I can't have lox. When I do have money, I can't have lox. Tell me, when can I have lox?"
This is how many progressives feel, and I can't blame them. Whether the President is Democrat or Republican, whether the House and Senate tilt one way or another, when it's time for compromise it always seems like it's their wishes that go onto the chopping block first.
PhineasGage, the Dems have won plenty of elections. They literally control Congress and the White House.
They do not. They have control of the House, however narrowly. They have control of the processes of the Senate, but they are unable to pass anything outside of reconciliation without the explicit permission of their opposition, unless they change the rules in a manner that they do not currently have the votes to enact. (Not going to turn this into a filibuster thread, so please, let us simply agree on this -- unless Manchin, Sinema and their cohorts all suddenly agree that the filibuster must go, it will not be going any time soon.)
I am in full agreement with sotonohito above. Joe Biden is a 'system guy.' We have had two elections in a row where the Democratic primary boiled down to a 'reform guy' -- Bernie declaring "most of the system is broken, and it needs to be removed and replaced" -- versus a 'system person' -- "the system isn't working because of Republican opposition, but I can tweak it and make it work." And in both cases, the system candidate prevailed.
If you are not a system Democrat, you will only be taken seriously if you can demonstrate that a system candidate cannot win without your support. That will not be believed until it happens. And the last time that something like that did happen, the outrage towards the progressives who FAILED AL GORE AND AMERICA can be heard to this day. (oh please, oh please, let this not become a Nader thread either.)
Given the threat of Trump, the threat of withholding support from Joe Biden last year was too great. But what happens next year, without Trump directly on the ballot, will be interesting.
posted by delfin at 9:00 AM on November 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Look at it this way," the man said. "When I don't have money, I can't have lox. When I do have money, I can't have lox. Tell me, when can I have lox?"
This is how many progressives feel, and I can't blame them. Whether the President is Democrat or Republican, whether the House and Senate tilt one way or another, when it's time for compromise it always seems like it's their wishes that go onto the chopping block first.
PhineasGage, the Dems have won plenty of elections. They literally control Congress and the White House.
They do not. They have control of the House, however narrowly. They have control of the processes of the Senate, but they are unable to pass anything outside of reconciliation without the explicit permission of their opposition, unless they change the rules in a manner that they do not currently have the votes to enact. (Not going to turn this into a filibuster thread, so please, let us simply agree on this -- unless Manchin, Sinema and their cohorts all suddenly agree that the filibuster must go, it will not be going any time soon.)
I am in full agreement with sotonohito above. Joe Biden is a 'system guy.' We have had two elections in a row where the Democratic primary boiled down to a 'reform guy' -- Bernie declaring "most of the system is broken, and it needs to be removed and replaced" -- versus a 'system person' -- "the system isn't working because of Republican opposition, but I can tweak it and make it work." And in both cases, the system candidate prevailed.
If you are not a system Democrat, you will only be taken seriously if you can demonstrate that a system candidate cannot win without your support. That will not be believed until it happens. And the last time that something like that did happen, the outrage towards the progressives who FAILED AL GORE AND AMERICA can be heard to this day. (oh please, oh please, let this not become a Nader thread either.)
Given the threat of Trump, the threat of withholding support from Joe Biden last year was too great. But what happens next year, without Trump directly on the ballot, will be interesting.
posted by delfin at 9:00 AM on November 2, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm saying that Sinema and Manchin are much closer to the mainstream of the democratic party than say, members of the progressive caucus or Bernie Sanders. That's why their every whim is being catered to in the infrastructure bill "negotiations"
Ok but when you say their every whim is being catered to - it's more like there is no other choice than to give in to them because without their votes there is nothing at all. It is repulsive and infuriating and I hope they are both humiliated in their next elections (doubt it, though). But, this is where we are at the present moment. Not so much catering to whims - more like gritting teeth and accepting the bullshit changes rather than throwing away the whole package, is how it seems to me.
That much said, it may be true they are closer to the majority of Dems than Bernie, which is just utter shit.
posted by Glinn at 9:51 AM on November 2, 2021
Ok but when you say their every whim is being catered to - it's more like there is no other choice than to give in to them because without their votes there is nothing at all. It is repulsive and infuriating and I hope they are both humiliated in their next elections (doubt it, though). But, this is where we are at the present moment. Not so much catering to whims - more like gritting teeth and accepting the bullshit changes rather than throwing away the whole package, is how it seems to me.
That much said, it may be true they are closer to the majority of Dems than Bernie, which is just utter shit.
posted by Glinn at 9:51 AM on November 2, 2021
The Dems have a majority in the house and senate. Manchin and Sinema are members of the democratic party. If the Democratic Party is unable or unwilling to enforce party discipline, that is a problem with the democratic party, and ultimately an expression of their core values.
posted by thedamnbees at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Yeah, sure, the fact that Manchin and Sinema are members of the democratic party speaks badly for the party, but no less than that it speaks badly about the electorate; these are the candidates who won the democratic primaries in those jurisdictions. The better candidates lost to these terrible people, even in a democratic primary. That means it's fair to criticize the the democratic party as not really progressive, especially outside of its strongholds. But it's not like the choice in West Virginia was Joe Manchin or a more palatable democrat, it was Joe Manchin or an explicit Trumpist. Party discipline could have gotten us a "better" democrat on the ballot, but that doesn't help get one elected.
posted by skewed at 10:33 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 10:33 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
And yet our biggest complaint about the Republican Party is that they do vote in lockstep, particularly in the Senate, and that individuals who may disagree with the party line in part or in whole feel compelled to toe the line nearly every single time. That the likes of Biden and Manchin are operating under the fictional idea that it is a bipartisan institution, that 'good Republicans' exist who will cross over under the right circumstances to vote for good policy, despite that having been proven to be false again and again and again and again and again in this era.
Whether that is naivete on moderate Dems' part, Charlie Brown lunging at the legislative football and flying into the air in disbelief each time, or a convenient excuse for them to shove the left's wishes off the table is left as an exercise for the reader. I know which _I_ believe it is.
Are THEY doing it wrong?
posted by delfin at 10:34 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Whether that is naivete on moderate Dems' part, Charlie Brown lunging at the legislative football and flying into the air in disbelief each time, or a convenient excuse for them to shove the left's wishes off the table is left as an exercise for the reader. I know which _I_ believe it is.
Are THEY doing it wrong?
posted by delfin at 10:34 AM on November 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
From Politico: "But other advisers worry that continuing an emergency pandemic relief program into 2022 could undercut the administration’s messaging about the strength of the economic recovery."
posted by mittens at 6:30 AM on November 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mittens at 6:30 AM on November 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
From Politico: "But other advisers worry that continuing an emergency pandemic relief program into 2022 could undercut the administration’s messaging about the strength of the economic recovery."
Absolutely incredible.
posted by Gadarene at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Absolutely incredible.
posted by Gadarene at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Maybe we just need a banner that says, Mission Accomplished.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 4:06 PM on November 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 4:06 PM on November 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
From Politico: "But other advisers worry that continuing an emergency pandemic relief program into 2022 could undercut the administration’s messaging about the strength of the economic recovery."
Absolutely incredible.
You must have missed a similar article where Biden's economic team was saying that there would be more people filling jobs come January 2022, because that's when they expect workers savings to run out.
All those workers finally feeling like they can say "take this job and shove it?"
The Biden administration is literally just waiting to starve them out to force them back into whatever shitty jobs they can take.
Better than Republicans my ass. Only better insofar as they won't ACTIVELY try to fucking kill you.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:43 AM on November 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Absolutely incredible.
You must have missed a similar article where Biden's economic team was saying that there would be more people filling jobs come January 2022, because that's when they expect workers savings to run out.
All those workers finally feeling like they can say "take this job and shove it?"
The Biden administration is literally just waiting to starve them out to force them back into whatever shitty jobs they can take.
Better than Republicans my ass. Only better insofar as they won't ACTIVELY try to fucking kill you.
posted by deadaluspark at 7:43 AM on November 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I made a jokey comment about this on social media the other day, but maybe we need to take a step back from contentious issues (debt cancellation may not be here on Mefi, but I promise you in the rest of the country it would be, at the very least, contentious), and go for some low-hanging fruit.
I mean, really low-hanging fruit.
Fruit so low, it's something supported by 70% of Americans, would save lives, cost virtually nothing, and has model legislation in both houses, both with bipartisan cosponsors.
That's right, getting rid of DST changes.
One thing that, apparently, Americans agree on. Everyone from Marco Rubio (T-FL) to Ed Markey (D-MA)—when is the last time they agreed with each other? Nobody is seriously lobbying against it. An absolute legislative "gimmie".
There's no friction against getting this thing passed, aside from what Congress generates itself.
And the 115th Congress... couldn't get it done. The "Sunshine Protection Act of 2018" died in committee without a hearing. The 116th Congress tried again. It died, again. The 117th is currently pondering it. It's not looking great. (But hey, maybe third time's the charm.)
But even if it does somehow get through in its 2021 incarnation, that's still years during which our legislative branch couldn't get its shit together enough to do something to which there was no obvious downside, and no particular opposition.
I'm not sure how much of that can even be blamed on partisanship; it's like that's literally just the speed at which it moves as an organization right now. That just seems fundamentally broken. And I don't really believe we'll see stuff like debt cancellation or education funding reform, popular as they may be, if Congress can't even do its basic functions as a legislative body and pass uncontroversial stuff.
I would love to see a really in-depth, inside-baseball article on what the fuck actually happens to the DST fix every year. Like, what is the literal reason they didn't pass it? Where is the system breaking down? Is the inter-office mail really that slow?
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:35 PM on November 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
I mean, really low-hanging fruit.
Fruit so low, it's something supported by 70% of Americans, would save lives, cost virtually nothing, and has model legislation in both houses, both with bipartisan cosponsors.
That's right, getting rid of DST changes.
One thing that, apparently, Americans agree on. Everyone from Marco Rubio (T-FL) to Ed Markey (D-MA)—when is the last time they agreed with each other? Nobody is seriously lobbying against it. An absolute legislative "gimmie".
There's no friction against getting this thing passed, aside from what Congress generates itself.
And the 115th Congress... couldn't get it done. The "Sunshine Protection Act of 2018" died in committee without a hearing. The 116th Congress tried again. It died, again. The 117th is currently pondering it. It's not looking great. (But hey, maybe third time's the charm.)
But even if it does somehow get through in its 2021 incarnation, that's still years during which our legislative branch couldn't get its shit together enough to do something to which there was no obvious downside, and no particular opposition.
I'm not sure how much of that can even be blamed on partisanship; it's like that's literally just the speed at which it moves as an organization right now. That just seems fundamentally broken. And I don't really believe we'll see stuff like debt cancellation or education funding reform, popular as they may be, if Congress can't even do its basic functions as a legislative body and pass uncontroversial stuff.
I would love to see a really in-depth, inside-baseball article on what the fuck actually happens to the DST fix every year. Like, what is the literal reason they didn't pass it? Where is the system breaking down? Is the inter-office mail really that slow?
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:35 PM on November 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
If the Democratic Party is unable or unwilling to enforce party discipline, that is a problem with the democratic party,
The Senate doesn’t work that way. Even Republicans don’t have that kind of power for example look what happened when they tried to punish Arlen Spector, Jim Jeffords and Lisa Murkowsky.
posted by interogative mood at 3:04 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Senate doesn’t work that way. Even Republicans don’t have that kind of power for example look what happened when they tried to punish Arlen Spector, Jim Jeffords and Lisa Murkowsky.
posted by interogative mood at 3:04 PM on November 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Speaking of daylight savings time, Kadin2048, isn’t one of the problems that people can’t agree whether they want to abolish it or make it permanent? Because every year at this time I get bitter that it’s dark by the time I get off work—I want more DST, not less. That’s just selfish, and I don’t want national policy based on what fits for my lifestyle, but in various parts of the country and at various times of the year, the start or end of DST is better or worse for various lifestyles, and ending it is likely gonna piss off more people than it it pleases.
posted by skewed at 2:50 PM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 2:50 PM on November 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Re: DST, at least based on what I've read, everyone seems pretty much on-board with Rubio's proposal in principle, which would make DST / "Summer Time" the standard throughout the year. Despite its really dumb name, I'm not aware of any organized opposition to it.
I think that in the past when attempts have been made to eliminate time changes, that there was some safety-minded opposition (doctors groups, etc.) on the basis that the time change made morning commutes safer by putting them "later" in the solar day (and thus less likely to be in total darkness). But I think everyone seems to have gotten behind the research now that shows the time change itself causing more accidents than it prevents.
Maybe the Deep State Shadow Cabal is against it or something, but nobody seems to be openly pushing back. One of the things I find so strange about it: usually the opposition to an item in Congress is pretty obvious, but for the DST issue it doesn't seem to amount to much.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:49 PM on November 7, 2021
I think that in the past when attempts have been made to eliminate time changes, that there was some safety-minded opposition (doctors groups, etc.) on the basis that the time change made morning commutes safer by putting them "later" in the solar day (and thus less likely to be in total darkness). But I think everyone seems to have gotten behind the research now that shows the time change itself causing more accidents than it prevents.
Maybe the Deep State Shadow Cabal is against it or something, but nobody seems to be openly pushing back. One of the things I find so strange about it: usually the opposition to an item in Congress is pretty obvious, but for the DST issue it doesn't seem to amount to much.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:49 PM on November 7, 2021
Agree. With pennies we have the zinc lobby working diligently to keep pennies in circulation.
But with DST it's weird. Everyone hates it. There doesn't seem to be any particular group in favor or working to keep it. Yet somehow despite what should be a clear bipartisan slam dunk it just... doesn't happen.
I suppose you could argue that there's more important stuff for Congress to do, and I'd agree. But they aren't doing any of that more important stuff so why not pick the low hanging fruit?
posted by sotonohito at 4:29 AM on November 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
But with DST it's weird. Everyone hates it. There doesn't seem to be any particular group in favor or working to keep it. Yet somehow despite what should be a clear bipartisan slam dunk it just... doesn't happen.
I suppose you could argue that there's more important stuff for Congress to do, and I'd agree. But they aren't doing any of that more important stuff so why not pick the low hanging fruit?
posted by sotonohito at 4:29 AM on November 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
I wonder if anyone has looked into the idea of finding all the Black soldiers who couldn't use their GI bill benefits because universities wouldn't accept them, and translating that into student loan debt cancellation for their children or grandchildren.
posted by bashing rocks together at 2:06 PM on November 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by bashing rocks together at 2:06 PM on November 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
« Older Organic Grooves on Vinyl from High and Low, Near... | "She settles on a diner in a small human town" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That way you don't get hammered from the right for "freeloaders", you don't get hammered in blue collar districts for giving college kids what they see as a free ride, and you get something resembling fair that at least won't impoverish even more people for the left.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 10:30 AM on October 30, 2021 [13 favorites]