Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

marx_marvelous__ t1_jan6z18 wrote

Reply to comment by NoBSforGma in [OC] Supreme court is forecast to block student debt relief by liortulip

Or they will consider it a political win for trying and say you’ve had 3.5 years of 0% interest and deferred payments; time to start paying it back.

30

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jao8i35 wrote

The smart political move would be to keep them paused in the event of an adverse ruling by SCOTUS and tell Congress to address the issue. From my understanding the Supreme Court is only ruling on the cancellation of student loans not the pause in payments.

The big lenders probably have a bunch of sway in the WH so your scenario is infinitely more likely.

12

eldiablonoche t1_jaox4wv wrote

I imagine the lenders would sue the government if Biden tried to "indefinitely suspend repayments". When it is a temporary measure, the vultures lick their lips knowing things always go their way eventually. If it were effectively permanent, they'd riot. But knowing that both parties are bought and paid for it won't go that far.

2

jrm19941994 t1_jap1168 wrote

They would have no reason to sue, payments can only be suspended for federal loans.

5

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jap2pvb wrote

Aren’t they serviced by a publicly traded company? I imagine investors there aren’t too happy, but I don’t know the financial situation there.

1

bundleofstix t1_jap4co8 wrote

They're federal contractors, they work for the government. If they piss off the government they can just be fired.

6

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jap7lox wrote

They’d likely lose in court since it is specifically a power delegated to the Secretary of Education by an act of Congress.

It’d put pressure on the Republican candidate. Are they going to campaign on resuming payments on 40 million people?

2

Semanticss t1_japy7iy wrote

Doesn't both the suspension of payments and the forgiveness apply to only federal loans?

1

eldiablonoche t1_jasugq6 wrote

Apparently so. Someone corrected me on a separate comment but I didn't think to self-correct or amend my comment. Thanks for calling out my inaccuracy.

1

[deleted] t1_jaqxwyu wrote

[deleted]

1

RickMoranisFanPage t1_jar4nka wrote

I think it just has to stem from an emergency, not during a declared emergency. Even so, this is a power Congress delegated to the executive branch.

1

JigglyWiener t1_jan94qn wrote

Yeah, doesn't make up for the initially huge unemployment, now high inflation, and the childcare disaster that weirdly gets so little attention given the scope of the problem. Careers and lives were on hold or set back for 3.5 years.

The administration is redefining the AGI calculation used to calculate income driven repayment plans and on top of that a new plan that reduces % of the new AGI is coming out. I figure it'll cost me about the same as my car payment instead of double my car payment based on the last numbers I saw. That's their backup plan.

6

DoeCommaJohn t1_janc56w wrote

Politically, this seems like the best case scenario. Biden gets all the brownie points from trying to relieve student debt, the conservatives get blamed for stopping it, everybody gets reminded that the court is political, and there is no risk of economic impacts from spending 2 trillion dollars

1

MorelikeBestvirginia t1_jasct5b wrote

To be clear, it's not spending money. It's just deciding not to collect it. That's very different.

1

DoeCommaJohn t1_jase5qf wrote

How is giving a trillion dollars different from not receiving a trillion dollars? /gen

1

thisrockismyboone t1_japazl0 wrote

Nah. Lots of people will remember it as he didn't follow through on his promise and the Republicans will push the narrative down our throats the next 8 years.

1