The Biden administration's latest draft proposal outlines 17 different factors that could qualify borrowers for student debt relief due to financial hardship.
I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know that someone who says something like “100% of all student debt is within the constitutional authority of Secretary Cardona to cancel” knows absolutely nothing about the law or the constitution.
section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorizes the Secretary of Education to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption,” as relates to loans issued under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program; now, the Federal Direct Loan Program.
the Education Department may adjust individual loan values down to zero if the loan is owned by the Education Department (more than 90 percent of student loans are).
What was that about knowing nothing about the law? You’re the ignorant one, and rudely condescending to boot.
I’m not a lawyer, but someone who quotes an article about a single statute and thinks that one single statute is the only relevant law doesn’t understand the law. The constitution is crystal clear on Congress having the sole power to appropriate funding, whereas forgiving hundreds of billions in student debt is a cost that has not been funded by Congress. This is just one issue among many that make this not as simple as you think it is.
I want to be clear I’m in full support of discharging as much student loan debt as possible. I’m also a realist.
Congress having the sole power to appropriate funding
Cancelation of debt owed to the education department isn’t appropriation. As the holder of the loans, the department owns and controls those loans, not Congress.
Forgiving debt is not the same as spending money, especially since the increased economic activity from people not being crushed under a mountain of debt would benefit the economy greatly and thus result in more gain of revenue than the loss of potential revenue.
I want to be clear I’m in full support of discharging as much student loan debt as possible.
Clearly not, since the applicable law permits the cancelation of 90% of all student debt and you’re against doing that.
I’m also a realist an apologist for the unnecessary fecklessness of the Dem leadership
I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know that someone who says something like “100% of all student debt is within the constitutional authority of Secretary Cardona to cancel” knows absolutely nothing about the law or the constitution.
What was that about knowing nothing about the law? You’re the ignorant one, and rudely condescending to boot.
I’m not a lawyer, but someone who quotes an article about a single statute and thinks that one single statute is the only relevant law doesn’t understand the law. The constitution is crystal clear on Congress having the sole power to appropriate funding, whereas forgiving hundreds of billions in student debt is a cost that has not been funded by Congress. This is just one issue among many that make this not as simple as you think it is.
I want to be clear I’m in full support of discharging as much student loan debt as possible. I’m also a realist.
Cancelation of debt owed to the education department isn’t appropriation. As the holder of the loans, the department owns and controls those loans, not Congress.
Forgiving debt is not the same as spending money, especially since the increased economic activity from people not being crushed under a mountain of debt would benefit the economy greatly and thus result in more gain of revenue than the loss of potential revenue.
Clearly not, since the applicable law permits the cancelation of 90% of all student debt and you’re against doing that.
Fixed that for you
Until the Supreme Court says “well that part might be unconstitutional”
Which they’ll say anyway, so there’s literally no reason not to follow the law to help people until that bunch of corrupt judges change it.