US Supreme Court blocks student loan forgiveness plan

American here. I can explain: Republicans.

Are Republicans the ones constantly renovating and building new facilities on campuses across the nation? I don't think I've seen my university stop major construction for like 15 years.
- You have a point but inefficiency in a system doesn't mean the people who use it should be punished. I agree that the cost has gotten out of control and a large part of it is the dirty money river for construction. I have been involved in government contracts off and on for 15 years now and yes it is a shit show. I am proud to say that I have done my part to make it a bit better but that part is small.
  
  Put it another way. I am fairly confident that the giant corp I work for made some infrastructure for your city or town if you live in the Anglosphere. I am also fairly confident that it was a far from perfect project in terms of who got paid for very little to no work or even negative work. Should you be punished for that? Should you have dirty sewage and trash in your streets and stop lights out because someone in the process skimmed some off the top?
- Republicans are the ones who cut state funding for public universities leading to universities charging more money, the federal government offered loans to help offset that, and universities saw that and charged more money because the government continues to provide increasing amounts of loans. So yeah the universities are making out like bandits but Republicans definitely are not without blame. Cost of university would get reigned in if student loans were not a thing and the government was funding universities appropriately.
Dumb.

This didn't do anything to curtail the cost of higher ed. Got nothing to do with republicans.

You are quoting two different "America"'s there, for one. SCOTUS isn't even an elected body, so I'd hardly consider them "America" outside of their power to dictate our state of affairs.

SCOTUS is an appointment, based on experience - as compared to politicians who are elected based on what amounts to a popularity contest.

if I had to choose between someone who actually knows what they're doing and the popular kid of the cycle, I know which I'd pick in a heartbeat.
- If you're going to dismiss the democratic process as a "popularity contest", I don't really see how you can expect anything else you say to be taken seriously.
  
  what exactly do you think campaigning for an elected office is? it's not based on merit or experience, it's based on convincing other people that "I'm the best choice". why else do you think politicians need to advertise how awesome they are?
  
  if getting elected was based on actual merit then the populace would just elect the most qualified person... but that's not how it works.
  
  Again, not sure how you expect to be taken seriously here.
  
  it's ok, I've disregarded your opinion in its entirety (not that it was verbose or anything).
  
  Another sound argument. You're nailing it.

Basically, we're forty years deep into supply side economics, sometimes referred to as Reaganomics, Trickle Down economics, or Horse and Sparrow economics (the latter two are generally considered derisive by proponents of this model). The idea is that if we set our policies so that outcomes are optimized for capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then they can generate more wealth faster, and increasing the sum total of available wealth will improve life for everyone; somebody please correct me if I have it wrong. Of course, how this has actually played out is that money's just being funneled from everywhere into a handful of pockets to the detriment of everyone and everything else, and it's never enough.

I'm not a Marxist, but I do appreciate his view as a historical determinist. What I think is interesting is that if you look at what Marx said would be done to fight the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, we're doing basically everything on that list. I think Reagan was a true believer and honestly thought he was doing the best for his country that he could, even if he was incredibly wrong at practically every turn. It seems to me that supply side economics is really just a fancy way to run an extractive economy under the pretense of free markets.

Sorry but I'm having difficulty piecing what you said with why knocking 20 grand off student loans got shot down. How does it tie into a tendency for profits to fall? And targeting policies such that our business leaders generate wealth faster? If we're to target e.g. tax deductions towards benefiting these wealth-bringers, shouldn't we be offering tax credits to our education system to increase the total wealth of the nation? Math and Science should be absolutely FREE, and if economics courses were free I'd probably have an easier time having this conversation with you instead of trying to figure out what you're even saying so that I could respond lol
- Sorry, my dude. I just browse when I don't have much going on, and those periods never last long. That sometimes results in kind of mangled thoughts.
  
  What I mean to say is that ensuring your student debtors are on the hook is par for the course for how we've been realizing supply side economics. We're maximizing outcomes for capital holders at the expense of consumers. Reducing student debt means that student debtors pay less to the loan servicing companies, which would not be maximizing the outcome for the capital holders.
  
  Yes, you're right, if we really wanted to generate wealth, we would optimize outcomes for consumers and workers, not for capital holders. You'll find no disagreement with me there. Our economy is heavily dependent on the trading of consumer goods and services, so consumers not being able to afford goods and services is kind of dumb af. What I'm saying is that supply side economics (which I think is a steaming crock of crap) is a school of economic thought and policy that takes the view that if you maximize the outcomes for the capital holders (business owners, investors, etc), then you'll generate more wealth than you would have under some other strategy, and that excess wealth makes everyone better off. We've had forty years of optimizing outcomes for asset and capital holders now, and I'm still waiting to see the cup overflow (spoiler alert: it won't).
  
  Thanks for the elaboration. Sounds like the supply economics is less of the issue, and forcing people into debt is an extra step on top of helping wealthy people amass wealth. And that alone has the presumption of trust and good faith embedded within in. Convincing people to vote for that is a stranger saying "trust me bro i'll pay you back" behavior. If laws and regulations are geared towards making rich people more rich then that's all the law is meant for, nothing else. That's the point of taxes (allegedly) so that we can point the nation's wealth to what we want for the good of everyone. scam/10

America, can you explain?

The system is rigged by the greediest people in the country.

Why is it rigged? Are adults surprised they're obliged to pay back money they borrowed?I
- When the richest people in the country get loan forgiveness then yes, it can be surprising that the poor don't get it.

To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.

I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.

To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.

I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.

To be fair, while this would cancel a lot of debt (up to $10,000) for most people, it actually does nothing to cut the cost of college for future students.

I say this as someone who has about $5,000 in student debt left and a wife who has over $20,000. It would have been fantastic for us, but in the end it doesn’t do a single thing to help reduce the cost of education.

Well, for one, forgiving student loans wouldn't "reduce the cost of education."

It would increase it. It's just a windfall for universities and loan holders. It did nothing to curtail costs, or address the way student loans are handed out, and their nondischargeable status.

We'd be right back here in 10 years, regardless, because "forgiveness" doesn't do anything to address the underlying problems of student loans, which will continue to be handed out, guaranteed by the gvt, and nondischargeable.

ok, this definitely does not resolve the cause of the issue but it does help. It's like if I get a deep-ish cut I'm still going to switch out the bloody bandage on the way to getting antibiotics...
Yeah but fuck future generations, I got mine.

Millenials taking a leaf from the boomers

America, can you explain?

This plan required an act of Congress, the president acted unilaterally and illegally in instituting the plan. The president isn't a dictator, he must go through congress for quite a number of things.

Except this wasn't enacted by the president but by the Secretary of Education under the Biden administration and the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act.

If the supreme court wasn't corrupt, they might have still struck this down but not under the cases that reached the supreme court. The fact that they found the original cases to have standing is actually insane and it's likely to open a can of worms because they were basically:

"it's not fair for only certain groups to benefit from government programs."

Do you know how many things are going to be challenged now? And, for it not to create chaos, these new challenges will have to go to the supreme court again where they will have to do mental gymnastics to backpedal on why their decision applies here but not on whatever weird future cases. Jesus what a circus.
- the power was given to them by congress as part of the HEROES act
  
  It very specifically was not, and that is the issue.
  
  " The HEROES Act … does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal."
  
  Source, the decision we are commenting on
  
  The extent of the power of the HEROES act is debatable and thus why this has reached the supreme court. If you read it, the HEROES act was very vague the begin with, as these things often out in our messed up legal system. Like I said. They could argue against or for the HEROES ability to grant this power and they could easily argue it either way because that's how our legal system works. But, that they did it with these cases is still insane because the sanding for these cases is wacko.
  
  The standing wasnt wacko. You're just not informed about the facts of the case. Missouri stood to lose about 44mil/yr or somewhere around there. That's legitimate standing, regardless of your politics.
  
  If that's what the cases were actually about, I would support you. But the entity that has standing for that argument is MOHELA and they didn't want to be a part of it. The cases that were presented had nothing to do with what Missouri had to lose financially.
  
  The state of Missouri, one of the plaintiffs, is claiming that MOHELA will lose revenue as a result of debt cancellation, and therefore would be unable to repay money into a Missouri state fund that funds in-state schools. It was revealed that MOHELA hasn’t made a contribution to that fund in 15 years; MOHELA has also said in its own financial documents that it doesn’t plan to make any payments in the future. Furthermore, an analysis from the Roosevelt Institute and the Debt Collective shows that MOHELA stands to gain revenue if debt cancellation goes forward, because it received additional servicing rights and its liability on certain accounts would be extinguished.
  
  So, honestly, I call bullshit.
  
  You can can call whatever you want. They still had standing, and proved it.
  
  You're just mad you didn't get a free voucher.
  
  They don't need standing because they're the supreme court. They literally just ruled on a theoretical case which was bananas in another decision. If you can actually show me their standing that isn't total bullshit, please direct me to it.
  
  This court case doesn't actually impact me. I don't live in the US anymore.
  
  At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s pro- gram. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged con- duct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government cor- poration created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and func- tion, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368. The Secretary emphasizes that, as a public corporation, MOHELA has a legal personality separate from the State. But such an instru- mentality—created and supervised by the State to serve a public func- tion—remains “(for many purposes at least) part of the Government itself.” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 513 U. S. 374, 397. The Secretary also contends that because MOHELA can sue on its own behalf, it—not Missouri—must be the one to sue. But where a State has been harmed in carrying out its responsibilities, the fact that it chose to exercise its authority through a public corporation it created and controls does not bar the State from suing to remedy that harm itself. See Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368. With Article III satisfied, the Court need not consider the States’ other standing arguments.
  
  You can just read it yourself. It's all explained for you. You just don't like it.
  
  Yeah. I read it. And it's total bullshit. If you scroll up just a couple of comments ago, you'll see why. MOHELA themselves say they will lose money from this court ruling and never planned to pay into the Missouri government program the Missouri government is referring to and they haven't for years. Additionally, Kavanaugh just ruled that "states can't sue the government just over 'indirect' harm from a federal policy." I literally already sent you a link to that. And yet, here he rules directly the opposite. So, maybe you could read first before sending the same bullshit that's already been shut down in this very thread.
  
  But, because there's no real way to check the supreme court, they can say whatever they want and it's law.
  
  Check my comment on one of the other threads, Missouri didn't stand to lose anything. MOHELA doesn't pay anything to the state, so even if there was some constitutional right to profit for companies, MOHELA would be the injured party, not the state of Missouri
  
  If MOHELA would have been damaged (and they would have), then Missouri would necessarily be damaged as well. I don't need to look at your other comment to know it's wrong.
  
  The decision is ridiculously ambiguous. The law is garbage, but the ruling is basically "well yeah, you can technically change loans, but not that much!" Congress should immediately repeal the law if it can just be used by the judicial to only implement what THEY want.
Strange though how the previous president doing the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy. Yes, yes, totally not a political judgement at all, nothing to see here
- the exact same thing but with ppp loans for businesses was all fine and dandy
  
  PPP was specifically authorized via an act of congress, the thing that the current president did not have.
  
  Hopefully congress figures something out because having the entire working class occupied with paying exorbitant interest on rediculous loans is about to fuck our economy up big time.
  
  Holy classism batman
  
  You really think the working class is paying student loans? The working class never went to college.
  
  Good to see that actual facts are as poorly received here as they were on Reddit.
  
  Its actually worse here. Lmfao. How's that possible?
  
  Sure, but we shouldn't forget the context here. Why didn't they go through congress? Because republicans will shoot it down immediately.
  
  I think this is important to explicitly spell this out everytime when someone says that they don't understand how PPP loans where no problem but student loans forgiveness is unable to pass: The problem are the conservative and republicans. They will rather forgive loans for companies than for their citizens!
wrong

The president acted as he did and the system of checks and balances played a role.

He is absolutely allowed to do that. It is not "illegal"
- He isn't going to be put in jail or anything no. He attempted to use a power he does not have. If the president wants this program to become a thing, an act of congress is required.
  
  nope he has the power to do that. he was just told no by a separate and equally powerful authority who has the right to do that.
  
  both parties are allowed to do what they did
- the executive branch of the government isnt allowed to do what he tried to do. it is, by definition, an illegal action.
  
  per the judicial branch, the legislative branch alone has that power. it's been that way for a long time.
- I mean, he's literally not. That's the whole point of the ruling.
  
  What he did was deemed "illegal" by the court, which means he can't do it...
  
  The amount of mental gymnastics this court has used to strike down years of precedent is insane. Can anyone actually still look at their rulings anymore and genuinely say that they aren't just making rulings based on their personal beliefs and bias? Tomorrow it will be illegal to own gold fish if they decided that was in the bible.
  
  There's no mental gymnastics in this one. You just don't agree with them.
  
  Oh honey, Kavanaugh literally made a ruling about a week ago that contradicts this one. But yeah. You're actually right. They didn't use mental gymnastics. They were too lazy for even that. They're just saying no and contradicting themselves with almost zero justification as to why.
  
  Yea, i mean, if you can't read, i could certainly see how you could conflate the two cases. But they're not the same. So...
  
  Dumb point.
  
  What? I didn't conflate them. I said the foundational arguments contradict each other and thus their own precedent.
  
  Yea, but that's the thing. You're saying that doesn't mean it's true. And if you can read, you'll understand why they came to two separate decisions in two separate cases that have totally different underlying facts.
  
  But, you know... You seem to either be ABLE to read and choose not to, or you are just saying shit to say shit without having read anything.
  
  "States can't sue the government just over 'indirect' harm from a federal policy" is literally applicable to both. Are you unable to extrapolate that information outside of the context of a single case? Does precedent mean absolutely nothing to you? because it sure doesn't to the supreme court anymore.