Student Loans

Can the Secretary of Education Really Wave a Magic Wand and Erase All Our Student Loans?

This is probably not what Lyndon B. Johnson had in mind.


Congressional Democrats and President Joe Biden's administration are at odds over how to cancel student loan debt. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) insist that Biden can and should cancel up to $50,000 of loan debt per borrower using an executive order. Biden's team reportedly prefers that Congress pass a bill giving the Department of Education authority to forgive up to $10,000 of outstanding student loan debt per person. 

While neither of those proposals will address the cost disease plaguing higher education in the United States, the Warren proposal relies on a rather Trumpian approach to appropriations. 

The Warren proposal, which you can study here, notes that 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. Warren and other student loan forgiveness advocates interpret that clause to mean that 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). They say that this interpretation was shared by the Trump administration, which cited section 432(a) in justifying a temporary waiver of interest on student loans due to COVID-19's economic impact. 

Warren's proposal to permanently forgive the debt of tens of millions of student loan borrowers (and which would cost substantially more than the revenue lost by temporarily suspending interest payments), uses an income-based sliding scale to determine the forgiveness amount: $50,000 in debt forgiveness for household incomes less than $100,000, scaling down to zero for household incomes over $250,000. The scale is tied exclusively to the prior year's tax filing and the corresponding amount would be forgiven automatically. Her proposal also calls for the IRS to not treat the forgiven loan amount as taxable income (which it currently does for loans forgiven after 20 or 25 years of income-based repayment). 

A letter to Warren from members of Harvard University's Project on Predatory Student Lending suggests that this route is perfectly legal, and that "the only statutory limitation" on the Education Department's authority to "compromise" a loan "is the requirement that the Secretary 'may not enter into any settlement of any claim under [Title IV] that exceeds $1,000,000' without requesting 'a review of the proposed settlement of such claim by the Attorney General.'" 

While rich with detail, the letter from the Project on Predatory Student Lending focuses largely on a close literal reading of the Higher Education Act. There is no suggestion by the letter authors that the Higher Education Act, the Federal Claims Collection Act, or the Federal Credit Reform Act was intended or amended explicitly to give the Secretary of Education the power to discharge $650 billion worth of student loans (the amount Warren expects the U.S. government to forgive if her plan is implemented). Yet the letter nevertheless claims that "Congress has granted the Secretary a more specific and unrestricted authority to create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs in the Higher Education Act (HEA) itself" and that "that provision empowers the Secretary to execute the broad debt cancellation plan you have proposed." It is right there in the bill that Lyndon B. Johnson signed in 1965, the power for a political appointee to spend $650 billion without so much as a "by your leave" from Congress. 

This is perhaps why Schumer is under the impression that Biden can forgive all those student loans "with the flick of a pen." 

In a memorandum sent to former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in January, Reed D. Rubinstein, then deputy general counsel for the Department of Education, argued that the secretary does not, in fact, already have these broad powers. 

Rubinstein argued that the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to Congress, that federal law requires appropriated funding "be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law," and finally, that Congress has not voted to allow Education Department funding to be used in the way Warren and Schumer want. This is the same argument House Democrats used in 2019 when they sued Trump for using a national emergency declaration to divert military spending toward a border wall after the House refused to appropriate the $5.7 billion he requested. 

"Congress does not impliedly delegate a policy decision of massive economic and political magnitude—as blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge, or forgiveness of student loan principal balances, or the material modification of the repayment terms or amounts thereof, surely would be—to an administrative agency," Rubinstein wrote. He calls Warren's reading of section 432 "hyperliteral and contrary to common sense." 

And yet, Congress doesn't always intervene when executive agencies take interpretative license in order to make decisions of "massive economic and political magnitude." Aside from a handful of critical quotes from a few Senate Republicans, Congress did not intervene in September 2020 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium in response to COVID-19 on the grounds that Congress had vested the agency's director with "the power to take any measures deemed 'reasonably necessary' to prevent the interstate spread of communicable disease, including 'inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.'" In fact, Congress later wrote the CDC's plan into law. 

Rubinstein adds that in the event a legal case could be made for allowing the mass forgiveness of student loans without Congress granting new power or approving new spending, "doing so might be appropriately and necessarily considered a legislative rule under the Administrative Procedure Act," subject to public notice and comment. Somewhat ironically, the Trump administration struggled with APA compliance for his entire term.

Biden did not initially appear to be very fond of this game. Politico notes that Biden in December called Warren's plan "pretty questionable," and said, "I'd be unlikely to do that." But according to a tweet from White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, "Our team is reviewing whether there are any steps he can take through executive action and he would welcome the opportunity to sign a bill sent to him by Congress." The Hill reports that the White House Office of Legal Counsel is conducting that review. 

Regardless of how Democrats under Biden choose to address the real and perceived deficiencies of our current system for funding higher education, taxpayers and borrowers deserve a break from rule by executive order. Many of these ideas are bad no matter what process Democrats use to implement them, but debating them in Congress might make them less so. 

NEXT: Putin Foe Navalny Sentenced to Nearly Three Years in Prison

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well as democrats appear to get whatever they want and everyone else gets bent, I see no opposition.

    1. Chumponomics. Already paid for college? Didn’t go at all? Tough shit. Pay up, chump.

      1. If you can shovel coal into a furnace, you can damn sure pay other people’s loans off.

        /Biden Logic.

        1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a my doubt, this is the pay easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life… >>>>>>> USA ONLINE JOBS <<<<<<<<<

        2. The Democrats disqualification goes far beyond the psychiatric restrictions that federal law currently imposes on gun ownership, which are already overly broad but AWqs apply only to people who have undergone court-ordered treatment…READ MORE

    2. The United States of America is in the middle of Civil war 2.0 that Democrats started. Nothing Democrats do means anything.

      Its why Lefties are so desperate to act like they have power.

      1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job But a good
        eaning opportunity.. ….Click here for more info.

        1. Every month easily makes more than $15k just by doing very simple home based job. Last month ihave received $16834 from this online job BRag just by doing this in my part time for only 2 hrs maximum a day…..Click this link For Full Detail…..CLASSIFIED REAL JOBS

    3. All opposition has been silenced, you will be next, for your Posts on Reason.

      1. I think it’s a pretty good argument that the platforms could be treated like the law treats shopping malls,” Volokh says.This part of Section 230 is why it’s absolutely inaccurate when politicians and critics insist that the provision’s protections require a platform to have QSwd any sort of neutrality. They do not. They never did. And this is precisely why some people want to get rid of Section 230………..MORE READ

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working ghss online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

  2. Only if it is funded by appropriation of all endowments from all colleges & universities, and a strict price cap on total costs & “fees” imposed in the future.
    No future loans to be used at any institution that has administrative expenses in excess of 20% of tuition.

    1. (Laughs in unicorn fart)

      1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible mgd economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

        1. My unicorn fart power gains it’s first disciple…

  3. I don’t understand. I thought America voted out the dictator in November? I guess it really is “Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.” Except we always “get fooled again.”

    1. Except the old boss wasn’t much of a dictator, just an asshole. Which really is just as bad in the end, it seems.

      1. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible mgd economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE…… Visit Here

    2. The fink is dead. Long live the fink.

      1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. CMs Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

        This is what I do…….. Jobs App

    3. Except the old boss was Krusty the Clown, and the new boss is Cthulhu and not very similar at all.

    4. “I thought America voted out the dictator in November?” — He was only a dictator in dictator’s delusional minds.

      It was the baseline of every TDS article how Trump wasn’t being a Gov-God dictator and pretending to be every persons god and savior.

      The fact that he wasn’t a dictator at all is WHY the left compulsively called him a dictator. It was 100% PROJECTION of one’s own mentality.

  4. College students shouldn’t have to pay for their Left-wing indoctrination.

    This is obviously another buy-peoples’-vote scheme brought by the Dems. Discharge peoples’ student loan debts and get their votes in return.

  5. “… Harvard University’s Project on Predatory Student Lending”

    You are kidding, aren’t you? Those bastards really have the gall to label the lenders “predatory?” How about a project on “predatory” tuition rate setting?

    Talk about a diversionary tactic. “Don’t blame us for charging astronomical tuition rates and room and board fees. Blame the people who are loaning you the money in order to pay for them!”

    1. They could always offer interest free loans from their endowment if they really cared. I’m actually almost curious enough to know who has more money, Harvard, or my credit union, to look it up.

      1. Harvard almost surely. Almost 42 billion.

    2. Don’t touch the institutions of education who’re giving your child the magnificent experience of a $120,000 degree in photography and print-making with mandatory courses in sensitivity training. They are beyond reproach.

    3. Projection is what these people do, #2.

    4. Harvard doesn’t charge tuition at all if your family earns less than 60K per year.

    5. It is not predatory to loan money with an interest rate to someone with no collateral, no job, and possibly no means to repay a loan. Completely BS – the whole system. Schools suck, the government program sucks, Congress sucks.
      And yet the unity “we the people” have voted for will heal the great divisions of culture and politics.

    6. “Warren and other student loan forgiveness advocates interpret that clause to mean that 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).”

      And the lending predator is largely the federal government. This is a feedback loop that the progressives largely caused themselves by insisting on easy college financial aid and developed a feedback loop in which the colleges have grown ore and more bloated on that money.

  6. “Trumpian”


  7. The Mexican guy installing mufflers should pay for the white girl with the Political Science degree that she took six years to get. This is what made America great.

    1. Grad school. Don’t forget 4 years of grad school.

    2. Mexican muffler man is free-riding off the added value of her higher education. Of course he should pay!

      1. I read that as “addled value”. I think that may actually be more accurate. 😀

  8. I’m all for giving people free stuff. After all, that is the promise of paradise. However we shouldn’t just give it to anyone with a pulse. There should be standards.

    1. So Screech started a cult, huh.

      1. To be fair, Jesus started it.

        1. That looked like a YouTube atheist’s imagining of religion.

  9. Yeah, this is a really bad idea.

    The entire student loan and higher education economics is a giant mess. One more reason why the whole thing ought to be privatized.

    1. Broken clock of liberty, meet Jeff.

      1. Isn’t that the second time that you’ve admitted I’m right?
        Maybe I’m actually not the progressive stereotype you make me out to be, and you are just an asshole for continually trolling me even though I hold very libertarian views despite your protestations.

        1. “Maybe I’m actually not the progressive stereotype you make me out to be,”

          You’re actually worse than anyone says. We’ve seen you advocate for bringing pedophiles here.

          So maybe you can sit down and shut the fuck up because you earned your supper.

          1. And this is why right-wingers and libertarians can never be fully compatible.

            To right-wingers and other people like you, liberty is only bestowed on the morally worthy by some standard. Only those who are worthy of liberty are entitled to it. The saint gets liberty. The sinner gets damnation.

            While actual libertarians believe that liberty is the birthright of all humankind. Both the sinner and the saint are entitled to the blessings of liberty.

            So when it comes to REFUGEES, those who are fleeing oppression in other countries, what ought to matter in determining if a potential refugee should be granted asylum, is what the OPPRESSOR did, not what the OPPRESSED did. If refugee programs start making determinations about who is worthy of asylum based on what the OPPRESSED did, then it gives a green light to dictators and tyrants that it is totally okay for them to torture, murder, and otherwise oppress people so long as those people are “bad people”.

            Which comports just fine with the right-wing view of liberty. The “bad people” never were entitled to liberty in the first place so if they are murdered by a tyrant, it’s no skin off their nose. It’s just how the world works. Too bad so sad. It is only when tyrants murder “good people” that the moral outrage kicks into overdrive.

            Because again right-wingers fundamentally do not believe in the universality of human liberty.

            1. Hmm. Only a right winger would know so completely about right wingers and what they believe.

            2. Now do the Uyghurs.

              1. What about the Uyghurs?

                Every single human being has liberty as a birthright. That includes Uyghurs, that includes pedophiles, that includes even you.

                1. Every human being also has the birthright handed down in the form of the society built by their forebears, not to be given away and handed over to anyone who turns up on the doorstep. Communitarianism.

            3. Arguing against any kinds of standards at all is why no one takes open borders advocates seriously.

              There is nothing inherently unlibertarian about stopping someone who has provably violated the NAP (murder, pedophilia, etc.) from entering the country.

              Fuck, not even Democrats try to argue that as far as I know.

              1. Whether a person deserves refugee status, and whether a person should come in the country, are two different questions.

                A person should be judged on his/her refugee status based on what was done by the OPPRESSOR, not what was done by the OPPRESSED. Do you disagree with that fundamental point?

                Otherwise, you really are saying that it’s okay to oppress bad people.

        2. No, you’re still the progressive idiot we all know you are.

          You’re just not sure where to stand on this issue because on one hand it’s a giant government overreach, which you love.

          But the handout will mostly go to middle class white people, which you hate.

          So your opinion only seems libertarian because you can’t square those concepts in your head.

          You do realize privatizing loans means only people able to pay them back or get co-signers will get loans right? That seems racist to me.

          1. Let me fix that for you:

            Big government programs ought to go.

            Middle class people are simply people. I don’t hate them and I don’t love them. I simply want them and everyone else to pursue their dreams to the best of their ability as unencumbered as possible by the state.

            Fuck off with your projection bullshit.

      2. Here’s another thing.
        I think ALL education should be privatized, not just higher ed.
        Also, I think Social Security should be privatized.
        NO WAY!
        Also, I think Medicare, Medicaid, and health care generally should be privatized.
        Also I think we should get out of the Middle East, stop the foreign wars bullshit.
        HOLY COW!
        Huh. That’s a lot of times for a “stopped clock” to be right, isn’t it?
        Stop being an asshole, RMac.

        1. Yet weirdly you are fine with the expansion of all those programs with open borders first.

        2. By the way, weird you say you want out of the ME but are perfectly fine declining Arma sales to SA so they can fight their own wars against Iran.

    2. +100000000000

  10. The issue for Biden is, who holds the debt? As an example, if a portion of it is tied up in a Teacher’s Union Pension Fund, then cancelling the debt means that that particular fund is devalued by that amount. The Democrats are going to run out of Peter’s to rob in order to pay Paul.

    1. I will bet your pension rights the teacher’s union would never hold that kind of paper. It is all on the US taxpayer.

      1. “It is all on the US taxpayer.” = “It is all about the Power to Steal.”

      2. And if the unions did hold the debt they would be forewarned to divest it before the reckoning came.

    2. When Biden or Warren says “cancel the debt”, they don’t mean “cancel the debt and leave the banks holding the bag”. They mean “cancel the debt by Congress borrowing more money to make the lenders whole and stack the national debt the rest of the way to the moon for the taxpayers to pay off someday.”

      1. ^This one. And also, tax the students at the end of the year to put some of that dough back in the coffers for us to use for other things. Because you know with that monthly savings off of the student loans those well-versed, economically responsible folks that took out the loans in the first place will be socking it aside for that tax bill.

        1. There’s already been articles from like December on about what just the $10k would mean for income taxes.

          Fuck Joe Biden. Fuck the Democrats. And fuck anybody who shat on Trump and the Republicans.*

          *For the retards who call themselves libertarians and individualist but want to collectivize anyone who says anything halfway nice about Trump: he was the only thing stopping all the shit the democrats are going to pull over the next two years. Sincerely, A Jorgensen voter.

  11. Remember when Obama started his first term by proposing mortgage forgiveness? Remember how that went? What the actual fuck, Joe.

  12. “Congress has granted the Secretary a more specific and unrestricted authority to create and to cancel or modify debt owed under federal student loan programs in the Higher Education Act (HEA) itself”

    Wait a sec! How can the Secretary create student loan debt?

    1. Have you heard of reparations?

    2. Create debt = issue loans

  13. End the Fed backing student loans and allow the loans to be dischargeable in bankruptcy. There, done. Oh, and allow lenders extended clawback against the educational institutions.

    It would kick higher education—and the entire Victim Studies contingent—right in the nuts. While we’re dreaming, end the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts that prevent (de facto) employers from using things like aptitude testing as a gatekeeper for employment, and perhaps we’d stop seeing employers requiring bachelor’s degrees to sweep the floor.

    1. Griggs v Duke Power was more destructive than second wave feminism.

    2. Oh, and allow lenders extended clawback against the educational institutions.

      This is one of the stupider ideas on the right. The universities themselves don’t even originate the loans! It is like saying if a Walmart shopper defaults on a credit card, then the credit card company should be able to sue Walmart. That is nuts.

      1. “It is like saying if a Walmart shopper defaults on a credit card, then the credit card company should be able to sue Walmart.”

        No it’s not, simpleton.

        1. Yeah it is.
          This idea that banks should be able to sue universities if *graduated* students default on their loans is just a thinly-veiled attempt by the Right to come up with some weak rationalization to go after their perceived political enemies of higher education.

          You know how left-wingers come up with bullshit rationalizations of “defective products” in order to sue gun makers to try to shut down the gun industry because they can’t get rid of guns the legit way? It’s like that, except with the right and higher ed.

          1. You continue to not understand monetary risk and why government should not be involved. A lender takes on the risk of the lendee not paying them back. Schools have lobbied for the loans to be federally insured without allowing lenders to actually do actuarial assessments of said payback. The schools line about graduation rates, grades, degree usefulness, starting salaries, etc. They have lied about their product. They should be legally liable for those lies since they have gained so much on the other end with bad loans backed by taxpayers. And it isnt banks who should sue, it is the government.

            1. Oh man. So much to unpack here.

              First, student loans are non-bankruptable and they are federally insured. There is next to zero lender risk here. The banks are the big winners here in this whole racket. They are not the victims. You are an idiot if you think that the poor banks are hurting here because students are taking on huge debts.

              Second, schools are allowed to lobby Congress on any subject they please, just like anyone else is. It’s even in the Constitution. That Congress chose to adopt the schools’ position here is not the fault of the schools, it is the fault of Congress. THEY are the ones who made the decision, not the schools. So the government should sue schools for persuading the government for making a bad policy decision? Is that really the argument that you want to make? “I’m gonna sue you for making me do something stupid!” That is a bonehead position even from you.

              Third, if a school actually commits actionable FRAUD, then that is an issue between the victim of fraud and the school. But I suspect the vast majority of what you claim are “lies” are really just differences in opinion. You think Gender Studies majors are useless? Well that is a subjective opinion, not a question of fraud. I completely agree that a lot of students spend way too much money on useless degrees. Whose fault is that? Did the schools trick those poor students into pursuing a useless degree? Did the banks trick those poor students into taking out big loans? Or maybe it’s the student responsible for the student’s decisions. Should they be treated as adults, or shouldn’t they?

              Your argument is weak, because it is not an argument, it is a thin rationalization to justify your partisan hatred of higher ed and your desire to see them destroyed by any means necessary, even if it means concocting ridiculous rationalizations and narratives about poor students victimized by those big bad universities and those big bad banks, just like a good little leftist would argue in trying to get student loans canceled. Funny that. That is because you are fundamentally just as dishonest as they are. They want to get student loans canceled to “stick it to the banks”. You want to see the government sue universities, to “stick it to the schools”. It is just partisan vengeance masquerading as something else.

          2. Lmao you’re still the idiot we know. You completely misunderstood him.

      2. If the government was already paying Walmart 250% of the actual cost of the item, and the consumer paid an additional 300% by credit card plus interest and fees, and then defaulted… you might have an analogy.

        1. That isn’t at all how it works. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          1. Jeff comes in with a “nu uh” then flees again.

            Yes you cunt that’s exactly how it works.

            1. He fled earlier about his hippocracy on China tarriffs bad but SA embargoes amazing. Apparently genocide in China is less bad than a proxy war in Yemen.

    3. You mean like go back to the time things were WORKING and the USA was more successful and wealthy than any other nation instead of plummeting into national bankruptcy and importing everything from china on loans?????

  14. the Warren proposal relies on a rather Trumpian approach to appropriations.

    I think you mean Obaman there, Riggs.

  15. (which it currently does for loans forgiven after 20 or 25 years of income-based repayment).

    How had do you have to have screwed up to be repaying a student loan two decades later?

    1. You just do the minimum payment even if you get multiple pay raises.

      Even with the not-all-that-bad interest rates on student loans, you really have to pay double the minimum, especially at first, if you want to chop that thing down in a reasonable amount of time. Taking about five-to-seven years to not rack up credit card debt on “experiences” and consoooooooomer shit, and putting that money into the loan instead, would leave a lot of these status-chasing wannabe-elite tards debt-free.

      Once I started doing this, I paid off over $25,000 in about three years.

      1. I graduated long ago, but my student loan debt was 90% of my starting pre-tax salary. I rented a cheap apartment with a roommate and drove a hoopty, and paid it off in 3 years.

      2. Agreed Red Rock I had 27k from Undergrad and Grad school. I worked 30 hours a week while in school then at $12 an hour paid off my debt in about 5 years. I knew what i was getting into and lived accordingly at the time excepting to better myself in the future for the job(s) I have gone onto. Do I get that 27k back for being responsible? This is frankly ridiculous, I know a pharmacist couple make above 200k a year and still has student debt. I don’t think this forgiveness even gets close to understanding the people you are forgiving.

    2. Yeah, even going to a very affordable college, having student loan debt of ~$30,000 is not out of the question. That is a mini-mortgage, or an expensive car. If typical car loans are 6-7 years long, and actual mortgages are 15-30 years long, it’s not all that unreasonable to think that typical student loan borrowers will spend somewhere between 10-20 years to pay off their student loans if they don’t put much effort into it.

      1. You’re an imbecile.

      2. 30K expensive? The average car price in the USA is now $38,635.

        Cancel car debt!

      3. $500/mo is 6k a year. That’s 5 years to pay off a 30k debt.

        $250/mo is 3k a year and that’s still 10 years. What are you doing that you’re still paying TWENTY years later?

        And, see, no one takes on a ‘mini-mortgage’ or buys an expensive car unless either they’re stupid or they have a job that pays the bills.

        I suspect that the majority of people who are struggling with student loans more than 10 years after graduating are the people who

        a) Took a shitty degree that only pays out if you manage to get one of a vanishingly few tenure-track position in academia.

        b) Decided to go to grad school when they found they couldn’t get a job quickly after graduation.

        c) All of the above.

        If typical car loans are 6-7 years long, and actual mortgages are 15-30 years long,

        They’re not. They’re not that long. Like you get some really shitty interest rates if you’re going for a 6 year loan – most car loans are 3 years. And nobody is taking out a 15-30 year mortgage on a 30k . . . whatever. Like, if you can afford all but 30k of your house then you don’t need 15 years to pay off that mortgage.

        WTF world do you live in.?

        1. One of two things: either they took out way more than $30k in loans or they’re working just above minimum wage jobs.

          I fully admit that I made the decision to take the loans to pursue my state mandated Masters for architecture (thanks protectionist and not listening to my wife and switching to engineering). But, I am 100% willing to pay back the loans, with interest. I just need time, which the IBR buys me.

          1. Look at the income based repayment calculator that I linked to below. A person can have a decent income, have relatively modest student loans, but still take 20 years to pay off their student loans if they only pay the minimums and they are on the income based repayment plan. It is not just for people who have loser degrees or crappy jobs or huge debts.

        2. Agamamnon, I think you should join us in the real world.

          First, the average duration of a car loan nowadays is between 65 and 71 months. This is the AVERAGE. This is not just for people with bad credit.

          $250/mo is 3k a year and that’s still 10 years. What are you doing that you’re still paying TWENTY years later?

          The government has income-based repayment plans, where your monthly payment is based on your income. If your income is low, then you have a very low monthly payment. And if you only pay the minimum payment, then it takes a long time to pay off the loan. The minimum payment rises when your income rises, but it is proportional, so the total time to pay it off doesn’t go down very much, again if you only pay the minimum payment. And this is what a lot of people do. They only pay the minimums.

          I am living in the real world, where there are a LOT of people who are stupid with money. Argue all you want that they shouldn’t be stupid with money, and I am totally there with you. But that is not the reality that we live in.

        3. $250/mo is 3k a year and that’s still 10 years. What are you doing that you’re still paying TWENTY years later?

          Now do $100/mo.

        4. Here’s a fun calculator for you to play around with.

          Have $30,000 in student loans? Guess what, you only have to pay $86/month!

      4. Jeff see my post above about your exact postulation.

  16. While neither of those proposals will address the cost disease plaguing higher education in the United States, the Warren proposal relies on a rather Trumpian approach to appropriations.

    1. The bot forgot its link lol

      1. Don’t reply to bots. Makes them look legit.

  17. Can the Secretary of Education Really Wave a Magic Wand and Erase All Our Student Loans?

    Sure, why not? There’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t and even if it did, who gives a shit?

  18. The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

    Lefties cant help themselves and admitted they conspired to use unconstitutional election law changes and election fraud to steal election 2020.

    Lefties are this brazen to confirm that Trump was correct…again.

    1. As Obama said, the election wasn’t particularly close, and Joe Biden was sworn in as President.

  19. Apparently, JoKalama can just do anything they want, Congress and the constitution be damned.

    1. “constitution be damned” = USA be damned. DIRECT equivalent.

      1. Acknowledgement of the left’s agenda seems to be ignorantly ignored by USA Democrats. “To Fundamentally change…..” the USA into a Democratic National Socialist Nation (i.e. Nazism).

        The history has already been written but the people writing the history remain completely ignorant of the history they’re creating.

        ….And anyone has to wonder how Hitler had so many supporters?

  20. I guess this is why the highest-income Congressional districts keep electing Democrats.

  21. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earningis are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
    on this page…… MORE INFO

  22. “…the Warren proposal relies on a rather Trumpian approach to appropriations.”

    So, Mr. Riggs, Do you and Mr. Sullum attend TDS Anonymous meetings together?

    1. Sad and pathetic on sullums part at this point.

  23. These folks are thinking much too small. What’s magic about student loans? The government should be able to nullify *any* contract!

    1. Lots of people get conned into buying SUVs on 7-year auto loans. Cancel car debt!

      Free SUVs for All. Everyone deserves safe, comfortable transportation.

  24. How about requiring people to pay off their own debts? They signed up for it.

    Democrats used to be the party of the working man, now they want working men and women to pay off the debts for the upper class, and pay all the bills for everyone who doesn’t work.

  25. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ►Check it out, and start earning yourself . for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Here… Click here.

  26. Eliminate academic tenure

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.