The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden Says He Will try to do Student Loan Forgiveness Under the Higher Education Act of 1965
The administration will try this pathway as an alternative to the HEROES Act of 2003, which pathway was shut down by today's Supreme Court decision.

Just a few hours after the Supreme Court invalidated his $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan for which the administration claimed authorization under the HEROES Act of 2003, President Biden announced he will try to push through loan forgiveness under the Higher Education Act of 1965, instead:
Hours after the ruling, Biden announced his administration will be taking a new route. The Education Department filed a notice on Friday to begin the regulatory process of using the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt, which does not require relying on a national emergency.
"This new path is legally sound," Biden said during Friday remarks. "It's going to take longer, and in my view is the best path that remains in providing for as many borrowers possible. But I'm directing my team to move as quickly as possible on the law."
The Higher Education Act states that the Education Department can "enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand" related to federal student debt.
I can't say for sure whether the new plan is legal until such time as we have details on what exactly it will do. But the Higher Education Act (HEA) was previously advanced as a possible alternative justification for the plan the Supreme Court struck down today (the administration never used the argument, however). I criticized the HEA rationale for that plan here. Fordham law Professor Jed Shugerman (who is much more sympathetic to the administration's goals than I am), offered criticisms in an article in the Atlantic, though he also argued that the HEA theory was stronger than the HEROES Act approach the administration chose to adopt.
It's too early for any definitive assessment of the administration's potential new loan forgiveness plan. The one thing we can say with confidence is that we are likely to have more legal battles over executive authority to cancel student loans!
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dark Brandon is pecker slapping these RepooplicKKKunt justices…it’s hilarious! I think ACB kinda likes it. 😉
Well, the thing that no one is thinking about is that (a) the Higher Ed Act *still* hasn't been reauthorized yet, merely extended and (b) all Federal Financial Aid comes under the auspices of it (along with other stuff).
So the existing Republican House can just say "Bleep You, Brandon" and there is no longer Federal financial aid of any kind. Remember that it's already expired, so all they have to do is not agree to another interim extension and it's gone.
And I can see them actually doing this -- the number of districts where higher education is no longer valued as an intrinsic good is significant.
Plenty of laws whose authorization has expired remain active.
The key is to keep appropriating money to their programs.
If the GOP wants to end student loans in the next appropriation bill, they're welcome to step in front of that political bus.
I see little reason to doubt many -- perhaps most -- Republicans prefer ignorance to education.
I don't think you realize how viscerally unpopular a student loan forgiveness would be with those who don't have them -- but who *do* have car loans, mortgages, and credit card bills. Nor do I think you quite realize how badly the combination of inflation and interest rate increases have been to those who don't share your affluence.
Or how much higher education is despised in Red America -- despised, not just disliked.
But the biggest thing you fail to realize is that all the GOP has to do is do *nothing* and there are no new Federal student loans -- there'd still be private ones. But all the GOP would have to do is demand a bailout for those in the trades to justify not funding new student loans because "these ones won't be paid, either."
I realize that your catastrophic predictions never come to pass; your sense of what's politically viable is really off.
And you don't understand the budget process these days if you think inaction is all that's required to strip student loans from the budget.
I'm not at all worried about this scenario, and no one even your compatriots on the far right seems to be thinking about it either.
Add in those of us who have repaid our student loans without any assistance from the Federal Government.
I'm in that set, and yet support the policy. Don't generalize your own issues.
Student loans for undergraduate education are dumb…if something is the product of a mistake then we should just fix it.
Not Kind or Gentle, but I'll be,
Loved your portrayal of Judas in "Jesus Christ Superstar"
Looking forward to the same people going to the same courts, getting the same injunctions, and the new policy being thrown out for the same reason: major questions.
Democrats can’t learn.
Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Biden (and elected Democrats) don't really care if this succeeds or not. Like Trump's wall, success or failure isn't actually relevant, what matters to them is that they look like they're trying.
Which is to say... Democrats learned just fine. You just made a mistake thinking that Biden cares.
And yes, you should absolutely keep this in mind when the next Republican president (be it in the 2025-2028 term or the 2029-2032 term) does the same damn bullshit: keep pushing a promise that keeps failing to materialize.
Indeed, nothing Democrats like more than giving more money to rich people....
He’s basically correct. Hell, drop the basically. He’s right.
There’s no other rational explanation for Biden being so persistent on something so inconsequential and hopeless.
Sour grapes in advance.
... did you just all it "sour grapes" for someone to be cynical about politicians?
... are you brain-damaged or something?
Haha you're too partisan to read.
“How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?”
- John Roberts in 2024
In all seriousness, good on Brandon if he follows through. Fuck the court, do what you were elected to do.
I'm loving the norms getting restored so.
We love our big, beautiful Norms, don’t we folks?
It was VITAL we elect Biden to restore our constitutional norms.
You know, like the President enacting executive orders he knows are unconstitutional before he issues them.
Unconstitutional? There are no questions of constitutionality here. He tried with HEROES, now he'll try with HEA. Neither act is part of the constitution you know.
What, do you think student loan forgiveness violates the second amendment? Actually, you probably do.
I think it violates the appropriations clause.
I think it violates the take care clause.
The whole strategy of the administration was to structure the program so nobody had standing to contest it, that's hardly a vote of confidence in their legal authority.
Pelosi was right, the President can't forgive student loans without Congress passing enabling legislation.
Yes, that is the question before the judiciary. Are you arguing it is Constitutionally illegitimate for Biden to test in court if you are wrong?
The eviction moratorium was the unconstitutional one. But student loan forgiveness is pretty clearly so, given that the House is in charge of money, not the executive.
That you do not know WHICH unconstitutional one was the one in referred to is a bit damning.
Ignoring the inconvenient fact that it was Congress who delegated to the executive the power to alter or waive student debt under certain circumstances.
The eviction moratorium was also not found unconstitutional.
You guys really just don't know what's going on, do you.
Biden wants to fix things. His opponents merely want to keep him from fixing them. They have no plan of their own.
Printing trillions of dollars and handing it out to parasitic Democrat Party voters is not "fixing things."
More than that, he is sending a message to 15-year-olds (and their parents) -- who otherwise might make plans that don't involve an expensive-but-useless college degree.
If kids don't show up at college, academia collapses and takes the academic left with it -- and that's the backbone of the Democratic Party.
This isn't about the people who have student loans -- it's about those who might decide not to take them out in the future...
Uneducated, superstitious bigots are the backbone of the current Republican-conservative coalition . . . and the reason these disaffected right-wingers are doomed in the modern American culture war.
Uneducated, superstitious bigots are the backbone of academia today -- and some of us prefer not to subject our children to your superstitious bigotry that promotes ignorance purporting to be education.
That's the stupidest thing I've read on the internet today, which is saying something!
What "fix?" What's broken that wasn't broken by Biden?
Biden sure does. "Fix" the system so that he can continue to receive bribes...
His opponents just want to ensure that Biden and his son actually pay the hundreds of thousands to millions in taxes they owe to the Federal Government....
Biden confessed in a news interview that these tactics were illegal, yet he's pressing on with them anyways.
Half the "lawyers" on this board are claiming Trump committed crimes and an attempted coup by pressing legal unsavory (to them) theories in a court.
I don't think many of these people can be real humans. The lack of thought, the depth of their delusion, their downright delusion and hatred for conservatives is more of a caricature. I'm guessing these are bots created by the CCP or the CIA/IC to sow division inside the USA. Those are the two most evil, vile political organizations probably in all of human history.
These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators, and the reason your colleagues disrespect you and your stale, ugly, conservative thinking.
Neither of them have any tax owed I'm aware of.
This has nothing to do with Biden getting or not getting bribes.
You're off your rocker. Like, more than usual.
“If you're specifically talking about Burisma, for 2014, there was conservatively $400,000 in unreported Burisma income on his income tax returns. And, you know, that was around $120,000 to $125,000 in tax withholdings as a result of that failure to report that income,” he explained.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden-hasnt-paid-taxes-2014-money
But that's just the IRS. Not like they do it for a job.
You missed the operative phrase: “that I’m aware of". He will now endeavor to forget that again.
Ah so you're very angry about unassessed taxes based on this one dude whose story has been without the promised evidence for some weeks now.
Don't put your ego into shit like this till it plays out.
Two separate IRS agents have reported that Hunter Biden has hundreds of thousands in unpaid taxes....
This is very easy to check for them. They have the paperwork. They have the tax returns.
The second whistleblower sure seems reluctant!
Yes, and the reason why it's only showing up in justhenews is because of a massive media coverup.
This is very easy to check for them. They have the paperwork. They have the tax returns.
I'm not sure you understand the story you linked. The charge is that it's not on his returns.
What is it with the evergreen assertion that some sort of "plan" is needed? The status quo (those that borrowed money for college take the old-fashioned step of repaying it) is just fine.
I'd make a plan to get loans out of the feds control entirely. No need to allow the government to pull this crap whenever they want votes.
I vote for taking the money that some want to spend on rural internet access -- why waste more money on connecting knuckle-dragging, deplorable hayseeds so they can spout bigotry and conduct insurrection? -- and devoting that to reducing student debt for those of modest means.
Yes, I sadly concur. Time to stop subsidizing the rubes. Stop sucking on my teat, rubes! No hospitals and roads for you. Sell your farm to a industrial farming company cause there'll be no more subsidies and grants.
That is perfectly OK with me.
Good-bye tax deductions for state taxes paid.
Toodles mortgage deductibility.
Green energy? Well, 'twas nice knowing you.
Non-profits? Well, you cease to exist also.
I have few problems with this. You?
Not really.
"Biden wants to fix things."
That other Democrat asshole up above says this is all just theatre and you’re Biden’s fool for thinking any of it was ever genuine.
Like the 2024 Erection
People like Biden created the student loan system to begin with and currently operate it's institutions, and it was nationalized by people like Biden when Biden was Vice President over a decade ago.
People like Biden do not want to fix things. Fixing things dilutes their power by reducing the number of their client groups dependent upon them.
If people like Biden really wanted to fix things, they wouldn't propose this big ticket obnoxious policy, but would instead to reform the system they created that is causing so much suffering to begin with.
What does this do? It just resets the current counter of sufferers, but doesn't stop the growth of future suffers.
It's so weird how none of you, and I mean absolutely zero of you Democrats ever once stopped to think "Hey, wait a minute, this terrible system that's hurting so many people and causing this crisis was created by the government in the first place!" Instead you all go "please please people in government, save me from all this suffering! I promise no matter what I will vote for you if you save me from all this suffering ... (you created!)"
You've gone into some sort of partisan delirium that I hope you can recover from, I truly do.
On this particular issue, I agree that student loan forgiveness will cause more problems than it solves.
But you can hardly blame Biden. Solving the underlying problems would take Congress, and check out those congressional Republicans. They have no interest whatsoever in solving any problems. They're 100% focused on political shenanigans.
The solution is to end student loans backed by the government entirely.
Bet Democrats will not go along with that.
Why not? As long as the problem gets solved, we don't care how.
Obviously just getting rid of student loans by itself won't work, so what do you propose to go along with it?
What the fuck is he fixing?
There’s a huge problem underlying the pile up of all this student debt. Everybody knows what that problem is. If Biden wants debt reduced there’s a perfect trade off here to try to fix the entirety of the student loan clusterfuck. With Congress. “Hey, let’s fix this”.
Biden isn’t going near the underlying problem. He’s not even mentioning its existence. He’s not wanting to fix anything. He’s just giving a metric shit ton of money to some of his supporters.
No point in alleviating symptoms if you can't cure the disease, eh?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
No point pouring more water into a broken bucket.
Plenty of folks with unsustainable loan balances would disagree with you.
Fuck them
I hope you disaffected, bigoted Republicans and faux libertarian misfits like the taste of the soles of your betters' shoes . . . because I see little reason for the culture war's winners to be gracious or lenient toward conservatives going forward.
Look out everyone! More tough talk from the guy who was embarrassingly wrong about the Biden era Supreme Court!
Be honest, Art. Which would you rather have right now: $10K in welfare from Joe Biden, or a Reason.com delete button so you could memory-hole that hilariously idiotic prediction?
What is your prediction for when conservative bigots are going to reverse the tide of the culture war?
When is Republican racism going to become popular again, especially among younger, educated, reasoning, productive Americans?
When are right-wing Islamophobia and antisemitism going to make a comeback, especially in America’s strong, successful, educated, diverse communities?
When is superstitious gay-bashing going to attract majority support again, especially among Americans who live outside our can’t-keep-up, bigoted backwaters?
Faux libertarian right-wingers should try to enjoy your dead cat bounce, because you are going to hate the continuing progress in modern America as much as better Americans dislike your stale, ugly, childish thinking.
Do you have the guts to predict when clingers are going to become competitive at the modern American marketplace of ideas, or do you share the Volokh Conspirators’ conspicuous cowardice? I expect cowardice from you and the rest of this blog’s culture war casualties.
Sigh. Skewered by Sandra (formerly OBL) once again. ????
Take the button, Arthur.
I find the delusions of adequacy some clingers exhibit with respect to the culture war inexplicable . . . until I recall that much of conservatives' disgusting bigotry derives from actually believing that childish fucking fairy tales are true, and recognize that plenty of right-wingers are dumb enough to fall for just about anything.
You should try to be nicer to your betters, because there is no requirement that better Americans act magnanimously toward conservatives as the culture war continues along its predictable, traditional, glorious liberal-libertarian trajectory.
New York and CA tax revenues are down 20%.
lol hashtag FeelsLikeWinning
Are you ticked off that your betters won't permit you to cancel student loans, Arthur?
I repaid my student loans years ago. Thanks to those investments, I pay as much in quarterly taxes as the entire amount of those loans. That helps America overcome the parasitic backwaters in which right-wing bigots and superstitious rubes reside.
Who should get the blame for creating this system that burdens these poor, suffering people with unsustainable loan balances?
Doesn't justice require those people get held to account?
Bush/Cheney is when overall student loan debt started spiking.
Woah! That must also be why these can't discharged and they must also be the ones who nationalized them in 2010!
Good call, genius.
Why should an auto mechanic be forced to pay for a gender studies major's poor decisions?
Why should I be forced to subsidize an auto mechanic's health care?
Do you think I SUPPORT ACA, Medicare, or Medicaid?
BTW, most mechanics make more than you realize and do not need your help subsidizing their anything.
Just saying, the red states are on life support that's being paid for by the blue states, so it's a little umbecoming of you to complain about student loan forgiveness. Take care of your own mess first.
The income-based repayment system, along with the 10/20 year forgiveness of the unpaid balance, was the "FIX" for the system.
All the forgiveness does is improve the credit rating of those who would never be repaying most of their loans anyway -- it removes that liability from their balance sheet now and not 5-15 years from now.
Doesn't anybody care? dontcha care?? doesn't anyone pay cash anymore?? I pay cash at Hooters now It's like I whipped my Dick out, No cash purchases at Dodger Stadium?? Guess "Legal Tender" isn't as "Legal Tender" as it's supposed to be. Got my ZO6 for a bargain because I had a suitcase of cash (just like in every "Mob" movie you've seen) while the others were scrambling for Cashier's checks or financing...
Frank
lol why is it only old white guys driving those things?
I’ve never seen anyone else driving on of those. Some of us with status and class were driving mid-engine sports cars before you gray haired boomers got your wishes granted with that 'vette redesign.
Biden is not well. He has not been well in quite some time and he is getting worse.
If you listen to his comments today, you can tell his speech is getting to the point he is slurring more and more of his words and sentences and he barely understands the words he is reading from the teleprompter.
The last time either of the Democratic or Republican nominees was young enough they had any business holding office was Obama v Romney.
I would agree with that
Heard this about Obama having AIDS.
Heard this about Trump having Parkinson's
Heard this about GWB being a 'dry drunk.'
Maybe it'll be shown to be true one day. Until that day, partisans whiscasting illness is just background noise.
Yes Barry Hussein's skinny, throws like a girl, and wife has bigger arms than he does, Hence the "AIDS"
Trump did a shuffling walk one time, wearing leather sole shoes, on a wet metal ramp, so he wouldn't break his hip, look ridiculous, and die of a Pulmonary Embolus,
Why you can't win with "AA", you don't drink for 40 years, but don't go to meetings?? you're a "Dry Drunk"
You don't need a blood test/MRI to diagnose Parkinson's Disease, you just have to have eyes. Ask any Neurologist.
Sleepy's got it so bad they'll probably change the name to Biden's Disease.
Frank
CindyF is not well. She has not been well in quite some time and she is getting worse.
If you read her comments today, you can tell her speech is getting to the point she is slurring more and more of her words and sentences and she barely understands the words she is typing.
You are ignorant in dimensions beyond belief.
"If you listen to his comments today, you can tell his speech is getting to the point he is slurring more and more of his words and sentences and he barely understands the words he is reading from the teleprompter."
That's a legitimate observation and while it would take a full medical team to figure out exactly *what* is wrong with him, something clearly is. If you had someone exhibiting this behavior in a safety-sensitive position, such as flying an aircraft or operating a nuclear power plant, you'd have to take him off duty.
It's also why we have a 25th Amendment.
Ed can't tell the difference between observation and opinion.
Not very surprising.
This kind of back and forth would be healthier, constitutionally speaking, if it were between the executive and the legislative branches. Congress could unambiguously clarify their intent in these statutes if they weren't completely paralyzed by partisan bullshit.
You know, not passing legislation is taking action. It is just not what the Left wants here.
To be fair, if the Democrats wait long enough some judge will make their laws for them. See ERA.
Congress could just as easily pass legislation clarifying that the HEROES act does NOT authorize the president to forgive all student debt. My comment wasn't concerned with the result, but with the process. When there is a question as to Congressional intent, Congress itself could clarify, if it weren't such a dysfunctional institution.
Is it a fair assessment that modern American liberalism is primarily distinguishable by its attempts to insulate people from the consequences of their own decisions?
I have been in the military for nearly two decades. I was able to obtain my undergraduate degrees through various avenues made available to me through my service, which included four deployments to Iraq (two during "Iraqi Freedom" and two during the Islamic State era) and three to Afghanistan. I obtained my graduate degree through an in-residence program, participation in which obligated me to serve an additional period of several years, ultimately including an emergency deployment during the fall of Kabul in August 2021. I made my choices knowingly and voluntarily, and I think both the government and I came away feeling satisfied with what we received in exchange. There are untold others like myself who through one way or another have entered into agreements to cover the cost of their education, and are now inexplicably expected to further cover the costs of others.
What do I get in exchange for my taxes covering expenses for those unwilling to pay debts they voluntarily acquired? Will I get the best years of my life back? Will I have the memories from ten deployments (the aforementioned seven being in combat) erased? Will the physical damage to my body be restored?
Getting salty about moral hazard is a choice. You don't need to make it.
I was a lawyer for longer than I wanted to be to pay off my loans. I'm happy some folks may not need to deal with that nonsense. And it's good for the economy.
I was accepted at Boston University Law -- I decided not to go because I didn't want to have to pay off the loans.
So I have no sympathy for these spoilt brats -- or even you who had to be a lawyer for longer than you wished. You chose to go to law school, I chose not to, and sucks to be you...
I'm not asking for sympathy. You have missed the point of my comment completely.
It's spelled spoiled, and your blanket condemnation is rally awesome from someone claiming to be in the education biz.
No, what's coming across is that you think it's "spoiled" to demand that people pay their own debts, instead of dumping them on other people.
You're happy that the government, or rather one guy in the government, volunteered to rob Peter to pay Paul. "Hey, Peter, stop being so whiney, and celebrate Paul's good luck!"
You talked to someone with unsustainable educational debt? Fuck you and your comfortable demands from on-high.
"Haven't you talked to Paul? He'd be really happy to be paid! Also, fuck Peter."
Reverting to the zero-sum formulation, which you know to be wrong. Government spending does not work like that.
Ah yes, the famous left-wing free lunch theory of government spending.
Remember how "left-wingers" used the free lunch theory to pay for the Iraq war? Ah, the good old days.
"Sure, we brag about how college grads earn way more than high school grads. That is why it is VITAL we have high-school grads bail out college grads." --- sarcastro.
"Reverting to the zero-sum formulation, which you know to be wrong."
Right, it's not zero sum. As you yourself admitted, you produced more legal services in order to pay back your student loans than you would have if they were forgiven. That makes forgiveness bad for the economy, not good.
"It’s spelled spoiled, and your blanket condemnation is rally [sic.] awesome from someone claiming to be in the education biz."
"Spoiled" is current tense, "spoilt" is the past tense -- think about it for a minute...
As to the latter, weren't there a couple of people in the Manhattan Project that -- upon realizing what they'd created -- turned around and became anti-nuke peace activists?
I'm in the education *field*, not business. I've seen what we've created...
You hate students. As a blanket statement.
Not just the institution, which is crazy enough, but the students.
You're really messed up.
Likewise: That's the exact reason I didn't go to MIT. Michigan Tech I could afford.
Pay for your own damned education.
Again, being resentful and envious to other people getting a benefit is a choice.
Your zero-sum idea of government expenses is reductive and wrong.
And your smooth 'pay your debts' morality is just your usual choice of ignorance rather than polluting your smooth moral world with complicated reality.
I'm not envious, but if somebody proposes to rob me to zero out their voluntarily assumed debts, resent is perfectly in order.
Your not even remotely smooth "pay other people's debts" amorality is aggressively offensive.
You are not getting robbed, you yourself are not paying jack you aren't already paying.
quit with the melodrama.
Like it or not, the government does not have money. They just steal your money.
What about people like me who paid my loans back? Do I get money from this asinine policy?
Rewarding irresponsibility is idiotic --- but it is the core tenet of progressivism.
“Again, being resentful and envious to other people getting a benefit is a choice.”
Why do you guys always choose to be resentful and envious when other people get tax cuts? You get that the loan forgiveness is really just an inefficient tax cut, right?
Solid point. Tax cuts for "The rich" are horrible. Giving free money to "the rich" for college loans is moral. I fail to see the difference.
That being the case, why are you and TiP so much against student loan forgiveness, and so much for tax cuts? They are the same thing, right?
I said they were inefficient tax cuts. As Sarcastro points out, student loans cause people to over-consume education, and they drive up education costs.
Harvard and Yale don’t allow students to take out student loans for undergraduate because they are so dumb.
"I was a lawyer for longer than I wanted to be to pay off my loans. I’m happy some folks may not need to deal with that nonsense."
Great news! Nobody has to deal with that nonsense! Of course, some people choose to. But the Biden plan to force people to deal with the nonsense of paying other people's loans.
And come on: "I borrowed a shitload of money to go to law school, and then I had to be a lawyer to pay them off!"
Do you even listen to yourself? There are people in the world with real problems. So stop whining about how you didn't get to force waitress to pick up extra shifts to pay for your law school so you were forced to be a lawyer to pay them off.
He works for the government so I'm quite sure we paid them off.
Are you suggesting this is in any way distinguishable from modern American conservativism?
Shielding people from the foreseeable consequences of their own actions? Absolutely.
Resentment and envy at other people getting a break while you stay comfy but don't improve your situation is indeed the soul of the modern GOP.
Being opposed to the prospect of being forced to pick up the tab for others =/= "resentment and envy at other people getting a break". Their "break" is at my expense.
The cost wasn’t your complaint above.
Above it sure looked like moral hazard.
I regret that you were unable to decipher the hidden meaning when I wrote about "cover[ing] the costs of others" and "my taxes covering expenses for those unwilling to pay debts they voluntarily acquired."
Sure dude. Never mind the biggest sentence and will I get the best years of my life back. Just a crazy out there way I parsed your post.
Taking rhetorical questions literally and then pretending to misunderstand is not persuasive. That being said, please don't stop.
Moral hazard: the issue of some people getting a benefit, and not others.
This is what you spend about 95% of your OP on. You had to do these things, but other people will escape that fate and this makes you unhappy.
Being unhappy about that does not necessarily follow, while at the same time being rational; it depends on whether you focus on the situation of those who don't get but could or those who could get and did.
My take (a personal position) is I'd rather not be angry at people just because I'm not as lucky as they are. You seem to have the other take. You are not being irrational, except you don't seem to understand that there could even be another take.
And when called on that choice, you changed your whole thesis to be about some inchoate cost tracing you've spent very little time establishing.
Thank you for contributing to the American military’s 75-year losing streak. Maybe you guys should repay some of the enormous taxpayer-funded resource advantages you squandered while stumbling into a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars throughout our world.
It’s not entirely your fault. A draft would have generated a better class of people in our military.
Kirkland, find an officer who served in Vietnam and ask him if he would ever want draftees in his unit again. Ask him why....
And that was over 50 years ago -- before all the computerized stuff.
"Thank you for contributing to the American military’s 75-year losing streak. Maybe you guys should repay some of the enormous taxpayer-funded resource advantages you squandered while stumbling into a series of vague draws with ragtag irregulars throughout our world."
The US military *won* in Vietnam, Tet was a major victory that nearly destroyed the NVA/VC. We just lost the Psych Op at home. Not only that, but the "stumbling" was by the politicians at home and the asinine "rules of engagement" they imposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
Kirkland, find an officer who served in Vietnam and ask him if he would ever want draftees in his unit again. Ask him why….
Because draftees tended to be the ones who would frag the Neidermeyers?
"Thank you for contributing to the American military’s 75-year losing streak."
We were winning when I left -- not counting the retreat under fire following Biden's negotiated surrender to the Taliban, of course.
We spent about 20 years too long in Afghanistan. Getting out was the best thing Biden has done.
It was Trump's negotiated surrender, as I recall.
No. Biden ignored Trump's plan and decided to delay it so he can make some political gesture on 9/11.
This is, 100%, Biden's debacle.
As I recall, Trump's agreement with the Taliban had us leaving in May 2021. Once Biden became president in January 2021, he was under no obligation to follow the Trump plan -- as evidenced by the fact that he discarded it and replaced it with his own. Too bad it all fell apart; we were *this close* to reaching Biden's moronic symbolic date of 9-11-2021 to end the war.
I would say, no that's not fair. Modern American liberalism is primarily distinguishable by its attempts to maximize people's opportunity to improve their lives, and that includes giving them ways out of bad decisions. We don't feel the need to unduly punish people for getting into tough situations.
Yes, there's a risk of moral hazard there that must be considered, but that's part of working out the economics, it's not in and of itself a reason to cut people off from opportunity. Liberals see second chances as fundamentally a good idea for society, if they can be provided efficiently.
(I happen to think student loan forgiveness does not meet the bar, but only because I think it's a bad investment, not because I want to punish student loan recipients which seems to be the motivation of others here.)
Is it a fair assessment that modern American conservatism is primarily distinguishable by its attempts to hoard opportunity and resources within its favored communities under the guise of liberty?
Weird, because people who say something progressives dislike do not seem to get this "Well, a second chance is necessary and good" thing.
So, telling an off-color joke is worthy of permanent derision. Taking out a loan willingly and demanding I pay it off for you, though, is just moral.
We're not forcing comedians into crippling debt. We're just saying hey, you seem to have poor judgement as a comedian, maybe try something else.
We're not cancelling student loans and then giving those same people more loans.
Biden's inflation already reduced a lot of student loan debt, so maybe he's more successful at this than he realizes.
Not to mention that three years has been removed from everyone's repayment plan, with a hard deadline of either 10 or 20 total years at which point the total balance evaporates.
So these leftists in the annoying "public service" jobs like preaching global-something have already been reduced to only 7 years of repayment...
Enough wanking about how this shows Biden is a gem-encrusted bribery golem.
From the previous article.
"reading 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(6) to permit the Secretary [of Education], on a blanket or mass basis, to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive student loan principal balances" would render superfluous various other provisions of the HEA and later statutes, which give the Secretary the power to cancel or limit debt in more limited circumstances. And, as he rightly explains, there is a longstanding presumption against interpreting statutes in a way that renders parts of them superfluous. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this principle.
Rubinstein suggests that it makes more sense to construe Section 432(c) as only giving the Secretary the authority to waive or release student loan debt "on a case-by-case basis and then only under those circumstances specified by Congress."
Now THIS is superfluous. You have this authority only when Congress separately gives you the authority.
Not sure I buy this particular argument, blanket and individual forgiveness seem like they are different powers entirely, not superfluous.
I'm a babe in the woods on this, but this looks like a much stronger statutory basis than it was. What's with the 'we didn't do it this way because it would take longer' thing?
"Biden is a gem-encrusted bribery golem."
Yoink.
I will admit to being a bit proud of that line myself.
Does this mean the individual plaintiffs in the companion case had standing after all?
Can the Supreme Court retract its opinion and dismiss the case as moot rather than for lack of standing?
The Higher Education Act states that the Education Department can "enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand" related to federal student debt.
This wording seems really explicit. The only word I don't see in there is discharge. Still though, the way this reads it makes it look like Congress just delegated away their power to the Ed dept. Why didn't POTUS Biden's team try this route the first time? Looks like a slam dunk.
What's the legal thing I am not seeing? Can Congress really delegate that much authority away to the Executive?
You can read Somin's other article linked in the OP, where he describes some of the issues, but to quickly sum up his argument: The same act (and other, later acts) also put a bunch of restrictions on the Secretary's ability to discharge debts, and reading this clause to give the ability to mass forgive all loans would run afoul of "a longstanding presumption against interpreting statutes in a way that renders parts of them superfluous". He also mentions nondelegation.
In both cases, what happened to the SC rule of thumb that the law should be interpreted in a way that doesn't step on itself?
To havs gigatons of rules on loans, then pretend a single sentence can throw that all out at the whim of not-Congress seems idiotic.
He knows it isn’t going anywhere.
He knew it last time.
Don’t you hate politicians who try obviously unconstitutional things for cheap, cheesy brownie points from the masses they pander to cough cough flag burning law?
Biden also said that his administration is going to also look into ways to prevent legacy admissions. I assume that any restrictions on those will not apply to applicants with the last name "Biden". Joe Biden brought great pressure on the UPenn president Gutmann to early admit his granddaughter in spite of her less than stellar academic achievements. Apparently, his insistence worked since I understand she has been admitted for the fall. And then voila! Gutmann has now been appointed U.S. ambassador to Germany.
I assume it was a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" agreement rather than the usual more horizontal type of communication.
Apparently!
Hmm… I seem to recall this Administration making similar claims about the Administration’s now overturned vote buying ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H student debt cancellation program. Credibility is slim here.
I suppose in a democracy, you could label any measure taken by any politician as "vote buying." Usefulness as a label is slim here.
Lots of promises to spent money on behalf of groups of people, should the politician be elected, resemble vote buying.
But few are as blatant as offering $10,000 in exchange for a vote.