Biden administration announces partial student loan forgiveness

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not against the Biden loan forgiveness, but I have a few friends who never went to college, who always vote for the Democrats, who are very resentful that some people might get loan forgiveness, if Biden's plan survives. I would prefer that loan forgiveness be given first to those who need it the most, who were victims of scams and who are having a difficult time finding jobs in their chosen career fields. If nothing else, the idea that when one declares bankruptcy, their student loans don't apply is wrong, imo. Why should student loans be considered any differently than any other debt? Maybe it would have been better if Biden had simply attempted to change that ruling, for starters.

I favor cancelling the loans of the students who were scammed. They're victims.

The reason they aren't dischargeable is that if they were you would see a rash of strategic bankruptcies. A newly graduated student would have a huge debt, no income, no assets--chapter 7 time. The whole system would fall apart if that were allowed.

As I understand it, the student loans are made more difficult to discharge than other kinds of loans. Do you have an explanation for why that is? Are people who fund their education through loans more likely to be irresponsible than others? The people being forgiven their loans now are not newly graduated. The difficulty of discharging the loans is not tailored to just newly minted graduates. The excessive burden on the person with the loan obligation lasts a lifetime.

Did you not see the word "strategic"??

Yes, I did. That was a concern back in the 1960s and 1970s, when I had such a loan and had to manage repaying it. The remedy back then was to put a moratorium on bankruptcy discharge for five years after graduation. I addressed this in a later post on the history of the discharge issue. It wasn't until the HW Bush administration that the discharge restriction was made permanent, when the issue was no longer about strategic bankruptcies but keeping the unfair leash that banks had on this particular group of borrowers in place for the rest of their lives. I'm sure it helped those legislators with raising donations for their campaigns, because banks like to reward politicians who do them favors.

I'm not saying they're more irresponsible or anything. I'm saying that at the time someone graduates they typically have little or no income, little or no assets and a big debt. That makes a pre-planned Chapter 7 look very tempting. It's like in the housing collapse we saw a wave of strategic foreclosures in non-recourse states. Borrowers decided it was worth trashing their credit in exchange for getting rid of a house that was way, way underwater. (And lenders came to recognize that one big thing on an otherwise-good credit report generally did not represent that big a credit risk.)

Did you not read my subsequent post on the history of the discharge issue? Strategic bankruptcies are real and especially useful to very rich people who can afford the lawyers to drag out claims in bankruptcy courts. They simply don't explain why the extra discharge burden remains in place long after the "time someone graduates" and they "typically have little or no income, little or no assets and a big debt". It is currently hitting a lot of aging people who are gainfully employed and even retired. Your argument does not apply anymore.

Very rich people don't declare bankruptcy.

A 5 year delay would deal with much of it, but not all. I still favor my approach of capping the payments owed--eliminate the actual problem without catching others in the same net.

 

[Copernicus]

Very rich people don't declare bankruptcy.

A 5 year delay would deal with much of it, but not all. I still favor my approach of capping the payments owed--eliminate the actual problem without catching others in the same net.

What you mean is that very rich people have ways of sheltering their wealth so that loopholes in the bankruptcy law allow them to escape responsibility for their irresponsible decisions. So their bankruptcies usually involve the businesses that are firewalled from personal wealth. That is what Chapter 11 is all about. In the 1990s, Donald Trump went through six bankruptcies and still emerged with much of his wealth intact. Vulture investors make huge fortunes off of buying up assets and gutting companies through bankruptcy.

When Trump was the president, Wilbur Ross, his Commerce Secretary from 2017 to 2021, was known as the "bankruptcy king" because he had served rich people for 25 years as a bankruptcy restructuring adviser for Rothschild Investments. You want to blame poor people for declaring bankruptcy because they really are poor, but you forget that the real strategic bankruptcies are declared by rich people all the time. Maybe that's why all of those rich Republicans and Democrats feared letting students use the bankruptcy laws to get debt relief. The system wasn't set up to protect the assets of poor people, and they viewed the use of it as basically fair game for rich people.

 

[Toni]

After 20-25 years of payments, you aren't really 'forgiving' anything. All this is effectively doing is reducing the already ridiculously high interest rate. Still, better than nothing I guess.

So, if I have a 30 year mortgage and the bank decides to cancel the rest of my payments after 20 years, I'm getting nothing?

I think the article lacks a lot of details, so it's a bit difficult to understand how much this will help. I think the idea is to help people who are overwhelmed with high loan payments.

I agree that the interest rate should be lowered to close to zero. Maybe that will come later. Still, making the loan payments affordable is a good start.

Apparently, the federal program that was supposed to help people get help with their loan payments was poorly managed.

I'd like to see it become very easy to obtain loan forgiveness in exchange for working in areas where certain professionals are badly needed. Such programs are too complicated. That needs to change.

Were you 18 when you took out your mortgage? Of course not. Unless you got your mortgage during the 80’s your mortgage rate is far lower than the interest rate students got on their loans. Plus, you could and would have refinanced your mortgage which students cannot do. If something horrible happened and you had to file for bankruptcy, you could discharge your mortgage that way.

 

[southernhybrid]

I had nothing to do with that last post so I don't know why my name is included in it. But, I did take out a mortgage when I was 21. We sold the house two years later without making a profit. So, yes, sometimes people do take out mortgages when they are very young, at least they did in the past. What the fuck has that got to do with school loans is beyond me. I look at it differently. People take out car loans for 30 or 40K when they are very young. They pay them off in 5 to 7 years, so it's not impossible to pay off that kind of debt if you have a decent job. That is why I'd prefer to help those who really need help paying off their student loans, instead of a blanket partial loan forgiveness for anyone making up to 125K per year, or 250K per. year for a couple. That, imo, was a mistake in the loan forgiveness declaration. But, as I've said before, SCOTUS is likely to overturn the thing, so I'm not sure why we are even bothering to discuss it at this point. I just looked at the thread because for some reason my name was on it.

 

[Copernicus]

I had nothing to do with that last post so I don't know why my name is included in it. But, I did take out a mortgage when I was 21. We sold the house two years later without making a profit. So, yes, sometimes people do take out mortgages when they are very young, at least they did in the past. What the fuck has that got to do with school loans is beyond me. I look at it differently. People take out car loans for 30 or 40K when they are very young. They pay them off in 5 to 7 years, so it's not impossible to pay off that kind of debt if you have a decent job. That is why I'd prefer to help those who really need help paying off their student loans, instead of a blanket partial loan forgiveness for anyone making up to 125K per year, or 250K per. year for a couple. That, imo, was a mistake in the loan forgiveness declaration. But, as I've said before, SCOTUS is likely to overturn the thing, so I'm not sure why we are even bothering to discuss it at this point. I just looked at the thread because for some reason my name was on it.

Ideally, it would be best to identify just those people who really need help and give them relief, but the bureaucracy involved in sorting out claims would be costly and likely error-prone. IMO, the broad-brush approach makes the most sense here. That means that some people who don't need the relief would get it anyway, which is a more liberal approach to policies--help everyone in need, even if some not in need benefit. The conservative approach--do nothing unless a clear need can be proven--would end up placing a much larger burden of proof on those in need and consequently not doing enough to relieve the suffering. The HW Bush administration made student debt more difficult to discharge permanently as a gift to the private lenders that had made student loans available under the government program. They were likely more concerned about not relieving the debt of well-off debtors at the expense of those whose lives were made harsher by bankruptcy hurdles.

 

[Toni]

I had nothing to do with that last post so I don't know why my name is included in it. But, I did take out a mortgage when I was 21. We sold the house two years later without making a profit. So, yes, sometimes people do take out mortgages when they are very young, at least they did in the past. What the fuck has that got to do with school loans is beyond me. I look at it differently. People take out car loans for 30 or 40K when they are very young. They pay them off in 5 to 7 years, so it's not impossible to pay off that kind of debt if you have a decent job. That is why I'd prefer to help those who really need help paying off their student loans, instead of a blanket partial loan forgiveness for anyone making up to 125K per year, or 250K per. year for a couple. That, imo, was a mistake in the loan forgiveness declaration. But, as I've said before, SCOTUS is likely to overturn the thing, so I'm not sure why we are even bothering to discuss it at this point. I just looked at the thread because for some reason my name was on it.

The terms of student loans are different than the terms of car loans or mortgages. Student loans today are vastly different than student loans when we were students. My husband had a small student loan from his undergrad days. He could have had it deferred while he was in grad school and money was very tight but convinced me it was better to go ahead and pay it off despite being very cash poor. The loan amount was $15.38/month, which was about 1/3 of our weekly grocery budget. Any recent grad would be beyond thrilled if their student loan amounts were within spitting distance of their monthly grocery bill, Two of my kids decided not to go to grad school because it would have involved student loans. Hubby went to grad school on an assistantship which paid his tuition and a small stipend. I am not certain how others in his program managed, except most had roommates. He had a soon to be wife whose wages paid our living expenses.

If you find you cannot manage your car loan, which carries an interest rate lower than any student loan, ( I financed both my vehicles at 0% interest) you can sell your vehicle. If you can’t afford your mortgage, you can refinance (if interest rates drop), take on roommates or sell your house. You may not make a profit—we did not—and you may even lose money but you CAN discharge your mortgage, unlike student loans.

There is an enormous difference between being 18 and being 21. You certainly did not get a mortgage without first demonstrating you could afford one.

Student loans today are predatory and are usurious. Some student loans can be discharged if you agree to serve in certain underserved populations at substantially less pay. For 10 years. Something the Trump administration attempted to eliminate.

Recent grads today face a much more expensive housing market and much, much higher day care costs, mentioning two major expenses that far outstrip the cost of inflation. Both of these contribute heavily to young adults delaying or forgoing children altogether. We purchased our first home before we were 30. Our children purchased their homes a decade later.

How the costs of higher education are handled has an enormous impact on how our society is structured and how it functions. I don’t know about you, but I am extremely worried about the younger generations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ideally, it would be best to identify just those people who really need help and give them relief, but the bureaucracy involved in sorting out claims would be costly and likely error-prone. IMO, the broad-brush approach makes the most sense here. That means that some people who don't need the relief would get it anyway, which is a more liberal approach to policies--help everyone in need, even if some not in need benefit. The conservative approach--do nothing unless a clear need can be proven--would end up placing a much larger burden of proof on those in need and consequently not doing enough to relieve the suffering. The HW Bush administration made student debt more difficult to discharge permanently as a gift to the private lenders that had made student loans available under the government program. They were likely more concerned about not relieving the debt of well-off debtors at the expense of those whose lives were made harsher by bankruptcy hurdles.

Which is why I suggested capping payments based on your AGI. This will do a pretty good job of selecting those who need help without a lot of work.

 

[Copernicus]

Ideally, it would be best to identify just those people who really need help and give them relief, but the bureaucracy involved in sorting out claims would be costly and likely error-prone. IMO, the broad-brush approach makes the most sense here. That means that some people who don't need the relief would get it anyway, which is a more liberal approach to policies--help everyone in need, even if some not in need benefit. The conservative approach--do nothing unless a clear need can be proven--would end up placing a much larger burden of proof on those in need and consequently not doing enough to relieve the suffering. The HW Bush administration made student debt more difficult to discharge permanently as a gift to the private lenders that had made student loans available under the government program. They were likely more concerned about not relieving the debt of well-off debtors at the expense of those whose lives were made harsher by bankruptcy hurdles.

Which is why I suggested capping payments based on your AGI. This will do a pretty good job of selecting those who need help without a lot of work.

You don't need to suggest that. Biden's program caps relief on those earning $125,000 or less ($250,000 for married jointly). I bothered to look it up for you.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most​

 

[horhangi]

I so not know where I fall on this issue, but it has led me to do some digging.
I am currently dealing with my son’s tuition at a state university at about $8000 per yer. It is local so no room and board. he has a part time job as a server at a restraint and if he had to could just about pay his own tuition. This made sense because it was about where I was when going to school.
It is the same university I attended “back in the day.” So I did some digging and found an online catalog from the time I was there. This is where I was shocked. When I was there, late 80s early 90s tuition ran over the time $800-1000 per year. It is currently about $8000 per year. Given what he is making part time and tuition and what I was making part time then it seemed tuition had not really changed much. Then I used an inflation calculator to compare dollars then to dollars now. I was shocked by the difference. The tuition I, or my parents to be fair, faced at $800 per year would be in inflation adjusted dollars $2300 or just about half of a semesters tuition.
That cost rise seems unreasonable, yet at the same time I see that it is not undoable on a part time job if you have family support, a place to live and food.
this leaves me in the I don’t know where to fall on this. Yes tuition has far outstripped inflation, but at the same time I see that it remains not an insurmountable expense that requires burdensome loans.
long post to say I don’t know on this, but at least I did provide some data that maybe someone can draw something from?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is why I suggested capping payments based on your AGI. This will do a pretty good job of selecting those who need help without a lot of work.

You don't need to suggest that. Biden's program caps relief on those earning $125,000 or less ($250,000 for married jointly). I bothered to look it up for you.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most​

Which is not what I'm saying!

I'm not saying to apply it to those with an AGI below some threshold, but to set the payment based on AGI.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is the same university I attended “back in the day.” So I did some digging and found an online catalog from the time I was there. This is where I was shocked. When I was there, late 80s early 90s tuition ran over the time $800-1000 per year. It is currently about $8000 per year. Given what he is making part time and tuition and what I was making part time then it seemed tuition had not really changed much. Then I used an inflation calculator to compare dollars then to dollars now. I was shocked by the difference. The tuition I, or my parents to be fair, faced at $800 per year would be in inflation adjusted dollars $2300 or just about half of a semesters tuition.
That cost rise seems unreasonable, yet at the same time I see that it is not undoable on a part time job if you have family support, a place to live and food.

What's happened is the government is kicking in far less per student than they used to. The cost of education hasn't actually been skyrocketing, it's just the students are being expected to bear a bigger and bigger percent of the total cost.

 

[Copernicus]

Which is why I suggested capping payments based on your AGI. This will do a pretty good job of selecting those who need help without a lot of work.

You don't need to suggest that. Biden's program caps relief on those earning $125,000 or less ($250,000 for married jointly). I bothered to look it up for you.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most​

Which is not what I'm saying!

I'm not saying to apply it to those with an AGI below some threshold, but to set the payment based on AGI.

How do you imagine $125K is not based on an AGI? The amount of monthly payment is already based on AGI, and that isn't changed by Biden's partial forgiveness of debt. For example, see:

Do you make too much for student loan forgiveness? Here’s how to figure out whether you qualify​

Adjusted gross income is the ‘magic number’​

While eligibility may be simpler for borrowers far below or above the limits, it may be trickier for those near the $125,000 or $250,000 thresholds.

That’s because the number is based on so-called adjusted gross income, or AGI, which may be different than your gross salary.

“It’s the magic number,” Miller said, noting the U.S. Department of Education uses AGI for existing income-based student loan repayment plans.|

You may be eligible for forgiveness if your AGI was below the $125,000 or $250,000 thresholds in either the 2020 or 2021 tax year.

 

[Toni]

It is the same university I attended “back in the day.” So I did some digging and found an online catalog from the time I was there. This is where I was shocked. When I was there, late 80s early 90s tuition ran over the time $800-1000 per year. It is currently about $8000 per year. Given what he is making part time and tuition and what I was making part time then it seemed tuition had not really changed much. Then I used an inflation calculator to compare dollars then to dollars now. I was shocked by the difference. The tuition I, or my parents to be fair, faced at $800 per year would be in inflation adjusted dollars $2300 or just about half of a semesters tuition.
That cost rise seems unreasonable, yet at the same time I see that it is not undoable on a part time job if you have family support, a place to live and food.

What's happened is the government is kicking in far less per student than they used to. The cost of education hasn't actually been skyrocketing, it's just the students are being expected to bear a bigger and bigger percent of the total cost.

Actually, the cost of education HAS been skyrocketing AND states are generally paying a much smaller portion of the cost of post secondary education. When I say that the cost of education has been skyrocketing, I mean that the cost of education has far outstripped inflation.

 

[lpetrich]

Looking at that kind of outrage, I think that one could turn right-wingers against government military and police forces by saying that self-protectors should not have to finance the protection of people too lazy to protect themselves.

You would expect that kind of argument from at least a few dyed-in-the-wool libertarians, but they seem to usually argue that that is the one government extravagance that they can't do without, even though they also seem to want to arm themselves against the military and police that they vote vast sums of money to build up. It's also hard to find Democrats who won't vote for more military and security spending, but they, at least, aren't treating gun ownership as a sacred right to be valued above all others.

Here is a big list of conservative and libertarian arguments applied to military and police forces. Some of them I concede are very victim-blamey, so be warned.

• Let the market decide. Have faith that the market will provide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people can become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will invariably be superior to government ones.
• Government actions always have unintended consequences that are worse than the problems that they were intended to solve, and government military and police forces are no exception.
• "We're from the government and we're here to help" describes soldiers and cops very well.
• A government that can protect you is a government that can jail you, and a government that can protect your property is a government that can deprive you of everything you have.
• Tyrannical governments use military and police forces to impose their tyranny. They are not called police states for nothing.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• The cult of crime victimhood should be recognized for it is: a part of the cult of victimhood, a very popular way for people to try to evade responsibility for their actions.
• Life isn't fair. Some people become conquered and some people become crime victims. It's a part of life. Governments always cause more problems than they solve when they try to impose fairness with military and police forces.
• "I was mugged, therefore you must be mugged. What makes you think that you are anything special?"
• One should not have a sense of entitlement, like feeling entitled to a mugging-free life at zero cost to oneself, and the same for other crimes and hostile actions.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• Advocates of government military and police forces are very condescending with their insinuation that people have no agency, that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.
• Government spending is inflationary, and spending on military and police forces is no exception.
• Need is never a justification for anything, and need for protection does not justify getting the government to steal from self-protectors to finance the protection of those too lazy to protect themselves.
• Government military and police forces are very collectivist and anti-individualist, complete with everybody in them dressing alike.

 

[lpetrich]

Supreme Court Blocks Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Live Updates - The New York Times - "In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority rejected President Biden’s plan to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt for millions of borrowers. It would have been one of the most expensive executive actions in U.S. history."

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck down President Biden’s proposal to cancel at least some student debt for tens of millions of borrowers, saying it overstepped the powers of the Education Department.

In a 6-to-3 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that a mass debt cancellation program of such significance required clear approval by Congress.

But the Biden Admin isn't declaring defeat, and neither are student-debt activists.

White House officials said Mr. Biden would denounce the court ruling in remarks later today and would “announce new actions to protect student loan borrowers.” The decision ratchets up the pressure to find a new way to make good on a promise to a key constituency as the 2024 presidential campaign gets underway.

Borrowers and advocates assailed the decision and quickly called for Mr. Biden to try again. “Bold decisions and transformative policies are often met with initial resistance,” said Cody Hounanian, the executive director of the Student Debt Crisis Center.

 

[lpetrich]

Supreme Court Blocks Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: Live Updates - The New York Times

There are various alternatives. From that live feed,

1. Income-Driven Repayment -- lower repayments for lower income
2. Public Service Loan Forgiveness
3. Closed or low-performing schools
4. Bankruptcy Discharge -- difficult, and effectively impossible in many cases
5. Disability Discharge -- if "total and permanent"
6. Debt Won’t Carry On -- if one dies, one's debt will end and not be inherited by family members

About the first one,"The Biden administration has proposed a much more generous form of income-driven repayment — separate and apart from the debt-cancellation plan that the court disallowed — that could take effect soon, though legal challenges to this plan are possible as well."

What to Know About Biden’s Student Loan Repayment Proposal - The New York Times - "Proposed changes to federal student-loan repayment plans tied to income could cut some borrowers’ monthly payments by more than half."

More from that live feed:

As the Education Department prepares to restart collections, it is also working on an array of other temporary debt relief efforts, including one-time adjustments for millions of borrowers on income-driven repayment plans and for public service workers. And it is preparing the final details of a sweeping new income-driven repayment plan that could transform how borrowers finance their undergraduate educations.

President Biden said he would address the nation later this afternoon to describe what his administration plans to do to address student loan debt. The exact timing is not clear yet.

 

[lpetrich]

Let's see if the Biden Admin announces anything.

But activists were preparing for this day, activists like AOC. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram: “The Supreme Court will rule on student loan forgiveness soon. If the relief program is overturned, we will not take that ruling lying down. We are prepared.”

She noted that such extreme student debt is exceptional in developed countries, debt that she called "immoral". She called higher education an "investment", and she called on her audience to "get involved and organize".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Justice Alito ..." / Twitter

Justice Alito accepted tens of thousands of dollars in lavish vacation gifts from a billionaire who lobbied to cancel the student loan forgiveness.

After the gifts, Alito voted to overturn. This SCOTUS’ corruption undercuts its own legitimacy by putting its rulings up for sale."

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is very important ..." / Twitter

It is very important to note this SCOTUS ruling does NOT remove Biden’s ability to pursue student loan forgiveness.

The Biden Admin can use the HEA (Higher Ed Act) - our position from the start - to continue loan forgiveness before payments resume. They should do so ASAP.

Just last year, DOE forgave $6 BILLION for defrauded students. Trump completely wiped out debt for disabled veterans. Neither program was challenged nor overturned.

We still have the power to cancel and must use it, or we’re looking at an economic crisis for millions of people.

 

[lpetrich]

Congresswoman Cori Bush on Twitter: "Nearly 43 million people ...

Nearly 43 million people hold $1,780,000,000,000 in student debt. That’s 1.78 TRILLION.

This SCOTUS decision to strike down debt relief is the result of a court poisoned with special interests.

But this isn't over—people still need the relief they were promised

In 2019, a borrower would default every 26 seconds.

Many had their wages garnished or were forced to live paycheck to paycheck–all because they sought higher education.

Economic recovery from the pandemic requires transformative policies like student debt relief.

Student debt relief is a racial justice issue. Black borrowers—especially Black women—are disproportionately impacted by this crisis.

By graduation, Black women have the most debt at $37,600.

4 years later, the average Black borrower has nearly $53,000.

We can’t go back.

.@POTUS, we need you to act again to correct this harm.

Our communities were promised student debt relief and we must use every tool at our disposal to deliver.

 

[lpetrich]

Bernie Sanders on Twitter: "Following today’s legally unsound Supreme Court ruling, I am urging the Biden Administration to implement a Plan B immediately to cancel student debt for tens of millions of Americans.
Read my full statement here: (pix link)" / Twitter

Justice Kagan is absolutely correct when she wrote in her dissenting opinion that "this case should have been open-and-shut" in favor of the Biden Administration, the "Court's first overreach in this case is deciding it at all," and that the Supreme Court should "stay away from making this Nation's policy about subjects like student-loan relief."

In my view, if right-wing Supreme Court justices want to make public policy they should quit the Supreme Court and run for political office. Frankly, I do not think their extremist views will gain much traction with the average American voter.

He urged the Biden Admin to do an alternative.

Despite this legally unsound Supreme Court decision, the President has the clear authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel student debt. He must use this authority immediately.

If Republicans could provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top one percent and profitable corporations, if they could cancel hundreds of billions in loans for wealthy business owners during the pandemic when Trump was President and if they could vote to spend $886 billion on the Pentagon, please don't tell me that we cannot afford to cancel student debt for working families.

I'm surprised that BS isn't calling strict student-day repayment a  Pound of Flesh policy. He's Jewish, so he may be able to get away with that. If he does so, then he may acknowledge how his fellow Jews have long been stereotyped as ruthless capitalists.

 

[lpetrich]

Congresswoman Summer Lee on Twitter: "As a Black woman ..." / Twitter

As a Black woman who had the audacity to attend college, I am disgusted that our country just enshrined racial inequity in higher education and economic immobility into law with this unelected & illegitimate SCOTUS’s ruling ending affirmative action. 1/

Make no mistake—this decision was *designed* to keep a generation of brilliant Black young people out of higher ed & positions of power.

The young people whose great grandparents were enslaved are the young people who will be shackled by this decision.

The cruelty is the point.

A bit of a conspiracy theory, but I think that it shows how unwilling Americans are to talk about social class, even progressives like her.

SL then quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in a screencap, without crediting her.

Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits. In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court's opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equal- ity embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.

Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges