- Household income
- Assets
- Type of loans and debt balance
- Current repayment status and history
- Total student debt balance and payments relative to income
- Total debt balances and required payments relative to income
- Receipt of Pell Grant and other information from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
- Type and level of institution attended
- Student outcomes associated with programs attended
- Postsecondary education and relative federal financial assistance received
- Age
- Disability
- Age of borrowers loan based on first disbursement
- Receipt of means-tested public benefits
- High essential costs such as healthcare, caretaking and household
- Extent to which hardship may persist
- Any other indicators of hardship identified by the Secretary
I was gonna make some joke like “is one of them ‘being pressured into taking out a predatory loan at age 17?’”, but then I went to actually read the article, missed the “Continue Reading” button, and mistook the list of “Trending Now” links at the bottom of the page for the qualifying factors… I was very confused as to why:
- Your 50-year-old mom building a $1.3B startup
- Being a 29-year-old making $125,000 working in tech without a bachelor’s degree
- The value of bitcoin being ‘halved’, or
- Nvidia stock prices soaring over the past 5 years
Would qualify someone for debt forgiveness. Hell, I was confused why your billionaire mom would let you take out student loans to begin with. I thought billionaires loved nepotism. And who’s this guy with student loans without a bachelor’s degree? Needless to say, I had assumed the whole administration had lost its mind.
(“being pressured into taking out a predatory loan at age 17” is not, explicitly, one of the 17 factors.)
None of those really sound all that far removed from the classic “loan forgiveness for pell grant recipients who operate a small business for three years in a disadvantaged community”.
Only criteria should be “have you paid back the amount you borrowed plus at most 10% in total interest?” and if you fulfill that criteria, 100% of your student debt should be forgiven.
In cases of financial hardship and/or extensive public service, not even that should be required.
I fucking hate how almost every time Dem leadership does anything good for regular people they means test it to death but when they enrich their already rich owner donors and their corporations there’s hardly any strings attached 🤬
I fucking hate how almost every time Dem leadership does anything good for regular people they means test it to death
This is an insanely ignorant take. Biden already tried to forgive debt more broadly, remember?! It was struck down by a Republican-dominated court. That you would blame Democrats for this…just wow
Using these criteria gives this legal cover. He’s not doing this to prevent people from accessing it, he’s doing this because he’s trying his hardest to get as much student loan forgiveness as possible to stick
This is an insanely ignorant take
It categorically isn’t.
Biden already tried to forgive debt more broadly, remember?
Still very little and means tested to be very narrow.
It was struck down by a Republican-dominated court.
And would have been no more and no less struck down by those deeply corrupt judges without the excessive means testing.
That you would blame Democrats for this…just wow
After posting, I thought of editing my comment to reflect that I’m aware that Republicans wouldn’t help regular people at all and never do. I should have done that.
That being said, Republicans being much worse doesn’t excuse Dem leadership not being good enough.
Using these criteria gives this legal cover
Nope. The Republicans will fight it on (lack of) principle using bad faith talking points no matter how overly limited it is for cover.
The secretary of education has the constitutional power to forgive all federal student debt immediately and would if Biden asked him to. Biden knows this and is refusing to make that request.
He’s doing this because he’s trying his hardest to get as much student loan forgiveness as possible to stick
You mean to get as much to stick as possible without upsetting the donors who profit off it.
As mentioned, 100% of all student debt is within the constitutional authority of Secretary Cardona to cancel and he’d have no good reason to refuse Biden’s request to do so.
I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about the law to know that someone who says something like “100% of all student debt is within the constitutional authority of Secretary Cardona to cancel” knows absolutely nothing about the law or the constitution.
section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorizes the Secretary of Education to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption,” as relates to loans issued under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program; now, the Federal Direct Loan Program.
the Education Department may adjust individual loan values down to zero if the loan is owned by the Education Department (more than 90 percent of student loans are).
What was that about knowing nothing about the law? You’re the ignorant one, and rudely condescending to boot.
I’m not a lawyer, but someone who quotes an article about a single statute and thinks that one single statute is the only relevant law doesn’t understand the law. The constitution is crystal clear on Congress having the sole power to appropriate funding, whereas forgiving hundreds of billions in student debt is a cost that has not been funded by Congress. This is just one issue among many that make this not as simple as you think it is.
I want to be clear I’m in full support of discharging as much student loan debt as possible. I’m also a realist.
Congress having the sole power to appropriate funding
Cancelation of debt owed to the education department isn’t appropriation. As the holder of the loans, the department owns and controls those loans, not Congress.
Forgiving debt is not the same as spending money, especially since the increased economic activity from people not being crushed under a mountain of debt would benefit the economy greatly and thus result in more gain of revenue than the loss of potential revenue.
I want to be clear I’m in full support of discharging as much student loan debt as possible.
Clearly not, since the applicable law permits the cancelation of 90% of all student debt and you’re against doing that.
I’m also
a realistan apologist for the unnecessary fecklessness of the Dem leadershipFixed that for you
Until the Supreme Court says “well that part might be unconstitutional”
Which they’ll say anyway, so there’s literally no reason not to follow the law to help people until that bunch of corrupt judges change it.
Means testing is a great thing actually. No reason people who can afford life should get benefits. Social security for instance should be means tested too.
Means testing costs more to implement than it saves
That is nowhere close to generally true.
The people who don’t need the benefits were already rich enough/from a rich enough family to pay without loans.
Student debt loans are mainly a tax on not being rich enough and even IF a few people who don’t need it as much get it, that’s fine. They’ll still be better able to afford goods and services and as such benefit the economy as a whole.
Add the fact that some people getting benefits while others don’t makes it easier for Republicans to spread their “welfare queen” type bullshit talking points effectively than if nobody feels cheated by being JUST rich enough to not get it.
All citzens equal
All benefits equal
