• No1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    None of what you said is accurate or good arguments.

    1. You’re wrong in this instance, but a lot of people who have votes to gain have been saying this, so I understand why you think that.

    The people saying that the President is allowed to wipe out student loans broadly are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6) . https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle2/chapter13&edition=prelim

    The mentioned part of that act provides the provides the president (via the Secretary of Education) with the authority to:

    “…modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”

    But that quote is taken out of the broader context of the act. The preamble to that section limits the authority to operating within the scope of the statute.

    It means that Congress can authorize a loan forgiveness program, (see Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge), which then means the U.S. Secretary of Education can forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of those programs.

    Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that all the way back in 2001 in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. when they put limits on what exactly Congress can delegate to the executive branch.

    Also, the part of the Act referred to in the preamble is Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

    There is similar language in Part E for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.

    1. I was protesting when the banks were bailed out. I was also protesting the business “loans” being forgiven. Attacking someone’s argument by building a strawman of who you want the others reading this to believe they are is a logical fallacy.

    2. My point is exactly this. We’re treating a ruptured appendix with Advil.

    3. See point 1.

    • afraid_of_zombies2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Still wrong. All enforcement of a tax is on the executive. Congress can not force the executive branch to enforce a tax.

      2. Doubt.

      3. I had my appendix out. OTC painkillers were an active part of the process. Sorry your analogy disproves your point.

      4. I won’t. Address it.

      • No1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        First off, this isn’t a tax going uncollected. The president can’t say 'This thing I want to do is going to now be considered a tax so I can now not collect it." At this point, it’s clear you’re not engaging in good faith, as you’re falling straight back to using character attacks rather than arguments, so have a nice day.

        • afraid_of_zombies2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          First off it is. It is exactly a tax. Just because the US government has tried to hire tax farmers to enforce it doesn’t make it not a tax. The president doesn’t have to say anything. There is no mechanism in the legal system to force a president to collect a tax.

          And at this point it is clear that you are trying to substitute virtue signaling for economic policy. And yes I seriously doubt you protested any other form of government bailout. I would wish you good day but I care about the truth.