The Biden administration is moving ahead with a new path to student loan cancellation for Americans who face steep medical bills, child care costs and other types of financial hardship that prevent them from repaying their loans.

Announced Friday, the proposed rule is President Joe Biden’s third attempt at student loan cancellation as he faces repeated legal challenges from Republican states. His first plan was rejected by the Supreme Court last year, and his second plan has been temporarily halted by a federal judge in Missouri.

The new rule would have to clear a number of hurdles before it becomes official, and it’s unclear if it could be realized before Biden leaves office in three months. Like Biden’s other loan forgiveness proposals, it could face court challenges from conservatives who say it’s unconstitutional and unfair.

If finalized, the new rule would allow the Education Department to proactively cancel loans for borrowers if the agency determines they have an 80% chance of being in default on their loans within two years. Others could apply for a review to determine if they meet the criteria for cancellation.

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    I’m gonna be honest, I’m not trying to be a dick, I supported him doing it all along, especially in the past.

    But this close to an election sounds a bit like when Trump sent out stimulus checks and blocked them till they let him sign his name, and claimed all the money came from his pocket.

    Giving money before an election should be banned by both sides, if this passed earlier I’d be all in favor, but next republican president is going to give $2000 rebates on all gun and lifted f-150 with covered bed purchases, and knowing Trump he’ll give more if they pose for videos with said gun and truck outside minority polling stations.

    This is the problem with trash like Trump, it’s a race to the bottom and we all lose.

    • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      So the sitting president shouldn’t be allowed to keep doing things they have been doing for years, just because it’s close to an election and someone unrelated might do something else after getting elected?

      That’s stupid. Sorry but it is. It’s the same logic that prevented Obama from seating Supreme Court justices. And look how that turned out.

      If this was the first ever time it was tried, maybe, but even then, we’d never have anything nice in that case. And we’d never get anything done from August to January in election years, which would also be intensely stupid.

      We need to take what we can get, not be all weird about when it happens.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        So the sitting president shouldn’t be allowed to keep doing things they have been doing for years, just because it’s close to an election and someone unrelated might do something else after getting elected?

        And then Trump will pass out crazy rebates on redneck shit himself, or pass tax hikes on everyone he doesn’t think will vote for him (he hit me with SALT pretty bad, all blue states were hit).

        • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          He’s going to do that anyway, whether it’s allowed or not. His plan is to break the country by any means necessary. What actual difference does it make to trumps plans if Biden keeps doing his job until he’s not in that job anymore?

          The answer is none whatever.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      As I already said to someone else, I could not care less if people do the right thing for the wrong reason.

      People are hurting. This will help some of them. Complaining that people who need help are getting helped for the wrong reason is silly.

      If I’m starving to death, I don’t care if you gave me a sandwich because you wanted to help me or you gave me a sandwich because you thought it was disgusting and wanted me to suffer by giving me a disgusting sandwich because either way, I won’t be dying.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        Yeah, that’s not my problem.

        My problem is it’s an escalation of giving away money just before an election for votes, and that’s not anything we want to escalate.

        I am 100% in favor of giving money for student loan forgiveness, the interest was huge, and it’s not purgable by bankruptcy, it needs to be forgiven.

        But I’m terrified of the timing, personally we need an expectation that legislation will stop roughly 90 days before an election so you don’t have dangerous things like giving money for votes, or passing laws to ban voting by key demographics.

        This is bad no matter who does it, let’s try to have a 90 day window before elections, let’s even do what other countries do, have a 2 week cool down period before voting where ads and other spending are stopped.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          Okay, exactly how many days before an election should a president be prevented from doing anything that might help people?

          Because spending never stops. You’re talking about an election spending cool down period. This is not election spending.

          • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 days ago

            As I said, 60-90.

            Otherwise I start passing a law to give $1000 to everyone, and time it so it passes just after the election, and if I lose then nobody gets anything.

            This is like Reagan telling Iran to hold the hostages till after the election, and Nixon and Vietnam.

            Nobody is really trying to do meaningful legislation before the election anyway, they’re focusing on campaigning, so it doesn’t matter much that way either.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 days ago

              You can’t possibly be saying Nixon shouldn’t have taken the U.S. out of Vietnam for the wrong reason or that he should have waited to do so and let more people die because otherwise the election wasn’t fair. Can you?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 days ago

                  And how is that in any way comparable to Biden yet again trying to give student loan relief, something he has tried every few months since getting into office?

                  If an earthquake destroys San Francisco tomorrow, I suppose Biden should hold off sending in FEMA until after the election too?

                  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    21 days ago

                    This is a game theory problem to me, and the democrats want to shrink the playing field, not increase it, they have structural advantages and the wider the tools acceptable the more the right can take advantage of it, ala CU and modern media.

                    The more noise, the more everybody loses. Longer campaign seasons are killing this country.

                  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    21 days ago

                    No, because that’s established norm.

                    Again, I’m for the move, I just know what the response will be from the other side.

                    In terms of game theory this is a short term gain for a massive long term loss, this is like the court appointment nuclear option, it was used more effectively by the other side because they had fewer scruples in the way.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      You’re argument has no basis, his administration has been trying to get this done through a broken Congress and Supreme Court for a long time now. It’s not “this close to a election”. And fuck off with the, “and believe me I ain’t no trump fan either” qualifier shit - bad points are bad points, period. You don’t get headed on an average of your horseshit opening statement and try to land on something rational as a giveaway.

      Rethink your approach or sit down.