I still don’t understand why they didn’t just zero the interest on all the loans made between a certain time period. Seems like that would have been simpler and less controversial.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
184 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3672 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't believe any specific policy change which benefitted a broad swath of the public could have survived the current courts.
Because the banks wouldn’t like that at all
How so? Doesn’t the government (not banks) own the loans that they are currently forgiving? What would be different than owning them and zeroing out the remaining interest? The feds would get a small payoff instead of losing 100% of the remainder through forgiveness.
Nope. Loans are traded around all the time. Mine traded hands like 3 or 4 times before I paid them off, iirc.
Pretty sure in order to be forgiven, the loan has to be consolidated under a government-owned loan.
Banks finance all the FAFSA loans. Originators lend the money out and then they sell the money to servicers who are like collection agencies. Some originators are also servicers (Sallie Mae was like this).
The government is a guarantor of the loans. That means that if the borrower defaults the government pays the servicer. I do believe that also means that if the government forgives the loan then they pay out to the servicer.
You got it.
It's a sweet deal for the servicers.. the loans are basically zero risk and the servicer gets to keep a lion's share of the interest while only paying for the costs associated with servicing (customer service, mailing statements, pausing repayment for various reasons, etc.)
That said, those loans shouldn't be confused with private student loans, in which the government is. It involved (mostly).
That requires Congressional action, and financial allocations, which haven’t been forthcoming.
While I like what Biden is doing, he’s really just finding the loopholes in previous legislation. It has to be inconsistent
I agree. In my opinion, this solution has always made the most sense. I’m sure some conservative judge will be/has been bribed enough to block it, but the zero interest rate along with eliminating accumulated interest is the best solution.
That's basically what the SAVE plan did. If you enrolled in it and made qualifying income-based payments that didn't cover the interest on the loan, the interest wouldn't capitalize and it would still count as a qualifying payment for PSLF. It wasn't loan forgiveness, but it ensured that payers wouldn't have their loan balances skyrocket while making income-driven repayments.
Yep. Except that was limited to anyone below 225% the poverty line (roughly 30k a year). I think should be expanded to <75k. Something closer to the actual poverty line depending on where you live.
No, that was applicable to anyone enrolled in the SAVE plan. If you made more money than that, you would have a small payment which was limited to 5% of your discretionary income (a number that excludes a portion of your income as non-discretionary for living expenses, etc). So if you made 75k/year, your payment would be 5% of the amount not designated as necessary living expenses. I'm not positive on the exact numbers, but I think they exclude about 60k before they start calculating your payment amount.
Interesting. Good to know. I wasn’t aware that it was open to all. I thought it was low-income based student loan reform. Thanks for the info. =~)
As a medical student with an absurd amount of student loans, this stuff is very important to me.
Crazy idea: the day before the election, Biden (or his replacement) makes a nationwide address telling anyone with student loans to just stop paying them, and that if the Dems win, their administration promises to spend the next four years handling the fallout.
If the Dems lose, we as a country will have bigger issues to worry about. If the Dems win, we might finally have a campaign promise that we can hold them accountable for.
I don't care. I'm not paying those fucking loans.
A few dollars out of your current level of taxes to ensure future generations can afford to live is too much, but all the other bullshit is cool...
That's a fucked up view.
Not the guy you replied to, but "a few dollars" is bullshit. My wife and I owe almost $100k MORE than when we graduated due to interest. And we've made every payment since we graduated in 2010. Our monthly payments don't even cover interest
Pre edit: after I wrote that, I wondered if you realized the person you responded to meant they weren't paying their own loans
While I agree with your sentiment, the issue is that there are actual consequences to not paying them. Ultimately up to 15% of your wages could be garnished, and your credit score will be tanked. Good luck getting a car or home loan after that.
Jokes on them, I can't afford a home and I have immaculate credit!