The laws allow the Secretary to forgive the loans. However, it has been struck down because the Court believes that the meaning of laws changes based on the impact deemed by the Court to be too consequential (under the major question doctrine). Perhaps if the forgiveness amount were applicable only to 10 million instead of 40 million, it would have been allowed to stand. But who knows what the Court considers too consequential? It could be 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, or 15 million. This situation highlights the problem of modifying the meaning of the law based on the Court's judgment of its consequential nature.
Saved Biden's butt. If he was allowed to make good on this promise, added inflation would play a factor at election time.
As long as a vibrant free market exists, individuals who choose to discriminate against others based on their beliefs are likely to face consequences and backlash from the market, which serves as a limiting factor to the extent of the damage. However, this situation does create an opportunity for certain angry groups to deny services based on discriminatory grounds. For example, anti-Muslim zealots may refuse to serve Muslims, anti-Christians may refuse to serve Christians, and anti-religious individuals may refuse to serve anyone with a religious affiliation. All of these actions are justified in the name of free speech, without considering the principle of equal protection that was cherished by this Court a few hours ago.
We should all be looking forward to the deflation and federal revenues this causes actually. 3.5 years of no interest was a massive benefit in of itself that haters totally ignore.
He should speak more respectfully of the Supreme Court. He sounds almost as bad and partisan as Trump at this point.
The total amount impacted could reach up to $400B over a 10-year period. Given the amount over such a long timeframe, it is unlikely to appreciably affect inflation or the economy as a whole. However, it probably does play a role during election time by motivating a segment of the population that is usually not highly motivated to vote.
The total amount impacted could reach up to $400B over a 10-year period. Given the amount over such a long timeframe, it is unlikely to appreciably affect inflation or the economy as a whole. However, it probably does play a role during election time by motivating a segment of the population that is usually not highly motivated to vote.
not "unthinkable." He should have paid better attention in law school https://apnews.com/article/cd977f7ff301993f7976974ba07c5495
Speaking of wallowing in victimhood? I get it, you want to push America backwards and make right wing nuts happy. But other Americans aren’t happy. And unless your court wants to take away our First Amendment rights too, we have the right to complain.
Student loan repayment resuming in Oct was already in place, independent of the Court's decision. If you have a low income, the monthly payment is typically around 10-15% of discretionary income. The repayment period can range from 10 to 25 years in certain cases. Overall, there might be a slight impact on consumer spending, but I doubt it would be substantial, and certainly much less than 1% of consumer yearly spending.
Yes. People having less money available to push up the prices of goods and services is deflationary. The country needs deflation.
