The reason for the prediction is because he would do anything to be “admired by the public.” Going off on his “Project 2025,” it would be an easy way for him to gain sympathy points from people who are non neck deep into politics.
Again, I could be paranoid about this one.
Student Borrower Protection Center and the American Federation of Teachers did some digging on MOHELA. It would be nice If TYT or any other news or political channel brings this up in their shows so people will understand how damaging the student loan situation has become. It’s been done before but it Some members of the Justice Democrats are FIGHTING back by joining the Debt Collective on the issue. Canceling student Debt is the goal but fixing the prices of college would take time. But the immediate solution would be for Biden, under the Higher Education Act to install a pause on the student loan debt until they can do the following:
If you feel there needs to be added to the suggestion, feel free to comment.
I would support this, but also, the “crisis” of student debt is in a sense only a narrow part of our economic crisis. So, I wonder if a national emergency on the slightly broader issue of debt more generally would then have greater support; for instance, medical debt is also an issue.
And I suppose the breadth we reach to is limited; the full scope of the economic crisis may not be politically salient for Biden’s campaign. Especially since they want Bidenomics as messaging to actually suffice in place for any real economic agenda; (that rhetorically: how could Bidenomics be so successful, as it is defined, if we also have an economic crisis?). Somehow our agenda, whether it is [student debt crisis, or general debt crisis, or financialization crisis, or public purpose investment crisis, or economic crisis, or imperialization crisis, etc.], somehow the crisis message needs to also be made to be heard as intrinsic to Bidenomics, (rather than contradictory to it) I would suspect (assuming we should triangulate the Biden campaign such that they must want to lean into the real agenda).
Summarizing those lines, if we had a popular movement organized for such a real economic agenda (including but potentially not limited to student debt), and if we could leverage it via media as a cohort the Biden campaign needs to appeal to, and if this movement was integrated with insider advocacy (like through Bernie twisting Biden’s ear), then perhaps the Biden campaign may incorporate such a real economic issues agenda into their otherwise empty Bidenomics rhetoric.
How does this sound? 
On the timeframe of the matter, it would be great to pull it together this campaign cycle; but also, the UAW is planning a 2028 general strike, and that could also be an opportunity for collaboration.
This is something I feel like Nina Turner could incorporate in her “We are somebody” campaign. You’re right. Although student loans is a pressing issue it’s not the only issue.
TYT NEEDS to be more aggressive on the issue of student loans issue because ignoring it is only gonna set the American people up for disaster. I understand there is other debt we need to tackle but student debt is not only going to hurt the country but it will scare off future generations for even daring to pursue higher education.
Cenk, Ana, TYT, please bring awareness to the issue. Heck talk to Nina Turner, someone from the Debt Collective, someone from the Squad, Elizabeth Warren. Something, ANYTHING that will force Biden to at least start a PERMANENT PAUSE on student loans. There is a law in place in which Biden could cancel all of it and it’s called the Higher Education Act!
I wonder: how would we start a grassroots debt strike? If such a movement would gain momentum, then it would make it onto media.
With the ruling that the president is above the law, I wonder, how could Biden (be pressured to) use these new powers to cancel debt?
Get involved with the Debt Collective. We are a union of debtors and our Student Debt group is effective! We put together an action last May (the 22nd) and some of the people there managed to break up a meeting of MOHELA and other student debt crooks.
Thanks I’m already a Debt Collective member, and I’m also not repaying the loans. Do you have any info on upcoming Debt Collective initiatives, like organizing a debt strike?
Hi Jared!
Tomorrow evening is the 50 Over 50 planning meeting. We are working on putting together some actions, including another action in Washington. No date yet, but not too far off I think. Were you at the May 22nd action in DC? I don’t know if anything else is going down (besides encouraging more people to fill out the debt release tool). You might want to check on Slack. There is, of course, the ongoing debt strike - but don’t put yourself in danger of being put out on the street!
Thanks brother!
I dont think the student debt should be cancelled.
First of all SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. We cant pick and choose when we want to follow them and when not.
Second, cancelling the debt just means it will reflect as burden on taxpayers. Or you have to print money which worsens inflation and becomes a tax on the working class.
From their perspective, why would they want to have less money to feed or house their own family to pay for the college education of someone else’s children? The economy isn’t just tough for the college graduates, you know. And when people have less disposable income, they spend less, which slows down the economy further and causes a vicious cycle.
I think the correct solution is to not have college fees this high.If it were up to me, college education would be free. Otherwise, the burden for all this should fall on the people who choose to go to college and the colleges themselves, not everyone else who made the calculated decision not to go to college because of finances or less expectation of better employment afterwards.
I have no problem in pausing the debt while the economy is bad. Creating more employment opportunities for the college graduates would be stimulatory to the economy.
To respond to your first point, in case you haven’t noticed, the supreme circus of the united states is increasingly illegitimate to the point of absurdity. In fact, it is surprising you would even suggest that their authority on matters of constitutionality has any validity.
Secondly, your point of how cancelling student debt would cause a tax burden is contradictory to economic reality, because federal taxes do not in fact fund government expenses.
Further, if we were to address the separate issue of economic inflation, then there are plenty of public investments we should make, like in renewable energy which lacks sufficient private profit margins for incentivizing private investment.
And while we are on the issue of economics, what would also create employment opportunities would be, to cancel student debt! Because then those debtors become consumers who could spend their money into the economy, (driving economic activity and employment), as opposed to paying it towards a government debt which (again) does not at all need to use the payments to fund expenses.
So I guess we should also be okay when Trump refuses to listen to any of the courts, right? Then why do we keep saying the courts three the election cases out so stop whining about it? Pick a lane.
Secondly, explain to me how do you think Biden is paying for this cancellation? Do you think he is actually creating a loss for his donor daddy banks? They can either raise taxes or print money which in this current situation are going to cause either a tax burden or inflation. If they do neither then they add it to the national debt which in turn drives down investment into Treasury and US market slowing the economy further, decreasing jobs for people who did not CHOOSE to take student loans. Else you can provide me with the details of where this money is being compensated from.
I am sorry, you think investing in green energy or anything is going to reduce inflation. Please explain that logic.
And again, you don’t seem to have read my comment. You are not “removing” burden from anyone. You are transferring the burden from people who CHOSE to go to college onto people who didn’t. And to people of working class being most hit by this economy. That is NOT justifiable. And all of this increases the cost on ALL consumers because of the same kind of BS that TYT talked about in medicare. The students whose debt is cancelled are also not going to see much releief because then the IRS considers the cancelled debt as “income” and you again have to pay taxes on that. So double whammy for the economy.And like I said, there are plenty of measures to tackle this problem but cancellation isn’t one of them especially since the economy is barely hanging on.
Your concern sounds like: if we cancel student debt, and because others then must pay for that financial burden instead of students, this is unfair for those others. I certainly wouldn’t impose such an unfair burden. My point is you are mistaken about the necessity of that shift in financial burden. You could approach this disagreement with curiosity.
Debts which can’t be repaid won’t be repaid. Loans are risky business. With bad loans the creditor is at fault for their own loss, because they ought take care to not grant bad loans in the first place; (otherwise permits predation). Our culture errantly valorizes creditor primacy. We often intentionally design and enforce bad debt repayment for political subjugation.
This historical context informs what you ask me to explain, about how Biden would pay for debt cancellation; the question exemplifies illegitimate creditor primacy. The student loans are bad loans. The responsibility is on the creditor, our government. The creditor neglected due diligence to ensure the loans could actually be repaid; (assuming the loans were actually sincere, which a critical understanding of history must doubt). No one must pay the creditor’s loss.
Further, the creditor is the government, and because the government issues our currency, there is no real economic loss when the bad loans fail. It is not as if the ability for the government to finance operations is dependent on those loans, just as the government is neither dependent on taxes for financing; by suggesting cancelled loans must be paid by taxes, you falsely assume taxes finance expenses. When the government finances itself, it creates the money. Because inflation is not solely a monetary phenomena, printing money does not itself simply cause inflation. If what government finances is a productive investment, like the earlier energy example, then the production of that real value increases market supply and lowers market price, (ie deflation). Since energy is an input into other sectors such as food, an increased supply of nationalized energy lowers not only the price for energy, but also the derived prices such as food.
…
Initially:
Then:
Yet:
I read your first comment, and I disagreed.
It absolutely can be cancelled (AKA released). There are several ways including Compromise and Settle Authority of the Education Department itself.
The first person I know of was a 91 year old lady.
Maybe you should approach this after reading basic economics. You literally just said what I said in my comment. If the government cancels debt , they will suffer a loss and they will do one or more of 3 things
Raising taxes on other people is unfair
Printing money causes inflation which is again a burden on working class people which is unfair. Especially now with dedolalrisation going on.
Adding to the debt increases cost of servicing debt for which again they have to raise taxes or print money so repeat points 1 and 2.
When will people understand that you cant print money out of thin air forever and expect it to not have an impact.
Now if Biden said, okay, I am cutting the defence spending by the same amount as cancelling student loans, I would be 100% behind that. But he isn’t saying that. There are other sensible ways to pay for it without raising the cost on other people. But he isn’t doing any of it. His entire plan eventually will offload this burden on other citizens and I don’t care what word salad and verbiage dressing you put on it, other people paying for someone else’s choices to take debts they cant pay back is fair and promotes irresponsible behavior.
Your tone is very condescending, which is not ideal if you want people to listen to what you have to say.
The government will not lose money. They already got the money back ages ago. Recognize that they compound the interest and add to the principal. Moreover, when a student debtor dies the loan is automatically released.
If you are so worried about the government’s financial well-being, consider that they could just as easily (if not more easily) stop funding so much war materials.
As drea_m_r_76 notes, wrongturn, your condescension is not appreciated. As well, your “economics” is faulty. Maybe you should do some studying. Try Marx, Engels, and perhaps Wolff.
@drea_m_r_76 and @vener, I appreciate your respectful observations of wrongturn’s tone. I expect they care deeply about these issues, and I suspect their concerns are coloring their disposition to the discussion. My replies have been trying to not escalate what seems to be their defensive emotional reaction of falling back into their misguided economic “basics”.
Critically, I’ve kept in mind that they may be writing as if so frustrated in part because they might actually know some critical economic detail better than I do, (despite that they haven’t yet clarified such an expertise). And so, I’ve been engaging with clear argument, explaining how, in fact, printing money does not itself simply cause inflation.
Now, @wrongturn, please let me clarify further how your method of communication is inhibiting your writing from appearing credible to our community.
This is false, and I’ve clarified how multiple times. You keep talking past my point rather than making any cogent argument addressing it; your writing insists that your premise simply must be taken for granted, and, your writing also acts as if your premise must not be critically argued. And you continue with simple neoliberal pay-go rhetoric, devoid of critical argument. When you write in this way, you appear as having foolishly internalized false neoliberal economic doctrine, rather than appearing to be able to demonstrate actually clarifying expertise.
That said, I am keeping an open mind, and still want to hear if you have any argument at all for your premise. If you are indeed correct about these issues then you should explain how you’re correct, rather than continuing to only insist you are correct.
Oh yes, lets shut people up for their “tone” because you don’t have actual facts. If your feelings are hurt, you don’t have to listen to me. I never asked you to. But stop trying to censor people saying things you don’t wanna hear