417
submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] unaredon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Not from America so please someone explain to me, I read Biden wanted to forgive student loans but somehow it didn't get through. Sure it would be much better if the loan is forgiven, but now it is not, shouldn't you still pay back what is owned? They really think they can just not pay and expect no consequences?

[-] Sl00k@programming.dev 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

These loans are out right predatory. I was offered a 12% interest rate 7 years ago and have friends who've been offered 16%!!!

Yes you can say just don't sign it, but we're 17 years old we can't comprehend how much affect a 16% interest rate will have on you in 8 years and you've been told all your life college is the goto life path and you have to do this to get a "good job" and live a good life.

I agree we should payback the money we loaned, but taking advantage of genz via predatory loans for wanting a higher education is downright criminal in itself.

Adding onto this a lot of us will struggle to make these payments. I have 20k in loans and I haven't paid a dime on EVER. Now I suddenly have a second car payment out of nowhere!

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

12 and 16% from federal student loans?

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I think those predatory rates are private lenders, but those are still given the same protections to make you pay no matter what as far as I am aware.

[-] Sl00k@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago

Yes my 12% is a federal loan. Not sure on the 16.

[-] singron@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You can look up historical interest rates for federal loans. They have never been that high. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates#older-rates

[-] doggle@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

Of course everyone involved knows they will face consequences, but they may feel those consequences are better than the payments. Courts can't garnish paychecks that don't exist and a ruined credit rating only matters if you were ever going to be able to afford to buy a house or car in the first place. Afaik actual jail time isn't really a thing for defaulting on a loan. If the only leverage the government has to get people to pay the loan is to threaten their future financial security, then anyone who thinks the initial promises of security is bogus has nothing to lose.

There's also some people who are willing to take the hit just to send a political message.

That said, I suspect nowhere near 62% of borrowers will actually meaningfully boycott in any way.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

Debtor's prisons are actually unconstitutional so they could never jail you for refusing to pay any loan.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

He didn't want to. He wanted to go thru the motions. If this mattered he would have executive ordered it and forced Congress to override. Even the Supreme Court can't force the federal government to collect a debt/tax. And given the state of Congress there was no way Congress would override it.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This. For all the shit he did, Trump expanded the executive powers through EO more than any modern president ever has. Biden could have 100% EO'd student loan forgiveness, damned the consequences but chose not to.

[-] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Biden not only wanted too, but he made sure he had a backup plan. He found a loophole in Clinton era legislation that allows a president to create income based repayment plans. It's not quite forgiveness, but it's the best he can do with Republicans controlling the house. https://apnews.com/article/student-loans-debt-college-cancellation-forgiveness-34152bb5000128a413efd2287887a37a

If you want true loan forgiveness, vote Democratic.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

As I said, he could have instructed them to just not act on or pursue any payments. Let Congress vote to force the executive to do something deeply unpopular.

[-] singron@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

If the next president reverses the order, then all these people are in the same position and might owe additional interest. Banks know this, so they will hold it against anyone seeking credit. Congress doesn't even have to vote.

With the income based repayment, they aren't considered delinquent on their loans, interest doesn't build, and there is a path towards having the debt forgiven eventually.

[-] StunningGoggles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

The Democrats controlled both the house and the Senate for a time and didn't get it done, or am I misremembering the Democrats controlling both?

[-] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

When you take Sens Manchin & Sinema into concideration, their control was very weak. It's a miracle the got the IRA done. It was a big F*ing deal.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
417 points (94.8% liked)

News

36221 readers
295 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS