this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
186 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 50 points 3 months ago

I don't believe any specific policy change which benefitted a broad swath of the public could have survived the current courts.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because the banks wouldn’t like that at all

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nope. Loans are traded around all the time. Mine traded hands like 3 or 4 times before I paid them off, iirc.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago
[–] 4am@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

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).

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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. =~)

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

As a medical student with an absurd amount of student loans, this stuff is very important to me.