The Biden administration is moving ahead with a new path to student loan cancellation for Americans who face steep medical bills, child care costs and other types of financial hardship that prevent them from repaying their loans.

Announced Friday, the proposed rule is President Joe Biden’s third attempt at student loan cancellation as he faces repeated legal challenges from Republican states. His first plan was rejected by the Supreme Court last year, and his second plan has been temporarily halted by a federal judge in Missouri.

The new rule would have to clear a number of hurdles before it becomes official, and it’s unclear if it could be realized before Biden leaves office in three months. Like Biden’s other loan forgiveness proposals, it could face court challenges from conservatives who say it’s unconstitutional and unfair.

If finalized, the new rule would allow the Education Department to proactively cancel loans for borrowers if the agency determines they have an 80% chance of being in default on their loans within two years. Others could apply for a review to determine if they meet the criteria for cancellation.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    And how is that in any way comparable to Biden yet again trying to give student loan relief, something he has tried every few months since getting into office?

    If an earthquake destroys San Francisco tomorrow, I suppose Biden should hold off sending in FEMA until after the election too?

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      This is a game theory problem to me, and the democrats want to shrink the playing field, not increase it, they have structural advantages and the wider the tools acceptable the more the right can take advantage of it, ala CU and modern media.

      The more noise, the more everybody loses. Longer campaign seasons are killing this country.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      No, because that’s established norm.

      Again, I’m for the move, I just know what the response will be from the other side.

      In terms of game theory this is a short term gain for a massive long term loss, this is like the court appointment nuclear option, it was used more effectively by the other side because they had fewer scruples in the way.