Joe Biden is Trying to Buy Student Votes With Our Tax Dollars
“He’s not canceling anything, he’s transferring billions of debt from borrowers to taxpayers and under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to do that, as the Supreme Court explained in their decision.”
Joe Biden just announced that he is pushing even further on ‘forgiving’ student loan debt to the tune of billions. When talking about the issue, Biden even acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court told him that he didn’t have the power to do this but that he is doing it anyway.
It’s past time to call this what it is. Joe Biden is trying to buy the votes of college students with our tax dollars.
The media is going along gleefully.
The Associated Press reports:
In a visit to Wisconsin on Monday, Biden detailed a proposal that would cancel at least some debt for more than 30 million Americans. It’s been in the works for months after the Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first try at mass cancellation.
Biden called the court’s decision a “mistake” but ordered the Education Department to craft a new plan using a different legal authority. The latest proposal is more targeted than his original plan, focusing on those for whom student debt is a major obstacle…
Biden’s first attempt at widespread student loan cancellation would have erased $10,000 for borrowers with yearly incomes of up to $125,000, plus an additional $10,000 if they received federal Pell grants for low-income students. It was estimated to cost $400 billion and cancel at least some student debt for more than 40 million people…
The widest-reaching provision aims to reset student loan balances for borrowers who have seen their debt grow because of unpaid interest. It would cancel up to $20,000 in interest for Americans who now owe more than they originally borrowed. That cap wouldn’t apply for individuals who make less than $120,000 a year or couples who earn less than $240,000 and also are enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan.
Watch Biden brag about going around the Supreme Court:
Biden brags about ignoring the Supreme Court on his scheme to unilaterally cancel student loan debt: "That didn't stop us" pic.twitter.com/JfWolVGiC0
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 8, 2024
FOX News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called this out:
GREGG JARRETT: They’re inventing a different, runaround, the Supreme Court decision. In so doing, Joe Biden is brazenly defying the law, and then he has the audacity, the arrogance to brag about it, admitting recently, yes, the Supreme Court blocked my plan, it’s illegal. But then he said, quote, that won’t stop me. You know, no amount of lawlessness is beyond Joe Biden by dictate. What he’s really doing is shredding the Constitution. He changed his method of loan forgiveness in the latest plan. But the same legal principles that make it unconstitutional, still apply. He’s not canceling anything, he’s transferring billions of debt from borrowers to taxpayers and under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to do that, as the Supreme Court explained in their decision. So this is a stunning act of contempt. Biden says he doesn’t care about the separation of powers, the law or the Constitution. So I sort of ask you here: who’s the dictator? Who’s the threat to democracy?
Here’s what this is all about:
NBC: Biden is hemorrhaging votes among Americans under 30 pic.twitter.com/vRO4bSUwdb
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 9, 2024
Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign is quickly devolving into simply pandering to various groups he needs in order to win. That’s his choice, but he shouldn’t be allowed to use our tax dollars to do it.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The warped priorities of vile Biden and the Dhimmi-crats — providing financial succor to shiftless, entitled and irresponsible debtors, and, goose-stepping, genocidal Islamofascist terrorists.
He hasn’t done anything about MY student loans!
Maybe he knows I wouldn’t vote for him, even if he did.
Small quibble. He’s not trying to buy votes. He’s succeeding at buying votes. The only question we have is how many votes is he going to end up buying.
Donald Trump was Impeached because of a phone call where he asked a foreign prosecutor to investigate a crime and Democrats fallaciously claimed he was trying to illegally influence an election. Joe Biden is ignoring a Supreme Court order – and BRAGS about it publicly – in order to influence an election and the GOP House still hasn’t Impeached him yet.
More panders than in a Chinese zoo.
.
We should also not forget how this dovetails with the un-Constitutional and criminal BarkyCare program that is destroying health care. BarkyCare had the federal government actually take over the student loan business (as opposed to the federal government having mainly given only loan guarantees before) in order to take the profits from originating student loans and having the CBO put that into their laughable calculation of BarkyCare’s impact on the federal budget, allowing them to make pretend that BarkyCare was revenue neutral.
Here’s a little tidbit from an article in The Hill in 2013:
It would be kind of nice if some conservatives could bring this point up as Traitor Joe is violating all manner of law and Constitutional restrictions to bribe useful idiots with my money. People need to have this leftist illegal BarkyCare two-step pounded into their brains.
There is no bottom for this man. Blatantly ignoring the US Supreme Court, the system of checks and balances, judicial branch of the government to use my money to pay for student loans that people knowingly and voluntarily took out….and then bragging about it. Way to go Brandon! What a joke.
Feels like there could be a Pete Buttigeig joke in there somewhere.
I think maybe the joke has to do with something in Pete Buttigieg.
Because Bidens are immune to all impeachments, convictions, and indictments… and they (and we) all know it.
The Rule of Law is dead.
If you continue to be ruled by the laws of your masters who do not themselves ibey them,, you are a sucker.
Of course he is, it’s the LBJ plan.
Apparently the taxpayers are now giving $6 billion to a company run by the guy who ran Solyndra into the ground.
He has a proven track record!
Again, seize the endowments. There’s no reason the taxpayer should pay instead of those that profited from the higher education fraud.
Wasn’t Trump impeached for trying to improve his reelection chances by having Ukrainian authorities investigate the Bidens? Isn’t this what politicians do – shape their policies according to how they perceive they will improve their status with the voters?
However the POTUS is the author of foreign policy, how can he be impeached for directing it in any way he so chooses, including in ways that benefit his election campaign? OTOH, Biden’s policies run counter to law (e.g. open border and student debt relief) to improve his reelection prospects. These policies, by comparison, must certainly be impeachable offenses.
Trump was not inquiring of the Bidens’ criminal behavior in the Ukraine in order to boost any re-election chances for himself. That claim, itself, was a complete farce.
The Bidens are criminals. They committed many serious crimes, abusing Traitor Joe’s authority in America, in dealing with, and colluding with, the Ukraine and that needed to be looked into. Period. It would be a crime NOT to have inquired with the Ukrainians about their knowledge of the Bidens’ criminal and treasonous adventures there.
But there is no doubt it would have had that effect, so his motivation can be surmised. Note that I’m not condemning him for that – sometimes the duties of a POTUS overlap with his goal of being reelected (isn’t that at least part of the point of successfully defending the country, controlling the border, and assuring a robust economy, among other things?). It doesn’t matter if that’s why he did it, he had the authority to do it. My point seems to have gone over your head, it being that Biden does things to improve his reelection prospects that he is not authorized to do, or which are deleterious to the well-being of the nation. “Trump did this or that to boost his reelection prospects” was not a valid complaint, not because that’s not what he was doing, but because what he was doing was also being done for the good of the nation. Everything that Trump could have done to improve his reelection prospects were arguably done for good for the nation and vice versa, something that cannot be said about many (if not all) of Biden’s actions as POTUS taken in support of his campaign.
But it was NOT what Trump was doing … and there is a difference.
Nothing went over my head. You are conceding a point that is just incorrect. Yes, Trump was within the law no matter what, but that is no reason to concede a ridiculous point to the left.
If I recall correctly, at that time Biden wasn’t even a candidate, and there are no circumstances where asking for an actual crime to be investigated is improper.
This corrupt traitor should be impeached. There is no need to interview Hunter or to seek information from operatives in the security or intelligence.
He has admitted to this impeachable offense publicly.
Exactly!
And even beyond this part, his orchestration of the illegal invasion of America is enough, all by itself, for impeachment and treason charges to be brought afterwards.
No, he hasn’t. There is no offense here. His policy is reckless and terrible, but it is not illegal; nor is any implementation of it illegal unless and until some court says so. And so far he has scrupulously obeyed every court decision that has gone against him (as indeed Trump did as well).
The Dems proposed (during at least one of Trump’s impeachments) that the breaking of one’s oath of office was an impeachable offense. I agree. Biden has failed to “faithfully execute” the (border control) laws as required by his oath of office. Nobody (except maybe Mayorkas) disputes this. This is false swearing and perjury.
The Dems have proposed all kinds of wacky and outright ridiculous things. What’s one more?
Biden himself admitted that the Supreme Court had ruled against this.
No, he hasn’t. He said that the Supreme Court put the kibosh on his first and most sweeping attempt to do this, which is why he now has to do a series of much more limited programs. No court has yet ruled against any of this series, and it’s not obvious that they’d have any grounds to.
When your job is to enforce the law, it is every bit as illegal to allow others to break the law with impunity as it is to break it yourself. And when the supreme court tells you that it takes an act of congress to forgive student debt, that means exactly what they said. So yes, the pedophile HAS disobeyed court rulings..
It seems dictatorial when Trump couldn’t use defense money to build a defensive wall.
This is so brazenly dishonest it could have come from Valerie Jarrett rather than Greg, or from Biden himself.
The premise Jarrett is pushing here is that the Supreme Court decision was based on the constitution; that Biden had claimed some sort of executive privilege to forgive debt, and the Court said no, you need a statute authorizing you to do that.
But that is an outright lie. Biden never claimed such authority, so the Court had no opportunity to tell him he didn’t have it. Biden’s original plan relied on a specific statute. The Court said he was misreading it, and it didn’t authorize him to do what he was planning. So he obeyed the court and went back to the drawing board.
As the AP story says, he “ordered the Education Department to craft a new plan using a different legal authority.” It hasn’t yet found one that would allow the sort of sweeping plan he had originally announced and then had to cancel, but it’s found several, each authorized by Congress, that, at least as it reads them, allow more limited plans, so as it comes up with them he squeezes as much out of them as it tells him each allows.
That is not “ignoring” the court, or “defying” it, it’s obeying it. That is what you are supposed to do.
If someone with standing disagrees with his interpretation of each of those statutes, they are free to sue him, as the plaintiffs in the original case did, and see what the courts have to say about them. But even if he were to lose five out of six cases, that would not in any way diminish his authority under the sixth one.
He is entitled to rely on his interpretation of any statute unless and until a court tells him it’s wrong, which it can only do if someone with standing brings a case before it. It would be unconstitutional for any court to issue a sweeping ruling that Biden can’t cancel anyone’s debt, no matter what statute he finds to authorize it. Not only can’t he be required to “pre-clear” his interpretations with a court, he can’t do that even if he wanted to. Courts aren’t allowed to issue advisory opinions. So forget Biden, what would a law-abiding president do? He’d do exactly what Biden is doing.
In fact it’s exactly what Trump did with his immigration plans, his so-called “Moslem ban”. Each time a court knocked one plan down he came up with another one, which didn’t have the flaws identified in the first one. Jarrett didn’t call that “ignoring” or “defying” the courts, did he?
LOL.
Trying to break the system and to make laughable “mis-“interpretations of laws that are plainly transparent is not what a “law-abiding President” would do.
I also like your retarded take further above where you don’t think that an official can commit a crime by abusing his governmental powers. That’s a real doozy. But you seem to love repeating it ad nauseum.
Sometimes I think you are Hunter’s unclaimed half-sister or something … I would have loved to hear you argue that Benedict Arnold was just exercising his policy preferences as regards West Point back in the Revolutionary War … Sheesh.
If you think there are flaws in his interpretations of the statutes he’s relying on, feel free to point them out. Until you do, you have no right to claim they are misinterpretations. If you haven’t read each of the statutes, and analyzed his interpretation and found how they are mistaken, you must assume they are not. The moment you just wildly wave your hands and say “I don’t like this policy so it must violate some law, somehow”, you’ve abandoned the rule of law and are smack in the middle of Wokeville.
We point out Traitor Joe’s laughable “reasoning” all the time. It’s a complete farce … like someone who decides to call skyscrapers “chairs” that have flat roofs that people can sit on. You seem to like to argue how that skyscraper is, indeed, a chair … until some judge decides it isn’t. That sort of retarded thinking seems to work for you but it makes most normal people just laugh.
Again, unless you can point to these alleged flaws in the Education Department’s interpretation of these specific statutes you have no right to claim that they are flawed. How could you know that they’re flawed without having read each statute, and their reading of it, and found the flaw? How do you know that their reading is not absolutely straight and plain and obvious?
This dance reveals a flaw in our system. If the government/POTUS wants to assert an authority, anyone with standing should be able to challenge that authority in court, with the burden on the entity making the assertion of authority. In court, they can present all of their arguments. If they are unpersuasive, there should be no “going back to the drawing board” – failure means they don’t have the authority, end of story. As it is, people with standing to sue (supported usually by donations from citizens) have to spend their own (or donated) money to play whack-a-mole with a government that is also spending our money in a never-ending attempt to grab more power.
This is the game the anti-gunners play. After being told that firearms ownership is a right, the government goes right back to its old tricks and passes legislation banning “high-capacity” magazines or specific weapons (e.g., “assault weapons,” on the premise that banning a class of weapons doesn’t ban all weapons, so the ban is constitutional) and levying special (and onerous) taxes on ammunition (as well as other impediments to its acquisition). This requires more donor money to fight the same fight that was already fought, and won. But government gets to act under the guise of its lawful authority to do that which, if done by a private citizen under a court order to refrain from certain conduct, would be considered contempt of court. (As subsequent court decisions eventually reveal, but only after several years, much money spent, to the abridgement on the right to arms for the intervening period, and only to have the sequence repeated ad nauseum.)
Your whole comment makes no sense, but I think this bit here is at the core of your misunderstanding:
Biden is not under any court order to refrain from forgiving debt. Not only isn’t he, he can’t be. How could any court make such an order? How does it know that he’s not authorized by statute to do so?
When the government takes any action, claiming authority from a specific clause in a specific section of a specific statute, anyone with standing can challenge it in court. The court will either uphold the government’s reading of the statute, or strike it down. If it strikes it down, the government now knows that the statute doesn’t mean what it thought it meant, and it can no longer act under its mistaken reading.
That does not mean, and it can’t possibly mean, that the government can never do the same thing it tried to do before. Suppose there’s another statute that does authorize it. How could the court’s decision about the first statute affect the authority from the second statute? If Congress said the government can do it, who is the court to say it can’t? The second statute was never before the court. Even if the court happened to be aware of the second statute, if it was not before it it couldn’t comment on it. And there’s no reason it should be aware of it.
Again, this is exactly what Trump did with the so-called “Moslem ban”. The courts said his first attempt was against the statutes that Congress had enacted, so he tried a second attempt, and then a third, each time making sure that the plan complied with all the courts’ previous findings. Are you saying he shouldn’t have been allowed to do that?!
This reminds me of Obama’s campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq in no time. While he was making speeches claiming they’d be out in 6 months, his campaign was telling women’s groups that they knew they couldn’t deliver.
Forget the eclipse that happened yesterday. The cost per vote in Biden’s most recent scheme eclipses the amount of any previous politician to buy votes.
Orange Man Bad. Mean Tweets, you know.
“He’s not canceling anything, he’s transferring billions of debt from borrowers to taxpayers and under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to do that, as the Supreme Court explained in their decision.”
Oh, he’s just demonstrating, again, lawyer reasoning vs. people reasoing. Lawyer reasoning you take the outcome you’d like to get, then go find a way to squeeze that in under some law or other. People reasoning you take the obvious interpretation of laws as enacteed, and what they are for, then go do that.
Biden’s pretty blatant about doing the politician version of lawyer reasoning. “Here’s some client gaggle to buy off; there’s got to be a way to do that.” So, consumer safety can try to shut down gas stoves, on a put-up claim of safety. After getting pinged by a couple congresscritters. Who were fed a push-study on “safety”, orchestrated by an “environmental” group.
The system in place is fine with pandering uber alles, until the wrong
deplorablepeople stand up n say: “Hey, how about pander to me too(tm)?”“Oh, he’s just demonstrating, again, lawyer reasoning vs. people reasoing. Lawyer reasoning you take the outcome you’d like to get, then go find a way to squeeze that in under some law or other.”
Precisely. When challenged on an action, government should be required to reply with all of the authority it claims for the action. The government’s reply to a complaint should be considered exhaustive, so that if its arguments fail, it cannot go back to the well (at least not without new legislation that plainly authorizes the action, unless the action itself was deemed “unconstitutional” and not merely unauthorized by statute). Citizens should not be required to play whack-a-mole with an opponent who has effectively inexhaustible supplies of the people’s money with which to defend its actions. This is unjust, it is not justice. It is an abuse of process. One shot – that should be all the government gets, because its authority is limited and a court should be able to define its limits based on government’s own arguments. (This is in contradistinction to the rights of the people, who should always be permitted novel arguments for the existence of any right – our arguments should never be considered exhaustive. OTOH, we should never go into court claiming “it is our right.” We should go into court claiming “government has no authority.” The onus should always be on the government to demonstrate authority, because the presumption should be that the authority does not exist until proven otherwise. (This is the reverse of the coin that has on its obverse the “presumption of a defendant’s innocence” that places the onus to demonstrate guilt upon the government. Government is the servant. The heavy lifting should always be on its shoulders, not on the masters’.)
So once the first Hawaii judge turned down Trump’s first attempt at restricting immigration of potential terrorists, he should not have been allowed to make any further attempts, and should just have given up and let all the terrorists come. Got it.
Why is he buying student votes? They are some of the most reliable Democrat voters anywhere.
Excellent question. Like the main premise of this post, the headline is wrong. He is not trying to buy student votes; that should be obvious anyway, since students don’t yet have any debt to forgive. He’s trying to buy the votes of former students, whose college days are long behind them and are now struggling to pay the debts they accumulated then. And those people are no longer reliable Democrat voters. They live in the real world now; some of them have seen the light, and can probably not be bought off by this, but many are on the margins, still under the spell of the brainwashing they received in college but it’s mostly worn off and they vote Dem out of habit, or maybe have even stopped but haven’t yet committed themselves to the right. Their votes are up for grabs, and this is indeed a blatant attempt to buy them.
That doesn’t make it illegal. Buying votes is what all politicians try to do.
Stellar reasoning, there … They have EXPECTATIONS of having their college debt relieved in the future and they know the party that is promising it to them.
Uh … no. Buying votes is illegal. That’s why Traitor Joe and those like him lie about why they’re doing what they’re doing.
Buying votes is what corrupt, lowlife politicians do. Upstanding politicians convince people by policy and their idea of what government it for. Conservatives stand for a Constitutionally small, limited federal government so they could not “buy votes” if they wanted to.
Add this to your idiocy above about something isn’t criminal until a court says so …
Crazy stuff.
You’re full of excrement. Buying votes is not illegal, and if you claim it is you’re nothing but a liar. There has never been a politician in history who did not engage in vote buying. There has never been a politician who did not campaign by pledging to do things that would appeal to his constituency. “Vote for me and I will make your life better”.
That is not “buying votes”, you blithering idiot.
That is exactly what it is. That’s what the term means.
Are you really this stupid?
Paying people for votes is “buying votes”. Telling people that you will make their lives better, which is the whole point of having government, in the first place, is not “buying votes”. Even in the loosest paraphrase, “I will make your life better” is not “buying votes”. “Vote for me I will give you money” is “buying votes”. And don’t come back at me with some typical stupidity about taxes (that you are likely to try and do). Taxes are universal policy that applies to everyone equally. Welfare, on the other hand, is not – and that includes the clearly illegal and un-Constitutional “tax credits” which are just welfare via the IRS, not taxes. Most welfare from the federal government is completely un-Constitutional, to begin with.
Get a friggin brain. Promising people a better life is not “buying votes”. And that promise is not a problem until what you are promising to make that life better is illegal or un-Constitutional or flat-out cash payments.
You are engaging in the sort of reasoning that people use to claim that wives are whores because there are understandings in marriages – or they same about dating, even. It is incorrect and offensive and people who make those sorts of arguments do so only to try and destroy the institution of marriage or our social fabric, for whatever pathetic reasons they harbor.
What are your reasons for trying to tear apart the concept of self-government and reduce it to nothing but vote buying? It’s a silly argument you make, but WHY are you trying to make it? What is it that you hate so much that you would argue along these lines?
None of Biden’s programs, not even his original one, would do anything to fulfill those expectations.
Besides, they don’t have expectations. They don’t live in the real world and have no idea of what is going to hit them, or they wouldn’t have run up all this debt in the first place.
Milhouse is quite correct here. There is no doubt that the authority of a POTUS to do something and doing something to boost his chances of being reelected are not mutually exclusive. The only valid question is “Is the act authorized by law and/or is it consistent with the POTUS’ authority under the Constitution?” If it is, then he can do it. Only a president concerned only with the well-being of the country would do any authorized action that he knows will hurt his chances of reelection. OTOH, only a POTUS concerned with reelection will do anything, authorized or not, that is deleterious for the nation but good for his reelection prospects. Which of these two molds best fits Biden? Trump?
Were.
Meanwhile back at the DNC, seems the Democratic National Convention is after the due date to certify as a presidential candidate in both Ohio and Alabama.
Who was in charge of the schedule ?
No problem. Democrats get passes for all election deadlines. It’s called the Torricelli Doctrine.
You all can bicker about what the actual law means, but to us regular people, who have bills to pay, and our money dwindling away to pay off other peoples debts when we sacrificed to save and pay off our own, this is theft, plain and simple.
Then on top of that, Biden opened up the border and millions are pouring in that WE have to take care of before some of our own??
No wonder why people hate government
The Constitution fails to enumerate a power allowing the federal government to invalidate valid contracts, and specifically bars states from doing so. (Protecting valid contracts being part of protecting property rights.) The regime’s defiance of constitutional order simply underscores why the regulatory bureaucracies are unconstitutional on their face as an Impermissible delegation of Congress’s lawmaking power.
Well, the key failure here us that the Federal Government has weaseled itself into becoming one of the two parties to the contract. And it is doing nothing but forgiving a debt owed “to it,” leaving a non-contracting party (us) to pay the tab. Contract theory is no solution when government is a party, because governments violate contracts with impunity.
He is not invalidating any contracts. He’s forgiving debts owed to the USA, and he’s doing so pursuant to statutes made by Congress.
It’s possible that his lawyers are misinterpreting those statutes; that’s what happened to their first and biggest attempt, which they had to abandon. But there’s no a priori reason to suppose that just because they got one law wrong therefore they’ve got all the others wrong as well. Each claim of statutory authority must be evaluated separately, and challenged only if it seems to be flawed, and if a plaintiff with standing can be found. (It took some doing to find such a plaintiff for the original plan.)
I have a suggestion. Since Democrats make wild and inaccurate statements all the time and never apologize when they are proven wrong (Russian collusion), I suggest we do the same. Announce that Joe Biden is forgiving all the loans Millennials took out for lawncare equipment, carpentry tools, trucks or any other tools they needed for their blue-collar careers.
A contract is a contract whether it’s for a school loan or for a business purchase. If those who signed school loan contracts are off the hook, the others should be as well.
Then, after everyone gets all excited about this new “loan-forgiveness” program, it can be corrected to note that, Oops, only the college students will be getting taxpayers to cover their loans.
Or maybe the cost of “loan-forgiveness” should just be to forfeit your right to vote for the number of years you would have been paying off your loan. You know, until you grow up and act like an adult.
“Since Democrats make wild and inaccurate statements all the time and never apologize when they are proven wrong”, maybe we should make statements like “Biden has been taking bribes for decades”.
Oh, wait, that one’s true…