>“When the government does something good for citizens and you can’t make money, that should not be the basis for the standing to sue,” said Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center. “Corporations do not have a right to be profitable.”<p>Sadly, the predictably insufferable editorial bias of this article prevents the interesting questions from being asked/answered. It's unlikely that SoFi's lawsuit is premised on a "right to be profitable", but instead on actual legal arguments concerning the never-ending moratorium on loan repayment. What are these legal arguments? Guess I'll have to Google it.<p>[Edit] Looking to other sources, I guess there are actual legal questions regarding who has standing to sue the government for student loan extension. IANAL but having standing to sue and a "right to be profitable" is pretty different..
Good. Pausing student loans was a perfectly sensible policy in 2020. We needed stimulus ASAP and that was an easy button to press for instant stimulus. It's insanity that we've kept this policy through the worst inflationary period we've seen in 50 years and record low unemployment.<p>As a side note, I'm not a fan of this new trend where papers publish articles that are clearly op-eds without labeling them as such.
If the terms of the loan required they be paid back in full why is it morally acceptable to forgive them partially/fully? And why would it be okay to use tax funds to do that?<p>These are genuine questions I’m trying to understand the thinking I see on here and Reddit about this issue
> SoFi exists because of a quirk in the federal student loan program. While the government charges different interest rates depending on the loan type, within those loan types there is no differentiation.<p>So many businesses in this country arise because of these "quirks", which are really big f*cking mistakes, and then entrench themselves and the problems fester. The U.S. government treating a $100,000 loan for an English lit degree and a civil engineering degree the same is silly. Student loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy so market forces can act to keep things sane.
> "Suing could force the government to start the repayment machinery again, which might not be a terrible thing. Given the low unemployment rate and the existence of income-driven repayment plans for people who are struggling, few people would be ruined by restoring the February 2020 status quo."<p>This particularly perturbed me with the implication that "ruining" a few people is fine as long as a few other people are made wealthier.<p>Greatest country etc.
just gobsmacked at how the US managed to cobble together a teetering racket of 1.6 trillion dollars of undischargeable student loan debt saddling their youth into the grave and still somehow manage to have the unmitigated gall to try and fight any effort whatsoever to reform it.<p>Joe Biden was the driving force behind student loans being a debtors prison, and i guarantee in a recession this kind of market debt haunts the man nightly. privatizing and profiteering from higher education doesnt somehow enrich or advance your society or its people. it literally discourages the higher education necessary to maintain your position as a driving force of innovation and market leadership. it decays your position as a superpower faster than nearly anything else you could do.