Reasons to not want Hillary in '24

I never suggested he could do it by executive order.

I suggested he has not been very energetic at fighting for voters rights.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Quote:

I never suggested he could do it by executive order.

And for the second time, I didn't say that you did. I'm not an ideological enemy; I'm discussing an issue which concerns us both.

Quote:

I suggested he has not been very energetic at fighting for voters rights.

Constitution isn't particularly strong on this issue:

a collection of hypocritical white male slaveowners wrote:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

While Congress has, in the past, worked to secure broader voting rights, the conservative Supreme Court now pretty consistently relegates the issue to the states and invalidated a key provision of the '65 Voting Rights Act. I think it's likely that the administration believed that by last summer we'd have had better control over the pandemic and the uplift in the national mood would have helped get the Build Back Better Act passed. That would have put the Democrats in a much better position to work on a more difficult issue like voting rights, which, given the filibuster, was always going to be a tough battle. But the hapless party fractured over when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act should be signed and the hideous squabbling within the caucus not only looked awful, it prevented many projects from even being started in a timely fashion. By the time the bill was signed covid was again in full swing, Biden, looking weak and ineffective, was in no position to strong arm Manchin or anybody else. The vote on voting rights will simply be an exercise in futility, just to show who's on record in support – and everyone already knows the outcome. Until there are 60 Democratic senators or the filibuster is reformed, the fight you seek will need to be continued in the states.

1. Cancelling student loans is poorly targeted

Who benefits from student loan forgiveness? Opponents are concerned that wide-scale student loan forgiveness is poorly targeted and will invariably benefit wealthy student loan borrowers who don’t need their student loans cancelled. For example, graduate school debt accounts for more than 40% of all outstanding student loan debt. This includes student loans for medical school, dental school, business school and law school. Certainly, student loan borrowers who attend these schools can struggle with student loans too, and not all of them are high-income earners. That said, the concern is that many student loan borrowers with high income could get student loan forgiveness, even if they can afford their student loan payments. Schumer and Warren have said only student loan borrowers who earn less than $125,000 would qualify. Opponents say this threshold is too high, and they believe that if there is any student loan cancellation, it should be limited to borrowers with low income.

2. Cancelling student loans forgets everyone who didn’t attend college

The latest student loan debt statistics show that 45 million borrowers collectively owe $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. While 45 million is a relatively high number, it’s less than 20% of the approximately 250 million adults in the U.S. If you have student loan debt, and your student loans get cancelled, certainly it would benefit you financially. However, the vast majority of the adult population no longer has or never had student loans. This includes individuals who couldn’t afford college or never attended college, who also may face financial hardship and have been adversely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. So, the policy question becomes this: is it fair to cancel student loans for one group of people, and not provide the same financial relief to the majority of the population who also may have different financial struggles? The “poorly targeted” argument also has been extended to other forms of debt such as credit card debt, which also impacts millions of young people at much higher interest rates. Moreover, mortgage debt is the highest form of outstanding consumer debt in the U.S. Cancelling mortgage debt for millions of Americans arguably could benefit more borrowers.

3. Student loan cancellation doesn’t stimulate the economy

Warren says cancelling up to $50,000 of student loans per borrower could cost taxpayers $600 billion. However, that doesn’t mean that $600 billion goes back into the economy today. The $600 billion doesn’t go back into the pocket of student loan borrowers, who then can spend money on buying a home or supporting their local businesses. According to The Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget, cancelling all student loan debt would produce only $90 billion in available cash to spend in 2021 and only $450 billion over the next 5 years. Why? With one-time student loan cancellation, a borrower saves cash on their monthly principal and interest payment (not their full student loan balance), which could result in several hundred dollars in savings per month, on average. While that is a financial benefit, it’s different than getting their full student loan balance in cash. Opponents of student loan cancellation say that stimulus checks and unemployment benefits are better ways to stimulate the economy. If Congress wants to stimulate the economy, Congress would be better off giving stimulus checks to every American and encouraging them to spend money in the economy.

4. Cancelling student loans doesn’t solve the high cost of college education

Opponents of student loan cancellation say that one-time student loan forgiveness is a band-aid on a much larger, unaddressed problem: the growing cost of a college education. College tuition is only getting more expensive. Cancelling student loans would help borrowers who have student loan debt, but it’s a one-time solution. Given the cost of college, there will be more student loan borrowers who will face the plight of previous student loan borrowers— except they won’t have the benefit of student loan cancellation. Rather than cancel student loans, Congress could find solutions to lower the cost of higher education for all Americans. For example, Biden has a plan to make two-year and four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.

5. Cancelling student loans is unfair to borrowers who paid off student loans

Life is unfair, as the saying goes. For borrowers who recently paid off student loans, they would not benefit under current proposals for wide-scale student loan cancellation. You can call it tough luck. However, many of these borrowers also faced significant financial struggles, and they managed to pay off student loans. Many of delayed having families or getting married, worked multiple jobs, didn’t buy a home, and made other financial sacrifices to pay off student loans and demonstrate financial responsibility. This doesn’t mean that borrowers who paid off student loans 30 years ago should get compensated. However, if Congress cancels student loans for some borrowers, opponents say Congress should provide compensation to borrowers who paid off student loans recently so they are not excluded.

You didn't say I did specifically but lectured me why I am wrong on the executive order thing.

When it's obvious after a year of inaction that legislation re student loans ain't gonna happen executive order is all that's left.

If it suits your fancy you can educate people on what's better for the next three years.

And if we're unable to address this at the national level, I suppose the only alternative is organizing at the state level. In nearly every case SCOTUS has rejected a federal role in elections. Thank goodness we defeated Hillary – can you imagine the sort of people she'd have nominated?