Biden Gives $9 Billion More Of Student Debt Relief To 125,000 Borrowers

Biden Gives $9 Billion More Of Student Debt Relief To 125,000 Borrowers

HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND - OCTOBER 07: U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks after touring Volvo Group Powertrain on October 07, 2022 in Hagerstown, Maryland. Biden's remarks about the economy highlighted his administration's efforts on "building the economy from the bottom up and middle out." According to the company, about 1,700 employees at the Maryland plant develop and manufacture heavy-duty diesel engines, transmissions and axles for Mack Trucks, Volvo trucks and buses and Prevost coaches. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

OAN’s James Meyers
8:23 AM – Wednesday, October 4, 2023


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The Biden Administration will be giving more debt relief to student loan borrowers. 

President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday that his administration has approved $9 billion in student debt relief for 125,000 borrowers. 

The White House in a statement said that this a “key step to fix the broken student loan system, make college more affordable, and bring the promise of higher education in reach for more Americans.”

The relief fund will come in the form of restructured income-based repayment plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

The move comes after the Supreme Court blocked his plan of unilateral cancellation for student debt earlier this year.

According to the White House, the move will bring the total approved debt cancellation by the Biden Administration to $127 billion for almost 3.6 million Americans.

Additionally, the $5.2 billion of Wednesday’s allotment will be given out to 53,000 borrowers through Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs, and the rest of the $2.8 billion will come from amending income-driven repayment plans that “borrowers who made 20 years or more of payments” can receive “the relief they were entitled to,” according to the White House.

Furthermore, Biden also wiped out an additional $1.2 billion in student loan debt for 22,000 borrowers with “a total or permanent disability.”

Biden has continued to receive a low approval rating on how he has handled the economy. In a recent poll done by NBC, only 38% of the United States approves of the state of the economy. 

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.

Sen. Rand Paul to propose alternative debt limit plan

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., details his alternative plan to the Biden-McCarthy debt limit bill and responds to a report from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, on the U.S. funding research in China and Russia.

McCarthy’s Debt Ceiling Deal Isn’t a ‘Deal’ For America, the Debt, Or Our Future;


McCarthy Recites the RINO Creed: ‘We Let Government Grow, But at a Slower Rate’

McCarthy Recites the RINO Creed: ‘We Let Government Grow, But at a Slower Rate’

FREEDOM CAUCUS UNLOADS! Debt Deal a No-Go, 'Not One Republican Should Vote for This'



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

When the House Republicans who initially refused to accept Kevin McCarthy as speaker finally agreed to do so back in January, they allegedly received assurances from him and his supporters that McCarthy would genuinely oppose Democrat initiatives, not just go along with them as a controlled opposition. And that seems to be the case with the new debt ceiling deal, as Biden’s handlers appear to have made some significant concessions to McCarthy. However, it would be premature to think that the worst days of the uni party are behind us. McCarthy has just given us a disquieting indication that he isn’t completely the reformed RINO he has seemed to be of late.

On Sunday, McCarthy declared confidently on FOX News Sunday that his deal with the devil — er, that is, with Old Joe Biden — was a “step in the right direction” for the GOP. He asserted that “more than 95 percent of all those in the conference were very excited” about the deal, and gave some reasons why: “We finally were able to cut spending. We’re the first Congress to vote for cutting spending year over year. So, you cut that back, you fully fund the veterans, you fully fund defense, but you take that nondefense spending all the way back lower than ’22 levels.” That does sound swell indeed, and McCarthy wasn’t finished.

The man who will go down in history as the successor of Nancy Pelosi then boasted about how his tough negotiating tactics had forced the Democrats to make concessions, particularly on new rules that some of those receiving government handouts had to do something for the money: “Now you get work requirements for TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] and SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], where the Democrats said that was a red line.”

McCarthy even claimed to have made inroads into the government’s ever-expanding environmentalist initiatives: “Now you’re able to reform NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act]. How frustrating we are with — it’s been 40 years since you could streamline it.” Streamlined government is good, but less government altogether is better, and McCarthy wasn’t quite up to that point. He reeled off the acronyms of these programs, without bothering to explain what they were, like the seasoned Beltway insider that he undeniably is.

He did, however, promise an easing of at least some of the stultifying maze of regulations that have done so much to blunt American initiative in recent years. “To build a road in America,” he pointed out, “takes you seven years to review.” But he promised relief: “We limit that, where it’s focused, where you can only review it one to two years. We’re going to get America working again. We get the process working again.” He added: “We are — we always have these omnibuses at the end of the year, we now penalize Congress if they don’t get their jobs done.”

All in all, McCarthy claimed this was a big victory: “There is so much in this that’s positive.” It looked even better by comparison to previous deals: “And measure it to all the other debt ceilings, when Republicans had the presidency, the Senate, and the House, did they ever cut spending? No, they increased it. We were able to do this when the president said he wasn’t even going to talk to us.” Fantastic, Kevin! Wow! Elect this guy president, right? He continued: “This is really a step in the right direction. It puts us on a trajectory that’s different. We put a statutory cap on spending 1 percent for the next six years.” But then came his RINO bombshell.

McCarthy’s final summation of his great victory was succinct: “So, we let government grow but at a slower rate.”

Related: BIDEN CAVES: Debt Deal with Spending Cuts Struck


How’s that again? You let government grow but at a slower rate? This is precisely what establishment Republicans have been doing for decades, earning the justified ire and contempt of millions of patriots: they have let the statist, socialist Democrats set the agenda and largely agreed to it, while just quibbling with a bit here and there, or promising to get the whole thing done more cheaply and efficiently.

This is precisely what a RINO, a Republican In Name Only, is. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as beloved as he was, became the first of these when he took office as president in 1953. He made it clear to the Republicans that even though he was the first Republican president since the beginning of the Depression, he accepted the New Deal and all the massive expansion of government that it entailed. Republicans would not roll any of that expansion back. They’d just fine-tune it a little.

RINOs have been fine-tuning our long march to socialism ever since. If McCarthy’s debt ceiling deal is another step in that direction, we are better off without it, as well as better off with a House speaker who will actually oppose the Democrats, not just drag his feet a little on what they want to get done.


GOP caucus promises 'reckoning' on McCarthy's debt ceiling bill; 30 Republicans say NO

Rep. Steve Scalise, R.-La., discusses the latest news emerging from the debt ceiling debate as House Freedom Caucus members threaten Speaker McCarthy with a motion to vacate.

‘McCarthy surrendered’: GOP rep. on why he may vote against debt bill

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman joins 'Fox & Friends First' to explain why he and other Republicans may vote against the debt bill.

'IS IT ENOUGH?': GOP rep not yet sold on debt deal

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., on his thoughts on the debt ceiling deal between Biden and McCarthy, and shares his Memorial Day message

Rep. Scott Perry says Freedom Caucus ‘absolutely opposed’ to debt limit deal


Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va., says 'it's very important' that the House gets itself in fiscal order as a debt default date looms

This is a major escalation of an ongoing battle between the U.S., China, warns Bartiromo

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., argues the U.S. needs to 'decouple' from China as soon as they can and discusses the NAACP's travel advisory for Florida.

Biden's Wild Spending Party: Kevin McCarthy Blows Whistle on Biden’s Financial Folly

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has voiced stern criticism of President Biden's handling of the nation's looming debt ceiling crisis. In a harsh indictment, McCarthy asserts that Biden is prioritizing left-wing spending programs over the nation's fiscal health, a move that could potentially lead to a disastrous US default. The Republican leader's comments emphasize the widening chasm between Democrats and Republicans as they scramble to negotiate a resolution to this critical financial concern. The president's reluctance to engage in meaningful bipartisan dialogue further exacerbates anxieties around a potential economic disaster.


CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT: Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young; Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.); Louisa Terrell, White House legislative affairs director; and Steve Ricchetti, counselor to President Biden.

GOP negotiator says debt ceiling talks are on pause as deadline looms

ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze reports on the latest developments in the negotiations over raising the nation's debt ceiling, as the nation inches closer to a possible default.

Debt ceiling talks break down with default deadline coming fast

Negotiations over the debt ceiling have reached a standstill as the default deadline approaches. Republican Congressman Garret Graves says the decision was made to pause discussions earlier today. It's not clear when talks will resume. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion has more.

Rep. Steube: The FBI has become law enforcement for the Democratic Party~Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., discusses President Biden’s trip abroad for the G7 summit, government spending and the negotiations over the debt ceiling.

Florida Rep. Greg Steube joins 'Fox & Friends First' to preview House Republicans' hearing on the weaponization of federal government agencies. He also discusses Democrats' attempt to force a vote on the debt ceiling.

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., discusses President Biden's trip abroad for the G7 summit, government spending, and the negotiations over the debt ceiling.

Should debt default be considered to rein in spending?~A Game of Debt-Ceiling Chicken; And the cliff we’re speeding toward is an unprecedented default.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, discusses whether Speaker McCarthy can reach a debt ceiling deal with Biden by the end of the week

A Game of Debt-Ceiling Chicken; And the cliff we’re speeding toward is an unprecedented default.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

A feature of a divided government, especially when the House of Representatives is not controlled by the president’s party, is “debt-ceiling chicken.” The president’s party tries to bluff, with threats of a default, the House, which is responsible for initiating money bills, into giving the president whatever he wants, usually more money for redistribution, and no cuts to entitlement spending. The House does the same thing, usually pressuring the other party to accept spending cuts.

The cliff they’re both speeding towards is an unprecedented default on the government’s debt, which currently stands at $31 trillion. Each side calculates that voters will blame the other party, which will slam the brakes first as the cliff approaches. This year Joe Biden, or whatever Edgar Bergan or Edith Wilson is actually calling the shots until a week ago took a hard stand against any negotiations on raising the debt ceiling with a “clean bill” as the early June deadline looms.

The spectators of this show usually decry the “partisanship” and lack of “bipartisan” cooperation the two parties are exhibiting. Yet disputes over the budget illustrate what the Founders had in mind when they crafted a divided and balanced government––to exploit this factional competition, which reflects a flawed human nature and its passions and interests, in order to protect freedom by setting ambition against ambition. Also, this process can force a more careful consideration of a proposed policy, sifting out the dangerous features and bringing to light better ones.

Money is integral to this process. The desire for gain accompanies ambition and the lust for power. The ensuing disparities in property, as Madison pointed out, are the cause of rival political factions. Control of the public fisc allows factions to pursue their ideological aims at the expense of others.

During the writing of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris similarly identified the major factions as comprising the poor and the rich, those with “great personal property” and the “aristocratical spirit.” The “Rich will strive to establish dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will.” To check the ambition of the “rich,” “the popular [non-elite] interest will be combined [against] it. There will be mutual check and mutual security.”

Benjamin Franklin, in the convention’s discussion about compensation for the president, made a similar point in terms of government offices: “There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money,” which when united in one man “have the most violent effects. . . . The struggle for them [in England] are the true sources of factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars.” A power like that of the proposed president will attract “the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.”

These arguments based on a passionate and corruptible human nature explain why the Founders gave the “power of the purse” to the House of Representatives in Article 1.7.1.: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

The fuel of ambition is money, as we have seen over the last two years as the Biden administration has borrowed trillions of dollars in order to subsidize the Dems' political clients like public school teachers and corporate “green energy” grifters. Slowing down the growth in the yearly deficits that feed our monstrous debt lessens the Dems’ power to finance bad policies.

But why the House? Remember, originally the Senate was appointed by state legislatures, and so only indirectly accountable to the people. Given that money is the fuel of ambition, the Founders argued that money bills should originate in a branch whose members were directly elected every two years, to counter the more powerful Senators who have six-year terms.

As future vice president Elbridge Gerry said, the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse strings.” The House of Representatives, James Madison added later, “were chosen by the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests, and ability.” The “power of the purse,” in addition to acting as a check on the whole government, protected federalism by giving the sovereign states leverage over the greater powers of the Senate to check the president.

That’s why George Mason argued against giving the Senate the “power of the purse”: “Should the [Senate] have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “It was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it was disposed of.” Again highlighting the foundational belief in a flawed human nature and its lust for power, Mason continued, “An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. ––The purse strings should never be put into its hands.”

Finally, James Madison argued for the House controlling money bills as necessary checking the less democratic branches of the government: “The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument . . . This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

This last argument explodes the claim today, usually from the technocratic progressives, that the House carrying out its Constitutional duty to check an overweening federal government is “obstructionism.” The only thing they are obstructing is the progressive ambitions for power and dominance at the expense of the Constitution and our unalienable rights.

And make no mistake: Our government’s relentlessly growing debt fueled by deficit spending paid for by borrowing; and its swelling entitlements long headed for bankruptcy, are now approaching disaster in a decade. Medicare and Social Security––which, along with other health care programs, consume nearly half the annual budget–– especially are at risk. Medicare Part A, covering hospital care, has enough money to pay benefits until 2028. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund which funds retirement and survivors benefits, will run out of money in 2034.

Meanwhile, the Dems keep squandering money on “green energy” subsidies and other pork while they fret over “transgender” pronouns, parents protesting over inappropriate public-school curricula, and phantom “white supremacists.” Worse, military preparedness and national security spending is stinted even in the face of China’s naked ambitions.

As Jeffrey H. Anderson writes, “While real per capita defense spending has dropped, Great Society spending has skyrocketed. To quote [The American Main Street Initiative’s] Quick Hits, ‘In real per capita spending, we spent more than five times as much on defense in 1975 as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we spent 56% more on Medicare and Medicaid than on defense.’ What’s more, ‘In 1975, the costs of Medicare and Medicaid consumed 7% of all federal tax revenue. In 2019, they cleared 30%.’”

Every nation, as Adam Smith famously said, has a lot of ruin in it. But our ruin will come sooner than we think if Republicans fail to do their Constitutional duty as the Founders intended, and at least slow down our feckless spending of money we don’t have. And we the people need to cheer them on and ignore the propaganda from the Dems and their media jackals. Winning the game of debt-ceiling chicken is a good place to start getting our country back on course.