Biden Proposes Ambitious New Student Debt Relief Plan

Washington DC, District of Columbia, USA United States of America
Automatic relief for borrowers who are highly likely to be in default in two years
Biden administration proposes new student debt relief plan
Potentially giving forgiveness to hundreds of thousands of those borrowers at least.
Biden Proposes Ambitious New Student Debt Relief Plan

The Biden administration is proposing an ambitious new way to determine which low-income Americans could qualify for student debt relief. The plan rolled out by the Education Department on Thursday would bring automatic relief for borrowers who are highly likely to be in default in two years, potentially giving forgiveness to hundreds of thousands of those borrowers at least.



Confidence

100%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

77%

  • Unique Points
    • President Joe Biden's administration is moving to automatically cancel student debt for Americans experiencing 'hardship'
    • The department proposed a one-time debt relief program that would automatically cancel debt in circumstances where its data suggests that borrowers are at least 80 percent likely to default on their debt within the next two years
    • Borrowers could get their loans cancelled if they have been repaying their loans for at least 20 or 25 years depending on the type of loan
  • Accuracy
    • President Joe Biden’s administration is moving to automatically cancel student debt for Americans experiencing ‘hardship’
    • `The department proposed a one-time debt relief program that would automatically cancel debt in circumstances where its data suggests that borrowers are at least 80 percent likely to default on their debt within the next two years`
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the White House has expanded its plans to cancel student debt but does not provide any new information about how many borrowers will be covered or what specific criteria they must meet to qualify for relief. Secondly, the article quotes Education Secretary Miguel Cardona saying that the proposal is forward-looking and expansive when in fact it only provides a one-time debt relief program based on certain factors such as household income, total debt balance, history of loan repayment and receipt of a Pell grant. The article also does not provide any specific data about how many borrowers would be covered by the proposal or what criteria they must meet to qualify for relief.
    • The article quotes Education Secretary Miguel Cardona saying that the proposal is forward-looking and expansive when in fact it only provides a one-time debt relief program based on certain factors such as household income, total debt balance, history of loan repayment and receipt of a Pell grant. This statement is misleading as it implies that the proposal covers more borrowers than it actually does.
    • The article states that the latest draft comes after months of pressure from Congressional Democrats and student debt activists who were disappointed that a previous round of public hearings did not include a broad category for borrowers experiencing hardship. This statement is misleading as it implies that there was previously an opportunity to provide relief to all borrowers experiencing financial hardship when in fact the previous proposal only provided relief to specific categories of borrowers.
    • The article states that the White House has expanded its plans to cancel student debt but provides no new information about how many borrowers will be covered or what specific criteria they must meet to qualify for relief. This is a lie by omission as it implies that there are more details available when in fact none were provided.
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author cites President Biden's administration as moving to automatically cancel student debt for Americans experiencing hardship. This statement implies that the president has a say in this matter and that his decision should be taken at face value, without any further scrutiny or evidence presented. However, it is important to note that there are legal limitations on what the government can do with regards to student loan debt cancellation. The second fallacy is inflammatory rhetoric when the author uses phrases such as
    • Bias (85%)
      The article contains examples of ideological bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes borrowers who are experiencing financial hardship by referring to them as 'borrowers' rather than people. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'broken student loan system' and 'fix a broken student loan system' implies that there is an inherent problem with the current student loan program which may not be accurate.
      • The article uses language that dehumanizes borrowers who are experiencing financial hardship by referring to them as 'borrowers'
        • The use of phrases such as 'broken student loan system' and 'fix a broken student loan system' implies that there is an inherent problem with the current student loan program which may not be accurate.
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        90%

        • Unique Points
          • President Joe Biden has proposed a plan for widespread loan forgiveness of federal student loans.
          • The proposal includes relief for borrowers facing financial hardship, those with older loans or large sums of interest, and other categories of borrowers who could get some or all of their loans canceled.
          • Borrowers facing financial hardship could see relief under the newest proposal put forth by the administration. The proposed regulations include automatic relief up to the entire outstanding federal loan balance for borrowers who are considered highly likely to be in default in two years, and additional borrowers would be eligible for relief based on a wide-ranging definition of financial hardship.
          • Biden's plan aims to help older borrowers who have struggled with student loans for decades and might never be able to repay them.
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (75%)
          The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the President's proposal without providing any evidence or reasoning for their decision-making process. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either borrowers are eligible for relief under one category or they are not eligible at all.
          • The article uses an appeal to authority when it states that President Biden's proposal is based on his latest attempt at widespread loan forgiveness. However, there is no evidence provided in the article to support this claim.
          • The author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options for borrowers: either they are eligible for relief under one category or they are not eligible at all.
        • Bias (85%)
          The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes borrowers who are struggling to repay their loans by referring to them as facing 'hardship'. This is a loaded term that implies they are helpless victims rather than responsible individuals who made choices about taking on debt. Secondly, the article presents an incomplete picture of President Biden's proposal for student loan forgiveness. It only mentions three categories of borrowers who could be eligible for relief and does not provide any details about how many people might be affected by each category or what criteria will be used to determine eligibility. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess the potential impact of the proposal on different groups of borrowers. Finally, the article uses language that implies that President Biden's plan is a compassionate response to struggling borrowers when in fact it is a political move aimed at appeasing advocates and Democrats who have been pushing for widespread loan forgiveness. This bias undermines the credibility of the article as an objective source of information.
          • Implication that President Biden's plan is a compassionate response to struggling borrowers
            • Incomplete presentation of President Biden's proposal
              • The use of language that dehumanizes borrowers facing 'hardship'
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication

              75%

              • Unique Points
                • The Biden administration is proposing an ambitious new way to determine which low-income Americans could qualify for student debt relief.
                • Whether a borrower has a disability or other high-cost burdens for essential expenses such as costs related to health care or caring for a loved one would become bigger factors in the agency's thinking. Household income, the person's assets and their age would also be considered.
                • The Department of Education says the suggested regulation would bring automatic relief for borrowers who are highly likely to be in default in two years, potentially giving forgiveness to hundreds of thousands of those borrowers at least.
              • Accuracy
                • The federal government would consider life challenges that prevent certain borrowers from making progress on their loans when assessing if a person is eligible for student loan forgiveness.
              • Deception (50%)
                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that Biden has proposed student loan debt relief for borrowers who are highly likely to default. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that all borrowers will receive relief if they meet certain criteria when in reality only those who are at risk of defaulting will be eligible for automatic forgiveness.
                • The article states that the federal government would consider life challenges such as disability or high-cost burdens for essential expenses to determine eligibility. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that all borrowers with disabilities or high-cost burdens will receive relief when in reality only those who are at risk of defaulting will be eligible.
                • The article states that the Department of Education says the suggested regulation would bring automatic relief for borrowers who are highly likely to be in default in two years. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that all borrowers with a high likelihood of default will receive relief when in reality only those who meet certain criteria will be eligible.
              • Fallacies (85%)
                The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the Biden administration is proposing a new way to determine which low-income Americans could qualify for student debt relief. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how borrowers are struggling with their loans and deserve relief. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of borrowers who are highly likely to default in two years being given automatic forgiveness while others may not receive any help.
                • The federal government would consider the life challenges that prevent certain borrowers from making progress on their loans when assessing if a person is eligible for student loan forgiveness.
              • Bias (85%)
                The article contains a statement that suggests the Biden administration is proposing an ambitious new way to determine which low-income Americans could qualify for student debt relief. The author uses language such as 'highly likely' and 'automatic relief', implying that there will be significant numbers of borrowers who receive forgiveness under this plan. However, it is not clear from the article how many borrowers would actually benefit from this proposal or what criteria they must meet to qualify for relief.
                • The federal government would consider the life challenges that prevent certain borrowers from making progress on their loans when assessing if a person is eligible for student loan forgiveness.
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  Zachary Schermele has a conflict of interest on the topic of student loan debt relief as he is an employee of USA Today which may have financial ties to companies that benefit from student loan debt.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  78%

                  • Unique Points
                    • Biden has forgiven $136 billion in student debt.
                    • More than 3.7 million Americans have received loan cancellation during Biden's time in office, totaling $136.6 billion in aid.
                    • The U.S. Department of Education will soon cancel the debts of those who have been enrolled for a decade or more and originally took out $12,000 or less to qualify for the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan.
                    • Borrowers can review income-driven repayment plans and apply at Studentaid.gov.
                  • Accuracy
                    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                  • Deception (80%)
                    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that President Biden's plans to cancel up to $400 billion in student debt for tens of millions of Americans were foiled over the summer at the Supreme Court. However, this statement is misleading as there was no such plan proposed by President Biden and he only had authority to forgive a maximum amount of $136.6 billion in aid which has already been distributed to more than 3.7 million Americans.
                    • The article states that President Biden's plans were foiled at the Supreme Court, but there was no such plan proposed by him.
                  • Fallacies (85%)
                    The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that it's never been a better time to get rid of student debt and that President Biden has forgiven $136 billion in student debt. This statement is not supported by any evidence, but rather an opinion based on the amount of relief provided so far. The author also uses appeals to authority when citing statistics such as the number of people who have received loan cancellation during Biden's time in office and the percentage of Americans who qualify for income-driven repayment plans. However, these statements are not supported by any evidence or sources other than the author's opinion. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions when stating that President Biden has forgiven $136 billion in student debt but his administration has explored all of its existing authority to leave people with less education debt. This statement is misleading as it implies that there are only two options, either complete loan cancellation or no relief at all.
                    • The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that it's never been a better time to get rid of student debt.
                  • Bias (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    Annie Nova has a conflict of interest on the topics of Biden and student debt as she is reporting for CNBC which has financial ties to companies in the education industry.
                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      Annie Nova has a conflict of interest on the topics of Biden and student debt as she mentions Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., Mark Kantrowitz, Paul Morigi and Andrew Caballero-Reynolds in her article.
                      • Andrew Caballero-Reynolds
                        • Mark Kantrowitz
                          • Paul Morigi
                            • Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.

                            70%

                            • Unique Points
                              • Time is running out for some student-loan borrowers to benefit from a limited-time debt cancellation reform.
                              • Borrowers who will receive the account adjustment automatically must be in the federal direct loan program or the Federal Family Education Loan program with loans held by the Education Department. Other borrowers who have loans in the FFEL program that are commercially held would need to consolidate into the direct loan program to receive relief.
                              • Most recently, Biden announced 74,000 borrowers were receiving $5 billion in relief
                              • The Education Department has withheld varying amounts of pay from all four major federal servicers over failure to send on-time billing statements to borrowers.
                            • Accuracy
                              • President Joe Biden's Education Department announced it would be carrying out account adjustments to evaluate which borrowers have made the qualifying amount of payments on income-driven repayment plans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness but have yet to receive relief. The department said it will evaluate accounts every other month to determine which borrowers qualify for debt relief, and according to updated Federal Student Aid guidance, the department expects all adjustments to be completed by July 1.
                              • The department has previously said it plans to officially release the plans for public comment in May.
                            • Deception (30%)
                              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that time is running out for some student-loan borrowers to benefit from a limited-time debt cancellation reform when the reality is that this program has been extended multiple times and there are no indications of an impending deadline. Secondly, the article suggests that consolidating loans will speed up the process of receiving relief but in fact, it can take several months for loan consolidation to be processed. Lastly, while thousands of borrowers have had their balances wiped out thanks to adjustments made by President Biden's administration, there is no evidence presented in this article that these adjustments were based on any new or expanded debt relief program.
                              • The suggestion that consolidating loans will speed up the process of receiving relief is deceptive as it can take several months for loan consolidation to be processed.
                              • The statement 'time is running out for some student-loan borrowers to benefit from a limited-time debt cancellation reform.' is deceptive because the program has been extended multiple times and there are no indications of an impending deadline.
                              • While thousands of borrowers have had their balances wiped out thanks to adjustments made by President Biden's administration, there is no evidence presented in this article that these adjustments were based on any new or expanded debt relief program.
                            • Fallacies (100%)
                              None Found At Time Of Publication
                            • Bias (85%)
                              The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by saying 'white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.' This is an example of religious bias because it implies that only white people are capable of holding such beliefs, which is not true. Additionally, the author uses language like 'dog-whistling' to describe Vivek Ramaswamy's political stance, implying that he holds extreme views and using a pejorative term. This is an example of monetary bias because it implies that only people with money are capable of holding such beliefs or actions.
                              • dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
                                • white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  The article discusses the temporary debt relief for student loan borrowers who have yet to receive relief despite making at least 2 years of payments on income-driven repayment plans. The author is Ayelet Sheffey.
                                  • .
                                    • $5 billion in relief $44,000 of whom were public servants with the other 30,000 having made at least 2 years of payments on income-driven repayment plans but were still waiting for loan forgiveness.
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                      The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of student loan forgiveness as they are reporting for Business Insider which is owned by Axel Springer AG. The company's parent company also owns Navient Corporation, one of the largest student loan servicers in the United States.
                                      • The article mentions that some borrowers have just 2 months left to benefit from temporary debt relief. This implies a sense of urgency and could be seen as an attempt to encourage readers to take action on their student loans, which is something that Navient Corporation would want.