> More often than not, politics is about optics, not solutions. This was doomed to fail from the beginning and I bet they knew it. Status quo continues, crisis remains, talking points for the next election cycle established. Sorry guys, we couldn't get it through this time, but next time, trust us, we'll succeed.

Also points scored in the last election. IIRC, this plan was announced a single month before the 2022 election. They got to benefit from the votes of people who thought they were getting their loans forgiven, without ever actually doing that.

Only because the plan was opposed on equally political grounds. The idea was a welcomed one by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of it, and not welcomed by the ones they didn't vote for, so the points went where they belonged.

If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?

> If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?

That's the wrong question. It was never if they had "intention of going through with it," it was about if they would be able to pull it off. The GGP stated "This was doomed to fail from the beginning and I bet they knew it," and I have to agree. Their plan to push this through purely via executive action was doomed to fail.

It failed due to the GOP, which didn’t exactly vote favorably on any measures related to this when they did have a chance.

Do you REALLY think an executive order had any chance of succeeding? Think about it for a minute. You think the SC would be ok with the president having the ability to forgive loans on a whim?

Did you look at how the house and senate voted on these matters?

I don't know why this would be doomed, other than the Supreme Court is already considered too politically biased.

The legal analysis at the time of its passage certainly thought there was a strong legal argument for it to be allowed.

I'd love to know more about the strong legal argument. It seems pretty obvious to me that the SC wouldn't be ok with the president having the ability to just erase debt like this.