I’m sure that just like overturning Roe this will bode well for Republicans next year lol
The number of times I’ve seen people complain about Biden not doing anything about student loans begs to differ. Republicans drag their feet or block, and democrats suffer for not doing enough.
… and those people either don’t vote, or are probably already democrats in voting practice.
The Republicans can’t be reached at this point. They have decided winning is more important than being correct.
Exactly. Frankly, Democrats no longer need to cater to Republicans at all in order to win. They just need to inspire their own base, which if that excitement and energy is strong enough will sway some enlightened centrists over.
While I understand your frustration and see that trend on a lot of topics with Republicans obstructing and Democrats taking the heat and I am sure there’s a lot of rhetoric among loudmouths about this, surveys suggest most people know who to blame.
Don’t get complacent; while the policy changes are rallying Democrats to vote in order to reverse them, they’re also rallying Republicans to vote to keep the regression train going.
Yup they’re getting the evangelicals all frothed up with the thought of taking away birth control entirely
39 billions is money which could be going to Israel to support their genocide.
Taking it from them and giving it to American education is anti semitic! /s /ADL
Can students sue those conservatives?
no
Why not?
Imagine there is a group that does everything in it’s power to block every positive change there could be.
Imagine further that the same group also does everything in it’s power to change every positive thing into a negative.
Now imagine that >48% of people vote for that group.
And finally imagine you in a place like that.
Honestly, unimaginable.
*its
That’s why it drives me nuts when people get a cynical and say both parties are the same or that your vote doesn’t matter. Pay attention to how the different parties vote!
Both parties are horrible but one party is much horrible-er. I think you can guess the one
Enlightened centrists are the worst. At least you know what you’re getting with republicans.
You know what you’re getting with centrists, too: snobby Republicans.
Centrists are a different breed though. They’ll agree with you until the part about actually doing something to fix a problem. At that stage, suddenly “now isn’t the right time”, “we can’t afford it”, and “we should focus on incremental change”. Fuck centrists.
“both parties” is just code for right wing asshole trying to skew the vote
It’s absolutely true that they are not identical. Although they are far too similar. Only really differentiating on the subject of social democracy. Where the Democrats at least pay lip service to it. Which is a big plus for the Democrats. Whereas Republicans openly show disdain for it.
Other than that they are both far right wing economic parties. Who have both actively attacked labor. Although in the Democrats defense they are often just eager to go along with what Republicans are doing. And don’t actually take the initiative on their own.
If it wasn’t for the Democrats loose Pro social democracy stands I wouldn’t vote for them there’s very little you can point to and recent history that they have accomplished that’s been truly good. Outside of civil rights same-sex marriage Etc. They seriously need to stop waiting the better part of a century before fighting for things to people need.
And finally imagine you in a place like that.
You don’t even have to imagine. That’s the reality of the United States in 2023 and has been for a long time.
(I think that was the joke)
Yep. 😂 🤣
They just want to hurt people. Imagine voting to keep people indebted. That’s them.
It’s so sad, people who were hurt growing up and then rationalize it as that’s the way the world is supposed to be. Too hard for some people to admit their parents made some mistakes.
“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
A real actual person said that. They walk among us.
Just republican shit.
Another Big Brain douchesupporter said “I never thought I’d want a dictator in my life, but if we’re going to have one I want it to be Trump!”
If a tried really hard to be charitable I’d guess Faux “News” was telling her the left wants to vote for a dictator so she wants her dictator, but I don’t think that was the context…
Okay so for starters I am for cancelling this debt.
But this thread is full of people in this thread making false equivalencies with regard to why people might oppose this. Things I’ve seen:
“Fuck you I got mine”
“My dad died of cancer so it’d be wrong if them to continue cancer research”
“Just evil”
“A bunch of people who don’t have debt”
Etc.
And for all of you this applies to I offer this: What is the plan for preventing it from continuing after the current orders of debt are cancelled? Is there anything? I genuinely haven’t heard it if it exists. If there isn’t a plan on stifling the lending rates forever more, then the issue will just resurface, likely worse. I’m all for cancelling the debt but is there a plan for preventing the debt?
That’s literally always been the goal, and conservatives have pounded their chests and dragged their feet, and now liberals have had to back up to doing subtle payment plans and exclusive relief measures that require a person to be in debt for decades.
I’m sorry, but what a bad take.
Same. I paid off my loans but I’d love it if my friends and wife had an easier time. To say nothing of the millions being dragged down by over a trillion in debt.
But I get why people who may have invested in Student Loan asset backed securities might not want student loans forgiven. SLABS may be part of 401Ks or pension plans. I think debt shouldn’t be something people can even invest in, but for those who did, I get why they oppose it. It could even potentially harm a student paying back a loan who also has a retirement account that invested in SLABS.
And this absolutely is just a band aid on a gaping wound. It doesn’t actually resolve the problem, and with no attempt to remedy it in the future, I can see it just making college access even more difficult for the less fortunate.
Biden should do everything he can to push it forward, but that is just a first step, and the people opposed to it may have some valid concerns.
Good. Pay your loans, people. Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Why should people have to pay back their student loans when corporations didn’t have to pay back their much bigger PPP loans?
deleted by creator
Because those loans were dischargeable when they applied for them, whereas students agreed to pay back what they borrow.
Sorry, your answer is “because they said it was okay that time and not okay the other time?”
Without PPP loans half the country would be unemployed and the economy would be a disaster. Meanwhile, a college education increases your lifetime earnings by $1.2 million, so you’re just being greedy and asking for a bailout.
Meanwhile, a college education increases your lifetime earnings by $1.2 million
How much of that $1.2 million goes to paying back loans with interest?
The average federal student loan debt is $37k. If you can’t afford 37k over the span of several years you need to reexamine your financial decisions.
Sure, if you ignore interest, it’s easy to pay off that $37k. Too bad there’s interest and people are paying more on that than their original loan was worth. People with good jobs. How are you unaware of this?
Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Who wants to tell him
From what I’ve read this is on much firmer legal ground than the last one. But you gotta get through lawsuits for everything.
Trillion dollar budget for the military industrial complex? Money well spent! A single dime spent to help taxpayers? Socialism!
The majority of the federal budget goes to welfare and entitlements. I’m on the “no standing army” side of things, but it doesn’t help to propagate incorrect information.
Edit: this is absurd. There’s no opinion here: the comment I replied to is factually wrong. You can’t dislike facts until they’re not true.
you failed to engage with their actual argument, which was that military spending is absurdly high but always univocally supported by everyone in the establishment and increased with every new budget, but that it’s an uphill fight to get anything new for people who actually need help.
To be fair, I engaged with that portion by pointing out I don’t actually believe in standing armies. So defense spending should be close to zero. But, yeah, everyone wants their pork and defense spending is free money to them.
You don’t believe in standing armies? I’m sorry but you’re either 5 years old or incredibly naive.
I mean you don’t do it overnight. There’s nothing naive about having principled goals.
It’s a ridiculous goal. Armies aren’t just for waging wars against other people. Emergencies arise where it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you have well trained, organized soldiers ready to respond.
A trained, voluntary militia is the only way to have ethical defense that can’t be abused. Maybe we don’t get there, but having the goal be more militia vs standing army can be worked out.
The world won’t always be the same and we should plan for more liberty oriented and equitable outcomes instead of dismissing them out of hand because we don’t think they’re pragmatic today.
I think you’re getting down voted for two reasons.
-
OP’s comment didn’t state anything factual. It was rude to accuse him of attempting to “propagate incorrect information.”
-
You’re lumping together two very different types of spending and it feels like you’re making a disingenuous argument. The vast majority of spending you’re talking about is Social Security/Medicare which has received near constant increases. Welfare programs on the other hand have been under attack since the 90s. I can say that Social Security, Medicare, and the FAA together make up almost half the budget but it doesn’t make a good argument for cutting the FAA.
All that said, I do think you make a good point that there’s other programs to look at. Maybe we can cut the military budget while also looking at saving money on Medicare.
I didn’t call it a lie because I don’t think it’s an issue of will or intent, so I didn’t mean it to be insulting. I see where you’re coming from otherwise, but this isn’t a comment made from nowhere. This is a common talking point people try to use and I genuinely think it reinforces the trope.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all. Whether it’s for a single mother or a pensioner it’s certainly not being used for useless bases or bombs.
I don’t believe we can solve problems if we don’t understand them and our lack of understanding is disastrous when it comes to voting.
-
I think you just misinterpreted the OP’s statement. Conservatives also don’t want welfare and entitlement spending and try to cut those back all the time. OP’s statement is a characterization of conservative opinions on spending. Conservatives don’t support spending on student debt relief, welfare, or entitlements. They do support military spending. That’s not factually incorrect. And, it is irrelevant how much of the budget those categories represent because conservatives didn’t choose those levels and don’t support them.
I mean it’s entirely possible it’s just me drawing in context for no good reason.
the majority doesn’t go anywhere near welfare wtf are you on about: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
National defense is the fifth on that chart by percent. Everything above it is entitlement spending. Looks like income security is where welfare falls - it’s a little over half. The other half is other forms of payouts to peeps.
Entitlements are not welfare. Period. Welfare is hardly a drop in the overall bucket. Entitlements are money that people are owed because they paid in. As in they are entitled to that. Welfare is paying for poor people to be able to survive.
You are purposely mixing the 2 because you fall for the serious propaganda on the “right” that somehow social security should be ended. If they end it they owe us that money back.
And are and.
Entitlements and welfare. Say it with me this time.
We don’t see eye to eye on it, but there’s no reason to insult people that disagree with you. I’m looking at wasting money on bombs vs spending it on american citizens
If our SS money went in to a retirement plan that mirrors congress’ investments we’d all retire very comfortably, but somehow we’re not good enough for that.
I mean people like you are actual dumbasses…
What do you think happens if they ended entitlements??? Where do you think all of that money goes? INTO THE ECONOMY… if we end entitlements we’d see the largest depression ever in the US.
Our economy is what it is BECAUSE of them. You think if the government just spent 0 money we’d somehow be better off? Even though literally every other major economic powerhouse hase entitlements and welfare lol.
It’s just pure propagandized stupidity.
When the US government stops spending the entire world will spiral into a depression and the US would take longer to come out of it. We’d be ruined economically for the remainder of your life.
But yeah go on with your stupid fucking take.
Sending weapons to Ukraine is also a huge economic boost with the added benefit of securing yet another eventual base and massive political power in that region while destabilizing an aggressive dictatorship shit hole.
Fucking pittance in the grand scheme of things and amazingly smart move by our current leaders. If you think they’d actually spend it on our citizens that’s the other funny part. The republican talking points are on and on about “look what we could do with this money” while they themselves want to further take from citizens and give to billion dollar organizations.
Oh but they are too busy trying to install a theocracy to give a fuck about helping citizens anwyay. Mostly republican states that still have not legalized weed because they rather throw people in jail than get a major boost to tax revenue that could go to actual communities in need.
Republican states with the worst education by far and shittiest teacher pay.
Republican states with the worst health care and highest infant mortality…
etc…
But yeah for sure we’d have magically taken that money and put it to good use instead of defending an ally while boosting the shit out of our economy with said defense lol.
Stop listening to pod casts… You want to know why the government needs to spend that money follow the federal reserve and modern monetary theory. Economically we are still a leader in the entire world with not even close to the highest population. How do you think we keep that going? By cutting off entitlements, welfare, and allowing Russia to expand it’s territory and influence?
Fucking brain dead fucking take.
You just decide what people are saying based on your own assumptions and ideology then make Gish look like a galloping noob. I’m not bothering with that.
Treat people better and sort yourself out instead of spewing bile from nowhere. You can do better.
This place is just like r/politics in that it’s indistinguishable from r/democrats. If you aren’t openly liberal with your comments you will be down voted into oblivion.
Bootlickers need their own bat-signal. I propose we post something about equal treatment.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and military. In most years, this accounts for more than half of the discretionary budget. In 2020, because some discretionary spending passed through supplemental appropriations went to pandemic programs, the share of the discretionary budget that went to the military was smaller – even though the amount that went to the military was just as high as in previous years.
Most “welfare” falls under discretionary. Medicare, medicaid, and social security (also “welfare”) fall under mandatory spending. Social security and medicare make up the largest categories. This organization explains how “welfare” spending increased in recent years due to pandemic spending on things like stimulus checks and increased unemployment.
The bottom line thoughis that people pay into it for years so that it’s available when it’s their turn to need it. If they never do, then great. It can help someone else, god forbid.
I didn’t realize that if you promised to spend money it didn’t count. I’ll be sure to keep my rent out of my financial planning.
Welfare to soldiers and their families. What’s your point?
Look at the budget. Most of our federal spending goes back to citizens. Welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security. My point is what they said is a lie and it’s an easy lie to fact check.
How should we expect to win arguments against military spending when the first line out of our mouths is a lie?
This is demonstrably not true
Demonstrate away my friend.
How many of these conservatives tried to cancel the Trump and Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Fuck conservatives!!
Well right because those clearly trickle down as you can see by the constant record-breaking wealth inequality.
Just one more tax break for the rich bro, trust me bro, it’s gonna work this time bro, it’s gonna trickle down like craaaazy bro, the rich just need one more tax break bro, bro please bro, trust me it’s gonna trickle like huge bro
These greedy motherfuckers don’t want anyone to be helped unless they profit somehow.
I think it’d be more accurate these authoritarian motherfuckers don’t want anyone to be anything other than their slaves.
Cato Institute was cited in the article, and, being a fervent right-wing think tank hater, they don’t talk about profit. Instead, they’ll argue for some shit like short term limited duration insurance because they’re less regulated than other health insurance plans. This falls in line with their “De-regulate Everything” argumentative scheme. In other words, it’s perfectly a-okay if companies can rip people off without federal oversight.
But for programs that in any way help other people…well…they’re unconstitutional or an abuse of executive power.
It’s interesting (except not at all, because they’re all hypocrites) how they haven’t said anything against DeSantis’s use of executive power in Florida. Somehow, everything he does is constitutional and within the reach of executive power.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/live/iaDALkajqO0?feature=share&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Two conservative groups are asking a federal court to block the Biden administration’s plan to cancel $39 billion in student loans for more than 800,000 borrowers.
In a lawsuit filed Friday in Michigan, the groups argue that the administration overstepped its power when it announced the forgiveness in July, just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down a broader cancellation plan pushed by President Joe Biden.
The Education Department called the suit “a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt.”
It’s part of a wave of legal challenges Republicans have leveled at the Biden administration’s efforts to reduce or eliminate student debt for millions of Americans.
Under the one-time fix, past periods in forbearance were also counted as progress toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a program that offers cancellation after 10 years of payments while working in a government or nonprofit job.
Biden’s action was illegal, the lawsuit says, because it wasn’t authorized by Congress and didn’t go through a federal rulemaking process that invites public feedback.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I just want to say I was surprised and so fucking happy when I got a notification that a payment did not go through for my student loan and logged into my loans website and seeing that the 7100 I had left was suddenly paid off.
They just need to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. High earners who can afford their student loans will be dismissed like any bankruptcy court applicant who makes enough money to pay their debts, and the people who are actually struggling will get relief at the penalty of 7 years very bad credit.
Bankruptcy works for every other kind of debt, it was written into the Constitution by the founding fathers, and it’s the perfect system designed exactly for problems like the student loan crisis.Student loans are intentionally excluded from bankruptcy because law students used to declare bankruptcy immediately upon graduating.
They had tons of debt and no or very low income. The court usually discharged The debts.
It wasn’t limited to lawyers. It’s just that the law students knew how to file fos bankruptcy, since bankruptcy law was part of law school.
The banks lobbied Congress change the bankruptcy laws to prevent that from happening.
Well sure, and the country did alright for 200+ years before this change. Since then, the student loan industry has become a monstrous disaster.
They could have limited the restriction to just recent law grads, but they didn’t. Sure seems deliberately shitty to me.
It always is.
deleted by creator
I’d rather have both the forgiveness and the bankruptcy option.
The “I got mine, fuck you” crowd really hates progress.
The student loan interest rates are exuberant, while I support the nullification of times past, I’d also like to see the core issue being taken care of
Yes, let’s do both.
Here’s one thing I don’t understand: does loan cancellation consist of the government paying off the loan, or is it a legal nullification of somebody’s loan? If it’s the former, I get economic concerns. If it’s the latter, then I really don’t see arguments against loan cancellation as very credible.
It’s cancellation of the loans. They’re government loans being forgiven, not private loans paid back by the government.
I think you mean “exorbitant” ;)
I thought exuberant meant a lot of/obsessive amounts
That’s a contextual issue. It’s not often applied to a value but rather a feeling - that’s why I suggested “exorbitant”.
Exuberant is also considered a positive attribute, so contextually it was confusing.
edit: Not to be rude - I’m an American and the Dutch constantly correct me here - but instead of “obsessive” (to be obsessed with), you might consider “excessive” - much closer to “a lot of” but more “too much of”. ✌️
Exorbitant meaning “eye-popping”, as in making your eyes pop out of their sockets, which is why it’s used in these contexts.
The first uses of “exorbitant” in English was “wandering or deviating from the normal or ordinary course.” That sense is now archaic, but it provides a hint as to the origins of “exorbitant”: the word derives from Late Latin exorbitans, the present participle of the verb exorbitare, meaning “to deviate.”
“Exorbitare” in turn was formed by combining the prefix ex-, meaning “out of,” with the noun orbita, meaning "track of a wheel or “rut.” (“Orbita” itself traces back to “orbis,” the Latin word for “disk” or “hoop.”) In the 15th century “exorbitant” came to refer to something which fell outside of the normal or intended scope of the law.
Eventually, it developed an extended sense as a synonym of “excessive.”
Yeah, I’d like to focus on stopping the bleeding before mopping up blood. I don’t know what the message is here for future generations.
