Honest question, what the hell can the people even do about this? When our representatives fail, we can vote them out. We can vote out the president. The people have direct influence on the...
Honest question, what the hell can the people even do about this? When our representatives fail, we can vote them out. We can vote out the president. The people have direct influence on the legislative and executive branch, but only tertiary influence over the judiciary. Is this part of checks and balances? Doesn't seem like it to me.
it's even worse than that - of the 6 conservative justices, 5 of them were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote. 3 by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and 2 by George W. Bush...
but only tertiary influence over the judiciary
it's even worse than that - of the 6 conservative justices, 5 of them were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote. 3 by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and 2 by George W. Bush (Roberts and Alito).
and of course, Bush's election was made possible by a 5-4 court decision in Bush v Gore, with the justices all voting along party lines.
it's a flywheel of undemocratic, anti-majoritarian institutions sustaining themselves and getting stronger.
I think we know now (happy to be corrected) that Bush would have still won regardless of the outcome of that recount. The poorly designed ballot and the number of votes for Nader were more...
Bush's election was made possible by a 5-4 court decision in Bush v Gore
I think we know now (happy to be corrected) that Bush would have still won regardless of the outcome of that recount. The poorly designed ballot and the number of votes for Nader were more determinative.
The situation in the US is not going to be simple to fix. But one area where we could improve is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That would effectively eliminate the current...
The situation in the US is not going to be simple to fix. But one area where we could improve is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That would effectively eliminate the current Republican party from making it to the White House. They'd either wither away or change to appeal to more voters - either option is fine with me.
The Senate is still malapportioned so I think, realistically, they'll be reduced to a rump party that solidly controls the South and the West. The Democrats would probably eventually split into a...
They'd either wither away or change to appeal to more voters - either option is fine with me.
The Senate is still malapportioned so I think, realistically, they'll be reduced to a rump party that solidly controls the South and the West. The Democrats would probably eventually split into a Progressive and Centrist party to pick up the remainder and we'll be living under what is basically a permanent Centrist plurality/majority that ends up spanning everyone from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney.
The radicalization is really emanating from the media. Fox News swallowed the Republican party, but if the party goes Fox News will still be there exerting its noxious influence elsewhere.
Vote for progressives before you start shooting your neighbors over canned food. What we need is for voters to give a shit about what their politicians are doing. They're public servants, and if...
Vote for progressives before you start shooting your neighbors over canned food. What we need is for voters to give a shit about what their politicians are doing. They're public servants, and if they aren't helping our lives improve, they don't deserve our votes.
Votes do mean something by though. While the voting system has a lot of problems, the voters aren’t blameless either. Many voters don’t vote in the most important positions of all: local ones....
Votes do mean something by though. While the voting system has a lot of problems, the voters aren’t blameless either. Many voters don’t vote in the most important positions of all: local ones. Something many folks don’t understand is that the local level is where future Congress Critters and Senators are molded and shaped. Take John Cornyn, Senator of Texas. He got his start as a district court judge there in 1985. That is an elected position, and 17 years later he became Senator. Yet the local elections suffer from abysmal turnout. In some cases, they’ve tied, and been decided by pulling straws or coin tosses. Those votes are important due to their ripple effects, and yet, they are neglected by the average voter.
The problem lies in how much energy is required to pay attention to and effectively influence elections on various levels. In our current system, votes do have an effect, yes, but it is a meager...
The problem lies in how much energy is required to pay attention to and effectively influence elections on various levels. In our current system, votes do have an effect, yes, but it is a meager one. A great many different policies both local and otherwise seriously dampen the value of a vote, while ensuring that money instead is the driving force behind most any election.
In particular, trying to be an involved and effective voter often means informing yourself on a number of topics and how they relate to the potential candidates. This can sometimes mean a lot of self-education, which, while admirable, also tends to be difficult and time-consuming. Top it off with the fact that for some local elections, you may expend equivalent effort just trying to find out if a vote is happening at all.
All that, for one vote in a election that cares little for your stake — to me, it's no surprise people ignore it. It's tiring.
The important thing I didn't touch on in my last comment however is that I do actually think voting should be something everyone does — I just have an important caveat in that I don't think anyone should be investing a lot of time or energy into it. The way I see it, there's a thousand better ways to be politically involved that will be far better for you and your community than voting ever could. Things like organizating, protests, mutual aid, unionization, etc, all have a massively more meaningful impact than any vote.
Voting is a means of changing a system from within, designed under said system, and run and enforced by it. If that system doesn't want to listen to you, then this route is practically guaranteed to fail. It's no excuse for inaction, but I don't think it's much cause for blame, either.
Expand the Court by 4. Appoint 4 new ones. Have Congress pass laws affirming the rights the Court took away, including of Congress's to have preclearance for a new VRA (there's literally no way to...
Expand the Court by 4. Appoint 4 new ones. Have Congress pass laws affirming the rights the Court took away, including of Congress's to have preclearance for a new VRA (there's literally no way to interpret 14AS3 that doesn't provide for it), abortion, the president to forgive public student loan debt, overturning Citizens United, etc. If there's a suit, the new Court will properly reaffirm, including stating that they overstepped previously.
There's more to do, including uncapping the House and using the population of one-third of the smallest state (in this case Wyoming) as the baseline for how many people each Rep should represent. The House would now be over 1600. This changes the makeup of the EC, making it significantly harder for a president to be elected with a minority of the vote, cementing a future where SCOTUS is set by legitimate presidents.
Both of these changes require simple majorities in the House and ending the filibuster in the Senate. The latter is doable if people show up in 2020 numbers for the 2024 elections. The map looks unfavorable, but the 2022 rebuke of a red wave - even with 26M Ds sitting out and 18M Rs sitting out - proves that people are upset about lost rights and want change. We can easily pick up the House - the Court's ISL decision actually just nearly guaranteed 2 layups, one each in LS and KY. I expect a suit in NC to try to change their map given this decision as well. And then NY is pouring more resources than last time, and Boebert is being properly targeted.
We have the numbers. We can change things, but it will take time, just as getting to the low point we are at now took decades. It took decades of liberals and leftists not voting. It's time to change the story.
Well, we'd at least have the numbers to do this part: The Court would have to rule on all of this, which they'd have a much harder time ruling against because the objection was about its presence...
Well, we'd at least have the numbers to do this part:
Have Congress pass laws affirming the rights the Court took away, including of Congress's to have preclearance for a new VRA (there's literally no way to interpret 14AS3 that doesn't provide for it), abortion, the president to forgive public student loan debt, overturning Citizens United, etc. If there's a suit, the new Court will properly reaffirm, including stating that they overstepped previously.
The Court would have to rule on all of this, which they'd have a much harder time ruling against because the objection was about its presence in existing law. Now existing law would provide all of these powers.
And the alternative to not is Rs federally banning abortion nationwide, taking away multiple social safety nets, raising taxes on the poor to shift money to the wealthy, etc. At least part of what we want is doable, and I think with recent decisions, Biden will begin to warm up to the idea of court expansion more. Especially as a second term president not worrying about reelection with crossover votes.
The original idea would have been to vote for reps that would remove the offending judges or make changes to the judiciary (like FDR's threatening to expand the court to gain support for his New...
The original idea would have been to vote for reps that would remove the offending judges or make changes to the judiciary (like FDR's threatening to expand the court to gain support for his New Deal). Or, pass a Constitutional amendment changing the judiciary via a constitutional convention of the states (bypassing Congress).
You could also probably argue that Congress would be within its power to establish that the lower federal courts are all elected positions, instead of appointed.
Pitchforks, guillotines, and pillaging the rich and powerful. The courts have been captured by corporate interests. It has now absolutely been proven that the government is non-functional.
Pitchforks, guillotines, and pillaging the rich and powerful.
The courts have been captured by corporate interests. It has now absolutely been proven that the government is non-functional.
I can't help, but feel that the vindictive biases of SCOTUS impacted this decision instead of actual analysis of the law. Multiple members of the court have made disparging comments about those...
I can't help, but feel that the vindictive biases of SCOTUS impacted this decision instead of actual analysis of the law. Multiple members of the court have made disparging comments about those who decry their rulings when they're clearly bad faith. Thomas and Alito have Multiple conflicts of interests, plus Kavanaugh's own murky past. How can I feel this is a fair and valid ruling when the SCOTUS has shown it wants to be political tool? It's also hard not to feel like this was done to hurt Biden's '24 run as well.
How is there simply no action we can do to correct this partial court other than waiting for another to pass or retire and hoping it's while a Democrat is in office? How is there any hope for this country to do better because I'm losing faith? I vote, I donate, I do all the "right" things and yet my rights keep slipping and my ability to be happy in this God forsaken country is vanishing. I've been waiting three years for the process to work and I and others are all out of time.
It's also unfortunate that we just don't have anywhere else to really go, either, at least in the immediate vicinity. Even if Canada's immigration wasn't fairly tight like it is, their housing is...
It's also unfortunate that we just don't have anywhere else to really go, either, at least in the immediate vicinity. Even if Canada's immigration wasn't fairly tight like it is, their housing is also a mess at the moment. I don't think there's any good transitional locations in Mexico to go, either.
All of that is completely ignoring the fact that leaving means running away from the fight. If the more financially stable of us run out of the country, it just leaves the rest of the poorer ones behind to get manipulated and thrashed by the republican party. It's just top-to-bottom rotten.
The last time I looked into Canadian membership, there seemed to be a lot of vetting going on with regards to what kind of industry you'd bring to the country among other things. To be fair I...
The last time I looked into Canadian membership, there seemed to be a lot of vetting going on with regards to what kind of industry you'd bring to the country among other things. To be fair I haven't checked in a while and may give that another check soon.
Yeah, I looked into immigrating to Canada, and with a U.S. JD I'm basically the lowest priority. They're prioritizing medical professionals and trade professionals the last time I checked.
Yeah, I looked into immigrating to Canada, and with a U.S. JD I'm basically the lowest priority. They're prioritizing medical professionals and trade professionals the last time I checked.
Canadian immigration works on a points system and is about to admit 500k per year. An educated professional definitely isn't at the top of the list, but will be far from the lowest priority.
Canadian immigration works on a points system and is about to admit 500k per year. An educated professional definitely isn't at the top of the list, but will be far from the lowest priority.
As long as you're not disabled or have disabled family members - Canada did increase its threshold recently, but if you're deemed to likely cost too much you're inadmissable.
As long as you're not disabled or have disabled family members - Canada did increase its threshold recently, but if you're deemed to likely cost too much you're inadmissable.
And thank God for that. Immigration isn't charity. If you're not reasonably expected to be a net contributor then the current citizens of a country are much better off moving on to the next person...
And thank God for that. Immigration isn't charity.
If you're not reasonably expected to be a net contributor then the current citizens of a country are much better off moving on to the next person in line.
I'm an immigrant, so I know how it works, thanks! It took 10 years and thousands of dollars for my family to become permanent residents in the US and prove my dad wasn't stealing a job from a more...
I'm an immigrant, so I know how it works, thanks! It took 10 years and thousands of dollars for my family to become permanent residents in the US and prove my dad wasn't stealing a job from a more worthy citizen.
Luckily we got green cards before I became disabled and turned into a burden who doesn't deserve freedom of movement. Sucks to be stuck for the rest of my life in a country that doesn't care if I die, but oh well. Not like Canada would be better - there they'd encourage me to die legally with MAID.
Anyway, just providing information, wasn't really looking for someone to tell me to my face they're happy people like me have less rights than healthy people.
I certainly never said you have fewer rights than healthy people. When it comes to immigrating to another country you have no rights at all. Neither do healthy people. There is no international...
I certainly never said you have fewer rights than healthy people.
When it comes to immigrating to another country you have no rights at all. Neither do healthy people. There is no international right of free movement, therefore you are not being denied any such right.
Since when should immigration be based solely on someone's personal economic potential, as though they were some kind of machine to be profited off of? Seriously, guy, this take is gross.
If you're not reasonably expected to be a net contributor then the current citizens of a country are much better off moving on to the next person in line.
Since when should immigration be based solely on someone's personal economic potential, as though they were some kind of machine to be profited off of?
It shouldn't be based solely on economic potential. But immigration isn't some grand charity project, it is of mutual benefit both for the immigrant and for the people already there. And much,...
It shouldn't be based solely on economic potential. But immigration isn't some grand charity project, it is of mutual benefit both for the immigrant and for the people already there. And much, though not all, of those benefits are economic.
Of course that doesn't include refugees, but that's hardly the topic of conversation here.
IMHO (Not American) the wisest move the democratic party can do is to wait until they have all three branches again and immediately expand the supreme court to 11 or 13 under the pretense of...
IMHO (Not American) the wisest move the democratic party can do is to wait until they have all three branches again and immediately expand the supreme court to 11 or 13 under the pretense of matching the # of circuit courts. The constitution doesn't dictate a size to the SC
unfortunately, due to the way the American government is set up, this will be increasingly unlikely to happen: By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate the...
wait until they have all three branches again
unfortunately, due to the way the American government is set up, this will be increasingly unlikely to happen:
by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states,” Seib wrote. “They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them.”
the exact timeline is debatable but the overall demographic trend of increasing population in large cities is pretty inexorable.
Similarly, due that same system, any proposal to rebalance our system to reduce the voting power of lesser-populated states would require the consent of those same lesser-populated states. And...
Similarly, due that same system, any proposal to rebalance our system to reduce the voting power of lesser-populated states would require the consent of those same lesser-populated states.
And even if we were able to overcome our nation's borderline-religious devotion to our antiquated form of government, I cannot envision a scenario in which either the people of Wyoming or their elected representatives would choose to deliberately reduce their outsized political influence.
Again not American so may be getting this wrong but isn't that the entire purpose of the Senate and why you have the two branches of congress? The House is population-based and the Senate is...
Again not American so may be getting this wrong but isn't that the entire purpose of the Senate and why you have the two branches of congress? The House is population-based and the Senate is state-based. My understanding was that the Senate was designed that way specifically to avoid major population-dense area's from completely overriding more rural areas?
It was designed the way it was so that the smaller states would agree to join back in the 1700's. Back then states had much more independence and wanted to maintain that.
It was designed the way it was so that the smaller states would agree to join back in the 1700's. Back then states had much more independence and wanted to maintain that.
So it sounds like it is working as designed then - it's just now that time has moved forward it isn't as advantageous to the larger populations as it was back then (when having the stability and...
So it sounds like it is working as designed then - it's just now that time has moved forward it isn't as advantageous to the larger populations as it was back then (when having the stability and growth of the union as a whole was more important by adding states to the union).
The Senate was originally deisnged as a compromise to prevent small states with low populations from seceding, but it wasn't conceived in the 1700s as it is today -- up until the early 1900s it...
The Senate was originally deisnged as a compromise to prevent small states with low populations from seceding, but it wasn't conceived in the 1700s as it is today -- up until the early 1900s it was the state legislatures who chose senators rather than popular votes within the state. Not that that would be much more fair but, y'know, they also only gave voting rights to male white property owners back then so
I guess the point is more that the Senate wasn't really designed to operate the way it does today either. What we have now is already a weird way of making it more democratic than it originally...
I guess the point is more that the Senate wasn't really designed to operate the way it does today either. What we have now is already a weird way of making it more democratic than it originally was (though I think the reasons for the change were more bureaucratic in nature). The Electoral College, as un-democratic as it currently is, has also become significantly more democratic than it was designed to be. The founders (or at least a subset of them) had some rather elitist ideas about who could be "trusted" with legislative power.
If FDR wasn't able to get a court expansion through then I don't think anyone is going to be able to. That would effectively nullify the existence of the Supreme Court, which is not a step that...
If FDR wasn't able to get a court expansion through then I don't think anyone is going to be able to. That would effectively nullify the existence of the Supreme Court, which is not a step that would be popular with most voters, even if everybody on this website would love it.
Honestly, we wouldn't have been in this mess if RBG had retired when she was fucking asked. She unknowingly, or knowingly completely fucked over SCOTUS with refusing to retire.
Honestly, we wouldn't have been in this mess if RBG had retired when she was fucking asked. She unknowingly, or knowingly completely fucked over SCOTUS with refusing to retire.
Yes, RBG made an incredibly foolish decision. And she’s dead for it. But I’m not going to let go of the fact that US Progressives chose to downplay Trump and spread misogyny in one of the most...
Yes, RBG made an incredibly foolish decision. And she’s dead for it. But I’m not going to let go of the fact that US Progressives chose to downplay Trump and spread misogyny in one of the most pivotal elections for the next 30 years. And I will never forgive the Green Party for what they did. Their existence is the reason why it’s going to be a horrible 30 years for anyone but a cisgender straight white male conservative Christian.
If it wasn't for third-party voter circle jerking themselves over their moral righteousness of not voting for Hillary, we wouldn't be here. Women would still have reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+...
If it wasn't for third-party voter circle jerking themselves over their moral righteousness of not voting for Hillary, we wouldn't be here. Women would still have reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights wouldn't be crumbling, we would have more liberal leaning court, and so much more. A vote has impact beyond just who sits in the presidential seat and shows selfishness in how those less fortunate can be impacted.
I will always think of this qoute when I'm not 100% for a democratic candidate, but I know full well the republican option has far worse impact overall:
“Voting isn’t marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for “the one” who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn’t one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.”
Even if all the third-party voters had voted for Hillary, it still wouldn't have flipped enough states to make a difference in the overall Electoral College result.
Even if all the third-party voters had voted for Hillary, it still wouldn't have flipped enough states to make a difference in the overall Electoral College result.
That's a reductionist view of what occurred and doesn't do anything other than cause division among an already splintered and divided political party. Voting for a third party is and was not...
That's a reductionist view of what occurred and doesn't do anything other than cause division among an already splintered and divided political party.
Voting for a third party is and was not incorrect.
Disliking Hillary was also not incorrect despite what the alternative meant. When faced with two bad choices, when the system is rigged in this way to force voters to choose a shitty choice no matter what, it's not our choice and we become pawns to be used. We were forced to vote for Hillary over Sanders. We were forced to accept her VP pick and we were forced to accept Sanders backing down.
All of this was the instrumentation of the DNC. All of it was symptoms of busted politics. The DNC gave us a candidate we didn't want, just like they gave us Biden. The DNC puts us in these positions.
We voted how we wanted to, green, Hillary, or abstained, as we're allowed to, as is our right, to not listen to anyone telling us how to vote.
By doing what we were supposed to trump got in power. The second time around we submitted to the broken bipartisan shitty system and voted for the lesser of the two evils but still the voter gets shafted.
The DNC is full of everyone not conservative. In particular, millenials and Gen Z who are so far detached from centrist politics they should be in their own party. Dinosaurs like Biden, Hillary, and that entire establishment including Pelosi, are relics of a centrist party that existed a long time ago but no longer. They're dug in deep and refuse to hand over power in typical boomer fashion. They've also made it so the freshmen in their party can't do shit and have to cowtow to their methods. There's an entire faction ("the squad") chomping at the bit to actually make progressive change, but they're outnumbered and outgunned.
Even Biden trying to cancel student debt was only done to appease the ever growing disdain in his own party by those freshmen who campaigned for him on that promise. Faced with revolt, he gave it a half assed attempt. Yes the SCOTUS is the arm of the right and makes things difficult, but I also don't see any teeth in Biden's administration, not like Mconnel and his pet Trump would have done had the roles been reversed.
Don't get it twisted, the democratic party sucks balls and it's the only one we got. It's ran by dinosaurs with shady interests. There is no room in this country for anyone caring about social programs.
I mean, 20$k in loan forgiveness wouldn’t have “shafted” my wife and I. Maybe I’m not understanding what you were saying, but it sounds like “both sides,” to which my reply is, only one side tried...
By doing what we were supposed to trump got in power. The second time around we submitted to the broken bipartisan shitty system and voted for the lesser of the two evils but still the voter gets shafted.
I mean, 20$k in loan forgiveness wouldn’t have “shafted” my wife and I. Maybe I’m not understanding what you were saying, but it sounds like “both sides,” to which my reply is, only one side tried to help people drowning in student loan debt, and the other side said fuck those people.
When I say broken bipartisan system I mean I wish we had an factual spectrum of candidates that actually represented us. Currently, we have an evil side and we have the not evil side. Does Biden...
When I say broken bipartisan system I mean I wish we had an factual spectrum of candidates that actually represented us.
Currently, we have an evil side and we have the not evil side. Does Biden represent me? No. He represents businesses, corporations, those who donated to him, and all the favors it took to get him in office. On a few things he may represent me but that's better than 0.0% the other side represents.
That's not a good system. The fact Obama and Bernie were detested by Hillary and the Dnc speaks volumes. The fact Pelosi had to fight and whip the freshmen in line also says a lot. The fact there's factions within the democratic party with interests all over the political spectrum says a lot as well.
This country is full of people from all walks of life. We are now split in half during election time. We are forced to pick between a shitty party and a very shitty party. I have to compromised many of my ideals just to feel okay about voting for Biden because I really really don't feel okay about voting for the other guy.
That gives the democrats a false power because I was forced to give them my vote which then translates into legislation I don't actually care for. So the question actually becomes, what shitty pro corporation legislation do I actually want to indirectly vote for?
Meanwhile I want to defund the industrial military complex, I want to fund the department of education and transportation, I want to bust up monopolies and fund social programs, I want environmental regulations to skyrocket. I won't get any of that, so who's representing me?
I could make the argument that all the "blue no matter who" voters are to blame because they allow or encourage the democratic party to nominate milquetoast candidates and support neoliberal...
I could make the argument that all the "blue no matter who" voters are to blame because they allow or encourage the democratic party to nominate milquetoast candidates and support neoliberal policies that are complicit in the current status quo.
You're quick to assign blame in anger because you feel you need to point the finger at someone. Interesting how you won't vilify the DNC and instead will vilify your fellow party mates. That's...
You're quick to assign blame in anger because you feel you need to point the finger at someone. Interesting how you won't vilify the DNC and instead will vilify your fellow party mates. That's exactly what the right wants. How about you take a step back to reassess the entire situation and spread the blame around?
You can assign blame to me for not being a political scholar with powers of fortune telling, sure. I can take a hit for being educated and still not doing my research on why Hillary was so important because all that was fed to me waa vote for Hillary she's great over and over. I guarantee the average Democrat wouldn't know half of what you're talking about. They just watch CNN maybe or just get info from their local sources and keep it moving.
I know it's easy to blame your party mates but take a harder look. A lot of things went wrong and the democratic party is a big reason.
In 2016 they absolutely did. The primary was rigged. The debates were rigged. The CNN and MSNBC pushed Hillary and minimized Sanders. You can choose not to see it, but the DNC absolutely forced...
but there were Democratically held elections. The DNC did not unilaterally decide the candidate
In 2016 they absolutely did. The primary was rigged. The debates were rigged. The CNN and MSNBC pushed Hillary and minimized Sanders.
You can choose not to see it, but the DNC absolutely forced their chosen candidate on us.
It’s not the fault of the Green Party or progressives for Trump being elected. More Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election (88-94%) than Clinton voters voted for Obama in the 2008...
It’s not the fault of the Green Party or progressives for Trump being elected. More Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election (88-94%) than Clinton voters voted for Obama in the 2008 election (about 75%).
From Nate Silver, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-66593...
From Nate Silver,
And the rub is Pennsylvania, which was close but not that close. You have to assume that almost all of Stein’s voters would have gone to Clinton. But both pre-election polls and the national exit poll suggests that a lot of them wouldn’t have voted at all, if they’d been forced to pick between the two major candidates.
[A Wall Street Journal] analysis, in which third-party votes [in eight swing states] were reassigned to both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, finds that Mrs. Clinton would have needed to win 70% of the vote share that went to the Libertarian and Green parties across all eight states to claim victory….In another scenario, even if every one of Ms. Stein's left-leaning supporters is assigned to Mrs. Clinton in those same eight states, she still would have needed to win more than 50% of Mr. Johnson's supporters to flip enough states to win the election.
that’s what exit polling that asked people how they would have voted in a two-party race — with the third option of not voting — finds. Under that scenario she would have won Michigan, still lost Florida, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been a 48 to 48 percent toss-up. Clinton would have needed to win both of those states to reach 270 electoral votes. So even in the artificial world of that exit poll that erased Stein and Johnson, Clinton seemed likely to lose.
As an aside, blaming third party voters for electoral losses always seems wrong to me. You’re blaming people engaged enough to participate in the system. People voting is a good thing! If you want to “blame” anyone, you could blame non-voters but perhaps we should try to convert them to voters instead of blaming them too
Am I the only one who blames Trump voters and only Trump voters for Trump winning? Why do we always ignore the literal, actual people responsible for the problem?
If you want to “blame” anyone, you could blame non-voters
Am I the only one who blames Trump voters and only Trump voters for Trump winning? Why do we always ignore the literal, actual people responsible for the problem?
Sorry for not making my position clear. I 100% agree with you. Trump voters are 100% to blame. That’s why I blame in quotation marks and said we should try to engage them. I don’t you should blame...
Sorry for not making my position clear. I 100% agree with you. Trump voters are 100% to blame. That’s why I blame in quotation marks and said we should try to engage them. I don’t you should blame non-voters either.
(I sent that message about 15 minutes before I had a surgery. I wasn’t feeling particularly great with the dehydration and hunger so hopefully that explains why my intent didn’t come across super well!)
First link supports my assertion. Second link says it’s moot (while conceding that Stein voters did have a material harmful impact and are responsible partially for Trump and the fascist Supreme...
First link supports my assertion. Second link says it’s moot (while conceding that Stein voters did have a material harmful impact and are responsible partially for Trump and the fascist Supreme Court), third link is a continuation of the preceding.
In any case, I’m sick of it all. Nothing will make the non-voter vote except for their personal lives going to shit. Persuasion is over sold and has little efficacy. It will get worse. Maybe it would get better after being worse, but it’s also a likely possibility that it will just continue getting worse and worse. Never better.
It's actually the opposite. People whose lives are going to shit feel disconnected and adrift. When they do want to "politically" participate it will end up being through outside agitation or...
Nothing will make the non-voter vote except for their personal lives going to shit.
It's actually the opposite. People whose lives are going to shit feel disconnected and adrift. When they do want to "politically" participate it will end up being through outside agitation or violence. Voting tends to correlate strongly with having strong ties to your community and being civically involved. This is why groups like churches or unions are so strongly represented.
Lives going to shit reduces participation. Building civic infrastructure that gets people accustomed to participating in civic life increases it. But groups that intentionally discourage participation, or create unrealistic expectations or foster cynicism around participating, have the pernicious effect of sapping that civic energy and redirecting it towards being a checked out cynic instead of an active participant.
And predictably, rather than own the consequences they'd rather just 'fix' the problem and pack the court. There needs to be more progressive voices championing and espousing long-term, strategic...
But I’m not going to let go of the fact that US Progressives chose to downplay Trump and spread misogyny in one of the most pivotal elections for the next 30 years.
And predictably, rather than own the consequences they'd rather just 'fix' the problem and pack the court. There needs to be more progressive voices championing and espousing long-term, strategic political goals rather than just chasing proverbial cars that they really don't want to catch.
While I don't disagree with you that third parties fucked up the 2016 election the only reason it happened is because the United States is so anti-third party, I don't think we will ever be able...
While I don't disagree with you that third parties fucked up the 2016 election the only reason it happened is because the United States is so anti-third party, I don't think we will ever be able to abandon that issue unless we either abandon the two party system in favor of a coalition government (which is pretty much impossible since we would have to completely redo the constitution, which I also think we should do), or we adopt ranked choice voting, which the GOP announced in their 2023-2024 platform that they are dedicated to stopping states from adopting.
Right now, I wouldn’t trust any Constitutional rewrites other than utter dissolution. It’s more likely the fascists would succeed in turning the US into a Christians-only Pakistan. Anything for...
Right now, I wouldn’t trust any Constitutional rewrites other than utter dissolution. It’s more likely the fascists would succeed in turning the US into a Christians-only Pakistan. Anything for mediocre, hateful white straight cisgender people to feel superior in lieu of their personal failings.
I've seen people throwing around the theory that the reason conservatives are pushing so hard for the election of Republicans in state legislature elections is to try and call for a convention of...
I've seen people throwing around the theory that the reason conservatives are pushing so hard for the election of Republicans in state legislature elections is to try and call for a convention of states, so you're probably right.
Let's not act like Mitch McConnell didn't unilaterally decide who could select the Justice and also is currently gloating about that fact while we blame progressives for not out cheating the...
Let's not act like Mitch McConnell didn't unilaterally decide who could select the Justice and also is currently gloating about that fact while we blame progressives for not out cheating the cheaters. The "Supreme" Court's illegitimacy is rooted in the right wing's subversion of democracy and pretty much nothing else.
It is scary at how anti-democracy the GOP is, and how dedicated their follower base is in helping them speed run us into a fascist government, just to "own the libs" and "end wokeness."
It is scary at how anti-democracy the GOP is, and how dedicated their follower base is in helping them speed run us into a fascist government, just to "own the libs" and "end wokeness."
We wouldn't have been in this mess if: The 2000 election hadn't gone the way it did (and SCOTUS' ruling in Bush v Gore) RBG had stepped down The GOP hadn't blocked Obama's appointment The 2016...
We wouldn't have been in this mess if:
The 2000 election hadn't gone the way it did (and SCOTUS' ruling in Bush v Gore)
RBG had stepped down
The GOP hadn't blocked Obama's appointment
The 2016 election hadn't gone the way it did
The GOP hadn't rammed through Barrett's appointment, in the same situation as the previous
Solely blaming RBG is not right. This is way more on the GOP than anyone else.
I used to revere her, but now I only have frustrations. She was touted to a lot of women as an Idol of Perseverance and breaking the glass ceiling in male dominated fields. Her own hubris caused...
I used to revere her, but now I only have frustrations. She was touted to a lot of women as an Idol of Perseverance and breaking the glass ceiling in male dominated fields. Her own hubris caused her to pull that ladder up for other women by refusing to step down at a more opportune time. Perseverance isn't ignoring sound advice and should include passing that legacy onto others. She is one of the reasons why I lost reproductive freedom.
That's not fair. Nobody knows the future. If you don't like the system, you look to change the system, not appeal to particular people. The current system dictates that supreme court judges are...
That's not fair. Nobody knows the future. If you don't like the system, you look to change the system, not appeal to particular people. The current system dictates that supreme court judges are judges for life. It's specifically designed to keep judges from making political decisions about their retirements in the exact manner you are wanting Justice Ginsberg to make here. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics.
Now, there's obviously a problem in that one political party has played a very very long game and by doing it over the last, literally 30 or 40 years, since the 70s and 80s, injected politics into the Supreme Court. That needs to be addressed.
But addressing this does not mean you also inject counter-politics into the system erratically by making it a political party habit of forcing your own judges out just so you can replace them with a younger, ideologically aligned judge to "keep the ideological line" alive.
In an ideal world, you are right. SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics, but there are no guidelines for how POTUS should evaluate the people that he nominates to the Supreme Court. So how do...
In an ideal world, you are right. SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics, but there are no guidelines for how POTUS should evaluate the people that he nominates to the Supreme Court. So how do you combat a scenario where one party tries to follow the traditions of selecting justices, while the other party actively spends their time trying to find people to appoint who will tow the party line, and rule in favor of the party's stances 80% of the time?
Do you keep voting to appoint their justices because that's what tradition demands, despite there being clear evidence that the nominees are clearly acting in bad faith? Or do you try to find people who will tow your party line in order to mitigate the deterioration of people's rights in favor of corporations and lobbies?
The way that justices are appointed to SCOTUS is fundamentally flawed. How do you take the bias out of a branch of government with elected officials who are elected by their constituents for their biases?
Quite frankly if this issue were ever brought to SCOTUS to rule on, which I don't think it would be, they would deny to rule on it as a political question in and of itself, because the Constitution has left the nomination and appointment solely up to the President and Congress.
No. The only difference is that it would be a 5-4 decision rather than a 6-3. The only reason we're in this mess is because too many people voted for Trump and not enough voted for Hillary. End of...
No. The only difference is that it would be a 5-4 decision rather than a 6-3. The only reason we're in this mess is because too many people voted for Trump and not enough voted for Hillary. End of story. There was an open Supreme Court seat and Trump was spewing insanity daily with wall-to-wall media coverage. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary (if they were able to) did so with their eyes wide open. Any other narrative is just an attempt to absolve the guilty.
Why is this the only option instead of simply waiting until one can appoint judges of a preferred ilk? "We must fuck with the institutions because the only acceptable outcome is whatever it is...
At this point, the only real option that we have is to pack the Supreme Court. That means convincing the more moderate Dems that it is a necessity or electing more leftists politicians in the future. Both of which are probably not that likely.
Why is this the only option instead of simply waiting until one can appoint judges of a preferred ilk?
"We must fuck with the institutions because the only acceptable outcome is whatever it is that we want them to achieve" is an incredibly problematic perspective. The fact that Republicans are already there doesn't make it okay to join them.
Because the judges in power are there for life, and they are so brazenly partisan that it's not entirely outside the realm of reason that they would rubber-stamp the next charismatic republican...
Why is this the only option instead of simply waiting until one can appoint judges of a preferred ilk?
Because the judges in power are there for life, and they are so brazenly partisan that it's not entirely outside the realm of reason that they would rubber-stamp the next charismatic republican president from declaring themselves dictator for life.
You can't "be the better man" if the other man is trying to kill you. It's one thing to fall on your sword while attempting to achieve something positive, but it's another thing to let someone stab you to prove your moral superiority.
Obviously packing the court would be preferable to such a scenario. But this is student loan forgiveness. Taking the L seems infinitely preferable to the nuclear option, and invoking the fear of a...
Obviously packing the court would be preferable to such a scenario.
But this is student loan forgiveness. Taking the L seems infinitely preferable to the nuclear option, and invoking the fear of a dictatorship doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Are you unaware of their [recent ruling] that negatively affects the lives of LGBT people? Have you forgotten the fact that they have essentially erased the right for a woman to have an abortion?...
Are you unaware of their [recent ruling] that negatively affects the lives of LGBT people?
Have you forgotten the fact that they have essentially erased the right for a woman to have an abortion?
How much more damage to human rights do they have to do before you can justify to yourself that action should be taken?
Several thoughts in no particular order: Student loan forgiveness during a period of high inflation is incredibly stupid; it will only make inflation worse. One time student loan forgiveness is...
Several thoughts in no particular order:
Student loan forgiveness during a period of high inflation is incredibly stupid; it will only make inflation worse.
One time student loan forgiveness is insulting and demeaning to everyone before and after who has to pay student loans. I'm not a fan of the government picking winners and losers.
Loans have been paused for 3 years. Anyone smart has at least been putting the equivalent of their student loan payment into a high yield savings account, which will significantly and artificially reduce the amount of the loans.
Inflation is actually helping student loan holders here, since the value of the dollar has decreased since the pause. $50k of loans in 2019 is more than $50k of loans in 2023.
Be prepared for there to be a lot of houses and newish used cars to hit the market when loan payments resume, as I bet a lot of loan holders overextended themselves.
This is actually good for Democrats. They get to say they tried, demonize the conservative court, and don't have to reap consequences of an inflationary policy.
I don't have a dog in this hunt but isn't that kind of like saying "Well, your aunt survived cancer so its insulting and demeaning that my aunt didn't?" Why is it that things like the automotive,...
One time student loan forgiveness is insulting and demeaning to everyone before and after who has to pay student loans. I'm not a fan of the government picking winners and losers.
I don't have a dog in this hunt but isn't that kind of like saying "Well, your aunt survived cancer so its insulting and demeaning that my aunt didn't?" Why is it that things like the automotive, banking and airline bailouts or PPP forgiveness are perfectly fine but anytime any kind of relief is offered to the people its suddenly insulting, demeaning or "sOciALiSm BaD"?
Loans have been paused for 3 years. Anyone smart has at least been putting the equivalent of their student loan payment into a high yield savings account, which will significantly and artificially reduce the amount of the loans.
Because life has happened in those 3 years. Rent has gone up, utilities, food, insurance have all gone up. Yes, people should have been doing that, but that doesn't mean they were able to.
By itself the loan forgiveness wouldn't solve the issue but it would supply immediate relief to those affected by the predatory loans. You can get a loan for $100,000+ for college at 17 or 18 when banks wouldn't even touch you on a $15,000 car loan.
However, we can't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good." I think this would be a good first step in overhauling the whole system with the end goal of free trade schools/4 year degrees.
No, because student loans are an optional financial obligation that each person is personally responsible for. They aren't predatory, they are risky. 18 year olds have no assets and no credit...
I don't have a dog in this hunt but isn't that kind of like saying "Well, your aunt survived cancer so its insulting and demeaning that my aunt didn't?" Why is it that things like the automotive, banking and airline bailouts or PPP forgiveness are perfectly fine but anytime any kind of relief is offered to the people its suddenly insulting, demeaning or "sOciALiSm BaD"?
No, because student loans are an optional financial obligation that each person is personally responsible for.
By itself the loan forgiveness wouldn't solve the issue but it would supply immediate relief to those affected by the predatory loans. You can get a loan for $100,000+ for college at 17 or 18 when banks wouldn't even touch you on a $15,000 car loan.
They aren't predatory, they are risky. 18 year olds have no assets and no credit history.
The highest 40% of incomes owe 60% of debt. Forgiving optional debt of high income earners shouldn't be on the table. If this was going to happen, I prefer it be means tested, rather than handing a $120k software engineer another $10k.
The only way I was able to get out of poverty and have health insurance was by going to college and getting a degree. Military and the trades were not an option for me due to health reasons. How...
No, because student loans are an optional financial obligation that each person is personally responsible for.
The only way I was able to get out of poverty and have health insurance was by going to college and getting a degree. Military and the trades were not an option for me due to health reasons. How is it fair to be punished by a high cost of entry in order to attain a better life?
While it is optional, it was the only pathway to a better life for I and others. I'm doing better financially, but like most middle class Americans it would only take one major incident to send me back to struggling. I worked as a waitress for years barely scraping by and damaging my body. It wasn't until this year that I finally had the funds and good insurance to get proper dental care after 10+ years without! I would argue having an educated populace is a benefit for everyone overall in society and shouldn't be gatekeeped by a high price to entry.
I'm glad you were able to climb out of poverty and get an education. However, I disagree that it's punishment. You're not punished by a high cost of entry because it's an investment in yourself:...
I'm glad you were able to climb out of poverty and get an education. However, I disagree that it's punishment. You're not punished by a high cost of entry because it's an investment in yourself: you're rewarded (assuming you enter an employable field).
The median student loan debt is $20-40k, depending on the state. On average, a college grad will make $1m more in their lifetime than a non college grad. Even if you assume 10% of that goes towards student loans, that is a tremendous and beneficial investment.
For what it's worth, I do think university should be free, but I also think we should be more strict about who we let into university while simultaneously shoring up trade/vocational programs and community colleges.
Affordable Healthcare was not accessible to me until I attained a degree and used that secure a decent job. When Healthcare is so intricately entwined with employment, having to pay for a degree...
You're not punished by a high cost of entry because it's an investment in yourself: you're rewarded (assuming you enter an employable field).
Affordable Healthcare was not accessible to me until I attained a degree and used that secure a decent job. When Healthcare is so intricately entwined with employment, having to pay for a degree to enter that type of arrangement is gatekeeping and not an investment. It is a barrier of entry in order to attain something that improves overall quality of life. Being able to afford the ability to repair my teeth after 10+ years without dental insurance shouldn't be viewed as a reward, but a quality of life standard without barrier.
I mean, that still sounds like an investment to me. I think we are just looking at this from different angles. The default position in this country is no/shitty healthcare and mediocre career...
I mean, that still sounds like an investment to me. I think we are just looking at this from different angles. The default position in this country is no/shitty healthcare and mediocre career prospects. In order to rise above the default, some sort of self investment must be made. This is harder for some than others, which I admit is not fair or even civil. If anything, the "punishment" comes from not being born into the right circumstances.
Your college degree had an up front cost, but it will more than pay for itself over time in earnings potential and quality of life improvement. Is it a barrier to entry? I suppose, in the same way that my monthly ISP fee is a barrier to entry for acquiring knowledge and entertainment, but in the long run I'm better off paying for it. It's rare for barriers to entry to be delayed until you have the income to pay for them... that would almost defeat the point of a barrier.
Now, should healthcare be tied to employment? If I had anything to say about it, no. A higher education also shouldn't be required for a reasonable level of quality of life.
What about those of us who could not finish, for whatever reason? I didn't ask to have my mental health take a nosedive my junior year, nor did I ask for my mom to have a medical crisis that cut...
What about those of us who could not finish, for whatever reason? I didn't ask to have my mental health take a nosedive my junior year, nor did I ask for my mom to have a medical crisis that cut off any assistance from them, while they still made too much money for me to qualify for anything beyond unsubsidized loans and PLUS loans. The irony is, the medical crisis thrashed their credit so badly they didn't qualify, meaning every semester I had a panicked few weeks where I would see if my conversion would go through so I could even keep attending.
I'm stuck with all the costs of attending, but without the degree to enable, you know, paying that debt off, and I cannot afford to go back and take a pay cut at work (as losing open availability means I would have to step down and lose upwards of 20% of my income).
Should I have never gone in the first place? Either way, it can't be undone, and now an attempt to better my life has become an albatross around my neck making improvement even more difficult. This pause was the first time I've had any breathing room in years budget wise, as any raises I got at work were immediately eaten up by increases in my required payments, all as the cost of living in my area spiraled upwards. This pause enabled me to buy a car (a $2k shitbox, not some luxury thing), allowing me to move to a cheaper area that wasn't as transit accessible, and allowed me to take earlier shifts at work. Going back to this mess is just getting knocked back in the dirt right after getting room to breathe, for once.
My opinion is that loan forgiveness should be needs based. If you have debt and are not in a financially secure enough position to pay it off, there should be a program to either forgive or...
My opinion is that loan forgiveness should be needs based. If you have debt and are not in a financially secure enough position to pay it off, there should be a program to either forgive or substantially reduce your burden.
I don't understand why this is used as an excuse to not provide aid. Tens of millions of individuals were told to better themselves and did, in order to give themselves better opportunities and to...
student loans are an optional financial obligation that each person is personally responsible for.
I don't understand why this is used as an excuse to not provide aid.
Tens of millions of individuals were told to better themselves and did, in order to give themselves better opportunities and to bolster the workforce of our nation. Are we to believe that the nation would have been better off if all these individuals chose not to go to college?
We provided bailouts to banks when they made terrible choices in 2008 because it would be better for the nation and economy than to let them collapse.
As a society we are supposed to help each other, if there is a flood and some idiot tries to cross through some water and get stuck, we still send rescue. People choose to live in areas prone to flooding and we still help them.
And those people will earn, on average, an additional $1.2m over the course of their lives as a result of taking on that debt. A median debt of $37k. Half of all student loan debt is held by...
And those people will earn, on average, an additional $1.2m over the course of their lives as a result of taking on that debt. A median debt of $37k. Half of all student loan debt is held by graduate students- masters and doctorates- who will be high earners. 60% of all debt is held by the highest 40% incomes.
Why are we giving $10,000 to people who are already ahead? That just doesn't make sense to me. They bettered themselves and are rewarded for it, in the form of earning potential and quality of life. That's not enough? What about the people who didn't get a chance to better themselves? Why should they pay for this?
I disagree that it's good for the country to give high earners and the educated an additional $10k, especially during a period of high inflation. It could be more beneficial almost anywhere else. Means tested? Sure. Give those with low incomes debt relief.
I think you're making a few different errors here. Conflating income with wealth; just because someone's earning a lot, doesn't mean they're rich. If they're drowning in debt, they'll be...
I think you're making a few different errors here.
Conflating income with wealth; just because someone's earning a lot, doesn't mean they're rich. If they're drowning in debt, they'll be struggling all the same.
"Highest 40%" is a broad range of people, and considering the severe income inequality of the United States, could very well not mean much. Remember that the top 10% by wealth own 69% of all wealth as of Q1 2023.
If they're high income and drowning in debt, they aren't drowning in debt because of student loans. The 60th percentile income is $85k. That is a good salary. There are maybe a handful of places...
Conflating income with wealth; just because someone's earning a lot, doesn't mean they're rich. If they're drowning in debt, they'll be struggling all the same.
If they're high income and drowning in debt, they aren't drowning in debt because of student loans.
"Highest 40%" is a broad range of people, and considering the severe income inequality of the United States, could very well not mean much. Remember that the top 10% by wealth own 69% of all wealth as of Q1 2023.
The 60th percentile income is $85k. That is a good salary. There are maybe a handful of places where you would struggle to live on $85k and student loans, given the loan amount is substantial.
Means testing is rarely ever worth it.
I think it's worthwhile to avoid giving rich people even more money at the expensive of poor people.
How can you be so sure? You're not them. The same goes for your second response — what makes you so confident that their other expenses, plus their student loan payments, aren't crushing them?...
If they're high income and drowning in debt, they aren't drowning in debt because of student loans.
How can you be so sure? You're not them. The same goes for your second response — what makes you so confident that their other expenses, plus their student loan payments, aren't crushing them?
I think it's worthwhile to avoid giving rich people even more money at the expensive of poor people.
That's not what means testing does; it just makes the effort more expensive, while hindering poor folk's ability to utilize it. I linked a video there, and it explains why better and more thoroughly than I can here.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Our progressive tax structure already acknowledges that the more money someone earns, the less valuable it is to them. Sure, there are instances it isn't...
How can you be so sure? You're not them. The same goes for your second response — what makes you so confident that their other expenses, plus their student loan payments, aren't crushing them?
I don't understand this line of thinking. Our progressive tax structure already acknowledges that the more money someone earns, the less valuable it is to them. Sure, there are instances it isn't true, but it's true enough to the point where our entire tax system is based on it. How is forgiving the student loan of a high earner any different than a tax cut for a high earner? What's the effective difference? Across the board student debt relief is as close to an upper middle class subsidy as you can get. I truly don't understand why the idea is so popular.
That's not what means testing does; it just makes the effort more expensive, while hindering poor folk's ability to utilize it. I linked a video there, and it explains why better and more thoroughly than I can here.
We already have tons of tax credits and exemptions that apply based on income such as the EITC, I'm skeptical that an income based forgiveness plan would cost more than it saves or be a significant barrier. On top of that, it doesn't take into account the ramifications of giving a bunch of people who don't need money $10k during a period of extreme inflation... it's telling them to go out and buy more stuff.
So if I'm understanding correctly you're position isn't that we shouldn't help, but rather more fundamental that they do not require any help in the first place. From your point of view there is...
So if I'm understanding correctly you're position isn't that we shouldn't help, but rather more fundamental that they do not require any help in the first place.
From your point of view there is no student debt crisis, everyone is able to pay their loans.
(Sorry if that comes across as sarcastic, but I am genuinely curious if I am understanding you correctly. )
If that is the case might I ask why you think the debts haven't been paid off? Or I guess where do you think this idea that student debt is an issue came from?
My position is that we should help the people who truly need it, not the 23 year old computer science junior devevlope making $130k with $20k of student loan debt in a LCOL city. Some sort of...
My position is that we should help the people who truly need it, not the 23 year old computer science junior devevlope making $130k with $20k of student loan debt in a LCOL city. Some sort of debt/income analysis needs to be performed and relief doled out accordingly. I also think the government should eliminate interest rates on their loans.
I don't think there is a crisis, I think it's overblown. The debt figures are inflated by grad students who will be high earners and able to pay off their debt, and as I mentioned the majority of the debt is borne by people who aren't as likely to be financially constrained.
The debts haven't been paid off because there is a constant supply of people taking on new debt as existing debt is paid off.
The key difference is that taking on loans is a choice with upsides and downsides, where cancer is usually seen as random. Consider my case: I chose to try to work my way through college, afraid...
I don't have a dog in this hunt but isn't that kind of like saying "Well, your aunt survived cancer so its insulting and demeaning that my aunt didn't?"
The key difference is that taking on loans is a choice with upsides and downsides, where cancer is usually seen as random. Consider my case:
I chose to try to work my way through college, afraid of accruing the sort of debt my parents were suffering under. I got to watch as my friends took on loans, went off to dorms, and had unprecedented freedom during their college years while I had no free time thanks to full-time work and schooling. I didn't get a "college experience", but that's the tradeoff I chose to avoid taking on debt.
If we wanted a cancer analogy, I think it'd be more akin to me developing a random case of lung cancer, but a measure was put into place that would provide relief only to lung cancer patients who have extensively smoked cigarettes despite ample warning about how terrible it is for your health. Would it be wrong to be upset about the unfair distribution of this relief?
How much did you make working part time and how much was your tuition? Either you went to school many years ago, got a very high paying job, or there is more to the story. It is not possible to...
How much did you make working part time and how much was your tuition? Either you went to school many years ago, got a very high paying job, or there is more to the story.
It is not possible to work your way through school like it was 30-40 years ago.
It is for associates degrees or extension/evening programs. They're basically designed for it, but they're also don't look that great on a resume if you want to be in a high-achieving field.
It is not possible to work your way through school like it was 30-40 years ago.
It is for associates degrees or extension/evening programs. They're basically designed for it, but they're also don't look that great on a resume if you want to be in a high-achieving field.
I mean the federal student loans are on fairly generous terms, and there're pretty stingy in what they give you, at least for undergrad. Realistically you're not getting more than 30kish in...
By itself the loan forgiveness wouldn't solve the issue but it would supply immediate relief to those affected by the predatory loans. You can get a loan for $100,000+ for college at 17 or 18 when banks wouldn't even touch you on a $15,000 car loan.
I mean the federal student loans are on fairly generous terms, and there're pretty stingy in what they give you, at least for undergrad. Realistically you're not getting more than 30kish in federal student loans. Where the huge totals come in is private student loans, which Biden would never be able to touch anyway.
For the people somehow or another buried in federal student debt, the IBR/IDR reforms are a much bigger deal, so we'll see if that is challenged in court or not.
I think a lot of the thoughts you shared have legitimate merit, or at least have some grounds for hope (I'd like to think #6 will secure 44 million votes come the next election). I think the only...
I think a lot of the thoughts you shared have legitimate merit, or at least have some grounds for hope (I'd like to think #6 will secure 44 million votes come the next election).
I think the only one I have a differing opinion on is #3. For myself, at least, the 3 years of payment pauses was the only reason I was able to get a house. It was the only reason I was able to move to a new job, since I was treadmilling on payments before that. I think for a lot of people, #3 wasn't as much as an option as you'd think, since a fair amount of people had to take that time to dig themselves out of a hole they'd fallen into before being able to put anything into a savings account. I absolutely agree, through reading between the lines, that there are some that just started spending on anything and everything they could since 'the loan payments disappeared!' and that their inevitable faceplant come October is (without tact) entirely their fault. But there are so many people like my recently-moved-out-roommates who were finally able to get a house because they saved this entire time during the pause, so that they could have some sort of assets to hold onto. Most people didn't have assets prior to the pause, and that was the main aim for a lot of people to get out of renter's hell.
edit: Wanted to put a quick stipulation in here that I may or may not have miss-read the tone of the original comment by interjecting my personal experience into it. I have specifically heard people call student loaners idiots for not having a savings account regardless of (or more like in defiance of) getting a home, like renting wasn't a big deal. This conversation has gone into a good direction, so all's well, but just wanted to clarify the tone and reasoning for my reply. Carry on~
For 3), buying a house and putting money in an HYSA are both investments. If managed to buy a house with the repayment pause, that's a big W! Your "profit" is the equity you get every month + the...
For 3), buying a house and putting money in an HYSA are both investments. If managed to buy a house with the repayment pause, that's a big W! Your "profit" is the equity you get every month + the difference between what market rate rent is and your mortgage.
The student loan would probably be harder on your finances if you didn't have a house.
Less the maintenance expenses, which significantly eat into the profitability of owning a house, alongside other non-recoupable costs like closing costs and HOA dues. You get lower effective...
Your "profit" is the equity you get every month + the difference between what market rate rent is and your mortgage.
Less the maintenance expenses, which significantly eat into the profitability of owning a house, alongside other non-recoupable costs like closing costs and HOA dues. You get lower effective returns than many other investments along with a major loss of liquidity; there's a reason many economists argue that home ownership is a bad investment.
I'd say that buying a house falls under investing the equivalent amount, since it's an appreciating asset (on average historically). If loan payments resume and you get into a tight spot...
I'd say that buying a house falls under investing the equivalent amount, since it's an appreciating asset (on average historically). If loan payments resume and you get into a tight spot financially, you now have the backstop of taking out a HELOC or selling the house for a likely profit.
At what age is someone fully responsible for their decisions? Is it 18? Lower, higher? Because it seems to me like you're saying society placed burdens on you that you weren't ready for, so it's...
At what age is someone fully responsible for their decisions? Is it 18? Lower, higher? Because it seems to me like you're saying society placed burdens on you that you weren't ready for, so it's not your fault. So, to me the solution to that is to raise the age of adulthood, which would also entail stripping the right to vote, among other things; if you're not old enough to make life decisions at 18, you're not old enough to vote, live without adult supervision, or take on debt.
We live in the information age; the ramifications and minutia of student loans, taxes, and adulthood have been at our fingertips for over a decade. I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years. It has been incredibly easy to do basic research to see what you're getting into.
Nope. I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my argument. The argument I'm responding to is that many people are not to blame for their student loan debts; it was thrust upon them...
But basically, you're saying that my undiagnosed ADHD should have stripped my right to vote, forced me to have adult supervision - until what, my ADHD diagnosis at age 30?
Nope. I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my argument.
The argument I'm responding to is that many people are not to blame for their student loan debts; it was thrust upon them without them understanding the burden or consequences. Ok, fine. However, that's adulthood. When you're an adult and you make a decision you don't fully understand, or suffer a disaster, the responsibility falls on you and you have to handle the consequences. Sometimes the government can bail you out, sometimes you have insurance to bail you out, sometimes you're on your own. That's what happens when you're an independent adult. My argument is that if 18 year olds are not old enough to understand the consequence of debt, they are not old enough to be a legal adult. And now, because they didn't understand the consequences, they're asking the government to bail them out. Debt is a core, persistent tool in every day life for nearly every adult, even ones that don't go to college. If they're not old enough to understand/comprehend the consequences, they're not old enough to be independent.
I really hate this perspective that just because someone is suffering from a decision of their own making, that they deserve no sympathy and should not be helped. I really don't care if student...
I really hate this perspective that just because someone is suffering from a decision of their own making, that they deserve no sympathy and should not be helped.
I really don't care if student loan debt is or is not the fault of those who signed on for it, because even if it is, that's just people making mistakes. That doesn't mean they deserved to be saddled with an iron around their neck for the nigh-on rest of their lives, and yet modern day student loan debt does exactly that.
This is a problem, and it should be fixed. To believe otherwise is callous and disrespectful to those hurt by it.
The thing about research is that to even consider doing it, you have to be under the impression that there is information you don't have. If you live underground and, for all your life, everyone...
The thing about research is that to even consider doing it, you have to be under the impression that there is information you don't have.
If you live underground and, for all your life, everyone who's said anything about the sky has mentioned that it's a magenta and black checkerboard pattern, and occasionally someone cites some convincing-sounding scientific explanation for why, and you've never encountered any opinions to the contrary, then there's no reason for you to ever go type "what color is the sky?" into a search engine. It would immediately tell you that the sky is blue, but that's not useful if you never ask.
And then one day you visit the surface, and you are very surprised.
How do we determine if someone is completely in a bubble, unaware of the burdens of reality, and therefore unable to shoulder the burdens of adulthood? Some sort of adulthood test?
How do we determine if someone is completely in a bubble, unaware of the burdens of reality, and therefore unable to shoulder the burdens of adulthood? Some sort of adulthood test?
Not with the negative connotations that word usually comes with, and if it came off that way I apologize. I was replying to @switchgear specifically and not taking the rest of your comment into...
Not with the negative connotations that word usually comes with, and if it came off that way I apologize. I was replying to @switchgear specifically and not taking the rest of your comment into account.
To the extent that people's problem is a lack of information* ("Damn me for listening to society and what was considered to be wisdom") I'm explicitly differentiating between "was misled and nobody corrected them before they made a mistake" and "actively avoided discovering new information, which led them to make a mistake", and putting you in the former group.
* to be clear, IMO it's primarily luck, most of life's outcomes are luck-based
Imagine the world complexly. Do not conflate responsibility for making a decision, with the causation of the risk of said decision being realized, or with the necessity of enduring the...
Imagine the world complexly.
Do not conflate responsibility for making a decision, with the causation of the risk of said decision being realized, or with the necessity of enduring the consequences without any support.
There's a risk associated with everything. If you walk down some stairs and fall, breaking a leg, would you want an onlooker to assist you, maybe call an ambulance? Or would you want them to say you knew the risk when you decided to go outside, you can handle that yourself, thank you very much?
Maybe the stairs were made of wood. You fell because the stair broke under you, because it had recently been hit by a heavy object, causing it to crack beneath which wasn't visible when walking on them. No person in particular is responsible for maintaining the stairs, so should we blame you? After all, you should reasonably be aware that such things could happen.
What I mean is that the primary question is not who is to blame, or who made the choice associated with the risk, but whether collectively we are better off for helping. To say categorically that assistance should not be given when asked for, simply because the situation was ostensibly made by individual choices, is to put spite before compassion and reason.
We are not collectively better off helping under the proposed relief structure. 60% of the debt is owned by people making over $85k. 50% of the debt is owned by people with graduate degrees....
We are not collectively better off helping under the proposed relief structure. 60% of the debt is owned by people making over $85k. 50% of the debt is owned by people with graduate degrees. Helping would be one of the biggest upper middle class subsidies this country has ever seen, at the expense of people who actually need support. In addition, it would be handing high earners a fat check after inflation just ran rampant, making inflation even worse.
This debt relief is like rent control- it helps a very select few to the detriment of the majority.
I'm fine with targeted assistance and relief to people who need it- if they have to drop out for medical or personal reasons, if their school loses accreditation and they can't get a job, whatever. However for everyone else, the ability to know and understand the consequences of student loans has been attainable for well over a decade. We are well past the point where "I didn't know what I was signing up for" is a valid excuse. Those are the people who I question if they are capable of being adults, and if self reliance and curiosity and independence are completely absent from our 18 year olds then they are not ready to shoulder any sort of burden that dictates where there life can lead.
I'm not arguing either for or against cancelling student loans, so responding with arguments for or against is not really relevant. I am arguing that your line of reasoning that, in essence, "they...
I'm not arguing either for or against cancelling student loans, so responding with arguments for or against is not really relevant.
I am arguing that your line of reasoning that, in essence, "they knew what they were doing, therefore we should do nothing now", is inherently flawed.
This is how, to my reading, you presented it in the reply I first responded to
At what age is someone fully responsible for their decisions? Is it 18? Lower, higher? Because it seems to me like you're saying society placed burdens on you that you weren't ready for, so it's not your fault. So, to me the solution to that is to raise the age of adulthood, which would also entail stripping the right to vote, among other things; if you're not old enough to make life decisions at 18, you're not old enough to vote, live without adult supervision, or take on debt.
We live in the information age; the ramifications and minutia of student loans, taxes, and adulthood have been at our fingertips for over a decade. I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years. It has been incredibly easy to do basic research to see what you're getting into.
And it is an argument you repeat in essence in your reply to me
We are well past the point where "I didn't know what I was signing up for" is a valid excuse. Those are the people who I question if they are capable of being adults, and if self reliance and curiosity and independence are completely absent from our 18 year olds then they are not ready to shoulder any sort of burden that dictates where there life can lead.
Ignoring that I consider this latter quote to be a gross mischaracterization and exaggeration of the situation, my point is that this argument specifically - not arguing against student loan cancellation in general - is not solid reasoning. From my reading, your reply does not address that, and even repeats it.
Based on this, I must give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do indeed believe this to be an argument against the cancellation of student debt. If that is the case, please respond to my initial reply and give an argument for why you consider this argument relevant. If that is not the case, it is as far as I can tell at best spiteful (as argued in my original reply) and at worst openly hostile.
Sure. I don't think we should be using taxpayer funds to bail out the mistakes of the willfully uninformed or ignorant. If you went to university in the last 10-15 years and did no research on...
Sure. I don't think we should be using taxpayer funds to bail out the mistakes of the willfully uninformed or ignorant. If you went to university in the last 10-15 years and did no research on career paths or student loan debt, you are willfully uniformed.
If you had a legitimate issue that kept you from finishing school, working after school, etc, then sure. But "I didn't do enough research to know what I was getting into and turned out to regret it" is not a legitimate reason to be bailed out. That is an overwhelming chorus sung by many student loan debt holders online.
Again you fall back to mischaracterization and exaggeration, and again you repeat the same argument without addressing my response. Three times repeated, I guess the charitable interpretation was...
Again you fall back to mischaracterization and exaggeration, and again you repeat the same argument without addressing my response. Three times repeated, I guess the charitable interpretation was wrong. An argument from spite it is, then. Thank you for making yourself abundantly clear.
For anyone else reading this, I am not saying that it is wrong to feel spiteful if people were to have their student debt cancelled, and you do not personally directly benefit from it. Emotions are human, and we cannot fully control them, but if you want people to even tolerate you, put the spite to the side and argue the substantial concerns. If you think there are no benefits, then explain why, but do not spout your resentment.
I already directly answered your question several comments up. Your question: My response, with no "emotion" or "spite." What are you fishing for, exactly? What part of this didn't address your...
I already directly answered your question several comments up. Your question:
What I mean is that the primary question is not who is to blame, or who made the choice associated with the risk, but whether collectively we are better off for helping. To say categorically that assistance should not be given when asked for, simply because the situation was ostensibly made by individual choices, is to put spite before compassion and reason.
My response, with no "emotion" or "spite." What are you fishing for, exactly? What part of this didn't address your response? It has absolutely nothing to do with denying assistance based on individual choice.
We are not collectively better off helping under the proposed relief structure. 60% of the debt is owned by people making over $85k. 50% of the debt is owned by people with graduate degrees. Helping would be one of the biggest upper middle class subsidies this country has ever seen, at the expense of people who actually need support. In addition, it would be handing high earners a fat check after inflation just ran rampant, making inflation even worse.
Again you fundamentally misunderstand what I am arguing. I can tell this because you say the quoted part is a question, which it is not. There is no question mark. It is a statement about what is...
Again you fundamentally misunderstand what I am arguing.
I can tell this because you say the quoted part is a question, which it is not. There is no question mark. It is a statement about what is reasonable to use as arguments within this topic.
It isn't a question, because (again) I am not arguing whether or not it would be better collectively to do this. Nowhere did I assert that this is or isn't the case.
It is good that you argue the benefits of it, although it is wasted in this reply chain because I am not arguing whether or not it is beneficial. Arguing the benefits (and implicitly the detriments) is specifically what I argued you should do, as quoted here:
What I mean is that the primary question is not who is to blame, or who made the choice associated with the risk, but whether collectively we are better off for helping.
What I argued you shouldn't do is the other part of your arguments, where you argue "they knew what they were doing so we shouldn't help". I argue that such a reason is nothing but spite.
Let me rephrase it for you, since clearly what I had written before is not what you unserstand it to be:
Arguing out of spite is not reasonable
An unreasonable argument should not be used
Arguing that "people knew or should have known what they were getting into, so we shouldn't help them" is an argument out of spite. For context this quote of yours, which is part of your lost which I originally replied to, I consider to be characterized by this sentiment
We live in the information age; the ramifications and minutia of student loans, taxes, and adulthood have been at our fingertips for over a decade. I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years. It has been incredibly easy to do basic research to see what you're getting into.
Therefore, that argument should not be used.
I am not arguing for, or against, any other part of your statements.
An actual response to this would either contest at least one of the above points, or agree that it is accurate and that you should not argue as such.
This could be, for instance:
An explanation of why that is not the argument you were making with the stated quote.
An explanation of why you consider that that argument is not an argument out of spite;
An acknowledgement that that argument is out of spite, but giving an explanation of why arguing out of spite is reasonable;
An acknowledgement that that argument is unreasonable, but that using unreasonable arguments is something you should do.
An acknowledgement that that argument is out of spite and that it is not reasonable to use it.
I don't think it's spite. Spite implies a negative action with no tangible upside. In my mind, paying off the debt of the willfully ignorant would cause more harm than good, so withholding the...
I don't think it's spite. Spite implies a negative action with no tangible upside. In my mind, paying off the debt of the willfully ignorant would cause more harm than good, so withholding the relief has a tangible upside. If there was a way to help these people without extravagant cost to the public (such as eliminating interest on government loans), I'm all for it. I'm not against helping them simply because they made a poor decision.
Giving you the benefit of doubt that this is indeed your stance, would you then agree that this sentiment was entirely absent from the post I originally replied to? I see not even a hint of "I...
If there was a way to help these people without extravagant cost to the public (such as eliminating interest on government loans), I'm all for it. I'm not against helping them simply because they made a poor decision.
Giving you the benefit of doubt that this is indeed your stance, would you then agree that this sentiment was entirely absent from the post I originally replied to?
At what age is someone fully responsible for their decisions? Is it 18? Lower, higher? Because it seems to me like you're saying society placed burdens on you that you weren't ready for, so it's not your fault. So, to me the solution to that is to raise the age of adulthood, which would also entail stripping the right to vote, among other things; if you're not old enough to make life decisions at 18, you're not old enough to vote, live without adult supervision, or take on debt.
We live in the information age; the ramifications and minutia of student loans, taxes, and adulthood have been at our fingertips for over a decade. I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years. It has been incredibly easy to do basic research to see what you're getting into.
I see not even a hint of "I wish we could help but it's just not a good idea", and quite the opposite specifically in the quote
I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years.
I would appreciate getting the same sort of loan forgiveness the federal government sprayed about to companies who received PPP loans like candy at a parade, thank you. Why should my tax dollars...
I don't think we should be using taxpayer funds to bail out the mistakes of the willfully uninformed or ignorant.
I would appreciate getting the same sort of loan forgiveness the federal government sprayed about to companies who received PPP loans like candy at a parade, thank you. Why should my tax dollars go to fund the second yacht for some "small business" owner when I can't kill off my own debt? I'll take at least the forgiveness the bitch who brought the suit SCOTUS ruled on received.
My thoughts on each of these points: I couldn't disagree with this more, the inflation has already been realized via average people's budget and spending adjusting to not having to pay student...
My thoughts on each of these points:
I couldn't disagree with this more, the inflation has already been realized via average people's budget and spending adjusting to not having to pay student loans. Resuming payment will instantly cause additional hardship for a large segment of the population and threatens to immediately worsen the recession while doing nothing to abate inflation.
Agreed, college should be free and well regulated.
Kind of agree - there is no such thing as a "high yield savings account" when adjusted for inflation at this time, most savings accounts are low rate or not beating inflation. Tbills may be a good option. Imo the best thing to do is put savings in tbills or mutual funds and never pay more than the absolute bare minimum on low interest rate student loans.
agree
agree, i'm hoping to buy a used car if the recession gets bad enough
Agree, democrats should see a huge political boost off of this
While I don't think this is a particularly popular opinion among internet demographics, it is not an uncommon one among people at large, and economists, so I think it's good to have present. While...
While I don't think this is a particularly popular opinion among internet demographics, it is not an uncommon one among people at large, and economists, so I think it's good to have present.
While I personally don't think it would've had that much of an inflationary effect, and on net with payments restarting it would've been slightly deflationary, it is still injecting money into an economy where people are concerned about inflation. Despite headline inflation being fairly low now, core CPI is still somewhat high and has been sticky. So perhaps indeed it was an unintended blessing to the Biden administration. We'll have to see, I suppose.
What's the basis for this statement? I've seen numbers like $400 billion in total canceled debt/interest for Biden's plan. I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but this article has...
I personally don't think it would've had that much of an inflationary effect
What's the basis for this statement? I've seen numbers like $400 billion in total canceled debt/interest for Biden's plan. I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but this article has estimates ranging from 1.3 - 1.7% inflation, with an estimated 50-75 basis point interest rate increase needed to counteract the effects.
It's important to remember that the inflationary effect would be on a counterfactual basis. That is, compared to the universe where student loans were forgiven. In terms of the CPI numbers, we...
It's important to remember that the inflationary effect would be on a counterfactual basis. That is, compared to the universe where student loans were forgiven. In terms of the CPI numbers, we already live in a world where people haven't been paying any of their student loans, and while some people may have been saving that for this rainy day, I imagine most weren't.
So while that is 400b, it's not 400b compared to yesterday, it's 400b compared to today in an alternate universe. Compared to today, the net effect of restarting payments and forgiveness would still be more negative money than yesterday, where all student loan payments were halted.
Inflation numbers are already quite a bit down, even if core is still somewhat shakey (but much of that buoyed by housing costs, which are inelastic enough that I'm not sure would decrease much from losing demand).
Yes, this all depends on whether student loan payments will resume or not. So this discussion is about future inflation trends after this point. So, resuming student loan payments would...
Yes, this all depends on whether student loan payments will resume or not. So this discussion is about future inflation trends after this point. So, resuming student loan payments would deflationary, and including loan forgiveness would be less deflationary.
Well, whether loan forgiveness is a good idea is a matter of opinion, just saying that there's some quantifiable cost as far as inflation. My household has actually benefitted from the corrections to PSLF, and now we're spending a ton of money on stuff. This is great for me, but I'm definitely contributing my little part to inflation.
It's not that counterfactual because payments were paused for so long, so that was basically injecting that amount of money for 3-4 years. We didn't really see a huge inflation shock as a result....
It's not that counterfactual because payments were paused for so long, so that was basically injecting that amount of money for 3-4 years. We didn't really see a huge inflation shock as a result. The inflation really didn't start to kick in until the supply chain crunches hit. And that has proven transitory. Inflation is getting close to its typical baseline now and that's despite payments not having resumed yet.
If anything, I think forgiving the debt would probably encourage more entrepreneurship and savings rather than spending. That should increase productivity. Think about who has the most debt? It's highly educated professionals. They likely have decent incomes all things considered. They're going to be putting that money into money market funds after an initial splurge on a celebratory dinner. (Either that or they'll buy a house or have a baby.)
Yep, the gov. Stepping in to give out loans for anyone is one of the main reasons for the inflated costs of college. These colleges that used to have to compete for students and set logical...
Yep, the gov. Stepping in to give out loans for anyone is one of the main reasons for the inflated costs of college. These colleges that used to have to compete for students and set logical prices, figured out that they could charge whatever they wanted and the students could get a loan for it. No state college should cost 25k a semester, plus room and books... that's insane.
The states also hold some blame here. Per National Education Foundation
The states also hold some blame here.
Between 2020 and 2021, state funding for higher education declined in 37 states, by an average of 6 percent, the NEA analysis shows. In California, for example, state lawmakers cut funding by $1.7 billion, and the budget was 10 percent smaller than it was in 2020. In Colorado, the budget was cut by 47 percent.
CPI inflation has decreased every month for the past year. Prices are high, but they are no longer growing anywhere near the rate they were a year ago. Retail sales are down. Home sales are down...
CPI inflation has decreased every month for the past year. Prices are high, but they are no longer growing anywhere near the rate they were a year ago. Retail sales are down. Home sales are down 22% over a year ago. Job openings are down 22% YTY and unemployment is up 11% over last April.
The economy isn't a speeding car on fire anymore; it's teetering on the edge of a cliff. Adding a large persistent, monthly payment to a millions of people just entering the middle class is practically guaranteed to send us into a recession.
On the one hand, PPP loan forgiveness is insulting to everyone before and after who had to pay off a small business loan. You could say the government picks winners and losers daily with far, far less controversy.
On the other hand, it's not a zero-sum game. If you already paid off your loans, you do not "lose" just because someone else's loan was forgiven later down the line. It is not "winning" to refuse to help those who come after you; that's just spite.
This is completely detached from reality. As you pointed out, inflation has been at record levels over the past few years. It is only now coming down. Most college aged people have not been privileged enough to be able to save much, let alone save a meaningful amount in an account with a return rate below inflation.
And honestly the rest of your points are in such bad faith that they aren't worth addressing.
I personally would have benefitted from Biden's plan however it makes no sense at all to forgive loans while at the same time handing them out. I'll figure out a way to pay what I owe but at the...
I personally would have benefitted from Biden's plan however it makes no sense at all to forgive loans while at the same time handing them out. I'll figure out a way to pay what I owe but at the same time we have to stop rat fucking young people by putting them in the same position I am now.
This ruling is about as textbook example of "ruling from the bench" as you could as for. The law (the HEROES Act) is about as clear and explicit as you could ask for. Is it also very broad in it's...
This ruling is about as textbook example of "ruling from the bench" as you could as for.
The law (the HEROES Act) is about as clear and explicit as you could ask for. Is it also very broad in it's scope? Yes. But broad does not mean vague or unclear.
SCOTUS here decided that, based on some made-up doctrine, that Biden had gone too far. The law, as written wasn't broken, but the law as supposedly intended (by whom?) was.
“Major questions doctrine” is all about legislating from the bench. I’m already tired of hearing that term and it’s probably going to be around for most of the rest of my life. And I can’t help...
“Major questions doctrine” is all about ruling legislating from the bench. I’m already tired of hearing that term and it’s probably going to be around for most of the rest of my life.
And I can’t help but wonder what the result would have been if Trump tried to forgive student loan debt.
This is going to hurt a lot of people. I know our household is going to have to pivot pretty hard on any plans we would have made if the forgiveness had gone through. I've kind of just had to...
This is going to hurt a lot of people. I know our household is going to have to pivot pretty hard on any plans we would have made if the forgiveness had gone through. I've kind of just had to internalize that I don't get to take a full breath of fresh air for many years, no traveling, just going to work and paying a loan. And I'm not even in a bad spot compared to some people! I'm also going to have to hold back some screaming when my republican family members inevitably make goading comments about 'just paying what I owe' while they go on vacations I will never dream of. Or maybe I won't.
It's not a new expense. It's the resumption of an expense that they already had. People budgeted poorly if they just decided to assume that their bills wouldn't be resumed at some point. As good...
It's not a new expense. It's the resumption of an expense that they already had. People budgeted poorly if they just decided to assume that their bills wouldn't be resumed at some point.
As good intentioned as it was, this loan forgiveness plan ultimately hurt people by making them think that they no longer owed the money that they agreed to pay back when they took out these loans in the first place. Instead of setting aside the money during a zero interest period to pay their debts, they went off and spent it on other crap..
It's great, isn't it? 5 or 6 figures of debt, and let's not even talk about how the interest adds up. Why is it again that people are scraping to get by and not having kids? Oh right, not working...
It's great, isn't it? 5 or 6 figures of debt, and let's not even talk about how the interest adds up. Why is it again that people are scraping to get by and not having kids? Oh right, not working hard enough and too much avocado toast.
My parent's generation paid $300-$400 a semester for undergrad tuition. I paid $14,000 a semester and double that for grad school. Looking at the prices today, I was lucky. Let's also ignore how hard it is to get a job and how little they pay.
Anything more than 40 hours a week is unthinkable to my parents and grandparents. "Only" 40 would be a huge increase in quality of life for me. Time off? In 10 years, I took a full week once. Otherwise a few days here and there. This is why some parts of the world wonder what the heck is wrong with the U.S.
I had employees scoff when I told them I was leaving the state for the first time in 10 years for a weekend excursion to Chicago (emphasis again, it was a weekend excursion, not like a week...
I had employees scoff when I told them I was leaving the state for the first time in 10 years for a weekend excursion to Chicago (emphasis again, it was a weekend excursion, not like a week vacation). They were asking me how it was possible I'd never left the state even for a casual outing, and I had to bite my tongue really hard and just shrug instead of ranting some very blunt and insensitive comments about how not all of us come from money... among other rants. It's like... the wealthy older generation literally has no idea. They literally cannot conceive what we're going through. That Chicago trip (which I was lucky to be able to go!) will likely be the last time I go anywhere during my 30's, meanwhile I have coworkers just willy-nill going off to Colorado or Japan. And I'd consider my workplace to be incredibly progressive, just some of them don't have the perspective to fully 'get it', even if their heart's in the right place.
Which really just goes to show that anyone nefariously against progressive legislation is absolutely never going to budge. They can't empathize and they don't want to.
Yeah. My coworkers mostly get it, but family gatherings, it feels like I'm in a different world sometimes. I am, in a way. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we could actually be in someone...
Yeah. My coworkers mostly get it, but family gatherings, it feels like I'm in a different world sometimes. I am, in a way.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we could actually be in someone else's shoes. You can't imagine what this is like? Come live my life for like a month. Be right there with me and my friends and find out what insurmountable debt can do to your mental health.
Would it convince everyone? Probably not. But something's gotta change. I just wish I knew what I could do to help make that happen.
The document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf The main question was standing Welp, it's joever for the forgiveness then. Hopefully the IDR/IBR reforms go through...
At least Missouri has standing to challenge the Secretary’s program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561. Here, as the Government concedes, the Secretary’s plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees. MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri: Labeled an “instrumentality” by the State, it was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. The Court reached a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368.
Welp, it's joever for the forgiveness then. Hopefully the IDR/IBR reforms go through without notice.
Politically, it's debatable how this is for Biden. In some sense, he manages to not have to do student loan forgiveness in an inflationary time (although, inflation is not that high right now) while also having someone else to blame for why he didn't do it. But maybe people will just be mad that they don't have that $10k.
The argument basically seems to be that MOEHLA, as Missouri's apparatus for federal student loan financing, would be injured ~$44m if they, well, don't have any loans to service because they're...
The argument basically seems to be that MOEHLA, as Missouri's apparatus for federal student loan financing, would be injured ~$44m if they, well, don't have any loans to service because they're forgiven. As a result, MOEHLA and by proxy the state of Missouri, was materially injured by the student loan forgiveness, and thus has standing.
The most dubious part was whether or not Missouri could sue on behalf of MOEHLA, who is a separate non profit entity. The court ruled that they are, in effect, together.
If I lend a friend (A) $20 and task a separate friend (B) with the process of collecting the $20 for me, does that mean I am legally unable to forgive A's debt due to how it might impact B?...
If I lend a friend (A) $20 and task a separate friend (B) with the process of collecting the $20 for me, does that mean I am legally unable to forgive A's debt due to how it might impact B?
Couldn't the federal government just... Dissolve the federal loan collection system? Would Missouri have standing to sue then?
Going further, does this imply the federal government is legally unable to make any chages that reduces the income of any other legal entity? Do I have grounds to sue if the tax laws change and I become liable for higher taxes?
Nope I mean, as a collective with all the branches, yes, otherwise the executive branch definitely couldn't dissolve the whole system. Under the court's logic, they would have standing to sue,...
If I lend a friend (A) $20 and task a separate friend (B) with the process of collecting the $20 for me, does that mean I am legally unable to forgive A's debt due to how it might impact B?
Nope
Couldn't the federal government just... Dissolve the federal loan collection system? Would Missouri have standing to sue then?
I mean, as a collective with all the branches, yes, otherwise the executive branch definitely couldn't dissolve the whole system. Under the court's logic, they would have standing to sue, yes.
Remember, the dicey part for Missouri's standing argument is whether or not Missouri can effectively sue on behalf of MOEHA, or whether MOEHA is considered "part" of Missouri's state government.
Going further, does this imply the federal government is legally unable to make any chages that reduces the income of any other legal entity?
No, having standing to sue is just the first step.
Do I have grounds to sue if the tax laws change and I become liable for higher taxes?
You would definitely have standing in that case, and you can sue for anything, but you would need a legal argument for why it's unlawful to go further.
Just having standing wasn't enough. Basically, with this case, the legal grounds for Biden forgiving the debt under the HEROES act was genuinely pretty dicey (but much more expedient than with the...
Just having standing wasn't enough. Basically, with this case, the legal grounds for Biden forgiving the debt under the HEROES act was genuinely pretty dicey (but much more expedient than with the Higher Education Act, which has a much stronger legal basis, but would take over a year - he's doing that now, though). So there's more than enough rope for the SC to hang the executive action with there.
The issue was that almost none of the plaintiffs actually had a good argument for why they have standing in the case. So that's why the entire case basically boiled down to standing. The SC has also historically loved when they can avoid making a decision by saying there's no standing for controversial cases, which gave people a bit more hope.
So in this case, they did find a way to give at least one of the plaintiffs standing (Missouri), and the logical leap there was to allow Missouri to sue on MOEHA's injury.
This does not apply to the Public service Loan Forgiveness program right? Where you make 120 payments while working for a non profit organization and then your remaining balance is forgiven
This does not apply to the Public service Loan Forgiveness program right?
Where you make 120 payments while working for a non profit organization and then your remaining balance is forgiven
I am really curious about what this looks like. I hope they publish a road plan quickly. I need to know whether or not I should attempt to consolidate my loans with a private loan or stick with...
I am really curious about what this looks like. I hope they publish a road plan quickly. I need to know whether or not I should attempt to consolidate my loans with a private loan or stick with the Fed servicer. Although, I don't even know what the APR is anymore - probably not great with the increase in interest from the Fed the past year.
a few days ago, the official Dept of Education twitter account was posting about suicide prevention. gotta wonder if they got tipped off early about the outcome of this case.
Honest question, what the hell can the people even do about this? When our representatives fail, we can vote them out. We can vote out the president. The people have direct influence on the legislative and executive branch, but only tertiary influence over the judiciary. Is this part of checks and balances? Doesn't seem like it to me.
it's even worse than that - of the 6 conservative justices, 5 of them were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote. 3 by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and 2 by George W. Bush (Roberts and Alito).
and of course, Bush's election was made possible by a 5-4 court decision in Bush v Gore, with the justices all voting along party lines.
it's a flywheel of undemocratic, anti-majoritarian institutions sustaining themselves and getting stronger.
I think we know now (happy to be corrected) that Bush would have still won regardless of the outcome of that recount. The poorly designed ballot and the number of votes for Nader were more determinative.
The situation in the US is not going to be simple to fix. But one area where we could improve is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. That would effectively eliminate the current Republican party from making it to the White House. They'd either wither away or change to appeal to more voters - either option is fine with me.
The Senate is still malapportioned so I think, realistically, they'll be reduced to a rump party that solidly controls the South and the West. The Democrats would probably eventually split into a Progressive and Centrist party to pick up the remainder and we'll be living under what is basically a permanent Centrist plurality/majority that ends up spanning everyone from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney.
The radicalization is really emanating from the media. Fox News swallowed the Republican party, but if the party goes Fox News will still be there exerting its noxious influence elsewhere.
Vote for progressives before you start shooting your neighbors over canned food. What we need is for voters to give a shit about what their politicians are doing. They're public servants, and if they aren't helping our lives improve, they don't deserve our votes.
Votes aren’t enough, especially in a country like this where they mean so little.
Votes do mean something by though. While the voting system has a lot of problems, the voters aren’t blameless either. Many voters don’t vote in the most important positions of all: local ones. Something many folks don’t understand is that the local level is where future Congress Critters and Senators are molded and shaped. Take John Cornyn, Senator of Texas. He got his start as a district court judge there in 1985. That is an elected position, and 17 years later he became Senator. Yet the local elections suffer from abysmal turnout. In some cases, they’ve tied, and been decided by pulling straws or coin tosses. Those votes are important due to their ripple effects, and yet, they are neglected by the average voter.
The problem lies in how much energy is required to pay attention to and effectively influence elections on various levels. In our current system, votes do have an effect, yes, but it is a meager one. A great many different policies both local and otherwise seriously dampen the value of a vote, while ensuring that money instead is the driving force behind most any election.
In particular, trying to be an involved and effective voter often means informing yourself on a number of topics and how they relate to the potential candidates. This can sometimes mean a lot of self-education, which, while admirable, also tends to be difficult and time-consuming. Top it off with the fact that for some local elections, you may expend equivalent effort just trying to find out if a vote is happening at all.
All that, for one vote in a election that cares little for your stake — to me, it's no surprise people ignore it. It's tiring.
The important thing I didn't touch on in my last comment however is that I do actually think voting should be something everyone does — I just have an important caveat in that I don't think anyone should be investing a lot of time or energy into it. The way I see it, there's a thousand better ways to be politically involved that will be far better for you and your community than voting ever could. Things like organizating, protests, mutual aid, unionization, etc, all have a massively more meaningful impact than any vote.
Voting is a means of changing a system from within, designed under said system, and run and enforced by it. If that system doesn't want to listen to you, then this route is practically guaranteed to fail. It's no excuse for inaction, but I don't think it's much cause for blame, either.
Expand the Court by 4. Appoint 4 new ones. Have Congress pass laws affirming the rights the Court took away, including of Congress's to have preclearance for a new VRA (there's literally no way to interpret 14AS3 that doesn't provide for it), abortion, the president to forgive public student loan debt, overturning Citizens United, etc. If there's a suit, the new Court will properly reaffirm, including stating that they overstepped previously.
There's more to do, including uncapping the House and using the population of one-third of the smallest state (in this case Wyoming) as the baseline for how many people each Rep should represent. The House would now be over 1600. This changes the makeup of the EC, making it significantly harder for a president to be elected with a minority of the vote, cementing a future where SCOTUS is set by legitimate presidents.
Both of these changes require simple majorities in the House and ending the filibuster in the Senate. The latter is doable if people show up in 2020 numbers for the 2024 elections. The map looks unfavorable, but the 2022 rebuke of a red wave - even with 26M Ds sitting out and 18M Rs sitting out - proves that people are upset about lost rights and want change. We can easily pick up the House - the Court's ISL decision actually just nearly guaranteed 2 layups, one each in LS and KY. I expect a suit in NC to try to change their map given this decision as well. And then NY is pouring more resources than last time, and Boebert is being properly targeted.
We have the numbers. We can change things, but it will take time, just as getting to the low point we are at now took decades. It took decades of liberals and leftists not voting. It's time to change the story.
This is only doable if the Dems would actually do it. Even given the power to do it, I highly doubt the Dems would be willing to do any of this.
Well, we'd at least have the numbers to do this part:
The Court would have to rule on all of this, which they'd have a much harder time ruling against because the objection was about its presence in existing law. Now existing law would provide all of these powers.
And the alternative to not is Rs federally banning abortion nationwide, taking away multiple social safety nets, raising taxes on the poor to shift money to the wealthy, etc. At least part of what we want is doable, and I think with recent decisions, Biden will begin to warm up to the idea of court expansion more. Especially as a second term president not worrying about reelection with crossover votes.
The original idea would have been to vote for reps that would remove the offending judges or make changes to the judiciary (like FDR's threatening to expand the court to gain support for his New Deal). Or, pass a Constitutional amendment changing the judiciary via a constitutional convention of the states (bypassing Congress).
You could also probably argue that Congress would be within its power to establish that the lower federal courts are all elected positions, instead of appointed.
Pitchforks, guillotines, and pillaging the rich and powerful.
The courts have been captured by corporate interests. It has now absolutely been proven that the government is non-functional.
I can't help, but feel that the vindictive biases of SCOTUS impacted this decision instead of actual analysis of the law. Multiple members of the court have made disparging comments about those who decry their rulings when they're clearly bad faith. Thomas and Alito have Multiple conflicts of interests, plus Kavanaugh's own murky past. How can I feel this is a fair and valid ruling when the SCOTUS has shown it wants to be political tool? It's also hard not to feel like this was done to hurt Biden's '24 run as well.
How is there simply no action we can do to correct this partial court other than waiting for another to pass or retire and hoping it's while a Democrat is in office? How is there any hope for this country to do better because I'm losing faith? I vote, I donate, I do all the "right" things and yet my rights keep slipping and my ability to be happy in this God forsaken country is vanishing. I've been waiting three years for the process to work and I and others are all out of time.
It's also unfortunate that we just don't have anywhere else to really go, either, at least in the immediate vicinity. Even if Canada's immigration wasn't fairly tight like it is, their housing is also a mess at the moment. I don't think there's any good transitional locations in Mexico to go, either.
All of that is completely ignoring the fact that leaving means running away from the fight. If the more financially stable of us run out of the country, it just leaves the rest of the poorer ones behind to get manipulated and thrashed by the republican party. It's just top-to-bottom rotten.
The last time I looked into Canadian membership, there seemed to be a lot of vetting going on with regards to what kind of industry you'd bring to the country among other things. To be fair I haven't checked in a while and may give that another check soon.
Yeah, I looked into immigrating to Canada, and with a U.S. JD I'm basically the lowest priority. They're prioritizing medical professionals and trade professionals the last time I checked.
Canadian immigration works on a points system and is about to admit 500k per year. An educated professional definitely isn't at the top of the list, but will be far from the lowest priority.
As long as you're not disabled or have disabled family members - Canada did increase its threshold recently, but if you're deemed to likely cost too much you're inadmissable.
While I disagree, my post was just providing additional info- that there's more to it than having an education and being able to speak English.
And thank God for that. Immigration isn't charity.
If you're not reasonably expected to be a net contributor then the current citizens of a country are much better off moving on to the next person in line.
I'm an immigrant, so I know how it works, thanks! It took 10 years and thousands of dollars for my family to become permanent residents in the US and prove my dad wasn't stealing a job from a more worthy citizen.
Luckily we got green cards before I became disabled and turned into a burden who doesn't deserve freedom of movement. Sucks to be stuck for the rest of my life in a country that doesn't care if I die, but oh well. Not like Canada would be better - there they'd encourage me to die legally with MAID.
Anyway, just providing information, wasn't really looking for someone to tell me to my face they're happy people like me have less rights than healthy people.
I certainly never said you have fewer rights than healthy people.
When it comes to immigrating to another country you have no rights at all. Neither do healthy people. There is no international right of free movement, therefore you are not being denied any such right.
And yes, that's a very good thing.
Since when should immigration be based solely on someone's personal economic potential, as though they were some kind of machine to be profited off of?
Seriously, guy, this take is gross.
It shouldn't be based solely on economic potential. But immigration isn't some grand charity project, it is of mutual benefit both for the immigrant and for the people already there. And much, though not all, of those benefits are economic.
Of course that doesn't include refugees, but that's hardly the topic of conversation here.
IMHO (Not American) the wisest move the democratic party can do is to wait until they have all three branches again and immediately expand the supreme court to 11 or 13 under the pretense of matching the # of circuit courts. The constitution doesn't dictate a size to the SC
unfortunately, due to the way the American government is set up, this will be increasingly unlikely to happen:
By 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate
the exact timeline is debatable but the overall demographic trend of increasing population in large cities is pretty inexorable.
Similarly, due that same system, any proposal to rebalance our system to reduce the voting power of lesser-populated states would require the consent of those same lesser-populated states.
And even if we were able to overcome our nation's borderline-religious devotion to our antiquated form of government, I cannot envision a scenario in which either the people of Wyoming or their elected representatives would choose to deliberately reduce their outsized political influence.
Again not American so may be getting this wrong but isn't that the entire purpose of the Senate and why you have the two branches of congress? The House is population-based and the Senate is state-based. My understanding was that the Senate was designed that way specifically to avoid major population-dense area's from completely overriding more rural areas?
It was designed the way it was so that the smaller states would agree to join back in the 1700's. Back then states had much more independence and wanted to maintain that.
So it sounds like it is working as designed then - it's just now that time has moved forward it isn't as advantageous to the larger populations as it was back then (when having the stability and growth of the union as a whole was more important by adding states to the union).
The Senate was originally deisnged as a compromise to prevent small states with low populations from seceding, but it wasn't conceived in the 1700s as it is today -- up until the early 1900s it was the state legislatures who chose senators rather than popular votes within the state. Not that that would be much more fair but, y'know, they also only gave voting rights to male white property owners back then so
Sorry I think I've missed your point?
I guess the point is more that the Senate wasn't really designed to operate the way it does today either. What we have now is already a weird way of making it more democratic than it originally was (though I think the reasons for the change were more bureaucratic in nature). The Electoral College, as un-democratic as it currently is, has also become significantly more democratic than it was designed to be. The founders (or at least a subset of them) had some rather elitist ideas about who could be "trusted" with legislative power.
If FDR wasn't able to get a court expansion through then I don't think anyone is going to be able to. That would effectively nullify the existence of the Supreme Court, which is not a step that would be popular with most voters, even if everybody on this website would love it.
Honestly, we wouldn't have been in this mess if RBG had retired when she was fucking asked. She unknowingly, or knowingly completely fucked over SCOTUS with refusing to retire.
Yes, RBG made an incredibly foolish decision. And she’s dead for it. But I’m not going to let go of the fact that US Progressives chose to downplay Trump and spread misogyny in one of the most pivotal elections for the next 30 years. And I will never forgive the Green Party for what they did. Their existence is the reason why it’s going to be a horrible 30 years for anyone but a cisgender straight white male conservative Christian.
If it wasn't for third-party voter circle jerking themselves over their moral righteousness of not voting for Hillary, we wouldn't be here. Women would still have reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights wouldn't be crumbling, we would have more liberal leaning court, and so much more. A vote has impact beyond just who sits in the presidential seat and shows selfishness in how those less fortunate can be impacted.
I will always think of this qoute when I'm not 100% for a democratic candidate, but I know full well the republican option has far worse impact overall:
Even if all the third-party voters had voted for Hillary, it still wouldn't have flipped enough states to make a difference in the overall Electoral College result.
That's a reductionist view of what occurred and doesn't do anything other than cause division among an already splintered and divided political party.
Voting for a third party is and was not incorrect.
Disliking Hillary was also not incorrect despite what the alternative meant. When faced with two bad choices, when the system is rigged in this way to force voters to choose a shitty choice no matter what, it's not our choice and we become pawns to be used. We were forced to vote for Hillary over Sanders. We were forced to accept her VP pick and we were forced to accept Sanders backing down.
All of this was the instrumentation of the DNC. All of it was symptoms of busted politics. The DNC gave us a candidate we didn't want, just like they gave us Biden. The DNC puts us in these positions.
We voted how we wanted to, green, Hillary, or abstained, as we're allowed to, as is our right, to not listen to anyone telling us how to vote.
By doing what we were supposed to trump got in power. The second time around we submitted to the broken bipartisan shitty system and voted for the lesser of the two evils but still the voter gets shafted.
The DNC is full of everyone not conservative. In particular, millenials and Gen Z who are so far detached from centrist politics they should be in their own party. Dinosaurs like Biden, Hillary, and that entire establishment including Pelosi, are relics of a centrist party that existed a long time ago but no longer. They're dug in deep and refuse to hand over power in typical boomer fashion. They've also made it so the freshmen in their party can't do shit and have to cowtow to their methods. There's an entire faction ("the squad") chomping at the bit to actually make progressive change, but they're outnumbered and outgunned.
Even Biden trying to cancel student debt was only done to appease the ever growing disdain in his own party by those freshmen who campaigned for him on that promise. Faced with revolt, he gave it a half assed attempt. Yes the SCOTUS is the arm of the right and makes things difficult, but I also don't see any teeth in Biden's administration, not like Mconnel and his pet Trump would have done had the roles been reversed.
Don't get it twisted, the democratic party sucks balls and it's the only one we got. It's ran by dinosaurs with shady interests. There is no room in this country for anyone caring about social programs.
I mean, 20$k in loan forgiveness wouldn’t have “shafted” my wife and I. Maybe I’m not understanding what you were saying, but it sounds like “both sides,” to which my reply is, only one side tried to help people drowning in student loan debt, and the other side said fuck those people.
When I say broken bipartisan system I mean I wish we had an factual spectrum of candidates that actually represented us.
Currently, we have an evil side and we have the not evil side. Does Biden represent me? No. He represents businesses, corporations, those who donated to him, and all the favors it took to get him in office. On a few things he may represent me but that's better than 0.0% the other side represents.
That's not a good system. The fact Obama and Bernie were detested by Hillary and the Dnc speaks volumes. The fact Pelosi had to fight and whip the freshmen in line also says a lot. The fact there's factions within the democratic party with interests all over the political spectrum says a lot as well.
This country is full of people from all walks of life. We are now split in half during election time. We are forced to pick between a shitty party and a very shitty party. I have to compromised many of my ideals just to feel okay about voting for Biden because I really really don't feel okay about voting for the other guy.
That gives the democrats a false power because I was forced to give them my vote which then translates into legislation I don't actually care for. So the question actually becomes, what shitty pro corporation legislation do I actually want to indirectly vote for?
Meanwhile I want to defund the industrial military complex, I want to fund the department of education and transportation, I want to bust up monopolies and fund social programs, I want environmental regulations to skyrocket. I won't get any of that, so who's representing me?
I could make the argument that all the "blue no matter who" voters are to blame because they allow or encourage the democratic party to nominate milquetoast candidates and support neoliberal policies that are complicit in the current status quo.
You're quick to assign blame in anger because you feel you need to point the finger at someone. Interesting how you won't vilify the DNC and instead will vilify your fellow party mates. That's exactly what the right wants. How about you take a step back to reassess the entire situation and spread the blame around?
You can assign blame to me for not being a political scholar with powers of fortune telling, sure. I can take a hit for being educated and still not doing my research on why Hillary was so important because all that was fed to me waa vote for Hillary she's great over and over. I guarantee the average Democrat wouldn't know half of what you're talking about. They just watch CNN maybe or just get info from their local sources and keep it moving.
I know it's easy to blame your party mates but take a harder look. A lot of things went wrong and the democratic party is a big reason.
In 2016 they absolutely did. The primary was rigged. The debates were rigged. The CNN and MSNBC pushed Hillary and minimized Sanders.
You can choose not to see it, but the DNC absolutely forced their chosen candidate on us.
She then ran a horrible campaign and lost.
I think Bernie would have done better if he pitched himself as ambiguously left of Clinton, plus more integrity.
It’s not the fault of the Green Party or progressives for Trump being elected. More Sanders voters voted for Clinton in the 2016 election (88-94%) than Clinton voters voted for Obama in the 2008 election (about 75%).
https://web.archive.org/web/20230326160412/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/
(Just before anyone asks, I did vote for Clinton myself in the general election.)
Your link covers the progressives but not the Green Party. Please either separate the statements or put up on that.
From Nate Silver,
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-66593
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win
As an aside, blaming third party voters for electoral losses always seems wrong to me. You’re blaming people engaged enough to participate in the system. People voting is a good thing! If you want to “blame” anyone, you could blame non-voters but perhaps we should try to convert them to voters instead of blaming them too
Am I the only one who blames Trump voters and only Trump voters for Trump winning? Why do we always ignore the literal, actual people responsible for the problem?
Sorry for not making my position clear. I 100% agree with you. Trump voters are 100% to blame. That’s why I blame in quotation marks and said we should try to engage them. I don’t you should blame non-voters either.
(I sent that message about 15 minutes before I had a surgery. I wasn’t feeling particularly great with the dehydration and hunger so hopefully that explains why my intent didn’t come across super well!)
First link supports my assertion. Second link says it’s moot (while conceding that Stein voters did have a material harmful impact and are responsible partially for Trump and the fascist Supreme Court), third link is a continuation of the preceding.
In any case, I’m sick of it all. Nothing will make the non-voter vote except for their personal lives going to shit. Persuasion is over sold and has little efficacy. It will get worse. Maybe it would get better after being worse, but it’s also a likely possibility that it will just continue getting worse and worse. Never better.
It's actually the opposite. People whose lives are going to shit feel disconnected and adrift. When they do want to "politically" participate it will end up being through outside agitation or violence. Voting tends to correlate strongly with having strong ties to your community and being civically involved. This is why groups like churches or unions are so strongly represented.
Lives going to shit reduces participation. Building civic infrastructure that gets people accustomed to participating in civic life increases it. But groups that intentionally discourage participation, or create unrealistic expectations or foster cynicism around participating, have the pernicious effect of sapping that civic energy and redirecting it towards being a checked out cynic instead of an active participant.
And predictably, rather than own the consequences they'd rather just 'fix' the problem and pack the court. There needs to be more progressive voices championing and espousing long-term, strategic political goals rather than just chasing proverbial cars that they really don't want to catch.
While I don't disagree with you that third parties fucked up the 2016 election the only reason it happened is because the United States is so anti-third party, I don't think we will ever be able to abandon that issue unless we either abandon the two party system in favor of a coalition government (which is pretty much impossible since we would have to completely redo the constitution, which I also think we should do), or we adopt ranked choice voting, which the GOP announced in their 2023-2024 platform that they are dedicated to stopping states from adopting.
Right now, I wouldn’t trust any Constitutional rewrites other than utter dissolution. It’s more likely the fascists would succeed in turning the US into a Christians-only Pakistan. Anything for mediocre, hateful white straight cisgender people to feel superior in lieu of their personal failings.
I've seen people throwing around the theory that the reason conservatives are pushing so hard for the election of Republicans in state legislature elections is to try and call for a convention of states, so you're probably right.
Let's not act like Mitch McConnell didn't unilaterally decide who could select the Justice and also is currently gloating about that fact while we blame progressives for not out cheating the cheaters. The "Supreme" Court's illegitimacy is rooted in the right wing's subversion of democracy and pretty much nothing else.
It is scary at how anti-democracy the GOP is, and how dedicated their follower base is in helping them speed run us into a fascist government, just to "own the libs" and "end wokeness."
We wouldn't have been in this mess if:
Solely blaming RBG is not right. This is way more on the GOP than anyone else.
All of the 6-3 decisions would then be 5-4 decisions.
I used to revere her, but now I only have frustrations. She was touted to a lot of women as an Idol of Perseverance and breaking the glass ceiling in male dominated fields. Her own hubris caused her to pull that ladder up for other women by refusing to step down at a more opportune time. Perseverance isn't ignoring sound advice and should include passing that legacy onto others. She is one of the reasons why I lost reproductive freedom.
That's not fair. Nobody knows the future. If you don't like the system, you look to change the system, not appeal to particular people. The current system dictates that supreme court judges are judges for life. It's specifically designed to keep judges from making political decisions about their retirements in the exact manner you are wanting Justice Ginsberg to make here. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics.
Now, there's obviously a problem in that one political party has played a very very long game and by doing it over the last, literally 30 or 40 years, since the 70s and 80s, injected politics into the Supreme Court. That needs to be addressed.
But addressing this does not mean you also inject counter-politics into the system erratically by making it a political party habit of forcing your own judges out just so you can replace them with a younger, ideologically aligned judge to "keep the ideological line" alive.
In an ideal world, you are right. SCOTUS is supposed to be above politics, but there are no guidelines for how POTUS should evaluate the people that he nominates to the Supreme Court. So how do you combat a scenario where one party tries to follow the traditions of selecting justices, while the other party actively spends their time trying to find people to appoint who will tow the party line, and rule in favor of the party's stances 80% of the time?
Do you keep voting to appoint their justices because that's what tradition demands, despite there being clear evidence that the nominees are clearly acting in bad faith? Or do you try to find people who will tow your party line in order to mitigate the deterioration of people's rights in favor of corporations and lobbies?
The way that justices are appointed to SCOTUS is fundamentally flawed. How do you take the bias out of a branch of government with elected officials who are elected by their constituents for their biases?
Quite frankly if this issue were ever brought to SCOTUS to rule on, which I don't think it would be, they would deny to rule on it as a political question in and of itself, because the Constitution has left the nomination and appointment solely up to the President and Congress.
No. The only difference is that it would be a 5-4 decision rather than a 6-3. The only reason we're in this mess is because too many people voted for Trump and not enough voted for Hillary. End of story. There was an open Supreme Court seat and Trump was spewing insanity daily with wall-to-wall media coverage. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary (if they were able to) did so with their eyes wide open. Any other narrative is just an attempt to absolve the guilty.
Why is this the only option instead of simply waiting until one can appoint judges of a preferred ilk?
"We must fuck with the institutions because the only acceptable outcome is whatever it is that we want them to achieve" is an incredibly problematic perspective. The fact that Republicans are already there doesn't make it okay to join them.
Because the judges in power are there for life, and they are so brazenly partisan that it's not entirely outside the realm of reason that they would rubber-stamp the next charismatic republican president from declaring themselves dictator for life.
You can't "be the better man" if the other man is trying to kill you. It's one thing to fall on your sword while attempting to achieve something positive, but it's another thing to let someone stab you to prove your moral superiority.
Obviously packing the court would be preferable to such a scenario.
But this is student loan forgiveness. Taking the L seems infinitely preferable to the nuclear option, and invoking the fear of a dictatorship doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Are you unaware of their [recent ruling] that negatively affects the lives of LGBT people?
Have you forgotten the fact that they have essentially erased the right for a woman to have an abortion?
How much more damage to human rights do they have to do before you can justify to yourself that action should be taken?
Several thoughts in no particular order:
Student loan forgiveness during a period of high inflation is incredibly stupid; it will only make inflation worse.
One time student loan forgiveness is insulting and demeaning to everyone before and after who has to pay student loans. I'm not a fan of the government picking winners and losers.
Loans have been paused for 3 years. Anyone smart has at least been putting the equivalent of their student loan payment into a high yield savings account, which will significantly and artificially reduce the amount of the loans.
Inflation is actually helping student loan holders here, since the value of the dollar has decreased since the pause. $50k of loans in 2019 is more than $50k of loans in 2023.
Be prepared for there to be a lot of houses and newish used cars to hit the market when loan payments resume, as I bet a lot of loan holders overextended themselves.
This is actually good for Democrats. They get to say they tried, demonize the conservative court, and don't have to reap consequences of an inflationary policy.
I don't have a dog in this hunt but isn't that kind of like saying "Well, your aunt survived cancer so its insulting and demeaning that my aunt didn't?" Why is it that things like the automotive, banking and airline bailouts or PPP forgiveness are perfectly fine but anytime any kind of relief is offered to the people its suddenly insulting, demeaning or "sOciALiSm BaD"?
Because life has happened in those 3 years. Rent has gone up, utilities, food, insurance have all gone up. Yes, people should have been doing that, but that doesn't mean they were able to.
By itself the loan forgiveness wouldn't solve the issue but it would supply immediate relief to those affected by the predatory loans. You can get a loan for $100,000+ for college at 17 or 18 when banks wouldn't even touch you on a $15,000 car loan.
However, we can't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good." I think this would be a good first step in overhauling the whole system with the end goal of free trade schools/4 year degrees.
No, because student loans are an optional financial obligation that each person is personally responsible for.
They aren't predatory, they are risky. 18 year olds have no assets and no credit history.
The highest 40% of incomes owe 60% of debt. Forgiving optional debt of high income earners shouldn't be on the table. If this was going to happen, I prefer it be means tested, rather than handing a $120k software engineer another $10k.
The only way I was able to get out of poverty and have health insurance was by going to college and getting a degree. Military and the trades were not an option for me due to health reasons. How is it fair to be punished by a high cost of entry in order to attain a better life?
While it is optional, it was the only pathway to a better life for I and others. I'm doing better financially, but like most middle class Americans it would only take one major incident to send me back to struggling. I worked as a waitress for years barely scraping by and damaging my body. It wasn't until this year that I finally had the funds and good insurance to get proper dental care after 10+ years without! I would argue having an educated populace is a benefit for everyone overall in society and shouldn't be gatekeeped by a high price to entry.
I'm glad you were able to climb out of poverty and get an education. However, I disagree that it's punishment. You're not punished by a high cost of entry because it's an investment in yourself: you're rewarded (assuming you enter an employable field).
The median student loan debt is $20-40k, depending on the state. On average, a college grad will make $1m more in their lifetime than a non college grad. Even if you assume 10% of that goes towards student loans, that is a tremendous and beneficial investment.
For what it's worth, I do think university should be free, but I also think we should be more strict about who we let into university while simultaneously shoring up trade/vocational programs and community colleges.
Affordable Healthcare was not accessible to me until I attained a degree and used that secure a decent job. When Healthcare is so intricately entwined with employment, having to pay for a degree to enter that type of arrangement is gatekeeping and not an investment. It is a barrier of entry in order to attain something that improves overall quality of life. Being able to afford the ability to repair my teeth after 10+ years without dental insurance shouldn't be viewed as a reward, but a quality of life standard without barrier.
I mean, that still sounds like an investment to me. I think we are just looking at this from different angles. The default position in this country is no/shitty healthcare and mediocre career prospects. In order to rise above the default, some sort of self investment must be made. This is harder for some than others, which I admit is not fair or even civil. If anything, the "punishment" comes from not being born into the right circumstances.
Your college degree had an up front cost, but it will more than pay for itself over time in earnings potential and quality of life improvement. Is it a barrier to entry? I suppose, in the same way that my monthly ISP fee is a barrier to entry for acquiring knowledge and entertainment, but in the long run I'm better off paying for it. It's rare for barriers to entry to be delayed until you have the income to pay for them... that would almost defeat the point of a barrier.
Now, should healthcare be tied to employment? If I had anything to say about it, no. A higher education also shouldn't be required for a reasonable level of quality of life.
What about those of us who could not finish, for whatever reason? I didn't ask to have my mental health take a nosedive my junior year, nor did I ask for my mom to have a medical crisis that cut off any assistance from them, while they still made too much money for me to qualify for anything beyond unsubsidized loans and PLUS loans. The irony is, the medical crisis thrashed their credit so badly they didn't qualify, meaning every semester I had a panicked few weeks where I would see if my conversion would go through so I could even keep attending.
I'm stuck with all the costs of attending, but without the degree to enable, you know, paying that debt off, and I cannot afford to go back and take a pay cut at work (as losing open availability means I would have to step down and lose upwards of 20% of my income).
Should I have never gone in the first place? Either way, it can't be undone, and now an attempt to better my life has become an albatross around my neck making improvement even more difficult. This pause was the first time I've had any breathing room in years budget wise, as any raises I got at work were immediately eaten up by increases in my required payments, all as the cost of living in my area spiraled upwards. This pause enabled me to buy a car (a $2k shitbox, not some luxury thing), allowing me to move to a cheaper area that wasn't as transit accessible, and allowed me to take earlier shifts at work. Going back to this mess is just getting knocked back in the dirt right after getting room to breathe, for once.
My opinion is that loan forgiveness should be needs based. If you have debt and are not in a financially secure enough position to pay it off, there should be a program to either forgive or substantially reduce your burden.
I don't understand why this is used as an excuse to not provide aid.
Tens of millions of individuals were told to better themselves and did, in order to give themselves better opportunities and to bolster the workforce of our nation. Are we to believe that the nation would have been better off if all these individuals chose not to go to college?
We provided bailouts to banks when they made terrible choices in 2008 because it would be better for the nation and economy than to let them collapse.
As a society we are supposed to help each other, if there is a flood and some idiot tries to cross through some water and get stuck, we still send rescue. People choose to live in areas prone to flooding and we still help them.
And those people will earn, on average, an additional $1.2m over the course of their lives as a result of taking on that debt. A median debt of $37k. Half of all student loan debt is held by graduate students- masters and doctorates- who will be high earners. 60% of all debt is held by the highest 40% incomes.
Why are we giving $10,000 to people who are already ahead? That just doesn't make sense to me. They bettered themselves and are rewarded for it, in the form of earning potential and quality of life. That's not enough? What about the people who didn't get a chance to better themselves? Why should they pay for this?
I disagree that it's good for the country to give high earners and the educated an additional $10k, especially during a period of high inflation. It could be more beneficial almost anywhere else. Means tested? Sure. Give those with low incomes debt relief.
I think you're making a few different errors here.
Conflating income with wealth; just because someone's earning a lot, doesn't mean they're rich. If they're drowning in debt, they'll be struggling all the same.
"Highest 40%" is a broad range of people, and considering the severe income inequality of the United States, could very well not mean much. Remember that the top 10% by wealth own 69% of all wealth as of Q1 2023.
Means testing is rarely ever worth it.
If they're high income and drowning in debt, they aren't drowning in debt because of student loans.
The 60th percentile income is $85k. That is a good salary. There are maybe a handful of places where you would struggle to live on $85k and student loans, given the loan amount is substantial.
I think it's worthwhile to avoid giving rich people even more money at the expensive of poor people.
How can you be so sure? You're not them. The same goes for your second response — what makes you so confident that their other expenses, plus their student loan payments, aren't crushing them?
That's not what means testing does; it just makes the effort more expensive, while hindering poor folk's ability to utilize it. I linked a video there, and it explains why better and more thoroughly than I can here.
I don't understand this line of thinking. Our progressive tax structure already acknowledges that the more money someone earns, the less valuable it is to them. Sure, there are instances it isn't true, but it's true enough to the point where our entire tax system is based on it. How is forgiving the student loan of a high earner any different than a tax cut for a high earner? What's the effective difference? Across the board student debt relief is as close to an upper middle class subsidy as you can get. I truly don't understand why the idea is so popular.
We already have tons of tax credits and exemptions that apply based on income such as the EITC, I'm skeptical that an income based forgiveness plan would cost more than it saves or be a significant barrier. On top of that, it doesn't take into account the ramifications of giving a bunch of people who don't need money $10k during a period of extreme inflation... it's telling them to go out and buy more stuff.
So if I'm understanding correctly you're position isn't that we shouldn't help, but rather more fundamental that they do not require any help in the first place.
From your point of view there is no student debt crisis, everyone is able to pay their loans.
(Sorry if that comes across as sarcastic, but I am genuinely curious if I am understanding you correctly. )
If that is the case might I ask why you think the debts haven't been paid off? Or I guess where do you think this idea that student debt is an issue came from?
My position is that we should help the people who truly need it, not the 23 year old computer science junior devevlope making $130k with $20k of student loan debt in a LCOL city. Some sort of debt/income analysis needs to be performed and relief doled out accordingly. I also think the government should eliminate interest rates on their loans.
I don't think there is a crisis, I think it's overblown. The debt figures are inflated by grad students who will be high earners and able to pay off their debt, and as I mentioned the majority of the debt is borne by people who aren't as likely to be financially constrained.
The debts haven't been paid off because there is a constant supply of people taking on new debt as existing debt is paid off.
The key difference is that taking on loans is a choice with upsides and downsides, where cancer is usually seen as random. Consider my case:
I chose to try to work my way through college, afraid of accruing the sort of debt my parents were suffering under. I got to watch as my friends took on loans, went off to dorms, and had unprecedented freedom during their college years while I had no free time thanks to full-time work and schooling. I didn't get a "college experience", but that's the tradeoff I chose to avoid taking on debt.
If we wanted a cancer analogy, I think it'd be more akin to me developing a random case of lung cancer, but a measure was put into place that would provide relief only to lung cancer patients who have extensively smoked cigarettes despite ample warning about how terrible it is for your health. Would it be wrong to be upset about the unfair distribution of this relief?
How much did you make working part time and how much was your tuition? Either you went to school many years ago, got a very high paying job, or there is more to the story.
It is not possible to work your way through school like it was 30-40 years ago.
I went to an affordable community college and a very significant portion of my income went toward schooling, and I pirated/bought books used.
It is for associates degrees or extension/evening programs. They're basically designed for it, but they're also don't look that great on a resume if you want to be in a high-achieving field.
I mean the federal student loans are on fairly generous terms, and there're pretty stingy in what they give you, at least for undergrad. Realistically you're not getting more than 30kish in federal student loans. Where the huge totals come in is private student loans, which Biden would never be able to touch anyway.
For the people somehow or another buried in federal student debt, the IBR/IDR reforms are a much bigger deal, so we'll see if that is challenged in court or not.
I think a lot of the thoughts you shared have legitimate merit, or at least have some grounds for hope (I'd like to think #6 will secure 44 million votes come the next election).
I think the only one I have a differing opinion on is #3. For myself, at least, the 3 years of payment pauses was the only reason I was able to get a house. It was the only reason I was able to move to a new job, since I was treadmilling on payments before that. I think for a lot of people, #3 wasn't as much as an option as you'd think, since a fair amount of people had to take that time to dig themselves out of a hole they'd fallen into before being able to put anything into a savings account. I absolutely agree, through reading between the lines, that there are some that just started spending on anything and everything they could since 'the loan payments disappeared!' and that their inevitable faceplant come October is (without tact) entirely their fault. But there are so many people like my recently-moved-out-roommates who were finally able to get a house because they saved this entire time during the pause, so that they could have some sort of assets to hold onto. Most people didn't have assets prior to the pause, and that was the main aim for a lot of people to get out of renter's hell.
edit: Wanted to put a quick stipulation in here that I may or may not have miss-read the tone of the original comment by interjecting my personal experience into it. I have specifically heard people call student loaners idiots for not having a savings account regardless of (or more like in defiance of) getting a home, like renting wasn't a big deal. This conversation has gone into a good direction, so all's well, but just wanted to clarify the tone and reasoning for my reply. Carry on~
For 3), buying a house and putting money in an HYSA are both investments. If managed to buy a house with the repayment pause, that's a big W! Your "profit" is the equity you get every month + the difference between what market rate rent is and your mortgage.
The student loan would probably be harder on your finances if you didn't have a house.
Less the maintenance expenses, which significantly eat into the profitability of owning a house, alongside other non-recoupable costs like closing costs and HOA dues. You get lower effective returns than many other investments along with a major loss of liquidity; there's a reason many economists argue that home ownership is a bad investment.
I'd say that buying a house falls under investing the equivalent amount, since it's an appreciating asset (on average historically). If loan payments resume and you get into a tight spot financially, you now have the backstop of taking out a HELOC or selling the house for a likely profit.
Your mother didn't choose to get cervical cancer. That's the difference. Student loans are an optional and personal responsibility.
At what age is someone fully responsible for their decisions? Is it 18? Lower, higher? Because it seems to me like you're saying society placed burdens on you that you weren't ready for, so it's not your fault. So, to me the solution to that is to raise the age of adulthood, which would also entail stripping the right to vote, among other things; if you're not old enough to make life decisions at 18, you're not old enough to vote, live without adult supervision, or take on debt.
We live in the information age; the ramifications and minutia of student loans, taxes, and adulthood have been at our fingertips for over a decade. I don't have empathy for anyone who claims to have been "tricked" by society in the last 10-15 years. It has been incredibly easy to do basic research to see what you're getting into.
Nope. I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my argument.
The argument I'm responding to is that many people are not to blame for their student loan debts; it was thrust upon them without them understanding the burden or consequences. Ok, fine. However, that's adulthood. When you're an adult and you make a decision you don't fully understand, or suffer a disaster, the responsibility falls on you and you have to handle the consequences. Sometimes the government can bail you out, sometimes you have insurance to bail you out, sometimes you're on your own. That's what happens when you're an independent adult. My argument is that if 18 year olds are not old enough to understand the consequence of debt, they are not old enough to be a legal adult. And now, because they didn't understand the consequences, they're asking the government to bail them out. Debt is a core, persistent tool in every day life for nearly every adult, even ones that don't go to college. If they're not old enough to understand/comprehend the consequences, they're not old enough to be independent.
Edit: changed a bunch of "you"s to "they"s
I really hate this perspective that just because someone is suffering from a decision of their own making, that they deserve no sympathy and should not be helped.
I really don't care if student loan debt is or is not the fault of those who signed on for it, because even if it is, that's just people making mistakes. That doesn't mean they deserved to be saddled with an iron around their neck for the nigh-on rest of their lives, and yet modern day student loan debt does exactly that.
This is a problem, and it should be fixed. To believe otherwise is callous and disrespectful to those hurt by it.
The thing about research is that to even consider doing it, you have to be under the impression that there is information you don't have.
If you live underground and, for all your life, everyone who's said anything about the sky has mentioned that it's a magenta and black checkerboard pattern, and occasionally someone cites some convincing-sounding scientific explanation for why, and you've never encountered any opinions to the contrary, then there's no reason for you to ever go type "what color is the sky?" into a search engine. It would immediately tell you that the sky is blue, but that's not useful if you never ask.
And then one day you visit the surface, and you are very surprised.
How do we determine if someone is completely in a bubble, unaware of the burdens of reality, and therefore unable to shoulder the burdens of adulthood? Some sort of adulthood test?
Not with the negative connotations that word usually comes with, and if it came off that way I apologize. I was replying to @switchgear specifically and not taking the rest of your comment into account.
To the extent that people's problem is a lack of information* ("Damn me for listening to society and what was considered to be wisdom") I'm explicitly differentiating between "was misled and nobody corrected them before they made a mistake" and "actively avoided discovering new information, which led them to make a mistake", and putting you in the former group.
* to be clear, IMO it's primarily luck, most of life's outcomes are luck-based
Imagine the world complexly.
Do not conflate responsibility for making a decision, with the causation of the risk of said decision being realized, or with the necessity of enduring the consequences without any support.
There's a risk associated with everything. If you walk down some stairs and fall, breaking a leg, would you want an onlooker to assist you, maybe call an ambulance? Or would you want them to say you knew the risk when you decided to go outside, you can handle that yourself, thank you very much?
Maybe the stairs were made of wood. You fell because the stair broke under you, because it had recently been hit by a heavy object, causing it to crack beneath which wasn't visible when walking on them. No person in particular is responsible for maintaining the stairs, so should we blame you? After all, you should reasonably be aware that such things could happen.
What I mean is that the primary question is not who is to blame, or who made the choice associated with the risk, but whether collectively we are better off for helping. To say categorically that assistance should not be given when asked for, simply because the situation was ostensibly made by individual choices, is to put spite before compassion and reason.
We are not collectively better off helping under the proposed relief structure. 60% of the debt is owned by people making over $85k. 50% of the debt is owned by people with graduate degrees. Helping would be one of the biggest upper middle class subsidies this country has ever seen, at the expense of people who actually need support. In addition, it would be handing high earners a fat check after inflation just ran rampant, making inflation even worse.
This debt relief is like rent control- it helps a very select few to the detriment of the majority.
I'm fine with targeted assistance and relief to people who need it- if they have to drop out for medical or personal reasons, if their school loses accreditation and they can't get a job, whatever. However for everyone else, the ability to know and understand the consequences of student loans has been attainable for well over a decade. We are well past the point where "I didn't know what I was signing up for" is a valid excuse. Those are the people who I question if they are capable of being adults, and if self reliance and curiosity and independence are completely absent from our 18 year olds then they are not ready to shoulder any sort of burden that dictates where there life can lead.
I'm not arguing either for or against cancelling student loans, so responding with arguments for or against is not really relevant.
I am arguing that your line of reasoning that, in essence, "they knew what they were doing, therefore we should do nothing now", is inherently flawed.
This is how, to my reading, you presented it in the reply I first responded to
And it is an argument you repeat in essence in your reply to me
Ignoring that I consider this latter quote to be a gross mischaracterization and exaggeration of the situation, my point is that this argument specifically - not arguing against student loan cancellation in general - is not solid reasoning. From my reading, your reply does not address that, and even repeats it.
Based on this, I must give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do indeed believe this to be an argument against the cancellation of student debt. If that is the case, please respond to my initial reply and give an argument for why you consider this argument relevant. If that is not the case, it is as far as I can tell at best spiteful (as argued in my original reply) and at worst openly hostile.
Sure. I don't think we should be using taxpayer funds to bail out the mistakes of the willfully uninformed or ignorant. If you went to university in the last 10-15 years and did no research on career paths or student loan debt, you are willfully uniformed.
If you had a legitimate issue that kept you from finishing school, working after school, etc, then sure. But "I didn't do enough research to know what I was getting into and turned out to regret it" is not a legitimate reason to be bailed out. That is an overwhelming chorus sung by many student loan debt holders online.
Again you fall back to mischaracterization and exaggeration, and again you repeat the same argument without addressing my response. Three times repeated, I guess the charitable interpretation was wrong. An argument from spite it is, then. Thank you for making yourself abundantly clear.
For anyone else reading this, I am not saying that it is wrong to feel spiteful if people were to have their student debt cancelled, and you do not personally directly benefit from it. Emotions are human, and we cannot fully control them, but if you want people to even tolerate you, put the spite to the side and argue the substantial concerns. If you think there are no benefits, then explain why, but do not spout your resentment.
I already directly answered your question several comments up. Your question:
My response, with no "emotion" or "spite." What are you fishing for, exactly? What part of this didn't address your response? It has absolutely nothing to do with denying assistance based on individual choice.
Again you fundamentally misunderstand what I am arguing.
I can tell this because you say the quoted part is a question, which it is not. There is no question mark. It is a statement about what is reasonable to use as arguments within this topic.
It isn't a question, because (again) I am not arguing whether or not it would be better collectively to do this. Nowhere did I assert that this is or isn't the case.
It is good that you argue the benefits of it, although it is wasted in this reply chain because I am not arguing whether or not it is beneficial. Arguing the benefits (and implicitly the detriments) is specifically what I argued you should do, as quoted here:
What I argued you shouldn't do is the other part of your arguments, where you argue "they knew what they were doing so we shouldn't help". I argue that such a reason is nothing but spite.
Let me rephrase it for you, since clearly what I had written before is not what you unserstand it to be:
Arguing out of spite is not reasonable
An unreasonable argument should not be used
Arguing that "people knew or should have known what they were getting into, so we shouldn't help them" is an argument out of spite. For context this quote of yours, which is part of your lost which I originally replied to, I consider to be characterized by this sentiment
I am not arguing for, or against, any other part of your statements.
An actual response to this would either contest at least one of the above points, or agree that it is accurate and that you should not argue as such.
This could be, for instance:
An explanation of why that is not the argument you were making with the stated quote.
An explanation of why you consider that that argument is not an argument out of spite;
An acknowledgement that that argument is out of spite, but giving an explanation of why arguing out of spite is reasonable;
An acknowledgement that that argument is unreasonable, but that using unreasonable arguments is something you should do.
An acknowledgement that that argument is out of spite and that it is not reasonable to use it.
That is what you are not responding to.
I don't think it's spite. Spite implies a negative action with no tangible upside. In my mind, paying off the debt of the willfully ignorant would cause more harm than good, so withholding the relief has a tangible upside. If there was a way to help these people without extravagant cost to the public (such as eliminating interest on government loans), I'm all for it. I'm not against helping them simply because they made a poor decision.
Giving you the benefit of doubt that this is indeed your stance, would you then agree that this sentiment was entirely absent from the post I originally replied to?
I see not even a hint of "I wish we could help but it's just not a good idea", and quite the opposite specifically in the quote
I would appreciate getting the same sort of loan forgiveness the federal government sprayed about to companies who received PPP loans like candy at a parade, thank you. Why should my tax dollars go to fund the second yacht for some "small business" owner when I can't kill off my own debt? I'll take at least the forgiveness the bitch who brought the suit SCOTUS ruled on received.
And companies stole billions when they agreed to the PPP loans that they didn't repay. Where's you're righteous fury there?
In relevant discussion threads.
My thoughts on each of these points:
While I don't think this is a particularly popular opinion among internet demographics, it is not an uncommon one among people at large, and economists, so I think it's good to have present.
While I personally don't think it would've had that much of an inflationary effect, and on net with payments restarting it would've been slightly deflationary, it is still injecting money into an economy where people are concerned about inflation. Despite headline inflation being fairly low now, core CPI is still somewhat high and has been sticky. So perhaps indeed it was an unintended blessing to the Biden administration. We'll have to see, I suppose.
What's the basis for this statement? I've seen numbers like $400 billion in total canceled debt/interest for Biden's plan. I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but this article has estimates ranging from 1.3 - 1.7% inflation, with an estimated 50-75 basis point interest rate increase needed to counteract the effects.
It's important to remember that the inflationary effect would be on a counterfactual basis. That is, compared to the universe where student loans were forgiven. In terms of the CPI numbers, we already live in a world where people haven't been paying any of their student loans, and while some people may have been saving that for this rainy day, I imagine most weren't.
So while that is 400b, it's not 400b compared to yesterday, it's 400b compared to today in an alternate universe. Compared to today, the net effect of restarting payments and forgiveness would still be more negative money than yesterday, where all student loan payments were halted.
Inflation numbers are already quite a bit down, even if core is still somewhat shakey (but much of that buoyed by housing costs, which are inelastic enough that I'm not sure would decrease much from losing demand).
Yes, this all depends on whether student loan payments will resume or not. So this discussion is about future inflation trends after this point. So, resuming student loan payments would deflationary, and including loan forgiveness would be less deflationary.
Well, whether loan forgiveness is a good idea is a matter of opinion, just saying that there's some quantifiable cost as far as inflation. My household has actually benefitted from the corrections to PSLF, and now we're spending a ton of money on stuff. This is great for me, but I'm definitely contributing my little part to inflation.
Student loan payments have been forced to resume in August. It was part of the debt ceiling bill.
It's not that counterfactual because payments were paused for so long, so that was basically injecting that amount of money for 3-4 years. We didn't really see a huge inflation shock as a result. The inflation really didn't start to kick in until the supply chain crunches hit. And that has proven transitory. Inflation is getting close to its typical baseline now and that's despite payments not having resumed yet.
If anything, I think forgiving the debt would probably encourage more entrepreneurship and savings rather than spending. That should increase productivity. Think about who has the most debt? It's highly educated professionals. They likely have decent incomes all things considered. They're going to be putting that money into money market funds after an initial splurge on a celebratory dinner. (Either that or they'll buy a house or have a baby.)
Yep, the gov. Stepping in to give out loans for anyone is one of the main reasons for the inflated costs of college. These colleges that used to have to compete for students and set logical prices, figured out that they could charge whatever they wanted and the students could get a loan for it. No state college should cost 25k a semester, plus room and books... that's insane.
The states also hold some blame here.
Per National Education Foundation
The economy isn't a speeding car on fire anymore; it's teetering on the edge of a cliff. Adding a large persistent, monthly payment to a millions of people just entering the middle class is practically guaranteed to send us into a recession.
On the other hand, it's not a zero-sum game. If you already paid off your loans, you do not "lose" just because someone else's loan was forgiven later down the line. It is not "winning" to refuse to help those who come after you; that's just spite.
And honestly the rest of your points are in such bad faith that they aren't worth addressing.
I personally would have benefitted from Biden's plan however it makes no sense at all to forgive loans while at the same time handing them out. I'll figure out a way to pay what I owe but at the same time we have to stop rat fucking young people by putting them in the same position I am now.
This ruling is about as textbook example of "ruling from the bench" as you could as for.
The law (the HEROES Act) is about as clear and explicit as you could ask for. Is it also very broad in it's scope? Yes. But broad does not mean vague or unclear.
SCOTUS here decided that, based on some made-up doctrine, that Biden had gone too far. The law, as written wasn't broken, but the law as supposedly intended (by whom?) was.
“Major questions doctrine” is all about
rulinglegislating from the bench. I’m already tired of hearing that term and it’s probably going to be around for most of the rest of my life.And I can’t help but wonder what the result would have been if Trump tried to forgive student loan debt.
This is going to hurt a lot of people. I know our household is going to have to pivot pretty hard on any plans we would have made if the forgiveness had gone through. I've kind of just had to internalize that I don't get to take a full breath of fresh air for many years, no traveling, just going to work and paying a loan. And I'm not even in a bad spot compared to some people! I'm also going to have to hold back some screaming when my republican family members inevitably make goading comments about 'just paying what I owe' while they go on vacations I will never dream of. Or maybe I won't.
It's not a new expense. It's the resumption of an expense that they already had. People budgeted poorly if they just decided to assume that their bills wouldn't be resumed at some point.
As good intentioned as it was, this loan forgiveness plan ultimately hurt people by making them think that they no longer owed the money that they agreed to pay back when they took out these loans in the first place. Instead of setting aside the money during a zero interest period to pay their debts, they went off and spent it on other crap..
It's great, isn't it? 5 or 6 figures of debt, and let's not even talk about how the interest adds up. Why is it again that people are scraping to get by and not having kids? Oh right, not working hard enough and too much avocado toast.
My parent's generation paid $300-$400 a semester for undergrad tuition. I paid $14,000 a semester and double that for grad school. Looking at the prices today, I was lucky. Let's also ignore how hard it is to get a job and how little they pay.
Anything more than 40 hours a week is unthinkable to my parents and grandparents. "Only" 40 would be a huge increase in quality of life for me. Time off? In 10 years, I took a full week once. Otherwise a few days here and there. This is why some parts of the world wonder what the heck is wrong with the U.S.
I had employees scoff when I told them I was leaving the state for the first time in 10 years for a weekend excursion to Chicago (emphasis again, it was a weekend excursion, not like a week vacation). They were asking me how it was possible I'd never left the state even for a casual outing, and I had to bite my tongue really hard and just shrug instead of ranting some very blunt and insensitive comments about how not all of us come from money... among other rants. It's like... the wealthy older generation literally has no idea. They literally cannot conceive what we're going through. That Chicago trip (which I was lucky to be able to go!) will likely be the last time I go anywhere during my 30's, meanwhile I have coworkers just willy-nill going off to Colorado or Japan. And I'd consider my workplace to be incredibly progressive, just some of them don't have the perspective to fully 'get it', even if their heart's in the right place.
Which really just goes to show that anyone nefariously against progressive legislation is absolutely never going to budge. They can't empathize and they don't want to.
Yeah. My coworkers mostly get it, but family gatherings, it feels like I'm in a different world sometimes. I am, in a way.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we could actually be in someone else's shoes. You can't imagine what this is like? Come live my life for like a month. Be right there with me and my friends and find out what insurmountable debt can do to your mental health.
Would it convince everyone? Probably not. But something's gotta change. I just wish I knew what I could do to help make that happen.
The document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
The main question was standing
Welp, it's joever for the forgiveness then. Hopefully the IDR/IBR reforms go through without notice.
Politically, it's debatable how this is for Biden. In some sense, he manages to not have to do student loan forgiveness in an inflationary time (although, inflation is not that high right now) while also having someone else to blame for why he didn't do it. But maybe people will just be mad that they don't have that $10k.
Why are fees paid for my federal student loans a legally protected interest of a random state that I have no association with?
The argument basically seems to be that MOEHLA, as Missouri's apparatus for federal student loan financing, would be injured ~$44m if they, well, don't have any loans to service because they're forgiven. As a result, MOEHLA and by proxy the state of Missouri, was materially injured by the student loan forgiveness, and thus has standing.
The most dubious part was whether or not Missouri could sue on behalf of MOEHLA, who is a separate non profit entity. The court ruled that they are, in effect, together.
If I lend a friend (A) $20 and task a separate friend (B) with the process of collecting the $20 for me, does that mean I am legally unable to forgive A's debt due to how it might impact B?
Couldn't the federal government just... Dissolve the federal loan collection system? Would Missouri have standing to sue then?
Going further, does this imply the federal government is legally unable to make any chages that reduces the income of any other legal entity? Do I have grounds to sue if the tax laws change and I become liable for higher taxes?
Nope
I mean, as a collective with all the branches, yes, otherwise the executive branch definitely couldn't dissolve the whole system. Under the court's logic, they would have standing to sue, yes.
Remember, the dicey part for Missouri's standing argument is whether or not Missouri can effectively sue on behalf of MOEHA, or whether MOEHA is considered "part" of Missouri's state government.
No, having standing to sue is just the first step.
You would definitely have standing in that case, and you can sue for anything, but you would need a legal argument for why it's unlawful to go further.
Absolutely fair enough, but I suppose the part I'm missing is why Missouri having standing is enough to block forgiveness.
Just having standing wasn't enough. Basically, with this case, the legal grounds for Biden forgiving the debt under the HEROES act was genuinely pretty dicey (but much more expedient than with the Higher Education Act, which has a much stronger legal basis, but would take over a year - he's doing that now, though). So there's more than enough rope for the SC to hang the executive action with there.
The issue was that almost none of the plaintiffs actually had a good argument for why they have standing in the case. So that's why the entire case basically boiled down to standing. The SC has also historically loved when they can avoid making a decision by saying there's no standing for controversial cases, which gave people a bit more hope.
So in this case, they did find a way to give at least one of the plaintiffs standing (Missouri), and the logical leap there was to allow Missouri to sue on MOEHA's injury.
This does not apply to the Public service Loan Forgiveness program right?
Where you make 120 payments while working for a non profit organization and then your remaining balance is forgiven
An extremely sad day. Feel like I was just gut punched.
Welp, the Nelnet registration page won't even let me create an account, so looks like I'm not repaying shit regardless.
Ahh, the panicked masses have arrived I see.
Don’t be silly tho, they will garnish your wages!
The actual text from the law is:
Which sounds legit to me.
I am really curious about what this looks like. I hope they publish a road plan quickly. I need to know whether or not I should attempt to consolidate my loans with a private loan or stick with the Fed servicer. Although, I don't even know what the APR is anymore - probably not great with the increase in interest from the Fed the past year.
a few days ago, the official Dept of Education twitter account was posting about suicide prevention.
gotta wonder if they got tipped off early about the outcome of this case.