So we apparently decided that millionaires could get COVID loans forgiven and moved on, but regular folks can’t get any student loan forgiveness.
Every day I’m more disappointed in my home country.
we didn’t decide anything, the mechanism the elite put into our government to prevent true democracy once again worked for them and against us. Just like the Citizen’s United case.
Abort the Supreme Court
Judical branch is in place to protect the rights of the few and Constitution so it plays a role. The issue is that the justices defend the powerful rather then thepeoples.
I know the marketing spiel, but I’m talking about how it actually historically functions. In the fine print ‘the rights of the few’ = ‘existing rich people / old money’
Especially since the supreme court never sides with the few when it has the opportunity to grow a spine. Ie: “Jim Crow”, “slavery”“, internment camps”, etc
That was Congress approved though. Blame Congress. POTUS doesn’t have forgiveness powers. He has military and nuclear powers. Maybe he can nuke the bank computers?
Declare war on debt.
Makes more sense than “war on drugs” and “war on terror”
Congress has always been hated. We have no faith in them.
Just another trying to blame the dems for the actual actions of Republicans. But morons gonna moron.
Technically Biden is the one that pushed the bill to make student loans immune to bankruptcy. The Republicans aren’t helping the situation, but that doesn’t change history
Technically Biden is the one that pushed the bill to make student loans immune to bankruptcy. The Republicans aren’t helping the situation, but that doesn’t change history
RunForSomething.org is taking the lead, please help.
somehow every kind of bank, business, and rich person can get tax breaks, and bail outs yet average middle class people can’t get some help on their student loans.
That’s because wealthy conservatives don’t need student loans.
The SCOTUS is illegitimate at this point. Prepare for years of terrible decisions. Or, do what I’m doing. Expatriate. This shit’s beyond saving during this lifetime.
It’s been years of terrible decisions. They’ve been trying to build this Scotus config since Nixon and Reagan years, now they have it and everything people have been making fun of me for saying for 20+ years is happening. Ugh.
Expatriate
Where are you headed?
It’s not much better in other places. Lots of us rely on being “better than the us” so as it slides, so do we, just a few meters behind.
Politicians need to actually feel concerned about how the people they are hurting will respond. Currently they know there will be nothing more than a few grouchy news articles and upset social media comments.
Except the French. They start a riot for every small change.
I’m glad people have correctly realized that the French should be associated with violent anti government riots and not surrendering. That was a meme that needed to die.
When you actually study French history for 5 minutes, you realise how the memes about the French surrendering are straight-up ridiculous. And the people hold their government to account far more than most countries.
I mean, they chopped off lots of heads back in the day. Smashing some shop windows and burning a couple of police cars is kind of a slow day for them.
undefined> Supreme
We need to stack the supreme court ASAP.
Biden just said how he’s against that because that would be politicizing the supreme court.
Thing is, you can’t win by playing by the rules when your opponent is constantly cheating.
The supreme court has clearly ALREADY become politicized, it can’t get that much worse than rich white guys buying a black justice to do their bidding, now can it?
It’s not like there isn’t precedent for it. Andrew Jackson did it. FDR threatened to do it, but the Supreme court caved to his demands to avoid it. There’s no way we’re going to let these judges decide our fate for the next 50 years. Eventually we’ll get someone with the balls to stack the court. I’d also support term limits, but that would be allot harder to pass as it would require a constitutional amendment.
You know who will not have any issue stacking the SCOTUS?
The next Republican president.
The idea is in the table, and the GOP will not hesitate to add two more judges to solidify the court in their favor. This is where Democrats are indecisive and weak. Republicans will exploit any and all opportunities to consolidate their power. Just look at what is going on in Ohio right now.
I remain unconvinced the states had standing sue here. They were not affected parties
This is a terrible precedent. Some federal action might affect a company which might pay the state taxes at some point so the states get to sue now? That could apply to nearly anything the federal government does! This is a terrible ruling for so many reasons. Naked partisan hackery by the conservative judges. The court needs reform badly.
deleted by creator
The American government is split into three branches. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislative makes the laws. Executive executes the laws. The judicial branch can repeal the laws or hear cases relating to law. The nine supreme Court justices are the judicial branch and are meant to decide if laws are invalid based on past history and intent. For example striking down slavery or Jim Crow laws. They sometimes stretch the definition to make it work which can be scheduled. For instance, roe versus Wade legalized abortion through a weird interpretation of the right to privacy. There was no actual law that allowed abortion. The supreme Court just enshrined it through their interpretation of previous laws. It’s a simple majority system so as long as 5 vote for a decision, it becomes the decision of the court
Does the executive include the elected government? Are they executive and legislative at the same time?
Who appoints the supreme court judges? Isn’t that also mixing judicial and another?
The judges are picked by the executive but confirmed by the legislative.
Executive is president and staff, legislative are the house and Senate. All are elected. Executive nominates judges and Congress approves or dicks around and holds the seat hostage for a year+ because one party is gaming the system a certain way to the detriment of the country (less judges, longer court lines for everything including immigration which is one reason it’s such a clusterfuck). Supreme Court are just the nine most powerful judges of the ultimate court. Since we have multiple levels of judges for various reasons.
The executive branch includes the president (who is elected by the whole country) and their staff, as well as the various departments and agencies such as the FBI, USDA, NASA, etc, which are staffed by unelected government employees.
The legislative branch (Congress) consists of representatives elected by the people of each state.
The judicidal branch is the courts, and the Supreme Court is the highest court. Its 9 justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by a vote in Congress, and serve for life.
Executive and legislative are both in the elected government (except the secretaries, staff, etc.).
The president appoints SC judges.
They aren’t even elected. They’re appointed. For life.
Peak Democracy.
Spacifically, they’re nominated by the President, and Congress votes to decide whether or not they’re the new member of the Supreme Court
Basically, Biden presented a plan, but the Supreme Court argued that such a consistent debt relief plan needs congressional approval. Thing is, the Supreme Court leans heavily towards the conservative side and the Congress is split, so there is basically no chance to make debt relief a reality.
Which is so fucked. The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another. They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law, not give their own opinion on the matter.
I remember here in Canada, back in the days of Harper, just how many times conservative appointed judges struck down conservative laws because they were unconstitutional.
Whether they personally believe this or that shouldn’t even matter at all.
The supreme court shouldn’t “lean” one way or another.
Ideally, this is correct.
They should interpret the laws and constitution and consider the merits of the letter vs the intent of the law
This is where the door is opened for partisan politics. In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted. The more progressive you are, the more you consider the intent and affects of the laws. Which is how you get folks hung up on terms like “Shall not infringe” or “shall make no law”.
In the US at least, the further right you go, the more strict the constitution and laws are interpreted
This is a myth conservatives want you to believe. In reality, they use the constitution and laws to protect but not bind themselves, while at the same time to bind but not protect others. In the state of Virginia today access to pornographic sites without ID verification was made illegal by Republicans. This example or any of the BS Desantis has pulled recently in Florida shows when aligned with their goals there is no hesitation to pass anti-constitutional measures.
In the case of student loans - public education helps the out group, so any justification (constitutional or otherwise) will be used to attack it.
It’s basically what you said, but put another way:
Strict interpretation allows the interpreter to ignore obvious context or intent in bad faith. It’s a way of shrugging off ambiguity in order to defend a status quo that they prefer.
I mean, the laws and constitution were written by a bunch of wig-sporting white guys who owned slaves, so I would say that the supreme court is doing a great job in keeping up with the “spirit of the law”.
Also most of their power is made up. Nowhere in the constitution does it say they have the power to reject laws and actions as unconstitutional. They just did it a long time ago and everyone went along with it.
dam so they paying back all the PPP money they
stoleused??This looks silly from an outside perspective:
IIRC the special thing about student loans in the US is that you cannot default out of them. So even if I go through bankruptcy, I will still owe this specific debt.
The obvious fix would be to deny student loans this special treatment.
I could imagine that this would also have a positive effect on the cost of tuition in the US, as the collection of these stupidly high debts would be far from guaranteed.
edit: spelling
The obvouis fix would be to deny student loans this special treatment.
Unfortunately we’re not going to get this anytime soon. The Republicans are against it, and Biden was the one who introduced the bill making student loans work this way.
Spoiler, democrats are against it too. They just pretend to be for it to gain votes.
Democrats are only progressive by virtue, but they are all republicans behind the scenes.
It’ll always be rich vs poor while they convince us it’s left vs right.
Oh give me a break. If you take a look at voting records on controversial bills designed to make the average person’s life harder, it’s usually republicans voting for it and democrats against it, and vice versa if it’s something that would make the average person’s life better. Of course, SOPA was a significant exception, it had more dems voting for it than repubs.
Basically it’s a question of “bad right-wing capitalist party” and “very bad ultra-right wing late stage capitalist party”. One is bad because they’re taking a bunch of corporate donations, the other one already wants you to be jailed, dead or in debt if you’re not white, christian or straight enough, but ALSO takes all the corporate donations they can get.
You’re right that it’s rich vs poor not left vs right, but the thing is that the right generally sides with the rich way more than the poor. They’re always for more corporate freedom and less consumer protections, etc. Of course the US democratic party isn’t socialists - they only support SOME social programs, but overall are still capitalists. But it’s still better than actively trying to destroy any chance of socialized healthcare, education, etc.
You might not be trying to do it on purpose, but the whole “both sides are the same thing” argument is an actual right-wing strategy to disenfranchise younger, less active voters who’d vote for left-wing politicians, because older people, more likely to vote right-wing, are much more reliable voters. There is a bit of truth to it, but it’s nowhere near the whole truth.
Na, this exact line of thinking is why we are stuck in a 2 party system where nothing ever changes and the rich get richer.
But go ahead, keep pretending that it’s only republicans who hate you. In reality both hate you, except the dems just fly a rainbow flag and pretend to give a fuck.
Good cop, bad cop is the oldest trick in the book and people like you actually believe the good cop is on your side.
But the fix to the 2 party system isn’t not voting, the fix to the 2 party system is getting rid of fttp. You’re just spouting republican propaganda that gets them in power fairly reliably.
You keep talking about republican propaganda, as if democrat propaganda doesn’t exist.
Leave that bs mentality on the front page of Reddit where it belongs.
Not saying it doesn’t, but you’re spreading a very specific type of republican propaganda that they’ve been using for a while now, and very effectively. It definitely helped get Trump elected.
Ok, and how does your way of thinking fix being stuck 2 party system where nothing ever changes and the rich get richer?
If you have a realistic plan for sistemic change sign me up, otherwise the only option we have in this pathetic excuse for a democracy is to keep voting for the lesser evil and against the fascists
The obvious fix would be to deny student loans this special treatment.
The student loan industry is built on this exception, so eliminating it will be a big mountain to climb
It should be Ilegal to pay for education
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today
Finland is doing it and they are much better off then us.
If por and rich kids are forced to go to the same schools, rich parents will have to make donations to increase the school’s quality…
FINLAND is doing it already and they are DOING MUCH BETTER THAN US…
can you explain why?
Doubt it.
His family didn’t have enough money to get him educated enough
Finland is doing it and they are much better off then us.
If por and rich kids are forced to go to the same schools, rich parents will have to make donations to increase the school’s quality…
FINLAND is doing it already and they are DOING MUCH BETTER THAN US…
It should be illegal to get education.
The combination of your statement and your username is quite ironic.
I will spam post this to all you troolls that apparently are satisfied with the current system that treats people like shit.
Me on the other hand, have a tendency to look for systems already in place that are outsucceding ours.
For the record im a Portuguese, studying abroad so it’s not like I don’t have privileges that others don’t have.
That makes me think, bc some people out there deserve better resources. They are doing as well(if not better) as me with half of what I got…if that is not unfair then idk what is
Finland is doing it and they are much better off then us.
If por and rich kids are forced to go to the same schools, rich parents will have to make donations to increase the school’s quality…
FINLAND is doing it already and they are DOING MUCH BETTER THAN US…
This has no relevance to what I said. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
Yhe I did I was all worked up XD, sorry mb!!
Cancel predatory loans, that lead to high tuitions, first…
Had a feeling this would happen unfortunately. I have a lot of student loans for my graduate degree and even if they would put the interest rate at something reasonable that would be so much better than the rates that are currently set
Disappointed, but it makes sense that decisions with such huge implications should be clearly made by the legislative branch, not just at the whim of some executive department.
yep. if something like debt forgiveness has a lot of bipartisan support, it should be an easy bit of legislation to pass.
It does have bipartisan support, this is repeatedly shown in polling. But it doesn’t matter what voters want. The interests of capital will be served above all else because of decades of antidemocratic moves.
Antidemocratic moves like
- Legalized bribes that push politicians towards the interests of capital.
- Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the electoral college which all reduce progressive and leftist voices to the point where we need massively more votes than right wingers to get the same power.
- Filibuster power that firmly cements the status quo by requiring the majority of bills get a supermajority vote to pass.
- Democrats being unwilling to wield their power to revoke the filibuster and enact their legislative agenda
- The rotating villian democrats always seem to have have who can spoil anything even close to progress by one or two votes (Manchin and Sinema for now)
The US is just an oligarchy at this point and it’s getting harder and harder for me to stay optimistic about getting out of it.
It’s kind of funny how dumb the democrats are. If they said: “give us Congress and the presidency next cycle and we’ll pass this as a law” … they likely easily win.
But nope they won’t say that, they won’t do that… Just plain stupid of them.
The supreme court has WAY too much power for only consisting of 9 individuals.
Millennials and Gen-Z are going to remember this on election day.
GOP can’t coast on Gen-X and Boomers alone
this is the kind of US-centric topic I don’t want to see on main. a tragic story, yes, but not relevant to the instance, lemmy, or the fediverse as a whole, sorry.
Removed by mod
