I’m just confused as to why it’s all fine and dandy that PPP loans were all forgiven regardless of the corrupt practices used for disbursement, but student loans, which impact the economy as a whole far more than PPP ever will, is a must repay.
Because Republicans will fight so that the rich can get richer by getting handed free money, and Republican will fight so that the working class has to pay back every cent.
The opposite is the truth. If Republicans were as supportive of student debt reform as Democrats were, we would have a major reform bill of some form passed and signed. Maybe it wouldn’t be cancellation, but interest free student loans would probably be a thing.
Democrats may disagree and aren’t universally behind cancellation, but didn’t have enough votes by themselves anyways to make anything happen. Biden tried to enact his personal proposal through executive order, but that got shut down by Republican justices.
So. No. It’s not a both parties thing. It’s one sided. And if you aren’t willing to tell the truth about that, then I have to wonder about your motivations and what you seek to do.
Well one big difference is that PPP loans were a one time thing, they are gone now and not coming back for a very long time.
If you paid off all student loans today, there would be more tomorrow, and every day after that. If we do it once, we basically have to keep doing it until school is completely paid for and student loans are no longer a thing.
Forgiving student loans just has a much bigger and longer lasting financial obligation than one time PPP loans.
The problem is that we never bothered to create a system where free education would actually work.
Producers always like to sell their goods for as much as they can get. Normally, a consumer looks at a product, decides if it’s worth the price and then either buys it or doesn’t. If prices are too high, producers are forced to lower them to stay in business.
The current system essentially created a 3 way business transaction that guarantees runaway education costs.
The universities provide a service. It’s really hard to determine the value of that service since there isn’t a liquid market for “an education” or “a Harvard degree” that you can easily look up.
The government then says they’ll cover a percentage of that cost. This is a bit tricky. A normal subsidy is effectively a paying a fraction of the cost. Once you introduce loan forgiveness, either as a frequent or guaranteed event, that fraction effectively goes to 100%.
The student is getting a degree of unknown value but since they don’t have to pay (at least not the whole thing) they’ll just agree to the purchase, even if they don’t personally think the good is worth as much as the provider is charging. There’s no reason to if someone is picking up the bill.
The universities see that their price elasticity of demand (how much their sales suffer when they overcharge) is essentially 0. That means they can raise them with impunity. The end result is that Universities can essentially help themselves to large government grants without any requirement to show the public how we benefit from those grants.
If we consider education to be a public good then we should treat it as such. That would mean that we cancel the student loan program, get rid of tax subsidies for educational institutions and just have the federal government create a competing educational system. Take the money we’re spending on outsourcing education to the private sector and add to it. For the system to work it would need to attract top tier professors and that means good research facilities and salaries. It’s not a complicated idea but it would be a massive undertaking.
As a bonus we’d get some great initialisms. The federal universities would obviously be the FU system. State campuses might have names like FUNY and FUCA.
And yes, the point of such a system is that it would be paid entirely by taxes and would be free to students.
Because different genders taste cheese differently obviously duh. Don’t want to give them NBs an unfair advantage in the Roquefort round
(Serious answer - I think it’s to try and combat entrenched sexism in the sport? There aren’t many women in chess and by making a space explicitly for them you hopefully create a safe space that can encourage more women to take up the pursuit. As it’s a social perspective thing, AGAB therefore really shouldn’t matter because the point is to go “look women!” Not “women are inherently better/worse and so we should segregate on gender”)
To add to squids answer: There isn’t a segregated mens and womens category. There is an open category and a women’s only category.
What happened in the open category is that because the societal pressures and social constructs that disincentivized young girls to play, women weren’t placing high in the open category. (Because top players end up being top players because they started when thwy were 5) This leads to a feedback loop where young girls see less women in the sport and get reinforced that it is not for them so don’t pick it up at a young age, so less persue it and get good, so less women are seen at high levels, etc.
So then comes the women’s category to combat women not feeling like they belong in that space. Women can compete in both the open and women’s categories.
But because it is an intellectual thing mostly, barring transgender women is ridiculous. In athletic sports you could almost try to argue that a woman that went through male puberty could be stronger(ignoring how estrogen weakens them and they cannot compete in the men’s category anymore). You could try to make that argument in athletic sports (and it is a different discussion to this) and almost seem logically consistently on the surface level if you don’t think about it any further than your fox news talking points, but what is the argument here? If a woman went through a male puberty they were possibly socialized as male and weren’t told as a kid that chess wasn’t for them and so they have an intellectual advantage over cis women?
I don’t get it. It seems like, just with athletic sports, it is not about the sanctity of the sport or about fairness, it is about banning trans people from public spaces and policing what women can be.
So once we get to fully half the nation have state legal cannabis… can we please just legalize federally? I don’t even use the shit but this is just getting ridiculous watching every state ignore the feds on this issue and the feds not even saying anything
Here are some problems with the “why would you use any social media on a work device?”
Social media outreach. The government needs to talk to people where they are for public information campaigns. This includes social media as well as traditional media
What constitutes “work device” is being broadly interpreted. So broadly that it also includes your personal device if you do any kind of “work” on it. I can vouch for this personally on a federal project. This not only means “don’t install social on work devices”, but "don’t install socials on personal devices unless you delete email, slack, and any other means by which you might work. This is a huge violation of privacy. Of course I can just say “fuck you, no work on my BYOD”, which I have, but now I’m at a performance disadvantage with my peers. I could also say “buy me a phone”, which I have; but they won’t.
Just because you don’t use/don’t like TikTok it doesn’t mean that’s where this slippery slope ends. What’s next? No personal use of queer dating apps? Why not
With any BYOD policy, the organization is accepting the risk of what may come on a personally owned device. Carving out an exception for a single application is a very clear anti-pattern of security.
Curious how it would be handled by private businesses, who frequently drug test employees, would those sorts of tests still happen? Would it be sort of quasi-illegal, since failing a drug test might affect employment, or do those sorts of tests just go away? How has it played out in other states that have legalized it?
My company stopped testing for weed several years before it was legal in my city, once the neighboring state 5 minutes from our downtown legalized most of the business gave up enforcing thc tests. I’m sure the yokels continued to test but the cities gave up
They barely test for it in NJ anymore. State laws have protected users. I just took a test for a job was 10 panel - NO THC. In NJ they have to prove that you are impaired on work hours PLUS a positive test to take action. Just the test alone doesn’t work.
This doesn’t apply to federal positions… and placed with federal contracts can chose to ignore this.
I work for a hospital in Illinois. When recreational passed, we were sent notice that the hospital recognizes the legality, instructs (like with alcohol) that it’s not to be used during your work hours, and that if you have reason to believe that your usage will interfere with your work, please speak to your manager about it.
It’s gonna depend on how each state phrases the law. It just became legal in Minnesota and the law specifically states that employers cannot discriminate against employees who test positive on a drug test, and employers would have to prove it was used on the job to terminate an employee.
Other states might leave provisions like that out, on purpose or otherwise.
Most of these comments are people recommending bottled water or various filtration methods, both of which could work in varying degrees. Let’s not miss the point that people who will be most impacted are low income and might struggle to pay their tap water bill. Bottled water and filters are a stretch for those folks. The true fix is demanding more of our politicians to hold polluters accountable and push for better treatment of the tap water.
Haven’t bought a HP since their support told me to just buy a new printer and that the warning message wasn’t going away even though they could not confirm anything was wrong with it
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.