There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

wwaxwork ,

Friendly reminder Biden lost the battle but he hasn’t lost the war. He is currently working out an income related savings plan and doing a hail mary long shot roundabout come in the back door play using the Authority he has from the Higher Education Act to create debt forgiveness regulation. He’s still out there trying, though anything through the Dept of Education will take a while because of how policy works there.

ramblechat ,

I don’t have kids but am perfectly happy to pay more tax to make education free or cheaper. How can anyone argue that a less educated society is better? The more people that can experience higher education is plainly a good thing. There could be someone out there who could make a medical or technological breakthrough but doesn’t get the chance because they can’t afford to go to college.

Lev_Astov ,
@Lev_Astov@lemmy.world avatar

I think the main argument is that this isn’t the way to go about that. The universities are totally out of control and need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable before we just start handing them public funding like this.

DontTreadOnBigfoot ,
@DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world avatar

Well I think this move is only going to hurt people in the short run, it was just asking for further dive in a recession, I do agree with this sentiment of it.

Tuition prices are absolutely insane. Colleges and universities are spending money on ridiculous nonsense, and that needs to be reigned in severely before Just throwing billions more taxpayer dollars at them.

That said, these funds weren’t going to the universities. They were going to the banks, so cutting this off isn’t going to influence tuition rates in any way.

wslack ,

need to be forced to curb their spending to make things more affordable

How? Students are choosing more expensive places. The market is driving this.

GiddyGap ,

I always vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. But this just confirms my choice once again. Hopefully the 26 million people the Republicans screwed over will come to the same conclusion.

Raphael ,
@Raphael@lemmy.world avatar

Another W for capitalism, another L for the worker class.

Randy_Bobandy ,
@Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml avatar

Who here still thinks republicans should be allowed to vote and hold elected office and write and pass laws?

Show of hands?

Great, everyone who raised their hand deserves this shit. Everyone wants to hate on Republicans, but when it comes to the voting booth, everyone defends them to the death. Well this is what you get. But DeMoCrAcY is more important than anything and everything, right?

stown ,
@stown@sedd.it avatar

Come on, you play right into their bullshit propaganda with that message. If they go low we don’t stoop to their level. We do not win elections by removing voting rights for those we disagree with - that is an authoritarian tactic.

AdlachGyfiawn ,
@AdlachGyfiawn@lemmygrad.ml avatar

“sure, we let fascism run rampant over society, but that was the respectable thing to do”

drewisawesome14 ,

Hope y’all are ready for another once in a lifetime market crash.

Prices still haven’t gone down from the pandemic era but wages have stayed stagnant. People are barely getting by as it is, but now they have another 2-600 monthly bill added on top of everything else?

Guess we didn’t learn a thing from 2008.

butwhyishischinabook ,

Lol I made the mistake of going back to grad school, so more like $2500-$3000 a month for me

drewisawesome14 ,

Jesus Christ how much did you borrow???

butwhyishischinabook ,

Enough for law school. Actually worked jobs to pay off my undergrad debt just to do so. Womp womp.

minorsecond ,

But the forgiven PPP loans are A-OK, right? Fuck this shit.

SENEX ,

On top of that 1.7 trillion in tax breaks for the rich over ten year. Benifits like 600 people. The same 1.7 trillion could wipe out debt 43 million people and that is debt accumulated over 40 years.

klieg2323 ,
@klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net avatar

My “favorite” part of the majority ruling is how the loan forgiveness was struck down because it would harm the loan servicers. Not the government, not the people, the companies that have been contracted to collect the loans. That’s who SCOTUS is most concerned with. Should tell us everything we need to know about who’s interests are most important - capitalists

dingus ,
@dingus@lemmy.ml avatar

Not only did they admit that MOHELA didn’t have standing, MOHELA itself said this wouldn’t impact them and they didn’t ask to be part of the case.

Funny how it turns out that standing doesn’t matter when they don’t want it to.

Kinda similar to the other case they dropped this morning, allowing LGBT discrimination… despite the fact that it turns out that no gay person ever actually asked this bakery to make them a website for their wedding. When contacted, the man who purportedly sent the email claimed he never sent it and has been married to a woman for years. They don’t even give a shit if it’s made up they will sign off on it.

Karate_Jesus420 ,

Fuck Trump and his supreme court. We’re going to be suffering the effects of Republican stupidity for the next 40 years.

KingSnorky ,

It’s Republican moral bankruptcy and cruelty that we will all suffer. If anyone’s stupidity got us here, it’s the Democratic Party’s stupid leadership since AT LEAST 2000, if not earlier. Republicans have telegraphed their intentions for 50 fuckin years and Democrats continued over and over to attempt reaching across the aisle, trying to pass bipartisan wins, “take the high road,” … all the while the Republican party continued putting their racist, xenophobic, mysoginistic, jingoistic, classist platform out year after year, abandoning all sense of decorum and norms, gerrymandering the fuck out of every district possible, blocking every bill that helps anyone aside from billionaires and corporations, and generally lying and cheating their way to what we have today.

Pacifist ,

If you need any reason not to believe in god, it’s that Trump got to appoint THREE FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

seesaw ,

I don’t know enough about US politics, but can’t Biden change the court justices? If the answer is no, how did Trump change?

LetsGOikz ,

Justices need to die or retire in order for there to be a vacancy for a President to appoint a new Justice to. There was a vacancy at the start of Trump’s term due to a death during Obama’s that the Republicans refused to confirm an appointment for, and then there was a retirement (Kennedy) and death (RBG) during his term as well.

patchymoose ,
@patchymoose@lemmy.ml avatar

For anyone who isn’t familiar, RBG was a liberal Supreme Court justice that was getting very old, and a lot of people thought she should have retired during Obama’s term, where she could have been replaced by him. Some accuse her of stubbornness/hubris for not stepping down when it was “safe”, and point out that her whole legacy is now being undone.

Others point out that common wisdom at the time was that Hillary was going to he a shoe in as the next president, and nobody expected a Republican to win, including RBG.

Anyway, I’m not taking a stance but just fleshing that out for anyone who is interested in the controversy.

CeruleanRuin ,

That says nothing about the existence or lack of a deity, only that if there is one he’s a HUGE piece of shit.

Kururin ,
@Kururin@lemmy.ml avatar

https://i.imgur.com/jOEOJQc.jpg

Unless the dems take back court we would be all living through a nightmare.

dingus ,
@dingus@lemmy.ml avatar

Maybe Hilldawg could have campaigned in Wisconsin or taken seriously that even if she won the popular vote, that the Electoral College actually mattered.

Reminder, she did win the popular vote. The majority did vote for her.

Or maybe Obama could have kept his campaign promise that codifying Roe vs. Wade in law was his first order of business.

But sure, it’s our fault, Hilldawg, because we didn’t vote hard enough.

Pacifist ,

I fail to see why you’re turning this around on her. She simply stated a fact that became reality.

Ado ,

This happens every election cycle. We do our job by electing them. They are privy to what will happen and fail to act when they have the power to do so. Who else do we blame? The universe?

Pacifist ,

If Hillary were president instead of Trump we wouldn’t see this stacked court.

That has nothing to do with Obama’s promise or whatever.

dingus ,
@dingus@lemmy.ml avatar

It has everything to do with Obama’s promise. By not following through on his promise to legislate it into law, the opportunity to reverse the previous court decision was always a thing that could happen. Acting like them not taking the opportunity when they had it means its the fault of the voting public is pure bullshit.

Instead, Obama used his political capital to pass Romneycare, which while it helped a lot of poor people, has made the insurance market even worse for many, who still have insurance that they can’t afford to actually use.

Ado ,

The dem politician’s tactic. Pretend like you give a fuck (pretending bc they dont actually do the things to solve the issue), and then hold your constituency hostage during elections. Then continue to pretend like you give a fuck.

Spacebar ,
@Spacebar@lemmy.world avatar

Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.

Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.

The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

I know this will likely upset many Dems but:

Dems have the Senate and the Presidency and are completely within their power to pack the Supreme Court and basically alter all of the terrible rulings the Supreme Court has made lately. The problem is that many Dems do not think it is worth packing the court for women, students, or the environment. You can’t just vote your way out of this as you would literally have to pack up and move to West Virginia to vote for a Senator who would be ultimately determining this.

The system is ultimately flawed and just voting isn’t enough.

Addition after some research:

It looks like the Supreme Court is set in size by law and FDR had some of the same problems so it would be likely that this would take an act of congress and not just the Senate.

Ultimately I feel this is certainly more difficult and makes my criticism of inaction now invalid as Dems do not hold enough of a majority to pass legislation; however I do still see them as responsible for inaction when majorities have been held throughout my lifetime.

LeZero ,
@LeZero@lemmy.world avatar

Democrats wouldn’t pack the courts

That would be uncouth, you know, decorum is after all VERY important

I also think the Parlementarian said no

Sneptaur ,
@Sneptaur@pawb.social avatar

With that being said, you’re also correct that voting is NOT enough. Protesting and direct action, mutual aid, and more are all required!

Chrisosaur ,

A) They need 50 senators willing to entertain that notion. They only have 49. B) If there were one action that I think would be most likely to kick off Civil War 2, it would be packing the court.

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

That’s a very selective way of saying the Dems aren’t responsible because Dems wont support students, the environment, or women’s rights.

minorsecond ,

Wouldn’t the Rs just do the same thing next time they have power? I get what you’re saying, but isn’t setting that precedent dangerous?

Tak ,
@Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

Republicans are channeling full fucking fascism and you think the only thing keeping them from packing the already packed republican court is because Dems haven’t done it first?

dingus ,
@dingus@lemmy.ml avatar

You’re saying that as if the Rs won’t do the same thing anyway without prior provocation. They’ve literally already broken the law to pack the court and the Democrats sat on their hands. They denied Obama picking a justice because it was “too close to an election” when the election was like six months away, but let Trump pick one when an election was already underway.

Take off the fucking blinders, the Republicans already do these kind of things.

They already set the precedent.

14specks ,
@14specks@lemmy.ml avatar

Without a socialist party (as in, completely purged and free of all bourgeois influence), there’s isn’t a whole lot worth voting for at the federal level. Democrats repeatedly show that they are incapable of resisting the Republicans and take L’s constantly (see here).

I encourage everyone to instead organize with local political orgs that can eventually build this power. The DSA being the largest currently available (and just as flawed as the other options one may have, ofc)

CompassInspector ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    14specks ,
    @14specks@lemmy.ml avatar

    I agree with your assesment of the DSA, but our audience here isn’t ready for that. I want them to get into the DSA where we can continue trashing on them until they do something more useful.

    They aren’t going to go from defending Democratic Party failures to Maoist Third-Worldist guerilla fighters (the correct sect of socialists, of course) overnight.

    frozen ,
    @frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz avatar

    Yesterday they made higher education less accessible to non-whites, today they made it harder for the poor…

    I wonder if there’s a pattern here.

    mcc ,

    Why does this make it harder for the poor to access higher education? A debt forgiveness will make current debtors less burdened but will probably make it more expensive for new applicants. Isn’t it the other way around?

    matt ,
    @matt@lemmy.world avatar

    Chances are loan forgiveness would push a conversation regarding tuition fees in general, and would ultimately make university free / affordable instead.

    Maybe.

    Empyreus ,

    There is 0 chance that would happen with our current political climate.

    pinwurm ,
    @pinwurm@lemmy.world avatar

    Well, around 20 states right now offer free community college if you’re a resident through first/last dollar programs. Meaning, they will cover the costs after any other financial aid. Other qualifications vary.

    Some States schools offer debt relief if you hold a regional residency for X-years (usually 5) after graduation. So for example, if there’s an area of a State that needs more investment (like Upstate NY versus Downstate), these programs are designed to increase GDP and strengthen the talent pool.

    Of course, you can get a tuition waiver in like half the states if you’re over 60. 🙄

    I’m not saying any of this is ideal by any stretch if the imagination. Just saying there’s some headway here and there in terms of precedent for tuition-free college education.

    frozen ,
    @frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz avatar

    Relieving debt for the poor would allow them to spend their money on other things, or save it. Best case scenario, they’re able to support their kids’ educations and help break the generational cycle of poverty.

    amanneedsamaid ,

    Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good, because affirmative action was never a fair solution to the issue and was simply unfair in principle imo. We shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race, college admissions and race should have nothing to do with one another. Class-based affirmative action actually makes sense instead of deciding off race.

    frozen ,
    @frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz avatar

    I agree with you in theory, but striking down AA without a better solution in place is bad. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    amanneedsamaid ,

    Fair enough, I agree that in reality removing AA and not implementing a better system in it’s place will only lead to worse outcomes.

    withdrawn ,

    Yes, higher education is now less accessible to non-whites. Which is good,

    Jesus H. Christ. Either stop being a racist or learn to organize your thoughts.

    whatsarefoogee ,

    You literally cut his quote in the middle of the sentence. He says its good specifically because it was not a result of fair treatment, right after you cut him off.

    The world is upside down when you can someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist.

    withdrawn ,

    I think you can call someone saying “it’s unfair to judge people by race” a racist when they’re using that line to applaud the removal of protections against institutional racism. We can argue the merits of AA as a form of protection, but it was protection nonetheless. To say that it was unfair is to entirely ignore the unfairness which necessitated its existence.

    amanneedsamaid ,

    Lmao is reading comprehension not your thing? Because my meaning was very clear and not at all racist.

    withdrawn ,

    How was it not? How is non-whites having less access good?

    You follow what I quoted by claiming it wasn’t fair (“imo”) because, as you say, “we shouldn’t raise the eligibility of people based on their race” which is great if you ignore the fact that nearly every institution in the US treats people differently based on race, whether intentional or not. It is exceedingly rare for that bias to swing in the favor of non-whites.

    With no meaningful alternative to AA, what exacxtly is the win here?

    amanneedsamaid ,

    Non-whites having less access is good in this context, because they were being unfairly given an advantage before. I agree with your premise about bias, but why should the solution to that be to artificially inflate the people being discriminated against, instead of trying to provide a system that doesn’t have room for discrimination?

    Class based alternative action, along with anonymizing applicant details pertinent to their race is a meaningful alternative to AA.

    withdrawn ,

    I agree on the last point, but there isn’t a class based system in place, nor is there a plan to implement one (that I can find).

    That, I shall continue to argue, makes this very not good.

    amanneedsamaid ,

    I agree with no proper replacement this will overall have a negative effect. I think the method race-based AA uses was very flawed.

    planetexpress ,

    Your whole argument could have been just that last sentence and I’d bet you’d have significantly less downvotes.

    Although I’m disappointed by the courts decision I do believe class basis is a better measuring stick for AA. That said, I think there would be a pretty close correlation between the people who benefit now and the people who would benefit if the system was based on socioeconomic class.

    amanneedsamaid ,

    I wholeheartedly agree that minorities are often at a disadvantage in our society, and that there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status in the USA. I think that if true equality is to be achieved, we need to stop separating people (at least in important processes like legal proceedings, college admissions, etc.) by their race at all. It sets a bad precedent, and I hope for a future where no race has any connotation with any socioeconomic class.

    planetexpress ,

    I appreciate your thoughtful response and for taking the time to write it.

    I don’t fully share your optimism, but it’s great this conversation didn’t devolve into a shouting match just because we are at odds.

    SeaJ ,

    We have class based affirmative action. Rich people buy their kids into school all the time.

    LeZero ,
    @LeZero@lemmy.world avatar

    Dont forget to thank RBG, who refused to retire under Obama for some fucking reason, only to get owned by COVID after officiating a wedding for some dumb liberals (while having an immune system shredded by cancer)

    Well it gave us the funniest trump interview imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlJWu815C0

    Empyreus ,

    If there is a minimum age in government, there needs to be a maximum. I’m over these 70 year olds running things.

    dingus ,
    @dingus@lemmy.ml avatar

    Downvoted by people who refuse to look at when Democrats make stupid decisions that fuck us.

    I thought Lemmy was supposed to be full of tankies, not milquetoast centrist capitalist apologists…

    LeZero ,
    @LeZero@lemmy.world avatar

    They can downvote away, I will never not shit on Ginsberg (also libtards infect spaces just like right wingers)

    14specks ,
    @14specks@lemmy.ml avatar

    libtards

    I’m onboard with the spirit of the post, but I encourage you to find another insult

    sergio ,
    @sergio@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    agree, how do you feel about shitlib?

    Tak ,
    @Tak@lemmy.ml avatar

    Just like when Dems had congress and the presidency but refused to make law to defend abortion saying the supreme court wouldn’t overrule it. Oopsy poopsy.

    cyd ,
    @cyd@vlemmy.net avatar

    for some fucking reason

    The reason is that she expected Hillary to win and the satisfaction of the first female president appointing her replacement.

    It’s a great example of how these justices aren’t as wise or smart as they seem to think they are.

    RGB3x3 ,

    Expecting Hillary to be a shoe-in was just so naive. I know hardly anyone democrat or republican that actually liked her.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •