555
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
555 points (95.9% liked)
politics
31132 readers
3426 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes because they held a gun to his head and ordered him to not veto it.
Neoliberals don't like student loan forgiveness, they like Clinton who made it very hard to get it forgiven.
No gun is required when so-called self-interests are threatened. He shouldn't have caved, but then he also shouldn't have given credence to the welfare and social safety net talking points from the Reich wing. And the CBC damned well shouldn't have gone along with bullshit 'tough on crime' narratives.
He didn't veto it and no one forced him. There really is nothing else to say. The neoliberals knew full well the disaster that would follow but not only ignored it they also actively encouraged it.
Anyone with brains could see that if tuition is rising faster than income and you make student loans inescapable you would end up with mountains of debt. The only two options I can see
They couldn't see the obvious in which case they should have zero power.
They knew this would happen and wanted it.
I don't completely disagree, though the argument bears the advantage of hindsight. My suspicion is that the balance of the problem stemmed from the typical right wing obsession with the desire to obliterate the social safety net but the lack of pushback was due to an explicit underestimating of the scope of resulting fuckery - see also those black politicians who didn't push back on Tough on Crime bullshit. People made bad calls out of panic and circumstances, and fixing the problems are far simpler onbpaper than in application, particularly because of those who see the situation as a feature, not a bug.