this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
896 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2469 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 86 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The "I got mine, fuck you" crowd really hates progress.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The student loan interest rates are exuberant, while I support the nullification of times past, I'd also like to see the core issue being taken care of

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you mean “exorbitant” ;)

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought exuberant meant a lot of/obsessive amounts

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That’s a contextual issue. It’s not often applied to a value but rather a feeling - that’s why I suggested “exorbitant”.

Exuberant is also considered a positive attribute, so contextually it was confusing.

edit: Not to be rude - I'm an American and the Dutch constantly correct me here - but instead of "obsessive" (to be obsessed with), you might consider "excessive" - much closer to "a lot of" but more "too much of". ✌️

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exorbitant meaning "eye-popping", as in making your eyes pop out of their sockets, which is why it's used in these contexts.

[–] HollandJim@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The first uses of "exorbitant" in English was "wandering or deviating from the normal or ordinary course." That sense is now archaic, but it provides a hint as to the origins of "exorbitant": the word derives from Late Latin exorbitans, the present participle of the verb exorbitare, meaning "to deviate."

"Exorbitare" in turn was formed by combining the prefix ex-, meaning "out of," with the noun orbita, meaning "track of a wheel or "rut." ("Orbita" itself traces back to "orbis," the Latin word for "disk" or "hoop.") In the 15th century "exorbitant" came to refer to something which fell outside of the normal or intended scope of the law.

Eventually, it developed an extended sense as a synonym of "excessive."

source

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, let's do both.

[–] HappyHam@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's one thing I don't understand: does loan cancellation consist of the government paying off the loan, or is it a legal nullification of somebody's loan? If it's the former, I get economic concerns. If it's the latter, then I really don't see arguments against loan cancellation as very credible.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's cancellation of the loans. They're government loans being forgiven, not private loans paid back by the government.

[–] MrSqueezles@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I'd like to focus on stopping the bleeding before mopping up blood. I don't know what the message is here for future generations.