this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
153 points (98.1% liked)

World News

32353 readers
338 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] derf82@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A very poor application of standing doctrine. Kagan cuts right to the heart of it when she asks "Where is MOHELA" as well as if anyone honestly thinks Missouri is there over MOHELA losing some fees. Heck, MOHELA wanted nothing to do with the suit and that the payments Missouri claimed MOHELA made back actually were never paid.

Then the recurrence of the "major questions doctrine," this invented idea that lets them throw out the plain text when they disagree.

That said, I did disagree with the plan. It was poorly targeted, hitting wealthier grads that still had loans, while ignoring poor people that never went in the first place, or were frugal and had limited loans. As someone that saw the Great Recession hit just after graduation, I wonder where my relief was from that emergency, as my lifetime earning took a massive hit, all while still having to pay my loans, with not so much as a payment pause or interest forbearance. To me, it was a thinly veiled attempt to buy votes for the midterm. Had it any other goal, Biden wouldn't have waited so long.

[–] minorsecond@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand how someone can sue over someone else being harmed. Doesn't the person or entity suing have to be directly harmed in order to sue?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ramblechat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

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

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.

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t really think anyone in the government has a good solution for this, do they?

Remove the available money? Only the rich go to college. Add more money? The prices go up.

You could try regulating it, but then you just get colleges that refuse to accept government money, while simultaneously asking for the same amount.

I’m sure someone has a solution that would work, but it’s not anyone with the power to implement it, that’s for sure.

[–] freo3579@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I honestly don’t think so. Private universities are already more expensive, why would they care if that gap widened more?

[–] cyd@vlemmy.net -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know this upsets a lot of people, but the ruling isn't without justification. $450B++ in government spending should not be accomplished through a legal loophole. (Quite aside from the fact that fiscal stimulus is the last thing the economy needs right now.)

[–] KingCyrus20@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is absolutely without justification. The language of the HEROES Act allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial aid programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965." This is not a loophole, it is the law, passed by Congress. And regardless of any foreseen impact on the economy, SCOTUS should not legislate. Otherwise, they're just an activist court.

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

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.

[–] zombuey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

they won't they don't care to go anywhere near reality. It would never fit their perception of the world.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] zombuey@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

most of what's happening in todays world is not a W for capitalism. Modern conservative thoughts on capitalism have long abandoned the necessary regulation of free markets we enforced for 2 centuries. capitalism only works if markets continually divide winners at the top. If you don't bust monopolies then capitalism begins to rapidly break down. We've known that for a long time and only recently stopped. You lose all the benefits of capitalism without that feature. What we have in America isn't capitalism really at all anymore. This whole concept that the government has no role in capitalism and free markets will always correct themselves is a myth and we've known that since before America. John Locke knew that he was a tax collector for the english crown.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›