|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 06 2022 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all. They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout. It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote. If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way. If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote.
This is exactly how I feel... They need to fix the loan issue, not band-aid it.
|
On April 06 2022 22:14 BRaegO wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all. They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout. It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote. If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way. If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote. This is exactly how I feel... They need to fix the loan issue, not band-aid it. Everyone here agrees that fixing it would be better but fixing it requires Congress and there are not enough votes to get something done.
Band-aid it only requires the President.
Something beats nothing.
|
On April 06 2022 23:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 22:14 BRaegO wrote:On April 06 2022 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all. They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout. It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote. If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way. If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote. This is exactly how I feel... They need to fix the loan issue, not band-aid it. Everyone here agrees that fixing it would be better but fixing it requires Congress and there are not enough votes to get something done. Band-aid it only requires the President. Something beats nothing.
Who's paying the creditors to not collect on the student loans?
|
United States42518 Posts
On April 07 2022 00:36 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 23:07 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2022 22:14 BRaegO wrote:On April 06 2022 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all. They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout. It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote. If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way. If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote. This is exactly how I feel... They need to fix the loan issue, not band-aid it. Everyone here agrees that fixing it would be better but fixing it requires Congress and there are not enough votes to get something done. Band-aid it only requires the President. Something beats nothing. Who's paying the creditors to not collect on the student loans?
It’s just federal loans. They are the creditor.
|
On April 06 2022 23:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 22:14 BRaegO wrote:On April 06 2022 05:50 Mohdoo wrote:On April 06 2022 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:It's looking increasingly likely that they want to use it as a shot on goal just in time for the midterms. However, the fact that they're playing political football with student debt might make it an own goal. They have not been managing expectations well at all with regard to student debt, and they could be shooting themselves in the foot yet again. It was only one of Biden's major campaign promises, after all. They seem to be pushing it until midterms for impact for whatever they have in mind to help inspire turnout. It is funny because it will all depend on what they do. If the loans are still paused during midterms, I will vote for democrats. If Biden forgives $10k and pats himself on the back, I will absolutely not vote for democrats no matter what. I will write in Bernie Sanders for every option. Not a single democrat will get my vote. If they do something, they’ll need to do something that I view as a moral solution to the problem, which is at minimum forgiving all accrued interest and setting interest to 0. Anything else is too immoral for me to endorse with a vote. My vote is purely symbolic since I live in deep blue area, so I will absolutely use it to give the party the finger if they don’t deliver in a moral way. If I don’t think the solution they use is moral, of course they don’t get my vote. The cost of pausing loans is 87B per year. When I peek at the US budget and consider what an impact 87 has on the total, saying “sorry bud, pay up” is absurd. The entire idea of the government profiting off of education, which has enormously positive externalities for the government and society as a whole, is whack. Won’t support it with my (symbolic) vote. This is exactly how I feel... They need to fix the loan issue, not band-aid it. Everyone here agrees that fixing it would be better but fixing it requires Congress and there are not enough votes to get something done. Band-aid it only requires the President. Something beats nothing.
And something can still be gigantic. Here is what Biden can do without congress:
1) Direct all federal agencies to withhold all grants from universities that increase their tuition more than inflation
2) Set all loans to their original amount
3) Apply all past payments to their original amount
4) Set interest to 0.1%
This would be an enormous change and most people would be pleased with it. People who cheer for the government to charge students interest can't be saved. The government can already garnish wages if you don't pay, so having interest on the loans is purely predatory. The government will get their money.
6% is the common interest rate for federal loans, which is way more than a car or mortgage.
https://www.calculator.net/payment-calculator.html?ctype=fixterm&cloanamount=50000&cloanterm=25&cmonthlypay=1000&cinterestrate=6&printit=0&x=0&y=0
^That is the payment break down for a 25 year loan of $50,000. It is totally nuts.
|
On April 06 2022 15:54 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 09:38 Severedevil wrote:On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch. The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial. Everything in American politics is controversial aside from pumping up the military budget. If I recall correctly Gorsuch wasn’t a controversial person himself, he didn’t get set upon like KJB or Kavanaugh because he was a boring normal conservative justice. My point is that Kavanaugh is a bad comparison point because he looked pretty unfit to serve on the highest court, whereas KJB and Gorsuch don’t show any such obvious character flaws. People going But Kavanaugh is silly, hes a shitty spoiled turd with poor self control, better to compare KJB to Gorsuch in that they’re both perfectly fine candidates who are controversial because American politics is controversial in all ways at all times regardless of whether it’s warranted.
The whole argument that Kavanaugh should have been DQed because he did not react in the right way to last minute accusations of serious crimes is very weak. Almost anyone would react defensively like he did. This particular argument is what really makes it all seem to me as a cynical ploy to sabotage his nomination.
|
|
|
I think seeing how Ketanji Brown Jackson handled Republicans explaining racism to her establishes what the standard should be. You shouldn't be making your case to a judge and have to worry that you're one errant word from a rant about how the judge loves beer, and that's okay right, who doesn't love beer?
|
On April 07 2022 02:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I think seeing how Ketanji Brown Jackson handled Republicans explaining racism to her establishes what the standard should be. You shouldn't be making your case to a judge and have to worry that you're one errant word from a rant about how the judge loves beer, and that's okay right, who doesn't love beer?
The big thing is that we have no incentive to accept someone like Kav when there are like 10+ people who are equally qualified. Republicans could have chosen someone with the composure of Brown while still getting an almost identical candidate. It is not obvious why they didn't just toss Kav and grab someone else.
|
On April 07 2022 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2022 02:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I think seeing how Ketanji Brown Jackson handled Republicans explaining racism to her establishes what the standard should be. You shouldn't be making your case to a judge and have to worry that you're one errant word from a rant about how the judge loves beer, and that's okay right, who doesn't love beer? The big thing is that we have no incentive to accept someone like Kav when there are like 10+ people who are equally qualified. Republicans could have chosen someone with the composure of Brown while still getting an almost identical candidate. It is not obvious why they didn't just toss Kav and grab someone else. Because withdrawing the nomination would be admitting defeat and that is unacceptable.
Even without Trump being what he is the Republicans would probably not do it.
|
On April 07 2022 02:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2022 02:11 Doc.Rivers wrote:On April 06 2022 15:54 Zambrah wrote:On April 06 2022 09:38 Severedevil wrote:On April 06 2022 00:59 Zambrah wrote:
I think a more fair comparison would be the justice who wasnt extremely controversial, Neil Gorsuch. The 2015-2016 Senate violated the Constitution to keep the seat open for Gorsuch, which was pretty controversial. Everything in American politics is controversial aside from pumping up the military budget. If I recall correctly Gorsuch wasn’t a controversial person himself, he didn’t get set upon like KJB or Kavanaugh because he was a boring normal conservative justice. My point is that Kavanaugh is a bad comparison point because he looked pretty unfit to serve on the highest court, whereas KJB and Gorsuch don’t show any such obvious character flaws. People going But Kavanaugh is silly, hes a shitty spoiled turd with poor self control, better to compare KJB to Gorsuch in that they’re both perfectly fine candidates who are controversial because American politics is controversial in all ways at all times regardless of whether it’s warranted. The whole argument that Kavanaugh should have been DQed because he did not react in the right way to last minute accusations of serious crimes is very weak. Almost anyone would react defensively like he did. This particular argument is what really makes it all seem to me as a cynical ploy to sabotage his nomination. Almost anyone should not be a supreme court justice, he meant to be the best of the best who xan stay even in the most stressful and pressure filles situation. That he did not do that much worse than your average person is not exactly glowing praise.
Leveling last minute, sketchy accusations of serious crime and then seeing how the person performs on national TV is not a meaningful or realistic way of testing a SC nominee's qualifications. Has nothing to do with the work of being a judge. It's just destruction and sabotage.
|
|
|
On April 06 2022 14:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2022 13:13 Introvert wrote:
I can post the article for the like the 5th time but it shouldn't be necessary. It would have been more unusual for the senate to approve of a nomination in a presidential election year when the WH and the Senate are controlled by opposite parties. The length of the vacancy was fairly long, but the practice itself has been standard for some time now. So the argument about "norms" is more complicated, at best.
And obviously it wasn't unconstitutional... there is no time frame given, refusal to even vote is the same as withholding consent, and the number of justices is fixed by federal law not the constitution. And there have been some very long vacancies. It was in no sense unconstitutional. By that logic it would unconstitutional for a president to withdraw a nomination before the senate votes on a doomed nominee, which is self-evidently absurd.
but this is all self-serving. Had the senate voted on Garland and voted him down, and the seat remained open until Trump took office, idiots and/or hacks would still be claiming Gorsuch was illegitimate. What do you think about the ACB confirmation?
What part of it? The timeliness, or the confirmation itself?
As to the latter, it's normal for a nominee to be confirmed close to a presidential election if the Senate and WH are in the same hands. Obviously this is pure politics, but it is "normal" so wailing about norms in either instance is not so straightforward.
As to the quickness with which she was confirmed: it was a little fast for recent history, though not unheard of. Adding on to that, she was confirmed to an appeals court I think less than two years before her SC nomination, so she had already gone through one hearing, from almost the exact same group of Senators, not too long before the SC hearing. Meaning that it made sense to expedite the process. Pretty sure the same logic applies to the current nomination, KBJ was only put in her circuit slot very recently.
|
I think the general question is what made kav different from Barrett. Why not accuse her of being a pedophile etc
|
The “If the WH and Senate are in same hands” only got added to the “rule” after ACB, which makes perfectly transparent that the only real “rule” is using whatever power available to you to gain more power. The “in an election year” part is gone as soon as it’s relevant. Some Senator (Graham maybe?) already said KBJ wouldn’t have gotten a hearing if Republicans controlled the Senate.
|
On April 07 2022 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:
I think the general question is what made kav different from Barrett. Why not accuse her of being a pedophile etc A very Republican take. "lol just throw random accusations at nominees you don't like".
What made Kavanaugh different? The obvious difference is he 'allegedly' engaged in unacceptable sexual behaviour and multiple people were willing to testify to that effect and Barrett didn't (or atleast no one was willing to come forward).
|
On April 07 2022 04:00 ChristianS wrote:
The “If the WH and Senate are in same hands” only got added to the “rule” after ACB, which makes perfectly transparent that the only real “rule” is using whatever power available to you to gain more power. The “in an election year” part is gone as soon as it’s relevant. Some Senator (Graham maybe?) already said KBJ wouldn’t have gotten a hearing if Republicans controlled the Senate.
It didn't, this is the way it's been pretty much from the beginning, it's just that neither situation actually occurs very often, so people forget.
|
On April 07 2022 04:00 ChristianS wrote:
The “If the WH and Senate are in same hands” only got added to the “rule” after ACB, which makes perfectly transparent that the only real “rule” is using whatever power available to you to gain more power. The “in an election year” part is gone as soon as it’s relevant. Some Senator (Graham maybe?) already said KBJ wouldn’t have gotten a hearing if Republicans controlled the Senate.
McConnell did make the "opposite parties" argument in 2016, though you wouldn't know it if you only consume left-leaning media, because they leave it out of their relevant articles. This is from his speech on the Senate floor 10 days after Scalia's death:
One might say this is an almost unprecedented moment in the history of our country. It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy arose and was filled in a Presidential election year, and that was when the Senate majority and the President were from the same political party. It has been 80 years.
Since we have divided government today, it means we have to look back almost 130 years to the last time a nominee was confirmed in similar circumstances.
"McConnell repeated this particular point in a number of other appearances, as comments compiled by his staff show."
Also interesting to note that "Joe Biden said in 1992, a presidential election year, had a vacancy existed, they would not have filled it." Nothing unusual or improper about what McConnell did.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-rule-what-he-said-in-2016/
|
So I guess it became a rule not to do so because it hasn't happened in a while. And was narrowly defined enough that it didn't tie their hands when they had the opportunity. How convenient. You'll pardon folks for not taking Republicans seriously about what the "rules" are when the only purpose of any of their rules seems to be to hamstring the Democrats.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The simple reality of "whoever has the power makes the rules" explains all of this easily enough; let's not moralize too hard when the obvious explanation works. Honestly Democrats were foolish to oppose the Gorsuch nomination when they didn't have the votes to do so - would have been better to force Republicans to use the "nuclear option" on a weaker nominee like Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
