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.
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
152 points (98.1% liked)
World News
32349 readers
460 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.
I honestly don’t think so. Private universities are already more expensive, why would they care if that gap widened more?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sucks
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.
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)
Another W for capitalism, another L for the worker class.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)