Reply With Quote
For me there is with this poster.
Its called extreme hypocrisy.
So explain his common sense with the current deviation in topic sense you interjected.
go ahead. Let’s hear the common sense.
For me there is with this poster.
Its called extreme hypocrisy.
Jesus, and the left notably silent on this stupidity.
Learn what "backing" means. Then we can talk. It's like the concrete board behind the tiles in your shower. You hope the red guard works but if it doesn't the concrete board is yet another layer of protection. That's what backing means, that's what collateral means. It's not about faith. When you have to put your house up for a large loan, that's collateral. If the bank trusted you, you wouldn't need collateral or backing.
Money used to be backed by gold. No gold, no money.
Maybe someone with a financial background can explain it to you.
I interjected to show you the mirror bro and that's all. You and others cast stones daily from yalls shattered glass houses. Don't be salty bro just accept that you're no better.
That's what he's arguing? LMAO Yeah the gold standard would be best tbh. Right now we just print, print, print and our currency is going to hit rock bottom sooner than later.
He thought he had something with the "not backed by anything" portion of my comment and went all in. Now he's pot committed and will go down with the hand. He's saying faith is equal to backing.
These people love to conflate issues to try and win the narrative/faux internet W. It's de able and disingenuous tbh and he knows it.
Faith has nothing to do with currency or its backing by precious metals.
Which it currently isn't backed by precious metals. If what pgardn is saying was true, then the US could print more and more money and everyone would become millionaires, and the price of eggs would stay the same. Imagine the US acquired all the gold in Russia, and suddenly the wealth of the US is increased because all the gold in the world is finite, and moving it around moves around wealth as well. In that case, the feds could transfer wealth to citizens but wouldn't continue to retain the wealth at the same time. With fiat currency, the government can print money and still retain the wealth. Zimbabwe is a good study in that. pgardn routinely gets in over his head and panics. He'll need someone to come along and nitpick an aspect of the discussion to try to bail him out.
Regardless of re 's "nuh uh", the feds can drop 330b and all they really lose is part of their budget, and only in the paperwork. Inflation will eat the rest and so it's the taxpayer who will foot the bill with increased prices of everyday goods and services. The feds lose nothing.
Advocates for student loan forgiveness hold consensus now that pro-oligarchy SCOTUS6 will rule Biden's forgiveness program is illegal, ing over 10Ms of people.
The non-oligarchy, Labor, the Have-Nots are ed over by the Catholic, illegit SCOTUS6 for decades.
Sounds like all-too-powerful SCOTUS6 are going to block educational debt forgiveness.
btw, did any of the for-profit-"college" scammers who scammed students out of $Bs get punished, or give back the scammed $Bs?
The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Tried Very Hard Today to Find a Good Reason to Screw Biden
But they couldn’t find any good reason.
the plaintiffs have struggled mightily to explain why they have standing to sue at all.
This doctrine requires plaintiffs to prove three things:
a concrete injury,
a direct connection between the injury and the government’s action,
and a potential form of relief that would redress that injury.
Standing is a problem for the plaintiffs because
it’s not clear that anyone is actually injured when the government wipes student debt off the books.
The government, after all, holds that debt already.
Do not think for a second that this fight over standing is merely some kind of technicality.
It is the crux of the battle:
So much of Tuesday’s arguments boiled down to this:
Now that the rules of standing might benefit a Democratic president and 43 million student borrowers,
conservatives are ready to toss it out as a concept altogether.
The two cases before the Supreme Court on Tuesday present several dodgy theories of standing.
this kind of “speculative chain of possibilities,” backed up with no proof, does not establish standing.
The plaintiffs are two borrowers who are suing because they did not get a chance to submit a public comment on Biden’s plan.
They say they’re angry that debt relief was not broad enough to encompass their loans. And so they want the Supreme Court to abolish the entire program.
This theory flunks standing for an obvious reason:
The plaintiffs claim that they want more debt relief, yet they are demanding no debt relief for anyone.
In standing terms, that means
their injury won’t be redressed by the relief they seek,
so they have no right to sue.
Not a single justice was ready to accept this bizarro theory of standing.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-expected.html
RWNJs bring this into SCOTUS and then SCOTUS6 rules for the
GOP Lawmakers Move to Block Biden's Helping Hand to Student Loan Borrowers
"We condemn this move to block a plan that
will provide significant financial relief to low-income borrowers and communities of color," said one advocate.
, Republican lawmakers in Congress announced plans to rip the debt relief away from Americans—saddling them with a continued financial burden that has left many working people unable to purchase homes, provide for a family, and save money.
Led by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and John Cornyn (R-Texas),
17 Republican senators said Tuesday that they would
use the Congressional Review Act (CRA),
a tool members of Congress can invoke to overturn final rules set by federal agencies, to repeal the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/student-debt-gop-cra
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions