When the trifecta of the president, congress, and the voters all disagree with the courts, why can’t they act against them? And who exactly can act against SCOTUS?
Congress disagrees, specifically the House of Representatives, and “all the voters” currently disagrees with SCOTUS? Huge citation needed.
No liberal or progressive should spend time defending this deeply undemocratic judicial branch.
“No true Scotsman”, eh? I’m pointing out the rules in our Constitution for how our government works.
We have a peaceful transfer of power during administration changes. I don’t understand how you are so quick to try and throw that away. Thats what Trump tried to do on Jan 6th. Why are you suggesting following his playbook?
I asked for a citation on this. Show me where you’re seeing that please.
It’s cited by Biden himself, but you can google yourself, you might learn something.
You make the claim, you’ve got to back it up.
I think you are confusing the actions of the unelected SCOTUS who routinely takes actions against the will of the people.
I’m not a fan of the current make up of the SCOTUS, but its never been their job to represent the “will of the people”. Their job is to interpret laws written by the Legislative Branch and signed into by the Executive.
I don’t think you have a good grasp of the basics of our system of government.
If Biden wants to stop unilateral actions, he literally needs to fight against this far right SCOTUS.
If you’re looking for insurrectionists, you’ll find them on the Conservative side.
The president is the most powerful person in this country.
The office is, yes. It still doesn’t mean he’s an all powerful king. We have power divided into 3rds to provide checks and balances. The Executive is only 1/3rd.
He is explicitly empowered by Congress to forgive student debt.
I’d like a citation on that claim.
The only actor here that is limited in power is our SCOTUS who constantly over step their bounds,
Then why are you complaining that Biden isn’t doing enough?
Are you defending a politician’s fix to a broken system with dozens of highly specific and hard to understand reforms?
Are you not informed about the political realities and the limits of power of the Executive branch?
If Biden had the choice between one broad fix that was easily communicated vs dozens of micro reforms; I’d prefer the broad reform even if I didn’t personally qualify.
I think we all would, and Biden tried the big broad fix. The Supreme Court shot it down in June of last year:
Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
“By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced that it would cancel up to $400 billion in student loans. The Biden administration had said that as many as 43 million Americans would have benefitted from the loan forgiveness program; almost half of those borrowers would have had all of their student loans forgiven.”
So instead of doing nothing, Biden is working within the limits of the power he does have to provide student loan forgiveness. Yes its patchwork, yes we’d like a broader application of student loan forgiveness. He tried. Its not in his power.
As I said before, congress passed a law that allowed presidents to forgive debt, are you saying congress didn’t support that?
For the third time point to valid source.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” -Hitchens
Consider yourself dismissed. You’re dancing from point to point as soon as your current point is too weak. I’m guessing you’ll just do that forever because your arguments are too weak to defend. Feel free to reply to oblivion. I won’t be replying. Have a nice day.
The problem with this debt forgiveness by a thousand cuts is spending hours researching it then finding out you arbitrarily don’t qualify because some highly technical reason.
Are you saying because this doesn’t help everybody then it shouldn’t be allowed to help anybody?
A cross-sectional study would likely yield some short term answers, but the real work will require a longitudinal study to tease out trends in different regions and possibly even impacts from seasonality to take into account price fluctuations and determine volatility. This is well beyond my resources, but the grant application almost writes itself.
There may be parallels that could be learned from examining the price spike in the prison economy during April 2009.
How does removing drink fountains make anything more consistent?
Consistent between company owned stores and franchise stores, so that neither will have self serve drinks. In other words, they’re lowering all stores to equally bad experience.
The EV thing isn’t the worst, though I’d like to see that money going towards public transportation for more people.
Public transportation spending like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was signed into law by President Biden on November 15, 2021? source
“The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as enacted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, authorizes up to $108 billion for public transportation – the largest federal investment in public transportation in the nation’s history.”
Maybe it’s in there and I just didn’t see it but the biggest issue with the CAFE laws is that there are exceptions for huge vehicles that no one needs which makes them cheaper to manufacture.
I agree that the “fleetwide calculation” loophole the NHTSA uses does too much to let automakers off the hook on a big part of the SUV fuel economy increase standards. I’d like this loophole closed or the rules revised drastically. However, even with the “light truck” loophole, the increased CAFE standards force SUVs to get slightly more fuel effient because of the required “fleetwide average” in place now.
You can see we get a series of small increases on “light trucks” highway mileage with a nice 3MPG bump in 2025 source
I’d like more, but its not nothing.
A smaller, lighter wagon will generally have more space, actually, and be better on fuel but no one makes them because they realized they could just pump ads at people focused on “feeling powerful” in large vehicles. You can also make the wagons EV and the smaller size and weight will improve their range, too. You’re looking at how things are instead of how they easily could be(and were not too long ago).
Okay, so your comment earlier about wanting people to buy station wagons was for a theoretical car that isn’t on the market in the USA, right?
I know Biden’s done ok with some stuff but it’s still kinda weak and the fact that he’s looking for a pat on the back for the bare minimum is kinda pathetic. And people still have to vote for the dumbass because the DNC won’t let anyone better come forward and the GOP are a disaster like no other.
Largest public spending in public transportation EVER
Large tax credits to incentivize EV purchases
Large increases in CAFE standards with large impacts on cars (and some good impacts on SUVs).
Besides tightening up the “light truck” loophole, can you please tell me what you’d expect that doesn’t qualify for the “bare minimum” that you’re calling the efforts so far?
If Biden wants to help people he needs to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels.
Like subsidizing the cost of EVs with a $7500 tax credit that was accomplished in the Inflation Reduction Act Biden signed almost 2 years ago in August 16, 2022? source
He needs to revise the rules that incentivize building larger, hungrier vehicles,
So like Biden’s Department of Transportation did in April 2022 by raising CAFE standards that took effect this year in 2024? source
Anyone who drives a truck or SUV when they could easily just own a station wagon has negative respect from me.
I’m not a fan of SUVs either, but there are very few station wagons produced for the USA market, and those that are get about the same MPG as a small SUV. BEVs or hybrids (even if they are small or medium sized SUVs) are better choices than the few station wagons we that are available for sale today.
I am aware, also, that several things can happen at once but centrists are always so fucking weak in their responses to anything and never solve any problems without the left having to twist their arm every which way for decades. It’s exhausting.
So what does that make your position where the things you’re asking for passed into law years ago and you’re here complaining about them not existing? Uninformed?
Soooo many problems with this according to their own stupid rules. Here’s just a couple:
What gender is the Bible, because you keep telling us there’s only two and you’re telling EVERYONE to marry. You’re telling 50% of the population to engage in a gay marriage.
Okay, so one person went through with the marriage of the appropriate gender. Now you’re still telling a second person to marry the Bible. Are you now endorsing polygamous relationships and polygamy?
Using your choice of words it would be “stable/static”. Effects of gravity moves at the speed of light. Perhaps a better example would be Earth orbiting the Sun.
The Earth is 8 light minutes away from the Sun. Meaning, the sunlight we see on Earth at this exact second left the Sun about 8 minutes ago. If we wave a magic wand and make the Sun blink out of existence in a fraction of a second, the Earth would continue to orbit the, now non-existent, Sun for the next 8 minutes. After 8 minutes the Earth would stop its circular orbit and head straight out of the solar system at what ever direction it was traveling at the end of the 8 minutes.
That’s amazing, thank you! A ghostly remnant of gravity still exerting 8-ish minutes of influence on earth (in the event of the sun’s instantaneous disappearance) is something I never heard or thought about before, but it makes sense.
Also for us standing on the sun facing side of Earth when the magic wand was waved would still see the sun shining in the sky for 8 minutes because that light had already left the sun before it blinked out of existence. We on Earth would experience the loss of the Sun’s gravitational influence on the planet and the light of the sun at the same moment as both light and gravity travel at the speed of light.
Little problem is that mortgages have been absent in anything but paper so Argentines have not been able to acquire property or housing with ease since years ago
Last time mortgages were available, it was in 2017/2018.
This is the major piece of information I was missing! Thank you!
So even with the price of housing for sale falling substantially (because of the rental price caps), unless a would-be home buyer had 100% of the cash to buy the home (which I imagine is very rare), then they simply couldn’t get a loan (mortgage) at all. So they couldn’t buy the, at the time, very cheap housing even if they wanted to.
That explains it very clearly. I appreciate the time you took to explain that. I also appreciate the rest of your explanation about the further actions of currency devaluation impacts, banks on investment in government bonds, and the impacts on the nation from having to pay interest on those bonds at the inflated yields. Thanks!
Purchases of homes are either done in cash (more rare) where the buyer owns the home entirely at the time of purchase, or they get a loan from a bank (a mortgage) usually spanning 15 or 30 years. If they are borrowing from a bank, then they must pay a portion of the loan and interest back monthly. This is the mortgage payment. At the end of the 15 or 30 years, the buyer owns the home entirely themselves and does not have to make a monthly payment on their home. I’m simplifying this a bit and ignoring that homeowners need to pay monthly insurance and taxes on their homes usually.
Those that either cannot afford to buy their home (or choose not to for other reasons) pay a monthly rent to the owner of the property (landlord).
Is this the same way people pay for their housing in Argentina, or does it work differently?
Not not good. Means there is no money to be made in renting
Right, because of the government imposed price cap. The article covers that.
and less houses will be built because of
Where does this part of the idea come from? There’s no price controls on buying or selling housing, therefor should be no negative impact on the market. Further, the price of homeowners buying housing should have been temporarily cheaper because landlords were unloading properties instead. Private home ownership is a really good solid foundation for an economy.
Unfortunately a healthy housing market is surprisingly a good thing.
“Unfortunately” “a good thing”. These two things don’t seem to work together. Typo? ESL?
It’s like when house prices collapse it’s actually a bad thing because the reason that happened is worse than the result on the house prices (e.g. 2008).
If you’re speaking about the USA in 2008 that’s a bad example compared to Argentina here, yes? In the USA the collapse was lenders extending mortgages to buyers that had no chance of paying them back, yet selling those mortgages as though they were good investments.
Are you suggesting Argentina was experiencing a liquidity issue like the USA was, and if so, the imposition of price caps on just rentals, not ownership should have no effect on it unless you’re saying the price caps on rentals perfectly overlaps with a liquidity crisis.
People look at the system far to simply, do not understand it and make the wrong judgements. It’s the problem of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
You can use that throwaway line, but if you are making an argument, you have to defend it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).
Because there is not value it building a house because there is no value in buying one.
Again, we’re talking about just rental caps, not home ownership. And again, the reason that landlords were selling was because of price caps on rents. People wanting to buy homes for housing (and not rent) should be in a fantastic position to purchase.
Many many people have talked about the issues if price caps. It’s been done to death. Go look up a podcast, YouTube video, book, seminar, webpage of your choosing and find out why rent caps are bad. They will do a better job of explaining it than me and you can consume the information in the way you want.
Are you even reading my posts? I am not advocating for rental price caps, I’m asking why when the price caps were imposed that home ownership did not go up from the landlords putting more homes on the market.
Personally I would like some big changes to be made. Easiest of which would be a land value tax which would increase homes and decrease prices. Or much more radical things like destroying parts of cities. Unfortunately I don’t make those choices. So reading the information here is showing the opposite of what you think it does.
The following is true as reported in the article: Rental units are disappearing from the market (which is what happened here with the imposition of price caps on rentals and landlords sold).
Where did all the renters go that no longer could rent because the landlords removed so many units from rental markets? They have to live somewhere. Where?
Was the rental market over saturated and even with so many landlords removing rental units there was still enough rental supply for 100% of renters?
I’m tired I’m come back later and re read everything and see if I need to explain anything better then.
No need. Read @Shardikprime 's explanation. I got the missing piece which explains it (and its not even close to anything you were talking about).
I got the answer to my original question of “why home ownership didn’t increase when property values fell?”.
Its this:
“Little problem is that mortgages have been absent in anything but paper so Argentines have not been able to acquire property or housing with ease since years ago”
… and this…
“Last time mortgages were available, it was in 2017/2018.”
Would-be home buyers couldn’t get mortgages because banks wouldn’t lend to anyone. Full stop.
You and I were trying to apply normal market conditions that exist in the USA. Instead I took the approach of asking how Argentinians house themselves and Shardikprime seems to have the regional knowledge both you and I were missing.
Nowhere is Musk mentioned in the article and yet you’re making a post about him here? I guess just… why?
Elon Musk is likely the most famous Ketamine user being formerly the richest man on the planet. Can you name any other person that uses Ketamine? I can’t.
So you can’t either. Thank you for confirming my point.
My take is that questions around why it’s so easy for doctors to hand out prescriptions or why there’s no punishments for over prescribing is a lot more interesting to talk about. Especially with an article like this that opens the door to that.
Then why don’t you open that line of conversation instead of complaining about what others choose to talk about?
But that just doesn’t seem to happen. Like with my original response, unrelated stories end up getting dragged into Elon circle jerk way too often.
I just had a conversation about the rental costs in Argentina. Musk was nowhere to be found in that. If it was about Ketamine use in Argentina, he might have been. You say Musk is unrelated, but he’s very rich, very famous, and very much an admitted Ketamine user. That’s related.
Biden administration canceling student loans for another 160,000 borrowers (apnews.com)
The Biden administration is canceling student loans for another 160,000 borrowers through a combination of existing programs....
Don't like the sound of that (lemmy.world)
Adjusting for inflation, they're probably at least $16 by now (lemmy.today)
McDonald's is getting rid of self-serve drinks and some locations may charge for refills (www.cbsnews.com)
Biden releasing 1 million barrels of gasoline from Northeast reserve in bid to lower prices at pump (apnews.com)
Maybe back up a few steps... (lemmy.world)
[Physics] Does gravity have 'elasticity'? If a solid sun-sized object zooms across space at the speed of light, then abruptly stops, does it take gravity some time to 'settle' around it?
Is it a stable/static effect no matter what, or is it a bit more stretchy/bouncy depending on how the object is behaving?...
How Argentina’s ‘chainsaw man’ Javier Milei slashed rents by 20pc (www.telegraph.co.uk)
‘Like a Lead Balloon’: Trump’s ‘Shadow Secretary of State’ Meets With Arab American Leaders (www.notus.org)
Matthew Perry: Los Angeles police launch investigation into actor’s death (www.theguardian.com)
When will this crime spree end?? (lemmus.org)
Extra Ordinary Comics by Li Chen, May 22, 2024.
Chief O'Brien has the most wholesome Holosuite programs (www.youtube.com)
So wholesome!