• tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wouldn’t that be blaming the republicans for making him give it up to keep the government open?

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Biden didn’t have to cave, he chose to. He said this thing that I said was a top priority for my campaign isn’t a top priority for my administration. And politically he’s going to pay a penalty to the faction of his coalition to whom forgiveness was a top priority.

      That’s what happens when you lie to gain support.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, you’re not wrong. He could have allowed the country to shut down. And maybe he should have. He’s not playing hardball for sure.

    • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Constitution says we pay our bills, so Biden could have told Congress to get fucked and figure it out. He’d rather keep a generation of indentured servants though, so here we are.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The constitution says nothing about paying bills. I think this example of ignorance is the reason why you are blaming Biden. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Biden cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision, and therefore telling them to get fucked would just be words.

        The only people who want us to remain indentured are the Republicans, and the billionaires (usually the same thing).

        Please do not go around telling lies.

        • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing?

          Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4:

          The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

          What the fuck is that then?

          • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            This passage is from the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically from Section 4. It addresses the issue of public debt, asserting that the debt of the United States government should be considered valid and unquestionable if it was authorized by law. This includes debts incurred for various governmental obligations, such as paying pensions and bounties related to services for suppressing insurrections or rebellions. This clause was primarily included in response to the debts incurred by the United States during the Civil War. It was meant to ensure that the debts the Union took on to finance its war efforts against the Confederacy would be honored, while simultaneously casting doubt on the legitimacy of the debts incurred by the Confederacy. Essentially, it was a guarantee that the United States would honor its financial obligations and a statement against the financial claims of the Confederacy.

            So, I’m not sure how this has anything to do with student debt, as it doesn’t relate to citizens at all. Or is this one of those Republican things where you interpret text to mean whatever you want it to mean, thump thump.

            • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              It has nothing to do with student debt, it’s relevant to the Republicans trying to use not paying existing obligations as a negotiating tactic. The fact that you don’t get that demonstrates you have little to add to this discussion.

              • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The post is about student debt. I assumed you were talking about the topic of the post. Are you just randomly blabbering?

                Republicans using this to argue against forgiving student debt is ridiculous AS YOU SAID, it has nothing to do with student debt.

                Are you handing me this win?

                • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Handing you a win? Bro, you can’t even follow a thread with enough comprehension to grasp what’s being discussed.

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, no it doesn’t. Feel free to quote the part you think does and I’ll be happy to explain why you are wrong. But, the US Constitution says nothing of the sort.

        • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4:

          The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

          Your turn, explain how I’m wrong.

          Edit: Where’d you go Sylver?

          • everyone_said@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreeing that a debt exists and agreeing to pay back a debt are two different things. The budget doesn’t argue whether the debt exists, just how and when it will be payed back. It is the difference between “Yes, I owe you $100, you’ll get it back someday.”, and “Yes, I owe you $100, and I’ve budgeted to pay you $20 a week for the next 5 week until we’re square.”

            The consitution guarantees the first part, but doesn’t help much with the second. However, without the second part everything grinds to a halt.

            • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s more like

              Yes, I owe you $100, and I’ve budgeted to pay you $20 a week for the next 5 week until we’re square, but I don’t like what you might do with that money so I’m closing up shop and going home, good luck with everything

              They can’t do that but Biden let them

        • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          We tried (not really, lol) so you have to vote for us again so we can try some more (lol, we won’t really).

          -DNC