●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) writes:
There are a lot of programs that the DOE administers. They'll continue as Trump cannot stop them. That's most of the money.
This is not the Carter DOE. Ed in the Fed has existed for over a century. They just reorganized in the Carter years.
The DOE did NCLB and other fuckery, so I won't especially miss it.
The real issues are Trump violating laws through his cuts and withholding, and spineless Congress allowing him to do so. Spineless on both sides of the aisle.
bydawg1234 ( 6925868 ) writes:
orange man bad
leon/elmo bad
byevil_aaronm ( 671521 ) writes:
I mean, it is pretty obvious. Ellon is breaking the law, and Shtrump is wrecking the economy, while simultaneously making the US a pariah in the civilized world. So I'm glad you also see that they're both awful.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
Elon is breaking the law
Which?
If you're going to come back with something about conflict of interest, then kindly include how much money Elon has nefariously made through his DOGE efforts.
byTargon ( 17348 ) writes:
Funding issues are a function of the Congress, and as such, Trump can push Congress to do this or that, but really, all of the things Trump is trying to do SHOULD be going through Congress, which would then have a vote. The fact that Trump is trying to bypass the proper system of checks and balances goes against what is listed in the US Constitution. We are not at war, no war has been declared, so the majority of the things Trump is trying to do is complete overreach.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bywalterbyrd ( 182728 ) writes:
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
That is absolutely defies Article II of the US constitution. This was confirmed by SCOTUS twice.
But Biden did it, and openly bragged about it.
But it's okay when *we* do it. Right?
byrocket rancher ( 447670 ) writes:
You’re not exposing “regime BS”—you’re manufacturing your own.
Your comment relies on constitutional misstatements, false claims about Supreme Court rulings, emotionally loaded phrasing, and projection. If you want to debate debt relief on the merits, fine. But start by ditching the misrepresentations and getting your facts straight.
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
Nice framing trick: Your leading question tries to present this as if it’s a scandal. Every federal program uses taxpayer money—student loans, wars, tax breaks for corporations. Singling this one out suggests selective outrage, not principle.
That absolutely defies Article II of the US constitution.
False. Flatly, legally, demonstrably false. Article II lays out executive powers—it does not mention student loans. The SCOTUS ruling in Biden v. Nebraska was based on statutory overreach under the HEROES Act, not a constitutional violation. You’re invoking “Article II” as legal theater.
This was confirmed by SCOTUS twice.
This is just a lie. Absolutely fabricated. No second ruling exists. There has been one SCOTUS decision on Biden’s student debt relief plan. A second plan is being litigated, but has not reached the Court. Claiming “twice” is dishonest, period.
But Biden did it, and openly bragged about it.
Yeah, so? He announced it publicly—like presidents do. Proposing a policy, defending its legality, and explaining it to the public isn’t “bragging.” You’re framing normal governance as criminality -- this is a rhetorical device, not an argument.
But it's okay when we do it. Right?
Speaking of rhetorical devices, here's another one. This is a garden variety partisan strawman. You invent a double standard and assign it to your opponents without evidence. Classic projection. If you want to accuse someone of hypocrisy, bring receipts. Otherwise, you’re just ranting at a mirror.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydpille ( 547949 ) writes:
Were you okay with Biden using taxpayer money to pay off student loans?
Not relevant. The "taxpayer money" was already spent- Biden's actions dealt with revenue. (Which in every other case conservatives would identify as confiscatory government seizure of citizens' own money.) And even if the Supreme Court eventually disagreed, there was at least a colorable claim to Congressional authorization. Consulting your crystal ball to identify a new principle to justify your preferred result doesn't actually chang
bylamer01 ( 1097759 ) writes:
Regarding spending. Neither party has shown any inclination to control spending at all.
●ent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...