politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
All this is my own opinion, coming from a non-US person, so it's all based on what info I've seen and read.
Afaik, the PPP was intended to protect wages of workers forced to shut down. If it had achieved that at any kind of reasonable success rate (I'd personally be happy with ~80%+ as a minimum) I could agree with the idea.
But that wasn't the result. The result was the vast majority being put into the pockets of the very rich, with little to no oversight, challenge or penalty. I can't read minds, but what I like to do is look at results and work backwards to determine intent.
The result of PPP was large amounts of money funnelled to the people who least needed it. I also assume that the government has enough people on payroll who understand legalese and bill writing enough to write in protections to ensure the money is spent as intended or to reclaim it if it wasn't. I have not heard about this happening.
So to me at least, this seems like it was an easy way for both parties to pay off their donors while winning media points for "helping" the average person.
Given that, I don't see a reason why a similar amount of money couldn't be used to assist with the massive student loan debt, which I will freely admit is only a bandaid at best - the entire educational system needs reform around costing.
But at the very least I think it would be a net benefit to the economy. Instead of money being spent repaying loans that increase a figure on a spreadsheet, the money would be spent on consumer goods, housing - all the type of stuff that drives jobs. Hoarding money like a dragon tends to hurt the economy and businesses at large.
My $0.02
It can if congress passes a bill like they did with PPP though. The comparison just doesn't make sense.