this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
133 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19149 readers
4270 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The U.S. forgave $757 billion in loans through the Paycheck Protection Program, with most of those benefits going to the wealthy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Upright 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] PsychedSy 1 points 1 year ago

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.

It can if congress passes a bill like they did with PPP though. The comparison just doesn't make sense.