Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Loans were forgiven because they were given out with the intent of keeping people on payrolls from being fired- they were not really loans. The student loans were given out with the intent they would be paid back, and the government was getting the students a good deal on interest rates.
In other words, the PPP was intended as a massive give-away to businesses with no oversight or accountability, so it can’t be criticized. You say the purpose was to keep employees on payrolls but many of the did layoff or furlough their employees but got to keep the PPP money and the government also paid unemployment benefits to their laid off workers. You are right that it is not the same as student loan forgiveness, PPP was much worse in every way.
There was a lot of fraud. My point is it isn't hypocrisy for these people to complain about student loan forgiveness if they got PPP loans forgiven. Now if they were engaged in PPP fraud...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Loans were forgiven because they were given out with the intent of keeping people on payrolls from being fired- they were not really loans. The student loans were given out with the intent they would be paid back, and the government was getting the students a good deal on interest rates.
In other words, the PPP was intended as a massive give-away to businesses with no oversight or accountability, so it can’t be criticized. You say the purpose was to keep employees on payrolls but many of the did layoff or furlough their employees but got to keep the PPP money and the government also paid unemployment benefits to their laid off workers. You are right that it is not the same as student loan forgiveness, PPP was much worse in every way.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.
I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.
The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.
A window into the standing issue is the administration's recent rollback of relief for private borrowers, affecting 700-800k borrowers. In this case, investors did arguably have standing, claiming that they had standing by virtue of a direct economic interest in the forgiveness plan. Investors were preparing to sue. In response, the administration eclipsed relief for these private borrowers, making the law suits moot and also conceding that the separation of powers assertions have merit. The private borrowers now keenly understand this is all about politics.
It is understandable that the administration is relying on standing or a lack thereof to sustain the program. All it takes is one court to recognize standing, however, and impediments arrive. The 8th circuit has issued a stay of the forgiveness plan - and yes, a stay is a long way from prevailing in a lawsuit, but there is some litigation risk here. Standing arguments work better if members of Congress bring the suits, as they are intending to do. High risk politically if the administration fails here - why a year ago Pelosi opined that only Congress could provide for forgiveness.
Standing is a problem for all these lawsuits. But standing aside, there's no real argument that this isn't wholly within the HEROES Act of 2003.
For the excluded 700,000 (which includes myself), I think the argument is a bit more nuanced. But overall, there's no real issue. Just pushback.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.
I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.
The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.
A window into the standing issue is the administration's recent rollback of relief for private borrowers, affecting 700-800k borrowers. In this case, investors did arguably have standing, claiming that they had standing by virtue of a direct economic interest in the forgiveness plan. Investors were preparing to sue. In response, the administration eclipsed relief for these private borrowers, making the law suits moot and also conceding that the separation of powers assertions have merit. The private borrowers now keenly understand this is all about politics.
It is understandable that the administration is relying on standing or a lack thereof to sustain the program. All it takes is one court to recognize standing, however, and impediments arrive. The 8th circuit has issued a stay of the forgiveness plan - and yes, a stay is a long way from prevailing in a lawsuit, but there is some litigation risk here. Standing arguments work better if members of Congress bring the suits, as they are intending to do. High risk politically if the administration fails here - why a year ago Pelosi opined that only Congress could provide for forgiveness.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.
I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.
The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.
A window into the standing issue is the administration's recent rollback of relief for private borrowers, affecting 700-800k borrowers. In this case, investors did arguably have standing, claiming that they had standing by virtue of a direct economic interest in the forgiveness plan. Investors were preparing to sue. In response, the administration eclipsed relief for these private borrowers, making the law suits moot and also conceding that the separation of powers assertions have merit. The private borrowers now keenly understand this is all about politics.
It is understandable that the administration is relying on standing or a lack thereof to sustain the program. All it takes is one court to recognize standing, however, and impediments arrive. The 8th circuit has issued a stay of the forgiveness plan - and yes, a stay is a long way from prevailing in a lawsuit, but there is some litigation risk here. Standing arguments work better if members of Congress bring the suits, as they are intending to do. High risk politically if the administration fails here - why a year ago Pelosi opined that only Congress could provide for forgiveness.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm one of the 700,000 people who was supposed to get forgiveness, but lost eligibility. Screw Biden and the Dems for this false hope.
I'm one of them too. But I never really had much hope for this. Oh well.
The lawsuits are frivolous and will eventually be thrown out. These a$$holes have no standing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Loans were forgiven because they were given out with the intent of keeping people on payrolls from being fired- they were not really loans. The student loans were given out with the intent they would be paid back, and the government was getting the students a good deal on interest rates.
In other words, the PPP was intended as a massive give-away to businesses with no oversight or accountability, so it can’t be criticized. You say the purpose was to keep employees on payrolls but many of the did layoff or furlough their employees but got to keep the PPP money and the government also paid unemployment benefits to their laid off workers. You are right that it is not the same as student loan forgiveness, PPP was much worse in every way.
Anonymous wrote:Loans were forgiven because they were given out with the intent of keeping people on payrolls from being fired- they were not really loans. The student loans were given out with the intent they would be paid back, and the government was getting the students a good deal on interest rates.
Anonymous wrote:Loans were forgiven because they were given out with the intent of keeping people on payrolls from being fired- they were not really loans. The student loans were given out with the intent they would be paid back, and the government was getting the students a good deal on interest rates.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He is such a liar!
He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.
He has already said that he wants congress to do their job and make some changes. There are plenty of smaller and larger changes that congress can make to address college tuition.
He claimed that his "loan redistribution" was a law that was passed. That is a blatant lie.
It is not a blatant lie because his mind is too far gone to know he didn't pass such a law. He is confusing it with the other bill that got passed on a narrow vote, I think 50-50.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He is such a liar!
He cannot possibly believe he passed a law.
He has already said that he wants congress to do their job and make some changes. There are plenty of smaller and larger changes that congress can make to address college tuition.
He claimed that his "loan redistribution" was a law that was passed. That is a blatant lie.