SCOTUS

[Farfromgeneva]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

[a fan]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

[cradleandshoot]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

Maybe even a few credit hours of basic math would be helpful. Then these college students could calculate their loan payments, their rent payments and how much it will cost you to live. You then compare that to your expected income and then realize the math doesn't add up and your screwed and better start thinking about that 2nd job.

[Farfromgeneva]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

Well yes unless we start assuming there’s a zero cost of money for the govt. otherwise the return would be the real inflation rate and nothing more than that which any borrower should pay for the privilege of buying money (what a borrower does). Rule of 72, 20yr loan term, imputed 3.6% rate/coupon. The whole, I paid “X on some original principal balance of Y” means this is unfair has been one of the most mentally regressive heuristics that keeps getting used. My grad school private loans were arguably cheap at 8-9% in the early mid 2000s.

If they were charging some usurious rate or forced the borrowers in some other way but that hasn’t been the case.

[cradleandshoot]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

Well yes unless we start assuming there’s a zero cost of money for the govt. otherwise the return would be the real inflation rate and nothing more than that which any borrower should pay for the privilege of buying money (what a borrower does). Rule of 72, 20yr loan term, imputed 3.6% rate/coupon. The whole, I paid “X on some original principal balance of Y” means this is unfair has been one of the most mentally regressive heuristics that keeps getting used. My grad school private loans were arguably cheap at 8-9% in the early mid 2000s.

If they were charging some usurious rate or forced the borrowers in some other way but that hasn’t been the case.

FTR I made both my sons aware of this when they started college. I've had not a whimper from either of them about their student loans.

[Farfromgeneva]

Cheap - should’ve been + 600-800 for unsecured consumer debt on long term repayment. That would’ve been 10-13% for the 2000s, 7-11% last decade instead of the rates below.

https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/t ... lder-rates

Interest Rates for Loans Disbursed July 1, 2006–July 1, 2023
The following table provides interest rates for Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans1 first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2023.

Fixed Interest Rates for Direct Subsidized Loans and Subsidized Federal Stafford Loans* - Undergraduate Borrowers
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/22–6/30/23
4.99%
7/1/21–6/30/22
3.73%
7/1/20–6/30/21
2.75%
7/1/19–6/30/20
4.53%
7/1/18–6/30/19
5.05%
7/1/17–6/30/18
4.45%
7/1/16–6/30/17
3.76%
7/1/15–6/30/16
4.29%
7/1/14–6/30/15
4.66%
7/1/13–6/30/14
3.86%
7/1/11–6/30/13
3.4%
7/1/10–6/30/11
4.5%
7/1/09–6/30/10
5.6%
7/1/08–6/30/09
6.0%
7/1/06–6/30/08
6.8%
Fixed Interest Rates for Direct Subsidized Loans and Subsidized Federal Stafford Loans* - Graduate or Professional Borrowers**
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/06–6/30/12
6.8%
Fixed Interest Rates for Direct Unsubsidized Loans and Unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loans* - Undergraduate Borrowers
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/22–6/30/23
4.99%
7/1/21–6/30/22
3.73%
7/1/20–6/30/21
2.75%
7/1/19–6/30/20
4.53%
7/1/18–6/30/19
5.05%
7/1/17–6/30/18
4.45%
7/1/16–6/30/17
3.76%
7/1/15–6/30/16
4.29%
7/1/14–6/30/15
4.66%
7/1/13–6/30/14
3.86%
7/1/06–6/30/13
6.8%
Fixed Interest Rates for Direct Unsubsidized Loans and Unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loans* - Graduate or Professional Borrowers
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/22–6/30/23
6.54%
7/1/21–6/30/22
5.28%
7/1/20–6/30/21
4.30%
7/1/19–6/30/20
6.08%
7/1/18–6/30/19
6.6%
7/1/17–6/30/18
6%
7/1/16–6/30/17
5.31%
7/1/15–6/30/16
5.84%
7/1/14–6/30/15
6.21%
7/1/13–6/30/14
5.41%
7/1/06–6/30/13
6.8%
Fixed Interest Rates for Direct PLUS Loans - Parents and Graduate or Professional Borrowers
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/22–6/30/23
7.54%
7/1/21–6/30/22
6.28%
7/1/20–6/30/21
5.30%
7/1/19–6/30/20
7.08%
7/1/18–6/30/19
7.6%
7/1/17–6/30/18
7%
7/1/16–6/30/17
6.31%
7/1/15–6/30/16
6.84%
7/1/14–6/30/15
7.21%
7/1/13–6/30/14
6.41%
7/1/06–6/30/13
7.9%
Fixed Interest Rates for Federal PLUS Loans* - Parents and Graduate or Professional Borrowers
First Disbursement Date
Fixed Interest Rate
7/1/06–6/30/10
8.5%
*These loans were made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. No new FFEL Program loans have been made since July 1, 2010.

**As of July 1, 2012, graduate or professional students are no longer eligible to receive subsidized loans.

[a fan]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

Well yes unless we start assuming there’s a zero cost of money for the govt. otherwise the return would be the real inflation rate and nothing more than that which any borrower should pay for the privilege of buying money (what a borrower does). Rule of 72, 20yr loan term, imputed 3.6% rate/coupon. The whole, I paid “X on some original principal balance of Y” means this is unfair has been one of the most mentally regressive heuristics that keeps getting used. My grad school private loans were arguably cheap at 8-9% in the early mid 2000s.

If they were charging some usurious rate or forced the borrowers in some other way but that hasn’t been the case.

Oh, I agree completely. And again, can think of about 1,000 things I'd rather spend tax dollars on, no question.

It stinks of a "here's money, vote for me" from Biden. Which, of course, the last POTUS did quite a bit....but that doesn't make it right, obviously.

I'd MUCH rather spend the money on poor K-12 school districts, where it's REALLY needed.

[a fan]

Fan — funny how the gay cake and gay website cases both are from the centennial state.

I’d have to study the decision to see where the line was drawn. The hypos are endless.

Suppose I’m a gay guy going to a tailor for a new pinstripe suit. If it is an interview suit, the tailor has to do it. But if it is my gay wedding suit, can he decline?

Can the caterer, florist, invite printer, dress maker, DJ, limo driver, videographer, event hall etc. all decline?

I think the decision treats the web design as a first amendment expressing artist????

Yes, that's the pitch: first amendment.

They interviewed the plaintiff's lawyer. She said that it was about speech only. I have no idea how it is she (or a Justice) thinks you can do any business without speaking or writing things down.

Because writing down what the customer tells you to write down (names, places, directions to venues, etc.) to make a wedding website doesn't exactly sound like the WaPo.

[Farfromgeneva]

... frankly I think their monied bosses are spooked, panicked! These decisions were really bone head moves from a political perspective. You already have the Dobbs disaster and that is getting worse for the republiCONs. You throw on top of that the affirmative action decision which is disagreed with by 65+ % of the country. You throw on top of that the two decisions today; the debt forgiveness ruling at minimum massively excites the democratic base and I am told there are poor blue collar MAGA voters that are also ticked by the decisions, the dems may pick off some of these voters moving this towards a 60% issue (from the 50% today) much like the abortion issue moved significantly after Dobbs. The religious freedom (web designer) case is so clearly a put up job this will also strongly motivate the democratic base and could pull more voters to the dems when the issue is recast as a SCOTUS corruption issue could, which is a layup to make that argument when their polling numbers are sitting at 30%. This one may have been the religious fascists forcing them to make that decision by threatening withholding of support.

All of these are losing political issues! So why do it?? They could have waited, roll this sh*t out over a number of terms. Perhaps the good old boys pulling the strings are feeling real worried, this had to get done before the next election, where it was already looking real good for the dems, not just Biden.

Roberts has to know his ass is going to look like raw meat in the coming weeks. The dems are going to be setting the court up as a whipping boy and proxy for the republiCONs. Hence his self-serving press release this afternoon trying to get out ahead of the whipping he expects.

I still can’t get there on student loan forgiveness. Want to create parity in BK laws and make it dischargeable that’s fine but there has to be consequences still.

The ONLY reason it makes a little sense is that for many of these loans, the principle was paid back.....and we're talking about the Federal .gov asking for MORE than they actually loaned out. So: who cares?

But yeah, I agree 100% that in principle, there's far better places to provide relief and/or help.

Example? What about current students taking out these same stupid loans? F them, right?

Well yes unless we start assuming there’s a zero cost of money for the govt. otherwise the return would be the real inflation rate and nothing more than that which any borrower should pay for the privilege of buying money (what a borrower does). Rule of 72, 20yr loan term, imputed 3.6% rate/coupon. The whole, I paid “X on some original principal balance of Y” means this is unfair has been one of the most mentally regressive heuristics that keeps getting used. My grad school private loans were arguably cheap at 8-9% in the early mid 2000s.

If they were charging some usurious rate or forced the borrowers in some other way but that hasn’t been the case.

Oh, I agree completely. And again, can think of about 1,000 things I'd rather spend tax dollars on, no question.

It stinks of a "here's money, vote for me" from Biden. Which, of course, the last POTUS did quite a bit....but that doesn't make it right, obviously.

I'd MUCH rather spend the money on poor K-12 school districts, where it's REALLY needed.

It’s a vote buying play and nothing more. The Dems are fast followers in my lifetime. Delay creates a money machine, then the Dems work it hard under the Clinton family tree and parts of Obama admin. Trump buys votes by sticking it to the Libs so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts. And pushed kids into college who maybe shouldn’t have gone regardless of the data on aggregate/average outcomes.

[a fan]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

[MDlaxfan76]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

[Farfromgeneva]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

PPP was a terrible way to provide stimulus liquidity to the system. Running it through the banks was clearly a mistake. And I still believe govt spending has a weaker effect on M2 than private. And let’s not forget PPP was related to a (reasonable but) required shutdown of business.

I’m sure you’re not comparing pandemic “emergency” (like in 08) stimulus to people who took out loans fully aware of what they were agreeing to and living with the consequences. I don’t see the comparison or the reality of your last sentence. Used to need min 20% down and folks waited longer to buy homes I don’t think those things are rights. It’s a mistake to conflate homeownership with a right.

I find the way your points were framed to be a very poorly constructed comparison. One I’d expect from my sister or a Bernie Sanders type. This is not a slippery slope but a fast track to a belief that any govt spending is only a net positive for the economy.

[a fan]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

Totally different, and I'm happy to tell you why.

The. gov FORCED me to close and/or limit my business during the pandemic. I was given no choice in the matter.

Given that? Compensation is in order.

[MDlaxfan76]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

PPP was a terrible way to provide stimulus liquidity to the system. Running it through the banks was clearly a mistake. And I still believe govt spending has a weaker effect on M2 than private. And let’s not forget PPP was related to a (reasonable but) required shutdown of business.

I’m sure you’re not comparing pandemic “emergency” (like in 08) stimulus to people who took out loans fully aware of what they were agreeing to and living with the consequences. I don’t see the comparison or the reality of your last sentence. Used to need min 20% down and folks waited longer to buy homes I don’t think those things are rights. It’s a mistake to conflate homeownership with a right.

I may not have been clear. I don't hear folks saying, or at least not the same folks saying, that forgiveness of PPP loans was unfair as are saying that forgiveness of student debt is unfair.

Was PPP necessary? Yikes, hard to know...we were definitely at a precipice.
Was it effectively administered? Well, in the luxury of not urgent hindsight, obviously not.
The fraud involved was off the charts!

But if one (not you) is to argue that PPP was reasonable, taking advantage of such, voting for such, themselves, and yet clearly not benefiting everyone the same...how can they reasonably argue that a decision to release the demographic power of family formation and home ownership this way is unfair?

The M2 argument, private versus public, is interesting but not actually relevant when there's an extreme shock to the system, including the government decisions made to address that shock...and no way to ensure that private response will be sufficient given the realities of dispersed incentives.

In the short term.

This of course is only discussing whether it's a sound idea with economic benefit (yup, releasing private investment and decision making) or simply a sop to gain votes. It can of course be both, but then not only about political benefit.

And then there's the accrual of power of the Courts through this newly created "major questions doctrine" that is being used to ignore any actual standing, any actual facts of damage, to simply step and replace the judgments of elected legislatures and POTUS.

In this instance, various states claimed standing that had zero basis, no plausible damage claim, and Missouri claimed standing because of a company they claimed would lose $44 million if the policy went through and they didn't get the service fees. And thus the state would lose tax revenue. Put aside that the company refused to claim damages themselves, refused to be a party to the suit, and subsequent analysis showed they'd actually make more money if they didn't have to service the loans anymore (it's been a money loser for them, apparently)...

But hey, this SCOTUS needs to step in because they have their own "feelings" that this might be "unfair"...yikes.

[MDlaxfan76]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

Totally different, and I'm happy to tell you why.

The. gov FORCED me to close and/or limit my business during the pandemic. I was given no choice in the matter.

Given that? Compensation is in order.

I agree, government action on behalf of public health contributed to the damage, but not all businesses which were damaged were given loans that were then forgiven, nor all individuals who were damaged...so, unequal...unfair?

Loan forgiveness?

[Kismet]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

Totally different, and I'm happy to tell you why.

The. gov FORCED me to close and/or limit my business during the pandemic. I was given no choice in the matter.

Given that? Compensation is in order.

I agree, government action on behalf of public health contributed to the damage, but not all businesses which were damaged were given loans that were then forgiven, nor all individuals who were damaged...so, unequal...unfair?

Loan forgiveness?

Most PPP loans were forgiven and more than a few Republicans made use of them and then 180'd when it came to student debt forgiveness.
The usual hypocrites.

[a fan]

I agree, government action on behalf of public health contributed to the damage, but not all businesses which were damaged were given loans that were then forgiven, nor all individuals who were damaged...so, unequal...unfair?

Loan forgiveness?

Can't speak to this, outside of what I saw or experienced directly.

But i can tell you I can name a dozen businesses who's owners would have gone under without PPP. But as you know, I'm in F&B, and our industry STILL hasn't recovered from the pandemic.

Don't know about PPP as a whole....fraud, unfairness, etc. Although I will say that you knew the fraud was coming. But the tradeoff was taking their sweet time and installing more controls, as businesses folded like dominoes.

[Farfromgeneva]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

PPP was a terrible way to provide stimulus liquidity to the system. Running it through the banks was clearly a mistake. And I still believe govt spending has a weaker effect on M2 than private. And let’s not forget PPP was related to a (reasonable but) required shutdown of business.

I’m sure you’re not comparing pandemic “emergency” (like in 08) stimulus to people who took out loans fully aware of what they were agreeing to and living with the consequences. I don’t see the comparison or the reality of your last sentence. Used to need min 20% down and folks waited longer to buy homes I don’t think those things are rights. It’s a mistake to conflate homeownership with a right.

I may not have been clear. I don't hear folks saying, or at least not the same folks saying, that forgiveness of PPP loans was unfair as are saying that forgiveness of student debt is unfair.

Was PPP necessary? Yikes, hard to know...we were definitely at a precipice.
Was it effectively administered? Well, in the luxury of not urgent hindsight, obviously not.
The fraud involved was off the charts!

But if one (not you) is to argue that PPP was reasonable, taking advantage of such, voting for such, themselves, and yet clearly not benefiting everyone the same...how can they reasonably argue that a decision to release the demographic power of family formation and home ownership this way is unfair?

The M2 argument, private versus public, is interesting but not actually relevant when there's an extreme shock to the system, including the government decisions made to address that shock...and no way to ensure that private response will be sufficient given the realities of dispersed incentives.

In the short term.

This of course is only discussing whether it's a sound idea with economic benefit (yup, releasing private investment and decision making) or simply a sop to gain votes. It can of course be both, but then not only about political benefit.

And then there's the accrual of power of the Courts through this newly created "major questions doctrine" that is being used to ignore any actual standing, any actual facts of damage, to simply step and replace the judgments of elected legislatures and POTUS.

In this instance, various states claimed standing that had zero basis, no plausible damage claim, and Missouri claimed standing because of a company they claimed would lose $44 million if the policy went through and they didn't get the service fees. And thus the state would lose tax revenue. Put aside that the company refused to claim damages themselves, refused to be a party to the suit, and subsequent analysis showed they'd actually make more money if they didn't have to service the loans anymore (it's been a money loser for them, apparently)...

But hey, this SCOTUS needs to step in because they have their own "feelings" that this might be "unfair"...yikes.

If M2 isn’t relevant because one is a temporary shock then it means the comparison doesn’t work. And I raised it because you argue that there’s a net positive economic impact to letting folks skate from their loan receivable contracts that didn’t have a shock/exogenous event. Effectively arguing having the govt absorb college costs is a net positive to the economy. I don’t see how that argument can be made without making all higher ed 100% public. Incongruous you be on both side of that.

I don’t believe it’s an economic benefit net of all costs fully loaded with the effect of latency to see the impacts and stripping other considerations.

And again comparing PPP where we told them they couldn’t be open and the funds paid to keep employees (still need to certify retention of employees not for general funds though it’s fungible once received clearly) when they govt forced a shutdown. They haven’t stopped anyone from earning an income, even strictly speaking during Covid, so yes this is clearly throwing a bone for votes. Anyone who really believes it’s good policy on it’s own merit in isolation I can’t agree with here.

[Farfromgeneva]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

Totally different, and I'm happy to tell you why.

The. gov FORCED me to close and/or limit my business during the pandemic. I was given no choice in the matter.

Given that? Compensation is in order.

I agree, government action on behalf of public health contributed to the damage, but not all businesses which were damaged were given loans that were then forgiven, nor all individuals who were damaged...so, unequal...unfair?

Loan forgiveness?

Most PPP loans were forgiven and more than a few Republicans made use of them and then 180'd when it came to student debt forgiveness.
The usual hypocrites.

I didn’t care for PPP but still not the same between exogenous, 100yrs flood type event (true natural disaster that can break contracts under MAC) and student who borrowed subsidized debt to go to college and now find it hard to repay for a plethora of reasons most of which are within their control because “they want a house now dammit!”.

Really housing should be down more but subsidized rates for too long has handcuffed homeowners to their low mortgage rates. Leverage amplifies gains and losses. Where are the losses from all the leverage in the system?

[MDlaxfan76]

...... so Biden tosses one to the far left who think fairness means not honoring contracts.

Yeah, thats a REALLY annoying worldview. "Contracts are for me, not for thee".

How do we feel about PPP?

Does it make a difference that there was a pandemic?
Was that money not only useful to keep employees employed and for their $ to recirculate?
Beneficial to the economy?

And if small businesses, why not students who studies show are delaying families, delaying home purchases, etc?

Or was all of it an error because not everyone benefited directly from each program?

PPP was a terrible way to provide stimulus liquidity to the system. Running it through the banks was clearly a mistake. And I still believe govt spending has a weaker effect on M2 than private. And let’s not forget PPP was related to a (reasonable but) required shutdown of business.

I’m sure you’re not comparing pandemic “emergency” (like in 08) stimulus to people who took out loans fully aware of what they were agreeing to and living with the consequences. I don’t see the comparison or the reality of your last sentence. Used to need min 20% down and folks waited longer to buy homes I don’t think those things are rights. It’s a mistake to conflate homeownership with a right.

I may not have been clear. I don't hear folks saying, or at least not the same folks saying, that forgiveness of PPP loans was unfair as are saying that forgiveness of student debt is unfair.

Was PPP necessary? Yikes, hard to know...we were definitely at a precipice.
Was it effectively administered? Well, in the luxury of not urgent hindsight, obviously not.
The fraud involved was off the charts!

But if one (not you) is to argue that PPP was reasonable, taking advantage of such, voting for such, themselves, and yet clearly not benefiting everyone the same...how can they reasonably argue that a decision to release the demographic power of family formation and home ownership this way is unfair?

The M2 argument, private versus public, is interesting but not actually relevant when there's an extreme shock to the system, including the government decisions made to address that shock...and no way to ensure that private response will be sufficient given the realities of dispersed incentives.

In the short term.

This of course is only discussing whether it's a sound idea with economic benefit (yup, releasing private investment and decision making) or simply a sop to gain votes. It can of course be both, but then not only about political benefit.

And then there's the accrual of power of the Courts through this newly created "major questions doctrine" that is being used to ignore any actual standing, any actual facts of damage, to simply step and replace the judgments of elected legislatures and POTUS.

In this instance, various states claimed standing that had zero basis, no plausible damage claim, and Missouri claimed standing because of a company they claimed would lose $44 million if the policy went through and they didn't get the service fees. And thus the state would lose tax revenue. Put aside that the company refused to claim damages themselves, refused to be a party to the suit, and subsequent analysis showed they'd actually make more money if they didn't have to service the loans anymore (it's been a money loser for them, apparently)...

But hey, this SCOTUS needs to step in because they have their own "feelings" that this might be "unfair"...yikes.

If M2 isn’t relevant because one is a temporary shock then it means the comparison doesn’t work. And I raised it because you argue that there’s a net positive economic impact to letting folks skate from their loan receivable contracts that didn’t have a shock/exogenous event. Effectively arguing having the govt absorb college costs is a net positive to the economy. I don’t see how that argument can be made without making all higher ed 100% public. Incongruous you be on both side of that.

I don’t believe it’s an economic benefit net of all costs fully loaded with the effect of latency to see the impacts and stripping other considerations.

And again comparing PPP where we told them they couldn’t be open and the funds paid to keep employees (still need to certify retention of employees not for general funds though it’s fungible once received clearly) when they govt forced a shutdown. They haven’t stopped anyone from earning an income, even strictly speaking during Covid, so yes this is clearly throwing a bone for votes. Anyone who really believes it’s good policy on it’s own merit in isolation I can’t agree with here.

As I said, M2 is irrelevant when the shock to the system is huge. Private decisions can't act sufficiently, are overwhelmed.

It IS relevant when such doesn't exist, or at least is a factor most of the time. It doesn't mean that government spending as no multiplier effect, just that when all else is equal, it just can be less than a comparable set of private decisions can be.

However, a social safety net and various strategic choices in a world in which are not alone may well be more effective through government as private decision making doesn't have the same individual incentives to achieve public good...moreover, those government spends provide a more stable environment in which private decision making can actually thrive. (We have a legislative and executive process to make those decisions.)

So, it ain't as simple as private = good, public = bad.

I think it's an entirely reasonable argument to make that many of the businesses which received loans that were forgiven were impacted directly by government public health mandates (albeit very few businesses were prevented from being open by the federal government, so when we say "government" we're muddying). But not all who were hurt received free money, and there was immense fraud among those who didn't deserve it.

But sure, this student loan forgiveness concept is designed to provide a benefit to a specific group of people (44 million voters...and their families). Can it be justified by long term economic benefit of encouraging more young people to have children sooner? Purchase houses and furnishings sooner?

Versus M2 arguments, maybe not but on its own, it's not as if it has no merit.

And yeah, there are those who would indeed argue to make public college education and technical school education free for all. Private schools would likely try to continue to differentiate and some would close or be acquired by others. Those who are able to maintain special brand status would continue.

I'd note that very few of those loans that were scheduled to be forgiven were for kids like my son, whose loan was not eligible for forgiveness. Most of them are with kids with Pell status or private technical schools set up to attract kids but which don't deliver solid jobs thereafter...and former students whose college path was interrupted by death in family, children, etc...some are 4 year school but with career paths that don't pay well, teachers, social workers, etc...but we need teachers and social workers...

Now, do I think the concept could have been even more targeted? sure. And are there better uses for that money? sure. More efficient usage? sure...

However, we then we get back to how our system is supposed to work. Congress passed a law granting discretion to Administration (Secretary of Education) to make a decision like this during an emergency (which is when the decision was made); SCOTUS is saying, "no, we can overrule the Administration, and we can over rule Congress' authority to legislate"...and they did so without any legitimate plaintiff with harm to be addressed...yikes, that ain't how it's supposed to work.

We want to vote for a different Congress, different President, because we disagree with how they're spending taxpayer money? THAT is how it's supposed to work.

BTW, how do we feel about those huge grants made to large corporate farms because they were hurt during the trade wars under Trump? Free money, mostly taken advantage of by the largest farming interests...