4 ms·
How is a 3% fee not outrageous when there is no work being done? If 3% of the $1,200 stimulus checks owed to individual citizens went to private banks, would yo
by JSavageOne 6y ago
How is a 3% fee not outrageous when there is no work being done? If 3% of the $1,200 stimulus checks owed to individual citizens went to private banks, would you say it's not a big deal? (if so I hope you're not running for Congress)
- chris_va 6y agoApparently not, though given our current congressional representatives, are you sure that is a good metric to judge rational decision making? 3% is 3%. It's nonzero, so that's unfortunate. It's not a large fraction, so it's just not a time sensitive problem. Is it worth tying up media, political and financial resources in blaming+lawsuits over the optics of a 3% fee, instead of just waiting to deal with it next year? Your question implies that 3% of loan applicants get nothing because of this fee (which is inaccurate, since congress will just authorize more loans as long as it's politically convenient). As I said, it's unfortunate, but it's not world ending.
- JSavageOne 6y agoI never said it's "world ending", it's a problem, and we need to fix it. What a moronic thing to say "let's just deal with it next year". If the mafia was extracting 3% of federally guaranteed loan money, your response would be "it's not a big deal, let's just deal with it next year because we can just authorize more loans?" I hope you're never elected to public office.