4 ms·

Right, but this seems like a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

• neves 4y ago
  No, it is a demonstration that the "printing money" argument is completely empty and that we show argue about the impact of the decision.
• MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  Except it isn't. PPP loans were offered as a stopgap measure to stem unemployment during a pandemic. Most people just pocketed the money because they weren't actually doing that badly. I could have taken one and didn't and I regret it now, but that's water under the bridge. It's just funny that all of the opportunists out there who are crying about student loans had no problem taking many multiples worth of PPP loans to line their pockets. The comparison between a student loan and consumer debt at the end of that article though? Utter braindeadedness.
  • bcassedy 4y ago
    I feel like so much of the sentiment boils down to some people objecting to someone else benefiting from government spending and some other people having suffered so they think everyone else should suffer too.
  • AlexandrB 4y ago
    Indeed. I recently heard that many conservative podcasts - businesses that would have benefitted from the lockdowns - took PPP loans. Railing against student loan forgiveness is just "fuck you, got mine".
• blipvert 4y ago
  Mmm, not really - that’s more “an eye for an eye” stuff. This is just calling out the kind of hypocrisy of people like MTG who got $183K of PPP loans forgiven but rails against students
• kelseyfrog 4y ago
  It points out a hypocrisy implicit in the simplicity of "don't print money." When people complain that "you did this for them but suddenly you have a problem when it's for me?" are pointing out this hypocrisy. "This is different," requires an explanation for how, because otherwise it looks like, "Don't print money for plebs," or "Don't print money for students," or "Don't print money for non-business owners," is as accurate as it needs to be.