comment: >
  
  If your considering time based on days or weeks, we have a lifetime to live though, several years to live. Tons of time to enjoy. Tons of time to reap the benefits of early hard work, which I'm now able to do.
context: Cancel PPP forgiveness. I’m a small business owner w/ no employees. Why didn’t I get PPP? >
  
  You need to be the hero sue someone to get rid of PPP loans for the rest of us. Should be a slam dunk by citing the Supreme Court decision about to come out. >
  
  This is an executive action versus direct congressional action. Granted this EA seems well within the scope of previous legislation, but PPP is directly from congress which gives it even stronger legitimacy in court >
  
  PPP was/is legit no doubt BUT what more than a few did with the money (vs intended purpose - to keep them afloat during tRumpvid20) was and is FRAUD! Kinda like if I'd have used my GI Bill payments to buy a new Bass boat without enrolling in any classes. >
  
  Worse. It would be if you impersonated a former service member, got the GI bill and spent that money on a new bass boat and then the government just decided it wasn’t important to investigate >
  
  True - I keep forgetting Nixon killed the draft to stop STUDENT protests, so there's a bunch more folks who never served except in their local militias. Nixon knew you had to placate those who had learned to think rationally, the rest could be simply distracted with BS, a lesson well learned at Fox. >
  
  I'm sure the two "plaintiffs" are being amply compensated by the billionaire sponsors of this suit. >
  
  Assholes like this do it for free, or for clout in the movement. They are ideologues, not mercenaries. >
  
  Yeah, like the gun rights activist that keeps suing everything fun in Atlanta. Goodbye Music Midtown. I hope that guy gets spit upon every time he shows his face in public. >
  
  My school loans are paid off but I’m all about student loan forgiveness.  It’s not right to send young people into adulthood in crippling debt simply for getting educated.  
  I’d much rather my tax money go toward helping people (and by extension, our country) than going into an already-bloated military budget or used to offset the loss of tax revenue from keeping billionaires rich.  Too many people don’t realize that raising the floor on the standard of living in this country makes life better for everyone - even if one specific policy doesn’t affect them directly.  Economics trickle up, not down. >
  
  
  Too many people don’t realize that raising the floor on the standard of living in this country makes life better for everyone - even if one specific policy doesn’t affect them directly. 
  
  Unfortunately we live in a country full of selfish assholes who 1) are against things that help people because they themselves won’t benefit and 2) against things that help people because those other people would benefit. >
  
  Too fucking right. Not just content to get theirs and pull the ladder up after them—they want to be allowed to take the ladder and beat the shit out of the people after them. >
  
  
  Not just content to get theirs and pull the ladder up after them
  
  Isn't this exactly what is happening with this one time payment?  What about the people who incur debt to enter college next year and don't benefit from this order? >
  
  Not saying it’s a perfect fix. 
  I just paid off my debt from undergrad and med school (almost 300k all told) 12 years after I graduated, and I know people who have it way worse. My fiancé is older than I am and still has about $30k from his masters.
  But this forgiveness would help millions of people right now, would be good for the overall economy, and if used correctly it could be a springboard for creating change to the entire system. 
  Something this big can’t help but knock over a lot of dominos. It won’t help me, but it will help others. >
  
  If debt forgiveness is good for the economy, why not forgive mortgage debt, car loan debt, or both!
  There's a lot of ifs in your statement that I don't think are likely to actually happen.
  It will help people, just not people who really need help. >
  
  Debt incurred educating people to serve in higher level aspects of society is not the same as debt incurred for material things.
  I get what you’re saying, but this is apples and fruit bats. 
  But I do think keeping people out of debt for basic life needs is a thing that needs to happen. One goal being reached doesn’t mean the other goals aren’t important and can’t be reached, too. >
  
  Every dollar handed to college graduates making $120k is a dollar that isn't handed to someone making $40k that never went to college and has a fraction of the earning potential of the college graduate.
  College isn't a basic life need.  The entire system needs an overhaul, not a windfall for an almost random group that is relatively well off overall.  
  Helping current and future members of the upper middle class with their financial obligations should be near the bottom of the list of goals, not near the top. >
  
  I’m a surgeon. I spent my entire life up until 31 in school or training, racking up enormous debt in order to be able to do one very specific and extremely important job. 
  I know many other people who could have been amazing surgeons and doctors, but were not lucky enough to be able to take on the debt I did to get where I did.
  Make college and higher level education like med school affordable and more accessible, and people way better than me will get my job next. >
  
  We agree completely on making college more affordable, but I don't see how a one time payment to a very specific group that also effectively punishes people who were more financially responsible accomplishes that. >
  
  Can we sue to claw back the forgiven PPP loans under the same principles? >
  
  Not the same principle. It's about Congress having the Power of the Purse and passing a bill authorizing the PPP in accordance with the constitution vs. a dictatorial fascist in the White House that has overstepped his constitutional authority and is being put back in his place. 
  Can you reference any legislation that was brought to the floor for a vote that would authorize student loan forgiveness? 
  Even Pelosi said the president doesn't have the power: 
  “People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness,” she said. “He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power.” Pelosi argued that student loan forgiveness can only be accomplished through “an act of Congress.” >
  
  But the standing is the issue too, these people shouldn't really have standing to sue about this principle. >
  
  So executive overreach shouldn't be addressed or challenged because they may have found a "standing" loophole? It seems two courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding standing. >
  
  I mean it's also not fair now that I'm 40 and can afford my first home, that starter home prices in most cities have doubled, and a decent house in my area is 400-500k. My sister rjust bought her first home, 564,000$ and well over 3500$/month mortgage payment. 
  I remember my parents buying a home 20 years ago for 120k, even 10 years ago 220k. Their home is now worth 720,000$ and I'm living in a damn apartment. They have a 1500$/month mortgage, while I'm paying over 2200$/month to rent a two bedroom. 
  Doesn't mean I think everyone should have their houses taken away, ND no one should get a deal or assistance getting a house because I can't. 
  I effing sucks, but that's the reality. If some people get help getting into homes and I can't, I'm not going to sue someone. >
  
  Move away from the city. My home was half that and it's not a shack. There's home in my area that even cheaper, new builds. >
  
  That's not super practical advice.  It's very difficult to just up and move on a whim. >
  
  Sure, but if you're already contemplating purchasing a home like OP, it's realistic and practical advice. >
  
  Is it though?  Typically people are looking for homes in a particular area for a reason (job, family, access to certain services) that may only be found in that area.  Personal anecdotes, but I live in a fairly large town and just recently bought a house.  Were there houses cheaper in neighboring, smaller towns, absolutely, however, because of my job as a teacher, a 45-60 minute commute is not practical for me (which is where those cheaper houses work).  I want to live in the community I am serving so I can more practically and efficiently do my job.  I also have a friend that works remotely but needs to stay in his (relatively expensive) hometown so he can take care of his mother when needed. >
  
  So you're making the choice of not commuting and staying in your community over a cheaper mortgage. Those things aren't a must, those are nice-to-haves. You pay for nice-to-haves. 
  It's completely practical for you to move further out and pay for a cheaper house, drive a little bit further, you just don't want to. It's not that it isn't practical for you to drive that far, I did all the time and so do a lot of people, you just don't want to. 
  The thing is that when your budget is important you can trade for commute time. I'd rather pay for my commute than pay 200,000 more to save 20 minutes everyday. >
  
  
  It's completely practical for you to move further out and pay for a cheaper house, drive a little bit further, you just don't want to. 
  
  You ever worked in an actual big city before?
  
  I'd rather pay for my commute than pay 200,000 more to save 20 minutes everyday.
  
  That type of saving would be adding 3 hours to my daily commute (each way). Not 20 minutes. That's not practical or reasonable at all. >
  
  I worked in Dallas and spent a lot of time commuting. 
  Like I said, I enjoy the disposable income and switched electric to save even more money, then remote for no commute. 
  If you're budget minded, your not going to spend an extra 1000 - 2000 dollars a month to save 3 hours a day. But I guess it's not practical to save that money for other things versus sitting in traffic - maybe that's why people feel so stuck.
  EDIT: Life is a bunch of trade offs. Being 15 minutes from your work is a benefit you pay for. Having access to all amenities within 15 minutes is a benefit. People pay for those benefits. But what people should realize is that those benefits are nice-to-have, they aren't necessities. >
  
  More disposable income doesn't mean anything if you don't have time to enjoy it.  An extra 1.5-3 hours commuting a day would mean at most 2 hours on my own after work a day to exercise, cook, and relax.  Living only to work is pointless and long commutes mean you are doing just that.