I am not commenting on whether or not they should have been. I am not interested in tying them back to discussion of any other loans or loan forgiveness.
Why call them loans if they are not?
In: Economics
The small company I work for got one of these. There was a ad rush to them and they ran out of funds quickly. There was a general understanding at the time that you wouldn’t need to pay it back. Officially you could only keep it if you didn’t lay off any employees but nobody checked.
By calling them loans the GOP could pull the wool over the eyes of their base for massive handout to the wealthiest people.
Because you did have to pay them back if you didn’t meet the simple requirements that were set out. And a grant or a handout is impossible to claw back if they don’t meet those requirements. Meanwhile a loan is designed to be paid back so it’s easy to get that money back if they don’t meet the requirements. Short answer, canceling a loan that meets the requirements for forgiveness is much easier than trying to get a handout back that didn’t meet the requirements.
They were technically loans. The contracts specifically said they were loans that would be payed back. Congress merely had the option to forgive those loans.
Latest Answers