HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why is it ok to have frau...

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:18 AM

Why is it ok to have fraud for the PPP program but it's unacceptable for the current bill?

Just heard on MSNBC that the republican panel said if there is fraud for the current democratic bill, it will be bad and would destroy the credibility of the bill. They are the same people who praise the PPP program breathlessly. We saw there were frauds where people were charged by using the fund for a boat or a new car. Why is it ok for the PPP program to have fraud but suddenly when it's a democratic bill and it is unacceptable to have any fraud?

PS. I am not saying there will be fraud for the current bill.

12 replies, 568 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:22 AM

1. Bottom line is that there's

bound to be some fraud and grift happening when this much money is involved. But the positives FAR outweigh the potential negatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elessar Zappa (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:25 AM

2. I completely agree with you.

It is just that this line of reasoning wasn't used for the PPP program but somehow it's applied to the current democratic bill.

Unfortunately, the host let the panel slide with this crap. She should have challenged him with the PPP program. You don't worry about fraud because it's bound to happen. You just police it so that fraud will be found out and punished, unlike how they try to prevent any oversight with the PPP program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:26 AM

3. the difference is the gop engineered fraud into ppp....

Including the ability of the wh to simply not report the list of recipients or their connections to politicians or admin officials.

That doesn't exist under the new bill.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:29 AM

4. Double standard

Dems always have a higher standard than Reps to meet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:30 AM

5. I believe the PPP had a "better class" of fraudsters.

Mnuchin could cash in, through various shells with low number of employees.

As well as other wealthy business owners who had pre-existing relationships with bankers and lawyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:32 AM

6. They are going to try to discredit the bill anyway they can. Even if they have to resort to

underhanded methods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:44 AM

7. I remember Stephanie Ruhle asking about accountability when the PPP was passed.

Important for Joe to contrast the plan for managing ARP versus PPP. Promise nothing but all out effort, welcome fraud reports and investigate them if/when received. Also shine a very bright light on PPP finds and where they went.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raven123 (Reply #7)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:50 AM

9. Yes, I remember it well and that's why I was surprised she didn't challenge the republican

on it. It's not about fraud itself but how you prevent and put it safeguards to find out the fraud. The fraud itself doesn't credit or discredit the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 10:47 AM

8. "Fraud" is a dog whistle. It means brown people stealing white mens money

There is no fraud in aircraft carriers but those super organized stealth non-white people oh they get themselves truck fulls of nickels and dimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Original post)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 11:02 AM

10. Why must they always go with false equivalencies

or tu quoque or other lame, diminishing approach to things? I'm not arguing for or against whatever they're saying, they obviously aren't marketing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taxi (Reply #10)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 12:03 PM

11. I don't think they made a false equivalencies in this case. I was the one that brought in

the PPP program. My point is simply that they didn't care about frauds in the PPP program but somehow they do now on the democratic bill. Whether fraud occurs isn't a deciding factor for me (at least not unless it designed to have fraud). Even with the frauds with the PPP program, I think it was generally a good program. It is just that it would be a better program if they design it with accountability and ways to find out frauds (which they specifically designed it so that they don't have to disclose any of it). I am not going to deem a bill/program bad if there is any fraud as suggested by the republican panel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Claustrum (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 12, 2021, 12:13 PM

12. My mistake. Should have stated that it was their coverage that allows fallacies to start

Here is MSNBC saying if there is fraud - basically opening the door for yet to be made claims, and thus - here comes a defense against a non existing claim. Rope-a-dope.
We could probably do better in keeping our momentum and our strength, than playing their game.
I really wasn't meaning to blame you, although I did. I really don't like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread