These covid programs were certainly a massive handout to the unscrupulous. I feel sorry for those who worked hard and lived frugally, just to get steamrolled by the government money printer.
And look how reluctant the Fed and Fiscal were to reign in any of the madness. 0 moves until 8% CPI. Can't have housing appreciate at 10% instead of 20%, or stocks at 10 instead of 30 now, can we?
Never seen a class of people so eager to take wealth/future prosperity from their children
Every policy in the last fifty years of the US government would be perfectly rational if its purpose was to destroy the nuclear and extended family. It may just be coincidence, but there's no doubt these are the consequences.
These policies are in line with that, a unequivocal transfer of money from structured hard working families to unstructured broken ones. Removing incentives for the former and adding them for the latter.
It's very easy to destroy social fabric top down, but it can only be created bottom up.
2008 bailout didn't even come close to the size of the Covid one. And there were far fewer "helicopter" dollars, no eviction moratorium, foreclosure moratorium, student debt forbearance. And the economy was much worse back then, with many high profile bankruptcies and slow gains in employment
The initial Covid packages were warranted, but the packages passed in December 2020 and March 2021 were largely unnecessary after the initial shock had passed and the velocity in the drop in unemployment was already strong. Or they may have been warranted at a much smaller magnitude with more discretion in who received benefits.
The consequence now is that the economy is so overstimulated, we basically have to force the recession we would have had anyway to prevent it from overheating. So we'll end up in the same place, but with a ton of extra debt to service
I don’t think a 100% bailout is under discussion; the most likely scenario is $10K relief which will zero the balances of 30% of student debt holders and cost $37B.
Since most of that 30% have low income and come from low income backgrounds it will be a struggle to get it passed. A shame as those are the ones that need it the most. It’s interesting to note that Social Security was designed to cover 100% of the population even though only a smaller segment needed it, specifically to make it harder to kill. For student debt that would be an impossible sum and unnecessary.
Every time the government gets involved markets get distorted and we pay the price down the road. Guaranteed home loans from the govt with almost no down payment caused lenders to not check credit and then we had 2008. Very similar situation with government education loan guarantees. And then legislators pretend to fix the problem with bailouts but we all pay with an inflation tax. Its robbery from savers to what should be risky borrowers. On top of that we now have these bloated education institutions that offer bs degrees and wacky educators because of the artificial propped up market that is detached from economics and value.
I'm all for the student loan bailout, at least this one is going directly to the pockets of consumers instead of having to trickle down like the PPP loans or previous corporate bailouts.
This is the low effort response every time. Where is the nuance in the thinking around magnitude and implementation of policy?
It's not a black/white situation of choosing between economic collapse or hyperinflation at all. And keep in mind there were 3-4 huge packages passed. It's not like this had to be done as a single rushed magnum opus bill, this is the consequence of many bills and executive actions passed over 2 years, coinciding with a Fed that had unilateral power to ease the brakes yet did nothing for 2 years.
Regardless of my opinion on Covid bailouts (too big, too small, too many, too few) all such interventions are squeezing a balloon: you shift the problem temporally.
There’s nothing wrong with doing that (people sensibly borrow to purchase and use assets all the time). And when people are in the middle of a crisis it’s appropriate to take action (even in a drought the fire brigade sprays water on a fire).
But it’s worth looking retrospectively to figure out how much to do next time, not to be absolutist about it one way or the other.
Perhaps its because I work on the backend side of businesses (specifically the tax part) and so I actually get to see the financial numbers, but I am aware of over ten thousand jobs in SoCal alone that were saved by the PPP bailout.
It's disturbing to see the vaguely sociopath comments on this thread by tech workers who were largely unaffected by COVID complaining about "interfering" with the markets and about "bailouts."
A lot of businesses were hit hard by COVID. For tens of thousands of businesses, the COVID PPP loans were the only source of revenue they had at a time when government restrictions (i.e., the lockdowns) were inhibiting their sources of revenue. (And guys, we were in a pandemic that killed millions worldwide. Even after the lockdowns ended, many people were scared to go out for months.)
And even with the PPP loans, many small businesses didn't survive the lockdowns. Margins are low in many industries. Not everything is tech where you can bumble along without profits or purpose for a decade surviving on fat VC money.
If you had bothered to follow up on that, you would have learned that all of these Bachelor(ette) contestants employed other people and used the PPP loans to pay those salaries during the PPP period when their normal revenue streams were unavailable due to COVID restrictions (Tayisha Adams actually went into detail about how and why she used the loan in the linked article). Which was quite literally the point of the PPP loans.
But I get that critical thinking is hard when you have an ideological point to make and you just want to shit talk other people.
Yes, proof of impaired revenue or profit streams with a certain threshold should have been a requirement for PPP.
Much lower income thresholds should have been applied to stimulus checks. Student loan debt should not have been paused for high earners. Interest rates should not have been pegged at 0 while asset bubbles formed over all asset classes.
That's called rational and responsible policy.
Enforcement could have been retroactive to avoid delaying disbursement of funds. It's not hard to write sensible legislation, even under a time crunch.
And hardships come naturally to business all the time. It's not the government's role to save everybody in every situation. Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We saved everybody just to end up with massive inflation which will require forcing the economy into recession anyway, defeating the entire purpose and impact of the stimulus.
Make no mistake, unemployment will spike in a big way as the Fed tightens, just as it has essentially every other time they had to tighten to curb inflation.
The aid was right, the magnitude was far overdone. It will be quite obvious to historians, though it's obvious even now.
Can someone please explain in detail how the fraud works? The article doesn't fully explain how the is money distributed to the fraudsters.
With FAFSA, the assistance is all encapsulated away from the student- you apply for an assistance loan (requires SSN), an account is created for you, the college is hooked up directly to that account, so you never actually handle the cash. How does this specific fraud actually work?
COVID brought a rush of emergency aid programs that weren't very well thought out. In this case, the aid targeted at students likely came through the HEERF, or Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds. Some of the programs are listed here: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html
The reason these are ripe for fraud is that in many cases they were implemented as direct deposit transfers directly to registered students. They were implemented without checks or controls in order to get the money out ASAP, so anyone who registered as a student and entered the correct information to qualify could get one of those direct deposits.
As far as I can tell, some of the implementation details depended on the college. Scammers likely tried different colleges until they discovered a system that didn't verify anything (California Junior College System) and then started filling out forms to collect the direct deposits.
The fact that scammers are registering with obviously fake names like "Barack Obama" suggests that zero confirmations are being performed at all before this money is distributed.
That doesn't strike me as fake. I've met Osama Bin Laden, at least one of the many people in this world with that name. There are no doubt many people called Gene Simmons who might have issues setting up accounts. James Bond was named after an author of bird books. I bet his descendants still get laughs at school. I met a junior officer once, last name "Planet". Good luck keeping a straight face on parade as they get promoted to Captain.
This is another example of why aid programs should be universal. Send every citizen a cheque for the same amount, and I mean everyone (even Bezos and Musk). One system built competently. Way lower risk of fraud or corruption (qualifiers exacerbate fraud, gatekeepers policing qualifiers create corruption).
Typically you get a small amount, somewhere in the order of $500 per term, refunded directly to you for personal expenses, textbooks, etc. I think certain students may qualify for more.
One obvious loophole is that there a lot of people (SSNs) who haven’t gone to a college already, so the college can just sign up people and get subsidies without those “students” ever showing up. They can pay these students, or possibly fake their documentation.
> Then there's the fraud where the College gets benefits from student numbers so allows the spam.
This is how one section of the Danish educational system worked for years: Pointless, governmentally funded study programmes that don’t qualify for any kind of real-world work, but the school gets a yearly reward per student, and the students get a monthly deposit for being a student.
Happens all over the place. In developing countries, work as a porter can be lucrative, especially because of the tips travelers give at the end. It's common for the number of porters at the tipping gathering to exceed the number of porters who actually worked the trip. The travelers usually don't have time or focus for learning to identify all of the porters so it's easy to get away with. Those who only show up at the end for a tip are expected to share part of the tip with the porters who kept silent about this.
That reminds me of this scam that this director at a BIG company I used to work at did. He got SSN's of dead people and made fake resume's and interviewed himself and hired them. Then collected their paychecks. Eventually he got caught of course, but big companies are funny how they don't like things like that getting out because it makes them look back and would shake investor confidence etc. So they just let him go, didn't prosecute or even try to get the money back, just swept it under the rug. I heard a year or so later he was at another big company with the same title and job. No idea if he was still doing that but would not surprise me if he continued doing unscrupulous things.
Unfortunately, that type of thing seems to happen a lot in large bureaucracies for those same types of reasons, whether governments, big business or whatever, they want to sweep mistakes like that under the rug. Hopefully they plug the hole before doing that. One can hope.
Work authorization status also affects a number of things related to payroll. So it's not a trivial issue for one person, acting alone, to make up a bunch of fake employees. In order to get away with something like this in real life, there would have to have been someone else at the company in on the fraud (since, as you claim, it's a "BIG" company).
And since payroll is involved, you are looking at several federal and state felonies, which means its not the company's choice to file charges or not. Multiple state and federal agencies would pursue this even if the company did not.
This story would have been believable if you had said it was at a small startup without an HR department.
notice that Biometric Identification company posting the very first comment in that article comment section. While other YNews readers casually promote constant surveillance, I for one, am steadfastly, actively against biometric tagging for benefits, constant and automated surveillance against the powerless for violations, and no-recourse bureaucracies with guranteed revenue.
>The former minister said the numbers may have been inflated by more than six times, and included "desertions [and] martyrs who were never accounted for because some of the commanders would keep their bank cards" and withdraw their salaries, he alleged.
There are no reasons for the college to identify fake students, or event prevent it in the future. higher (apparent) enrollment justifies larger budgets and funding. And it's not their money being given away.
Whenever the topics of benefits fraud or means testing come up, there’s always a lot of commentary from people who say it’s more important to deliver aid freely and quickly than to ensure that it’s going to the right people.
Yet this is a perfect example of why that doesn’t work in practice. Fraudsters are drawn to systems without sufficient controls and they will exploit them mercilessly as long as they think they can get away with it.
Worse, aid is infinite and resources are limited. These fake students are blocking actual students from registering for classes and draining away the time of educators and administrators who should be busy running the school, not trying to separate out real and fake students.
Means testing is a dumb idea if we’re administering, for example, a $100 drug test before giving someone $100 in food stamps. However, when we’re handing out $5,000 or more then investing $100-$200 into means testing or manual verification should have been an obvious requirement.
EDIT: People seem to be misinterpreting this article. The aid in question came from the COVID-19 related HEERF funds and CARES act and was distributed directly to applicants. It did not count towards nor subtract from normal financial aid (FAFSA, etc.) meant to pay for the education. It was supposed to be money meant to help students survive outside of education in a faltering COVID economy. Financial aid for actual education would have gone straight to the school and therefore there's no reason for fraudsters to register to consume it.
This is money distributed to students (or fraudsters) via direct deposit. It's different than the aid you're familiar with from past college application experience.
Benefits fraud and means testing are two separate concerns. Whether verification is performed is independent of whether the aid is restricted based on one's means. Verification needs to be performed, you're certainly correct about that, that much is clear; but that's a separate issue from means testing.
It's not that the aid is 'going to the wrong people', it's the fact that financial aid needs to exist in the first place. Setting that aside, I don't really understand how this fraud happens- when I applied for FAFSA, the student loan account was created for me, the assistance applied through some automated system, which was hooked up directly to the college. I never saw the cash at all. The article doesn't explain how the fraud works either.
> It's not that the aid is 'going to the wrong people',
In this case, it literally is going to the wrong people. These funds were designed to give students an extra financial boost during a faltering COVID economy (that didn't really happen) and the funds weren't infinite.
If fraudsters are showing up and claiming the money before actual students in need can get it, I don't understand how you think it's not a case of the aid going to the wrong people.
Again, this isn't tuition aid and it's not related to the cost of college. It was a stimulus/aid package targeted at people who were also students, but it was separate from tuition assistance or tuition financial aid.
> I don't really understand how this fraud happens- when I applied for FAFSA
Lawmakers rushed through a lot of new COVID-19 related aid bills and aid packages. Many of them were poorly thought out and implemented as quickly as possible, forgoing controls and verification to get them done ASAP.
The article specifically mentions COVID-19 related aid, which has been rife with fraud. It’s frustrating that some of these supposedly time-limited emergency aid packages continue to be handed out despite the booming economy and rampant inflation.
What's the incentive for the fraudster in this? The article doesn't really say, but it does link to one example YouTuber who demonstrates this fraud; he says this is a great way to get a free email account. You seem to suggest this is more about $5000+ than an email account; is the financial aid sent to students rather than the bursar's office?
The amount disbursed fraudulently and the percentage that represents of the total would be a lot more interesting than the number of fake accounts someone observed.
I clicked through to the LA Times article and it mentions at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Seems like you got it backwards. In this case the fraud is enabled by the means test. If the education was simply free or affordable to anyone and funded from tax revenues, this fraud would not be possible. The highest level of fraud possible in that system would be that someone gets an education they did not truly need, which is hardly bad at all.
Don't worry Means testing is in full swing today for all government programs.
We are back to making qualifying for aid, welfare, etc. difficult so people who need it give up.
They got lax during Covid, but not today.
The historical point of Means Testing is to dissuade the people whom need it most from applying. Every Social Worker can go on for hours how the powers at be make qualifying for any help arduous.
It's never discussed publically, because outright fraud is easier to report on, and the average Joe has never dealt with the welfare system, except maybe in college.
I had to lie about living independent in order to qualify for anything other than a Pell grant, and a small federal loan. SOL is up, and I paid my later student loans off completely.
We should simply make those who support things be personally financially liable for the costs and waste. It’s easy to be flippant about waste when it’s other people’s money you’re wasting.
That sounds like a free rider problem: No, I don't "support" the bike paths, so I don't pay for their upkeep, but I live in a better city for their existence, even if I don't even own a bike.
Similarly, I don't "support" the hospitals, right up until I get cancer and spend over a month in-patient receiving some very expensive therapies.
Willingness to play fast and loose with other people's money in all contexts is a big problem for western society right now. You see it in both public and private sector.
In Sweden any financial aid to students are revoked if you dont get a grade. If you apply a second time, after failing classes you simply dont get aid until your grades improve. Aid is only paid out a month at a time.
Also, you have to apply using digital-ID (BankID) for both classes and aid, theres no way to cheat. This way, fraud is unheard of.
Educational aid, if paid out erroneously is collected more aggressively than taxes.
In America, the vast majority of financial aid to students is revoked if they fail their classes. Not sure how often aid is given out, but 1 month vs 4 isn’t a big difference.
I haven’t heard much of any America specific big time fraud in this area either. If any implication was this article. That doesn’t count since the article isn’t saying aid is happening unlike Sweden.
Readit News
https://pagesix.com/2021/06/28/tayshia-adams-and-more-bachel...
These covid programs were certainly a massive handout to the unscrupulous. I feel sorry for those who worked hard and lived frugally, just to get steamrolled by the government money printer.
And look how reluctant the Fed and Fiscal were to reign in any of the madness. 0 moves until 8% CPI. Can't have housing appreciate at 10% instead of 20%, or stocks at 10 instead of 30 now, can we?
Never seen a class of people so eager to take wealth/future prosperity from their children
These policies are in line with that, a unequivocal transfer of money from structured hard working families to unstructured broken ones. Removing incentives for the former and adding them for the latter.
It's very easy to destroy social fabric top down, but it can only be created bottom up.
How do you figure?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...
The next one looks like student loans which totals $1.61T nation wide.
The initial Covid packages were warranted, but the packages passed in December 2020 and March 2021 were largely unnecessary after the initial shock had passed and the velocity in the drop in unemployment was already strong. Or they may have been warranted at a much smaller magnitude with more discretion in who received benefits.
The consequence now is that the economy is so overstimulated, we basically have to force the recession we would have had anyway to prevent it from overheating. So we'll end up in the same place, but with a ton of extra debt to service
Since most of that 30% have low income and come from low income backgrounds it will be a struggle to get it passed. A shame as those are the ones that need it the most. It’s interesting to note that Social Security was designed to cover 100% of the population even though only a smaller segment needed it, specifically to make it harder to kill. For student debt that would be an impossible sum and unnecessary.
But now that inflation is here and consumer sentiment is close to all time lows, the jig is up.
It's not a black/white situation of choosing between economic collapse or hyperinflation at all. And keep in mind there were 3-4 huge packages passed. It's not like this had to be done as a single rushed magnum opus bill, this is the consequence of many bills and executive actions passed over 2 years, coinciding with a Fed that had unilateral power to ease the brakes yet did nothing for 2 years.
There’s nothing wrong with doing that (people sensibly borrow to purchase and use assets all the time). And when people are in the middle of a crisis it’s appropriate to take action (even in a drought the fire brigade sprays water on a fire).
But it’s worth looking retrospectively to figure out how much to do next time, not to be absolutist about it one way or the other.
Perhaps its because I work on the backend side of businesses (specifically the tax part) and so I actually get to see the financial numbers, but I am aware of over ten thousand jobs in SoCal alone that were saved by the PPP bailout.
It's disturbing to see the vaguely sociopath comments on this thread by tech workers who were largely unaffected by COVID complaining about "interfering" with the markets and about "bailouts."
A lot of businesses were hit hard by COVID. For tens of thousands of businesses, the COVID PPP loans were the only source of revenue they had at a time when government restrictions (i.e., the lockdowns) were inhibiting their sources of revenue. (And guys, we were in a pandemic that killed millions worldwide. Even after the lockdowns ended, many people were scared to go out for months.)
And even with the PPP loans, many small businesses didn't survive the lockdowns. Margins are low in many industries. Not everything is tech where you can bumble along without profits or purpose for a decade surviving on fat VC money.
Agreed. Very Ugolino.
https://pagesix.com/2021/06/28/tayshia-adams-and-more-bachel...
If you had bothered to follow up on that, you would have learned that all of these Bachelor(ette) contestants employed other people and used the PPP loans to pay those salaries during the PPP period when their normal revenue streams were unavailable due to COVID restrictions (Tayisha Adams actually went into detail about how and why she used the loan in the linked article). Which was quite literally the point of the PPP loans.
But I get that critical thinking is hard when you have an ideological point to make and you just want to shit talk other people.
Guess what? A lot of tech companies also took out PPP loans. Former HC darling Mixpanel took PPP loans. As did Bird, and a number of dating apps. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/ppp-loans-to-tech-start-ups-...) Are we calling them unscrupulous too?
Much lower income thresholds should have been applied to stimulus checks. Student loan debt should not have been paused for high earners. Interest rates should not have been pegged at 0 while asset bubbles formed over all asset classes.
That's called rational and responsible policy.
Enforcement could have been retroactive to avoid delaying disbursement of funds. It's not hard to write sensible legislation, even under a time crunch.
And hardships come naturally to business all the time. It's not the government's role to save everybody in every situation. Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We saved everybody just to end up with massive inflation which will require forcing the economy into recession anyway, defeating the entire purpose and impact of the stimulus.
Make no mistake, unemployment will spike in a big way as the Fed tightens, just as it has essentially every other time they had to tighten to curb inflation.
The aid was right, the magnitude was far overdone. It will be quite obvious to historians, though it's obvious even now.
With FAFSA, the assistance is all encapsulated away from the student- you apply for an assistance loan (requires SSN), an account is created for you, the college is hooked up directly to that account, so you never actually handle the cash. How does this specific fraud actually work?
The reason these are ripe for fraud is that in many cases they were implemented as direct deposit transfers directly to registered students. They were implemented without checks or controls in order to get the money out ASAP, so anyone who registered as a student and entered the correct information to qualify could get one of those direct deposits.
As far as I can tell, some of the implementation details depended on the college. Scammers likely tried different colleges until they discovered a system that didn't verify anything (California Junior College System) and then started filling out forms to collect the direct deposits.
The fact that scammers are registering with obviously fake names like "Barack Obama" suggests that zero confirmations are being performed at all before this money is distributed.
That doesn't strike me as fake. I've met Osama Bin Laden, at least one of the many people in this world with that name. There are no doubt many people called Gene Simmons who might have issues setting up accounts. James Bond was named after an author of bird books. I bet his descendants still get laughs at school. I met a junior officer once, last name "Planet". Good luck keeping a straight face on parade as they get promoted to Captain.
Thanks for providing the additional details.
It’s not like Bezos will cash this cheque.
Mostly it's people getting free .edu email address which allows discounts on software and other things. This is most of the 65K fake students.
Then there's the fraud, where students are paying people $ to take their classes to get the government $$$$ -
"However, Rich soon realized that all of the work being submitted by four students was clearly being completed by an individual who wasn’t a student in the class." https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/california-co...
This might be why middle names are missing. That data is unknown but the other data real.
I suspect they are wrong about the third type of external fraud, but not sure.
Then there's the fraud where the College gets benefits from student numbers so allows the spam.
This is how one section of the Danish educational system worked for years: Pointless, governmentally funded study programmes that don’t qualify for any kind of real-world work, but the school gets a yearly reward per student, and the students get a monthly deposit for being a student.
Or a more recent example, Afghanistan: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59230564
Unfortunately, that type of thing seems to happen a lot in large bureaucracies for those same types of reasons, whether governments, big business or whatever, they want to sweep mistakes like that under the rug. Hopefully they plug the hole before doing that. One can hope.
Work authorization status also affects a number of things related to payroll. So it's not a trivial issue for one person, acting alone, to make up a bunch of fake employees. In order to get away with something like this in real life, there would have to have been someone else at the company in on the fraud (since, as you claim, it's a "BIG" company).
And since payroll is involved, you are looking at several federal and state felonies, which means its not the company's choice to file charges or not. Multiple state and federal agencies would pursue this even if the company did not.
This story would have been believable if you had said it was at a small startup without an HR department.
wtf
And then more quotes back that up.
Just make people register on site. Still via computer but in person. Problem solved. This is community college where everyone is local.
Yet this is a perfect example of why that doesn’t work in practice. Fraudsters are drawn to systems without sufficient controls and they will exploit them mercilessly as long as they think they can get away with it.
Worse, aid is infinite and resources are limited. These fake students are blocking actual students from registering for classes and draining away the time of educators and administrators who should be busy running the school, not trying to separate out real and fake students.
Means testing is a dumb idea if we’re administering, for example, a $100 drug test before giving someone $100 in food stamps. However, when we’re handing out $5,000 or more then investing $100-$200 into means testing or manual verification should have been an obvious requirement.
EDIT: People seem to be misinterpreting this article. The aid in question came from the COVID-19 related HEERF funds and CARES act and was distributed directly to applicants. It did not count towards nor subtract from normal financial aid (FAFSA, etc.) meant to pay for the education. It was supposed to be money meant to help students survive outside of education in a faltering COVID economy. Financial aid for actual education would have gone straight to the school and therefore there's no reason for fraudsters to register to consume it.
This is money distributed to students (or fraudsters) via direct deposit. It's different than the aid you're familiar with from past college application experience.
In this case, it literally is going to the wrong people. These funds were designed to give students an extra financial boost during a faltering COVID economy (that didn't really happen) and the funds weren't infinite.
If fraudsters are showing up and claiming the money before actual students in need can get it, I don't understand how you think it's not a case of the aid going to the wrong people.
Again, this isn't tuition aid and it's not related to the cost of college. It was a stimulus/aid package targeted at people who were also students, but it was separate from tuition assistance or tuition financial aid.
> I don't really understand how this fraud happens- when I applied for FAFSA
Lawmakers rushed through a lot of new COVID-19 related aid bills and aid packages. Many of them were poorly thought out and implemented as quickly as possible, forgoing controls and verification to get them done ASAP.
The article specifically mentions COVID-19 related aid, which has been rife with fraud. It’s frustrating that some of these supposedly time-limited emergency aid packages continue to be handed out despite the booming economy and rampant inflation.
> The aid in question came from the COVID-19 related HEERF funds and CARES act and was distributed directly to applicants.
I clicked through to the LA Times article and it mentions at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.
We are back to making qualifying for aid, welfare, etc. difficult so people who need it give up.
They got lax during Covid, but not today.
The historical point of Means Testing is to dissuade the people whom need it most from applying. Every Social Worker can go on for hours how the powers at be make qualifying for any help arduous.
It's never discussed publically, because outright fraud is easier to report on, and the average Joe has never dealt with the welfare system, except maybe in college.
I had to lie about living independent in order to qualify for anything other than a Pell grant, and a small federal loan. SOL is up, and I paid my later student loans off completely.
Deleted Comment
Similarly, I don't "support" the hospitals, right up until I get cancer and spend over a month in-patient receiving some very expensive therapies.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/some-com...
I haven’t heard much of any America specific big time fraud in this area either. If any implication was this article. That doesn’t count since the article isn’t saying aid is happening unlike Sweden.
Dead Comment