• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Businesses at properties owned by the Trump Organization and Kushner Cos. benefited from over 25 PPP loans

Xilnik

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2020
Messages
2,034
Reaction score
1,276
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Businesses at properties belonging to the Trump Organization and Kushner Cos., owned by the family of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, benefited from the government's pandemic relief funds, according to an analysis by NBC News.

The companies received over 25 Paycheck Protection Program loans worth more than $3.65 million, the report said.

...

A Washington Post analysis on Tuesday showed that more than half of the relief money went to just 5% of recipients. National food chains such as Uno Pizzeria & Grill, Boston Market, and Cava Mezze Grill, as well as law firms and churches, were among the hundreds of larger businesses that received the maximum amount of $10 million allowed under the program, The Post reported.

Businesses at Trump Org., Kushner properties got $3 million in PPP loans: NBC - Business Insider

There seems to be another conflict of interest with the Trump administration afoot. I am also concerned by how much money went to large businesses in general when these were supposed to help keep smaller businesses going through the pandemic. There needs to be a larger investigation into how the PPP loans were distributed and how many small businesses were impacted when their applications were delayed or denied.
 
Anything by WaPo - ie Jeff Bezos - is a lie. Jeff Bezos is a pathological liar that will tell any lie for his profit. If he could make $1 by killing 1,000 people he wouldn't hesitate to do so.
 
Businesses at properties belonging to the Trump Organization and Kushner Cos., owned by the family of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, benefited from the government's pandemic relief funds, according to an analysis by NBC News.​
The companies received over 25 Paycheck Protection Program loans worth more than $3.65 million, the report said.​
...​
A Washington Post analysis on Tuesday showed that more than half of the relief money went to just 5% of recipients. National food chains such as Uno Pizzeria & Grill, Boston Market, and Cava Mezze Grill, as well as law firms and churches, were among the hundreds of larger businesses that received the maximum amount of $10 million allowed under the program, The Post reported.​

There seems to be another conflict of interest with the Trump administration afoot. I am also concerned by how much money went to large businesses in general when these were supposed to help keep smaller businesses going through the pandemic. There needs to be a larger investigation into how the PPP loans were distributed and how many small businesses were impacted when their applications were delayed or denied.
Why is this a problem? Is there something immoral, unethical or illegal about an American business...regardless who owns it...using a program that was designed by Congress?
 
Why is this a problem? Is there something immoral, unethical or illegal about an American business...regardless who owns it...using a program that was designed by Congress?

Yes it's an ethical problem, which is exactly what the Emoluments Clause was set up for. Thankfully it's among the least of Trump's grifts in office, but it's still a conflict of interest.

He won't be the Republican candidate...SLAP! He won't win the election...SLAP! He colluded...check! He obstructed...check! He extorted Ukraine...check! The virus will disappear...uh oh! MAGA 2020....AW SNAP!
 
Businesses at properties belonging to the Trump Organization and Kushner Cos., owned by the family of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, benefited from the government's pandemic relief funds, according to an analysis by NBC News.​
The companies received over 25 Paycheck Protection Program loans worth more than $3.65 million, the report said.​
...​
A Washington Post analysis on Tuesday showed that more than half of the relief money went to just 5% of recipients. National food chains such as Uno Pizzeria & Grill, Boston Market, and Cava Mezze Grill, as well as law firms and churches, were among the hundreds of larger businesses that received the maximum amount of $10 million allowed under the program, The Post reported.​

There seems to be another conflict of interest with the Trump administration afoot. I am also concerned by how much money went to large businesses in general when these were supposed to help keep smaller businesses going through the pandemic. There needs to be a larger investigation into how the PPP loans were distributed and how many small businesses were impacted when their applications were delayed or denied.

Just a moment, Xilnik. The article says that neither Donald Trump, nor his son-in-law nor either of their respective business organizations hold any ownership interest in businesses that received this PPP aid. Is it your argument that businesses who happen to be tenants of the Trump family’s rather expansive commercial real estate holdings should have been refused this aid regardless of the merit of their request because being able to make rent tangentially benefited the Trump family? Or is it that these commercial tenants were given more favorable treatment than other similarly-situated businesses?

Because compared to some of the more egregious offenders, $3.65 million in SBA loans spread out over twenty-five separate businesses is a downright pittance.
 
Last edited:
Yes it's an ethical problem, which is exactly what the Emoluments Clause was set up for. Thankfully it's among the least of Trump's grifts in office, but it's still a conflict of interest.

He won't be the Republican candidate...SLAP! He won't win the election...SLAP! He colluded...check! He obstructed...check! He extorted Ukraine...check! The virus will disappear...uh oh! MAGA 2020....AW SNAP!

Of the myriad things the Trumps should be criticized or condemned for, I fail to see why having commercial tenants unaffiliated to their organization who sought PPP loans to keep their businesses afloat should be among them, uptower.
 
Yes it's an ethical problem, which is exactly what the Emoluments Clause was set up for. Thankfully it's among the least of Trump's grifts in office, but it's still a conflict of interest.
I wonder. Does any other politician...you know, from Congress, have that same ethical issue? Have any businesses owned by them or their family members taken advantage of that government program? I think that's likely.

Do you think all of those politicians should be punished? Or are you hypocritical about that?

Wait...how about all those Congressmen who vote for other bills? You know...spending bills, tax bills, finance bills, etc? Should their families be allowed to take advantage of ANY laws that Congress and the President passed?

btw, the Emoluments Clause doesn't apply.
“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Knowledge, reason and logic are your friends...ignorance, bias and hypocrisy are not.
 
Already posted by another that the citation states "Donald Trump, nor his son-in-law nor either of their respective business organizations hold any ownership interest in businesses that received this PPP aid".

Also, is there any evidence that these businesses didn't qualify for the PPP aid and received it anyway?

Trying to generate baseless fauxrage? (Yet again :rolleyes: )
 
Why is this a problem? Is there something immoral, unethical or illegal about an American business...regardless who owns it...using a program that was designed by Congress?

Just a moment, Xilnik. The article says that neither Donald Trump, nor his son-in-law nor either of their respective business organizations hold any ownership interest in businesses that received this PPP aid. Is it your argument that businesses who happen to be tenants of the Trump family’s rather expansive commercial real estate holdings should have been refused this aid regardless of the merit of their request because being able to make rent tangentially benefited the Trump family? Or is it that these commercial tenants were given more favorable treatment than other similarly-situated businesses?

Because compared to some of the more egregious offenders, $3.65 million in SBA loans spread out over twenty-five separate businesses is a downright pittance.
It is the same problem that keeps cropping up due to Trump being the first president to keep large business ties open while president. You will note that I said there seems to be a conflict of interest. My bigger concern is with the rest of my post about larger businesses taking PPP loans that were meant for small businesses. I am with both of you that Trump and Kushner's loans are probably not a big deal other than appearances. The only concern I might have with those is why they received loans when other small businesses had to wait weeks only to be denied.

I am very concerned by other PPP loan reporting I have seen where small businesses waited weeks just to hear back, and by that time, they were denied due to lack of funds available in the program. I do think an investigation should take place to determine why some loans were processed faster than others and if there was any favoritism in that regard.
 
Businesses at properties belonging to the Trump Organization and Kushner Cos., owned by the family of President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, benefited from the government's pandemic relief funds, according to an analysis by NBC News.​
The companies received over 25 Paycheck Protection Program loans worth more than $3.65 million, the report said.​
...​
A Washington Post analysis on Tuesday showed that more than half of the relief money went to just 5% of recipients. National food chains such as Uno Pizzeria & Grill, Boston Market, and Cava Mezze Grill, as well as law firms and churches, were among the hundreds of larger businesses that received the maximum amount of $10 million allowed under the program, The Post reported.​

There seems to be another conflict of interest with the Trump administration afoot. I am also concerned by how much money went to large businesses in general when these were supposed to help keep smaller businesses going through the pandemic. There needs to be a larger investigation into how the PPP loans were distributed and how many small businesses were impacted when their applications were delayed or denied.

Well, ****, and here I am fresh out of surprised faces.
To be fair, though, a lot of people in DC had family members who benefitted from PPP.
 
It is the same problem that keeps cropping up due to Trump being the first president to keep large business ties open while president. You will note that I said there seems to be a conflict of interest.

Okay. So your mention of a conflict of interest is not your main issue. Perhaps you shouldn't have even mentioned that NBC article, which you made into your thread title.
My bigger concern is with the rest of my post about larger businesses taking PPP loans that were meant for small businesses. I am with both of you that Trump and Kushner's loans are probably not a big deal other than appearances. The only concern I might have with those is why they received loans when other small businesses had to wait weeks only to be denied.

I am very concerned by other PPP loan reporting I have seen where small businesses waited weeks just to hear back, and by that time, they were denied due to lack of funds available in the program. I do think an investigation should take place to determine why some loans were processed faster than others and if there was any favoritism in that regard.
I see this as an issue of legal unintended (or intended) consequences. To find out why this happened, it would require people asking Congress why they wrote the bill the way they did. Why didn't they foresee this happening...or did they foresee this happening and decided they wanted to include this as a feature?

Regarding the differences between large businesses and small businesses in getting loans and how long it took them to get loans, I think that's more an issue of the banks and other lending institutions. Those companies got a cut of the loan amount as payment for their lending work. If one company wants a loan for $3 million and another wants a loan for $300 thousand, guess which one the bank is going to pay more attention to. I don't hold those financial institutions at fault if they followed the law. They are trying to make money just like every other business.

I don't think an investigation is the way to go. The unintentional (or intentional) mistakes in the bill that allowed this to happen are obvious. If Congress wants to address this issue, then they should do the legislation necessary to correct the issue.
 
Okay. So your mention of a conflict of interest is not your main issue. Perhaps you shouldn't have even mentioned that NBC article, which you made into your thread title.
It got your attention, right?

I see this as an issue of legal unintended (or intended) consequences. To find out why this happened, it would require people asking Congress why they wrote the bill the way they did. Why didn't they foresee this happening...or did they foresee this happening and decided they wanted to include this as a feature?

Regarding the differences between large businesses and small businesses in getting loans and how long it took them to get loans, I think that's more an issue of the banks and other lending institutions. Those companies got a cut of the loan amount as payment for their lending work. If one company wants a loan for $3 million and another wants a loan for $300 thousand, guess which one the bank is going to pay more attention to. I don't hold those financial institutions at fault if they followed the law. They are trying to make money just like every other business.

I don't think an investigation is the way to go. The unintentional (or intentional) mistakes in the bill that allowed this to happen are obvious. If Congress wants to address this issue, then they should do the legislation necessary to correct the issue.
I do not know why Congress wrote the bill the way they did. I imagine haste was part of the issue since no one was prepared for a pandemic, and no one planned accordingly to keep our economy strong in the event of one. The rest could have been due to ineptitude, unscrupulous business dealings, or a combination thereof, which leads to your question of Congress addressing it.

How are they supposed to address the issue(s) if they do not conduct an investigation to find out what caused the issue(s) and what all issues might be? I have heard of putting the cart before the horse, but you are letting the horse run away without the cart (or the cart run away without the horse).
 
Already posted by another that the citation states "Donald Trump, nor his son-in-law nor either of their respective business organizations hold any ownership interest in businesses that received this PPP aid".

Also, is there any evidence that these businesses didn't qualify for the PPP aid and received it anyway?

Trying to generate baseless fauxrage? (Yet again :rolleyes: )
Typical. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracies.
 
Yes it's an ethical problem, which is exactly what the Emoluments Clause was set up for. Thankfully it's among the least of Trump's grifts in office, but it's still a conflict of interest.

He won't be the Republican candidate...SLAP! He won't win the election...SLAP! He colluded...check! He obstructed...check! He extorted Ukraine...check! The virus will disappear...uh oh! MAGA 2020....AW SNAP!
Wait... are you suggesting that the PPP was a gift from another country? What?
 
It got your attention, right?

Oh...is that what that was? Clickbait?

I do not know why Congress wrote the bill the way they did. I imagine haste was part of the issue since no one was prepared for a pandemic, and no one planned accordingly to keep our economy strong in the event of one. The rest could have been due to ineptitude, unscrupulous business dealings, or a combination thereof, which leads to your question of Congress addressing it.

How are they supposed to address the issue(s) if they do not conduct an investigation to find out what caused the issue(s) and what all issues might be? I have heard of putting the cart before the horse, but you are letting the horse run away without the cart (or the cart run away without the horse).
As I said...the problems are obvious. All they need to do is fix them.
 
Oh...is that what that was? Clickbait?
It was breaking news yesterday, and it seemed appropriate to share based on the potential implications, whether you agree with them or not. It also gets other important points across regarding how the PPP loans were handled.

As I said...the problems are obvious. All they need to do is fix them.
I know. No one can investigate any potential wrongdoing of dear leader. It will be okay. You will get through Trump's dark times.
 
It was breaking news yesterday, and it seemed appropriate to share based on the potential implications, whether you agree with them or not. It also gets other important points across regarding how the PPP loans were handled.

It has nothing to do with "how the PPP loans were handled" and you've already admitted your motivation for that stuff was to get attention to your thread.

That's clickbait.

I know. No one can investigate any potential wrongdoing of dear leader. It will be okay. You will get through Trump's dark times.
What "wrongdoing of dear leader"? Are you saying Trump told banks to favor large corporations and put the small guys on the back burner?

Dude...I'm thinking you are straying into la-la land.
 
It has nothing to do with "how the PPP loans were handled" and you've already admitted your motivation for that stuff was to get attention to your thread.

That's clickbait.
If headlines are clickbait, then I guess I am guilty of providing clickbait through a headline to my thread.

What "wrongdoing of dear leader"? Are you saying Trump told banks to favor large corporations and put the small guys on the back burner?

Dude...I'm thinking you are straying into la-la land.
I never said there was wrongdoing. I said potential wrongdoing. And I am glad I was not eating or drinking anything when you accused me of straying into la-la land after all your posts about how Trump is still going to win and Biden is the illegitimate president-elect. I am still shaking from laughter with that projection.
 
If headlines are clickbait, then I guess I am guilty of providing clickbait through a headline to my thread.

~snipped your backtracking, sidestepping and deflection~

I don't think you fully comprehend the notion of "clickbait".

Here...this will help you.


By your own admission, the only reason your presented that NBC nonsense was to attract attention. Clickbait.
 
I don't think you fully comprehend the notion of "clickbait".

Here...this will help you.


By your own admission, the only reason your presented that NBC nonsense was to attract attention. Clickbait.
Because I made the comment that it got your attention, that means that was the only reason I posted it? Yeah, you are dismissed per your previous signature.
 
Back
Top Bottom