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?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?
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.
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!
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.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.
“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.”
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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?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.
It got your attention, right?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.
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.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.
Typical. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracies.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)
Wait... are you suggesting that the PPP was a gift from another country? What?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!
Well, at least the key pieces of information which were ignored.Typical. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracies.
It got your attention, right?
As I said...the problems are obvious. All they need to do is fix them.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).
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.Oh...is that what that was? 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.As I said...the problems are obvious. All they need to do is fix them.
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.
What "wrongdoing of dear leader"? Are you saying Trump told banks to favor large corporations and put the small guys on the back burner?I know. No one can investigate any potential wrongdoing of dear leader. It will be okay. You will get through Trump's dark times.
If headlines are clickbait, then I guess I am guilty of providing clickbait through a headline to my thread.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 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.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.
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~
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.I don't think you fully comprehend the notion of "clickbait".
Here...this will help you.
Definition of CLICKBAIT
something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
By your own admission, the only reason your presented that NBC nonsense was to attract attention. Clickbait.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?