I don’t understand the PPP for small businesses.


Are not the hotelier’s employees eligible for unemployment?

If so, and the PPP is specific about 75% of the money going to retain employees, how is that impacting these big conglomerates. Sure they have capital expenses, but that was not the focus of PPP.

Perhaps some of the employees were not documented immigrants. Apparently that is not uncommon at hotels, resorts, private clubs and exclusive golf courses. We know our president’s companies used illegals for decades until caught in the last year or so. In that case, unemployment insurance is probably not available.

“Business Insider broke the news last week that Bennett won the money after contributing significantly to Trump’s re-election and spending $50,000 to hire two of Trump’s fundraisers to lobby the administration for bailout money.”

Thank goodness for the media who were able to do what Trump has denied Congress: oversight for the spending of the taxpayers money. Trading the “swamp” for another “wetland morass” is not draining anything except our national bank account.

13 thoughts on “I don’t understand the PPP for small businesses.

  1. The PPP, administered as intended, is far superior to unemployment benefits.

    It allows the employer and the job to be there when the crisis passes. Unemployment benefits do not save the business so there will be no established job to go back to. Further, on unemployment you are required to seek and accept another job if available. That breaks up the “team” that makes a small business.

    It is shameful that some of the funds have gone to the wrong purpose, but the intended policy was great.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “intended policy“

      As we say, the road is paved…

      Slapdash effort badly thought-out and incompetently implemented.

      We deserve better, maybe VOTING in the future with a little investigation before hand could help.

      Just sayin….

      Liked by 2 people

      1. How does that preserve the small business so there is a job to go back to?

        That was the point, to preserve the small businesses, like my former dental practice, for example, so that the connection to the employees is maintained and the business resumes when the crisis passes.

        Some of the money went to corporations larger than intended, and that should be dealt with, but the basic idea was much better than temporary wage replacement for the worker while the business they worked for perished.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Tabor

          “How does that preserve the small business so there is a job to go back to?”

          How does it not? You seem to take the concept of “wage slaves” to a new level. Why should anybody cut loose from the work they have been doing still be tied to that individual employer? When things return to normal those Canadians who have been kept solvent by this program are absolutely FREE to return to their former work.


          1. Again, I have to go by what small business was like when I was in it. Perhaps your perspective is different from a large corporate background, but for a dental practice and I suspect most small businesses, employees are not interchangeable.

            Cash flow for a small business is not sufficient to pay employees through a 6 to 8 week involuntary shutdown. But it takes years to assemble a good team, and it takes good salaries and trust to hold them. You can’t just lay people off in slow times and call them back later. If you have to shut down for something not covered by business interruption insurance for an extended period, those employees will find other jobs and you have to start building a team again.

            So, in small businesses, the team is a major asset and you are tied to the employees just as much as they are to you.

            The PPP provides a way to keep that relationship in place through the shutdown.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “employees are not interchangeable.“

            As someone who also ran a couple of small businesses I agree about the employee issue, but it’s a two way street. The “team” and its specialized skills would I believe reform naturally as the crisIs allowed.

            Those that did not probably were not happy in the first place (appearances to the contrary). And it’s really on the employer to created an attractive working environment anyway.

            So I think a combination of the Canadian model with help to the small business separately would be best.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. @Tabor

            Your kumbaya analysis of small business is just a pretty re-statement of what I alluded to – “wage slaves.” Why should government money be used by you to control them? If you have the kind of relationship you describe with your staff they will come back to you when you are ready to re-open. In the meantime the sticky fingers of business are keeping the money from flowing to where it is needed. People are being put out of work by the tens of millions and the “solution” is a dog’s breakfast of special interest money grubbing.

            In this case, I do not blame only Trump for this mess. All of the politicians of both parties are complicit. The corporatist mindset is the same that made the 2008-2009 bailouts such a horror show. If the aim is to help people, then help people. For example, instead of bailing out banks, we should have bailed out the mortgagors and let THEM pay the banks. Give THEM zero interest loans instead of giving them to the banks. And so forth.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Kind of have to go with Don on this one. Being employed by a small business, where three of four full time employees are now working reduced hours and reduced pay, my understanding of the program was to allow small businesses to continue to pay their employees (75% of any loan) and continue to be able to make rent/mortgage and utility payments. (I am the only one working 40 hours/wk at full pay, even though I offered to the owner my services for free to assist him as he has assisted me and my family over the years. I am also the lowest paid employee here. You would think I would have been the first to get cut.)

            That is the small business preservation that I understood the plan to be. For larger corporations to even consider requesting those loans, let alone them being granted, is malfeasance that should not be tolerated. Saving Main Street was my understanding of the plan. Bailing out deep pocket organizations and schools (I’m talking to you Harvard) with enormous endowments take way from those who truly need the cash to keep their businesses afloat while waiting for things to “normalize”. (What ever normal means going forward.)


          5. @Murphy

            Why should government money be used to preserve small businesses?

            Because they are closed by government mandate through no fault of the business owner.

            When we drafted soldiers in WW2, we paid them.

            When we order GM to make tanks instead of cars, we paid them.

            Now, we are ordering businesses to close to protect the public, and it is just as reasonable to protect them from the consequences of that closure.

            Aside from which, if you bankrupt all the small business owners, they won’t be able to borrow money to start up again, and those jobs will be gone for a long time.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. @Adam

            Sure, it CAN work as intended. But we are talking about TRILLIONS and relying on the honesty and goodwill of the corporations and bosses is not the best way to go about the goal of keeping PEOPLE solvent.


          7. I out that ion the banks that are accepting the loan applications and transmitting them through. Yes, the corporations are ugly nasty beings, But the small businesses the plan was supposed to help have been, once again, eaten by corporations.


          8. @Tabor
            Now you are just arguing semantics. Not substance.
            The government is not causing businesses to fail. The virus is doing that.

            The PPP is a grossly inefficient way to help the people most in need. And that includes small business owners themselves. Bureaucracy, greedy banks, public companies abusing the system and chaos.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s