Paycheck Protection Program Out of Money: Thousands of Small Businesses Shut Out (cbsnews.com) 277
A key piece of the federal government's stimulus efforts to help small businesses and their employees has run out of money, shutting out thousands of potential borrowers who were seeking aid amidst the coronavirus-driven economic plunge. From a report: The U.S. Small Business Administration said Thursday morning the Paycheck Protection Program wouldn't be accepting any more applications for the $349 billion program. The agency reported approving more than 1.6 million Paycheck Protection Program loan applications totaling more than $339 billion from over 4,900 lending institutions. While that money has been approved, most borrowers are still waiting for those loans to be funded -- and for money to even show up in their accounts. "America's small businesses are on the brink, trying desperately to keep their doors open and support their employees," said Brad Close, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "We've been hearing from our members, every day, worried the $349 billion lending program would run dry before help gets to them. Today, their worries became a reality."
Should have had the forsight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should have had the foresight... (Score:2)
Didn't you mean "foresight"? However, I think your comment is based on an incorrect premise. All of the congress-critters are already bought and paid for. Maybe one or two idealist jokers in the entire pack. Half a dozen, tops.
(I do have a really radical solution approach for more democratic government. It doesn't even require irrational numbers, though the fractions would get pretty hairy. Or maybe it would benefit from using irrational numbers? I see a way to mix logarithms into it...)
On the actual story,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suspending payroll taxes was one of the first options considered. It could have been enacted with immediate effect.
Keeping people employed would have made far more sense than spending even more on unemployment checks. It also would have meant that people could immediately go back to work when the lockdown ends.
I have no idea why they decided not to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're just feeding a Libertarian delusion. Remember that their fundamental endgame is to abolish government, though most of them are sane enough to understand that is not possible and they start waffling exactly how much government they still need to protect their precious property. In deeper reality their precious property is only created and defined by the "terrible, tyrannous", government.
If they actually understood freedom, then they would understand the freedom to act better than mindless Darw
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are mostly in agreement, but I would add that we don't have to live like animals. In theory we have the uniquely human freedom to do better, or at least live differently.
Remember. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Americans don't have the savings to cover a $1000 bill: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/2... [cnbc.com]
Within a month there could very well be two entire generations of fighting-age men who feel they have nothing to lose. A sizable amount of them own guns, and MRA groups have shouted about issues for decades.
Then we get extremists.
Re: Remember. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most Americans also pay $75/month or more for cable TV. So, I'm not sure if the blame doesn't fall squarely on the American household. We've decided as a nation that being a good consumer and funneling money into the hands of oligarchs is some form of patriotism. So, we keep earning less and less, and no one will do anything about it because it doesn't hurt the bottom line of the capitalists, who are the decision makers because of system is capitalist.
When people stop consuming and start capitalizing, they not only put themselves in a better position than their neighbors, but they also send a price signal to the other capitalists so that the decision makers take into account the declining wealth of the consumer class.
My mom had no trouble paying for Cable (Score:2)
Inflation is around 4%. Real inflation, not the fake #s you see from the Fed, but the increased cost of food, shelter, healthcare & transportation.
Raises, if you get one, are usually 2%. 3% if you're real good and real lucky.
My kid just graduated. She's a Nurse (or will be when she can take her final cert test to be an RN). She will make less money as an RN with a 4 year degree from a major university than an LPN with a 6 month community col
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it seem that no matter the story, there's always this group of folks that come out and let us all know that "this" will be the straw to break the camel's back and send us into a Civil War? The odds of any serious uprising is massively small in the United States.
Re:Remember. (Score:5, Informative)
That is why pre-WW2 Germany started attacking other countries when the Nazi policies failed to provide the promised results...
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
WW1 > Spanish Flu > Smoot Hawley (breakdown of traditional trade relationships) > WW2
We are on a path to WW3
Not quite. First of all, you had a lot of veterans of WWI in Germany that felt betrayed by the civilian leadership back home. They witnessed some of the worst destruction in history, and came home to a country that had been ravaged by the Treaty of Versaille (which wasn't a peace treaty, it was a retribution treaty). This virtually assured that there would be legions of angry, out of work men with combat experience (and the mental scars that often follow). This, combined with ingrained cultural issues unique to Germans (a sense of superiority towards the rest of Europe, a deepseated tradition of Jewish scapegoating) helped foster the rise of a nationalistic, militaristic subset of the population that was willingly backed by a good point of the rest of society that had been humiliated and economically devastated. WW2 is what happens when you punish all of a state for the actions of it's leaders and rub their noses in your victory. Had the LoN treated Germany like the Allies treated Japan and (West) Germany after WW2, there likely would not have been a WW2 to begin with.
Re:Remember. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually Germany's problems in the late 20s early 30s didn't come from reparations.
While on paper Germany's war reparations were crushing, Germany simply defaulted on its early payments. German obligations were restructured so that payments were so small that Germany only finished paying WW1 reparations off in 2010. In fact, more foreign investment was going into Germany in the 20s than debt payments were going out.
In the aftermath of WW1, the real damage to the German economy came, not from reparations, but devaluing its own currency. Germany did this because it funded WW1 with bonds in the expectation of exacting reparations from *other* countries. When that revenue did not materialize, they simply devalued the currency their domestic bonds had been denominated in.
As for disaffection driving the rise of the Nazi Party, the Nazis never managed to win the popular vote. They were the plurality winner in 1933, in worldwide depression triggered by the 1929 American stock market crash. They moved to assume dictatorial power after economic conditions improved, which would have weakened their appeal in the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm expecting wealth riots, or mass shootings aimed at celebrity get-togethers or circlejerks. People are getting increasingly angry and agitated, and the unnecessary rich flaunting their wealth at their mansions while everyone is struggling to pay the bills could very well be the last straw for some people. Such things have traditionally been a poor people problem, which is why little gets done about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you seeing all this display of the wealthy flaunting their wealth in the midst of all this vi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It helps to learn about and understand our system of governance and the body of law that underpins it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Let's be accurate (Score:3)
amidst the coronavirus-driven economic plunge.
Let's be accurate. It's not "a coronavirus-driven economic plunge"; it's "coronavirus-reactiondriven economic plunge".
Is it worth it? Who knows? Even on its own terms (preserving life) it is hard to know.
It's hard to stay home when you are homeless. Being poor isn't healthy. And you can't get preventative medical care now even if you are not poor.
The massive government reaction isn't free, not even in cost of lives, it's just harder to count the cost of the reaction.
Re:can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, some definitely did receive perferential treatment but not necessarily for the "single" reason you gave.
Many banks openly advertised that they would only accept applications for businesses that "already" had a relationship with them. This means that that banks were interested in taking care of customers that had accounts with them only or first that way the bank is less harmed by its own obligations and obligants being taken care of before those outside of their existing.
As far as the other "preferential" treatments going on... of course that is going to happen... it is a "who you know" world after all and there is no way to stop that. You can only try to "catch" them in the act and that is even if it is illegal to do so in those cases. If there is a legal path forward for preferential treatment then it is damn sure being taken advantage of.
Re:can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
The logical result of the program was people who didn't need the money were first in line to get paid.
Glad to see Larry Kudlow's wife was able to get paid before the money ran out.
Re:can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there is no reason to blame the banks in this case.
I blame the politicians that rushed this out the door ripe for abuse. This is one of the problems when we all decide to start doing things without thinking about the potential fallout.
I hate to say it... but as anti socialist as I am about things... I would much rather that the current bill being talked about where everyone gets 2k per month per adults until employment levels return to pre Covid-19 levels is a much better solution.
If people have money, they will spend it on businesses. The one thing I will lever be okay with is giving a business money... not ever! Large or small... your responsibility to have funds or insurance for things like this should be greater than individuals. In order for a market to have good balance we require them to fail.... because if we don't let them fail... they have no reason to not take unnecessary risks.
The only reason I back off this logic with people is because often times it become a life/death scenario then. And as long as we have that... then the people losing their jobs to ill prepared businesses would have a safety net. And like I said... I generally do not subscribe to this madness because people still should be required to be responsible. However... this time government is forcing the stoppage of productivity and so therefore government needs to be paying for that... which means... we all should be paying for that.
Re: can't help but wonder... (Score:2)
Mr Astray has gone socialist.
Is that a sign of the end times?
Everyone's a socialist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering all the taxpayer money banks have and continue to receive, and the exigent circumstances, they should shut their pie holes and give out the money which isn't theirs to begin with. It's the taxpayer's money. Congress is borrowing from the future to pay now.
Re:can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
Larry Kudlow wife got one of the loans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which IG was that?
The one Congress created. It is a new position that the President apparently has decided to not fill for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump said he would be the oversight. A rare example of him taking responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
It will now be up to Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general and chairman and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, to appoint a new stimulus spending watchdog head
The oversight committee is still there, and the IG in charge is still there, just a new lead dog on stimulus spending. But that's a firing of the IG who oversees the whole thing, right? Hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:2)
My idea was to leverage a federal government banking requirement called "know your customer".
Ah yes, KYC. As nails in the coffin of American freedom go, that was a particularly long nail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We bank with Chase, and they really botched it IMO. They were not ready to accept “interest” until 4/6 (other banks started applications on 4/3), and our “interest” was lost in the noise. Our banker eventually got us the application, but that system was down until 4/13, so our application was not processed until 4/14.
A friend uses a small bank and they received their loan approval yesterday, after applying 4/3.
Re:can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Informative)
We got through the noise and the money was delivered to my employer on April 13th.
I congratulated my CEO on the accomplishment, he told me to congratulate the CFO, the CFO told me to congratulate the president of our bank. So I'm kind of figuring everyone in the chain did everything right.
We were the "guinea pig" for this bank. First app through.
That's 75 people back on the payroll and getting their benefits.
Only essential people are actually working right now. I work from home. But it's a good thing our people are being taken care of.
We would have been shuttered permanently without the bailout.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the bank presidents seem to hold the keys on this one.
The money is very important for most businesses; we can survive without it, but we will have to lay off about 10% of our staff if the loan doesn’t come through. (We plan on hiring 10% additional if it does.) Part of our business is essential, and that is seeing short-term boost in activity, but the other parts are going to be suffering until things fully return to normal. The additional hiring would be more strategic.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it was so much "preferential" as just a race to the bottom. Kind of the same problem with all of this bargaining on how many deaths the economy is worth. The "smart" players who moved quickest took the money and are presumably running away from the suckers (after declaring those companies bankrupt (though they took the money on the "promise" not to)).
We really should be using this as a learning opportunity. Covid-19 is not nearly as bad a plague as it could be. This is not even close to a "Liv
Re:It was drastically under funded (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but that's just stupid. Nothing in this story has anything to do with UBI, free healthcare, or housing guarantees. It's all about a federal program running out of money. Which is the opposite of what you're saying.
Re: It was drastically under funded (Score:2)
You mean the federal program designed to give money to companies for payroll has nothing to do with UBI? I think you may have an exceedingly narrow idea of what UBI entails. Is it universal at this point? No. But we are going to put tens of millions of people on the federal payroll so that they can sit at home. That's way closer to UBI than anything I've ever heard of IRL.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It was drastically under funded (Score:2)
But the original comment was arguing the reason for funding running out is because they don't want people to know that we can afford UBI. The program itself doesn't need to be Universal or Basic in order for it to send a strong signal about the affordability of UBI. A successful implementation of the PPP could easily undermine the myth of UBI not being practical. So, in the context of the original argument, the PPP is close enough to UBI.
Re: (Score:2)
a). it's not universal
b). IT RAN OUT OF MONEY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the saying goes, Conservatives can't do science, Liberals can't do math.
Re:It was drastically under funded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes the government works for you. It doesn't, it works for the 1%.
The only reason it does anything to help you is to keep you from building guillotines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much do we spend, annually, on wars, tax breaks, corporate bailouts? Go ahead, do the numbers. And when you realize you still come up the better part of $2 trillion short annually, you can find another place to cut?
Considering the administration aimed a $4T (to start, it's setup to grow auto-magically) money cannon at Wall Street, I think we could've started there folks. Do we need to pay for loser's bad planning for an inevitability? I understand that Joe's Auto Shop, Catherine's Coffee House, Bill's Burger Shack, et al., probably won't have 6 months of cash on hand much less disaster recovery plans. The average small business like them has 20 to 100 employees, less than 10 locations, it's just not feasible for them
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Government in linked hand in hand with the wealthy (Score:2)
By itself government is just a tool. Like a gun. Or a car. Or fire. You have to handle it safely, and you need training. Ask anyone who isn't a clueless weekend warrior type and they'll tell you that if you're not going to train you shouldn't own a gun. The same goes for a car. Hell, you learn to not burn yourself as a kid.
Corruption is not inevitable. B
Re: (Score:2)
corrupt governments don't fit the definition of rent seekers [investopedia.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I whole heartedly agree with you!!!
For any company that you can find evidence upon, that is NOT paying their legally owed taxes, report them immediately.
If they are illegally not paying what they are legally obligated to pay within the current tax code, someone needs to pay for this immediately!!
ON the other hand, just to be clear, there is a big difference between being deceitful and cheating on your taxes...vs operating fully wit
Re:The Trump Depression (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is some seriously twisted spin you are putting on there vlad
Re: (Score:2)
What is the alternative? Not shutting things down and just letting the virus run wild. Hospitals and morgues are already filling up even with shutting things down. If they hadn't shut anything down, the country would be in an even worse state, and the economy would be suffering anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes; people would die. People have died regardless. It's sad, but people die all the time, for a variety of reasons.
"Everyone dies" never gets old.
Re: (Score:2)
The states didn't shutdown because they wanted to, they did it because they had to. They had to because the Federal government and CDC didn't step in with an adequate response plan to mitigate damage from the virus. We could have been S. Korea or Taiwan. Instead we're 50 Italies.
The Federal government is responsible for this failure, and ultimately, that responsibility falls on the leader of the Federal governm
Re: (Score:2)
I see we have a history expert on board. {/sarc}
Re: (Score:2)
Lemme guess; Trump's not your president, amirite?
Let me guess: HE THILL YO PREDISENT! amirite?
Failures like Trump generally only come along every century or so. Too bad it had to happen while my generation was working.
He's not mine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What mitigation techniques would have kept hospitals from being overwhelmed without impacting economic activity? Certainly, early testing and tracking would have helped, but once we were past that and into community spread, what do you think would have been the right balance of deaths/economic activity? It seems like a tough equation to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
The right balance would have been a universal and uniform response. Our problem is that the economy is a chain of contracts. So right now for example landlords have trouble giving breaks on rent because they themselves need the money to pay their own obligations. You need to suspend the entire economic chain (like wipe out e.g. a year off the calendar for _all_ economic purposes) to make things work.
Now during the universal freeze you would need to make sure the virus is top priority. The virus does not res
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that a whole lot more dead people would also crush the economy, right? And since the dead tend to be older, those are going to be our politicians, C-level execs, business owners, leaders, etc?
If you don't think losing a whole bunch of them is going to cause economic chaos, I don't know what to say.
A live business owner who has to declare bankruptcy can recover and rebuild a business. A dead one can't.
And honestly, if your business can't survive a two month break, your business model sucks and
Re: (Score:2)
"The economy" is not shut down. There are restrictions on large portions of economic activity, but that's not the same thing at all. So I guess it's just a question of degree, and reasonable people can disagree over where the line should be/should have been drawn.
Re: (Score:2)
A 2-4 week shutdown was inevitable when it spread to the point it had due to grossly inadequate testing or community outreach. 6 Weeks was inevitable once we got to the point that NY and Louisiana were in total crisis due to their failure to act. Businesses operating without adequate social distancing and PPE also contributed to this.
But, we are hitting the point where measures need to be pulled back for sure... the systems can’t handle what will happen with the current condition extending into May.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A shutdown was not inevitable, regardless of the testing situation. I don't care what the supposed problem is; shutting down the lifeblood of your society is not the answer.
You can't adequately respond to ANYTHING if you start by gutting your economy.
Re: (Score:3)
The economy was already gutted. It just didn't know it yet.
Re: (Score:3)
That's more true than many people realize. There's a reason the fed cut interest rates three times last year.
Re:I hope everyone remembers this come november (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is most people just don't understand exponential growth. The virus starts small, everything looks OK and then it goes big very very fast until it hits the limits imposed by the size of society. You can impose restrictions on commerce and assembly and keep your people alive but the economy gets wrecked quickly. Or you can keep things open, people die and the economy gets wrecked two weeks later or some trivial time difference like that. The latter happens because when your consumers are terrified they self-impose restrictions on assembly and commerce, except it is too late to save lives.
The Lifebood of our society (Score:2)
Maybe we should do something about that...
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down the economy was breathtakingly stupid. There were other mitigation techniques we could have, and absolutely should have, employed.
We're all Dumbo ears... don't keep us in suspense.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't be often we agree, but we agree now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Let those people (or even that one person) die so I/we can keep my/our quality of life" is not a good thing to think much less verbalize. You are quite literally adopting nazi ideology here.
And the other side of it is that even with social distancing we are talking tens of thousands more deaths still to come. If you drop social distancing now then you are back to the projected 2-3 million dead. We are not talking about a few thousand more deaths in any scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
And the other side of it is that even with social distancing we are talking tens of thousands more deaths still to come. If you drop social distancing now then you are back to the projected 2-3 million dead. We are not talking about a few thousand more deaths in any scenario.
I never understood where people get their figures. It takes two full years assuming only 60% of the population get covid of hospitals running full tilt to clear everyone requiring hospitalization.
1% death rate assuming 60% infection is 2 million people assuming a fully functioning medical system.
Unchecked exponential growth (pre social distancing reality) limited only by lack of remaining people to infect is at least 8 million dead due to entirely preventable covid and non-covid deaths occurring for no rea
Re: (Score:2)
https://cleantechnica.com/2020... [cleantechnica.com]
The original modeling had 2.2 million dead for the "do nothing" scenario in the USA alone. That's the most influential study to date. But yes, if you do not trust the scientists and do your own back of the envelope calculation, you would predict 8-10 million dead.
Yet another thing is to look at Sweden which has kept businesses open and is now dealing with a major outbreak but is still looking at a wrecked economy. It is not at all obvious that keeping the businesses open wil
Re: (Score:2)
The original modeling had 2.2 million dead for the "do nothing" scenario in the USA alone. That's the most influential study to date. But yes, if you do not trust the scientists and do your own back of the envelope calculation, you would predict 8-10 million dead.
The problem is lobbing insults and making assumptions rather than investing in the time necessary to understand what papers are actually saying.
From page 7 of the very paper you cited ". In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GBand 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality."
There is no disagreement here. They are explicitly not accounting for the repercussions of a hope
Re: (Score:2)
A few thousand more deaths (and at this point that is what we are talking about having happen from ending the lockdown) is nothing next the lives of tens of millions being destroyed.
The US economy was fucked since before there were any lockdowns. People were not going out on their own volitions out of fear of infection not because of government demands. Parents were keeping kids home when schools were still open. The hospitality sector and scheduled events of all kinds were shut down and canceled before any government demanded any such thing.
Severe economic harm will persist so long as the population lacks confidence.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm aware, the estimates were 2 million dead in the US without taking any precautions. You are an order of magnitude out.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing, as there is no objectively quantifiable value to a human life.
Trashing the economy may cost some people their livelihood, it's true, but millions of people dying would trash the economy just as bad, if not worse, and result in all of the same damages that the trashed economy would cause anyways.
So, if I may paraphrase Mr John Oliver on the issue, proposing to reopen the economy isn't trading one bad thing (loss of of life) fo
Re: (Score:3)
You know that population density matters, right?
Comparing South Dakota to California on this topic is the height of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you Democrats!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are the concessions the Democrats are seeking:
Set aside some of the money for businesses in communities under-served by banks.
Add $100 billion to keep local hospitals and clinics open.
Increase funding for food stamp program by 15% to handle increased demands.
These don't seem unreasonable. The problem with the program is that the money hasn't gone to the businesses most affected, it's gone to the businesses with the most access to bank services.
Never play defense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you happen to divide business owners by race, who do you think has less access to a bank? Is that right?
Anyhow there are other groups too for set asides, like veterans.
Re: (Score:3)
Without denying that I'm partisan, I wonder where your *evidence* that the poster is right comes from? Where is the study that says minority owned businesses have equal access to credit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Thank you Democrats!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you Democrats!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As this is 100% the fault of the Democrats we must thank them for this disaster.
Last week the Republicans asked for more money for the program, as they were promised that it would be there by the Socialist Communist party. The bill was simply to up the amount. NO FUD. NOTHING ELSE was in the bill.
Democrats said NO. NO MORE MONEY.
Are you aware of the irony of your post? The Republicans want to throw more tax payer money (actually borrowed money) at big business, with little oversight and you call the Democrats the Communist Party? LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that a non-trivial number of U.S. businesses are way over-leveraged. As in their profit doesn't even cover loan interest...
Some of those business owners decided to shut their doors for good [wsj.com].
(Snippet for those who don't have a subscription)
The federal government is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into saving small businesses, but the effort came too late for MoviE-Town Cinemas.
Ticket sales had already been declining at the independent theater in Elizabethtown, Pa., when the state’s governor ordered nonessential businesses to close last month to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. Less than three weeks later, the 21-year-old theater had permanently ceased operations.
“There were so many unknowns, we decided to shut down,” said Glen Sponaugle, vice president of Room One Corp., MoviE-Town’s owner.
MoviE-Town, an eight-screen theater housed in what was once a car dealership, is among the early financial casualties of the pandemic, which has killed more people in the U.S. than in any other country.
As companies across America struggle to hang on, some small businesses are making the tough decision to close up shop for good. Operating on thin margins and with modest cash cushions even in the best of times, small businesses can be particularly vulnerable in a downturn. Government relief efforts, including a $350 billion small-business loan fund designed to cover payrolls and other expenses for eight weeks, are either too late in coming or won’t provide enough cash, some business owners say.
Plenty of small businesses were struggling before the pandemic hit. Others said they had promising futures, but couldn’t come up with the cash needed to sustain operations or didn’t want to take on additional debt.
The toll is likely to grow in the coming weeks as small-business owners stare down April and May bills with dwindling cash reserves and uncertainty as to when the economy will reopen.
Before the pandemic, companies with fewer than 500 workers employed roughly 60 million people, or about 47% of the private-sector workforce, according to the Small Business Administration. In a typical community, nearly half of small businesses had less than two weeks of cash liquidity, according to a 2019 study by the JPMorgan Chase Institute.
[. . . . ]
Re: (Score:2)
Hotels chains are allowed to apply for PPP loans, but they must apply for each hotel property individually to remain under the SBA's 500-worker cap for small business aid
Did they really have to apply individually? From what I read, exemptions were made for them.
From Big Restaurant, Hotel Chains Won Exemption to Get Small Business Loans [wsj.com]
While the new $350 billion Paycheck Protection Program is aimed at businesses with 500 or fewer employees, language in the $2 trillion federal stimulus bill allows big restaurant and hotel chains to participate regardless of how many people they employ.
Sean Kennedy, executive vice president for the National Restaurant Association, which lobb
Re: (Score:2)
let them eat ice cream.
God Emperor Trump says: "Some of you may die, but it's a risk I'm willing to take."
Re: (Score:2)