Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

[iceberg]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

So, a guy worked for a company and resigned from it two years ago to go into the Trump admin.......................and two years later that company applies for a loan to pay it's employees during a pandemic, you claim that is "ties to Trump".


You are a pathetic troll.

no - like most people more than likely didn't go deep into the details. IF this is correct then it kinda proves my point. people see headlines and put in their own story. that's why headlines are so poorly written anymore.

Actually...part of he problem HERE is people not reading past the headline but not in the way you think.

My OP's original content portion is duly ignored because - like a matador with a red cape - people are only capable of focusing on "TRUMP" and use that as a deflection to ignore the larger issues despite repeated commentary and other linked articles.

If the article title had been Company With Ties To Biden Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program - how do you think this thread would be going?

The point is - the Dems (and Pelosi) were right. We needed strong independent oversight, stricter language defining a "small business" and greater accountability. The language is weak in that regard. The Republicans (and Trump) said "no". Trump specifically said he did not feel bound by it. So now we are repeating the mistakes of the first stimulus bill under Obama only it's a lot more money.

where was this oversight when obama was giving billions to the world to combat "global warming"?

What bill are you referring to?

If you want to make a MEANINGFUL comparison - compare it to the 2008 stimulus bill - which WAS problematic. Don't you think we should have LEARNED from that mistake and done a better job this time?

i'll be glad to take this deeper and address other points but so far you dance around this simple question.

in the immortal words of breakfast club "IF YOU'D JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE!!!"

it is my position you're hypocritical and this is my illustration of it. i'm open to why this is different but when you ignore it, it only makes me more curious.

I've been bombarded with posts and questions and I'm only one person arguing my side in this thread. So what specific question do you refer to?

you're pissed cause trump did it and this is todays reason to be pissed at trump. doesn't matter the left did the exact same shit, you'll say FOCUS ON TRUMP and i say FOCUS ON THE ISSUE.

I'm pissed because I supported what the Dems wanted in this bill - and not only is this not happening, Trump has stated that he doesn't feel bound by the restrictions in the bill. WTF? Now you are telling that this should not matter? Or Trump has nothing to do with it? Or we need to go back 8 years and try to find something comparable that Obama did and get righteously pissed about it? This is happening now and we could'v should'v learned from the 2008 stimulus mistakes.

But it seems like we are not allowed to make it about Trump...ever?

i don't give a shit about the people doing it. i care whether or not the actions themselves are right or wrong. you put right or wrong with how you like people and to me that is WRONG.

I totally disagree with you. I'm trying to discuss actions here and everyone, including you, is trying to make it all about Trump and claiming he only reason we bring it up is we hate Trump. What kind of playing field does that set for discussion? You are effectively saying if I mention Trump specifically, it's because I hate him, not the policy. When I pointed out the issue of migrant children - I was very specific on policy and you still (unless I missed the post which I will go back and look to see) can't quite condemn it because you think it's comparable to the Obama Administration's policies when it's not. Not at all. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for (like spying on the media) - but this isn't one of them. This is Trump's policy - created by and defended by his administration. But instead of just saying "hey - this is wrong" (assuming you feel that way) you keep saying "you're unfairly singling out Trump" ....and "but Obama".

as for stopping BUT OBAMA - again - i said trump was being abused by the left and the VERY FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS

BUT OBAMA

yet if i do it to reference an exact specific point, i'm wrong. why can you do it and i can't? and how do you not see this is what you're doing?

Ok. Fair enough. Let's see if we can both refrain from bringing in Obama.

ok - where you are wrong about me here -

i don't give a shit about trump in this reference. i am not arguing trump = good or trump = right.

i'm saying you're mad at this because you feel trump got away with no oversight. so to me OVERSIGHT ON OUR SPENDING is the issue.

i agree. we should have it. for what trump did here and for what obama tried to go with the climate bill.

so please stop thinking i am defending trump. he's the topic simply because you hate him and make anything he does = wrong.

and i simply disagree any single person can get everything wrong. unless YOU HATE THEM and are not being fair with your situational analysis.

sorry for the split reply. conference call just started and i have to answer some project questions.

 

[eddiew]

Years ago in Bangor I bought breakfast for 48 troops coming from Afghanistan,at the airport I got 48 hugs and handshakes {{way before this virus}}

 

[Coyote]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Barack Obama transfers $500m to Green Climate Fund in attempt to protect Paris deal

New instalment leaves $2bn owing, with Donald Trump expected to cease any further payments

www.theguardian.com

$500 million - did we have oversight?

the entire plan called for $2.5 billion to be transferred to the fund. what were the countries to get it supposed to do? well use it to combat global warming.

there were no goals. there were no penalties. just handing over money.

i never saw you once cry out how we can give billions away and not keep track of what they do with it. yet when trump does it in a time of honest crisis - this happens. ALL OF THIS.

only way it makes sense is you hate trump and this is a good reason to bitch at him.

Your article states this:

The fund was a key aspect of the Paris agreement signed in 2015, which aims to keep global warming “well below” 2C and aspires to keep warming to 1.5C.

Established in 2010, it is financed by wealthy countries and used to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. It was widely seen as a key measure to bring both rich and poor countries to the negotiating table.

The US committed to transferring $3bn to the fund. The new instalment leaves $2bn owing, with the incoming president, Donald Trump, expected to cease any further payments.


Further research finds this info: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10382.pdf

1. The Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget requested $500 million for the fund. H.R. 2029, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015, as P.L. 114-113, had no provisions explicitly providing—or prohibiting—funding for the GCF.

This kind of sounds like the type of funding we give to the UN, WHO, and other multi-national agencies and is a component of the Paris Agreement.

Presumably, since appropriations comes from Congress, so to does oversight.

Now questions:
Did Congress complain about insufficient oversight?
Did Congress include any specific measures regarding oversight into the authorizations?
Did Obama specifically say he wasn't going to abide by Congress' requirements for oversight?

And finally - this question.
There were a lot of issues with the 2008 Stimulus Bill, including claims that many of the business' that received money shouldn't have. In other words - loose definitions, weak oversight. Do we agree on that?

So - why then, are people who THEN denounced the stimulus - NOW defending the same issues they were against in the first place?

 

[iceberg]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

Why aren't you complaining about Ruth's Cris?

They have over 6,000 employees, had over $400 million in sales last year, and they secured over $20,000,000 in small business relief.

Kinda' dwarfs the example you're whining about, doesn't it?

As for what smaller businesses haven't received any relief, I read an article this morning which talked about a guy named Damon West who'd been convicted of murder, sentenced to prison in 2009, got paroled in 2015 and turned his life around and became a motivational and key note speaker. He applied for the loan because he could no longer travel.

His criminal record precluded him from getting the loan.

A question on the application form asked whether, within the last 5 years, he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or "been placed on any form of parole or probation." Another asked whether anyone who owns at least 20% of the company was incarcerated, under indictment, on probation or parole. If so, they are ineligible.

Criminal records shut small biz owners out of aid program

There could be any number of reasons someone is denied a loan. This is just one example...

He would be eligible to collect unemployment.

.

Perhaps.

But we're not discussing unemployment...

The dude isn't a business, he's a contract worker.

.

Are you suggesting that people who are self-employed contract workers are not eligible?

Because I know a lot of self-employed photographers who would disagree with you...

One person shops aren't eligible, but they are eligible for unemployment which wasn't the case in the past.

.

and that sucks. i know of (3) small town barber shops in a friends hometown that went under because they couldn't work for so long. been there for a decade or more - poof.

We have a lot of small, really small business' here. I dread when things re-open, walking down town and seeing who's still there

we do share this fear. i know of several small places to eat that won't be there when this is over regardless of help along the way.

one is a thai place that i tried to go before they opened up and met the owners. they put EVERYTHING into it opening up and it was nice. very nice strip mall, impeccable interior and i got to eat there right after they opened. food was amazing. the family was getting to know me and told me they put it all in this and it has to work. a week later SHUT IT DOWN came in like chef ramsay in hells kitchen.

nicest people in the world i was looking forward to supporting by going there a few times or more a month. they won't be there when this is over.

the cost of being "safe" is astounding and we're not going to fully realize it until we start to see the impact as we TRY to return to normal. normal has changed now.

i am not a fan of hiding out and doing a john travolta bubble boy. the only sure thing about life is we're not getting out alive. how we go, we normally don't get to choose. the other day there were (2) headlines that i noticed.

1 DIES FROM COVID19!!!!

then in much smaller print a few stories down - a family of 4 dies in a 1 car accident.

i 100% agree and feel we should take precaution. i think now people are so scared they will wear wet suits to walmart in an effort to be safe.

 

[Nostra]

Trump has ties to huge numbers of people in business. ANd you found one that got money from a program designed to hand out money?


Shocking.

This isn't just some random company that happened to have ties to Trump. It is his Campaign Finance Chair for Illinois, and the man he named as ambassador to Belgium, and the company did more than 100 million dollars of business last year who got 5.5 million by claiming to be a small business. Everything and everybody associated with that obese orange fool turns out to be a scam taking money from people who really deserve it.

A "small business" is defined to be one with under 500 employees. 100 million in revenues wouldn't be unusual for such a company.

Should be.

Based on what, dumbass?

100 million in revenues is not a SMALL BUSINESS

500 employees is considered small business by the SBA, dingbat.

Yes, I know that ass hole. 100 million in receipts is considered a small business too. We both know that is not a small business, no matter what the SBA says. A small business is small.

Is that like a "fair share" of taxes? 'Living wage"?

How much in receipts is too much for a small business?

100 million is WAY too much for a small business.

Ya, you'd think so.

What is the number?

 

[iceberg]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Barack Obama transfers $500m to Green Climate Fund in attempt to protect Paris deal

New instalment leaves $2bn owing, with Donald Trump expected to cease any further payments

www.theguardian.com

$500 million - did we have oversight?

the entire plan called for $2.5 billion to be transferred to the fund. what were the countries to get it supposed to do? well use it to combat global warming.

there were no goals. there were no penalties. just handing over money.

i never saw you once cry out how we can give billions away and not keep track of what they do with it. yet when trump does it in a time of honest crisis - this happens. ALL OF THIS.

only way it makes sense is you hate trump and this is a good reason to bitch at him.

Your article states this:

The fund was a key aspect of the Paris agreement signed in 2015, which aims to keep global warming “well below” 2C and aspires to keep warming to 1.5C.

Established in 2010, it is financed by wealthy countries and used to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. It was widely seen as a key measure to bring both rich and poor countries to the negotiating table.

The US committed to transferring $3bn to the fund. The new instalment leaves $2bn owing, with the incoming president, Donald Trump, expected to cease any further payments.


Further research finds this info: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10382.pdf

1. The Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget requested $500 million for the fund. H.R. 2029, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015, as P.L. 114-113, had no provisions explicitly providing—or prohibiting—funding for the GCF.

This kind of sounds like the type of funding we give to the UN, WHO, and other multi-national agencies and is a component of the Paris Agreement.

Presumably, since appropriations comes from Congress, so to does oversight.

Now questions:
Did Congress complain about insufficient oversight?
Did Congress include any specific measures regarding oversight into the authorizations?
Did Obama specifically say he wasn't going to abide by Congress' requirements for oversight?

And finally - this question.
There were a lot of issues with the 2008 Stimulus Bill, including claims that many of the business' that received money shouldn't have. In other words - loose definitions, weak oversight. Do we agree on that?

So - why then, are people who THEN denounced the stimulus - NOW defending the same issues they were against in the first place?

i can't google it for now - but if you look at what the requirements were for they money - they were a joke.

money to india. how do they spend it? try to reduce shit. that was about it. no "lower by X levels" no penalties if they don't. hell they didn't even have to put their own $$$ into it in many instances.

i think the gov should hire an independent auditor to go over all our spending in the last decade. i think pet projects and partisan shit needs to go. i think a lot of programs need the boot and we need to redo them to be in line with todays needs. there's a lot of work we can do but we'll never get there because both sides only goal is to torpedo the other side.

both sides "fans" allow their side to do things they call out the other side for - and this is 100% wrong. if an action is wrong it's wrong regardless of who did it. if we need to have oversight on our spending, it all needs it. cherry picking is a huge factor in our divide.

both sides simply use us to keep each other busy so they can keep spending w/o oversight.

 

[Coyote]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

So, a guy worked for a company and resigned from it two years ago to go into the Trump admin.......................and two years later that company applies for a loan to pay it's employees during a pandemic, you claim that is "ties to Trump".


You are a pathetic troll.

no - like most people more than likely didn't go deep into the details. IF this is correct then it kinda proves my point. people see headlines and put in their own story. that's why headlines are so poorly written anymore.

Actually...part of he problem HERE is people not reading past the headline but not in the way you think.

My OP's original content portion is duly ignored because - like a matador with a red cape - people are only capable of focusing on "TRUMP" and use that as a deflection to ignore the larger issues despite repeated commentary and other linked articles.

If the article title had been Company With Ties To Biden Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program - how do you think this thread would be going?

The point is - the Dems (and Pelosi) were right. We needed strong independent oversight, stricter language defining a "small business" and greater accountability. The language is weak in that regard. The Republicans (and Trump) said "no". Trump specifically said he did not feel bound by it. So now we are repeating the mistakes of the first stimulus bill under Obama only it's a lot more money.

where was this oversight when obama was giving billions to the world to combat "global warming"?

What bill are you referring to?

If you want to make a MEANINGFUL comparison - compare it to the 2008 stimulus bill - which WAS problematic. Don't you think we should have LEARNED from that mistake and done a better job this time?

i'll be glad to take this deeper and address other points but so far you dance around this simple question.

in the immortal words of breakfast club "IF YOU'D JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE!!!"

it is my position you're hypocritical and this is my illustration of it. i'm open to why this is different but when you ignore it, it only makes me more curious.

I've been bombarded with posts and questions and I'm only one person arguing my side in this thread. So what specific question do you refer to?

you're pissed cause trump did it and this is todays reason to be pissed at trump. doesn't matter the left did the exact same shit, you'll say FOCUS ON TRUMP and i say FOCUS ON THE ISSUE.

I'm pissed because I supported what the Dems wanted in this bill - and not only is this not happening, Trump has stated that he doesn't feel bound by the restrictions in the bill. WTF? Now you are telling that this should not matter? Or Trump has nothing to do with it? Or we need to go back 8 years and try to find something comparable that Obama did and get righteously pissed about it? This is happening now and we could'v should'v learned from the 2008 stimulus mistakes.

But it seems like we are not allowed to make it about Trump...ever?

i don't give a shit about the people doing it. i care whether or not the actions themselves are right or wrong. you put right or wrong with how you like people and to me that is WRONG.

I totally disagree with you. I'm trying to discuss actions here and everyone, including you, is trying to make it all about Trump and claiming he only reason we bring it up is we hate Trump. What kind of playing field does that set for discussion? You are effectively saying if I mention Trump specifically, it's because I hate him, not the policy. When I pointed out the issue of migrant children - I was very specific on policy and you still (unless I missed the post which I will go back and look to see) can't quite condemn it because you think it's comparable to the Obama Administration's policies when it's not. Not at all. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for (like spying on the media) - but this isn't one of them. This is Trump's policy - created by and defended by his administration. But instead of just saying "hey - this is wrong" (assuming you feel that way) you keep saying "you're unfairly singling out Trump" ....and "but Obama".

as for stopping BUT OBAMA - again - i said trump was being abused by the left and the VERY FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS

BUT OBAMA

yet if i do it to reference an exact specific point, i'm wrong. why can you do it and i can't? and how do you not see this is what you're doing?

Ok. Fair enough. Let's see if we can both refrain from bringing in Obama.

ok - where you are wrong about me here -

i don't give a shit about trump in this reference. i am not arguing trump = good or trump = right.

i'm saying you're mad at this because you feel trump got away with no oversight. so to me OVERSIGHT ON OUR SPENDING is the issue.

i agree. we should have it. for what trump did here and for what obama tried to go with the climate bill.

so please stop thinking i am defending trump. he's the topic simply because you hate him and make anything he does = wrong.

Again - I think the climate bill is a poor example. Let's use an apples to apples comparison - the two stimulus bills.

If it were only about the issue then why do you bring up Obama? Because you hate him like you say I hate Trump? Otherwise I would think you would just discuss the issue without bringing in all the Obama stuff right? Maybe we are both on the wrong path here.

and i simply disagree any single person can get everything wrong. unless YOU HATE THEM and are not being fair with your situational analysis.

And I don't disagree - I haven't said Trump got EVERYTHING wrong. Example - I agree with his tough stance (but not the tariffs) on trade with China. Do you think Obama got anything right?

sorry for the split reply. conference call just started and i have to answer some project questions.

I totally understand - I'm splitting time with work also. It's so weird working from home

 

[Coyote]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Barack Obama transfers $500m to Green Climate Fund in attempt to protect Paris deal

New instalment leaves $2bn owing, with Donald Trump expected to cease any further payments

www.theguardian.com

$500 million - did we have oversight?

the entire plan called for $2.5 billion to be transferred to the fund. what were the countries to get it supposed to do? well use it to combat global warming.

there were no goals. there were no penalties. just handing over money.

i never saw you once cry out how we can give billions away and not keep track of what they do with it. yet when trump does it in a time of honest crisis - this happens. ALL OF THIS.

only way it makes sense is you hate trump and this is a good reason to bitch at him.

Your article states this:

The fund was a key aspect of the Paris agreement signed in 2015, which aims to keep global warming “well below” 2C and aspires to keep warming to 1.5C.

Established in 2010, it is financed by wealthy countries and used to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. It was widely seen as a key measure to bring both rich and poor countries to the negotiating table.

The US committed to transferring $3bn to the fund. The new instalment leaves $2bn owing, with the incoming president, Donald Trump, expected to cease any further payments.


Further research finds this info: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10382.pdf

1. The Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget requested $500 million for the fund. H.R. 2029, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015, as P.L. 114-113, had no provisions explicitly providing—or prohibiting—funding for the GCF.

This kind of sounds like the type of funding we give to the UN, WHO, and other multi-national agencies and is a component of the Paris Agreement.

Presumably, since appropriations comes from Congress, so to does oversight.

Now questions:
Did Congress complain about insufficient oversight?
Did Congress include any specific measures regarding oversight into the authorizations?
Did Obama specifically say he wasn't going to abide by Congress' requirements for oversight?

And finally - this question.
There were a lot of issues with the 2008 Stimulus Bill, including claims that many of the business' that received money shouldn't have. In other words - loose definitions, weak oversight. Do we agree on that?

So - why then, are people who THEN denounced the stimulus - NOW defending the same issues they were against in the first place?

i can't google it for now - but if you look at what the requirements were for they money - they were a joke.

money to india. how do they spend it? try to reduce shit. that was about it. no "lower by X levels" no penalties if they don't. hell they didn't even have to put their own $$$ into it in many instances.

i think the gov should hire an independent auditor to go over all our spending in the last decade. i think pet projects and partisan shit needs to go. i think a lot of programs need the boot and we need to redo them to be in line with todays needs. there's a lot of work we can do but we'll never get there because both sides only goal is to torpedo the other side.

both sides "fans" allow their side to do things they call out the other side for - and this is 100% wrong. if an action is wrong it's wrong regardless of who did it. if we need to have oversight on our spending, it all needs it. cherry picking is a huge factor in our divide.

both sides simply use us to keep each other busy so they can keep spending w/o oversight.

I have no problem with independent audits and oversight but frankly - isn't that partly the job of Congress as well? And yes - they've been largely out to pasture on this - all of them. This is exactly why I feel we need strong independent oversight with this spending. It's taking our debt to crazy new highs and there has to be accountability when there is so much taxpayer money paying to bail out private entities.

 

[iceberg]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

So, a guy worked for a company and resigned from it two years ago to go into the Trump admin.......................and two years later that company applies for a loan to pay it's employees during a pandemic, you claim that is "ties to Trump".


You are a pathetic troll.

no - like most people more than likely didn't go deep into the details. IF this is correct then it kinda proves my point. people see headlines and put in their own story. that's why headlines are so poorly written anymore.

Actually...part of he problem HERE is people not reading past the headline but not in the way you think.

My OP's original content portion is duly ignored because - like a matador with a red cape - people are only capable of focusing on "TRUMP" and use that as a deflection to ignore the larger issues despite repeated commentary and other linked articles.

If the article title had been Company With Ties To Biden Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program - how do you think this thread would be going?

The point is - the Dems (and Pelosi) were right. We needed strong independent oversight, stricter language defining a "small business" and greater accountability. The language is weak in that regard. The Republicans (and Trump) said "no". Trump specifically said he did not feel bound by it. So now we are repeating the mistakes of the first stimulus bill under Obama only it's a lot more money.

where was this oversight when obama was giving billions to the world to combat "global warming"?

What bill are you referring to?

If you want to make a MEANINGFUL comparison - compare it to the 2008 stimulus bill - which WAS problematic. Don't you think we should have LEARNED from that mistake and done a better job this time?

i'll be glad to take this deeper and address other points but so far you dance around this simple question.

in the immortal words of breakfast club "IF YOU'D JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE!!!"

it is my position you're hypocritical and this is my illustration of it. i'm open to why this is different but when you ignore it, it only makes me more curious.

I've been bombarded with posts and questions and I'm only one person arguing my side in this thread. So what specific question do you refer to?

you're pissed cause trump did it and this is todays reason to be pissed at trump. doesn't matter the left did the exact same shit, you'll say FOCUS ON TRUMP and i say FOCUS ON THE ISSUE.

I'm pissed because I supported what the Dems wanted in this bill - and not only is this not happening, Trump has stated that he doesn't feel bound by the restrictions in the bill. WTF? Now you are telling that this should not matter? Or Trump has nothing to do with it? Or we need to go back 8 years and try to find something comparable that Obama did and get righteously pissed about it? This is happening now and we could'v should'v learned from the 2008 stimulus mistakes.

But it seems like we are not allowed to make it about Trump...ever?

i don't give a shit about the people doing it. i care whether or not the actions themselves are right or wrong. you put right or wrong with how you like people and to me that is WRONG.

I totally disagree with you. I'm trying to discuss actions here and everyone, including you, is trying to make it all about Trump and claiming he only reason we bring it up is we hate Trump. What kind of playing field does that set for discussion? You are effectively saying if I mention Trump specifically, it's because I hate him, not the policy. When I pointed out the issue of migrant children - I was very specific on policy and you still (unless I missed the post which I will go back and look to see) can't quite condemn it because you think it's comparable to the Obama Administration's policies when it's not. Not at all. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for (like spying on the media) - but this isn't one of them. This is Trump's policy - created by and defended by his administration. But instead of just saying "hey - this is wrong" (assuming you feel that way) you keep saying "you're unfairly singling out Trump" ....and "but Obama".

as for stopping BUT OBAMA - again - i said trump was being abused by the left and the VERY FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS

BUT OBAMA

yet if i do it to reference an exact specific point, i'm wrong. why can you do it and i can't? and how do you not see this is what you're doing?

Ok. Fair enough. Let's see if we can both refrain from bringing in Obama.

ok - where you are wrong about me here -

i don't give a shit about trump in this reference. i am not arguing trump = good or trump = right.

i'm saying you're mad at this because you feel trump got away with no oversight. so to me OVERSIGHT ON OUR SPENDING is the issue.

i agree. we should have it. for what trump did here and for what obama tried to go with the climate bill.

so please stop thinking i am defending trump. he's the topic simply because you hate him and make anything he does = wrong.

Again - I think the climate bill is a poor example. Let's use an apples to apples comparison - the two stimulus bills.

If it were only about the issue then why do you bring up Obama? Because you hate him like you say I hate Trump? Otherwise I would think you would just discuss the issue without bringing in all the Obama stuff right? Maybe we are both on the wrong path here.

and i simply disagree any single person can get everything wrong. unless YOU HATE THEM and are not being fair with your situational analysis.

And I don't disagree - I haven't said Trump got EVERYTHING wrong. Example - I agree with his tough stance (but not the tariffs) on trade with China. Do you think Obama got anything right?

sorry for the split reply. conference call just started and i have to answer some project questions.

I totally understand - I'm splitting time with work also. It's so weird working from home

heh - all good. i do appreciate us getting to this because it's been my focus the entire time.

money out is money out. that's how i'm looking at it.
> stimulus to americans
> money to other countries for whatever

i'm less inclined to see how we spend it on AMERICANS cause its our money to begin with but i do want to see us be careful with it. trump is horrible at spending money. i HATE that aspect of his tenure so far. he may shout out LOOK I SAVED A BILLION HERE but then get quite when he spends $2 billion over there.

bullshit.

so yes, i want better accountability of our money period. moreso when we're giving it to other countries regardless of the reason.

obama getting things right. he got a lot right. i do agree how we view sectors of our minorities needed attention. however, i don't agree with how he went about it. but i'm not sure there is a good way to do some of these things anyway.

when he speaks and is "on" he's very charismatic. that's a huge plus for someone in his role.

i appreciated the focus they put on school kid health. i don't agree with forced behaviour on that either. i agree we need better lunches. i disagree we should control what they bring on their own.

so my common theme in this is i agree with a lot of what he was trying to do, or at least see the value in it for todays generation and why THEY value it. but i don't believe you can force people to do things in the manner THEY like to do them. ie - it comes across to me the left saying "i do it this way you should too!"

that doesn't work. ever.

if you'd like to start another thread on his policies we can review them in more detail. i'm down for that.

 

[iceberg]

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Barack Obama transfers $500m to Green Climate Fund in attempt to protect Paris deal

New instalment leaves $2bn owing, with Donald Trump expected to cease any further payments

www.theguardian.com

$500 million - did we have oversight?

the entire plan called for $2.5 billion to be transferred to the fund. what were the countries to get it supposed to do? well use it to combat global warming.

there were no goals. there were no penalties. just handing over money.

i never saw you once cry out how we can give billions away and not keep track of what they do with it. yet when trump does it in a time of honest crisis - this happens. ALL OF THIS.

only way it makes sense is you hate trump and this is a good reason to bitch at him.

Your article states this:

The fund was a key aspect of the Paris agreement signed in 2015, which aims to keep global warming “well below” 2C and aspires to keep warming to 1.5C.

Established in 2010, it is financed by wealthy countries and used to assist developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. It was widely seen as a key measure to bring both rich and poor countries to the negotiating table.

The US committed to transferring $3bn to the fund. The new instalment leaves $2bn owing, with the incoming president, Donald Trump, expected to cease any further payments.


Further research finds this info: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10382.pdf

1. The Obama Administration’s FY2016 budget requested $500 million for the fund. H.R. 2029, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016, enacted December 18, 2015, as P.L. 114-113, had no provisions explicitly providing—or prohibiting—funding for the GCF.

This kind of sounds like the type of funding we give to the UN, WHO, and other multi-national agencies and is a component of the Paris Agreement.

Presumably, since appropriations comes from Congress, so to does oversight.

Now questions:
Did Congress complain about insufficient oversight?
Did Congress include any specific measures regarding oversight into the authorizations?
Did Obama specifically say he wasn't going to abide by Congress' requirements for oversight?

And finally - this question.
There were a lot of issues with the 2008 Stimulus Bill, including claims that many of the business' that received money shouldn't have. In other words - loose definitions, weak oversight. Do we agree on that?

So - why then, are people who THEN denounced the stimulus - NOW defending the same issues they were against in the first place?

i can't google it for now - but if you look at what the requirements were for they money - they were a joke.

money to india. how do they spend it? try to reduce shit. that was about it. no "lower by X levels" no penalties if they don't. hell they didn't even have to put their own $$$ into it in many instances.

i think the gov should hire an independent auditor to go over all our spending in the last decade. i think pet projects and partisan shit needs to go. i think a lot of programs need the boot and we need to redo them to be in line with todays needs. there's a lot of work we can do but we'll never get there because both sides only goal is to torpedo the other side.

both sides "fans" allow their side to do things they call out the other side for - and this is 100% wrong. if an action is wrong it's wrong regardless of who did it. if we need to have oversight on our spending, it all needs it. cherry picking is a huge factor in our divide.

both sides simply use us to keep each other busy so they can keep spending w/o oversight.

I have no problem with independent audits and oversight but frankly - isn't that partly the job of Congress as well? And yes - they've been largely out to pasture on this - all of them. This is exactly why I feel we need strong independent oversight with this spending. It's taking our debt to crazy new highs and there has to be accountability when there is so much taxpayer money paying to bail out private entities.

on that we agree. but like i have said - this isn't trump. he's doing what people did before him. our culture needs a shift. we need to stop saying only the other side is doing it wrong and realize we're a lot like that other side.

so i agree we need to be accountable for what we spend and how we pass out money like halloween candy. but our gov's actions of "safety" created a bill our kids kids will be paying. the gov, it seems, created a problem to become a solution to make us more indebted to them.

accountability is a culture / gov issue. not a trump issue. so when i see you and others go GRRRR TRUMP! i get bulldogged simply because it's not a single person issue. its' all of us. and until we pull our heads out of our own biased asses, it won't get any better and we won't force a change our gov needs to have the oversight i think both sides agree needs to be there in some fashion.

 

[Nostra]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

So, a guy worked for a company and resigned from it two years ago to go into the Trump admin.......................and two years later that company applies for a loan to pay it's employees during a pandemic, you claim that is "ties to Trump".


You are a pathetic troll.

no - like most people more than likely didn't go deep into the details. IF this is correct then it kinda proves my point. people see headlines and put in their own story. that's why headlines are so poorly written anymore.

Actually...part of he problem HERE is people not reading past the headline but not in the way you think.

My OP's original content portion is duly ignored because - like a matador with a red cape - people are only capable of focusing on "TRUMP" and use that as a deflection to ignore the larger issues despite repeated commentary and other linked articles.

If the article title had been Company With Ties To Biden Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program - how do you think this thread would be going?

The point is - the Dems (and Pelosi) were right. We needed strong independent oversight, stricter language defining a "small business" and greater accountability. The language is weak in that regard. The Republicans (and Trump) said "no". Trump specifically said he did not feel bound by it. So now we are repeating the mistakes of the first stimulus bill under Obama only it's a lot more money.

where was this oversight when obama was giving billions to the world to combat "global warming"?

What bill are you referring to?

If you want to make a MEANINGFUL comparison - compare it to the 2008 stimulus bill - which WAS problematic. Don't you think we should have LEARNED from that mistake and done a better job this time?

i'll be glad to take this deeper and address other points but so far you dance around this simple question.

in the immortal words of breakfast club "IF YOU'D JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, CLAIRE!!!"

it is my position you're hypocritical and this is my illustration of it. i'm open to why this is different but when you ignore it, it only makes me more curious.

I've been bombarded with posts and questions and I'm only one person arguing my side in this thread. So what specific question do you refer to?

you're pissed cause trump did it and this is todays reason to be pissed at trump. doesn't matter the left did the exact same shit, you'll say FOCUS ON TRUMP and i say FOCUS ON THE ISSUE.

I'm pissed because I supported what the Dems wanted in this bill - and not only is this not happening, Trump has stated that he doesn't feel bound by the restrictions in the bill. WTF? Now you are telling that this should not matter? Or Trump has nothing to do with it? Or we need to go back 8 years and try to find something comparable that Obama did and get righteously pissed about it? This is happening now and we could'v should'v learned from the 2008 stimulus mistakes.

But it seems like we are not allowed to make it about Trump...ever?

i don't give a shit about the people doing it. i care whether or not the actions themselves are right or wrong. you put right or wrong with how you like people and to me that is WRONG.

I totally disagree with you. I'm trying to discuss actions here and everyone, including you, is trying to make it all about Trump and claiming he only reason we bring it up is we hate Trump. What kind of playing field does that set for discussion? You are effectively saying if I mention Trump specifically, it's because I hate him, not the policy. When I pointed out the issue of migrant children - I was very specific on policy and you still (unless I missed the post which I will go back and look to see) can't quite condemn it because you think it's comparable to the Obama Administration's policies when it's not. Not at all. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for (like spying on the media) - but this isn't one of them. This is Trump's policy - created by and defended by his administration. But instead of just saying "hey - this is wrong" (assuming you feel that way) you keep saying "you're unfairly singling out Trump" ....and "but Obama".

as for stopping BUT OBAMA - again - i said trump was being abused by the left and the VERY FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS

BUT OBAMA

yet if i do it to reference an exact specific point, i'm wrong. why can you do it and i can't? and how do you not see this is what you're doing?

Ok. Fair enough. Let's see if we can both refrain from bringing in Obama.

ok - where you are wrong about me here -

i don't give a shit about trump in this reference. i am not arguing trump = good or trump = right.

i'm saying you're mad at this because you feel trump got away with no oversight. so to me OVERSIGHT ON OUR SPENDING is the issue.

i agree. we should have it. for what trump did here and for what obama tried to go with the climate bill.

so please stop thinking i am defending trump. he's the topic simply because you hate him and make anything he does = wrong.

Again - I think the climate bill is a poor example. Let's use an apples to apples comparison - the two stimulus bills.

If it were only about the issue then why do you bring up Obama? Because you hate him like you say I hate Trump? Otherwise I would think you would just discuss the issue without bringing in all the Obama stuff right? Maybe we are both on the wrong path here.

and i simply disagree any single person can get everything wrong. unless YOU HATE THEM and are not being fair with your situational analysis.

And I don't disagree - I haven't said Trump got EVERYTHING wrong. Example - I agree with his tough stance (but not the tariffs) on trade with China. Do you think Obama got anything right?

sorry for the split reply. conference call just started and i have to answer some project questions.

I totally understand - I'm splitting time with work also. It's so weird working from home

Obama gave a few hundred million of his Porkulus bill to Solyndra, despite being warned they were not going to survive.

By a happy coincidence, big wigs at Solyndra donated heavily to Barry and the Dimsocialist Party.

 

[DamnDude]

Again - I think the climate bill is a poor example. Let's use an apples to apples comparison - the two stimulus bills.

Gonna jump in here for a few and point out that spending OUR money is spending our money. Regardless of overseas or here at home. I will say this; when rushing through big spending packages like any stimulus or an aid bill, there will always be unintended consequences. To iceberg and his point, giving away money without direction, aim, focus nor plan is not a way to do things. That being stated, I am aware of how useless plans are when it comes to real world situations, however, planning is absolutely essential in setting up guidelines, steps to follow, what is allowed and not allowed etc etc etc. Accountability is key. Planning allows for that, plans not so much. Mitigate the unintended circumstances and a whole lot of people would be a whole lot happier.
To your point, the stimulus packages of Presidents Bush (the younger) and Obama were great learning opportunities that were sadly not used as well as they could have been. Any entity out there that applied for and was approved for funding even though they were still in the black is a slippery slope and could have and should have been addressed in planning the rollout of this package. It would not have gotten out as quickly, but it could have prevented a whole lot of the heartache each side has with the rollout.
I think the majority of us, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum are tired of knee jerk, wasteful spending of our money... where it's going, how it's being spent, who is actually in the hot seat as to responsibility for the simplistic stupidity that runs throughout our political representatives

 

[iceberg]

Again - I think the climate bill is a poor example. Let's use an apples to apples comparison - the two stimulus bills.

Gonna jump in here for a few and point out that spending OUR money is spending our money. Regardless of overseas or here at home. I will say this; when rushing through big spending packages like any stimulus or an aid bill, there will always be unintended consequences. To iceberg and his point, giving away money without direction, aim, focus nor plan is not a way to do things. That being stated, I am aware of how useless plans are when it comes to real world situations, however, planning is absolutely essential in setting up guidelines, steps to follow, what is allowed and not allowed etc etc etc. Accountability is key. Planning allows for that, plans not so much. Mitigate the unintended circumstances and a whole lot of people would be a whole lot happier.
To your point, the stimulus packages of Presidents Bush (the younger) and Obama were great learning opportunities that were sadly not used as well as they could have been. Any entity out there that applied for and was approved for funding even though they were still in the black is a slippery slope and could have and should have been addressed in planning the rollout of this package. It would not have gotten out as quickly, but it could have prevented a whole lot of the heartache each side has with the rollout.
I think the majority of us, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum are tired of knee jerk, wasteful spending of our money... where it's going, how it's being spent, who is actually in the hot seat as to responsibility for the simplistic stupidity that runs throughout our political representatives

and that is in fact my point - billions and trillions of dollars needs accountability. period. saying one is a poor example to me is missing the point that i don't care what we spend it on at a top level. keep track of it. period.

money for global warming - here's the $, here's what we expect, here's penalties for non performance. none of this was there for the climate bill. i simply don't understand how its ok to NOT have oversight when xyz happen but for 123 it's a MUST. unless it's emotionally driven. ergo, my initial point and reason to "but obama". not to say what obama did was wrong but more to show a pattern of accepted behavior. if you accepted it here, why not there? if it's because you don't like a person then to me it's totally the wrong reason.

money for bailouts - we had to do this quick. it was going to be ugly. there was no good way no matter how "prepared" someone is to give trillions to people to not work for a month or so. going by standard process for our gov the people who need help the most "small businesses" are DOA due to our inaction cause we hate the other side.

the barber shop shutting down, the thai place i'm betting i'll never get to enjoy again - they can't afford to wait for our government total and complete dysfunction. trying to apply common oversight in this instance to me is like trying to line people up in a fair manner to get out of a burning building.

let's put the fire out and then figure out how to never get this bad again WITHOUT assigning blame.

won't ever happen cause people love to blame.

 

[OKTexas]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

Why aren't you complaining about Ruth's Cris?

They have over 6,000 employees, had over $400 million in sales last year, and they secured over $20,000,000 in small business relief.

Kinda' dwarfs the example you're whining about, doesn't it?

As for what smaller businesses haven't received any relief, I read an article this morning which talked about a guy named Damon West who'd been convicted of murder, sentenced to prison in 2009, got paroled in 2015 and turned his life around and became a motivational and key note speaker. He applied for the loan because he could no longer travel.

His criminal record precluded him from getting the loan.

A question on the application form asked whether, within the last 5 years, he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or "been placed on any form of parole or probation." Another asked whether anyone who owns at least 20% of the company was incarcerated, under indictment, on probation or parole. If so, they are ineligible.

Criminal records shut small biz owners out of aid program

There could be any number of reasons someone is denied a loan. This is just one example...

He would be eligible to collect unemployment.

.

Perhaps.

But we're not discussing unemployment...

The dude isn't a business, he's a contract worker.

.

Are you suggesting that people who are self-employed contract workers are not eligible?

Because I know a lot of self-employed photographers who would disagree with you...

One person shops aren't eligible, but they are eligible for unemployment which wasn't the case in the past.

.

and that sucks. i know of (3) small town barber shops in a friends hometown that went under because they couldn't work for so long. been there for a decade or more - poof.

If it were me, I'd offer to do house calls for my customers. A barber can carry all his tools in a brief case.

.

i know some who have. my nephew cuts hair for a living and he's just making do and working where he can til he can go back to his customers.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Just got to think outside the box.

.

 

[OKTexas]

This is why we need independent oversight for these vast sums of money going out...100 million in sales and still a "small business"....?

Company With Ties To Trump Receives Millions From Small Business Loan Program

Many businesses have struggled to get any money from the Paycheck Protection Program. But a company owned by a prominent Chicago family received a $5.5 million loan.

www.npr.org

While many small businesses have found it difficult or impossible to get one of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program loans, a company owned by a prominent Chicago family with close ties to the Trump administration was able to get a $5.5 million loan under the program, according to documents the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Ronald Gidwitz, who was appointed in 2018, was then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign finance chair for Illinois in the 2016 presidential campaign. According to filings with the SEC, Gidwitz's family owns the majority of Continental Materials Corp., which secured the 1% interest loan.

Continental Materials makes heating and cooling equipment and construction products. While it had more than $100 million in sales last year, it qualified for the loan because it meets the Small Business Administration's industry-specific "small business" size standards, according to company chief financial officer Paul Ainsworth.

Still, the company's loan is much larger than the typical PPP loan, according to a summary releasedby the Small Business Administration last week. The average loan was just over $200,000, and fewer than 1% of the loans under the program were greater than $5 million.

While the company may qualify as a small business under the PPP program, there are many much smaller businesses that have been unsuccessful in obtaining or even applying for the loans from their banks.

Why aren't you complaining about Ruth's Cris?

They have over 6,000 employees, had over $400 million in sales last year, and they secured over $20,000,000 in small business relief.

Kinda' dwarfs the example you're whining about, doesn't it?

As for what smaller businesses haven't received any relief, I read an article this morning which talked about a guy named Damon West who'd been convicted of murder, sentenced to prison in 2009, got paroled in 2015 and turned his life around and became a motivational and key note speaker. He applied for the loan because he could no longer travel.

His criminal record precluded him from getting the loan.

A question on the application form asked whether, within the last 5 years, he had been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony or "been placed on any form of parole or probation." Another asked whether anyone who owns at least 20% of the company was incarcerated, under indictment, on probation or parole. If so, they are ineligible.

Criminal records shut small biz owners out of aid program

There could be any number of reasons someone is denied a loan. This is just one example...

He would be eligible to collect unemployment.

.

Perhaps.

But we're not discussing unemployment...

The dude isn't a business, he's a contract worker.

.

Are you suggesting that people who are self-employed contract workers are not eligible?

Because I know a lot of self-employed photographers who would disagree with you...

One person shops aren't eligible, but they are eligible for unemployment which wasn't the case in the past.

.

Well, in the case of the ex-felon who turned his life around, it's wouldn't be unheard of for him to have others who work with/for him; booking agents, etc, who fall into the equation...

They would be qualified for unemployment also, they would most likely be contract workers as well.

.

Well, in this case, it was noted by his accountant that he was disqualified because he had a felony record, not because he was a self-employed contract worker...

OK.

.

 

[iceberg]

another way i look at this -

if we have time to debate how we spend the money and play partisan politics, then it's not a crisis worth shutting down the country for.

 

[DamnDude]

another way i look at this -

if we have time to debate how we spend the money and play partisan politics, then it's not a crisis worth shutting down the country for.

I'd throw in there also if they have time to add in extra pork and unneeded spending then the powers that be have either been holding onto a pet project or have a whole list of other items they want to get through that would not necessarily stand on their own.

 

[iceberg]

another way i look at this -

if we have time to debate how we spend the money and play partisan politics, then it's not a crisis worth shutting down the country for.

I'd throw in there also if they have time to add in extra pork and unneeded spending then the powers that be have either been holding onto a pet project or have a whole list of other items they want to get through that would not necessarily stand on their own.

100.

if you have time to use this situation to a one sided benefit or hold your vote out so others have to do what you want - you're the problem. get the fuck out of dodge cause you are NOT there "for the people".

 

[sartre play]

Political party's, are so detached from anything" For the people" there a self supporting group that bend with the wind.

 

[Nostra]

Coyote what are these ties to Trump?