This could have been fixed by putting in a clause that no loans could be made to small businesses that were tenants in those buildings, even though they otherwise qualified.
Is that the “fair” fix you would seek?
Nor is there any benefit unless you can show that the businesses that got the loans would otherwise have gone bankrupt and not be able to pay their rent. At most, this is a very indirect benefit.
And you would not only have to show that these businesses would otherwise have gone bankrupt, but that the spaces they held would not have been rented by anyone else.
no, i wouldn’t.
he rents space, i’ll assume the space would have been rented whether or not the tenants borrowed the money. unless you can prove it would not have been, his excess profit was $0
even then that it would not have been rented to someone else. big fat red herring
They are in such a hurry to get in one last gig against Trump they are not even trying to think this thing through. Just aping what their favorite hate Trump media is feeding.
The tenant’s rent would have been the same whether they got the loan or not. The only possible benefit to the renter would be if the small business would otherwise have gone bankrupt and no one would have rented the space in their stead. The rent remained the same with or without the loan.
If the tenant would otherwise have gone bankrupt if they had not gotten the loan but the loan kept them from going bankrupt, then they were clearly exactly the type of business this program was made for.
So why the secrecy and cover up?
what secrecy? all data on loans over 150k were released in july i believe (may have been later). you assume they didn’t release them on loans under 150k because of these 6 tenants? thats a stretch
Why did they need multiple FOIA requests over months to finally release the data?
Conspiracy theories with out evidence.
Oh the irony.
1 Like
absolutely, they obviously withheld the data on tens of thousands of borrowers because 6 of them rented in trump properties
run with that.
Nope- that’s not what I said.
yeah, it actually is.
1 Like
No. what I would prefer is that the president and his hih ranking associates put their holdings into a bllind trust.
This is what past presidents have done, and this is exactly why.
No matter how you slice it, 200K only saving 6 jobs means there is a lot of money left for rent and utilities.
Mind you, I’ve made it clear in this thread, I don’t have a big problem with this. I just point out that this is exactly why people in the past put their holdings out of their day to day control, so as to avoid these appearances of possible impropriety.
that may make you feel better, but why should it matter how you feel?
there is a right to property in the us. being elected does not divest you of the right.
Lots of tenents sought rent relief or reduction during covid.
But yeah, I’m not really sweating this, as I think my posts make clear.
200k between 4 tenants.
there isn’t a “big slice” of anything except tds driven assumptions.
Commercial real estate is dead right now.
Help me out, if it is in a blind trust does he not have access to it ever again? That would be one hell of a price to pay. Seems to me if he can access it after he is out what good would it do?
No, you get it back when you leave office. And of course you et all the profits from your assets even while it’s in trust.
It prevents these appearances of impropriety. So, for example, while you are in office, you pass a PPP plan…you don’t have to think “is it right for me to beenfit from this?”
You just let your trust manager decide weather it’s a good program for the business or not. The decision is business, not politcal.
