[Heyitsrick]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Is anyone else alarmed that the disclosure of the recipients of more than $500 billion in bailout money delivered to businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is such a big secret?. Questions directed to the Treasury Department were answered by saying that information was “proprietary” and “confidential”.

Why? That amount of our taxpayer funds is not insignificant. Heck, the entire budget of the Defense Department is $617 billion! Would we accept that what was being spent by the DOD is a big secret?

I don’t think so. Why?

The "why" has already been reported:

"On Thursday, a Treasury spokesman said Mnuchin’s position reflected concern that publishing “loan-level” data with borrowers’ identities would risk disclosing proprietary information about millions of small businesses, and the salaries of sole proprietors and independent contractors. That’s because PPP loan amounts are calculated using the applicants’ payrolls."

Now, will the court(s) agree with this privacy assertion, or will they allow the release of the recipients information? Well, that's what courts are for.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

1: Harvard did not receive business stimulus funding. It received funding that was set aside specifically for universities and other higher education entities. It received less than some other schools in the greater Boston area, and dedicated 100% of it to relieving financial aid obligations for students who needed it. Only 50% was required to be dedicated to that.
2. It irritates me that some of the money is going to criminal LEGAL citizens. Scofflaws, scoundrels, rogues, thieves, burglars, wife-abusers, sexual molesters - they're ALL getting this money. That bothers me a lot more than the occasional slip-up in accounting that gives an undocumented kid money, because there are a lot more of Americans who commit criminal acts in our country, than there are undocumented immigrants who commit criminal acts in our country.

The American citizen who molests his daughter, to me, is more of a concern than a Christian man from Venezuela who gets his son smuggled into the USA to save his life from gang wars. Your mileage may vary, but I'd MUCH prefer to have to learn spanish to understand my new next door neighbor, than have to listen to the screams of a 10-year-old being molested by her daddy.

One criminal is not better than another. No criminal should be getting those funds. Breaking our laws must have consequences.

[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by blklabfan

Please correct me if I misunderstood, but didn't the House demand, and receive, fiscal oversight of the funds?
If so, I would expect a full accounting sometime in the future.

Yes , Glenn Fine was appointed, bipartisan watchdog, to oversee stimulus money. And then was fired by Trump.

[La lamy]

I think it's all about keeping the stock market from bottoming out from all the real expenditures. Same with preventing COVID tests to pretend there's less cases.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by Paper1

Actually no, this money is coming from our grandchildren's futures not current taxpayers. That is why there is little concern.

Partially true. The Fed funds the national debt by selling treasury bonds but the bond’s repayment is not deferred until our posterity rises up to repay them. Repayment starts immediately and will continue until the bonds are paid in full. Many pension funds, investment funds, unions, governments, banks and big businesses as well as individuals, foreigners and their governments buy US treasury bonds because they are literally as good as it gets for reliability since they are backed by the full faith & credit of our government. Treasury bond payments are ultimately funded by all taxpayers.

If you are really concerned about US debt, our “entitlement programs“ (social security and welfare) are the biggest federal budget line item every year and they are ballooning ever year. Let’s hope our posterity doesn’t push for huge budget cuts anytime soon.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Woolyg

Just an FYI... Darden's owns the following restaurants... from their website

"Darden's brands include LongHorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Eddie V's Prime Seafood, The Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52".

Yep all the biggies.....poor Bob’s still denied .

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by bobnyce

There is no taxpayer money! Most of the budget is run on borrowed money. Taxpayers hardly pay the operating cost of government today. We are operating on the backs of our grandchildren who will never pay off the debt we have left them. If you think the admitted debt is all there is, try asking about all of the unfunded pension promises at the local, school, county, state and federal level that no one ever talks about. We are broke!!!! So how do we fix it - borrow more money from China and ourselves. How about that. We have no money, but we believe we do, so we print more based on the Government's promise that someday we will be able to pay it to ourselves! If you really do believe then I have a bridge for sale. What we have done to our successors, children and grandchildren is inexplicable and disgusting but then again - we got ours let them get theirs!

Reliably predicting the future isn’t humanly possible.

Remember when we would forever be energy dependent? No hope of any meaningful energy autonomy. Remember standing in line to buy high-priced, scarce gas?

Remember when global cooling and holes in the ozone were going to kill every living thing on planet earth?

Remember when statistical modeling would reliably predict contagious spread and how many would die?

The future is (thankfully) not within our knowledge bank. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be good stewards. Those who have been given much will have more to answer for.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by blklabfan

Please correct me if I misunderstood, but didn't the House demand, and receive, fiscal oversight of the funds?
If so, I would expect a full accounting sometime in the future.

Yea sure, would not be the first time administration refused to provide information.

[ALadysMom]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

One man's worry about looting is another man's socially important and citizen's responsibility to change society when necessary for the betterment of all.

One man’s looting...is a criminal act in defiance of laws imposed by all civil societies for the safety, security and betterment of all. It’s not open to spin nor interpretation.

What would you say to the person who property was obliterated and whose sense of security has been denied? Many of those who suffered losses or were injured or killed were supporters of the protest—but not the riots.

[Heyitsrick]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

1: Harvard did not receive business stimulus funding. It received funding that was set aside specifically for universities and other higher education entities. It received less than some other schools in the greater Boston area, and dedicated 100% of it to relieving financial aid obligations for students who needed it. Only 50% was required to be dedicated to that.

Context necessary: the funding was specifically from the "Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act", aka "CARES" act. Insofar as Harvard receiving less than "some other schools in the greater Boston area", that's true. Out of 11 area colleges and universities, Harvard received less than 3 other schools. In other words, it received the fourth highest amount of funding of the 11 area schools.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

2. It irritates me that some of the money is going to criminal LEGAL citizens. Scofflaws, scoundrels, rogues, thieves, burglars, wife-abusers, sexual molesters - they're ALL getting this money. That bothers me a lot more than the occasional slip-up in accounting that gives an undocumented kid money, because there are a lot more of Americans who commit criminal acts in our country, than there are undocumented immigrants who commit criminal acts in our country.

Who, specifically, are you referring to? I'm not interested in statistics or generalities/suppositions about the American population. If you're making a claim that this money is going to actual known criminals and the government intentionally isn't pursuing them, then please advise everyone.

[ALadysMom]

There are probably many reasons for current lack of transparency. Some of the funds will become loans if the borrower does not meet the criteria for forgiveness such as not maintaining an adequate number of employees. Those loans will not ultimately be funded by taxpayers but the time as not yet lapsed to know which ones will not be forgiven. How would that be reported right now? One recipient might have received a very small amount but their business needed less. Should they be publicly reported? A big business, like Darden, has exponentially more losses than one local mom-and-pop. Should all of the applications also be reported even if they did not receive all of the funds they applied for? Has the oversight personnel been given enough time to gather the data and report it?

[Heyitsrick]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

One man's worry about looting is another man's socially important and citizen's responsibility to change society when necessary for the betterment of all.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to hazard an educated guess that if looting was happening to any property of yours, you'd be in the "one man's worry" category, lol. Yeah, everything is fine in the abstract...until it actually happens to you. Funny how that changes things.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by kanoa1kale2

Had to respond - COBOL is ancient - If kept updated, it will continue to do the job it was programmed for. One got writers cramps coding it. They also still use Big OS in DC. Most who knew anything about that are dead and gone. Strange that they have so much trouble replacing these older systems.

Retired COBOL programers can make big buck nowadays!

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Heyitsrick

The "why" has already been reported:

"On Thursday, a Treasury spokesman said Mnuchin’s position reflected concern that publishing “loan-level” data with borrowers’ identities would risk disclosing proprietary information about millions of small businesses, and the salaries of sole proprietors and independent contractors. That’s because PPP loan amounts are calculated using the applicants’ payrolls."

Now, will the court(s) agree with this privacy assertion, or will they allow the release of the recipients information? Well, that's what courts are for.

There is no "need to know". Under that argument We would all have a "right" to know exactly how each of us spent our stimulus checks.

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Is anyone else alarmed that the disclosure of the recipients of more than $500 billion in bailout money delivered to businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is such a big secret?. Questions directed to the Treasury Department were answered by saying that information was “proprietary” and “confidential”.

Why? That amount of our taxpayer funds is not insignificant. Heck, the entire budget of the Defense Department is $617 billion! Would we accept that what was being spent by the DOD is a big secret?

I don’t think so. Why?

My girlfriend has been a close friend of Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin for many years and says he’s pretty much the only trustworthy guy in the Cabinet. Maybe that helps a bit.

I know one of my sons is a cook in an Italian restaurant that is part of a casino. He got a paycheck for three months while unable to work. My other son is a composer of church music who also sells bicycles at REI. Same thing for him. I’m so grateful that their employers and the government kept them going during this terrible time. The first son is now furloughed for a couple months while his restaurant expands, but they’ve promised to rehire him. Meanwhile he’s getting the extra unemployment money, so he is okay. So just because we don’t know the details doesn’t mean people aren’t benefiting. This makes a HUGE difference for my sons.