The Rolo, jab, stop the spread, minimize the health impact, etc., discussions are never going to get anywhere on this board. Not much point in discussing that topic. At this point virtually everyone on the board has made up their mind and new information, as well as denial of old information, will have no impact.
However, PPP was mentioned and I can actually comment on that with both first hand and reliable second hand information.
We participated fully in both rounds of PPP. We kept people working, some of whom would not otherwise have worked during the specified time period, and we followed all the rules. The debt was fully forgiven, as the program promised. The fact that we got more money than we needed to accomplish that purpose was something that many, many businesses in every state experienced...it was inherent in the legislation. I'd go so far as to say that if your work was in construction and/or many service industries you would be rare if that were not the case (I can't comment on other industries because it is outside my personal knowledge). Both of our business banks (we switched at some point during the PPP years because our business bank got bought by a larger bank, who was less competent) told us openly that their estimate was that 80-90% of the owners of their client businesses took the excess PPP money and gave it to themselves. I'm sure that money went to a variety of the business owner's purposes, from a new car to children's education to home remodeling, to anything else you can suggest. I know one guy who used some of his PPP money to pay for his wife's plastic surgery. These conversations with our two banks took place because we used the excess money to instead add equity to the company (we were somewhat undercapitalized, like most private businesses) and the bank reps were grateful that we'd done something that would make their credit officers happy.
The whole first round of PPP legislation was rushed due to the sense of urgency at the time. By the time the second round came around, some of the waste & abuse had been trimmed, and the program size had been limited, but it still had a great deal of pork. Both parties predominantly supported it, each for their own reasons. Was it needed? Just my humble opinion, but I think a case could be made for the first round, particularly if it had been a little better written. It's goal was to keep the economy rolling through about a 3 month period, until things could stabilize, without resulting in a mass economic shutdown. To some extent you could say that it succeeded. I really don't see a case for the second round in any but the most devastated economic sectors (restaurants are an example). But that is just my opinion, and I'm sure some will disagree. PPP and other excess stimulus was a contributor (not the entire enchilada, but a contributor) to all the money floating around the economy right now, fueling business consolidations (I get about one random email per day from someone wanting to buy our company) and mergers of all kinds, few of which offer any real economic benefit to anyone other than the dealmaker.
OK, now you guys can argue about fraud, government waste, taxes, pointless Wall St & merger activity, and other things. I'm bored with talking about the jab.
