First of all you're just misquoting the article, it says 74% of the loans went to small businesses and here's the quote: "The vast majority of these loans — 74

First of all you're just misquoting the article, it says 74% of the loans went to small businesses and here's the quote: "The vast majority of these loans — 74 percent of them — were for under $150,000" But whatever the figure the analogy is still nonsensical. The program was designed for the companies it was designed for. The plain language letter of the law explains who was supposed to get it. The better analogy for what you're saying was "Imagine if the government send 26 cents of every $1 to people that were plainly eligible for Medicare, but who I don't think should have been" which is another thing entirely. There's no allegations of fraud here. And as someone with direct first hand experience of being involved with tiny businesses for whom this program was an utter lifesaver, I start out naturally skeptical of this narrative. The problem with the program has been that it wasn't funded enough. And that it was a mess at first and banks were bad a communication about it. But frankly I think we should be expanding and extending the program, not pretending it's something that it plainly is not.