Was it an all or nothing situation? No, not at all. So either you're being intentionally misleading, or lack critical thinking. The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise.
Is it due to a bias in trying to justify the inflationary result?
And you seem to lack understanding of the consequence of high inflation, which inevitably will be higher unemployment, hurting those you sought to help. Study any history of the relationship between monetary policy, inflation, and unemployment and it's pretty obvious.
Inflation is not a bad thing; in fact, low-to-moderate inflation is desired. High inflation is not because it generally means that base or fixed cost growth (i.e., food and oil) is outpacing productive growth (pretty much everything else).
The option in front of politicians wasn't do these bills in this exact form or nothing at all. Why act like it was? It's a false premise.
No it wasn't, but it was the best package they could put together, and it took months to get that far due to ideologues blocking better/more efficient options.
It's for armchair economists like you to debate the theoretical perfect relief package that they should have passed, in the non-existent fantasy la la land where that would have been possible. Of course, in that fantasy land, COVID wouldn't have happened, and our economy would not have become dependent on JIT inventory.
But I will say on one point (Companies that were financially irresponsible or poorly run should naturally fail when economic times get rough.) These companies ere struggling because the government shut everything nonessential down. The point of the PPP was to make up for that fact that the government, during a global pandemic that killed millions wouldn't let people go to work.
Next time you want to discuss the merits of the PPP, step outside of your tech bubble and think about what COVID was like for all of the non-tech companies whose functions can't be done from home.