Coronavirus

[Fiery Winds]

I sympathize with those who feel like this is being used as an excuse to encroach on civil liberties. There's a distinct distaste to the (real and perceived) draconian measures needed to contain a threat that is not easily quantified nor conveyed in 30-second soundbites. Especially as our understanding about the virus itself changes on a daily basis.

I myself am really struggling with how to proceed when it comes to whether I should return to work. I'm fortunate in that I don't have to return to work unless I feel safe doing so. Many other folks don't have that luxury and part of me feels like the risk to myself personally (and tangentially) is minimal compared to the value my participation in the labour market. I'm cautious by nature, so I've tentatively decided to take the pay-cut to stay home, but I recognize that everyone has a different calculus to their decision-making and that their individual routines and precautions may be such that they feel the government is forcing a "one-size-fits-all" solution that may or may not be applicable to the individual in question. I don't know, I'm just a random dude on the internet. 

But as far as work goes, I'm a construction electrician.  The job I'm being called back to is dirty (with no running water) and behind schedule. The foreman is kindof a jerk and cares far more about getting the job done than the safety of the crew.

I just got a call this evening (Local 332) from my contractor, and it was made clear that the national M.O.U. is still in effect that allows for you to be furloughed without repercussion. PDF Here. Stay safe brother. 

[Northern Lion]

I get your frustrations NL.

Here's a question. If you got tested, and you find out you had it already before this lockdown, and visited Grandma, how would you react?

That's a good question.  I would be scared out of my wits, but there's also nothing I could do about it.  If I had known, I wouldn't have gone to visit in the first place.

What if, Grandma is fine?

Then hallelujah!  Praise the Lord!  And I can rest easy at home while I get better.

Wouldn't that mean you possibly infected grandma, yet she's ok.

Freedom is one of the governing principles of my life, but with that freedom comes responsibility.  I just want to make that choice myself instead of government making it for me.

See that's what it comes down to for me. We are all responsible people, its now that we have to be more responsible than usual.

I think I might be misreading your question Ben.

[MirrorMask]

To offer another perspective, in the italian constitution there is an article that states that the freedom of movement can be limited for health reasons.

The official constitution article reads: "Ogni cittadino può circolare e soggiornare liberamente in qualsiasi parte del territorio nazionale, salvo le limitazioni che la legge stabilisce in via generale per motivi di sanità o di sicurezza", which means "Every citizen can freely roam and reside in every part of the national territory, except for the limitations that the law estabilishes for sanitary or safety reasons".

A global pandemic is a fine line to balance - let everyone out and people die in millions, keep everyone out and the economic dies. It's hard to find a middle ground that satisfies the most. But nobody in our lifetime ever faced anything like that, and I don't think that once all of this will be over these "freedoms" suspended will be kept suspended forever.

[TAC]

Kattelox, TAC and Kev thanks for sparring a little, and I don't mind that neither of you agree with me, it's totally fine.  I just needed to vent a little and get it off my chest. 

Hey Lion, I dropped off the convo last night because I went to bed. East Coast!!

It's not that I don't agree with you. I mean, I don't, but I'm not sparring for sparring's sake. I'm truly trying to understand the position. I was asking dumb questions because I'm trying to find the line where you feel our government is being a little tyrannical.

I mean, and I'm not arguing, but I'm asking....how does a state of emergency suspend the constitution? What part of the constitution is being suspended?



If it makes you feel better I am with you on the freedom to not return my shopping cart to the corral.





EDIT: Also Lion, if the convo goes further into today, if I come off as short, it's because I'm posting on my phone as I'll be at work.
I'm of the general feeling that we should reopen responsibly, as I've been going to work every day through this and I'm honestly not worried.
I think I'm more concerned about the economy and the joblessness than I am with a "loss of rights" though.

[The Walrus]

Put your damn cart back, Tim!! 

[lordxizor]

I'm bugged by the arbitrariness of of what's allowed to be open and what's not. I can buy clothes from Target, but not from the local clothing shop. I can buy a book from Walmart, but can't check one out from the library. I can go golfing, but my kid can't run around in a park field. I can rent a cabin on a lake, but I can't pitch my tent in a campground. I can buy a six pack of beer from the liquor store, but not directly from the brewery.

Big box stores are allowed to stay open, while small businesses aren't. Tax revenue generating activities are allowed to be open, but cheap or free activities are closed. The companies with the resources to raise a stink are open. The little guy who offers the same types of products on a small scale who doesn't have millions of dollars to throw around is ignored. What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

My personal opinion is that all businesses should be allowed to be open if they choose to be while having to make adjustments for limiting the people in the store, extra sanitation, and other protections.

[TAC]

I agree lordixor about the mom and pop shops.

[The Walrus]

Re: small business, it's funny how it's the opposite in the auto repair industry. Most of the big dealer bodyshops are suffering big time (not many people working at all in them, I hear it from our parts vendors all the time this past month and a half), but the small businesses like ours are thriving and it's actually kind of a blessing. I'm thinking big retail outlets are staying open simply because they bring in enough revenue (and offer enough necessary products) to justify staying open albeit with restrictions. At golf courses there are plenty of restrictions in place (at least here) like 1 person to a golf cart if they even allow golf carts, you can't touch the flagpoles, etc. Kids playing outside are very likely to come in contact with one another, most little kids touch each other at some point when they play. Not saying they aren't valid complaints, but I see logic in some of them, too. (Although I saw plenty of kids playing outside this weekend on my walk...)

[lordxizor]

Re: small business, it's funny how it's the opposite in the auto repair industry. Most of the big dealer bodyshops are suffering big time (not many people working at all in them, I hear it from our parts vendors all the time this past month and a half), but the small businesses like ours are thriving and it's actually kind of a blessing. I'm thinking big retail outlets are staying open simply because they bring in enough revenue (and offer enough necessary products) to justify staying open albeit with restrictions. At golf courses there are plenty of restrictions in place (at least here) like 1 person to a golf cart if they even allow golf carts, you can't touch the flagpoles, etc. Kids playing outside are very likely to come in contact with one another, most little kids touch each other at some point when they play. Not saying they aren't valid complaints, but I see logic in some of them, too. (Although I saw plenty of kids playing outside this weekend on my walk...)

I sort of see the logic in some of them too. But it's a bit suspicious that the things that are allowed are tax generating activities primarily done by the relatively wealthy. Just another way that this is disproportionately impacting low income people, who are already much more likely to be out of work.

[The Walrus]

Re: small business, it's funny how it's the opposite in the auto repair industry. Most of the big dealer bodyshops are suffering big time (not many people working at all in them, I hear it from our parts vendors all the time this past month and a half), but the small businesses like ours are thriving and it's actually kind of a blessing. I'm thinking big retail outlets are staying open simply because they bring in enough revenue (and offer enough necessary products) to justify staying open albeit with restrictions. At golf courses there are plenty of restrictions in place (at least here) like 1 person to a golf cart if they even allow golf carts, you can't touch the flagpoles, etc. Kids playing outside are very likely to come in contact with one another, most little kids touch each other at some point when they play. Not saying they aren't valid complaints, but I see logic in some of them, too. (Although I saw plenty of kids playing outside this weekend on my walk...)

I sort of see the logic in some of them too. But it's a bit suspicious that the things that are allowed are tax generating activities primarily done by the relatively wealthy. Just another way that this is disproportionately impacting low income people, who are already much more likely to be out of work.

I'm not at all saying it's right that it's happening, but, I'm reminded of a Guns N' Roses lyric... "Remember in this game we call life, that no one said it's fair." No business - NONE - is granted immunity from economic catastrophe (inb4 bank comments, I know, I know). Unfortunately, the ones at the bottom of the totem pole are always going to be the hardest hit.

[Harmony]

I'm bugged by the arbitrariness of of what's allowed to be open and what's not. I can buy clothes from Target, but not from the local clothing shop. I can buy a book from Walmart, but can't check one out from the library. I can go golfing, but my kid can't run around in a park field. I can rent a cabin on a lake, but I can't pitch my tent in a campground. I can buy a six pack of beer from the liquor store, but not directly from the brewery.

Big box stores are allowed to stay open, while small businesses aren't. Tax revenue generating activities are allowed to be open, but cheap or free activities are closed. The companies with the resources to raise a stink are open. The little guy who offers the same types of products on a small scale who doesn't have millions of dollars to throw around is ignored. What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

My personal opinion is that all businesses should be allowed to be open if they choose to be while having to make adjustments for limiting the people in the store, extra sanitation, and other protections.

I am also very much bothered by the inconsistencies of what is being allowed.  And this post fascinates me because some of what you post (and I am in no way doubting you) is the opposite for us.  A friend works at Target in women's clothing.  They had to close that section down because the dressing rooms are closed and women would just drop trou and try stuff on in the middle of the department!  So only what Target deems as "essential" now.  Which also is arbitrary.

Our libraries offer literally thousands of books online for pick up.  They have many children's and YA items available as a reader online.  Movies online.  Late fees are being waved.  It seems almost every week they have some new idea for families with online book discussions and even music lessons!

Golfing is allowed with some restrictions.  I see kids running around in parks all day long.  I do know that our local parks maintenance folks are still working.  State parks and camping areas are closed I assume because park staff is furloughed so there is no maintenance of restrooms, parking lots and I would assume should someone get lost on a trail, not many folks available to do search and rescue (not totally sure on that one).

I do feel for the small business owners.  I just found out that the local gourmet restaurant my sister got engaged in is closing for good after 23 years because of the closure and inability to secure the small business loan.  I have several close friends who are hurting who run small businesses.  I think the way those funds were passed out is egregious.  And I think nobody in our federal government truly cares about the small businesses at the local levels.  I mean, they don't donate all that much to re-election campaigns, right?

[lordxizor]

That's funny about Target. I know here you can't try anything on and there are no returns at this point. But you can buy clothes there still.

Our library does have ebooks we've been able to get throughout all this and did just last week start allowing you to request books for curbside pick-up, but it's pretty limited. At least they're trying.

Parks and playgrounds are officially off-limits, but it doesn't look like it's really enforced at all. I've seen a handful of kids playing on playing on playgrounds (mine included a couple times to be honest) and running around in the fields, which are clearly still being maintained.

State parks are open for hiking, but buildings and camping are closed. But there are clearly still people working to maintain and manage crowds. The state parks nearest to Minneapolis have been very busy, much to the concern of the freak-out people despite it being very easy to keep your distance in parks that comprise thousands of acres of land.

I suspect we're already past the point of 10% of local restaurants going out of business. They're going to start dropping like flies here soon. I suspect some major chains will go out of business as well soon. It's really sad.

[lonestar]

A sacramento landmark restaurant Biba is shuttering its doors Saturday after 30 years, and I'd take it this is just the beginning. My low end for restaurants closing is 30% at least.



Target is doing returns now, I returned a TV I had bought last week.

[Stadler]

Unfortunately it's not just about public health. Economic catastrophe for untold millions globally is an equal factor. While I believe strongly in our ability to bounce back, I think it might take years. As mentioned before, that's why this thing has been so difficult to navagate.

I think you're absolutely right.  I'm more concerned about the alternative though...where the virus (which by the way, doesn't care about whether we're getting tired of social distancing measures, economic conditions, or how long it's inconveniencing entire societies) kills millions - perhaps 10s of millions - more, and there is still economic collapse that would take years to recover from.

I think some of this (and I'll say this isn't directed to anyone here... just the general unrest seen in society - which isn't limited to the US... we're seeing it up here as well), goes to the human culture of 'entitlement'.  'I don't like this, I don't want this, it needs to change.'  That kinda attitude.  'We're owed better' kinda thing.  Like I said, Mother Nature doesn't give a fuck about humanity.  Also, you think the generations a hundred years ago deserved or enjoyed WWI or the Spanish flu?  You think the 30s and 40s deserved or enjoyed the Depression and WWII?  We don't deserve or enjoy this, but it doesn't mean there's an ability to will ourselves out of it.

Mother Nature is like The Rock right now - "I doesn't matter what you think".

So who is that directed towards?  I mean that nicely, but as I'm reading it, it strikes me that it applies both ways. 

Pro-restrictions:  "Stop your bitching; you're at least alive, you'll live without your precious economy and your PlayStation 5."
Pro-opening:  "Stop your bitching; we're all gonna die, we're all at the mercy of the Great Hand*, so we might as well let as many people as can manage prosper."

It seems like the "entitlement" works both ways, too:
Pro-restrictions: "You're endangering me; I'm entitled to live as risk free as I see fit."
Pro-opening:  "You're compromizing my economic future; I'm entitled to pursue my economic well-being."

I don't know; I just don't see a value judgement there.  I get that some people prioritize one of those higher than the other, and I certainly have my preferences, but there's no objectively "better" choice, in my opinion. 


* Sorry; I read back and this is confusing; I mean a metaphor for "God/nature/fate", not a reference to Adam Smith.

[Stadler]

Kattelox, TAC and Kev thanks for sparring a little, and I don't mind that neither of you agree with me, it's totally fine.  I just needed to vent a little and get it off my chest. 

If it matters to you, I hear where you're coming from and lean in that direction as well.   No one mentioned what I'll loosely call the 'social contract', the tacit agreement we all have where we agree to SOME restrictions on our unabated personal liberties, in exchange for the benefits of a coordinated society with common goals and common objectives.   The problem is of course, two fold:

- when individuals within both society and government operate out side of that agreement;
- when we as a whole cannot agree on what those common goals and common objectives are (or should be).

I would offer that we're in a situation where both are happening to various degrees, depending on where you live and how you see the world. 

[Stadler]

"A person is smart.  People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

Unfortunately....this is why governance in general is necessary and vital.   

Uh, our government is of the people (DUMB), by the people (PANICKY) and for the people (DANGEROUS).   Governance in general is necessary and vital, but it has to take into account that it is as fallible as the people that give it it's power, of which it is comprised, and over whom it governs. 

I recognize governments role, but I am personally rather apprehensive at the weight that (some people) place on it.  For me, it should always be viewed as a necessary evil, and treated accordingly.

[Stadler]

Re: small business, it's funny how it's the opposite in the auto repair industry. Most of the big dealer bodyshops are suffering big time (not many people working at all in them, I hear it from our parts vendors all the time this past month and a half), but the small businesses like ours are thriving and it's actually kind of a blessing. I'm thinking big retail outlets are staying open simply because they bring in enough revenue (and offer enough necessary products) to justify staying open albeit with restrictions. At golf courses there are plenty of restrictions in place (at least here) like 1 person to a golf cart if they even allow golf carts, you can't touch the flagpoles, etc. Kids playing outside are very likely to come in contact with one another, most little kids touch each other at some point when they play. Not saying they aren't valid complaints, but I see logic in some of them, too. (Although I saw plenty of kids playing outside this weekend on my walk...)

I sort of see the logic in some of them too. But it's a bit suspicious that the things that are allowed are tax generating activities primarily done by the relatively wealthy. Just another way that this is disproportionately impacting low income people, who are already much more likely to be out of work.

Can you explain that further?  I see that from a TOTALLY different perspective (surprise, surprise). If it's kept open and it's a TAX GENERATING ACTIVITY, isn't it just as likely a method to keep bringing in SOME revenue to the coffers that are being bled dry by safety net payments?   Isn't this, rather than just "another way that this is disproportionately impacting low income people", it's another way the wealthy are being asked to pick up a little more share in times of need?   It's not like the big-box stores are making their bank on this.   It's probably far more in Target's interest to close than to be open given the delta in their sales numbers.   

[Stadler]

I'm bugged by the arbitrariness of of what's allowed to be open and what's not. I can buy clothes from Target, but not from the local clothing shop. I can buy a book from Walmart, but can't check one out from the library. I can go golfing, but my kid can't run around in a park field. I can rent a cabin on a lake, but I can't pitch my tent in a campground. I can buy a six pack of beer from the liquor store, but not directly from the brewery.

Big box stores are allowed to stay open, while small businesses aren't. Tax revenue generating activities are allowed to be open, but cheap or free activities are closed. The companies with the resources to raise a stink are open. The little guy who offers the same types of products on a small scale who doesn't have millions of dollars to throw around is ignored. What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

My personal opinion is that all businesses should be allowed to be open if they choose to be while having to make adjustments for limiting the people in the store, extra sanitation, and other protections.

I am also very much bothered by the inconsistencies of what is being allowed.  And this post fascinates me because some of what you post (and I am in no way doubting you) is the opposite for us.  A friend works at Target in women's clothing.  They had to close that section down because the dressing rooms are closed and women would just drop trou and try stuff on in the middle of the department!  So only what Target deems as "essential" now.  Which also is arbitrary.

Our libraries offer literally thousands of books online for pick up.  They have many children's and YA items available as a reader online.  Movies online.  Late fees are being waved.  It seems almost every week they have some new idea for families with online book discussions and even music lessons!

Golfing is allowed with some restrictions.  I see kids running around in parks all day long.  I do know that our local parks maintenance folks are still working.  State parks and camping areas are closed I assume because park staff is furloughed so there is no maintenance of restrooms, parking lots and I would assume should someone get lost on a trail, not many folks available to do search and rescue (not totally sure on that one).

I do feel for the small business owners.  I just found out that the local gourmet restaurant my sister got engaged in is closing for good after 23 years because of the closure and inability to secure the small business loan.  I have several close friends who are hurting who run small businesses.  I think the way those funds were passed out is egregious.  And I think nobody in our federal government truly cares about the small businesses at the local levels.  I mean, they don't donate all that much to re-election campaigns, right?

Are we all in agreement that it's entirely the Federal government's responsibility?  Isn't it far more efficient to have governors, or in larger states, local leadership, engaged in that activity?  Can't they better judge where those dollars get the most bang for the buck? 

And - not knowing anything about that particular restaurant or why they were not able to get a loan that WAS offered - should EVERY business be guaranteed a survival?  I'm not implying anything with the questions, I'm throwing them out there for consideration. 

[lordxizor]

Can you explain that further?  I see that from a TOTALLY different perspective (surprise, surprise). If it's kept open and it's a TAX GENERATING ACTIVITY, isn't it just as likely a method to keep bringing in SOME revenue to the coffers that are being bled dry by safety net payments?   Isn't this, rather than just "another way that this is disproportionately impacting low income people", it's another way the wealthy are being asked to pick up a little more share in times of need?   It's not like the big-box stores are making their bank on this.   It's probably far more in Target's interest to close than to be open given the delta in their sales numbers.   

You know, that is a good point. We do need to keep some tax revenue coming in. So I can see it from that direction. But it's not like the rich are being forced to go golfing or take their boat up to the lake rental cabin. They're being allowed to recreate in expensive ways that they've always been able to, while the poor are being kept away from the free/cheap recreation they've always enjoyed. So I can see it both ways.

should EVERY business be guaranteed a survival?

Definitely not. Just like Covid is unfortunately largely culling the weak and old from our society, it is also going to indirectly cull the weak companies. Many that will go under were not long for this world anyway,  burdened by high debt and dwindling revenue. Its not inherently bad that all these companies are going under. I certainly feel for the owners and employees though. I do think we could emerge from this a few years down the road with stronger companies thriving and a new batch of innovative companies rising up.

[Harmony]

Are we all in agreement that it's entirely the Federal government's responsibility?  Isn't it far more efficient to have governors, or in larger states, local leadership, engaged in that activity?  Can't they better judge where those dollars get the most bang for the buck? 

And - not knowing anything about that particular restaurant or why they were not able to get a loan that WAS offered - should EVERY business be guaranteed a survival?  I'm not implying anything with the questions, I'm throwing them out there for consideration.

Whether we are "all in agreement" or not, the roll out was a shit show.  I stand by what I said and offer this for your reading pleasure.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/01/sba-ppp-public-companies/

[Cool Chris]

What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

And skewed toward government workers/departments.

[hunnus2000]

What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

And skewed toward government workers/departments.

Speaking of "essential" businesses. Can someone tell me how churches are considered "essential" thereby making them eligible for loans from the SBA?

[lordxizor]

What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

And skewed toward government workers/departments.

Speaking of "essential" businesses. Can someone tell me how churches are considered "essential" thereby making them eligible for loans from the SBA?

I thought those loans were for companies who aren't considered essential and thus need to shut down?

[Luoto]

Finland will be reopening all schools on 14 May, further corona management will be according to our epidemic law in this sector instead of the emergency law. However, gymnasiums, vocational schools and universities are still encouraged to arrange studying from home wherever possible. Theaters, libraries and museums are allowed to reopen on 1 June, and public gatherings limit will be increased to 50 persons at the same date. This will tie into an overall change of strategy in handling the epidemic as we will be able to trace contagion chains more effectively.

[Stadler]

Are we all in agreement that it's entirely the Federal government's responsibility?  Isn't it far more efficient to have governors, or in larger states, local leadership, engaged in that activity?  Can't they better judge where those dollars get the most bang for the buck? 

And - not knowing anything about that particular restaurant or why they were not able to get a loan that WAS offered - should EVERY business be guaranteed a survival?  I'm not implying anything with the questions, I'm throwing them out there for consideration.

Whether we are "all in agreement" or not, the roll out was a shit show.  I stand by what I said and offer this for your reading pleasure.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/01/sba-ppp-public-companies/

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that.  Just being honest with my observation, it seems like the kind of article meant to push buttons.

Some of it is disturbing, some of it is propaganda.  For example, (disturbing), if businesses misrepresented themselves on the applications, that is troublesome.    For example, (propaganda), small business or no, what does it matter what someone made in 2018?  The article doesn't break down what is a cash payment versus an equity arrangement (think in terms of stock options/grants), which matters, and in any event, that was for services rendered in 2018.

If companies lied, or misappropriated funds, then the state Attorneys General ought to bring charges.   Certainly, there were some that ran on "getting Trump", which mine, William Tong, certainly did, and so they can make hay if they want to.   If the audits aren't done, as Mnuchin claims, then Congress or the Judiciary should hold him accountable.  Adam Schiff, Dick Blumenthal, et al. can make hay of that as well, if they want to.   At least some public good could come of it.   None of this is meant to be snarky; it's meant literally; if there's a wrong to be righted, and a by-product of that is making the Administration look bad, so be it.  The point is that there are people incentivized to hold this Administration accountable and this is a great way to show their good intentions.

[bosk1]

@Katt and Lion:  On the issue of whether or not the U.S. government is abridging "fundamental rights" under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally "yes."  That isn't really up for debate.  But on the issue of whether the Constitution itself recognizes limitations on those rights, and the government's ability (and obligation) to abridge those rights in limited circumstances, the answer is also unequivocally "yes."  It really just boils down to whether or not the state or federal governments have gone too far and exceeded their constitutional authority, or whether we feel that the government's infringements on our rights is "worth it" in this instance. 

Your mileage may (and will) vary on how you feel about answering those questions.  There's a lot that is difficult to answer.  A lot of it depends on whether this IS a legitimate public health emergency, and if so, the degree of that emergency.  I think it unequivocally is.  But whether the degree has been overestimated or underestimated, I personally don't feel qualified to comment on.  There just isn't enough info, or enough agreement on what the info means.  I subjectively feel that maybe there was an overreaction.  But I won't take a firm position one way or the other, and cannot and won't fault anyone for feeling differently.

[Ben_Jamin]

@Katt and Lion:  On the issue of whether or not the U.S. government is abridging "fundamental rights" under the U.S. Constitution, the answer is unequivocally "yes."  That isn't really up for debate.  But on the issue of whether the Constitution itself recognizes limitations on those rights, and the government's ability (and obligation) to abridge those rights in limited circumstances, the answer is also unequivocally "yes."  It really just boils down to whether or not the state or federal governments have gone too far and exceeded their constitutional authority, or whether we feel that the government's infringements on our rights is "worth it" in this instance. 

Your mileage may (and will) vary on how you feel about answering those questions.  There's a lot that is difficult to answer.  A lot of it depends on whether this IS a legitimate public health emergency, and if so, the degree of that emergency.  I think it unequivocally is.  But whether the degree has been overestimated or underestimated, I personally don't feel qualified to comment on.  There just isn't enough info, or enough agreement on what the info means.  I subjectively feel that maybe there was an overreaction.  But I won't take a firm position one way or the other, and cannot and won't fault anyone for feeling differently.

Well put about the info. I'm just doing what I need to do to keep my sanity, haha.

[Harmony]

Are we all in agreement that it's entirely the Federal government's responsibility?  Isn't it far more efficient to have governors, or in larger states, local leadership, engaged in that activity?  Can't they better judge where those dollars get the most bang for the buck? 

And - not knowing anything about that particular restaurant or why they were not able to get a loan that WAS offered - should EVERY business be guaranteed a survival?  I'm not implying anything with the questions, I'm throwing them out there for consideration.

Whether we are "all in agreement" or not, the roll out was a shit show.  I stand by what I said and offer this for your reading pleasure.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/01/sba-ppp-public-companies/

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that.  Just being honest with my observation, it seems like the kind of article meant to push buttons.

Some of it is disturbing, some of it is propaganda.  For example, (disturbing), if businesses misrepresented themselves on the applications, that is troublesome.    For example, (propaganda), small business or no, what does it matter what someone made in 2018?  The article doesn't break down what is a cash payment versus an equity arrangement (think in terms of stock options/grants), which matters, and in any event, that was for services rendered in 2018.

If companies lied, or misappropriated funds, then the state Attorneys General ought to bring charges.   Certainly, there were some that ran on "getting Trump", which mine, William Tong, certainly did, and so they can make hay if they want to.   If the audits aren't done, as Mnuchin claims, then Congress or the Judiciary should hold him accountable.  Adam Schiff, Dick Blumenthal, et al. can make hay of that as well, if they want to.   At least some public good could come of it.   None of this is meant to be snarky; it's meant literally; if there's a wrong to be righted, and a by-product of that is making the Administration look bad, so be it.  The point is that there are people incentivized to hold this Administration accountable and this is a great way to show their good intentions.

All of this means nothing for small businesses who were unable to access the funds and who now are closing shop because of that.  Bringing charges takes time.  Audits take time.  Being held accountable will take time.  Time is exactly what small businesses do not have.

[The Walrus]

@bosk - fair points! But, not trying to be anal or anything, but I think there's a difference between "abridging fundamental rights" in the time of crisis and "tyranny" and the removal of rights which is what was being debated. EDIT: Unless, of course, we're talking about legally... in which case I guess abridge=removal, but I dunno, it just seems different. I'm not a lawyer...

[MirrorMask]

I think we all have rights, yes, but we don't have rights all the time. Sometimes we have also duties, we live in a society, our actions impact the others.

Then of course it's a fine balance to thread, it's hard to find the perfect middle point between the two extremes of keeping everyone locked (maximum defense against the contagion, but the economy dies) and letting everyone out (economy thrives, but people drop dead like flies) and that pleases the highest possible number of people.

[Stadler]

I think Bosk has it right, and I think Katt makes a good distinction about time, but at the end of the day, wherever the balance is, it has to be democratically - small "d" - arrived at.  It does no good for anyone to fight dirty (which is what I think ad hominem arguments usually are).  I think the important point is to respect - in the sense of tolerate, not admire - the other side of the fulcrum.  Just like being for the First Amendment doesn't make you a racist - even if racists might ultimately benefit from your argument - so some of the vitriol being levied in this debate.   

[hunnus2000]

What's considered "essential" is skewed heavily toward the large national or at least regional corporations and away from the local guy.

And skewed toward government workers/departments.

Speaking of "essential" businesses. Can someone tell me how churches are considered "essential" thereby making them eligible for loans from the SBA?

I thought those loans were for companies who aren't considered essential and thus need to shut down?

I thought so too but then again when they first announced the loan program I not only didn't believe them, I refused to believe them. Hell, the LA Lakers received a 4 million dollar loan which they eventually returned. 

[Northern Lion]

Well, I missed a lot.  I'll just say Fiery Winds, Lordxizor, and Stadler, thanks  .

Bosk, I agree with your first statement but disagree with the second.  I don't believe government has authority, constitutional or otherwise, to curtail rights; ever.  But I also realize that is a pipe dream in this day and age.

Concerning businesses, I'll restate what I originally said.  Businesses should manage their own affairs, let them stay open and figure out their own way of protecting their employees and customers.  Grocery stores have done it, hardware stores have done it, all businesses can do it.

TAC, I'm sorry, I didn't realize what you were getting at.  So I apologize for some of my tone.  To answer your question, if a national emergency is pronounced, it should give our government flexibility with it's funds to take certain actions like making tests or masks for example in our current circumstances.  I don't have a problem with that at all.  I also don't have a problem with them giving us the most updated info and safety precautions possible as quickly as possible.  But our rights are are rights, not our rights except when...  I think it is completely unnecessary for our local governments to create lockdowns and to arrest people for just living their lives.  That, in my view is completely unconstitutional and flat out wrong.  Anyway, that's where I stand.  I'm very hard lined when it comes to personal and economic liberty.

MirrorMask, I'm not sure what you mean by not having rights all the time.  If you mean that I don't have the liberty to set my neighbors lawn on fire just because I want to, then yes I agree.  But that's only because I have now tried to use my freedom to infringe on his right to property.

Like I said earlier, we should have laws that are designed to protect rights and liberty but never to take them away.  And that's what I see this coronavirus has caused.  We ended up with a bunch of mini dictators all around the country.

And just to restate, I'm not an anarchist.  I do believe government has a role to play, just a very very small one .

[Cool Chris]

My boss just called to say he was able to get an SBA loan. He said there were some challenges but he didn't go in to it, and it was hard to tell over the phone how struggling those challenges were.

[jammindude]

Lion,

Using your own analogy, if you are carrying a potentially deadly virus that you are not showing symptoms of, aren’t you endangering others by insisting on your freedoms? See your neighbors front lawn illustration...