All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Richard]

I mean you can disagree, but the logic is sound, and fair. It's not about liking, it's about what you contribute. The 1.4 billion that went to the catholic church could have saved how many of the over 100, 000 tax paying businesses that failed in the last year?

I would have had no problem with the program making reasonable restrictions. However, I do not feel that it is either fair or logical. I do not know the circumstances regarding the catholic church or any other particular business and I don't pretend to know their need to retain employees during the pandemic. I don't believe, however, that we should make blanket statements about a program based on perceived assumptions regarding a large employer.

 

[Richard]

I agree with this on it's face. I don't think the Catholic church or other religious organizations that are tax exempt should receive anything. Tax exempt business in general shouldn't either with some exceptions. To me it is the definition of double-dipping....It is hard for me to reconcile these entities receiving tax payer money when they pay zero taxes and to ignore the thousands of tax paying (mostly small) businesses that have failed.....

Just another reason for me to dislike the notion of what organized religion has turned into .....

Those small businesses that failed were afforded the same opportunity to retain their employees by applying for the PPP funds. Certainly, their failure to take advantage of the program was unlikely to be the only reason that the businesses closed and I am sure that some that attempted to stay afloat and used the funds still went under.

Let me give a couple of examples that don't involve religious entities. I was a founder of a domestic abuse shelter that serves 11 counties in our state as a safe place for abused women and their children. The tax exempt organization employs a number of people full time to manage our shelters throughout the region and provide support for those who need the assistance. The primary source of income for the organization is donations (though some local governments have provided some financial support) and a lot of those donations dry up in rough financial times, like the pandemic. The organization should have the same right to try to keep as many of their people employed as possible regardless of their tax status. Again, their tax exempt status removes only specific taxes, not all taxes, so they do pay taxes. And they still collect federal and state income taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes from their employees.

Your dislike of religious entities and large corporations is clouding your viewpoint IMO. The beneficiaries of the PPP program are individual workers who get to keep their jobs a while longer and the companies that want to keep those employees.

 

[DaveXA]

Those small businesses that failed were afforded the same opportunity to retain their employees by applying for the PPP funds. Certainly, their failure to take advantage of the program was unlikely to be the only reason that the businesses closed and I am sure that some that attempted to stay afloat and used the funds still went under.

Let me give a couple of examples that don't involve religious entities. I was a founder of a domestic abuse shelter that serves 11 counties in our state as a safe place for abused women and their children. The tax exempt organization employs a number of people full time to manage our shelters throughout the region and provide support for those who need the assistance. The primary source of income for the organization is donations (though some local governments have provided some financial support) and a lot of those donations dry up in rough financial times, like the pandemic. The organization should have the same right to try to keep as many of their people employed as possible regardless of their tax status. Again, their tax exempt status removes only specific taxes, not all taxes, so they do pay taxes. And they still collect federal and state income taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes from their employees.

Your dislike of religious entities and large corporations is clouding your viewpoint IMO. The beneficiaries of the PPP program are individual workers who get to keep their jobs a while longer and the companies that want to keep those employees.

Indeed, non-profit religious organizations are an entirely different debate than PPP. And a lot of non-profits are not only not religious, they're small businesses. Throwing out all non-profits from PPP is again short-sighted and would put possibly hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more people out of work. The non-profits play an important role in the economy and their employees do contribute to the tax base. They hire millions of people across numerous sectors of the economy.

I don't really get throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[J-DONK]

I would have had no problem with the program making reasonable restrictions. However, I do not feel that it is either fair or logical. I do not know the circumstances regarding the catholic church or any other particular business and I don't pretend to know their need to retain employees during the pandemic. I don't believe, however, that we should make blanket statements about a program based on perceived assumptions regarding a large employer.

If you work for a tax exempt entity, I understand why you think this, but that's also very clear personal biases. The way PPP was handled large companies, even those that are tax exempt were prioritized over small businesses asking for smaller loans. It's very hard for the federal government to suss out which company provides a public good. It's very easy to look at their tax exempt status, and understand they pay in less.

A very simple way to understand my point:

1. tax exempt company A pays in 100k a year, on 10 million in revenue.
2. 10 tax paying corporations that collective payed in 1 million out of 10 million in revenue.

Which set of companies should get funds? We know in the initial PPP offering that the larger tax exempt company got funds, and the other 10 might have gotten nothing until some time in May, or June.

 

[SFIDC3]

Those small businesses that failed were afforded the same opportunity to retain their employees by applying for the PPP funds. Certainly, their failure to take advantage of the program was unlikely to be the only reason that the businesses closed and I am sure that some that attempted to stay afloat and used the funds still went under.

I don't believe that to be absolute truth though, so further argument is probably not fruitful....that said the example(s) you provided very well would probably be an exception....

Your dislike of religious entities and large corporations is clouding your viewpoint IMO. The beneficiaries of the PPP program are individual workers who get to keep their jobs a while longer and the companies that want to keep those employees.

I dislike them for what I believe are very valid reasons. They are mostly corrupt, self-serving, littered with morally bankrupt leadership. And I understand the employee part of the equation and sympathize....but do you not agree that the double dipping (not paying federal taxes (and there are a ton of federal tax exempt entities out there) and then accepting tax payer funded PPP is not a legitimate issue/argument? If not then (again) no reason to discuss further....

 

[J-DONK]

Those small businesses that failed were afforded the same opportunity to retain their employees by applying for the PPP funds. Certainly, their failure to take advantage of the program was unlikely to be the only reason that the businesses closed and I am sure that some that attempted to stay afloat and used the funds still went under.

That's not true. Many small businesses were left out in the cold because of banks preference for larger loan payouts to larger organizations. They had to apply for the second round of funding a full month after the lockdowns started.

 

[DaveXA]

Also, an example of a non-profit, non-religious organization i worked for for 2 years. I was an accounting assistant for a law firm that provides pro-bono services for victims of wealth discrimination and typically dealt with people who were victims of debtors prisons, money bail, home banishment and similar situations where state and local governments essentially criminalize being poor. It's a small company with a team of 5-6 attorneys and 3-4 staff. They're not making a ton of money, but they do enough to get by with donations and cases that get settled.

They do important work that few other firms or attorneys will take on because there's not much money in defending people without means.

 

[Richard]

If you work for a tax exempt entity, I understand why you think this, but that's also very clear personal biases. The way PPP was handled large companies, even those that are tax exempt were prioritized over small businesses asking for smaller loans. It's very hard for the federal government to suss out which company provides a public good. It's very easy to look at their tax exempt status, and understand they pay in less.

A very simple way to understand my point:

1. tax exempt company A pays in 100k a year, on 10 million in revenue.
2. 10 tax paying corporations that collective payed in 1 million out of 10 million in revenue.

Which set of companies should get funds? We know in the initial PPP offering that the larger tax exempt company got funds, and the other 10 might have gotten nothing until some time in May, or June.

I do not work for a tax exempt entity. I work for a small business of 10 total employees, including the three owners, and my job would have been one of those lost had they not received PPP funds. They were able to keep all employees and when we were able to return to “normal” business activities, we thrived. Our company still lost hundreds of thousands in net profit due to the pandemic, but they still paid everyone’s 401k and health insurance and they paid salaries during the lockdown here for months before any PPP monies became available. Not all companies are so lucky (read: well-managed) to have survived six months of little or no income and we may not have without PPP, at least not all of us.

 

[DaveXA]

That's not true. Many small businesses were left out in the cold because of banks preference for larger loan payouts to larger organizations. They had to apply for the second round of funding a full month after the lockdowns started.

But thats a problem with how PPP was administered. That's not reason enough to get rid of it. I didn't like that organizations that didn't really need the PPP loans were applying for it. That deprived those businesses who truly needed it of that opportunity. As with a lot of government programs, the devil is in the details and fine print and accountability for organizations doing the right thing isn't as simple as x qualifies because of y.

 

[Richard]

That's not true. Many small businesses were left out in the cold because of banks preference for larger loan payouts to larger organizations. They had to apply for the second round of funding a full month after the lockdowns started.

That is a problem with the administration of the program and the blame for that lies with them, not the companies. While small companies struggled to jump through the necessary hoops required to acquire the loans, large companies had staff accountants or attorneys to complete the paperwork and bank relationships to see it through. IMO, the program should started with small businesses of 50 or fewer employees, then expanded incrementally. Again, poor planning in the wholesale opening to most employers and I don’t have much confidence in the oversight of compliance either.

 

[CoolBrees]

I was denied funds both times.

my company closed. I couldn’t pay my engineers and they were employable so I laid them off so they could search for other jobs while accessing unemployment. We were in the black and had money and a work backlog when this began. Both dried up and my backlog all canceled for force majeure. Their loans were not federally backed so my clauses were moot and my insurance wouldn’t pay out on them pending litigation. Which I was unable to afford. I was not eligible for Covid unemployment so we had to liquidate the company to make ends meet, so a restart is out of the question.

I retained the law office Intel uses advisory services for their public filings. I figured spending a boatload on legal aid was going to benefit my chances of relief. I was wrong. My filings were perfect, and on the day first allowed both times. Nothing.

my bother owns a dental hospital in Colorado Springs. 18 chairs and two ORs. He filed with his lawyer and on the same day I did. He happens to have a congressional representative as a client who made a call or two in his behalf. He received over $500k in aid. He didn’t even have to use it as he was able to stay open for most of the pandemic.

I am not arguing who should or shouldn’t have received the funds, and I know this is strictly anecdotal, but the whole “first in line” excuse was just that; an excuse. There was absolutely rhyme and reason to who got the money. It just wasn’t the kind of rationale that most people would want to hear.

 

[Richard]

I was denied funds both times.

my company closed. I couldn’t pay my engineers and they were employable so I laid them off so they could search for other jobs while accessing unemployment. We were in the black and had money and a work backlog when this began. Both dried up and my backlog all canceled for force majeure. Their loans were not federally backed so my clauses were moot and my insurance wouldn’t pay out on them pending litigation. Which I was unable to afford. I was not eligible for Covid unemployment so we had to liquidate the company to make ends meet, so a restart is out of the question.

I retained the law office Intel uses advisory services for their public filings. I figured spending a boatload on legal aid was going to benefit my chances of relief. I was wrong. My filings were perfect, and on the day first allowed both times. Nothing.

my bother owns a dental hospital in Colorado Springs. 18 chairs and two ORs. He filed with his lawyer and on the same day I did. He happens to have a congressional representative as a client who made a call or two in his behalf. He received over $500k in aid. He didn’t even have to use it as he was able to stay open for most of the pandemic.

I am not arguing who should or shouldn’t have received the funds, and I know this is strictly anecdotal, but the whole “first in line” excuse was just that; an excuse. There was absolutely rhyme and reason to who got the money. It just wasn’t the kind of rationale that most people would want to hear.

I hate what happened to your company. If the program had been administered properly, that shouldn't have happened, assuming that payroll expense was the primary factor in your closing. The program starting with companies with 50 employees or less would likely have allowed your paperwork to be processed prior to them running out of funds, since it was the large loans that ate up those dollars quickly.

An efficient program would have allowed small business, the ones that employ the majority of people in this country, to be at the front of the line.

 

[MT15]

I don’t know about any cases except my husband’s small business. We did wait until May, because we wanted to be sure we actually needed the money. We didn’t have to contact our representative or use an attorney. Our bank had set up a portal, which we used to apply online, it calculated the amount we could borrow once we put in our average monthly payroll for 2019, IIRC, then we uploaded some documents proving those figures and that was it. We had the money about a week later, if not sooner.

The bank has also set up a site for application for forgiveness. We recently uploaded our payroll document from Quickbooks, and our utility payments for two months and we heard back in about a week that the loan had been forgiven.

My husband’s business is tiny, a one-man operation, though. We only got enough money to pay his salary for eight weeks. So as far as we were concerned, it just worked really well. We probably had one of the smallest loans that were given out, though. I hate that others who deserved the money were denied, and some who didn’t qualify were awarded loans. I do think a lot of the ones who didn’t qualify have been identified and have repaid their loans, though.

 

[J-DONK]

I was denied funds both times.

my company closed. I couldn’t pay my engineers and they were employable so I laid them off so they could search for other jobs while accessing unemployment. We were in the black and had money and a work backlog when this began. Both dried up and my backlog all canceled for force majeure. Their loans were not federally backed so my clauses were moot and my insurance wouldn’t pay out on them pending litigation. Which I was unable to afford. I was not eligible for Covid unemployment so we had to liquidate the company to make ends meet, so a restart is out of the question.

I retained the law office Intel uses advisory services for their public filings. I figured spending a boatload on legal aid was going to benefit my chances of relief. I was wrong. My filings were perfect, and on the day first allowed both times. Nothing.

my bother owns a dental hospital in Colorado Springs. 18 chairs and two ORs. He filed with his lawyer and on the same day I did. He happens to have a congressional representative as a client who made a call or two in his behalf. He received over $500k in aid. He didn’t even have to use it as he was able to stay open for most of the pandemic.

I am not arguing who should or shouldn’t have received the funds, and I know this is strictly anecdotal, but the whole “first in line” excuse was just that; an excuse. There was absolutely rhyme and reason to who got the money. It just wasn’t the kind of rationale that most people would want to hear.

It's a widely known fact that banks gave preferred loans to larger companies. It largely did not matter when you filed.

Banks Gave Richest Clients ‘Concierge Treatment’ for Pandemic Aid (Published 2020)

Some businesses seeking coronavirus loans got to avoid flaky online portals or backed-up queues. Many other small businesses couldn’t get their loan requests submitted before the money dried up.

www.nytimes.com

 

[zztop]

another non-shocker. Edit: they are claiming a "miscalculation"


Hundreds of elderly people in Tennessee waiting for hours to receive a coronavirus vaccine on New Year's Eve were told to go home because of a shortage in supplies.

But once they left, health officials called up and administered the vaccine to their friends and close contacts, according to WRCB-TV, an NBC affiliate.

Staff at the Tennessee Riverpark vaccination center told their friends and relatives that there were still vaccines available, even after people over 75 years of age were turned away and told the opposite, WRCB-TV reported.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

another non-shocker.


Hundreds of elderly people in Tennessee waiting for hours to receive a coronavirus vaccine on New Year's Eve were told to go home because of a shortage in supplies.

But once they left, health officials called up and administered the vaccine to their friends and close contacts, according to WRCB-TV, an NBC affiliate.

Staff at the Tennessee Riverpark vaccination center told their friends and relatives that there were still vaccines available, even after people over 75 years of age were turned away and told the opposite, WRCB-TV reported.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

So we were told we were getting 1,700 first does... we received 3,200. Logistics bruh.

 

[wardorican]

Probably should post on the other board, but...

Pharmacist sabotaged vaccines because he thought they were 'unsafe,' police say

A Wisconsin pharmacist accused of deliberately sabotaging more than 500 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine allegedly told investigators he tampered with the vials because he believed they were unsafe, according to new details revealed Monday in court. The Grafton Police Department released a probable...

www.yahoo.com

Aren't conspiracy theorists fun? Just remember, they're not just Johnny Q Public, they're doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists too.