Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

Born to Run

Born to Run 6568

Posted
Posted
To me the only reason he won in 2016 was because there were tons of Democrats that really did not like Hillary so they did not even vote.

That will not be the case in November.

Biden will crush him.

While I hope stupid never prevails I'm not going to bet against stupid.

This country is chock full of stupid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28716

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I’m not saying they were duped or that they are blameless.  I’m saying: people make mistakes and some people are willing and able to recognize those mistakes and adjust their behavior.  Don’t lump reformed Trump voters in with the “assholes.”

Were they stupid, gullible, lacking in judgment, or otherwise flawed?  Yeah.  But they’re willing to do the right thing NOW.  

Who are these reformed Trump voters? Where are they? I don't know any IRL and haven't noticed any posting online, here or elsewhere. I've seen one or two posters here say their parent(s) voted for Trump but now hate him. That's secondhand and how do I know they're not going to pull the lever for Trump again in November because "socialism!" or some such?

Hey reformed Trump voters of Surly, stand up and be recognized!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Upgrayedd

Upgrayedd 5806

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Call me crazy, call me naive -- wouldn't it have been better to address aging infrastructure concerns when the economy was roaring, as opposed to in the middle of a depression?

Well, despite this being the longest infrastructure week ever, if the government is going to spend money and get something out of the deal, now is the time to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Call me crazy, call me naive -- wouldn't it have been better to address aging infrastructure concerns when the economy was roaring, as opposed to in the middle of a depression?

Says the guy whose probably never even bankrupted a casino. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20425

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Call me crazy, call me naive -- wouldn't it have been better to address aging infrastructure concerns when the economy was roaring, as opposed to in the middle of a depression?

Ever hear of the CCC?  WPA?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18197

Posted
Posted
Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Who are these reformed Trump voters? Where are they? I don't know any IRL and haven't noticed any posting online, here or elsewhere. I've seen one or two posters here say their parent(s) voted for Trump but now hate him. That's secondhand and how do I know they're not going to pull the lever for Trump again in November because "socialism!" or some such?

Hey reformed Trump voters of Surly, stand up and be recognized!

I know several personally.  I was not shy about telling them they were fucking idiots for voting for him. But I’ve also welcomed them back to the world of reason and good judgment.

What benefit can we derive from shunning someone who voted for Trump in 2016 but who demonstrates genuine regret? Maybe it makes you feel superior or you derive some sort of revenge pleasure. But that is hollow folly and refusing to forgive those who have seen the light is counterproductive. Converts make the most zealous allies. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29412

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Someone posted this yesterday and that tweet said NC. While it may be real, let's try to be careful about what we're sharing. I'm not saying that it's not Ohio, but it's not both.

Sorry, don't mean to be a dick, but it's misinformation that got us into this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted (edited)

There's nowhere to talk about this without it going completely sideways into Politic Town, so I'll talk about it here.

There really needs to be a full investigation into publicly traded companies draining the SBA Paycheck Protection Program. The companies and the banks that enabled them. Publicly traded companies worth hundreds of millions taking out Small Business Association loans. Multi-million dollar publicly traded companies taking from the trough filled by the government for small businesses. If that isn't a "let them eat cake" type moment, I would hate to see what is.

Oh, and here is a link to a list of publicly traded companies that did this. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/large-public-companies-are-taking-small-businesses-payroll-loans.html

Ruth's Chris isn't on there, but they were the first ones outed. Also on there is Pot Belly, J. Alexander, and Fiesta Restaurant Group which has Taco Cabana under their umbrella. None of them will get my business ever again. Shake Shack also did it, but is giving it back. Maybe it was because they were caught stealing, maybe not. Who knows.

Edited by Eastwood
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45561

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

There's nowhere to talk about this without it going completely sideways into Politic Town, so I'll talk about it here.

There really needs to be a full investigation into publicly traded companies draining the SBA Paycheck Protection Program. The companies and the banks that enabled them. Publicly traded companies worth hundreds of millions taking out Small Business Association loans. Multi-million dollar publicly traded companies taking from the trough filled by the government for small businesses. If that isn't a "let them eat cake" type moment, I would hate to see what is.

I think the investigation needs to be into the structure of the deal itself.  Why were the rules set up so that fairly large restaurant chains could receive funds?  Why were banks allowed to skirt any kind of first come, first serve approach, or perhaps means testing?

I think it's better that Shake Shack sent back their funds, but let's be honest -- they knew what they were doing and just didn't expect the blowback.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19331

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the investigation needs to be into the structure of the deal itself.  Why were the rules set up so that fairly large restaurant chains could receive funds?  Why were banks allowed to skirt any kind of first come, first serve approach, or perhaps means testing?

I think it's better that Shake Shack sent back their funds, but let's be honest -- they knew what they were doing and just didn't expect the blowback.  

I would be okay with restaurant chains if they were using the money to help out their employees (kitchen and waitstaff), but we know that's not happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45500

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I would be okay with restaurant chains if they were using the money to help out their employees (kitchen and waitstaff), but we know that's not happening. 

That's exactly the problem.  Ruth's Chris furloughed their low level employees and spent the money on executives and high level managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the investigation needs to be into the structure of the deal itself.  Why were the rules set up so that fairly large restaurant chains could receive funds?  Why were banks allowed to skirt any kind of first come, first serve approach, or perhaps means testing?

I think it's better that Shake Shack sent back their funds, but let's be honest -- they knew what they were doing and just didn't expect the blowback.  

I haven't read the legislation at length, but even if the language in the bill itself didn't explicitly prevent large companies from participating, a dash of common sense and modicum of restraint should have told those companies it wasn't for them. All parties involved knew exactly what they were doing and they deserve to be brought down over it. That level of greed during a time like this is exceptionally dangerous because it will only escalate as this goes on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29179

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

There's nowhere to talk about this without it going completely sideways into Politic Town, so I'll talk about it here.

There really needs to be a full investigation into publicly traded companies draining the SBA Paycheck Protection Program. The companies and the banks that enabled them. Publicly traded companies worth hundreds of millions taking out Small Business Association loans. Multi-million dollar publicly traded companies taking from the trough filled by the government for small businesses. If that isn't a "let them eat cake" type moment, I would hate to see what is.

Oh, and here is a link to a list of publicly traded companies that did this. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/large-public-companies-are-taking-small-businesses-payroll-loans.html

Ruth's Chris isn't on there, but they were the first ones outed. Also on there is Pot Belly, J. Alexander, and Fiesta Restaurant Group which has Taco Cabana under their umbrella. None of them will get my business ever again. Shake Shack also did it, but is giving it back. Maybe it was because they were caught stealing, maybe not. Who knows.

i'm kinda split on this - if we're talking about broad-scope macro shit. 

if large, publicly traded companies in the food prep/service/restaurant industries took money and are actually using it to keep every worker on the payroll, then i have a hard time griping about it.  if taco c is keeping all their employees paid and fully employed, then it's worth it.  at the time they took the cash, they didn't know they would play a part in draining the system and costing other companies a chance to stay alive. 

i'm more inclined to blame the architects of the plan who couldn't do some simple arithmetic to figure out how much money small business would need.  the restaurants also didn't play a part in drafting the parameters (every restaurant/hotel location counts separately, which they should, but there should've also been a valuation process and the $$ would've been better delivered on a 'need' priority)

it shouldn't be that hard.  they know exactly who these businesses are.  they came up with the number of 350bb.  it wasn't 250 or 450.  that 350 should've been based on something, but clearly it wasn't, because it didn't cover half of what it should (which tells me that another 300bb isn't gonna get it done either).

the real problem for me wasn't the qualification threshold, it was the preferential preference by the banks (which i realize is part of a much bigger, systemic problem).  the fact that they gave the loans that would most benefit their institutions, and favored the companies that had existing loans/lines of credit with them is something that could've/should've been avoided before it even got started.

and no, i'm not talking about ruth's chris, and the way they're using their forgivable loan to furlough their workers and keep all their fatcats fat, yet somehow meeting the requirements that keeps the loan forgivable.  that's some shitwater and i'm not going to drink it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

if large, publicly traded companies in the food prep/service/restaurant industries took money and are actually using it to keep every worker on the payroll, then i have a hard time griping about it.  if taco c is keeping all their employees paid and fully employed, then it's worth it.  at the time they took the cash, they didn't know they would play a part in draining the system and costing other companies a chance to stay alive. 

the real problem for me wasn't the qualification threshold, it was the preferential preference by the banks (which i realize is part of a much bigger, systemic problem).  the fact that they gave the loans that would most benefit their institutions, and favored the companies that had existing loans/lines of credit with them is something that could've/should've been avoided before it even got started.

and no, i'm not talking about ruth's chris, and the way they're using their forgivable loan to furlough their workers and keep all their fatcats fat, yet somehow meeting the requirements that keeps the loan forgivable.  that's some shitwater and i'm not going to drink it.

The Shake Shack CEO stated that they used it to keep as many people on payroll as possible, but when they saw how quickly it drained, decided to give it back because they had access to other capital that small businesses don't. And that is the crux of the issue. Publicly traded companies have several avenues for capital, debt restructuring, sizeable assets to borrow against, etc. Small businesses do not. Taco Cabana's parent company has a market cap of $189 million. They have ways to fund their payroll that do not involve taking from the mouths of small businesses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45561

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm kinda split on this - if we're talking about broad-scope macro shit. 

if large, publicly traded companies in the food prep/service/restaurant industries took money and are actually using it to keep every worker on the payroll, then i have a hard time griping about it.  if taco c is keeping all their employees paid and fully employed, then it's worth it.  at the time they took the cash, they didn't know they would play a part in draining the system and costing other companies a chance to stay alive. 

My problem here is that large, publicly traded companies "should" be profitable, with cash reserves in the bank.  That's a much higher bar for a mom & pop joint to clear.  Let's just continue with the restaurant example:

 

9 in 10 restaurants have fewer than 50 employees.

7 in 10 restaurants are single-unit operations

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29179

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

The Shake Shack CEO stated that they used it to keep as many people on payroll as possible, but when they saw how quickly it drained, decided to give it back because they had access to other capital that small businesses don't. And that is the crux of the issue. Publicly traded companies have several avenues for capital, debt restructuring, sizeable assets to borrow against, etc. Small businesses do not. Taco Cabana's parent company has a market cap of $189 million. They have ways to fund their payroll that do not involve taking from the mouths of small businesses.

oh for sure, and every case is different.  not every chain is created equal, and not every publicly traded company is either.  i'm happy to see shake shack do the right thing.  i'm just not ready to turn every chain into ruth's chris for taking the money.

for all we know, the taco cabana people are fucking pricks, and if they didn't get the money, they would announce they were closing for 3 months, and laying off 25,000 people, and would just reopen in july.

i know people who have plenty of money in the bank but got laid off (or their companies are closing) and they're collecting unemployment, because you just don't know what's ahead.  i don't think they're doing it to fuck over poorer people, and i don't think unemployment works the same way.  like i said, i'm more inclined to blame the fucked up program that allowed it, but i realize that's a larger conversation.  the math was right there.

or maybe i just really really miss taco cabana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eastwood

Eastwood 4394

Posted
Posted
Just now, henrygandorf said:

or maybe i just really really miss taco cabana.

I hate to break this to you, but it is nowhere near the same. Food quality is way down and the service is worse. I've hopped from location to location over the last 2 years hoping it's just restricted to them, but it's company wide.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanker Bob

Wanker Bob 379

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think the investigation needs to be into the structure of the deal itself.  Why were the rules set up so that fairly large restaurant chains could receive funds?  Why were banks allowed to skirt any kind of first come, first serve approach, or perhaps means testing?

I think it's better that Shake Shack sent back their funds, but let's be honest -- they knew what they were doing and just didn't expect the blowback.  

Just another plain as day black and white example of why libertarian views are complete bullshit. 

Corporations have always and will always be only about the bottom line. No matter how unethical the actions, no matter how damaging to workers, the environment, or the economy, and no matter how many deaths their actions cause they will only focus on the bottom line. 

It's the role of the overarching government to rein them in with proper regulation and ensure a balance between profit-seeking and safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29179

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

I hate to break this to you, but it is nowhere near the same. Food quality is way down and the service is worse. I've hopped from location to location over the last 2 years hoping it's just restricted to them, but it's company wide.

i live in a place with very little fast food.  no whataburger, no taco c.  they put a chick-fil-a in hollywood about 10 years ago and there's been a 15 car line in front of it ever since.  it's across the street from in-n-out (but i'm not a big burger guy) and when the timing is bad, that entire intersection is fucked.  there's now a shake shack in west hollywood, and it's fine i guess.

the only times i have taco c now are when i'm back in austin or houston and it's 3am and i'm drunk and it tastes like fucking cavier so you hush your face.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29179

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

Ruth’s Cris had $80,000,000 cash on hand and took $20,000,000 from PPP (which I guess represents 2.5 months of payroll for them, although I’m not sure how all the exemptions for restaurants work because I thought borrowers were capped at no more than $10,000,000).

There are several certifications borrowers had to make on the PPP loan application, one of which being a certification that the loan funds would be necessary for the company to maintain ongoing operations.  Of course there are rules or guidance on how the SBA determines what qualifies as necessary - because the whole thing is a clownshow clusterfuck - but the CARES Act itself and numerous other federal laws would make a false certification about eligibility or misuse of funds for items other than payroll costs crimes punishable by fines and prison time.

Everyone is applying for PPP loans, and many are abusing the system (even many true small businesses that have plenty of cash on hand).   I wish there would be a crackdown on this program, but I doubt there ever will be.   If they aren’t going to really go after abusers, at a minimum, when everyone starts applying for the loan forgiveness in a few months, they should be told to eat a bag of dicks so they at least don’t get free gifted money.

my main consulting gig (i'm officially an independent contractor, but it's basically a full-time job these days) is for a company that qualified and went through the process of getting the loan.  they had to be really open with the books and show where every dollar would be going.  they're not worried about getting in legal trouble, as they were told that the penalty for exaggeration or misuse of the loan would be that you'd have to actually pay it back.  that was kinda the point, i thought.  if ruth's chris doesn't keep their workers, whatever.  just pay that shit back with interest.  the sticky part is the forgiveness. (and in this case, horrible pr)

also, as an aside, for all the "the ppp rolled out super smooth" garbage we get from the briefings, it's well known that b of a had major issues out of the gate.  they were so shitty about it, that my "boss" essentially threatened his banker, and when they couldn't make it happen, moved all our corporate accounts to chase, who processed the loan in 24 hours - with no history, no outstanding credit line or small-business loan with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12568

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ruitxn said:

Tough words for immediate media release for his intended targets...Donald, Republican donors, Governor protestors, and 40%ers.

He isn’t going to do shit.

i agree.  it's just more talking out of both sides of the mouth from Trumpco.  Trump says it's up to the states to take of this.  the feds are a backup.  governors decide when to reopen.  but now Barr is gonna bring action against states that are too tough on COVID-19?  figure out a fucking plan and execute.  is that asking too much?

star trek yes GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28694

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Starting to see more of these stories...

 

This is getting pretty fucked up. It's like telling people not to play Russian Roulette and there response is "Fuck you fag, watch this..." except this is worse because its contagious and shit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...