Stimulus Checks

[Carolina Speed]

Why are people that are still employed and doing quite well receiving Stimulus Checks? More than half, maybe 80-90% of the people I know are still working. So why are they receiving free money? Just a thought, but wouldn't that money be best served going to small businesses and others who really need it. The funds allocated to small business is already gone. Instead of giving money away to the people who are still working,
wouldn't that money be best used elsewhere?
Although technically, I'm still employed, but the business I'm in is huge here in (NC), and was shut down as well as all the companies we do business with. I haven't received a stimulus check nor do I deserve one, however, this shut down has and could damage North Carolina businesses for years to come!

 

[Kaptain]

Why are people that are still employed and doing quite well receiving Stimulus Checks? More than half, maybe 80-90% of the people I know are still working. So why are they receiving free money? Just a thought, but wouldn't that money be best served going to small businesses and others who really need it. The funds allocated to small business is already gone. Instead of giving money away to the people who are still working,
wouldn't that money be best used elsewhere?
Although technically, I'm still employed, but the business I'm in is huge here in (NC), and was shut down as well as all the companies we do business with. I haven't received a stimulus check nor do I deserve one, however, this shut down has and could damage North Carolina businesses for years to come!

The better question is why are non-working people receiving a stimulus check, plus unemployment or welfare, plus 600 a week federal unemployment? I'm all for the working people getting back some of what they put in. Even better is why do so-called "small businesses", most of which aren't small at all, get huge stacks of free money in forgivable loans? Why do even larger banks and corporations get limitless amounts doled out by the Fed through a shadow bank so that nobody gets to know the millions they got for free? Frankly, the working people should probably get a permanent UBI - the last thing to complain about is working people getting money.

 

[Kaptain]

Businesses also have the option of filing bankruptcy and or spreading losses over years to avoid taxes as well as getting forgivable loans. Why would the government be better off throwing money at businesses who aren't doing business? If it's the false hope that the businesses will just give it to their employees than you are living in a fantasy land. If you are worried that people won't have money don't give it to some businesses to fairly dole out - that ain't going to happen. Just give it directly to people - especially working people.

 

[Carolina Speed]

Businesses also have the option of filing bankruptcy and or spreading losses over years to avoid taxes as well as getting forgivable loans. Why would the government be better off throwing money at businesses who aren't doing business? If it's the false hope that the businesses will just give it to their employees than you are living in a fantasy land. If you are worried that people won't have money don't give it to some businesses to fairly dole out - that ain't going to happen. Just give it directly to people - especially working people.

The small business, 125 employees, that my wife works for just received their SB loan and they will begin working next week from home and will receive their standard pay for two weeks until hopefully the factory can go back to work.
So, the money that her company has received will go to putting people back to work.

I work for about the same size company and they haven't received their SB loan yet. They will do the same thing once they receive the funds. I assure you of that.

 

[Kaptain]

So your saying that 100% of the loan goes straight to pay employees? I don't think so. As for the employees they would make more money on unemployment. The companies will do the bare minimum to receive their loans and get them forgiven. So again I ask, why not just pay the employees directly?

 

[Carolina Speed]

So your saying that 100% of the loan goes straight to pay employees? I don't think so. As for the employees they would make more money on unemployment. The companies will do the bare minimum to receive their loans and get them forgiven. So again I ask, why not just pay the employees directly?

No. There's more costs involved to operating a business than just paying employees. I'm assuming you've never owned your own business, so without going into a whole lot of detail, there's fixed costs involved whether the business/factory is in operation or not. Insurance, rent, utilities, taxes, etc.. How long can the owner of a business keep paying those fixed costs without producing any product??
Do I have to go into more detail? I can.
I can't answer your question as to who and who won't re pay their loans. That should be written up as a part of the agreement. I believe some will do their best to try and re pay as best they can, if that's a part of the loan agreement.

I don't understand what you mean about paying employees directly. Who are saying to pay the employees?

 

[Kaptain]

No. There's more costs involved to operating a business than just paying employees. I'm assuming you've never owned your own business, so without going into a whole lot of detail, there's fixed costs involved whether the business/factory is in operation or not. Insurance, rent, utilities, taxes, etc.. How long can the owner of a business keep paying those fixed costs without producing any product??
Do I have to go into more detail? I can.
I can't answer your question as to who and who won't re pay their loans. That should be written up as a part of the agreement. I believe some will do their best to try and re pay as best they can, if that's a part of the loan agreement.

I don't understand what you mean about paying employees directly. Who are saying to pay the employees?

Ok, I see. In your ultimate wisdom and knowledge of business of which I apparently am just an idiot. You think that paying all cost for a business to remain open to do no business is a good use of tax-payer dollars? And absolutely no fraud or misuse will result? Who is being naive here? Meanwhile, your main complaint as small businesses, such as your wife's "small business" of 125 employees LOL are getting millions in forgivable loans, is that people forced to go to work in now hazardous conditions get a tiny 1200$ check while people not working also get a 1200$ check plus the usual government bennies on steroids. GTFO of here. You can't be that dumb can you?

 

[Carolina Speed]

You can't be that dumb can you?

Yes , I guess I'm that dumb. Meanwhile, the company that my wife works for as well as the employees of that company are going back to work next week and in the weeks to come and will get paid for it. I don't know where you are getting that this company is getting millions of dollars? I know for a fact this company is not.
In the situation we're in, I guess you thinks it's better to close the business and let the 125 employees go unemployed?
Again, I guess I'm dumb, but people are going back to work. I believe the quicker more businesses can get up and running again, the better.

 

[Kaptain]

So, you know for a fact they are not getting millions? Yet, a business of 125 employees is getting a loan conceivable to pay 125 employees wages and benefits in addition to fixed costs and anything else the company can stack away but it's not a loan of over a million dollars? So, the company doing no business will go bankrupt anyway with a lesser loan. So what's the point of any loan to a small business doing no current business that will go bankrupt anyway? And if the business is going back to work in a week, then you are telling me that a simple one month downturn was enough to completely sink it without free government money. Seems like that business is too weak anyway and not worth selling. Wholesale that dog to management and new owners that know how to manage then I guess.

 

[Carolina Speed]

So, you know for a fact they are not getting millions? Yet, a business of 125 employees is getting a loan conceivable to pay 125 employees wages and benefits in addition to fixed costs and anything else the company can stack away but it's not a loan of over a million dollars? So, the company doing no business will go bankrupt anyway with a lesser loan. So what's the point of any loan to a small business doing no current business that will go bankrupt anyway? And if the business is going back to work in a week, then you are telling me that a simple one month downturn was enough to completely sink it without free government money. Seems like that business is too weak anyway and not worth selling. Wholesale that dog to management and new owners that know how to manage then I guess.

Kaptain, I don't know what your problem is with me, but I hope you get better soon. All I wanted to know when I started this thread is why are people that are still employed, receiving Stimulus Checks? IMO, if the government wants to help, which ends up not helping in most cases, why not use the money for something else such as businesses they've shut down? Or.... if you have a better answer that would be great. That's all I wanted to know?
To answer your question. This business has been operating for 58 years and apparently was doing just fine. You don't need millions of dollars to assist a business with 125 employees for a week or two to get producing product again. Do the math on the average pay for two weeks. It's not millions. I'm not saying give them enough money to pay all expenses. Any company worth sustaining should have assets and existing money. The SB loan should be a loan to assist, not pay for all expenses. Part if not most of the loan is to go to paying the employees while the company can absorb the other, fixed costs.
I haven't told you anything about a simple one month downturn. My question was how long can business go without producing anything before it shuts down? It can't go on forever?
Yes, the business is too weak. It's been family owned for 58 years, is debt free and has employed hundreds if not thousands of people. Helped three generations of families earn an income. I would call that business a success story! It would be a shame for it to go under.
I'm through arguing with you. You win.
BTW, what do you do for a living?

 

[Kaptain]

CS, I don't have a problem with you but your response to my well reasoned argument which was to get snarky about my business knowledge. For my living, I'm a black drug dealer on welfare. I don't care and I don't care what you do for a living. I'm not going to throw unprovable internet resumes around. This is about ideas.

First, your "small business" company is going broke in a 1 month down turn and now it's doing fine and will start up in a week. Which is it? Does it desperately need even more free money to keep from selling the entire lot or is it OK? If it's OK then why do we have to give it more money? If not, why should we throw more money at it?

You started the thread disagreeing with people getting free money - even a tiny one time payment of 1,200$, but you want businesses to get what seems to be a limitless amount of free money. We've already seen this dog and pony show in 2008. The free money paid for a lot of golden parachutes and most of the so-called "small business" free money went to large businesses who qualified as small only as a subsidiary of a larger business. Can you imagine the massive amount of fraud this will produce? Every fake Somalian daycare in Minnesota will once again rape our tax dollar.

As for math, just one month of 125 cheap 20$/hr full time employees comes to just under 1/2 a million and that doesn't include benefits or the fixed cost of the company.

Here's my stance: I'm normally against free money for anybody but I've been paying for others from large and small businesses to welfare scum to get free money my whole life while I've gotten pretty much nothing free. I'll take a check and more and not complain. Of all things to complain about in this monstrous pilfering of my tax dollar the last thing to complain about is money coming back to the working man. I think no additional money should go to those already receiving government benefits such as additional unemployment benefits or checks to welfare recipients. Why should working people get rewarded? Hell, people work their whole lives since they were in diapers to save enough money to not have to work when they are ready to get back into diapers again and too damn old to enjoy the free time they earned at the end of their lives. What do the people drawing unemployment have to complain about? They are living the dream of having free time when they are young enough to enjoy it. If your passing out free money to stimulate the economy then pass it out to the most deserving - the working man.

BTW, what race do you think makes up the majority of the people who actually work? Why do you think even the anti-white democrats opposed the stimulus checks to workers and lobbied to get it reduced? Worldwide white people work more than any other race. Go ahead an google work participation rate and I'll guarantee you white countries will be at the top.

 

[Flint]

Apparently the FedGov can create money at will so what's the problem? Print money and give it to everyone! I don't even know why they bother collecting taxes. It would probably be cheaper to close the IRS and just print money. The whole system is trillions of dollars in debt, it can never get out of debt, and doesn't even seem to need to. I don't need the money they sent to me but who knows. This thing is not over. It could go to hell quickly. About a month ago I didn't see the world going to the place it is now and you can't tell for sure where it's going to end up.

 

[Freethinker]

I agree that all working people should get money from the government, not only now but as often as we can. This system takes and takes from Whites and distributes it more and more to undeserving jews, blacks and every other shade of brown that lives in this country. I’ve put into this rotten system since I first started working at 14 and haven’t seen barely anything in return for 20+ years.

We should demand and expect things as White people. Non-Whites get everything from healthcare to housing to food for free from good ol’ Uncle Sam. We make this country run for everyone’s benefit except ours. Enough. Tell every White person you know to get as much government gibs that you can. This system is evil and hates you, if the “free” money and loans further strain this system then that is an added bonus to the extra cash in your account.

 

[Carolina Speed]

This system is evil and hates you, if the “free” money and loans further strain this system then that is an added bonus to the extra cash in your account.

So, when you say loans, do you mean small business loans. If so, I agree, in the current conditions, because of the government forced shut downs.
The company I am referring to in the above posts was given a small business loan to cover the employees pay for TWO WEEKs as I tried to explain to Kaptain, but he seems not to believe me or that I'd naïve and dumb. Which dumb, I can accept, but not naïve. Don't take offense Kaptain, but that's how you've put it. He seems to think they are receiving MILLIONS of dollars. I know for a fact they're not!! I, BTW used $2o/hr average pay for 125 employees for two 40 hour weeks. That comes to a $200,000 loan if my math is correct. That's a far cry from millions of dollars.
This company will go back to work in less than two weeks, with all 125 employees. They will still have a job after the money from the stimulus check is long gone.
I guess this is a dumb question, but isn't more important to get these small businesses up and running again, than to give money to people who are EMPLOYED, not those who are unemployed? I can understand getting a check if you've been unemployed. I'm asking if you only have one way to go with money, do you invest in small business who employ people or give it those that have jobs already and let the small businesses just disappear?

Another dumb question. What is wrong with giving a small business a $200, 000 loan to pay their employees so they can keep their job, rather than give them a one time $1200 stimulus check that will runout in less than two weeks and or not giving the business their loan. I would rather have my job back than a stimulus check?
In this case, they're getting both.

 

[Kaptain]

Turns out my math was wrong. I understated my position. 40 hours a week x 20$/hour = 800$/week per employee x 125 employees = 100,000$ per week. 8 weeks of the loan = 800,000$ which does not include benefit cost to employees nor does it include the fixed cost which are also partially in the program if you go by what was written in the program they will pay for 8 weeks. The company, as you stated, is still doing business and will be back to full capacity in 2 weeks. All revenue they now garner (they are not close to completely shut down) can be put in their pockets (not the workers pockets) as they will have nearly all their business expense paid for for 8 weeks. That's an immense give away not a pitiful 1,200$.

So lets take the example of Boeing, I know it's a large business but it's just an analogy. If Boeing and all the airline businesses go under does that mean nobody will ever have jobs in airline travel again?
Do the planes disappear? Of course not. They take a loss and come back or file bankruptcy and come back perhaps but not necessarily under new ownership.

Do the laid off employees starve? No, they go on unemployment and make about 2x as much as they were working and can enjoy their free time. So no need to worry about the laid off employees.

Yeah but, what about when the at least 9 months of unemployment runs out? Well they apply for their old job back and probably get it if they were a good employee. You know like construction companies do EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

Yeah but, what if that company went bankrupt? Then, they apply to the company that bought them up or they are free to apply at other airlines which will surely be running.

CS, you keep coming back to the small business needs the money to pay the employees. So you think the government needs a middle man to disperse checks to people doing no work? How efficient will that be?

 

[Kaptain]

I guess this is a dumb question, but isn't more important to get these small businesses up and running again, than to give money to people who are EMPLOYED, not those who are unemployed? I can understand getting a check if you've been unemployed.

 

[Kaptain]

So you can understand getting a 1200 dollar stimulus check if you are unemployed? But I assume you know the unemployed are people that are drawing unemployment checks already as well as 600$ per week per the new stimulus bill. The unemployed also include welfare recipients. So, just to clarify, you actually believe that unemployed people who are already receiving government bennies are more deserving of the stimulus check than those who are working and for some reason need it more?

 

[Freethinker]

So, when you say loans, do you mean small business loans. If so, I agree, in the current conditions, because of the government forced shut downs.
The company I am referring to in the above posts was given a small business loan to cover the employees pay for TWO WEEKs as I tried to explain to Kaptain, but he seems not to believe me or that I'd naïve and dumb. Which dumb, I can accept, but not naïve. Don't take offense Kaptain, but that's how you've put it. He seems to think they are receiving MILLIONS of dollars. I know for a fact they're not!! I, BTW used $2o/hr average pay for 125 employees for two 40 hour weeks. That comes to a $200,000 loan if my math is correct. That's a far cry from millions of dollars.
This company will go back to work in less than two weeks, with all 125 employees. They will still have a job after the money from the stimulus check is long gone.
I guess this is a dumb question, but isn't more important to get these small businesses up and running again, than to give money to people who are EMPLOYED, not those who are unemployed? I can understand getting a check if you've been unemployed. I'm asking if you only have one way to go with money, do you invest in small business who employ people or give it those that have jobs already and let the small businesses just disappear?

Another dumb question. What is wrong with giving a small business a $200, 000 loan to pay their employees so they can keep their job, rather than give them a one time $1200 stimulus check that will runout in less than two weeks and or not giving the business their loan. I would rather have my job back than a stimulus check?
In this case, they're getting both.

CS, yes. I was referring to the small business loans.

 

[La France Blanche]

Finally got my check this week.

I'm strongly in favor of these checks. Typically in Soviet Amerika, in order to receive money from the government you have to be black, brown, a Jew, or a single mom. This is about the only time when regular White people get a little bit back from the system we've contributed so much to.

God bless Donald J. Trump.

 

[Extra Point]

I'm making sure to spend some of my check on local businesses that employ white people. Let's keep these businesses in business!

 

[La France Blanche]

Regarding Universal Basic Income, if it was actually going to work, immigration would have to be stopped - which is why the Democrats will never implement it and why they made sure that Andrew Yang didn't win (even though he's a pro-immigration cuck who has to know that his own UBI plan won't work with mass immigration, but bowed down to his masters on the border issue, which of course is never enough).

 

[Booth]

A lot of people must have got theirs today. I could hardly get into the liquor store.

 

[The Hock]

A lot of people must have got theirs today. I could hardly get into the liquor store.

 

[Bucky]

I received mine May1st and just received my taxes that were seized because I owed on student loans!