Businesses Close To Protect Us They Need Reimbursed By Us

You reap what you sow small businesses. It's you who helped put the control freaks in office that shut you down. Maybe next time you will grow a backbone, only support candidates that are pro freedom.

People need to remember what local/state government have done to us this year. When they come asking us to vote to extend or add a new sales tax, vote NO. If they want us to approve bonds for projects, vote NO. It's time to reduce taxes we pay, including doing away with property taxes on first home you own.

In the last few decades, economic crashes have served one basic purpose: to make the ultra-rich even richer.

Everything we are programmed with by their media 24/7 is the information age's equivalent to: divide et impera.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think the main problem is that they aimed for force instead of aiming to persuade.

The reality is that you are always going to have people who aren't going to do those things, and you have to accept that. Despite laws against it, you have people who will always commit rape and murder too. But instead of accepting that there would be a certain portion who would not comply no matter what, they ratcheted up the force.

I also think there are also those who just plain liked the idea of having the power to dictate who would and would be allowed to do this or that.

And be honest, you can't say that our elected betters who've been demanding we do these things have exactly been following their own rules for themselves, so it's not like they have high credibility on this. I have a mayor who demands high compliance, mandates, shuts down businesses, etc., but he's been caught not following his own rules. So how happy do you think people are to follow *any* of his dictates, sensible or not?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
If a business closes due to a government order to protect the public, the public should immediately reimburse them, and their employees out of their pockets. They should be made whole and made whole quickly.

While I agree, this is a real conundrum. Why should businesses that are not impacted have to pay for those that are?

What needs to happen is these nonsensical shutdowns to be declared 100% unConstitutional across the board. Open up everything, 100%, no nonsensical arbitrary l;imitations (ie, restaurants should be allowed to serve indoors, at full capacity, and it should be their decision on whether or not to require brain dead masks.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: dug88
I asked you to please not make it political. Are you incapable of that?

Well... this problem was created by politicians, and it is being perpetuated by these same politicians.

In other words - it is a political problem.

This is about how do we deal with what has already happened. Do we turn our backs on people?

The dimella is, if we don't put an end to the source of the problem, then no amount of alleviating the existing damage will do anything other than kick the can a little further down the road - and that road is a dead-end, because those who have not been destroyed cannot continue to bail out those who are being destroyed by the nonsensical unConstitutional edicts from State and local governments.

a reply to: tanstaafl

There are a lot of businesses that would be happy to come up with ways to protect customers. I've eaten at places that put up the plexiglass between booths for example to prevent spreading between parties.

There were businesses that would require masks even if they weren't required society wide.

The community center where I take aerobics was doing temp checks to everyone signing in well before the recent round of restrictions, and I was having to wear a mask and pass temp checks at physical therapy long, long before they were a community requirement.

So, yes, businesses were taking their own measures because they wanted patrons to feel safe and patronize them. It's no good for business if your customers feel they got deathly ill shopping from you.

here is what should have been done from the outset. all mortgages and loans suspended, interest free, for the time such restrictions are in effect. at least when it comes to businesses that have shut down, people not working because of the shutdown, and businesses people such as mall owners and rental home owners that are not receiving rent because of businesses not operating/ people not working. in effect if for example it lasts for a year, then all loans and mortgages are just extended by a year, with no extra interest accrued during that time. in other words if you have a year left on that loan where you would have paid it off in jan 2021. then if it lasted a year your last payment would just be pushed to jan 2022. almost as if that year of shutdowns froze it in place. although those still working/earning money as per normal should pay their loans and mortgages as per norm.

then you could far more easily do the same with rents. i know a couple big mall companies actually completely stopped charging rent for businesses that were not allowed to be open. and THAT is what is really killing businesses. the fact that they are still expected to pay rent, during that time they could not be open and making money. and rents should not just deferred, as many places did, meaning that yes while the lock down happened you did not have to pay rent, BUT once it ended, you still owed all that back rent. i know that was hard on our landlady, who was grateful that once restrictions were lifted so that i could actually go out, and go to the bank, we paid up immediately. with others they needed to come to an arrangement for people to slowly pay off the back rent a bit at a time. which is where the loan stoppage would come into play. which would have meant that they needed far less money, because they just would have needed to provide for themselves. especially if they also provided emergency non interest loans for emergency repairs to property, that again would be put off payments until money started coming in again.

also the government should have been delivering some basic food supplies to EVERYONE, such as they did here for the time of hard lockdown (for us two months).

and by doing these things, people would need far less money, and thus the government could save major amounts of money as they would need to pay people far less as they are not able to work.

with the money for that and things like the food delivery coming from tax money at every level of government. and the cessation of all non essential government spending. everything but things like military, and emergency services stopped. for example unless a road is about to collapse, no roadwork until things get back to normal. all special, yet not really needed projects put on hold. basically except for things really needed to keep things going, government spending stopped. and should also include cuts to politician's wages, to what they need to live on (and remember, no rent or mortgage payments needed). and of course all surplus staff temporarily laid off.

originally posted by: TKDRL
I say no. It's not like we voted for this #. So why should we pay for the reprecussions?

"We" voted for it when we elected the power mongers into office. Could we have foreseen this? No. But it is what it is at this point....and the most recent election seems to indicate that we have a nation of scared, sheepish people willing ot surrender liberty for safety at the word of a bobbling head.

Like it or not, its your government. They made this call. They ruined these lives.

On a side note:

for far too long the "right" has ignored the cries for help from the poor in this country, preferring to tell them to grab their bootstraps. Most on the "right" are regular joes like you and I that suffer from the same problems we all do: stagnant wages and decreased purchasing power. Perhaps COVID is the catalyst needed to address these long, long standing issues? The alternative is a continued march towards socialism, and likely actual violence, within the US. An impoverished and under utilized population is ripe for this kind of thing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl
So, yes, businesses were taking their own measures because they wanted patrons to feel safe and patronize them. It's no good for business if your customers feel they got deathly ill shopping from you.

As long as businesses have complete immunity from suit by anyone claiming they 'got sick' by visiting there.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl
So, yes, businesses were taking their own measures because they wanted patrons to feel safe and patronize them. It's no good for business if your customers feel they got deathly ill shopping from you.

As long as businesses have complete immunity from suit by anyone claiming they 'got sick' by visiting there.

Here's the thing -- a disease being what it is, it would be impossible for anyone to prove where exactly they got sick. Was it at business X or business Y or did your SO bring it home with them? Did you pick it up by random chance when you gassed up your car?

Since this is something that you can pick up like you do any common cold or flu, there's just no way you can prove exactly where you got it, so you cannot prove that any one person or place damaged you.

a reply to: ketsuko

The thing is, there is risk just being alive. Airborn viruses are one such risk. No where in our constitution, or in any of our human history (beyond the insane) should anyone have an expectation of safety from infection. Its just not how things work, especially when you are talking about airborn infection. The most you can ask is that reasonable precautions are taken. And then put some expectation of personal responsibility behind it (i.e., you see someone sneezing/sniffling in a restaurant, so you choose to not dine in that restaurant as a personal choice).

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ideally, I'm totally against the government at any level interfering in the economy and our lives to any extent much less what we have seen this year.

Yet, you wanted Trump out at all cost in order to usher in the very people’s ideology that you’re totally against?

Makes perfect sense

I guess you get what you deserve and like it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Here's the thing -- a disease being what it is, it would be impossible for anyone to prove where exactly they got sick. Was it at business X or business Y or did your SO bring it home with them? Did you pick it up by random chance when you gassed up your car?

Since this is something that you can pick up like you do any common cold or flu, there's just no way you can prove exactly where you got it, so you cannot prove that any one person or place damaged you.

Precisely why businesses should have absolute immunity ( barring insane cases like someone can prove that a business owner was intentionally infecting people)...

a reply to: tanstaafl

If we have general consensus that COVID is novel, a unique disease that is deadly, etc...the expectation for what is "intentionally infecting people" should be that anyone with COVID should not be allowed to work. As well as if an infected employee is found, all employees who have had contact with them are tested, etc, prior to reopening.

If those thresholds are met, im not sure what lawsuits could reasonably brought against someone.


2 weeks ago we closed our restaurant for 2 days while we had the entire staff tested and performed deep cleaning. We had an employee who had been around someone who tested positive outside of work. He later tested negative. But the abundance of caution exercised shows our intent of maintaining public health. We also pay employees for 2 full weeks if they can provide a Dr. recommendation to isolate, with or without a positive test. I cannot see how we would ever be liable for a lawsuit with this being our process.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Maybe you wouldn't be held liable at the end, but someone can still attempt to sue though, right?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: tanstaafl
If we have general consensus that COVID is novel, a unique disease that is deadly, etc

I don't think we do though. Ev erything we have been told about this thing is a lie. The CFR was supposed to be 5-9%, then it came down to 3%, now, finally, it is down to 0.05-0.5%...

Sorry, no... it is no worse than a bad flu. That is all.

...the expectation for what is "intentionally infecting people" should be that anyone with COVID should not be allowed to work.

So... does that mean that every business will be required to purcahse the new COV-1000 testing scanner that sounds alarms when someone walks past it?

The vast majority have either no or extremely minor symptoms...

Sorry. No. Those who are at most risk need to take care of themselves - just like they should be doing now since they are just as likely to have severe symptoms or even die if exposed to the flu.

As well as if an infected employee is found, all employees who have had contact with them are tested, etc, prior to reopening.

Do we now require this for the flu? Where do you draw the line?

No. NO. STOP. Just STOP buying into the fear-hype.

Give me my fracking life back!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: DBCowboy

You think a significant number of people who suffered no financial harm are doing that? Most people don't even understand that the small businesses are not wealthy, and do not make a lot of money. In fact most work harder than most people for less pay, because they want to be self-sufficient. A lot of them are hidden and people don't even realize the community benefits from their work.

I'll survive, barely, but after talking to people that will not all day long it concerns me. That and knowing how society will treat them when they join the ranks of homeless. People will just look at the bum, why should I help them.

We can't mandate morality.

No we can't. But we can talk about it.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: mtnshredder
Orange man bad causes short circuits in the brain or something I think....... Maybe they perfected MSM spread mkultra or some #. I have seen otherwise rational people jump off the handle simply at the mention of trump in any other context but off with his orange head.

Personally I think they’ve found the wormhole to a alternate reality. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it, it’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: TKDRL
I say no. It's not like we voted for this #. So why should we pay for the reprecussions?

"We" voted for it when we elected the power mongers into office. Could we have foreseen this? No. But it is what it is at this point....and the most recent election seems to indicate that we have a nation of scared, sheepish people willing ot surrender liberty for safety at the word of a bobbling head.

Like it or not, its your government. They made this call. They ruined these lives.

I dissent! It is time for a divorce.