4 ms·
That's fine, but for most Americans, this is simply not the case, or we wouldn't need government stay-home orders. People like you are not what is causing rest
by tathougies 7y ago
That's fine, but for most Americans, this is simply not the case, or we wouldn't need government stay-home orders.
People like you are not what is causing restaurants to shut down or airlines to refund their tickets (causing the cash pinch they're in). That was all threat of government crackdown.
- xyzzyz 7y agoAt least with airlines, they'd be heavily affected even without US government meddling, as they'd have lost lots of very profitable business from international flights.
- tathougies 7y agoSure, but they were also threatened with governmental intervention if they didn't refund their tickets (including ones bought under the non-refundable price range). They ended up refunding everyone, but the cash they refunded had already been used to pay for fuel, to hire and train people, to pay airport fees, etc. In a fair world, where everyone made good on their agreements, those consumers that bought non-refundable tickets wouldn't get their money back, but they did. I don't think airlines need to have all their income replaced, just that which is directly attributable to governmental intervention. If they're still in the red after that, the money should go to their creditors and then their investors. That is what we all agreed to.
- choward 7y agoWhen the government decided to regulate smoking that hurt tobacco company profits, but it was for public safety. Should the government have had to reimburse tobacco companies? No. The government changes laws all the time. Some of these laws hurt/help businesses more than others. Do they owe the ones they hurt money? I don't think so.
- tathougies 7y agoThis is not legislation but executive order. Very different.