4 ms·
You can't end with "this isn't the time for ideology" after three paragraphs of YOUR ideology. For some restaurants, takeout is easy and they can make it work!
by gkoberger 6y ago
You can't end with "this isn't the time for ideology" after three paragraphs of YOUR ideology.
For some restaurants, takeout is easy and they can make it work! For others, it really really isn't. What about bars, where most money is made on alcohol?
You got it backward. These restaurants all presumably paid taxes and employed people, some for literally a century. Why do you expect them right now, when they're suffering the most, to "give something back" if they don't want to die?
- brutusborn 6y agoWhy should we not expect organizations to give something back?
- gkoberger 6y agoI answered that already. Because they paid taxes and employed people. It's like an insurance company that drops you as soon as you file a claim... you pay into a pool, expecting it to be there when you need it. This is an unheard of situation, don't forget. The government (rightfully so, in my opinion) is forcing these restaurants to shut down dining. It's not like they're shutting down because they're "lazy".
- brutusborn 6y agoBusinesses don't pay taxes or employ people in the expectation of being bailed out, they pay taxes (like everyone else) in the expectation of goods and services from the Government. You may expect bailouts for restaurants as a Government service, but the vast majority of people do not. As a business owner in a 1st world country, for paying taxes I expect infrastructure, security and a functioning legal system.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- threentaway 6y agoSecurity is much more than safety from invasions from other nations. It is a guaranteed safety net for when things go wrong; this covers everything from health care, to unemployment, to services for the homeless, and yes it includes helping businesses that collectively employ tens of thousands of people in times of crisis.
- hinkley 6y agoWhat do you think restaurants are for? It sounds like you think they’re a scam.
- brutusborn 6y agoFor providing food? I'm not sure what you are asking here, I can't imagine how a restaurant could be a scam.
- hinkley 6y agoYou suggested they should give something back. Which implies that they aren’t already giving something back that is worth keeping on its own merits. Which is a pretty dim view of both the service industry and third places like restaurants. So I ask again, what do you think restaurants are for, since they aren’t, in your opinion, doing anything that is already worth preserving?
- Dylan16807 6y agoYou're mixing up different points in time. Normally restaurants provide food for customer money, and that is fine. The suggestion is that if they get bailout money while not providing food then there is an unmet need for them to "give back".
- brutusborn 6y agoExactly my point, thanks for clarifying.
- hinkley 6y agoI am not mixing up different points in time. You are considering the past and the present. The bailout is solving a problem in the present that, if not solved, guarantees they have no future. You want guarantees and there aren’t any. If you three want cover for yourself or policy makers, that’s fine. We can tweak the rules a bit to avoid some bad press. We market it as a prorated, forgivable loan if they continue to operate for a year after this is over. That should cull the dozens of restaurants that were likely already about to close before this all happened, who see the handout as a way to avoid bankruptcy. Enough of the rest have a future we get to look forward to.