Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post Reply
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by jalanlong » Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:35 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:46 pm
Well, well, well. Seems like the flippy flopper Republicans, all of the sudden have decided that "their body, their right" to not get vaccinated is a good philosophy. Even if their "choice" results in the death of a human.

Pick a side, Republicans. Make up your minds.
Counterpoint: Much like Democrats have suddenly decided that:

1) Businesses should be able to make their own rules and hire/fire or provide service to whoever they wish (i.e. vaxxed or unvaxxed)
2) In Texas with the governor supporting no mask mandate and the local city leaders pro mask mandate, Democrats have suddenly decided to support local control over one-size-fits-all approach from a centralized bureaucracy.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by Xan » Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:32 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:35 am
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:46 pm
Well, well, well. Seems like the flippy flopper Republicans, all of the sudden have decided that "their body, their right" to not get vaccinated is a good philosophy. Even if their "choice" results in the death of a human.

Pick a side, Republicans. Make up your minds.
Counterpoint: Much like Democrats have suddenly decided that:

1) Businesses should be able to make their own rules and hire/fire or provide service to whoever they wish (i.e. vaxxed or unvaxxed)
2) In Texas with the governor supporting no mask mandate and the local city leaders pro mask mandate, Democrats have suddenly decided to support local control over one-size-fits-all approach from a centralized bureaucracy.
I find #2 particularly ironic. In IL the courts have ruled the local authorities can not overrule the Governor, but in TX, even tho the courts ruled the same, somehow the locals are managing to ignore it. Just like Biden and the eviction moratorium.
My understanding is that the localities directly involved in the court cases do have to abide by the ruling. Other localities are doing their thing until and unless there's a court case involving them.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:34 pm

Xan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:32 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:35 am
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:46 pm
Well, well, well. Seems like the flippy flopper Republicans, all of the sudden have decided that "their body, their right" to not get vaccinated is a good philosophy. Even if their "choice" results in the death of a human.

Pick a side, Republicans. Make up your minds.
Counterpoint: Much like Democrats have suddenly decided that:

1) Businesses should be able to make their own rules and hire/fire or provide service to whoever they wish (i.e. vaxxed or unvaxxed)
2) In Texas with the governor supporting no mask mandate and the local city leaders pro mask mandate, Democrats have suddenly decided to support local control over one-size-fits-all approach from a centralized bureaucracy.
I find #2 particularly ironic. In IL the courts have ruled the local authorities can not overrule the Governor, but in TX, even tho the courts ruled the same, somehow the locals are managing to ignore it. Just like Biden and the eviction moratorium.
My understanding is that the localities directly involved in the court cases do have to abide by the ruling. Other localities are doing their thing until and unless there's a court case involving them.
In my state, there are 10 school districts defying the Governor's anti-mask-mandate law. Whether the school districts have a political affiliation hasn't been made obvious, so I don't know that it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Oral argument in the court case is on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we know where it's heading.
Although now that I think about it, either side could appeal and then appeal some more, so I suppose it could go on for a while yet.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:00 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:34 pm

In my state, there are 10 school districts defying the Governor's anti-mask-mandate law. Whether the school districts have a political affiliation hasn't been made obvious, so I don't know that it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Oral argument in the court case is on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we know where it's heading.
Although now that I think about it, either side could appeal and then appeal some more, so I suppose it could go on for a while yet.
I might be willing to bet my entire PP that all of those districts have Dem mayors or county supervisors. ::)
Well I'll be damned. I guess it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing if you might be willing to make that kind of a bet.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:28 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:41 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:00 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:34 pm

In my state, there are 10 school districts defying the Governor's anti-mask-mandate law. Whether the school districts have a political affiliation hasn't been made obvious, so I don't know that it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Oral argument in the court case is on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we know where it's heading.
Although now that I think about it, either side could appeal and then appeal some more, so I suppose it could go on for a while yet.
I might be willing to bet my entire PP that all of those districts have Dem mayors or county supervisors. ::)
Well I'll be damned. I guess it is a Democrat vs. Republican thing if you might be willing to make that kind of a bet.
I don't write the script, I just re-report the facts. But this should be obvious to any observer with half a brain by now.
Well it wasn't that obvious to me, but if you're right, I learned something today. I was hoping some school administrators make their decisions with the students in mind without primary regard to political affiliation. But if you say otherwise, I'm not arguing with you. And if my hope labels me with less than half a brain, well, I've been called worse.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by boglerdude » Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:58 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:28 pm
You work in hospital admin? How much are they getting paid/reimbursed for covid, compared to previous years for cold/flu
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:03 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:58 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:28 pm
You work in hospital admin? How much are they getting paid/reimbursed for covid, compared to previous years for cold/flu
boglerdude -
Short answer: 20% more. See more explanation below if you want it.

Longer answer: Hospital reimbursement is complicated. There is not a specific DRG category for "Covid" or any other coronavirus as such. What normally happens is the physician documentation is reviewed by a Health Information Management (think medical records) staff member called a coder. The coder assigns ICD-10 codes to the case based on physician documentation. There are rigid rules around this. The coding then goes into a magical software app called the Grouper program which spits out a DRG. It is that DRG that sets the reimbursement for the case. In March 2020 CMS released an ICD-10 code for Covid-19. So this means in a given case where Covid is present, it will factor into the calculation of the reimbursement. Ultimately it is usually the accompanying acute condition that will mostly drive the DRG and hence the reimbursement. Most are Respiratory oriented. Examples would be Pneumonia, Respiratory failure w/Ventilator, Respiratory failure w/o Ventilator, Respiratory infections with complications, etc.

However, to your question, - in June 2020, the CARES act added a 20% increase to DRGs where Covid is present, so in that respect you might say hospitals are being reimbursed 20% more. This increase was set in place "for the duration of the public health emergency". A cold/flu that resulted in acute hospitalization in previous years would have been the same as the above without the 20%.

In 2021 they released a slew of new ICD-10 codes for things like vaccine administration (yes this can occur in a hospital), administration of monclonal antibodies, other Covid treatments.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by jalanlong » Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:08 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 1:32 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:27 pm
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Aug 17, 2021 10:35 am
tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:46 pm
Well, well, well. Seems like the flippy flopper Republicans, all of the sudden have decided that "their body, their right" to not get vaccinated is a good philosophy. Even if their "choice" results in the death of a human.

Pick a side, Republicans. Make up your minds.
Counterpoint: Much like Democrats have suddenly decided that:

1) Businesses should be able to make their own rules and hire/fire or provide service to whoever they wish (i.e. vaxxed or unvaxxed)
2) In Texas with the governor supporting no mask mandate and the local city leaders pro mask mandate, Democrats have suddenly decided to support local control over one-size-fits-all approach from a centralized bureaucracy.
I find #2 particularly ironic. In IL the courts have ruled the local authorities can not overrule the Governor, but in TX, even tho the courts ruled the same, somehow the locals are managing to ignore it. Just like Biden and the eviction moratorium.
My understanding is that the localities directly involved in the court cases do have to abide by the ruling. Other localities are doing their thing until and unless there's a court case involving them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/te ... d-n1277040

The ISDs here that are keeping the mask mandate against the court injunctions are either saying that they are awaiting a "final" court ruling or are just finding ways around it aka the dress code.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by boglerdude » Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:46 pm

Thanks Glenn. Is that +20% a smart policy?

There's been a major error somewhere, because hospitals still dont have enough staff to handle the covid waves they knew were coming
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by boglerdude » Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:38 pm

I think I'm picking up what you're putting down. The only way to stop this novel virus is full lockdown. We've got to destroy the economy in order to save it.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:48 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:46 pm
Thanks Glenn. Is that +20% a smart policy?
Not really smart, but maybe effective.

It was a crude way to throw money at the hospital industry, negotiated mostly by the AHA lobby group and the White House. Which is not to say the hospital industry wasn't hit with a crisis because it was, but simply throwing 20% at the rates turned into a boon for some and not so much for others. Just a very blunt way of responding. But with time being critical and crisis conditions, maybe the only practical justice was rough justice I guess.

I'd say the same about PPP. Talk about a massive gift of corporate welfare with almost no strings attached. Most healthcare providers I know maxed out the $10MM cap, because what methodology there was tied mostly to payroll and healthcare is very payroll intensive. What many people don't realize is that separation of entities allowed companies to go to the well multiple times, so the cap really wasn't $10MM. It was $10MM x however many entities you had that have a high payroll. You'd be amazed how many separate service division entities go along with most hospital providers. Surprising they didn't put an aggregate cap on it with a related party test.
I personally know at least a dozen business owners who did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption due to COVID yet received forgivable loans in the millions. So all industries, especially healthcare, received a lot of subsidy from that avenue.
Of course there's a macroeconomic argument that the money, however liberally distributed, ended up in the economy stimulating it, so we're all beneficiaries (ironically a Democrat philosophy). But I wouldn't know how to prove whether it worked like that or not and if it were obvious it wouldn't be debated like religion.

Back to your question, there are a lot of perverse and inefficient incentives in the health care reimbursement system that existed prior to COVID and just increased in volume as a result of the higher utilization that accompanied the pandemic. I can give you examples if you like, but it gets into the weeds a bit. It would make you shake your head.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:03 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:48 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:46 pm

Thanks Glenn. Is that +20% a smart policy?


Not really smart, but maybe effective.

It was a crude way to throw money at the hospital industry, negotiated mostly by the AHA lobby group and the White House. Which is not to say the hospital industry wasn't hit with a crisis because it was, but simply throwing 20% at the rates turned into a boon for some and not so much for others. Just a very blunt way of responding. But with time being critical and crisis conditions, maybe the only practical justice was rough justice I guess.

I'd say the same about PPP. Talk about a massive gift of corporate welfare with almost no strings attached. Most healthcare providers I know maxed out the $10MM cap, because what methodology there was tied mostly to payroll and healthcare is very payroll intensive. What many people don't realize is that separation of entities allowed companies to go to the well multiple times, so the cap really wasn't $10MM. It was $10MM x however many entities you had that have a high payroll. You'd be amazed how many separate service division entities go along with most hospital providers. Surprising they didn't put an aggregate cap on it with a related party test.
I personally know at least a dozen business owners who did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption due to COVID yet received forgivable loans in the millions. So all industries, especially healthcare, received a lot of subsidy from that avenue.
Of course there's a macroeconomic argument that the money, however liberally distributed, ended up in the economy stimulating it, so we're all beneficiaries (ironically a Democrat philosophy). But I wouldn't know how to prove whether it worked like that or not and if it were obvious it wouldn't be debated like religion.

Back to your question, there are a lot of perverse and inefficient incentives in the health care reimbursement system that existed prior to COVID and just increased in volume as a result of the higher utilization that accompanied the pandemic. I can give you examples if you like, but it gets into the weeds a bit. It would make you shake your head.


I participated in one application for both the forgivable loan and then it later forgiveness. If what you say is true, then they perpetrated fraud as there was a question to which you had to attest and certify that your business / organization had been impacted financially by the virus. It's been over a year since I prepared the information but I'm also seeming to remember you had to provide some hard numbers demonstrating the financial distress caused by the virus.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:15 pm

Actually I believe the wording was something like, "do you believe that the virus has caused or might cause damage to your business" or some such.

Especially back at the beginning of the PPP, I think pretty much everybody could answer yes.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by jalanlong » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:17 pm

boglerdude wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:38 pm
I think I'm picking up what you're putting down. The only way to stop this novel virus is full lockdown. We've got to destroy the economy in order to save it.
I agree. You cannot have an economy if everyone is dead.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:30 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:15 pm

Actually I believe the wording was something like, "do you believe that the virus has caused or might cause damage to your business" or some such.

Especially back at the beginning of the PPP, I think pretty much everybody could answer yes.


I am going to get that application and put here exactly what it asked.

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (159.13 KiB) Viewed 3609 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:51 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:03 pm


I participated in one application for both the forgivable loan and then it later forgiveness. If what you say is true, then they perpetrated fraud as there was a question to which you had to attest and certify that your business / organization had been impacted financially by the virus.
I don't think they committed fraud Vinny. Here's the Federal Register rules and regulations for the PPP program. Page 2 covers eligibility and "how much can I borrow". https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files ... Rule_0.pdf

The only certification language that comes anywhere close to a declaration of financial impact I am seeing is:
Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the applicant.
Who would *not* be able to make that declaration? But it gets betters. Even this language doesn't show up in the certification page of the application itself (below).

I see the calculation methodology amounts to be based mostly on payroll. Forgiveness looks to be tied to retaining employees. This is what business owners have told me. Almost anyone could qualify. The ineligible were things like businesses owned 20% or more by someone who was incarcerated. Or businesses employing household workers such as nannies. In addition to payroll you could claim covered mortgage interest, covered rent, covered utilities with a maximum threshold of 25% of the loan (which I think was subsequently increased).

Here's the application: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/ ... cation.pdf


It would be interesting to see the % of forgiven vs % of repaid PPP loans one day.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:54 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:49 pm
You did not need proof of anything to get a PPP loan.

But for it to be forgiven, you had to show a loss of revenue from 2019 to 2020 in the same quarter and prove it.
Did you get a PPP loan and did you have to provide that info for forgiveness?
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:57 pm

Yes, thanks Vinny! As Glenn says, it doesn't say anything about your business actually being affected, it only asks whether "uncertainty" makes the money necessary.

Well who wasn't uncertain, especially back when this was being filled out.

And no, Pug, there wasn't any requirement on the forgiveness side to show any lost revenue. Round 2 of PPP had requirements to show actual effects. Round 1 didn't, on either the loan side or the forgiveness side.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:28 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:51 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:03 pm



I participated in one application for both the forgivable loan and then it later forgiveness. If what you say is true, then they perpetrated fraud as there was a question to which you had to attest and certify that your business / organization had been impacted financially by the virus.


I don't think they committed fraud Vinny. Here's the Federal Register rules and regulations for the PPP program. Page 2 covers eligibility and "how much can I borrow". https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files ... Rule_0.pdf

The only certification language that comes anywhere close to a declaration of financial impact I am seeing is:
Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to
support the ongoing operations of the applicant.

Who would *not* be able to make that declaration? But it gets betters. Even this language doesn't show up in the certification page of the application itself (below).

I see the calculation methodology amounts to be based mostly on payroll. Forgiveness looks to be tied to retaining employees. This is what business owners have told me. Almost anyone could qualify. The ineligible were things like businesses owned 20% or more by someone who was incarcerated. Or businesses employing household workers such as nannies. In addition to payroll you could claim covered mortgage interest, covered rent, covered utilities with a maximum threshold of 25% of the loan (which I think was subsequently increased).

Here's the application: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/ ... cation.pdf


It would be interesting to see the % of forgiven vs % of repaid PPP loans one day.


You stated: "I personally know at least a dozen business owners who did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption due to COVID "

I remember when working with the head person of the organization to create the application that this person paused at that line and thought about the organization's circumstances...we both interpreted it to mean a significant negative impact on the organization / business.

If at the time of the application....which was nearly two months into the country being shut down....they'd not seen one dollar's worth of business interruption and had no reason to believe that they'd see any in the future then I still maintain they committed fraud...
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:35 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:57 pm

Yes, thanks Vinny! As Glenn says, it doesn't say anything about your business actually being affected, it only asks whether "uncertainty" makes the money necessary.

Well who wasn't uncertain, especially back when this was being filled out.

And no, Pug, there wasn't any requirement on the forgiveness side to show any lost revenue. Round 2 of PPP had requirements to show actual effects. Round 1 didn't, on either the loan side or the forgiveness side.


I am looking at this form:

Paycheck Protection Program
PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508EZ


It included this:

In addition, the Authorized Representative of the Borrower must certify by initialing at least ONE of the following two items:
_____ The Borrower did not reduce the number of employees or the average paid hours of employees between January 1, 2020 and
the end of the Covered Period (other than any reductions that arose from an inability to rehire individuals who were
employees on February 15, 2020, if the Borrower was unable to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions on
or before December 31, 2020, and reductions in an employee’s hours that a borrower offered to restore and were refused).


_____ The Borrower was unable to operate between February 15, 2020, and the end of the Covered Period at the same level of
business activity as before February 15, 2020 due to compliance with requirements established or guidance issued between
March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, related to the maintenance of
standards of sanitation, social distancing, or any other work or customer safety requirement related to COVID-19
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by glennds » Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:56 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:28 pm

You stated: "I personally know at least a dozen business owners who did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption due to COVID "

Right. With what we know now, they did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption. At the time of the PPP application, there was so much uncertainty and no crystal ball so they could not make the same statement then.
vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:28 pm
I remember when working with the head person of the organization to create the application that this person paused at that line and thought about the organization's circumstances...we both interpreted it to mean a significant negative impact on the organization / business.

If at the time of the application....which was nearly two months into the country being shut down....they'd not seen one dollar's worth of business interruption and had no reason to believe that they'd see any in the future then I still maintain they committed fraud...
The bold part you have added. I never represented that anyone told me that. Frankly, I don't see how anyone from any industry could make that statement given a pandemic the scope of which was unfolding day by day.

To get and keep the money, all they had to acknowledge was "uncertainty" and to get it forgiven, the tests for round 1 are mostly payroll and head count, not revenue. I don't see how you can allege fraud.

One friend is the owner of a Title company. Of course was worried about the future. The daily headlines were scary.
He got a PPP loan. Never laid anyone off, thankfully never saw a decline in business. Then a housing boom erupted and transaction volume jumped off the chart. When he applied for forgiveness he truthfully reported before and after payroll and head count, mortgage interest, utilities, rent. Loan forgiven.
Show me the fraud.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:10 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:56 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:28 pm


You stated: "I personally know at least a dozen business owners who did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption due to COVID "



Right. With what we know now, they did not see one dollar's worth of business interruption. At the time of the PPP application, there was so much uncertainty and no crystal ball so they could not make the same statement then.

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:28 pm

I remember when working with the head person of the organization to create the application that this person paused at that line and thought about the organization's circumstances...we both interpreted it to mean a significant negative impact on the organization / business.

If at the time of the application....which was nearly two months into the country being shut down....they'd not seen one dollar's worth of business interruption and had no reason to believe that they'd see any in the future then I still maintain they committed fraud...


The bold part you have added. I never represented that anyone told me that. Frankly, I don't see how anyone from any industry could make that statement given a pandemic the scope of which was unfolding day by day.

To get and keep the money, all they had to acknowledge was "uncertainty" and to get it forgiven, the tests for round 1 are mostly payroll and head count, not revenue. I don't see how you can allege fraud.

One friend is the owner of a Title company. Of course was worried about the future. The daily headlines were scary.
He got a PPP loan. Never laid anyone off, thankfully never saw a decline in business. Then a housing boom erupted and transaction volume jumped off the chart. When he applied for forgiveness he truthfully reported before and after payroll and head count, mortgage interest, utilities, rent. Loan forgiven.
Show me the fraud.


I made an "and" statement. If they'd seen no decline (which you are saying that they had not) AND they did not expect any decline then where was the need for the loan?

If they were uncertain then then the two parts of the "and" statement would not be being met and they'd not be committing fraud.

Do you think the supermarket industry could have believed that they were facing uncertainty with products flying off the shelves?

What was the day everything closed? Somewhere around mid-March. I had been thinking mid-February but now I'm remember it was, instead, mid-March.

We made our application the first day one could - April 4th. So it was only less than a month from when the "world had closed" until then, instead of the almost two months I thought there had been.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:19 pm

I don't think anybody could be certain about anything. Heck even in normal times 100% certainty is pretty much unavailable.

If I'm a grocery store manager, business may have been good so far. But how do I know that my suppliers won't all go belly-up next month when the outbreak spreads?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Republicans Support Your Body Your Choice Now?

Post by vnatale » Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:03 am

tomfoolery wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:39 am

PPP was a scam to artificially reduce unemployment numbers temporarily since employees at businesses who closed temporarily could either take the PPP payroll money or receive unemployment benefits, but not both.

Business owners took PPP money that was only forgivable if used for payroll and documented as such. They had closed businesses for weeks/months due to covid restrictions and wanted to offer free payroll to their employees to stay home and not work. Otherwise this PPP wasn't forgiven.

The business benefited because even though this payroll was paid by the US government, it became a deductible business expense for them, as if they'd paid it themselves.

The employees, on paper might benefit, getting paid to stay home.

The stock market benefits because UI numbers look artificially lower, since anyone getting PPP was not eligible for UI for the 10 to 24 week period of each PPP round.

The employees did not actually benefit because most were eligible for higher amounts than their regular paycheck due to $600/week enhanced UI. So employees were refusing to accept the PPP-based payroll from their employers, which them put the employers in a pickle, since they'd not receive forgiveness for any amount not used for payroll, and then also not get a tax deduction.

Some rough math:

Restaurant employees 20 people at $10 an hour. That's $400 per week per person, or $8k total payroll per week.

PPP offers 10 weeks of payroll or $80k.

Restaurant owner has business shuttered due to restrictions but offers employees their $400 per week to stay home. Assuming all employees accept the payroll for 10 weeks, the employer gets the $80k forgiven, and on their next year taxes, gets to deduct $80k off their income taxes as a business expense (payroll) in spite of the fact that they didn't directly themselves pay the payroll. Assuming a 30% tax bracket, that's $24k free money for the business in tax deductions.

The employees though, who used to earn $400 per-COVID, and who were offered the same $400 per week during the PPP covered period, would be eligible for $900 per week on unemployment insurance if their business was closed due to COVID and they were not getting paid.

So many employees said screw your $400 check (which came from PPP), I want $900 UI.

Which of course is bad for the employer (who loses out on a $24k tax deduction), and is bad for the stock market (due to higher UI), and is bad for legitimately unemployed people, who now found massive delays trying to file for UI due to record number of filers.

Also the Republican governors who cut off the enhanced UI benefits early are monsters.


It was quite possible for both to happen....Have employees on unemployment and have a PPP loan which was forgiven.

As long as you met the qualifications for forgiveness....the PPP loan was forgiven and a fair amount of employees got to earn more money from being unemployed than working.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply