CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program???? - Page 15
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 340
  1. #281
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8344
    Likes (Received)
    5489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    ...being paid more to stay home is not a bug it is a feature. Low paid workers forced back to work when it is not safe for personal economic reasons is a bad idea

    61 year old Daisy working her 32 hour a week job and the Piggly Wiggly and bringing back the virus to kill her and her 70 year old husband because the $7.25 she gets is paying the rent is a problem
    While I feel for Daisy, this reminds me of the vocalist who had her own clothing label which was exposed as being made by people presumably in a sweatshop in Honduras or somewhere making only 31 cents an hour or something—which to us sounds like criminal exploitation. Anyway, nobody stopped to consider that in that particular place 31 cents was actually a good wage. After the media attention they had to transfer operations elsewhere. The net result was ZERO cents an hour for the (formerly) exploited. Cruel and unfeeling though it may seem, Daisy has the choice, albeit an unpleasant one, between 7.25 and whatever she can get on unemployment, for as long as unemployment lasts. After that's used up, there's 7.25 or nothing—assuming that job is still there. To earn the 7.25, does she have to risk catching COVID-19? Sure. Seasonal Flu? Sure. A common rhinovirus? Without a doubt. In fact, a cashier's interaction with the public at a Piggly Wiggly has always carried a risk of contagion. At this point in time we have to consider whether the introduction of one additional risk is worth closing the PW and telling her (and everybody else) to stay home for 2 or 3 months. When the UI runs out and people run out of money I think you have to shoulder the risk and reopen. "Personal economic reasons" if taken to the logical extreme eventually include starvation or malnutrition leading to death—infected with bat virus or not. This is, in the main, the view (rapidly taking hold, apparently) that the shutting down the world's ecomony may turn out to have been the worst decision in history.

  2. Likes Ox, Fal Grunt, adh2000 liked this post
  3. #282
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    To earn the 7.25, does she have to risk catching COVID-19? Sure. Seasonal Flu? Sure. A common rhinovirus? Without a doubt. In fact, a cashier's interaction with the public at a Piggly Wiggly has always carried a risk of contagion. At this point in time we have to consider whether the introduction of one additional risk is worth closing the PW and telling her (and everybody else) to stay home for 2 or 3 months.
    I think you're glossing over the seriousness of that "one additional risk."

  4. #283
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8344
    Likes (Received)
    5489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    I think you're glossing over the seriousness of that "one additional risk."
    You're glossing over the seriousness of poverty when you assume it's a preferred choice, but you're welcome to your opinion.

    More and more, even the most biased tabulation fails to reveal COVID-19 as the killer it was originally presented as. Fervid media references to "fork lifts loading bodies onto trucks in New York" turned out to be exaggerations worthy of Chicken Little. In fact, this hysteria—which is a more apt description with each passing day—absolutely begs comparison to the the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming schtick. Or global cooling. Or melting polar bears, or whatever, as though it were an article of faith. Which, frankly, it verges on. The sole prayer the left has of defeating Trump in November is a depression which the stupid might be persuaded was his fault. It is indisputably in the interest of the left that as many as possible feel economic pain because of the assumption they will vote Democrat. That ought to make you ashamed. Anyway, you tell Daisy it's for her own good to forego her income.

  5. Likes Ox, SND liked this post
  6. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Medina OH
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    270
    Likes (Received)
    1067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    You're glossing over the seriousness of poverty when you assume it's a preferred choice, but you're welcome to your opinion.

    More and more, even the most biased tabulation fails to reveal COVID-19 as the killer it was originally presented as. Fervid media references to "fork lifts loading bodies onto trucks in New York" turned out to be exaggerations worthy of Chicken Little. In fact, this hysteria—which is a more apt description with each passing day—absolutely begs comparison to the the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming schtick. Or global cooling. Or melting polar bears, or whatever, as though it were an article of faith. Which, frankly, it verges on. The sole prayer the left has of defeating Trump in November is a depression which the stupid might be persuaded was his fault. It is indisputably in the interest of the left that as many as possible feel economic pain because of the assumption they will vote Democrat. That ought to make you ashamed. Anyway, you tell Daisy it's for her own good to forego her income.
    Woah woah woah... You mean the failing economy wasn't caused by of the failure of capitalism?

  7. Likes Oldwrench liked this post
  8. #285
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    You're glossing over the seriousness of poverty when you assume it's a preferred choice, but you're welcome to your opinion.
    I offered no opinion on what Daisy's preferred choice should be, nor did I discount the seriousness of poverty.

  9. #286
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8344
    Likes (Received)
    5489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fal Grunt View Post
    Woah woah woah... You mean the failing economy wasn't caused by of the failure of capitalism?
    Heh, heh. For a second there, I thought I had posted in the political subforum.

  10. #287
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8344
    Likes (Received)
    5489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
    I offered no opinion on what Daisy's preferred choice should be, nor did I discount the seriousness of poverty.
    OK, perhaps I just misunderstood. But my point is, Daisy's choice is becoming a stark binary one, the more so with each passing day. Look at dust bowl photos of people living in boxcars and tents and what their kids look like. If I were Daisy, I would opt for possible exposure to C-19 on the job as infinitely preferable to that. And, I'm not Daisy but to me it's a no-brainer.

  11. Likes Trueturning liked this post
  12. #288
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    So how many of you guys.Got a notice from your bank and CPA’s.That forgiveness of this loan has been changed.There is a very good chance.A lot of us will not get a grant for this loan.That loan will have to be and expected to be paid back in full.The rules have been changed again as usual and we have until 5-7 to return the money no questions asked or fees applied if done so

  13. #289
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    567
    Likes (Received)
    492

    Default

    I don't believe any changes have happened.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  14. #290
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    You might want to contact your CPA and Bank.Because it’s rule 31 that has been changed.That all companies must prove.Not just big business and publicly traded companies.

  15. #291
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    432
    Likes (Received)
    2702

    Default

    appears to be related to large loans [over 2mill] to public corporations

    a week ago, no new info that I can see

  16. #292
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Look up Treasury FAQ #37 .It now pertains to all companies.Not just those companies now.

  17. #293
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCEDM View Post
    You might want to contact your CPA and Bank.Because it’s rule 31 that has been changed.That all companies must prove.Not just big business and publicly traded companies.
    I think there was some bad PR when the initial funding was sucked up so quickly, with some of it going to large companies that really didn't need the money. We received a letter from Chase on April 24, which was basically a warning not to try any monkey business of that sort. This is part of that letter:

    The new guidance strengthens some of the language regarding qualifications for a Paycheck Protection Program Loan. Specifically, we would like to remind you:

    1. When you applied you certified that “current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.”

    2. You have the opportunity to withdraw your application if you do not feel you meet this criteria.

    3. If you’ve already been funded, and you believe you do not meet this criteria, you can repay your loan by May 7, 2020 and the SBA will treat that repayment as being in good faith.

    If you cannot certify and want us to stop processing your application or you want to return your funding, you’ll need to follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.

    Read the Important Information below before you make any decisions. Please be sure to read the FAQ shown below in its entirety and, if necessary, consult with your counsel or advisor:


    31. Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business's ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

    Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that "current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification.

    Lenders may rely on a borrower's certification regarding the necessity of the loan request. Any borrower that applied for a PPP loan prior to the issuance of this guidance and repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020 will be deemed by SBA to have made the required certification in good faith.

    Please remember that you also certified you understood that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

  18. #294
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    13

    Default

    Tomato Coupe That is correct it now applies to ALL companies Big and Small .They updated it on 4-29

  19. #295
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    125
    Likes (Received)
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCEDM View Post
    Tomato Coupe That is correct it now applies to ALL companies Big and Small .They updated it on 4-29
    I don't see your point. Are you a publicly traded company or have huge piles of cash laying around? I don't see any change.

    "such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification"

    So, that means anyone now, so what? I guess if work had not slowed down at all for you, you might have a hard time showing the need. It does say by request and was meant to mean Shake Shack etc.

  20. #296
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    432
    Likes (Received)
    2702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CosmosK View Post
    I don't see your point. Are you a publicly traded company or have huge piles of cash laying around? I don't see any change.

    "such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification"

    So, that means anyone now, so what? I guess if work had not slowed down at all for you, you might have a hard time showing the need. It does say by request and was meant to mean Shake Shack etc.
    They said everyone will be audited

    I assumed we would be audited, didn't everyone
    It does not say they will try to ascertain whether you needed the money, just that you used it properly


    That is why I recommended that Jancollc write himself checks

    If you borrowed 100k and laid everyone off and spent it on booze and cheap hookers, expect the gov't to be unamused

  21. Likes Ox, CosmosK, Oldwrench, Trueturning liked this post
  22. #297
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    759
    Likes (Received)
    2500

    Default

    I received the scary email from Chase too, it doesn't change anything for me.

    I can show economic impact in the first quarter greater than the loan amount.
    I can show where every penny goes. What I take out each month on average, is right at the amount I stated on the application.

    I won't change the way I do my accounting. I am already "audit proof" as far as I'm concerned- that's just how I run my business. If they want to peer into every financial transaction I make, okay by me. They won't find any misbehavior because it's not there. They can have my entire QB database and admin password if they want, they already have access to my bank statements. They match to the penny. I keep everything. I have every receipt, every cancelled check, and I know exactly where to find them- everything filed and labeled by year, upstairs in bankers boxes.

    I have no outside source of income, claimed or otherwise. I spend my days at my shop, and have for the last 14 years. I'm easy to find, and I don't spend above my means. There are no Ferraris in my garage, I'm sad to say.

    If they want me to pay it all back, I will look at is as a 1% micro-loan, and I will just pay it back.

    I can't imagine they are going to expend a lot of energy chasing after us little guys, there's nothing to gain.

    The scary language is a response to the criticism the banks and SBA received in the first tranche, for approving companies like the Ruth's steak house, and wealthy institutions like Harvard that could have easily done without the PPP money.

    The people on this board are among the very people the program was intended to support- no one's going to be coming after us.

  23. #298
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    432
    Likes (Received)
    2702

    Default

    So the first run at the PPP was 349 billion
    part of that was 600 bucks a week for working people

    500 billion for large corporations[who couldn't keep their hands off the 'small business' part]

    So what are people bitchin about ?

    the 600 bucks

    so very typical

    upside is you know who your dependable employees are

  24. #299
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    432
    Likes (Received)
    2702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    While I feel for Daisy, this reminds me of the vocalist who had her own clothing label which was exposed as being made by people presumably in a sweatshop in Honduras or somewhere making only 31 cents an hour or something—which to us sounds like criminal exploitation. Anyway, nobody stopped to consider that in that particular place 31 cents was actually a good wage. After the media attention they had to transfer operations elsewhere. The net result was ZERO cents an hour for the (formerly) exploited. Cruel and unfeeling though it may seem, Daisy has the choice, albeit an unpleasant one, between 7.25 and whatever she can get on unemployment, for as long as unemployment lasts. After that's used up, there's 7.25 or nothing—assuming that job is still there. To earn the 7.25, does she have to risk catching COVID-19? Sure. Seasonal Flu? Sure. A common rhinovirus? Without a doubt. In fact, a cashier's interaction with the public at a Piggly Wiggly has always carried a risk of contagion. At this point in time we have to consider whether the introduction of one additional risk is worth closing the PW and telling her (and everybody else) to stay home for 2 or 3 months. When the UI runs out and people run out of money I think you have to shoulder the risk and reopen. "Personal economic reasons" if taken to the logical extreme eventually include starvation or malnutrition leading to death—infected with bat virus or not. This is, in the main, the view (rapidly taking hold, apparently) that the shutting down the world's ecomony may turn out to have been the worst decision in history.
    So what you are telling me is that those minimum wage jobs that old fart reactionaries here say are not 'real' jobs that you are supposed to go get a 'real' job and not a minimum wage job, those jobs, are now so important that they must be forced to go to work at the risk of their or their loved ones lives? What, so you can get your beer and American cheese in expeditious fashion?

    OR how about those meat plant workers, elbow to elbow, not PPE, yeah, cut em off, fook them, gimmee my hot dogs and ground beef

    It that really what you are telling me?

  25. #300
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    133
    Likes (Received)
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    If you borrowed 100k and laid everyone off and spent it on booze and cheap hookers, expect the gov't to be unamused
    I'd assume they'd offer you a seat in Congress.

  26. Likes SND liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •