I just read the below article about Shake Shack deciding to return their large loan intended for smaller businesses.
[finance.yahoo.com]
I admire this company I mystery shop for. Any other clients that make you proud you shop for them?

I'm glad they did that. I wish the others would follow suit.

I am frankly outraged that any bank found them to be a "small business" eligible for $10 million of taxpayer funds because these "loans" are forgivable. They may hire a lot of minimum wage workers--who taxpayers are trying to protect--but they are a 1.6 BILLION dollar company. As a taxpayer I agreed with the notion of trying to insulate SMALL businesses to protect the 15 to 20 employees they might have.

I'm sorry I don't admire them. The loophole was created for companies like them and they were aware of that when they applied. They only gave it back after public backlash and I don't believe their oh this is all so confusing we applied for the wrong program bull sh....

The head honchos at Potbelly and at Ruth's Chris must have been equally "confused." THIS is what consumers should remember after we return to the "new normal."

I have to guess that Shake Shack's CEO and President, Mr. Randall J. Garutti, was confused because his salary is only 3.5 million per year.

Unfortunately consumers seem to have short memories, but I would appreciate a list of recipients of Small Business Loans/(gifts) being published for review by taxpayers and to become a permanent part of public record.

@Jenny Cassada wrote:

I'm glad they did that. I wish the others would follow suit.

Sadly, even with large companies giving their loans back, the damage has already been done.... Money has to go back, the process has to start all over again with the bank AFTER SBA receives it and notifies the next in queue, etc.... Like a damn lottery.

The businesses that genuinely needed were pushed out of queue and/or on-hold, while many of those businesses already went under, if not on the brink of it.

By the reasoning they initially utilized, "Oh, we have fewer than 500 employees IN EACH LOCATION", almost every business I shop would have qualified -- including gas stations, whose owners are multi-BILLION dollar businesses.

I don't think they were confused at all...but it is the right thing they're returning the money.

I read Mar-A-Largo (sp) just "furloughed" employees....hmmmmmm....

@ceasesmith wrote:

I read Mar-A-Largo (sp) just "furloughed" employees....hmmmmmm....

Pretty much expected. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. Trump and all family members are blocked from benefiting from the stimulus package.

Speaking of furloughs, what does everyone think about the furloughs from the Kennedy Center? Nancy Pelosi sits on the Kennedy Center Board, and, at her insistence, $25 million in federal relief was added to the stimulus package to keep employees from being furloughed. Immediately after accepting the $25 million, the Kennedy Center announced they would furlough 60% of their staff. Many senators and representatives are seeking to cancel that $25 million. Hmmmmmm.......

@roflwofl wrote:

Speaking of furloughs, what does everyone think about the furloughs from the Kennedy Center? Nancy Pelosi sits on the Kennedy Center Board, and, at her insistence, $25 million in federal relief was added to the stimulus package to keep employees from being furloughed. Immediately after accepting the $25 million, the Kennedy Center announced they would furlough 60% of their staff. Many senators and representatives are seeking to cancel that $25 million. Hmmmmmm.......

Regardless of when a bill is written in good faith, the issue when rushing things into acceptance, throwing more people at it is not going to help the quality of it; it's just fact and how things work realistically. It's like when a Specification is rushed out, there are loopholes that are not properly covered, hence a bad quality Specification. The pressure to get bills pushed through end up suffering from this, more than likely. As for companies taking advantage when from a high level, they should understand the original intent of the bill, that's up to them. From a business perspective, if the law (bill) allows it, the correct business move would be to do whatever is allowed to ensure your business doesn't go under or suffer, in general.

I don't think that any of us fantasize that ANY politician is above reproach. It really is sort of the cleaner shirts in the laundry hamper. This goes for local, state and federal elected folks. We should have learned that in grade school with cheerleader, class president and prom queen "elections". I liked the exhortation by a former President that even in a marriage compromises are needed if things are to run smoothly.

The problem is money. Special interests have more to spend on candidates than individuals are allowed to contribute. Favors get called for help in getting a candidate elected. Voters are not skeptical enough about campaign advertising bought by PACs. As a result we get "the best government money can buy".

The thread is sort of political, so I'm throwing in my two cents worth.

I grew up believing we were the good guys (USA). I'm patriotic, and prouder than heck of my country.

But I believe PACs and lobbyists make us as corrupt as any banana republic anywhere.

I'm saddened by it, too.



I see a nation morally corrupt, with morally corrupt leaders.

Where lying and cheating is not only accepted, but admired.

Where over HALF of newborns are outside marriage (and I'm not talking just poor people).

I don't see us as a nation morally corrupt. I see us rather as a country where folks have a decent chance at self actualization but who become angry and accusatory when they are stymied in that quest. If anything, we don't take personal responsibility and personal control of our own situation because it is too easy to say "I can't because . . ." But the bottom line is that we have the freedom to carve out our destiny or to not be bothered. Self actualization does not come from regulating others. "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose." I will not judge another's decision whether to give birth inside or outside of marriage, I only become engaged when you do not tend, raise and train your offspring to live peaceably and productively in society. I will not judge whether a woman decides whether to keep or abort a pregnancy. It really is none of my business, though if she does not tend, raise and train that child it eventually may engage me.

We are NOT our politicians and our politicians are not truly representing US. That is a problem. It also is a challenge to the basic tenets of Democracy and truly the only way to change that is an engaged electorate that not only votes but takes the time to really evaluate the candidates and issues. Don't vote for a person or issue because somebody told you it was the better choice. Explore for yourself and use things like Fact Checker to determine what is untrue or only a half truth.

While right now we may look like a banana republic, that is a recent phenomenon. We as a nation have mostly conducted ourselves with kindness, generosity and a hand up to the rest of the world. In more recent times, that role has been taken over more and more by private philanthropists.

@ceasesmith wrote:

But I believe PACs and lobbyists make us as corrupt as any banana republic anywhere.

Just remember that it wasn't always like this and doesn't have to be!

Whether one is Democrat, Republican, or independent, you can support initiatives to get money out of politics. Wolf PAC is one such organization.

*runs away now as I'll surely be reported for posting political content!*

You didn't open the door.

I think the idea or moral corruption is potentially subjective, and dependent on your particular morals.

The way one interacts with the world defines them more than the platform they stand on....and what one may see as nationalism, another may see as ethnocentrism. And to tie the politics of all that back into MSing; That is my main takeaway from my experiences as a mystery shopper.

I started out trying to find a way to help pay my bills, and instead discovered a way to see the world. The more of the world one see, the greater your understanding of national values v.s human values may become. We are not facing a critical lack of marriage. We are are facing a critical lack of parenting. I think that's basically what Flash is saying as well.

One of the little details in the inadequate parenting issue is that some parents believe that schools should do everything for their children. They just... hand 'em over and that's it. Even though some schools are engaging parents in the learning process, this is not the same as parents offering a place where their kids can think, and dream, and ponder, and muse, and try things (safe things that are supervised!), and ask questions that are not brushed aside...

Well I do think we've become a nation of enablers though. What I'm truly disappointed in is that schools are expected to provide free meals for children..breakfast, lunch and in some cases dinner. My dear lord, if you can't afford to feed your children..don't have 'em. Since when has it become the school's (taxpayers) responsibility to feed as well as educate? So now that schools have closed, parents can pick up or have delivered free meals courtesy of the public school system..huh???? I don't live in a town of poverty but it's being done here and my tax rate is probably higher than anyone on this forum, so yes, I resent this. I highly doubt that the folks getting the free meals can't afford to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or chicken dinner for their family.

Yes. A few years ago, the hubby and I were wandering around the new-to-our-town dollar store and marveling. I was thinking out loud about how someone could stretch their meager food dollars and eat for a week, or a month... Fast forward to the appearance of the food bags that students pick up at school and take home. I think some kids are using these food gifts to feed themselves and their families. This is tragic. This food program costs some money, but that might be better than starving children who are not fed properly at home.

Now, we are talking about two generations back. When, exactly, did this begin?

@MsJudi wrote:

Well I do think we've become a nation of enablers though. What I'm truly disappointed in is that schools are expected to provide free meals for children..breakfast, lunch and in some cases dinner. My dear lord, if you can't afford to feed your children..don't have 'em. Since when has it become the school's (taxpayers) responsibility to feed as well as educate? So now that schools have closed, parents can pick up or have delivered free meals courtesy of the public school system..huh???? I don't live in a town of poverty but it's being done here and my tax rate is probably higher than anyone on this forum, so yes, I resent this. I highly doubt that the folks getting the free meals can't afford to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or chicken dinner for their family.

@MsJudi wrote:

I don't live in a town of poverty but it's being done here and my tax rate is probably higher than anyone on this forum, so yes, I resent this. I highly doubt that the folks getting the free meals can't afford to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or chicken dinner for their family.

My first thought is; How many of your hard-earned tax dollars do you really think are going into feeding school children?...in terms of what you pay, and the percentage that goes into that program?

Second, I don't have have children, yet have no issue whatsoever with my tax dollars being used to ensure that hungry children are fed, even at the expense of feeding children that may otherwise cared for, so if you have a higher tax liability than me and take issue with it, I will refer to my above statement about human values and expand the critical lack to include basic humanity.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

The more of the world one see, the greater your understanding of national values v.s human values may become.

We as a nation are in a rather unique space because our freedom allows us to experiment and try new things yet have the rest of the world to gauge our relative success or failure against. In a greater sense, our freedom is limited by precepts common to all civilizations as defining the ground rules that allow us to live together without constant conflict. Think of the Ten Commandments and leave out those specifically related to a God/man relationship and you have the basic ground rules for all civilizations: respect for those under the same roof, avoidance of murder, theft, lying and jealousy. Of course there are expansions on each of these, but they are the expression of the common basic "moral" or "ethical" behaviors. Most civilizations also have added clauses to help those less able to help themselves as an expansion of our "roof" and respect concepts.

Under the same roof the husband wants to use the $X resources for a ___________ while the wife wants to spend them for a _____________ and the kids would really like ___________________. Respectfully a compromise must be worked out if you are to honor all those under the roof. What would be disrespectful and immoral would be for one party to snatch the resources because they are bigger or stronger or more entitled and only get what they want.

When we look at politicians we would expect similar types of respectful compromise because constituencies around the country have different needs. Nebraska does not need hurricane protections and Florida does not need snow removal assistance. 'Horse trading' votes for snow removal in exchange for votes for hurricane protections just makes sense. What we are seeing goes far beyond 'horse trading' to tantrums and pure obstruction which is, no surprise, met by tantrums and pure obstruction. We have gone from 50 states and the territories vying with civil discourse to have the needs of their constituents met to two political parties who would be damned before they would give their 'opponents' an inch. In my view, that is immoral.

I view the Ruth's Chris and Shake Shack et al folly as an extension of 'sticking it to them' between the political parties rather than respectfully attempting to help those less able to help themselves. So while it is 'good business' for Shake Shack et al to grab what they have become "entitled to", it reflects directly on immoral and amoral behavior by elected officials.

@Flash wrote:

We have gone from 50 states and the territories vying with civil discourse to have the needs of their constituents met to two political parties who would be damned before they would give their 'opponents' an inch. In my view, that is immoral.

I view the Ruth's Chris and Shake Shack et al folly as an extension of 'sticking it to them' between the political parties rather than respectfully attempting to help those less able to help themselves. So while it is 'good business' for Shake Shack et al to grab what they have become "entitled to", it reflects directly on immoral and amoral behavior by elected officials.

Well said! I agree. "A nation divided cannot stand..."

I have no issue with schools handing out free food. This food does not come from the consumer retail food chain. It comes from a chain allocated for school and cafeteria dining. If this food is not purchased then it gets tossed out. It’s already happen in the supply chain that grows and sells food to restaurants. Would you prefer that the food be thrown away?

This also allows for money to continue reaching everyone who delivers the food to the farmer who is growing the wheat for the bread. On top of that, there are parents who both have stopped working. Some people haven’t received their unemployment even though the applications were submitted a month ago, others have yet to receive their stimulus deposits and can’t get answers from the IRS. While I do believe that people shouldn’t have kids that they can’t afford, there are plenty of people who always intend to work. They save and watch their budgets for a rainy day, with most expecting that the rainy day will come as the loss of income from one parent, not both. I really doubt that there’s a large segment of the hardworking population who thought that both husband and wife would be out of a job at the same time. If these school meals can help them in any way possible then I am for it. Again, if they don’t receive it, it gets thrown out

Another note....The budget for this school year has already been set and allocated. Guess what happens at the end of the school year when there is a lot of money left over? Teachers and schools administrator begin to eat catered lunches in order to use up this money. If the money does not get used then it’s assumed that it’s not needed, and they risk not getting the same amount the following school year. The schools have been wasting a lot of money for decades now

I'm glad the children are being fed. My issue is when did it become the public schools responsibility to do so? I have empathy for those less fortunate, but you make the bed you sleep in. Don't make it sound like I have no respect for human values. Come on. You are so self-righteous, aren't you!!

Glad California has such kind and generous minded individuals so willing to help the less fortunate. Why are there so many sleeping on the streets then?

Our school district participates in the federal Community Eligibility Provision program, which provides free breakfast and lunch to all students, regardless of age or income. As a taxpayer I applaud the program, especially since it has geared the meals more to what kids need for growth and development. Before when we had the standard 'free, reduced, full price' meal program there was some social stigma of kids on free or reduced--and trust me, kids figure that one out fast! The stigma carried on to the classroom. Now any kid can show up for breakfast and lunches are completely egalitarian with a lunch packed from home being special dietary rather than any economic or social statement. The program is allowed to continue year round, whether school is open or not and as a taxpayer I see that as appropriate also. It is not just on school days that kids need a decent diet.

The role of the schools should be to educate. Every kid paying the same $0 for breakfast and/or lunch means the teacher or aide does not spend time collecting money and keeping tabs of who is paid up and who is in arrears.

Edited to add: Our schools also offer restrooms, drinking fountains, showers in the gym locker rooms, chairs and desks, books in their libraries, musical instruments if there is a music program, art supplies and lockers. My reaction is that food is as essential as all these things, yet we don't require students to bring their water from home or go get their free reading and research materials from the public library--both of which might save taxpayers a little money.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 07:53PM by Flash.

And dairy farms are pouring out milk because schools and restaurants are closed.

[www.cbsnews.com]

@MsJudi wrote:

I have empathy for those less fortunate, but you make the bed you sleep in.

I feel like those two ideas are opposed. Does that empathy not include people who may have suffered an illness in the family, lost a family member, are the product of an abusive relationship or possibly just not have made the bed they sleep in due to a variety of circumstances beyond their control.

And do you really think the number of homeless people in California is related a lack of generosity of the citizens?

I will accept self-righteous if it makes you feel better to put a label on it. Again, I think exposure to other cultures and ideals tends to wear down the "Keep your hands off my stash" mentality. I live in an area that attracts the dregs of everyone else's communities, so I probably have as much of a chip on my shoulder regarding intolerance as one can.

You have all the right in the world to feel angry about other people's children being fed with your tax money, but if you are going to complain on a public forum about it, then at least do yourself the service of figuring out what the actual cost to you is, and the circumstances around the particular reasons for it.

I much prefer to have my "charitable" giving go to the "charity/ies" of my choosing and not the government's. I don't believe that makes me any less moral than the next person.

@HoomanShopper wrote:

I much prefer to have my "charitable" giving go to the "charity/ies" of my choosing and not the government's. I don't believe that makes me any less moral than the next person.

I certainly agree, which is why I pay only what is minimally required that I pay to the government and then support charities of my choice. But overall I don't recognize the government's disaster payments as "charity". Part of the historical purpose of a government is mutual support. Historical leaders such as the Inca in Peru required "tribute" from subjects that were accounted for by a hierarchical group of accountants who made certain that the populace paid a share of their agricultural production to the Inca each year. This, in turn, was stored in the Inca's warehouses and distributed to the populace in times of crop failures.