|
|
|
|
|
|
by sure_about_that
1349 days ago
|
|
|
==covering employment costs due to lower demand, and to cover costs due to being shut down.== Except that there wasn't lower demand across the whole economy, only very specific industries. Most businesses were not shut down. Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand. They still got forgivable loans. Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)? |
|
|
Obviously some industries weren't impacted. Many were though. The GDP also declined.
You can probably say the same about every recession.
>Most businesses were not shut down
I never said they were. I've seen some estimates at 200,000 businesses. A huge number of businesses went out of business as well.
>Lots of businesses continued running, and had increased demand.
And lots of businesses who continued running had decreased demand.
Even if the demand remained the same or increased they might not be able to meet the requirements like outside eating or distancing which would limit their revenues.
>Perhaps the perception it has more to do with who signed the legislation (a Republican President and Senate) than whether it was actually "socialist" (it was)?
It is not socialist. Socialist can mean either state controlled or worker controlled. This is corporate welfare.
Just to be clear. I am not defending this policy. I am strictly saying that this is more justifiable then paying off student loans since the government literally shut many businesses and put other rules on businesses.