.....And the House weighs in

[iluvatar5150]

Sorry iluvatar5150 but it is obvious to me that you have no grasp of what this bill is about except to deliver pork to those entities that you approve of; and that is a very weak grasp indeed.....I think we are done here.....

What's obvious to me is that, of the two of us, I'm the only one who's taken the time to read and think about any of this rather than just copy-pasting stuff from other articles. (which seems reminiscent of that other thread where you didn't read the OP and then "agreed" with another poster's articles that completely undermined your position).

Your argument about the terminology is nonsensical and rather than articulating a response to my objection, you're coming back with what amounts to "nuh uh, you're a dummy".

 

[Hazelelponi]

By your own numbers, without that $77m, the Kennedy Center will be $55m in the red. Any drop in donations will make that even worse.



I already told you why. The Kennedy Center is a special case funded in part by the government and administered by the Smithsonian. The federal government owns the facilities and federal law specifies who certain board members are:
20 U.S. Code Subchapter V - JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
https://www.kennedy-center.org/our-story/history/

The KennedyCenter is not a special case here. THE GOVERNMENT has shut ALL these businesses down and PREVENTED them from doing business.

As such, the government needs to provide relief or allow all these businesses to go back to life per usual.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The KennedyCenter is not a special case here. THE GOVERNMENT has shut ALL these businesses down and PREVENTED them from doing business.

As such, the government needs to provide relief or allow all these businesses to go back to life per usual.

Agreed. I believe that very discussion is ongoing in the WH as we speak. At some point, if things don't change, the 'cure' becomes worse than the disease......

 

[Hank77]

Sure but I disagree with the dems conditions...

Take the dems demand greenhouse emission reduction promises (by 2025) for airlines (if I recall correctly) who take federal money to keep paying their employees through this..(otherwise they get no help through the shut down)

That's ridiculous. How about just being able to prove you were negatively affected by the virus and are using the funds to stay afloat and continuing to pay your employees...

What they can and cannot do with the funds needs to clearly spelled out in the bill itself making it mandated by law. That's all I am saying.
I don't agree with the greenhouse emission promises being included in this bill and/or other things like it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What they can and cannot do with the funds needs to clearly spelled out in the bill itself making it mandated by law. That's all I am saying.
I don't agree with the greenhouse emission promises being included in this bill and/or other things like it.

Sure, but they should be able to use the funds to a.) Pay the employees and b.) Cover overheard which is occurred during the shutdown. (Utilities, mortgages, rents etc.) And c) it should be based on what reasonably occurs

 

[Hank77]

Sure, but they should be able to use the funds to a.) Pay the employees and b.) Cover overheard which is occurred during the shutdown. (Utilities, mortgages, rents etc.) And c) it should be based on what reasonably occurs

I agree.
They shouldn't be allowed to use it, at ANY time during this crisis or afterward, for stock buybacks, increasing the salary of top management unless they increase the wages of all employees by the same percentage, the benefits of the employees should be protected (health coverage, paid days off that have been earned, et.), etc. And they should have to report Congress how they are spending that money.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I agree.
They shouldn't be allowed to use it, at ANY time during this crisis or afterward, for stock buybacks, increasing the salary of top management unless they increase the wages of all employees by the same percentage, the benefits of the employees should be protected (health coverage, paid days off that have been earned, et.), etc. And they should have to report Congress how they are spending that money.

I would agree to that...

I just don't think this virus should be a way to put businesses out of business if they don't follow our future dictatorial plans for a new fascist society..

 

[Arcangl86]

The KennedyCenter is not a special case here. THE GOVERNMENT has shut ALL these businesses down and PREVENTED them from doing business.

As such, the government needs to provide relief or allow all these businesses to go back to life per usual.

Sounds like your beef is with the states. The Kennedy Center is partially owned and operated by the federal government, which is why the federal government is making up ticket revenues lost by requiring it to close.

 

[Hank77]

Sounds like your beef is with the states. The Kennedy Center is partially owned and operated by the federal government, which is why the federal government is making up ticket revenues lost by requiring it to close.

It's my understanding that the Center is completely owned by the federal government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The KennedyCenter is not a special case here. THE GOVERNMENT has shut ALL these businesses down and PREVENTED them from doing business.

As such, the government needs to provide relief or allow all these businesses to go back to life per usual.

Holy cow. I guess I have to spell everything out in excruciating detail. What makes the Kennedy Center a special case is that it's partly owned, operated, and funded by the federal government. Thus, the federal government has more of a responsibility to keep it open than it does to your local community theater.

It's my understanding that the Center is completely owned by the federal government.

The facilities are.

 

[Hank77]

The facilities are.

Isn't there a board of directors that oversee how the facilities are used? I really don't know, I haven't done the research.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Holy cow. I guess I have to spell everything out in excruciating detail. What makes the Kennedy Center a special case is that it's partly owned, operated, and funded by the federal government. Thus, the federal government has more of a responsibility to keep it open than it does to your local community theater.



The facilities are.

Yet the ask is for FAR more than a 1 or 2 month shut down would indicate - so there is that.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Isn't there a board of directors that oversee how the facilities are used? I really don't know, I haven't done the research.

Yes, and if you check the links I provided in post #40, you'll see that federal law requires that several of those board members be certain officials from the federal government.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yet the ask is for FAR more than a 1 or 2 month shut down would indicate - so there is that.

It says right in the legislation that it's supposed to cover them through Sep 30, 2021.

Additionally, there's no way this is only going to be a month, and I suspect two months to be rather optimistic. The Kennedy Center closed on 3/14 and they've extended the closure to at least the end of the month. I'm just up the road in Baltimore; I'm already into my second week of working from home, my governor just ratcheted up the restrictions yesterday and from what I recall, other governors are slated to do the same in the coming days.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It says right in the legislation that it's supposed to cover them through Sep 30, 2021.

Additionally, there's no way this is only going to be a month, and I suspect two months to be rather optimistic. The Kennedy Center closed on 3/14 and they've extended the closure to at least the end of the month. I'm just up the road in Baltimore; I'm already into my second week of working from home, my governor just ratcheted up the restrictions yesterday and from what I recall, other governors are slated to do the same in the coming days.

Why are we covering them until September 2021 when they are only shut down to what, May 10?

Oh thats right... it's because they are up there in Washington throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, instead of putting together a relief package for businesses and workers affected by the coronavirus...

Which is, as a matter a fact, EXACTLY what we are complaining about!

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why are we covering them until September 2021 when they are only shut down to what, May 10?!

I don't know why they chose that date (which is the end of the next fiscal year). But assuming the May 10 date holds, that's 2 months of being closed. As previously noted, they take in $77m/year in ticket revenue, which works out to $6.4m/mo or $12.8m for two months. The amount allocated to them is $35m, or about 6 months' worth of ticket revenue. It's quite conceivable that this goes longer than 2 months; it's also quite conceivable that, as I've noted a couple times, ticket revenue may not be their only revenue source that shrinks.

Additionally, you can't just open the doors on May 10 and bring in all the patrons you were going to have originally. Most theatrical shows require weeks, of not months, of rehearsals and setup on site in the facility, and months of rehearsals off site prior to that. Musical performances don't require quite so many rehearsals, but none of that is happening now. All of those people are sitting at home trying to teach lessons over Zoom.

instead of putting together a relief package for businesses and workers affected by the coronavirus...

Again, this organization and these workers are affected by the coronavirus.

 

[rjs330]

And where did all that ticket revenue go? Gone. According to their 2013 form 990, ticket sales and related fees made up about 1/3 of their annual revenues:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530245017/530245017_201409_990.pdf

And how do you think donations are going to go this year now that the economy is crashing and the stock market has lost 1/3 of its value in the last month?



And now those artists are all out of work.

I don't understand your objection - would you prefer that the folks at the Kennedy Center get laid off, too?



It's clear you don't even know what fascism is.



You're complaining about them paying for people to stay employed.

All the people that are laid off get unemployment. That's what unemployment is for. Why does the government HAVE to keep a non-essential thing like this going during these times? People can't go do to crowding restrictions. What's the point?

Why is government stuff more important and vital than anything else? Just cause it's government run? Non essential stuff doesn't need to be fully funded right now. The money should go to essential services and get the economy going so that people CAN get out and start going to the theater, the museum's, concerts and such.

 

[iluvatar5150]

All the people that are laid off get unemployment. That's what unemployment is for.

You've never worked in the arts or as some type of temp, have you?

First of all, if you're a contractor (i.e. your income gets reported on a 1099), then no, you don't get unemployment. Period.

A lot of these performers work as contractors. Some, I'm sure, are set up as temporary "employees" (i.e. income reported on a w-2) rather than as contractors, but that still doesn't mean that they're eligible for unemployment. But filing for unemployment as a temp is complicated and varies by state.

Why does the government HAVE to keep a non-essential thing like this going during these times? People can't go do to crowding restrictions. What's the point?

The point is that, without continued funding, the organization fails and can't reopen - the same as with a business. Furthermore, there's a strong chance that, without support like this, the artists themselves relocate and/or switch careers, which means that another organization couldn't just move in and take their place.

Why is government stuff more important and vital than anything else? Just cause it's government run?

Nobody said it was more vital. What is controversial about the notion that the government should take care of the things that it owns and operates? Would you complain if they explicitly backstopped the Air & Space Museum but not a private museum in your town?

Non essential stuff doesn't need to be fully funded right now. The money should go to essential services and get the economy going so that people CAN get out and start going to the theater, the museum's, concerts and such.

You know that the arts (be it for-profit or not) is a whole entire industry, right? These shows don't magically materialize out of thin air. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of PEOPLE get up and do those jobs every day - just the same as folks do for a software firm or a restaurant or an airline or a warehouse. By backstopping it, you're backstopping their livelihoods and their ability to participate in the market. With everybody staying indoors, the restaurant and entertainment industries are going to be among the hardest hit in all of this. If we're going to provide "relief aid" to prop up an industry hit by something that was no fault of their own, they should be at the front of the line. If you don't, you won't have any shows to go to when things re-open.

 

[Hazelelponi]

All the people that are laid off get unemployment. That's what unemployment is for. Why does the government HAVE to keep a non-essential thing like this going during these times? People can't go do to crowding restrictions. What's the point?

Why is government stuff more important and vital than anything else? Just cause it's government run? Non essential stuff doesn't need to be fully funded right now. The money should go to essential services and get the economy going so that people CAN get out and start going to the theater, the museum's, concerts and such.

The government is actually asking businesses to continue paying all their employees in full and not laying them off...

They stated that for any company who did that, they would provide grants to...

Right now employers who can then are hanging on while Congress works this out....

Otherwise, they will need to lay off all their workers and allow unemployment to take over. The problem is that the government was asking companies not to do that.

So while businesses wait, Congress begins making ridiculous proposals, and more people get laid off by the day, because without a revenue stream they can't really afford to keep paying employees, and at this point those grants just aren't coming.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The government is actually asking businesses to continue paying all their employees in full and not laying them off...

They stated that for any company who did that, they would provide grants to...

Right now employers who can then are hanging on while Congress works this out....

Otherwise, they will need to lay off all their workers and allow unemployment to take over. The problem is that the government was asking companies not to do that.

So while businesses wait, Congress begins making ridiculous proposals, and more people get laid off by the day, because without a revenue stream they can't really afford to keep paying employees, and at this point those grants just aren't coming.

And when the government tries to keep paying people who were working for one of its organizations, you guys complain.