LogFAQs > #957500112

I also didn't say it was okay, I just said I wouldn't exactly lose sleep over it.

They should be reimbursed for fair value. This value may not be exactly what they think it should be (see: eminent domain) but a good faith effort to ascertain what the losses were, taking into account the economic situation imposed by the pandemic, should be made.

However, there's a lot of other things the government should be doing/paying for. Healthcare, for one. So if we're weighing making landlords whole against literal human lives I'll err on the side of actual lives, for example. Now, I think we probably can afford to do both (and most, if not all, of the other things we ought to be doing) but if Republicans/conservatives/moderates are going to cry about the debt and deficit whenever a Democratic administration is in power then "I guess" choices have to be made and I'm just preemptively saying I can think of a number of things I'd put ahead of this.

Edit: I'm implicitly critiquing the conservative/moderate fearmongering of government spending/debt/deficit. The kind of thinking you're calling parasitic is, in my view, the inevitable endpoint of that fearmongering - you're going to have to make choices like that because you're limiting the pool of funds available to work with. (I don't mean you personally, you haven't made that argument on this and I don't recall if you believe in that policy generally. I'm using a general "you" there.) The current Congress has enough who embrace that philosophy such that everyone has to operate under it whether they believe it or not (which I don't) so I'm speaking pragmatically about the reality we inhabit not what I think should occur.

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?