Small business victimes, say no to loans, want money

[someotherguy]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/smal...source=cnn_bin

In short: government is offering loans which would cap at 4% rate (very low compared to regular loans).

The money cannot be used to pay for outstanding loans - so you can't just refinance. I don't know of other restrictions, but obviously this is a huge one.

The business owners don't have flood insurance, because they claim the premiums are astronomical, and the coverage is low (not enough to pay for all equipment replacement). So that's the reason they don't have insurance.

They say 'no' to loans, they just want money.

----------------

I'm a bit split. I think the loan is a good deal, and if you have a business than it's your problem if it ever goes under, and storm is just another issue that can cause business to bankrupt.

On the other hand, if government bailed out 'too-big-to-fail' banks, they can probably throw them a few hundred million (notice how one of the business owners claims his equipment is around 5 million - so if you this is average, and you take 50 of those businesses, that's 250 mil).
However all those banks repaid the bail-out, but I don't know if there was any interest attached to it.

Than again, these are business people, that normally claim to be self sufficient, and so I'm back to wondering why help failed businesses? Why not use any funding to support successful businesses that build themselves in safe-zones. Isn't helping these businesses giving them unfair advantage, and rewarding bad decisions?

Yet, this is a super storm - not something someone would account for on risk/reward analysis based on past performance.

-------------------------

Should government hand out free money to these businesses?
Give them loans, and nothing else?
Do something else? (perhaps no loans, or promote them all to state senators - ok this is a little absurd)

There's no poll, because half people will complain that their opinion wasn't included.

------
edit: sigh, I misspelled the word Victims in the title. Could a mod please fix it? or if I can fix, please tell me how to.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The business owners don't have flood insurance, because they claim the premiums are astronomical, and the coverage is low (not enough to pay for all equipment replacement). So that's the reason they don't have insurance.

I'm curious as to what the actual premiums are. The northeast has some of the lowest premiums in the nation when it comes to flood insurance. I mean typical flood insurance goes for $600 a year, but in low risk areas its as low as $150 a year. That's not exactly crippling. Not even close.

Government should not be giving them money. I'm perfectly fine with the 4% loans though, that's a great deal.

[Svifnymr]

I'm curious as to what the actual premiums are. The northeast has some of the lowest premiums in the nation when it comes to flood insurance. I mean typical flood insurance goes for $600 a year, but in low risk areas its as low as $150 a year. That's not exactly crippling. Not even close.

Government should not be giving them money. I'm perfectly fine with the 4% loans though, that's a great deal.

The one guy interviewed says that premiums were a lot because they're in a high risk area.

I'm from florida, where if folks didn't have insurance, they'd be looked at like idiots. IMO, the businesses didn't pay for insurance this whole time and got that money, now when their lack of such has cost them, they want someone else to foot the bill. Yeah, they have expensive machines, but they were probably leasing them, in which case it should be a loss for the provider, not the businessman depending on their terms. Either way, it seems like they new the risks ahead of time, but couldn't afford it and now they want a bailout.

In the end, most of these cases would probably be better off going bankrupt and reforming rather than keeping their same debt-ridden company, bailout or loan.