Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you even separate the two viewpoints here? You're straight confusing the personal financal view vs. the macroeconomic view. No duh moronic spending is an issue. From the government's perspective, if people can buy necessities it stimulates the economy.
So what's your solution? Let them eat cake? Might as well bust out the shanty towns right now and tell everyone, hey a good chance 0.1-0.4% of you will die. Have fun hope you learn your financial lesson.
This is good policy?
How about we work with our fellow citizens, educate them about personal finance instead of just letting them eat cake? Be a bit more understanding? Most people want to do the right thing.
I think when it comes to money many will rationalize just about anything if it benefits them.
What I have also learned over the years is most "problems" in life are a result of poor choices.
It's not my job to educate anyone on how they should live (or save) except perhaps to offer advice to family members.
So yes...let them eat cake and take the bus or move to a smaller apartment or get a second job. (All of which I have done over the years)
Why keep things shut down here when we're supposed to be safe & sound due to our detached way of life? Can't have it both ways. As for the extra federal money for small businesses: it sounds good on paper, but it's about the same as treating a venomous snake bite with a small Band Aid. A lot of government money is being handed out, which all of us will have to pay for in some way sooner or later, but the money will only go so far. The best way of helping small businesses (and any business for that matter) is to allow all of them to reopen ASAP, albeit cautiously, and let people get back to work.
Ridiculous, which is obvious that those big spenders didn't need the money in the first place. Our government at work once again! On the other hand, it's not just TVs that are being bought. Read this piece I found recently: https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/stimul...tripper-poles/
Well, detached way of life definitely helps, but it isn't the only factor--Navajo Nation is perfect proof of that. If any group of people has a more detached way of life than anyone else, its them and yet they are jacking up AZ's Covid-19 numbers left and right.
Well, detached way of life definitely helps, but it isn't the only factor--Navajo Nation is perfect proof of that. If any group of people has a more detached way of life than anyone else, its them and yet they are jacking up AZ's Covid-19 numbers left and right.
Exactly, and this is one of the points I've been making. I'm not the least bit surprised that tribal areas have a relatively high rate of confirmed cases. If you've ever been on a reservation, the reasons are pretty obvious. Lots of poverty, obesity, alcoholism, Diabetes, and other health issues among the Indians. What's really stupid is how their lands are considered to be "sovereign nations", but their living conditions are horrible, and similar in many ways to third world African countries.
I'm a patient in the Mayo system and just got a note about testing. In short, they seemed to indicate because results of both the "swab" test (NAAT) and the serum test can be inconclusive, they seem to want to use both tests to insure higher accuracy until they feel more confident about the test they are developing in-house that is still in early phase. At least that's how I read it.
Yep. I'm in the Mayo system as well. That's the Mayo way, test, test, test. Which I think is the smartest way to understand what is going on. That's their reputation amongst the medical community.
Bro, I said it is "safer", not "you'll be safe and sound, no reason to worry". You are the ONLY PERSON in the world that I've seen deny this. Sharing elevators, door handles and lobbies increases the risk, it's not a guarantee.
As you suggested, this point should be easy to understand. But I'll take a stab at it... In the phrase "social distancing", the 2nd word of that phrase is distancing.
Urban areas and suburbs still are heavily connected: if people who are spread out in the burbs decide to travel or congregate, they are one stadium sporting event, trip to a local casino or bus ride away from coming in contact with a lot of people. So by definition, it's up to the person to finish the built-in suburb distancing.
Furthermore, it should also be obvious that the current data is going to be skewed/inaccurate. Because testing has been inconsistent and sparse. Until you do controlled random testing, there is no way to look at the current test data (who they gave a test to and who they didn't) because all kinds of potential sampling errors are currently present. Here is just ONE reason: there are 110 different test brands and they aren't exactly consistent https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hu...est-2020-04-02 If one hospital group gets test kit 57 and another test kit 106, who says the data correlates?
In short, we don't have a lot of quality testing data. But we do know that social distancing helps. If a person in the burbs uses mass transportation as an example, they can live on a 3,000-acre plot and still be in surrounded by COVID carries. I know this is common sense. But...
What do you think caused the surge in unemployment? Several months ago it was less than 5%, now it's 3 times that. In this case, the number of people out of work wasn't caused by the COVID 19 virus.
$3360 per month for all the unemployed workers is a huge burden for the state to fill. But I'm glad you don't mind paying more taxes because that's what is likely to happen with all this extra government spending. So I'll leave it to you and all the other fiscal liberals to bear the tax burden, and the rest of us can keep our money.
I don't have an issue with temporary safety nets, but too many people are already dependent on the government for handouts as a permanent income. The restrictions on practically everything have caused a near 1929 type of situation anyway. I suppose your solution is another New Deal type of arrangement. It's more than 90 years later, and with the U.S. being such a prosperous nation due to our largely successful private enterprise, we should be way past that kind of "solution" by now.
I'm not quite ready to call COVID 19 a public health emergency when less than 1% of the entire U.S. population has tested positive. It's sad that thousands of people have died from this, but as I already stated: many of them already had health issues, and probably would have died from other acute conditions regardless. If people were dropping like flies all over the nation, then I could definitely understand the concern and a need for action. As it stands now, I can't see the reasoning for all this alarmism considering the small amount of positive cases on record.
If you don't think COVID is as bad of a emergency as it's made out to be that's fine that's your opinion. You're not helping the people on the front lines who are putting their lives on the line just so this silly "alarmism" view you hold comes to fruition in terms of policy. Too bad those nurses and doctors must by law treat people who have the same views as you that visit the ER. We should give them the freedom to not compel treatment to everyone in exchange for your sense of freedom then.
With your view of the unemployment benefits and government spending. I don't see anyone complaining about the corporate welfare payments that has been doled out since that's actually a larger piece of the pie vs. benefits for normal folks. Normal folks gets crumbs in comparison to the corporations who gets not only fiscal stimulus but monetary stimulus from the Fed as well - there's no punishment for their fiscal irresponsibility. How is that fair? Why does the philosophical war happen only for normal people and not corporations? If I waged the same political war you're saying here against the social safety net, every corporation will go bankrupt and too bad, live with it is what I would say. People become homeless and get evicted from our homes, well corporations can collapse too. Just look at how the SBA issued these PPP loans, there's clearly favoritism. Having a philosophical argument that you're having, makes no sense when stuff like this is happening. Hence my focus on the cash flow, not the philosophical war. If people need more cash to float them through, do it. Enact the policies to favor the people just this once, because as I shared on a long post on the previous page, the whole system has been financial irresponsible.
I guess you get to define what is "reasonable". Got it! Big picture, the $3K is already subsidized 3x higher per month than unemployment. For starters, I would have given out only the regular unemployment. But the gift has already been given. But not another round. Plus, the "government" doesn't pay for unemployment: rather, the businesses that pay into the system. The government simply distributes it. Where is Ross Perot when you need him most!?!
Shy of a complete economic meltdown, I'm going to be fine. Because I know how to live well under my means. A discipline that most people cannot grasp. My concern is my children and pending grandkids (whenever that happens). I really don't care about some guys Dodge Ram. I'm over it. And while I am compassionate, if I have to make a choice between bankrupting the country and 0.1 to 0.4 percent of the people (mostly folks on their last leg or people who didn't take care of themselves), well, I'll take the economy.
I'm at the point of saying "let the chips fall where they may" and we can help out some people who are in higher-risk groups n a quarantine-type situation. If I happen to fall victim because of it, well, so be it.
Yeah "reasonable" in a big picture sense. $3360 seems a lot to you personally sure. $3360 vs the Trillions thrown at corporations? Who are just as financially reckless? That seems awfully reasonable in comparison. Otherwise - no stimulus at all if you're going to argue on the fairness aspect. Let everyone eat cake and back to 1929 we go.
I just hope you apply this same view for corporations who are getting a bigger piece of that pie. Financial discipline applies equally to everyone here.
Yeah "reasonable" in a big picture sense. $3360 seems a lot to you personally sure. $3360 vs the Trillions thrown at corporations? Who are just as financially reckless? That seems awfully reasonable in comparison. Otherwise - no stimulus at all if you're going to argue on the fairness aspect. Let everyone eat cake and back to 1929 we go.
I just hope you apply this same view for corporations who are getting a bigger piece of that pie. Financial discipline applies equally to everyone here.
I apply the same standards. In most situations, both are wasteful. But the government doesn't ask my opinion. It's just easier for people, myself included, to understand the massive waste to the individual. Big picture, it's skewed distribution of 2,000,000,000,000 funds. That's 12 zero's!
Oh.... In the $2T funds, $260,000,000,000 is for boosted unemployment. And you were recommended to extend it (double or triple that $260,000,000,000). Sure, why not?
I apply the same standards. In most situations, both are wasteful. But the government doesn't ask my opinion. It's just easier for people, myself included, to understand the massive waste to the individual. Big picture, it's skewed distribution of 2,000,000,000,000 funds. That's 12 zero's!
Oh.... In the $2T funds, $260,000,000,000 is for boosted unemployment. And you were recommended to extend it (double or triple that $260,000,000,000). Sure, why not?
Yes because individuals don't go to the Federal Reserve to borrow money at 0%. Businesses and corporations can. Hence fiscal stimulus isn't the only picture. Add that into account. Looking at the real full picture shows you how skewed it is.
Yes because individuals don't go to the Federal Reserve to borrow money at 0%. Businesses and corporations can. Hence fiscal stimulus isn't the only picture. Add that into account. Looking at the real full picture shows you how skewed it is.
So your argument is: "since business gets more handouts (yep), why not more for the individuals?" Got it. I see what "team" you're on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
