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.
I hate to say it but I agree with him. Too many politicians focused on "the few" at the expense of "the many". They call it being "politically correct". I call it being stupid. We cannot allow the economy to go down in flames trying to save a few people who are going to die one way or another. Society has to survive even at the expense of some innocents who were at the end of their lives anyway. Spock said it best:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
We are all going to die one way or another. Should we have an annual cull? The Lottery was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not an instruction manual.
Put it this way. If this was a war. This would be the same as sacrificing a small outpost to win the war. Or we can try & save all of them troops at a particular outpost & possibly lose the war.
As I said in another thread, if we can be so rational about sacrificing lives for the sake of the economy, why doesn't the government just compile a list of seniors using the most Medicare benefits. Perhaps go down the list of all entitlement programs and take the top 10-15% of benefit recipients with the lowest contributions to society. Get rid of them to save costs.
But you also fail to acknowledge that opening up he economy premature will cost lives without helping the economy. In fact, it might make it worse in the long run.
Its like ripping off a band-aid before the bleeding has stopped. You're just going to end up with more blood and a replacement band-aid will have to go back on anyway.
Should it be necessary for a state to reinstate more vigorous controls because a health emergency is beginning to, once again, spin out of control is not a good optic.
NY, NJ and Ct did a good job in coordinating actions because it is very common for those in one of these states to commute to another adjoining state, especially on public transportation.
Some people will die once the economy is opened up. There is no way to avoid it. Are the complainers suggesting we never open up the economy, because someone will die or or they saying they have an allowable amount of deaths in order to open up the economy and it is a different number than a politician they do not like? If you simply have a different number of allowable deaths what is that number or percentage and how did you arrive at it......and why is your number of allowable deaths reasonable and not someone else's. I bet no one can or will answer this rationally.
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.
