Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 285: The Ends Justify the Means Testing

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheRock1525 posted...

Why is everyone assuming that the lost jobs won't largely return when all of this passes?

"Oh no the bars are closed, and they can never reopen again!"

A very large percentage of businesses cannot operate on a loss for a month. Your favorite bar/restaurant/barber/"non-essential" business may shudder its doors forever because of this

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Without any precautions the majority of the country will end up getting the virus. If 60% get it (where herd immunity kicks in if R0=2.5; really you'll go above that because more people will be infected as it winds down) and you have a 5% death rate because you've overwhelmed the hospitals that's 10 million deaths. Say we're wrong about the fatality rate and it's somehow only .5%; that's still 1 million deaths!

So if (when) this doesn't happen, the only explanation for why is because states banned public gatherings?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

A very large percentage of businesses cannot operate on a loss for a month. Your favorite bar/restaurant/barber/"non-essential" business may shudder its doors forever because of this

Hence why the government that isnt useless would step in.

But we have a garbage one instead.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

So if (when) this doesn't happen, the only explanation for why is because states banned public gatherings?

Yes.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

Yes.

What's the control? Italy instituted a lockdown around the same timeframe as we have.

---

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1241445480271413251?s=19

Fuck ICEis.

TheRock1525 posted...

Hence why the government that isnt useless would step in.

But we have a garbage one instead.

Our government can't approve a commensurate bailout without causing massive inflation

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Oh I assume the infected rate is six figures in the US. New York is spiking because we're testing more than anyone else.

The thing that convinces me how wrong you masochists are is how the number of infected keep going up exponentially but the deaths are staying level. Just like I said would happen a month ago (lasa can pull the tape!)

yeah, i've said it in here and in the main topic for it too but NY is legit going to be one of the best places after we get past this. we tested faster than any other state and can do it in massively larger amounts than them too, ultimately we'll have it well under control, though it's going to take some law enforcement to do that too.

that said, in a month NY will be mostly recovered/on the first few steps of a recovery plan. i'm hopeful for that, at least.

but i wasn't counting the total number of infected, i was counting the case of daily new infections.

Italy was 2500 March 13th, up to 6000 March 20th. that's in the range where i think even naysayers start hesitating because that's proof of an exponential growth unlike anything else. today's numbers i expect to see around 7000 and by March 27th, it should be be over 10,000 new infections in a single day. in 2 weeks, it should be over 20,000 in a single day. maybe 2 and a half weeks, as the rate it multiplies IS slowing down.

i prefer to count the infections more so than the deaths because long term damage does matter and i don't trust every death case to be reported properly - countless "pneumonia" deaths in China left that sour taste in my mouth.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

What's the control?

You don't need a control. Its common sense. More human interaction equals more transmissions of the virus equals more deaths.

We're saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

---

Like were under this current state and hospitals are already struggling with supplies and funds to buy said supplies and pay workers.

The system is already being taxed under much better circumstances than the free for all you want.

---

https://twitter.com/officialhacksaw/status/1241475588881342465?s=21
---

TheRock1525 posted...

That's why the government should step in and suspend these things. Because if they can't afford rent, then a lot of people can't afford rent and there will be no tenants to step in and pay the rent the landlords need so they can maintain their buildings.

It's why a smart government would suspend all these things.

Oh, trust me, I agree.

I'm just saying why currently

---

Man these ads just write themselves

https://twitter.com/jheil/status/1240056993290821640 (a few days old)

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1241471645233053699

---

https://twitter.com/MathieuBeaulieu/status/1240791806708760582

This is what it takes to get 'fan' art of yourself, apparently.

---

I guess I'll post this here too:

https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1241360418565689346

Thank god Kentucky elected Beshear

---

literally modded for saying k*** f**

---

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1241538069985181703

Global elites: Shut down America!

Megacorps: Yawn. That's fine, I guess we can work from home, and if the rabble get too angry, just print them a $1000 check and it'll all be square.

Global elites: Shut down India!

Megacorps: Whoa, hey now, hold on a second, that could do some serious economic damage! Let's not make any rash and hasty decisions!

---

SmartMuffin posted...

literally modded for saying k*** f**

Im struggling trying to figure out what this could have been thats not offensive
---

kink fan

a fan of one of the members of famous rock band the kinks

---

Kite fly?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Because a lot of places can't afford to pay rent/salaries/etc. for several months without business, so there's a decent chance some just won't reopen.

Yup. A good friend of mine has been working as a waiter while in school. He learned last week that the place he was currently at will not be re-opening when this is all said and done.

God I hope my job can survive the shutdown and reopen. I just got a raise right before all this junk and I dont want to start over from the bottom again somewhere else. Ugh. Come on government assistance hurry up and kick in or I might not even make it past the shutdown.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

So if (when) this doesn't happen, the only explanation for why is because states banned public gatherings?

I still want to know how many people would have to die before you'd consider it acceptable to start doing something in response

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Or is it that this was all a media driven hysteria and never a major threat in the first place? Is that ever an option?

No because it was never media driven. The biggest warnings are from the CDC, doctors, and hospitals. It's not a narrative started by the media. Its started and pushed by medical professionals.

---

https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1241734261243289605

ffs florida

Also a reminder the WH has given press credentials to that "news" organization and has been calling on them during the latest coronavirus press conferences where they've delivered such important questions as, "Is 'Chinese food' racist?"

---

I really hope this proposed payment doesn't go off of 2018 tax returns or I'm going to be punished yet again for that whole suicide attempt thing that left me out of commission and unemployed for the year.

I have a 2019 return, because I started working again obv, but I guess that will mean nothing and I get to suffer some more.

---

I haven't read through the whole bill, but my understanding is you aren't punished for being unemployed. Restrictions come into place if you make too much (family making over 150k gets less than 1k until you hit 199k I believe where you get nothing).

You may know more than I do, but it is my understanding being unemployed in 2018 negatively effects the payment you get in any way.

---

Obviously nothing is final yet but I heard it proposed that under $2500 taxable income in 2018 means no payment at all. So I'd be SOL in a pandemic now for a mistake two years ago.

I'll just wait and see before I start lamenting, but that could end up the little bit of difference between me ending up homeless or not for a while.

---

literally modded for censoring a colloquial term in common usage to refer to the coronavirus

---

FFDragon posted...

Obviously nothing is final yet but I heard it proposed that under $2500 taxable income in 2018 means no payment at all. So I'd be SOL in a pandemic now for a mistake two years ago.

I'll just wait and see before I start lamenting, but that could end up the little bit of difference between me ending up homeless or not for a while.

I dunno about some others but maybe we can pitch in to help you if that is the situation you are in. Either giving you somewhere to stay or elsewise. Idk where u live tho.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

literally modded for censoring a colloquial term in common usage to refer to the coronavirus

Racist Mad He Got Called Out For His Racism: Film At 11

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I haven't read through the whole bill, but my understanding is you aren't punished for being unemployed. Restrictions come into place if you make too much (family making over 150k gets less than 1k until you hit 199k I believe where you get nothing).

You may know more than I do, but it is my understanding being unemployed in 2018 negatively effects the payment you get in any way.

Initially if you didn't file a tax you got $0 and if you had no taxable income due to making too little you got the minimum $600.

I see the point kind of. If you didn't need money to live then you are in a situation where you don't need money, but that is also a year ago. College students namely would get screwed there.

Obviously the rich don't need the help and giving to them is less to give to those who need it, but on the other end, the people who made a lot in 2018 could be in a different situation now especially if unemployed now due to it.

---

Anddd expect the relief bill to be delayed significantly.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/22/coronavirus-live-updates-feds-bullard-calls-shutdown-massive-investment-in-public-health.html

Pelosi signals disagreement over relief package: From my standpoint, were apart

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to the media during her weekly briefing March 12, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled that shes not on board with the Senate stimulus plan in negotiations to combat economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic.
From my standpoint, were apart, Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol when asked if she expects there to be a deal today.
Pelosi said theres no bipartisan deal at this point, but that Democratic congressional leaders will be prepping their own legislation. Its on the Senate side now because thats their deadline for a vote, she said, but well be introducing our own bill and hopefully itll be compatible with what they discussed on the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that we need a bill that puts workers first, not corporations. He declined to say if he supports the bill.
The stimulus package under negotiation will likely total more than $2 trillion, according to estimates from White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow. The Senate has been under pressure to finish a plan with the House and administration as quickly as possible.
Lawmakers this weekend are pushing to meet the Trump administrations deadline for finishing the deal by Monday. There will be a 3 p.m. ET procedural vote on the Phase III bill later in the day. Emma Newburger

---

SmartMuffin posted...

literally modded for censoring a colloquial term in common usage to refer to the coronavirus

literally a grown-ass adult whining about being moderated on a message board

Suprak the Stud posted...

I haven't read through the whole bill, but my understanding is you aren't punished for being unemployed. Restrictions come into place if you make too much (family making over 150k gets less than 1k until you hit 199k I believe where you get nothing).

You may know more than I do, but it is my understanding being unemployed in 2018 negatively effects the payment you get in any way.

We talking about the Senate GOP proposal? I know the original version was almost comic book villain bad and I'm not sure where it's at now. I know the original proposal had phase in checks (meaning poorer people got less as you worked up to $75k.) I believe that is dropped since it was called out for the absurdity it was.

An NBC Article updated Friday includes a link to the proposal in which there's a provision where those who have little-to-no tax liability would receive $600 ($1200 for married couples) instead of the $1200/$2400 but I don't know if that's current. I think it's based on 2018 returns but am not 100% sure. There's a provision in there that talks about substituting 2019 in for 2018 in some cases but I don't know what triggers it.

---

xp1337 posted...

We talking about the Senate GOP proposal? I know the original version was almost comic book villain bad and I'm not sure where it's at now. I know the original proposal had phase in checks (meaning poorer people got less as you worked up to $75k.) I believe that is dropped since it was called out for the absurdity it was.

This is incorrect. It was a phase in until you met the standard deduction of $9000 with $600 being the minimum you could receive. It was a phase OUT as you reached 75k agi until 93k where it phased out entirely to 0.

So, if you made $100 in 2018 and filed your taxes you got $600. At $9,000 you got the full $1200 up until 75k where it began phasing out til 93k. At 93k, you got $0.

---

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it had no phase out above $75k still just that it had a phase-in component too. It seems I was wrong on the benchmarks for that portion though, yes.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So, if you made $100 in 2018 and filed your taxes you got $600. At $9,000 you got the full $1200 up until 75k where it began phasing out til 93k. At 93k, you got $0.

Thats a really goofy plan
---

Our overlords right now:



---

Rand Paul has coronavirus

---

Who is the richest/most famous person to have died from this disease?

We keep hearing about all the athletes, actors, and politicians who have it. And literally all of them seem perfectly fine.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Who is the richest/most famous person to have died from this disease?

We keep hearing about all the athletes, actors, and politicians who have it. And literally all of them seem perfectly fine.

https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/coronavirus-former-real-madrid-president-lorenzo-sanz-dies-after-contracting-covid-19/amp/
---

Sanz had initially chosen to stay home while feeling sick so as not to further overwhelm Spain's medical service, but ultimately went to the hospital on Tuesday when his fever had lasted for eight days. After testing positive for COVID-19, an infection gave him kidney failure and he died Saturday night, according to The Guardian.

Seems questionable, but thank you - at least it's a real answer!

---

yeah, the proposal being "oh you're poorer so we'll give you less money" was batshit insane. like what the fuck kind of spending package is that?

the thing that infuriates me the most is how fucking incompetent the dems are. lemme get this straight, you guys pitched the idea first, you pushed the idea, you had multiple proposals on the idea, yet you didn't draft a bill?



---

SmartMuffin posted...

Who is the richest/most famous person to have died from this disease?

We keep hearing about all the athletes, actors, and politicians who have it. And literally all of them seem perfectly fine.

ive heard of maybe a dozen famous people who got it and none of them are really old so I wouldnt really expect them to die. I guess Tom Hanks is in his sixties so he was a little at risk, but a bunch of NBA players who are young and in shape arent going to die obviously.
---

House Dems didn't draft a bill because the hope was they could get a compromise bill with the Senate and just pass that instead of going through a conference process.

But now that negotiations have fallen apart that's the only real path forward.

---

xp1337 posted...

House Dems didn't draft a bill because the hope was they could get a compromise bill with the Senate and just pass that instead of going through a conference process.

But now that negotiations have fallen apart that's the only real path forward.

bruh moment

Republicans have been completely unwilling to negotiate on anything for the past 11 years, what made the Democrats think they'd suddenly be willing to start now?

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

what made the Democrats think they'd suddenly be willing to start now?

a global pandemic and the dow dropping over 10,000 points in under a month-and-a-half apparently

admittedly a fool's hope

To be serious for a moment though. If the goal is quick relief then trying to get the compromise bill was the way to go. Going through conference will take longer and I can understand why House Dems, and anyone whose primary goal is "helping people who need it as fast as possible" would want to try for it.

---

xp1337 posted...

House Dems didn't draft a bill because the hope was they could get a compromise bill with the Senate and just pass that instead of going through a conference process.

But now that negotiations have fallen apart that's the only real path forward.

This is untrue again.

First of all, Senate Democrats did propose a bill different than the Senate one. And, there was an article last week saying how the Senate and House were both rushing to unveil their bills first to get credit for it or force the other to vote against it for political maneuvering with the House trying to ram theirs through the House and put it on the Republican Senate to vote it down.

The optics of what to put in it and how to do it in response to a crisis is the issue with it. They are both going back and forth on trying to not look bad instead of just getting something done.


---

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1241731262135644161?s=19

I....what?