That's good advice. I wonder, if I am immune already, why my symptoms mirrored hers almost exactly. We both started feeling ill around the same time, and we both started feeling better around the same time. Maybe I'm just the most empathetic husband ever.
Just my opinion...
We need to open back up for business and let people decide for themselves what they do or do not want to do. Want to wear a mask? Fine that's your choice. Want to go to a crowded stadium, bar or nightclub? That is your choice as well. Want to go to the gym, get a haircut, etc.? Go do it and wear a mask or not.
My point is that we are supposedly "free". I have a real problem when government at any level tells a business that they can not operate because of this. I have a real problem with "checkpoints" and stopping people with out of state tags for no reason other than the "quarantine mandates".
By this point the general public has been informed of the risk(s) and the supposed things that they can do to minimize the risk(s). We don't need "mother government" to MAKE us conform.
Does anyone find it odd that a vaccine is supposedly going to be found and ready by November (though not quite ready for distribution)? I don't remember where I saw it, but there was an article that pretty much said that.
Stop the "stimulus". Stop the unemployment stuff. Stop the "eviction protection".
(08-07-2020, 04:24 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion...
We need to open back up for business and let people decide for themselves what they do or do not want to do. Want to wear a mask? Fine that's your choice. Want to go to a crowded stadium, bar or nightclub? That is your choice as well. Want to go to the gym, get a haircut, etc.? Go do it and wear a mask or not.
My point is that we are supposedly "free". I have a real problem when government at any level tells a business that they can not operate because of this. I have a real problem with "checkpoints" and stopping people with out of state tags for no reason other than the "quarantine mandates".
By this point the general public has been informed of the risk(s) and the supposed things that they can do to minimize the risk(s). We don't need "mother government" to MAKE us conform.
Does anyone find it odd that a vaccine is supposedly going to be found and ready by November (though not quite ready for distribution)? I don't remember where I saw it, but there was an article that pretty much said that.
Stop the "stimulus". Stop the unemployment stuff. Stop the "eviction protection".
The vaccine will only be a vaccine in name. It has to meet the 50% threshold to be called a vaccine. If you look at the reports from the trials, all of them have issues and all most every person is having some type of adverse events. Usually if you have adverse events it has to be below a low # and you have to report to the FDA for all of them. I'm expecting them to lift those requirements and just put the vaccine out there. If you have seen comments from scientists that create and test vaccines for a living, they are saying there is no way they will take the vaccine.
If Biden wins, the vaccine will be pushed as working excellently and we can open back up. If Trump wins, the vaccine will be panned as a failure, worse than a flu shot, and will kill you if you take it.
(08-07-2020, 04:24 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion...
We need to open back up for business and let people decide for themselves what they do or do not want to do. Want to wear a mask? Fine that's your choice. Want to go to a crowded stadium, bar or nightclub? That is your choice as well. Want to go to the gym, get a haircut, etc.? Go do it and wear a mask or not.
My point is that we are supposedly "free". I have a real problem when government at any level tells a business that they can not operate because of this. I have a real problem with "checkpoints" and stopping people with out of state tags for no reason other than the "quarantine mandates".
If this was a different type of disease, I would be inclined to agree with you.
But it is transmitted through the air, as far as 6 ft away, to the best of our knowledge.
everyone has essential trips they must do in public, whether doctor's appointments or simply going to the grocery store. There were probably 50 other customers in the grocery store the last time I went. That was unavoidable. The government should do everything that it can do to give us all a world where it's more likely than not that none of those 50 people is transmitting COVID while they shop.
(08-07-2020, 04:24 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion...
We need to open back up for business and let people decide for themselves what they do or do not want to do. Want to wear a mask? Fine that's your choice. Want to go to a crowded stadium, bar or nightclub? That is your choice as well. Want to go to the gym, get a haircut, etc.? Go do it and wear a mask or not.
My point is that we are supposedly "free". I have a real problem when government at any level tells a business that they can not operate because of this. I have a real problem with "checkpoints" and stopping people with out of state tags for no reason other than the "quarantine mandates".
By this point the general public has been informed of the risk(s) and the supposed things that they can do to minimize the risk(s). We don't need "mother government" to MAKE us conform.
Does anyone find it odd that a vaccine is supposedly going to be found and ready by November (though not quite ready for distribution)? I don't remember where I saw it, but there was an article that pretty much said that.
Stop the "stimulus". Stop the unemployment stuff. Stop the "eviction protection".
Want to drive without a license? That's your choi.....wait!?
How do our resident leftist' feel about an executive order to suspend payroll tax letting people who actually work keep more of their own money?
(08-07-2020, 09:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]How do our resident leftist' realists feel about an executive order to suspend payroll tax letting people who actually work keep more of their own money?
1) The president can only defer taxes, not cancel them. If he says that they are only deferred, most sensible people will not spend more money in the short term, and really nothing will happen to the economy. In fact, most payrolls will probably collect the money anyway, and the employers will save it for later when it's actually due. But if the taxes are canceled canceled, this sets up a constitutional crisis. Just what we need!
2) this exact type of constitutional crisis was predicted in a vox article from about 8 years ago.
(08-07-2020, 10:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020, 09:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]How do our resident leftist' realists feel about an executive order to suspend payroll tax letting people who actually work keep more of their own money?
1) The president can only defer taxes, not cancel them. If he says that they are only deferred, most sensible people will not spend more money in the short term, and really nothing will happen to the economy. In fact, most payrolls will probably collect the money anyway, and the employers will save it for later when it's actually due. But if the taxes are canceled canceled, this sets up a constitutional crisis. Just what we need!
2) this exact type of constitutional crisis was predicted in a vox article from about 8 years ago.
Relief is relief. Mortgage relief is only deferring mortgage payments too, but it provides immediate relief to those who need it.
I know you hate the idea of people actually getting relief without your hero's Chuck and Nancy sneaking their progressive wish list into their demands while the American people suffer.
Trump makes [BLEEP] happen. That's why he is president.
(08-07-2020, 10:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020, 10:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) The president can only defer taxes, not cancel them. If he says that they are only deferred, most sensible people will not spend more money in the short term, and really nothing will happen to the economy. In fact, most payrolls will probably collect the money anyway, and the employers will save it for later when it's actually due. But if the taxes are canceled canceled, this sets up a constitutional crisis. Just what we need!
2) this exact type of constitutional crisis was predicted in a vox article from about 8 years ago.
Relief is relief. Mortgage relief is only deferring mortgage payments too, but it provides immediate relief to those who need it.
I know you hate the idea of people actually getting relief without your hero's Chuck and Nancy sneaking their progressive wish list into their demands while the American people suffer.
Trump makes [BLEEP] happen. That's why he is president.
He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs
And didnt even do a good job health wise. Sort of the worst of both worlds.
(08-07-2020, 10:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020, 10:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) The president can only defer taxes, not cancel them. If he says that they are only deferred, most sensible people will not spend more money in the short term, and really nothing will happen to the economy. In fact, most payrolls will probably collect the money anyway, and the employers will save it for later when it's actually due. But if the taxes are canceled canceled, this sets up a constitutional crisis. Just what we need!
2) this exact type of constitutional crisis was predicted in a vox article from about 8 years ago.
Relief is relief. Mortgage relief is only deferring mortgage payments too, but it provides immediate relief to those who need it.
I know you hate the idea of people actually getting relief without your hero's Chuck and Nancy sneaking their progressive wish list into their demands while the American people suffer.
Trump makes [BLEEP] happen. That's why he is president.
Dictatorships are better at getting things done. Obviously, they aren’t hamstrung by messy things like politics.
(08-08-2020, 05:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020, 10:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Relief is relief. Mortgage relief is only deferring mortgage payments too, but it provides immediate relief to those who need it.
I know you hate the idea of people actually getting relief without your hero's Chuck and Nancy sneaking their progressive wish list into their demands while the American people suffer.
Trump makes [BLEEP] happen. That's why he is president.
Dictatorships are better at getting things done. Obviously, they aren’t hamstrung by messy things like politics.
If a government can't help the people they govern in a time of crisis, what is the use of their existence?
People will "complain" about a payroll tax cut the same way they "complained " about Trumps tax reform. People hate more hard earned money in their pocket.
Would you be cool if it was Obama making this kind of unilateral decision?
(08-08-2020, 09:02 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Would you be cool if it was Obama making this kind of unilateral decision?
Defer personal financial situations during a pandemic when our congressional elected officials can't pull their heads out of their [BLEEP]? Sure. I would be fine with Barry doing that.
Just to be clear, here is what we are talking about here:
1.
Defer payroll taxes
2.
Extend unemployment benefits
3.
Defer student loan payments & interest
4.
Extend eviction moratorium.
Nothing here is permanent, and I don't even agree with extending the eviction moratorium, as landlords are hung out to dry while people who could probably still pay rent are choosing not to do so.
I would actually take it a step further and implement an EO on credit card companies capping their APR until things get back to "normal".
Number 2 doesn't seem like a big deal to you? That's a lot of taxpayer money.
(08-08-2020, 11:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Number 2 doesn't seem like a big deal to you? That's a lot of taxpayer money.
yeah the Constitution is pretty clear that no money can leave the treasury without an appropriation by Congress.
in theory, an executive order can defer an expiration date, but no executive order can cause extra federal spending to occur.
If Trump can increase unemployment benefits unilaterally like this, a successor from the other party could unilaterally implement single-payer insurance. There is no difference.
(08-08-2020, 07:58 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2020, 05:36 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Dictatorships are better at getting things done. Obviously, they aren’t hamstrung by messy things like politics.
If a government can't help the people they govern in a time of crisis, what is the use of their existence?
People will "complain" about a payroll tax cut the same way they "complained " about Trumps tax reform. People hate more hard earned money in their pocket.
You are comparing apples and bicycles.
Trump's tax cut in 2017 went through both houses of Congress.
This proposed payroll tax cut, the Senate has not even included it in any of their draft bills. Nor has the house.
it would be one thing if it was included in both draft bills, and the bill was held up by some other issue.
But this is something that no one in government wants besides Trump.
(08-08-2020, 02:21 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (08-07-2020, 10:37 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Relief is relief. Mortgage relief is only deferring mortgage payments too, but it provides immediate relief to those who need it.
I know you hate the idea of people actually getting relief without your hero's Chuck and Nancy sneaking their progressive wish list into their demands while the American people suffer.
Trump makes [BLEEP] happen. That's why he is president.
He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs
Interesting point. How would DJT have handled this without opposition at every turn? Heck it doesn’t even have to be favorable cooperation from the left. I wonder how different things might be if it were just neutral opposition as opposed to open hostility.
(08-08-2020, 02:46 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2020, 02:21 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs
Interesting point. How would DJT have handled this without opposition at every turn? Heck it doesn’t even have to be favorable cooperation from the left. I wonder how different things might be if it were just neutral opposition as opposed to open hostility.
A good leader's actions do not depend on the motives of his enemy, only the actions of his enemy.
And a good president is always looking to reconcile with his political enemies, for the good of the country, especially during a crisis.
(08-08-2020, 11:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Number 2 doesn't seem like a big deal to you? That's a lot of taxpayer money.
It's tricky. What I "want" for #2 is complicated.
For starters, nobody should be making more in unemployment than they were making in employment. If they were unemployed before the pandemic, why do they need more money during the pandemic? I guess after writing that, I really am against it, but the first stimulus was a total failure and probably would have been better off being funneled through business so they could continue to make payroll with no layoffs.