I went digging for more info on the Wisconsin thing as I was really confused about who did what and when and I found this political analyst on facebook spelling it out:

Pelosi, Schumer call for another $500B-plus as part of ‘interim’ coronavirus relief bill

How many stimulus packages to do we need? We haven't even spent the first one yet and Trump has decided that no accountability is needed on how the money is spent.

The one thing that gets bipartisan support nowadays is spending lots of money.

I really wish someone cared about the debt.

The Dems need to say no to anything unless it includes better oversight and voting protections.

If they don't, they're complicit.

SI

Once we OPEN UP OUR GREAT COUNTRY, and it will be sooner rather than later, the horror of the Invisible Enemy, except for those that sadly lost a family member or friend, must be quickly forgotten. Our Economy will BOOM, perhaps like never before!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2020

This attitude will guarantee we're back to mass isolations in a month or two.

Fits with this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/cor...-self-isolate/
I think that is insanely premature if actually aplied oitside critical jobs (and by that i mean healthcare and food production)

Is it really that costly if people stay home 10 business days versus sending the more likely candidates for being infected back into contact with people ? Even if they follow the guidelines and execute properly (wearing a mask all day and not screw up is tricky) they are hardly foolproof. Especially with the Masks unlikely to be 'the good stuff' and presumably their colleagues not wearing one.

Just seems weird to put a muzzle on the fox and sending him into the hen house is still inherently more risky than kepping him away.

Wonder if Fauci/Birks agree/support this or had to essentially concede it with even worse ideas on the table.

GIVE US TESTS YOU IGNORANT FUCKS!

This thing passes when people are asymptomatic. Taking temperatures makes as much sense as asking someone if they've been to Wuhan.

You want us back to work? You want things back to normal? You want the GDP growing again? Guess what? SO DO WE. We just aren't willing to kill our parents (who are your voters by the way) to do it.

Spend 1% of the time and effort you spend yelling at reporters getting us tests AND WE WILL--EAGERLY--GET BACK TO WORK.

dola:

I'll get off this in a second b/c I could talk about it until the heat death of the universe, and I know that I'm not convincing anyone of anything.

But, I mean, they know what they have to do to get what they want. And they are so allergic to actually doing the right thing that they aren't doing it. They would rather not get what they want if getting what they want means having to admit that scientists are correct.

We have Ammon Bundy back in the news out here. He's encouraging residents to reopen their businesses and trying to get a 1,000+ person Easter service organized in defiance of state orders while promising armed protection against government overreach.

These people drive me nuts. Stop being part of the problem!

The testing thing is actually happening now, unless i'm missing something. The way I'm reading the numbers, we're up to the point that only a handful of nations worldwide are testing in higher numbers than we are on a population-adjusted basis. It's also continuing to go up. Was less than 140k daily a few days ago, up to 160k yesterday and should be about that much at least today - though I think we're close to the lab capacity limit so in the short term I don't think we can go a lot higher.

That's not excusing the screwups and inaction earlier in the process, I'm just saying it really is happening now, unless I've missed something.

I hope you are right.

Widely available testing (not taking temperatures) will be the way we get out of this before a vaccine.

Put an answer in the other thread, seems to fit better there :)

They can't even get health care workers masks, how are they going to get the work force masks?

I don't see how testing helps until we are at the point of being able to test everyone at once/repeatedly. Just because I passed the test yesterday doesn't mean I didn't contract it today.

The CDC is advocating home-made masks. My girlfriend sewed about 10 last night for friends and co-workers. I have no idea how much it helps, but that is the official advice and what some businesses are requiring.

Yep. My wife is a nurse (thankfully working at a NICU, which should carry a somewhat lesser risk) and has tested negative, but she's been back to work again since, so who knows?

The only tests which are of any use in my mind are a) positive tests, or b) positive antibody tests.

This was my thought as well. Every morning you go into work your employer tests you. If youre positive you go home and isolate for 14 days. If you're negative you stay at work and if you leave and come back you have to get tested again. Schools, sporting events, concerts, restaurants would also test when you come in.

Only really helps if everybody wears them and does so diligently/properly (change when wet, washing hot after every use, not pulling down all the time to drink, not constantly touching the cloth etc) even then no substitute for practicing social distancing. Essentially an extra layer of protection, but not if you then end up sitting bunched up in Meetings or huddled over a worktable like before the Virus.

Nobody is ever going to be able to test that much, unless much better (faster and more accurate) tests show up. It still helps to isolate those you know for sure have it, esp. once we get past the peak in terms of hospital capacity. Those people then don't spread it around as much, etc.

Art Laffer is being considered to chair some sort of reopening committee. His ideas so far include taxing non-profits and cutting the salaries of public workers and college professors, and then something something with the money.

Seriously, that's his plan.

Thats terrible. Our Governor cut spending to higher education a couple weeks ago because of budget short falls. And then they feds want to tax them? AMd public workers? Wow, F the middle class. Once again carrying the burden.

Why not tax the damn rich.

"But I'm not voting because Joe Biden would be just as bad or somesuch"

SI

Aren't you a conservative Trump supporter? And you're asking why they aren't proposing to tax the rich?

You must not pay attention.

Not either of those things. Independent, with a leaning towards things that affect me. For example, Im for M4A. Absolutely think it is a must. Anti-big corp, they get a free pass all the time. Pro 2nd amendment, I believe in gun rights and think all should have the right to own a gun.

Many issues I go left or right. I do not shoe horn myself into a party and just blindly pull a lever. I think for myself. I, also, believe there should be a multiple party system in this country, because both these parties are the exact same.

Has anyone checked to see if spontaneous spinal growth is a side effect of Corona?

Congressional Dems again refusing to roll over and vote for a "Everything the GOP wants and nothing you want" bill from McConnell/Trump.

This is some through the looking glass shit.

Big holdup seems to be that Trump/GOP is refusing to include money for states/localities and hospitals as part of the increased business relief being proposed.

While I may not agree with Tarcone in saying both parties are the same, I think the bill will pass once the parties agree that they both get to spend a lot of money.

In defense of our governor they can't just "release" 2 trillion dollars on a whim to cover costs like the feds they actually have to balance the budget. Now of course they could find other revenue streams though I doubt higher taxes will go over with anyone.

:lol:

Great idea, no way that has ramifications down the line !

Hospitals are bound to run up huge losses during this, both those hard hit and those preparing like they should by cutting elective (and often lucrative) procedures.

And this whole "unemployment can't be incentivised" thinking from that Laffer guy is so damn ancient even outside a crisis situation ... If the US would consider joining the Rest of the major western nations in the 21st century, they are saving you a seat.

Who is the first Fox person or right-wing radio host to come out and say that COVID killing minorities is actually a good thing?

No way man. We're better than the rest of the world, and we're bigger too, so everything that other countries have done is irrelevant. It just wouldn't work here/is socialism/no reason, just fuck the people - take your pick.

Also the 21st century is scary. We really, really liked the 1950s over here, those are the "good old days", back when women were in the kitchen and far fewer people raised a stink when you killed black people who got in the way of things. Come to think of it, the 1850s were even better, but, well, best not say that in too straight forward a manner.

Donald Trump

Much like me, though I lean left, and as far as the bolded part, no truer words have ever been spoken. We need a LOT more moderates in government because despite what many seem to believe, you can support a woman's right to choose, legal marijuana, the second amendment and a strong military at the same time.

The only real way to get a multi party system in the US is to go to a Parliamentary system, at least in one house. Otherwise, the consequences of taking votes from one of the big coalition parties is way too risky.

Or Ranked Voting everywhere.

this

Yes please.

Some structural changes that I think would help:

(1) Enshrine 9 Supreme Court justices in the Constitution. They serve 18 year terms. Every 4-year Presidential administration gets to pick two. If one dies/retires during her term, then you can nominate a replacement, but only for the length of that term.

(2) As the population increases, we get more reps. As each member of the House has to represent more and more people, they get less and less attuned to the people they are supposed to be representing and instead simply become pawns of the national parties. Making more of them would keep them more grounded.

(3) The Senate retains the filibuster, but in drastically changed form. If 41 or more senators want to "filibuster" something, that means that they can delay it for 60 days--during which time they can flood the airways with ads arguing against the proposed law. But, after that time, the legislation can be voted on.

(4) We still average 2 senators per state. But the 1/3 least-populated states get 1 senator, and the 1/3 most populated get 3.

(5) Fix Gerrymandering (I'd adopt a mathematical model like the shortest splitline algorithm, or the minimum district to convex polygon ratio, but there are several solutions to the problem)

(6) Put lots of money into elections--the major parties (defined as having received >X% of votes in the last election) are each given public money to spend on federal races. This would diminish the value of additional money given by big donors. That avoids campaign finance restrictions being struck down on First Amendment grounds.

(7) Ranked Voting.

(8) Vote by mail mandatory in all 50 states.

(9) No felon disenfranchisement.

(10) Current prisoners are allowed to vote--their votes count for the address at which they lived before they were imprisoned. That is also where they are counted as living for census/apportionment purposes.

I would argue that ranked voting probably would just lead to the same 2 party system in the end.

The dumbest country continues to put the dumbest people in charge of things.

Yep, because nothing says dumb like a PhD in economics from Stanford.

It's always a con(spiracy) on this forum.

Was the napkin not available for the job?

He's a failed economist who has the power to turn anything to shit that he touches. His last foray into politics was as a lead economic adviser to Sam Brownback in Kansas. The governor who practically destroyed the state with his moronic economic policies.

Only people with a vested interested in his policies (wealthy people who want a tax cut) or incredibly stupid people take him seriously.

strong

And here we are.

It is really good fortune that the most important tool available now (testing) is quantifiable. Gives Trump him the chance to claim to have "the most" of something.

I'm not saying you should like him. I'm saying you don't accomplish what Laffer has by being dumb - he demonstrably isn't. I don't get why we have to exaggerate and/or flat make up flaws about people who have plenty of legit things to criticize them for.

Meanwhile, I now state for the record that I am in the category herein described as 'incredibly stupid'. Incidentally that would be a surprise to people who know me, but beyond that anybody accomplished at this level is worth taking seriously. I don't care who they've worked for or whether they are to the left of Krugman or the right of Friedman by a zillion miles, the relevant point is their qualifications and what it takes to achieve those. I.e., the average joe down at the pub doesn't have the mental capacity.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intel...t-13211e2d0577

Also read Skin in the Game. Great book.

The first two paragraphs of that link area all I needed to read; proof positive that the piece is intellectually unserious.

Same type of argument about Musk. Irrational and unnecessary belittling when all evidence points to the contrary.

That's how he writes. Unlike people like Laffer and Kudlow, he understands these things.

Kudlow by the way is a Princeton grad with a resume of working for global leaders. He also told everyone that the economy was great and there was no housing bubble over a decade ago. He will be part of this "team" too.

The Housing Bears Are Wrong Again | National Review

Bush Boom Continues | National Review

The coronavirus panic is dumb

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2020

So if I'm understanding your definition of dumb correctly, it is 'anyone who has ever once in their life been wrong about anything, regardless of anything else they have achieved or whether or not they were ever right about anything'.

Do I have that right, or are there additional nuances I should consider?

Elon wasn't wrong; the panic was dumb. Panic is nearly always dumb and counterproductive.

So you point out one-two-three dumb statements when his accomplishments tell a different story? Talk about judgmental.

Plenty of dumb statements and late responses ... Cuomo

Mar 6


Mar 18


And finally on Mar 20 (days after De Blasio asked for it)

If your life's work has been repeatedly proven to be wrong and yet you still keep pushing it, you are dumb. I'm sorry, but Art Laffer is dumb and the results show that.

Just because you have a degree from a fancy university doesn't make you impervious to criticism. Jared Kushner is a Harvard grad. And while I know his Daddy bought his way through, he still gets to put that diploma on the wall.

Yeah, I bashed him about a week ago for his pathetic response.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

Feel free to be judgmental and call him about about being "dumb".

I'm sure I can find many other similar examples of Democrats that said "dumb" things about the coronavirus response. It does not make them overall dumb.

There's lots of conservative economists, and also lots of ways to interpret the results of varying economic policies. For example, there's a significant school of thought that holds that governors, presidents, etc. have very limited impact with their economic policies one way or the other.


This we totally agree on. People should be criticized when they are wrong. Hence my statement a few posts up about 'plenty of legit things to criticize'. It's not like I'm saying give Laffer a medal; in fact I've not said one thing positive about his proposals at all.

I have spoken plenty about how the Democratic Party is filled with dumb people. It is why they always fucking lose.

I'm fairly certain what Brownback did in Kansas had a pretty big impact on their economy.

I understand it appeals mostly to those of us sold that he's a bag of shit. But still warms my heart to see it communicated so effectively...

For all my new MAGA trolls, please enjoy this:https://t.co/edpHI9TXbR

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 10, 2020

nice, he really is his own worst enemy

My kingdom for Dem messaging half as good.

I think Trump’s an embarrassment as a man, let alone a president, but the start of this video is the sort of thing that helps bolster his support.

It claims he paid no attention to a memo and WHO advice by holding rallies and playing golf. The memo is dated 29th January, the WHO info the 30th January

Two of the three rallies shown are considerably earlier than the 29th, the third was on the 30th January. Plus at that time everybody got the seriousness wrong, and him holding a rally or playing golf in January is not the reason CV-19 hit the US

The details from February onwards are valid, but with so much valid criticism, why open yourself up to allegations of twisting facts by inserting events that were before the critical events they themselves chose to focus on, and had little relevance at that time anyway?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...288_story.html

This encapsulates Trump so well. He wants the economy open. He is advised to do the hard work necessary to do it. He does not, and instead wants to just reopen it shitshow style. And if someone points out that we can't just reopen things without a plan and resources, they are just against Trump.

They really do seem to think that those of us who care enough to try and do this right are actually happy with 30% unemployment, kids out of school, and thousands of people dying.

He is a narcissistic sociopath. He believes everything is about him. So, yes. If you are against any of his plans, including this one, then you are just out to get him.

Our smart guy president:

Trump calls the virus "a brilliant enemy." He adds, "Antibiotics used to solve every problem" but now "the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can't keep up with it." He adds, "There's a whole genius to it." He adds of the virus, "It's hidden, but it's very smart."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 10, 2020

Accidentally posted this to the coronavirus thread instead of the Trump thread and see you posted it.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could think this man is doing a good job handling this when he doesn't understand the difference between bacteria and a virus.

DUDE>GAS IS UNDER 2 BUCKS!!!!

Not for long. Trump is working with the Saudis and the Russians to limit oil production and raise prices.

I see "wash over" is trending this morning. Great. He was openly talking about untold numbers of American deaths being ushered in as a means to protect the momentary economy, which he sees as central to his electoral strategy.

I again fall for that silly delusion that "maybe this will be the thing that sticks, maybe American supporters who have thought of him as a leader or whatever will finally see that he is simple-minded, uncaring, and absurdly unfit for leadership of any kind."

Then the feeling rightfully goes away, again, and leaves sadness behind.

Holy shit...

The White House Pushed FEMA To Give its Biggest Coronavirus Contract to a Company That Never Had to Bid — ProPublica

How long until we uncover that the company's CEO ponied up a million for the fucking inauguration, or illegally helped the Stormy Daniels defense fund, or helped silence some assault victim, or whatever?

OMG I am over the edge, complete TDS case.

And also, I really don't understand the political logic behind the harsh stance against the ...{checks notes}... postal service. I get that the guy is a pure villain, but at least I typically understand the political upside to being evil. Here, I'm just missing it.

So, word is, he'll hold up or veto the next COVID relief package if it contains help for the postal service. Okay...

So, what is the plan, then? They're losing money, does he think this is because they are "bad businessmen" or something like that? They made bad deals? Didn't do a good job? (Trying to water it down to the monosyllabic Seussian level that he speaks)

(Oh...is this about him hating Bezos? Can that honestly be it?)

So...we just close up shop? Is that really where this ends? The USPS becomes insolvent and we just... don't have mail anymore?

Does he think a private company is going to step in with cheap, universal, service like that? Hint: if it's not universal service, and in any private model it surely wouldn't be... the people in the hinterlands who get fucked... you know who they mostly voted for?

So, we go to $1.40 for first class mail through the Amazon Post, limited service options apply, grandma. This is... good for Trump? Or for the GOP?

I mean, I get there's a purist small-government argument there, but that has never been what Trump has been about, he doesn't have any deeply-held principles, other than fucking around behind his wives' backs and manufacturing the false impression that he understands business. And the modern GOP doesn't have any serious budget or deficit hawks anymore, it's just too lucrative to be in the tax giveaway business.

So... how does this scheme even add up?

I'm not sure this is Trump. I think this is probably being driven by Pence and Meadows. The GOP has been working to destroy the government for 40 years, and this is the crisis they've been waiting for. Killing the USPS can't be done in normal times, but they might get away with it now.

What I don't understand is why the Dems aren't already playing offense on this. As you say, what's the alternative to the post office? Seems clear that less options and more expensive mail is a losing argument.

As someone currently collecting unemployment for the first time in his life, this really does bother me from a personal standpoint. I'm attempting to get work as a professional shopper, my last real possibility right now. If I do so, I'll be slashing my overall income under the current situation, and it'll be paying me more than the job I'm laid off from. That's on top of taking away the extra time I currently have to devote to other things including my side hustle.

I don't see how it's good for society to encourage people to be unproductive. That's always true, but in the present situation the more people that want to do things like deliver groceries to vulnerable populations, isn't that better? I want to contribute and if I'm successful in getting an opportunity to do so I'll definitely take it. Now one could definitely argue that the answer is simply drastically jacking up minimum wage etc., but that also comes with the cost of eliminating some jobs/businesses permanently, devaluing the education and training of others, etc. I think it's not easy to know what the right approach is in these areas.

I'm sure the Republicans don't want it for appropriate reasons, but many European countries have gone to full-privatization of mail, or have a big private component to their postal systems. I'm sure there's different obstacles for the U.S. like with other European models some people want to adopt (The U.S. being much more rural for one) but, maybe that can be a longer-term goal to work towards that makes sense in a world where mail volume have changed dramatically. Or USPS can stick with letters and rural areas and private carriers who pay taxes can run package-delivery.

In other contexts, I read about how Europe is so enlightened and superior and that we should just do what they do. Even they saw that that governments couldn't effectively run postal services any more. Why isn't this something that has more appeal from the side of the political spectrum who otherwise think that European countries do things better?

next big thing


gig jobs for mail delivery


gig is nothing more than turning people into professional gophers with no external protections or supports.

Seems to me that the massively different geography of super-dense Belgium and super-spacious America might necessitate different solutions for things where that geographical spacing is relevant. Like, say, travel and delivery of people and information. But for a lot of other areas that are basically independent of density concerns, it seems fair to think about approaches from other developed areas with similar socioeconomic demographics as a fair comparison. I think it's fair to hold both those views at once.

In other news...

Great businessman & philanthropist Bernie Marcus, Co-Founder of Home Depot, said that Congress was too distracted by the (phony) Impeachment Witch Hunt when they should have been investigating CoronaVirus when it first appeared in China. Media played a big roll also!@dcexaminer

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2020

Just...ugh. How did we let this happen?

I think there's lots of differences between the U.S. and Europe that can impact policy and how government is run, not just one. Our postal services shouldn't be exactly the same either. But I think we'd be more open to modernizing our postal service like the rest of the world has if the Republicans didn't decide that was their lane first, and didn't do it in their unique aggressive and hostile way. That makes everybody defensive of a broken entity that's stuck in 1950 and could provide better and more important services to people if it dramatically changed, while still being a mail carrier of last resort as needed.

Not only did the 2006 bill screw the Post Office with unreasonable retirement funding rules, it also made it much more difficult to compete with private companies. There are all sorts of rules from that bill that limit "market disruption" and compel the USPS to calculate expenses as if they were private companies. They also have to jump through hoops in order to establish new products and services.

The easiest way to fix the USPS would be to deregulate, but in this case, the regulation was always meant to starngle and kill the postal service.

Why is it the Post Office prefunding its retirement fund unreasonable? If they don't then there's a good chance they would require a bailout in the future.

More governments should be making sure its pensions are fully funded instead of just kicking the financial can down the road.

My former county could be in for a financial storm in the future. The largest employer in the county is in a dispute with the government over property taxes and has threatened to leave. If they do then the county would say goodbye to at least a quarter of its income but yet they still have to pay the pensions of people who no longer work. That means the county will have to cut the services it is providing to citizens.

I can only imagine what this virus is going to do our current underfunded pension plans.

The time frame was unreasonable and designed to sink the USPS. There's no good reason to prefund the pensions for 75 years. That's prefunding pensions for people that aren't hired yet.

Like so much the GOP legislates, it was superficially reasonable, but really designed to wreck government and public employees.

I'll agree that 75 years is a little zealous but I'm sticking to the idea that pensions be funded instead of kicking the can down the road.


Then again this is the federal government and they'll probably find a way to piss away the money.

'60 Minutes' brings the receipts for Peter Navarro's feisty interview - Business Insider

Get called on your BS and double down on bullshit. It's like this is an administration-wide strategy or something.

Nate Cohn on Twitter: "So far, national polls show virtually no change among white voters with or without college degree over the last four years. But Biden does appear to be doing quite a bit better among older voters and weaker among nonwhite voters… https://t.co/K4bB0ljN9i"

Basically, for those of us who feel like its been some version of a nightmare for the last 3.5 years that has really accelerated into the endgame in the last 3 months, it can be sobering and disorienting to realize that for 45% of the country--that happens to disproportionately live in Electoral College swing states--they knew what exactly they were voting for, they have been very happy with how this has been going, and they look forward to working over the next few months to give us all four more years of it.

I really worry about the aftermath of yet another GOP candidate gets fewer votes and wins the election. Three of those in twenty years is not a recipe for stability.

Kerry almost beat Bush in the EC while losing the popular vote. If that had happened right after Bush did the same thing to Gore, we might have had a bipartisan movement to take steps to have the winner of the election be the person who received more votes than the other guy.

But that ship has sailed, and the EC is now seen as favoring the GOP, so we are locked into stalemate with it.

I hate the whole EC / popular vote argument because people ignore that if the rules were different, campaign and voter behavior would be different too. You can't just say "if we did popular vote then candidate X would have won" without acknowledging that campaigns would run differently to play by those rules instead.

Perhaps, but democracy doesn't work long-term if the party that gets the most votes isn't given power. It's a recipe for the whole thing to fall apart.

Maybe its worth discussing the balance of federal vs state power at this point then. That's the root cause of this, no?

For sure. You would have a lot more areas in play. GOP playing for NYC and Los Angeles suburban voters. Dems campaigning in Dallas and Houston and Atlanta.

And campaigns still paying lots of attention to Florida, Michigan, etc. b/c lots of people live there.

There are a few areas that would suffer for attention compared to the current system: New Hampshire, that one swing district in Maine, etc.

But, overall, you'd see real national campaigns, which would be an improvement.

And you are 100% right that trying to find a winner wouldn't be as easy as saying "Clinton would have beat Trump" or "Gore would have beat Bush" because the campaigns would have run totally differently.

Which is why the Dems should not assume it would solve everything, and the GOP should not consider it a death knell.

These are the rules and that's why the party with fewer votes gets to control two branches of government may be accurate, but it eventually leads to legitimacy problems. How many times can this happen before people refuse to accept the results? Eventually, the system will collapse.

Look, don't tell anybody about this ok? Because this is an email that was sent only to me, for my eyes only, with the kind of deal that only a really special person like myself could ever dream of getting access to. I'm going to act now because supplies are limited! pic.twitter.com/3W2hj9cTJZ

— Seth Cotlar (@SethCotlar) April 13, 2020

Everything's a con.

Will people refuse to accept the results if they follow the rules that have been in place for 200+ years? Its not like this is a surprise.

Look, I get what you are saying, but this system is in place for a reason. You might argue that reason isn't valid anymore, but be careful, because you open up a lot of questions about federal vs state power. Would you want Trump to have been the one in charge of shutting down the states if hypothetically governors didn't have that power.

Yes. Because prior to 2000, this issue had only happened 3 times where the person with a lead in the popular vote lost the election to the EC. And one of those was obvious cheating (1876).

If it becomes common place - 3 in 20 years, it will cause the system's legitimacy to be questioned.

I'll take your word for it.

Most people I have discussed this with realize the rules are win the EC count, not the popular vote.