Ah, not sure how Medicaid is where you are, but it is much better than most private insurance here. Extremely small, or no premium, nominal co-pays or no co-pays, and insureds cannot be balance billed for anything. Plus strict regs on waiting times, appointment scheduling within a certain time frame, and free transportation to the appointments if you don't want to drive or take a bus.

LOL, I wish my fortune 500 companies benefits were this good! But to answer your question, getting these benefits and the same wages they got for sitting home, no there is no urgency for some to jump back into the work force.

None of that is relevant, since nobody was making an argument about it being too much money to give out in the aggregate.


Some of it is, some of it isn't. And what do you mean 'unlike the other other programs'? Does the bailouts to keep businesses operating, PPP, etc. go into some magical black box where people paid that money don't spend it?


That doesn't follow at all. All that jobless claims dropping tells you is that some people are going back to work. Obviously not all people who filed for unemployment are in the low-income brackets that we've been talking about, and not all who are in those brackets have chosen not to work. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of others who have so chosen.

There are a lot of businesses out there that are irresponsible, but those who are not are also in the predicament I'm describing. I'm talking about companies that had their top executives forgo all salaries and bonuses for the period of the shutdown, cut management wages sharply, etc. so they could keep more employees around and stay open on a limited basis, and still ended up laying off over half of their workforce while providing free meals for them during the interim.

It's one thing if a situation only affects a select group of companies that made bad/shortsighted decisions. It's another if it slams an entire industry such as the hospitality, airline, small retailer, hair/grooming, and other sectors here.


And I've agreed with that, up to the point where you open up restrictions and allow people to go back to work. The issue is that once you've reopened and decided it's safe to try to recover the economy, you need to encourage that recovery not discourage it.

PPP is primarily meant to benefit the business owner(s). Workers would be eligible for unemployment if they were fired (though they do benefit some).


You listed a bunch of high risk industries. Many people are going to avoid those as much as possible unless they are being paid a premium. This is just economics.


But it's not safe. People aren't going to take a job with more risk now for the same pay.

I'm sorry, I just don't see people turning down good jobs for a couple months of unemployment benefits and the risk they won't be able to find work when that ends. Just an insane gamble to take if you have a family.

:rolleyes:

I don't listen to Fox News, I don't even have cable TV. But you don't have to be a right winger to think that paying people not to work is idiotic.

If only there were some extenuating circumstance where we'd be trying, as a society, to get people to stay home...

SI

Well if we didn't, we would likely be in a financial collapse like we have never before seen. Also a lot more dead bodies.

Letterkenny reference gets my upvote.

Absolutely. Our business is staying afloat largely on the fact that people had that extra unemployment. I am very afraid come the end of July of dropping off a sizable cliff. Not just in our business, but the economy as a whole. If we are still at 10+% unemployment without the added unemployment benefits, there is no way the economy is not going to show that.

When a global pandemic became a political talking point I knew we were doomed. Life or death should never be a political matter. But let me shut up anyway.

When the only thing you have is a dividing hammer, everything looks like a nail.

SI

Guys guys guys. Let’s refocus here and not lose sight of Trump taking on the real important issues such as flag burning.

Flag burning is so 80's

When you're talking about a government response to a global pandemic, how can it be anything BUT political.

Because most governments try and do what’s best for citizens. You know. Listen to science. Don’t hold rally’s. Don’t make masks divisive issue. Don’t actively encourage their citizens to violate local ordinances, etc.

Because matters of public health and safety shouldn't be politicized, period.

But when you have a literal cult leader telling people "it's a choice" to wear a mask, then bam, it's politicized. It's not because of the inherent nature of pandemic response, that's ridiculous.

This.


This.

We know that this really isn't a big concern to a lot of people.

Lots of funny names for it. Lots of names...

Wait, did you stop counting bodies?

Hey here's another weird name.

and... kathunk

Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any other country, and ever expanding. With smaller testing we would show fewer cases!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 23, 2020

Did the Trump admin finally do something good?

Upshot

Putting aside the reverse-reverse-reverse psychology explanation that he's not seriously being serious, but only in a sarcastic way, I haven't heard a single logical excuse for this statement.

I know what it means to him - everything's about me, even your grandpa's death, so we need to stop testing because it's making me look bad - but to his supporters, I honestly have no idea how you explain this. It's either "how I look is more important than the lives of fellow Americans" or "I'm 3 months old and if you hide a ball behind your back it magically disappears!"

Even if you buy his argument, it doesn't negate the test results, or the fact that people have the virus, whether a test result confirms it or not. I feel like he should keep it up, because he's only going to continue digging a deeper hole with anyone who isn't a Fox Nation subscriber.

I don't see any other way on it... this sounds like an important move. Good on them.

This is how they justify it: "This is just an over-blown flu. The more the positive cases, the more the media talks about it. If we stopped testing, the media would shut up and this would all go away. Then I can get a hair cut again!"
I just this week had another "the media has made this up to hurt the President" statement made by a customer. I get openly mocked when I where a mask into an old persons house regularly. Of course, Fox news is always on.

I definitely support this.

But that's not a justification - 120K deaths pretty much shuts down the "overblown" argument. And the number of deaths above normal shuts down the "they count every death as Covid-related" argument. And the media reporting anything doesn't stop things from actually happening.

I know it's trying to argue logic with people who refuse to listen to logic, but it's just so damn frustrating.

His argument seems to be that every place has the same rate of infection, so testing just reveals more of what every country has equally. It's foolish, but I think that's what's at the root of this.

SETTING: Smoke Filled Room

GOP OPERATIVES: Good God! A global pandemic. Depression-era levels of unemployment. A Second Civil Rights movement. How the hell will we ever get a positive news cycle by November?

JUDICIAL WATCH REPRESENTATIVE: Just leave it us, boys. We've got a news story so hot it'll be the only thing anyone's talking about by Friday. Believe me--this is gonna be a total gamechanger.

Judicial Watch released 80 pages of new emails recently found by the FBI that further document how former SecState #HillaryClinton used her unsecure, non-government email to transmit classified and other sensitive government information.
Read: https://t.co/uwxP1cKkfV

— Judicial Watch �� (@JudicialWatch) June 25, 2020

Reeks of pure desperation

The "Including Benghazi" part got me to laugh out loud.

Like a $4.99 Best of Classic Rock CD on the stand near the register at an interstate gas station having "Includes Freebird!" on the cover.

Remember all that talk about how CHAZ is going to be a bloodbath when the police finally retake it? Lol

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...mpression=true

Looks like most people left and the transition was pretty damned peaceful. Fix News is pretty disappointed I'm sure.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Nah, they got everything they wanted out of it. While the adults in the room were talking about police killings, they could distract with harrowing news about a menacing hippie compound

SI

Again, you are assuming it's a risk issue when it just isn't. I think it's possible that you aren't aware of how much money $50k is to people who live in low cost-of-living regions. A lot of people live on half of that or slightly more. I've been one of them for pretty much my entire adult life. Even now, with a better job that I'm grateful for, I still don't make nearly that much. Even the employees who stayed in the business are still limiting their hours so they can collect the extra unemployment. They aren't working less because of COVID, they're working less because there's a massive incentive for them to do so. We're talking about a county that has one confirmed COVID death and less than a hundred cases. We weren't - thankfully - hit hard by it here. No staff management makes that much, and about 80% of general managers don't either. It's the most money many employees will ever make in their lives.


A lot of them wouldn't be fired. What most of the businesses I know did is just not schedule them anymore. They just didn't get any hours, they were still employees unless they chose to quit. For all of these people, a program like PPP absolutely pumps more money back into the economy.

Exactly, it was two different worlds down there, the day time world with peaceful protests and purpose. And the nighttime world that would draw a few people with more interest in causing problems or agitating the protesters. There was always a focus on the latter from Fox and others that preach a conservative message and a focus on the former from CNN and more liberal networks.

Very little all encompassing coverage, so business as usual for much of America's media. That said the timing of this is probably good. They proved what they wanted to prove, and are moving on as public opinion in many areas starts to turn on them.

If South Park has taught me anything, all you had to do was play some Slayer and the hippies would've left.

I'm REALLY happy it went peacefully. I thought it would end much worse than this.

Pence went to an auto plant in Ohio today and nobody wore a mask.

No one is making $50k on this. It's a few months of increased benefits to keep people at home.

You may not have been hit hard yet, but you could be. And people are going to factor that risk into their job choices. Even if death isn't a concern, missing 3-4 weeks of work without pay is. You can't expect people to go back to work for the same pay during a global pandemic. It's just economics.

Also what kind of money are people turning down for these jobs? Like how much is the pay and what are the benefits?

I will note that the vast majority of economists I've seen have thought the expanded unemployment insurance of CARES was the best part of the act for the economy. A great deal of those extra funds went directly into the economy (it makes sense, esp those on the bottom have a far higher marginal propensity to consume those higher up - diminishing returns of cash, re: consumption). And otherwise, prevented a far greater panic.

Sinclair "investigative" reporting is also trying to accuse Biden of calling for Flynn to be investigated, for doing absolutely nothing, in a manner that had never been done before with cries of Comey! Obama! Hillary! Strzok!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this conversation started regarding service industry people.

Not sure if you have ever worked in a restaurant, but virtually every person I knew when I did wouldn't be in a rush to go back to work. They would collect the government check, bum around, and full well know there will be a job waiting when the money dries up.

The unemployment benefit is almost $50k a year annualized. Yes I know it's not going to last an actual year; my initial post was making the point that I hope we think it through better if it is extended. Otherwhise we're just talking in circles at this point. We don't have nationwide studies on this point, so since I can't demonstrate beyond what I'm observing and two decades of experience in the business, I guess you're free to do what appears to be claiming that my observations aren't actually occuring.


I'll just repeat the fact that I totally agree with this ... up to the point where you reopen the economy. That's when it doesn't make sense anymore.

Lincoln Project has a map with what the electoral count would be if the election was held today: Biden 443, Trump 92

Trump needs a hug.

The unemployment benefit during the Great Recession lasted 99 weeks.

That's a best case scenario, here's the RCP averages:

RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Let's break things down:

Solid: 118-63
Likely: 51-32 (169-95)
Leans: 53-30 (222-125)
Toss Up: 191

Texas and Georgia are currently in that "Toss up" category, which is mind boggling to me (in a good way), but I am not going to hold out any real hope until we get something a LOT closer to the election. A lot has to go right for Trump to win (if the election was held today), but I won't celebrate until Trump's presidency is dead and buried.

There is no way Georgia or Texas will allow Biden to win their state. They'll shut down as many polling stations as they have to to preserve victory.

That Trump is forced to run ads in Texas like he has this week is probably best case scenario for Democrats

It's truthfully not even about Biden or Trump.

There are three Senate seats up for election this year between those two states. I guarantee you Senate Republicans would cheerfully throw Trump under the bus to keep those seats, go back to the obstruction playbook they ran against Obama, and hope that Biden's age means the incumbency advantage isn't much of a factor in 2024.

Not really mind boggling. At this point in the 2016 race, Clinton was ahead in Georgia and Texas was a toss-up.