HappyJoy
Platinum Member
- Apr 15, 2015
- 32,056
- 5,943
- 1,140
- Banned
- #901
Tens of trillions. Then we'll spend the next 1000 years trying to pay it off.ROFL! How many weeks do you imagine the government can pay everyone their wages?So you have a source of income that isn't affected by the shutdown.You're a retired old coot who doesn't need to earn a living and who doesn't care if people starve and lose everything they have ever worked for.What "spike?"Americans, by a large 30-point margin, are resistant to re-opening the country now, believing the risk to human life of opening the country outweighs the economic toll of remaining under restrictive lockdowns -- a concern that starkly divides along partisan lines, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos released Friday.
It's not the only poll showing this result either. I know, I know, you've been programmed to disregard any information you don't want to be true but your confirmation bias is not my problem.
The polls only indicate that the 24/7 news cycle of alarmism regarding the corona panic has swayed the opinion of a lot of people.
As people see things open up in Georgia, in Mississippi and other forward thinking parts of the country, their opinions will change. And that's why radicals on the coast are fighting the efforts of people in the interior to get back to normalcy.
Yeah, people aren't as dumb as you. When they see the virus spike in places like Georgia it's going to be painfully obvious why.
Georgia cases are increasing. Wait for the spike because with their economy allegedly opening the outcome is going to be pretty obvious. Georgia already has more cases and deaths per capita than California by almost double.
I'm sure you hope that will be the case, but my guess is that the opening of the Great State of Georgia will occur with no particular problems at all, leading other states to follow suit. Maybe not Far Left New York, but other, forward thinking states.
No, my hope would be that COVID will mutate out of existence but you can't count on hope.
There is not a shred of evidence that supports opening up will lead to fewer cases, quite the opposite.
So far as I can tell, there has been no evidence actually suggesting that lockdowns lead to fewer cases and/or fewer deaths, either. Which makes sense, since they were never intended for that purpose. The lockdowns were only ever supposed to delay cases and spread them out over time, so that the hospitals wouldn't be overrun. The models never suggested that the eventual end totals wouldn't be the same either way.
As far as I can tell you didn't really look.
As far as I can tell, you didn't really think. Washington has been locked down, but it's still generating cases.
We're moving the goal posts then? Did Washington reduce their cases due to social distancing or not? They did. Actually most places that effectively practiced social distancing and stay at home have reduced their cases or kept them low. San Francisco Bay Area, Washington State, Michigan and the NYC area are all seeing reductions in new cases yet if you remove those areas the remaining population of the U.S. is still going up.
Here is what is happening in NYC vs the rest of the United States. By reopening further it's just going to push much of the country back up.
View attachment 333918
Where are those coming from, if lockdowns utterly prevent people from getting sick like you keep pretending? Where is the model showing us that the end total number of cases is going to be lower? EVERY model indicates that, months down the road (barring a deus ex machina), the exact same number of people are going to have been infected. The only difference is whether they get infected now, or a month from now.
Did I ever say that stay at home measures alone reduce cases to zero immediately? No, why are you lying and saying I did? Very disingenuous of you or perhaps you're just not that bright. Which one?
Exact same number will be infected? That sounds whimsical.
So what is your suggestion? That places with zero deaths or very few deaths should close and not open until after New York does?
No, according to Trump's guidelines they should see 14 days of straight decline, most states haven't. I would actually say 4 weeks but hey, who am I?
I'm old and retired? That's news to me. I do earn a living and I'm still working. I've also managed to generate wealth and save so in those respects I am very fortunate. Though the way you're shitting on people living in retirement I'm not surprised if you don't care if they live or not.
Anyway, I understand insulin is expensive so I'm sorry you have to deal with that.
Did I say that? Nope.
What a fucking douchebag. Everyone in here who supports the shutdown has an income that isn't affected by the shutdown.
How noble of you to tell other people they aren't allowed to work.
I think temporarily the government should pay wages for those who lose their job. I don't mind my taxes eventually going up for that, more than happy to pay them.
You people are totally fucking insane.
It'll cost trillions.
You're mentally disturbed if you believe that's a viable plan.
Ok, go ahead and give that money to corporations instead.
Anyway, it's not like there was any plan to pay off Trump's unnecessary tax cuts and record deficits anyway. I guess you only have a problem when the money goes to people who need it.
Actually, the tax cuts were absolutely necessary to pull America out of the depth of Obamunism. And tax cuts aren't an expenditure, they don't have to be "paid off"
It is fortunate that America had the benefit of the tax breaks, else we would be in a worse position now.
The economy was doing just fine, we didn't need tax cuts unless we were in recession. All he did was allow corporations to buy back stock and add to the national debt.
Or so says your talking points, and why would you want to let facts get in the way of your marching orders?
Marching orders? I'm not the one defending unnecessary tax cuts for rich people.
