Our Economy Can't Take This, Get it Over With

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
7,058
Reaction score
321
Points
140
... They aren't "innocents". They're not people. I wish to hell you fools would give a rat's ass for living children, ...
Without any doubt begins a human being to live in the body of the own mother. And such a human being will be often aborted (= executed) although it is totally innocent. And if you know now a mother, who don't like to abort her baby, but has the feeling she has to do so, then let me speak with her. I will try to find parents for her baby - and I'm very sure I will find here in Germany parents for her child , who will love this child with all their power.

Have your families adopts some of the 100,000 children who become wards of the state and placed into state care permanently every single year.
I don't know what the USA is doing on what reason and why you think to become a ward of the state or state care is somehting what's negative.

You're not adopting all of the babies who need homes, so don't tell me you have homes for all of the children who are being aborted, when you don't have homes for all of the children being born.
Which concrete mother in spe of your country needs my help? Who thinks she is not able to bear her child? I will speak with her and if necessarry I hope I will find parents for her unborn child here in Germany. I hope there's a possibilty in the USA to adopt a baby there for citizens of foreign nations.

Finding parents for her baby is not going to help her.
But to let kill the own child in her body helps her? Are you sure? What means "help" in this contextr in your eyes? I thought about to try to help her to save the life of her child.

She can't afford to carry the child to term with no job security and no health care.
As far as I know it's impossible for US-Americans to get asylum in Germany, because you are a so called "sicheres Herkunftsland" (a safe country of origin) and to have to live in a self-chosen Trumpocrazy is still no reason for asylum. But why not to try to do so?

Vote for programs to help women keep their babies.
You lose yourselve in empty phrases. I support always everything what helps women to keep their babies. That's why I hate normally adoptions from foreign nations. But on the other side: Even the Bremen Town Musicians said: "Let us go. Something, what's better than death, we will find everywhere!" Perhaps it's better to trust in the wisdom of an old donkey, dog, cat and cock in such a case.

Vote for maternity leave, job security, universal health care, subsidized day care - all the the things that the rest of the first world provides to pregnant women.

Women don't want to abort their babies and they sure as hell don't want to give them away.
But it's better to abort a baby instead to give it to cruel and criminal Germans or in a cruel and criminal state care of the USA, because you think you are the solution for problems, which I don't know? I remember in this context a friend I had long years ago. Month by month he became more strange and sick. And when I finally asked him "What's going on?" he told me he and his girlfriend had aborted their baby. As far as I was able to see without any need to have to do so. I asked: "Why did you not speak with me before you did do so?" He answered: "I know you are against abortion."

PS: Don't tell me that's a Christmas song on Good Friday. I know this.
 
Last edited:
OP
L

lennypartiv

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
5,605
Reaction score
1,769
Points
210
I saw Trump on TV today. Great news, he seems ready to restart the economy soon.
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
12,961
Reaction score
1,195
Points
250
The economy economy economy. Who are you going to force back to work? That's all some see is the godforsaken, yes godforsaken economy. Pro life right out the window. The virus and our ability to test are in control.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
23,693
Reaction score
4,341
Points
280
Location
Washington
The primary problem is not government bureaucracy but a lack of information as to where to send the checks coupled with the time to print and delivery checks. Anyone who has filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return or receives Social Security payments automatically deposited should have money in their bank account in April. Paper checks from the government will be delayed several weeks just like tax refunds by checks because of the time required to print checks and delivery them. Those that have not filed a tax return for 2018 or 2019 and do not receive social security are the ones that will not receive the money for months because they will have to file a claim.
All you wrote is correct. But I do have a question. Why should postal employees be forced to deliver checks to mailboxes?
Because it is considered an essential service.
By whom?

Oh, so it's OK that someone get infected and possibly die, because they're essential service?

What's next, is government going to decide what items you are allowed to buy based on is item essential or not? Oh shit, they're already doing that.
The same people that declare that police, fire, medical services, food production. and distribution are essential service also declare the mail is also. If folks don't get their s.s. checks, retirement, other funds through the mail, they will have no money to buy groceries and pay for medical services. In a national emergency, someone has to make the decision on what services are essential and by default it's the government.
We make a difference between system-relevant and system-irrelevant jobs. Nearly everyone agrees what this is and what not. By the way: We found out system relevant jobs are often not payed very well. Tourism for example is system irrelevant at all - even dangerous. A tragedy sometimes - but we will see. For sure some companies will go down in spite of economical help programs. Most are hopefully able to hibernate some weeks, months or this year - in worst case two years.
I think in most cases it's pretty clear what functions are essential and what are not. However, there has to be a fair number that are on line. A recession will always shake out those companies that are distant to fail eventually. Most businesses that are well managed with good products and adequate capital will make it and probably become stronger for it.
I wrote this before in another thread, and C/P here.

Why do airlines even getting stimulus? They spent a decade shoving itself into harm’s way by strip mining their balance sheets to fund share buybacks and goose top executive stock options. Giving them stimulus is irresponsible and mind boggling. That’s because for decades upon decades this has been a highly cyclical industry vulnerable to global dislocations caused by recessions, storms, wars, terror and more. Accordingly, airline companies absolutely need deep equity balance sheets and ample standby liquidity, even at the expense of short term earnings. If banks are required to hold minimum to survive certain stress, so should airline companies.

Just to remind, instead of accumulating cash reserves for rainy days, big four companies (Delta, American, Southwest and United) wasted and recklessly spent more than 40 billion in cash on share buyback in past ten years, for the sole purpose of enriching the very shareholders that will now be bailed out by taxpayers.

If they can't raise enough cash in the high cost long term debt markets or by issuing preferred stock or equity, there is only one solution... chapter 11. Holy Moly, that’s why we have this legal protection procedure. And if they file it, they would still be running, just under different management, court appointed. Why not to let the gamblers and so called investors who piled into these stocks get their just deserts. That is, a 100% loss on their gambling stakes because that’s all it ever was when the big four’s combined market cap hit $130 billion compared to just $43 billion now.

And when those gamblers and investors lose their money and bankrupt, let them file class action suits against the idiots and clowns on the boards of directors who made such foolish decisions in the first place. Hopefully, these assholes would be legally stalked and harassed to the ends of the earth as an object lesson in the personal cost of imperiling corporate balance sheets to feather their own stock options nest.

Let them go bankrupt, no bailout.
Although I agree with several of the points in your post, I do not agree that government should allow the airlines to go into bankruptcy. We do need them as well as their 10 million employees plus the millions of people that work in industries that depend on the airlines for survival from the huge air frame manufactures, hotels, travel agents, to the small businesses in airports.

If the airlines when into bankruptcy, there would reorganizations, changes in management and ownership. The large airlines would continue to fly and smaller ones would disappear giving major carriers less competition. The same unethical or illegal practices would continue. The way you fix the problem is not to let them go into bankruptcy but to change the laws and regulation to eliminate unethical, unfair, and illegal practices.
Your first part is in conflict with second one. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they're going to cease to exist. Not all would go bankrupt. Smaller carrier would most likely be in better shape than large ones whose stock prices were driven high by share buybacks and Wall Street. That the risk they're taking by investing, and if they lose, that's their problem, they should've know better. The same should've happened with banks in recent financial crisis, bankruptcy should clean the garbage out of those companies. But government then, just as now, decided to use bailout, which is typical socialist solution for every problem.
If we allowed all major airlines to go into bankruptcy, there would be reorganization and eventually air travel would return to normally. However, during that time period, the economy would suffer as well as the employees and there is no guarantee that the same unethical and possibly illegal activity the poster referred to would not continue under new management.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
23,693
Reaction score
4,341
Points
280
Location
Washington
I saw Trump on TV today. Great news, he seems ready to restart the economy soon.
Of course he's ready to restart the economy but since the governors not Trump decided on what and when to shutdown, it will be the governors that make the re-start decisions for their state. This is a political move by Trump. Regardless of when the economy starts up, Trump will take credit for it and if it leads to more new cases and high death rates, it will be the governors fault. Trump knows that the democrats are going to try to hang his poor response to the virus and thus the shutdown on him so he's preparing for it by constant talk about restarting.
 

initforme

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
12,961
Reaction score
1,195
Points
250
The virus is going to call the shots....that's the way it is. Deal with it. Life is sacred way more sacred than the $.
 

Snouter

Can You Smell Me
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
11,292
Reaction score
2,369
Points
280
The virus is going to call the shots....that's the way it is.
Which virus are you alluding to? The Kung Flu is actually less lethal than a typical seasonal flu. Herpes is a virus, a bad virus, very scary, very embarassing. But it doesn't nor should it shut down the world.
 

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
3,824
Points
280
Location
Michigan
The primary problem is not government bureaucracy but a lack of information as to where to send the checks coupled with the time to print and delivery checks. Anyone who has filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return or receives Social Security payments automatically deposited should have money in their bank account in April. Paper checks from the government will be delayed several weeks just like tax refunds by checks because of the time required to print checks and delivery them. Those that have not filed a tax return for 2018 or 2019 and do not receive social security are the ones that will not receive the money for months because they will have to file a claim.
All you wrote is correct. But I do have a question. Why should postal employees be forced to deliver checks to mailboxes?
Because it is considered an essential service.
By whom?

Oh, so it's OK that someone get infected and possibly die, because they're essential service?

What's next, is government going to decide what items you are allowed to buy based on is item essential or not? Oh shit, they're already doing that.
The same people that declare that police, fire, medical services, food production. and distribution are essential service also declare the mail is also. If folks don't get their s.s. checks, retirement, other funds through the mail, they will have no money to buy groceries and pay for medical services. In a national emergency, someone has to make the decision on what services are essential and by default it's the government.
We make a difference between system-relevant and system-irrelevant jobs. Nearly everyone agrees what this is and what not. By the way: We found out system relevant jobs are often not payed very well. Tourism for example is system irrelevant at all - even dangerous. A tragedy sometimes - but we will see. For sure some companies will go down in spite of economical help programs. Most are hopefully able to hibernate some weeks, months or this year - in worst case two years.
I think in most cases it's pretty clear what functions are essential and what are not. However, there has to be a fair number that are on line. A recession will always shake out those companies that are distant to fail eventually. Most businesses that are well managed with good products and adequate capital will make it and probably become stronger for it.
I wrote this before in another thread, and C/P here.

Why do airlines even getting stimulus? They spent a decade shoving itself into harm’s way by strip mining their balance sheets to fund share buybacks and goose top executive stock options. Giving them stimulus is irresponsible and mind boggling. That’s because for decades upon decades this has been a highly cyclical industry vulnerable to global dislocations caused by recessions, storms, wars, terror and more. Accordingly, airline companies absolutely need deep equity balance sheets and ample standby liquidity, even at the expense of short term earnings. If banks are required to hold minimum to survive certain stress, so should airline companies.

Just to remind, instead of accumulating cash reserves for rainy days, big four companies (Delta, American, Southwest and United) wasted and recklessly spent more than 40 billion in cash on share buyback in past ten years, for the sole purpose of enriching the very shareholders that will now be bailed out by taxpayers.

If they can't raise enough cash in the high cost long term debt markets or by issuing preferred stock or equity, there is only one solution... chapter 11. Holy Moly, that’s why we have this legal protection procedure. And if they file it, they would still be running, just under different management, court appointed. Why not to let the gamblers and so called investors who piled into these stocks get their just deserts. That is, a 100% loss on their gambling stakes because that’s all it ever was when the big four’s combined market cap hit $130 billion compared to just $43 billion now.

And when those gamblers and investors lose their money and bankrupt, let them file class action suits against the idiots and clowns on the boards of directors who made such foolish decisions in the first place. Hopefully, these assholes would be legally stalked and harassed to the ends of the earth as an object lesson in the personal cost of imperiling corporate balance sheets to feather their own stock options nest.

Let them go bankrupt, no bailout.
Although I agree with several of the points in your post, I do not agree that government should allow the airlines to go into bankruptcy. We do need them as well as their 10 million employees plus the millions of people that work in industries that depend on the airlines for survival from the huge air frame manufactures, hotels, travel agents, to the small businesses in airports.

If the airlines when into bankruptcy, there would reorganizations, changes in management and ownership. The large airlines would continue to fly and smaller ones would disappear giving major carriers less competition. The same unethical or illegal practices would continue. The way you fix the problem is not to let them go into bankruptcy but to change the laws and regulation to eliminate unethical, unfair, and illegal practices.
Your first part is in conflict with second one. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they're going to cease to exist. Not all would go bankrupt. Smaller carrier would most likely be in better shape than large ones whose stock prices were driven high by share buybacks and Wall Street. That the risk they're taking by investing, and if they lose, that's their problem, they should've know better. The same should've happened with banks in recent financial crisis, bankruptcy should clean the garbage out of those companies. But government then, just as now, decided to use bailout, which is typical socialist solution for every problem.
If we allowed all major airlines to go into bankruptcy, there would be reorganization and eventually air travel would return to normally. However, during that time period, the economy would suffer as well as the employees and there is no guarantee that the same unethical and possibly illegal activity the poster referred to would not continue under new management.
You're talking about two different things. Chapter 11 doesn't interrupt the service, it interrupts the ownership. Employees most likely would not be affected at all, only shareholders.

What illegal activity are you talking about? Are you aware of any that exists now? If yes, please spit it out. If not, why do you assume there would be with new management?
 
OP
L

lennypartiv

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
5,605
Reaction score
1,769
Points
210
Of course he's ready to restart the economy but since the governors not Trump decided on what and when to shutdown, it will be the governors that make the re-start decisions for their state. This is a political move by Trump. Regardless of when the economy starts up, Trump will take credit for it and if it leads to more new cases and high death rates, it will be the governors fault. Trump knows that the democrats are going to try to hang his poor response to the virus and thus the shutdown on him so he's preparing for it by constant talk about restarting.
McConnell needs to change that. An executive order by the president should require all the governors to follow that order.
 

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
3,824
Points
280
Location
Michigan
The primary problem is not government bureaucracy but a lack of information as to where to send the checks coupled with the time to print and delivery checks. Anyone who has filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return or receives Social Security payments automatically deposited should have money in their bank account in April. Paper checks from the government will be delayed several weeks just like tax refunds by checks because of the time required to print checks and delivery them. Those that have not filed a tax return for 2018 or 2019 and do not receive social security are the ones that will not receive the money for months because they will have to file a claim.
All you wrote is correct. But I do have a question. Why should postal employees be forced to deliver checks to mailboxes?
Because it is considered an essential service.
By whom?

Oh, so it's OK that someone get infected and possibly die, because they're essential service?

What's next, is government going to decide what items you are allowed to buy based on is item essential or not? Oh shit, they're already doing that.
The same people that declare that police, fire, medical services, food production. and distribution are essential service also declare the mail is also. If folks don't get their s.s. checks, retirement, other funds through the mail, they will have no money to buy groceries and pay for medical services. In a national emergency, someone has to make the decision on what services are essential and by default it's the government.
We make a difference between system-relevant and system-irrelevant jobs. Nearly everyone agrees what this is and what not. By the way: We found out system relevant jobs are often not payed very well. Tourism for example is system irrelevant at all - even dangerous. A tragedy sometimes - but we will see. For sure some companies will go down in spite of economical help programs. Most are hopefully able to hibernate some weeks, months or this year - in worst case two years.
I think in most cases it's pretty clear what functions are essential and what are not. However, there has to be a fair number that are on line. A recession will always shake out those companies that are distant to fail eventually. Most businesses that are well managed with good products and adequate capital will make it and probably become stronger for it.
I wrote this before in another thread, and C/P here.

Why do airlines even getting stimulus? They spent a decade shoving itself into harm’s way by strip mining their balance sheets to fund share buybacks and goose top executive stock options. Giving them stimulus is irresponsible and mind boggling. That’s because for decades upon decades this has been a highly cyclical industry vulnerable to global dislocations caused by recessions, storms, wars, terror and more. Accordingly, airline companies absolutely need deep equity balance sheets and ample standby liquidity, even at the expense of short term earnings. If banks are required to hold minimum to survive certain stress, so should airline companies.

Just to remind, instead of accumulating cash reserves for rainy days, big four companies (Delta, American, Southwest and United) wasted and recklessly spent more than 40 billion in cash on share buyback in past ten years, for the sole purpose of enriching the very shareholders that will now be bailed out by taxpayers.

If they can't raise enough cash in the high cost long term debt markets or by issuing preferred stock or equity, there is only one solution... chapter 11. Holy Moly, that’s why we have this legal protection procedure. And if they file it, they would still be running, just under different management, court appointed. Why not to let the gamblers and so called investors who piled into these stocks get their just deserts. That is, a 100% loss on their gambling stakes because that’s all it ever was when the big four’s combined market cap hit $130 billion compared to just $43 billion now.

And when those gamblers and investors lose their money and bankrupt, let them file class action suits against the idiots and clowns on the boards of directors who made such foolish decisions in the first place. Hopefully, these assholes would be legally stalked and harassed to the ends of the earth as an object lesson in the personal cost of imperiling corporate balance sheets to feather their own stock options nest.

Let them go bankrupt, no bailout.
Although I agree with several of the points in your post, I do not agree that government should allow the airlines to go into bankruptcy. We do need them as well as their 10 million employees plus the millions of people that work in industries that depend on the airlines for survival from the huge air frame manufactures, hotels, travel agents, to the small businesses in airports.

If the airlines when into bankruptcy, there would reorganizations, changes in management and ownership. The large airlines would continue to fly and smaller ones would disappear giving major carriers less competition. The same unethical or illegal practices would continue. The way you fix the problem is not to let them go into bankruptcy but to change the laws and regulation to eliminate unethical, unfair, and illegal practices.
Your first part is in conflict with second one. Bankruptcy doesn't mean they're going to cease to exist. Not all would go bankrupt. Smaller carrier would most likely be in better shape than large ones whose stock prices were driven high by share buybacks and Wall Street. That the risk they're taking by investing, and if they lose, that's their problem, they should've know better. The same should've happened with banks in recent financial crisis, bankruptcy should clean the garbage out of those companies. But government then, just as now, decided to use bailout, which is typical socialist solution for every problem.
If we allowed all major airlines to go into bankruptcy, there would be reorganization and eventually air travel would return to normally. However, during that time period, the economy would suffer as well as the employees and there is no guarantee that the same unethical and possibly illegal activity the poster referred to would not continue under new management.
You're talking about two different things. Chapter 11 doesn't interrupt the service, it interrupts the ownership. Employees most likely would not be affected at all, only shareholders.

What illegal activity are you talking about? Are you aware of any that exists now? If yes, please spit it out. If not, why do you assume there would be with new management?
I see you gave up on this Flopper.

Still, the very idea that agents of the state could have enough information and wisdom to best the work of millions of traders, investors, speculators and dealers is ridiculous from the start. The further idea that financial assets prices falsified by the FOMC to the second decimal point could cause main street to produce more output, jobs, and efficiency.

Only thing Keynesian central bankers have accomplished has been to fuel speculations on floors of Wall Street which drains main street businesses of real productive investment, and also leave businesses and households living on hand-to-mouth (government provided) finances. It's not suppose to be that way and it simply doesn't work. The real damage to this is still not visible, and I suspect that it will be in expanded Fed powers to buy "corporate debt" and who knows what else. Except, there is nothing wrong with corporate debt, because that is standard business practice, and getting government into that business is extremely dangerous.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
23,693
Reaction score
4,341
Points
280
Location
Washington
Of course he's ready to restart the economy but since the governors not Trump decided on what and when to shutdown, it will be the governors that make the re-start decisions for their state. This is a political move by Trump. Regardless of when the economy starts up, Trump will take credit for it and if it leads to more new cases and high death rates, it will be the governors fault. Trump knows that the democrats are going to try to hang his poor response to the virus and thus the shutdown on him so he's preparing for it by constant talk about restarting.
McConnell needs to change that. An executive order by the president should require all the governors to follow that order.
Neither Trump nor McConnell would want that. It would be a terrible political move.
Even a republican supreme court would not go along with that. Besides, Trump is not qualified to make a decision in every state. A good decision for New York is not likely to be a good decision for Alaska or North Dakota.
 
OP
L

lennypartiv

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
5,605
Reaction score
1,769
Points
210
Neither Trump nor McConnell would want that. It would be a terrible political move.
Even a republican supreme court would not go along with that. Besides, Trump is not qualified to make a decision in every state. A good decision for New York is not likely to be a good decision for Alaska or North Dakota.
Keeping the economy closed is a bad decision for all 50 states.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
23,693
Reaction score
4,341
Points
280
Location
Washington
Neither Trump nor McConnell would want that. It would be a terrible political move.
Even a republican supreme court would not go along with that. Besides, Trump is not qualified to make a decision in every state. A good decision for New York is not likely to be a good decision for Alaska or North Dakota.
Keeping the economy closed is a bad decision for all 50 states.
And opening it up too soon is also a bad decision. The sensible approach is to open up the economy gradually, starting with business sectors that are lease likely to increase the number of cases and go from there. Also, opening the economy should be done by the governors as they were the ones who shut it down in their state. That would allow each state to proceed based on their own needs and their success controlling the virus.

No matter how carefully we open the economy there is going to be an increase in cases but if we do it right our hospitals will have recovered, and hopefully the number of masks, test kits, other resources will be more plentiful and possibility medical research will be able to provide better methods for dealing with the virus.

Just as we must start opening the economy soon, we must keep in mind that cornavirus is going to be with us for a long time. There will certainly be more cases as people go back to work and schools open and there will most probably be other major breakouts of the disease, so we better start planning for it now.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top