Another Republican President, Another Recession.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the malleable South Carolinian, says the time has come for “a dialogue about how we can finally begin to address the debt.” Finally the time is at last ripe. Which means a Democratic administration approaches.

Graham wants finally to “begin,” as though there has not been, long before and ever since the 2010 Simpson-Bowles commission (the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform), abundant serious thinking and specific proposals for bringing government outlays and revenues closer together. What Graham wants finally to begin is a “dialogue,” which is one of Washington’s two favorite words (the other is “conversation”) to signal protracted solemnity without politically risky actions.

The Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl notes that defense spending is not driving deficits: It is a declining percentage of gross domestic product (5.7 percent in the 1970s and 1980s, 4.6 percent in 2010, 3.2 percent today). Deficits are rising not because tax revenues are declining as a percentage of GDP: They have been close to the average 17.3 percent since 1960.

In 1960, however, just 9 percent of the population was over 65. Today, 16 percent is. The great driver of debt is spending on pensions (Social Security) and health care (Medicare).

Spending in the name of the pandemic will continue. Trillion-dollar tranches are termed down payments. Then even bigger Biden-era “investments” are planned. Yet economist John Cochrane of Stanford’s Hoover Institution notes that the spending binge will begin “with the same debt relative to GDP with which we ended World War II.” And “then in about ten years, the unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and pension promises kick in to really blow up the deficit.”

Twenty months ago, Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University economist, wrote an article in the Hill accurately headlined “Social Security just ran a $9 trillion deficit, and nobody noticed.” In one year, the system’s long-term unfunded liability went from $34 trillion to $43 trillion. The unfunded liability is almost double the national debt. Riedl says that under government projections, by 2050 Social Security and Medicare “will be running an annual cash shortfall of 14.2 percent of GDP (including interest).” Between now and then, Social Security will have collected $52 trillion in payroll taxes and other dedicated revenues and disbursed $74 trillion in benefits. The $22 trillion gap must be filled from general revenues or by borrowing. What, you wonder, about the system’s trust fund? It is a paltry $3 trillion.

Economist John Merrifield’s chapter in the Cato Institute’s “A Fiscal Cliff” notes that the planned fiscal 2019 deficit was nearly $1 trillion. This was pre-pandemic and at full employment. The deficit was, Merrifield says, “about five times the combined budgets of five of the cabinet departments created after World War II: Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Homeland Security.” Economist John Garen, also writing in Cato’s book, says that the projected increase in Social Security and Medicare spending of 3.5 percent of GDP between 2017 and 2040 is equivalent to adding another Defense Department.

Generations ago, Republicans abandoned their assigned role — which was rarely real — as the party of pain that raised taxes to pay for popular Democratic spending programs. Now, in an era of low interest rates — actually, or almost, negative — the assumption is that deficits do not matter as long as the interest rate for servicing the national debt remains lower than the rate of economic growth, so the ratio of debt to GDP declines. At long last, for humanity, or at least the American portion, the table has been set for a free lunch.

This arms the political class with a theory that justifies them in doing what they would do anyway — give grateful voters government goods and services partially paid for by nonvoters: future generations. Remember, there are just two ways to fund a government: current taxes and future taxes. (The latter can include the stealthy tax of inflation: Borrow dollars worth X, repay with dollars worth X minus Y.)

Complacency about today’s soaring debt, and about rolling over $10 trillion or so of it annually, requires only the assumption that very low interest rates will (unlike, say, the Roman, Habsburg, Ottoman, British and Soviet empires) continue forever. So, an old jest is now a fundamental principle: The first law of economics is that scarcity is real, and the first law of politics is to ignore the first law of economics.

If Republicans control the Senate in January, Lindsey Graham will become chairman of the Budget Committee and finallythere will be a dialogue about debt. Or a conversation.

Click to expand...

SaltyCracker said:

Msm is short for mainstream media

Sticking to the ccp branding huh?
Denounce the ccp right now

Click to expand...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — Unemployment benefits for millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet lapsed overnight as President Donald Trump refused to sign an end-of-year COVID relief and spending bill that had been considered a done deal before his sudden objections.

The fate of the bipartisan package remained in limbo Sunday as Trump continued to demand larger COVID relief checks and complained about “pork” spending. Without the widespread funding provided by the massive measure, a government shutdown would occur when money runs out at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.

“It’s a chess game and we are pawns,” said Lanetris Haines, a self-employed single mother of three in South Bend, Indiana, who stood to lose her $129 weekly jobless benefit unless Trump signed the package into law or succeeded in his improbable quest for changes.

Washington has been reeling since Trump turned on the deal after it had won sweeping approval in both houses of Congress and after the White House had assured Republican leaders that Trump would support it.

Instead, he assailed the bill’s plan to provide $600 COVID relief checks to most Americans — insisting it should be $2,000. House Republicans swiftly rejected that idea during a rare Christmas Eve session. But Trump has not been swayed in spite of the nation being in the grip of a pandemic.

“I simply want to get our great people $2000, rather than the measly $600 that is now in the bill,” Trump tweeted Saturday from Palm Beach, Florida, where he is spending the holiday. “Also, stop the billions of dollars in ‘pork.’”

President-elect Joe Biden called on Trump to sign the bill immediately as the midnight Saturday deadline neared for two federal programs providing unemployment aid.

“It is the day after Christmas, and millions of families don’t know if they’ll be able to make ends meet because of President Donald Trump’s refusal to sign an economic relief bill approved by Congress with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority,” Biden said in a statement. He accused Trump of an “abdication of responsibility” that has “devastating consequences.”

“I’ve been talking to people who are scared they’re going to be kicked out from their homes, during the Christmas holidays, and still might be if we don’t sign this bill,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat.

Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, has calculated that 11 million people would lose aid from the programs immediately without additional relief; millions more would exhaust other unemployment benefits within weeks.

Andrew Stettner, an unemployment insurance expert and senior fellow at the Century Foundation think tank, said the number may be closer to 14 million because joblessness has spiked since Thanksgiving.

“All these folks and their families will suffer if Trump doesn’t sign the damn bill,” Heidi Shierholz, director of policy at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, tweeted Wednesday.

How and when people would be affected by the lapse depended on the state they lived in, the program they were relying on and when they applied for benefits. In some states, people on regular unemployment insurance would continue to receive payments under a program that extends benefits when the jobless rate surpassed a certain threshold, Stettner said.

About 9.5 million people, however, had been relying on the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program that expired altogether Saturday. That program made unemployment insurance available to freelancers, gig workers and others who were normally not eligible. After receiving their last checks, those recipients would not be able to file for more aid, Stettner said.

While payments could be received retroactively, any gap would mean more hardship and uncertainty for Americans who had already grappled with bureaucratic delays, often depleting much of their savings to stay afloat while waiting for payments to kick in.

They were people like Earl McCarthy, a father of four who lives in South Fulton, Georgia, and had been relying on unemployment since losing his job as a sales representative for a luxury senior living community. He said he would be left with no income by the second week of January if Trump refused to sign the bill.

McCarthy said he already burned through much of his savings as he waited five months to begin receiving about $350 a week in unemployment benefits.

“The entire experience was horrifying,” said McCarthy. “I shudder to think if I had not saved anything or had an emergency fund through those five months, where would we have been?”

He added, “It’s going to be difficult if the president doesn’t sign this bill.”

The bill, which was in Florida awaiting Trump’s signature, would also activate a weekly $300 federal supplement to unemployment payments.

Sharon Shelton Corpening had been hoping the extra help would allow her 83-year-old mother, with whom she lives, to stop eating into her social security payments to make their $1,138 rent.

Corpening, who lives in the Atlanta area, had launched a freelance content strategy business that was just taking off before the pandemic hit, prompting several of her contracts to fall through. She was receiving about $125 a week under the pandemic unemployment program and says she would be unable to pay her bills in about a month. This, despite her temporary work for the U.S. Census and as an elections poll worker.

“On the brink,” Corpening, who lobbies for Unemployment Action, a project launched by the Center for Popular Democracy to fight for relief, said of her predicament. “One more month, if that. Then, I run out of everything.”

In addition to the unemployment benefits that have already lapsed, Trump’s continued refusal to sign the bill would lead to the expiration of eviction protections and put on hold a new round of subsidies for hard-hit businesses, restaurants and theaters, as well as money for cash-starved transit systems and for vaccine distribution.

The relief was also attached to a $1.4 trillion government funding bill to keep the federal government operating through September, which would mean that failing to sign it by Tuesday would trigger a federal shutdown.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s push for $2,000 COVID-19 relief checks now rests with the Senate after the House voted overwhelmingly to meet the president’s demand to increase the $600 stipends, but Republicans have shown little interest in boosting spending.

The outcome is highly uncertain heading into Tuesday’s session. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declined to publicly address how he plans to handle the issue. But Democrats, sharing a rare priority with Trump, have seized on the opportunity to force Republicans into a difficult vote of either backing or defying the outgoing president.

After bipartisan approval by the House, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned, “There is no good reason for Senate Republicans to stand in the way.”

“There’s strong support for these $2,000 emergency checks from every corner of the country,” Schumer said in a statement late Monday. He called on McConnell to make sure the Senate helps “meet the needs of American workers and families who are crying out for help.”

The House tally was a stunning turn of events. Just days ago Republicans blocked Trump’s sudden demands for bigger checks during a brief Christmas Eve session as he defiantly refused to sign the broader COVID-19 aid and year-end funding bill into law.

As Trump spent days fuming from his private club in Florida, where he is spending the holidays, dozens of Republicans calculated it was better to link with Democrats to increase the pandemic stipend rather than buck the outgoing president and constituents counting on the money. Democrats led passage, 275-134, but 44 Republicans joined almost all Democrats in approval.

Senators were set to return to session Tuesday amid similar, stark GOP divisions between those who align with Trump’s populist instincts and others who adhere to what had been more traditional conservative views against government spending. Congress had settled on smaller $600 payments in a compromise over the big year-end relief bill Trump reluctantly signed into law.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared, “Republicans have a choice: Vote for this legislation or vote to deny the American people the bigger paychecks they need.”

The showdown could end up as more symbol than substance if Trump’s effort fizzles out in the Senate.

The legislative action during the rare holiday week session may do little to change the $2 trillion-plus COVID-19 relief and federal spending package Trump signed into law Sunday, one of the biggest bills of its kind providing relief for millions of Americans.

That package — $900 billion in COVID-19 aid and $1.4 trillion to fund government agencies — will deliver long-sought cash to businesses and individuals and avert a federal government shutdown that otherwise would have started Tuesday, in the midst of the public health crisis.

But the outcome will define Trump’s GOP, putting a spotlight on the Georgia runoff election Jan. 5 where two Republican senators are in the fights of their political lives against Democrats in a pair of races that will determine which party controls the Senate next year.

Together with votes Monday and Tuesday to override Trump’s veto of a sweeping defense bill, it’s potentially one last confrontation between the president and the Republican Party he leads as he imposes fresh demands and disputes the results of the presidential election. The new Congress is set to be sworn in Sunday.

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged the division and said Congress had already approved ample funds during the COVID-19 crisis. “Nothing in this bill helps anybody get back to work,” he said.

Aside from the direct $600 checks to most Americans, the COVID-19 portion of the bill revives a weekly pandemic jobless benefit boost — this time $300, through March 14 — as well as a popular Paycheck Protection Program of grants to businesses to keep workers on payrolls. It extends eviction protections, adding a new rental assistance fund.

The COVID-19 package draws and expands on an earlier effort from Washington. It offers billions of dollars for vaccine purchases and distribution, for virus contact tracing, public health departments, schools, universities, farmers, food pantry programs and other institutions and groups facing hardship in the pandemic.

Americans earning up to $75,000 will qualify for the direct $600 payments, which are phased out at higher income levels, and there’s an additional $600 payment per dependent child.

Meantime the government funding portion of the bill keeps federal agencies nationwide running without dramatic changes until Sept. 30.

President-elect Joe Biden told reporters at an event in Wilmington, Delaware, that he supported the $2,000 checks.

Trump’s sudden decision to sign the bill came as he faced escalating criticism from lawmakers on all sides over his eleventh-hour demands. The bipartisan bill negotiated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had already passed the House and Senate by wide margins. Lawmakers had thought they had Trump’s blessing after months of negotiations with his administration.

The president’s defiant refusal to act, publicized with a heated video he tweeted just before the Christmas holiday, sparked chaos, a lapse in unemployment benefits for millions and the threat of a government shutdown in the pandemic. It was another crisis of his own making, resolved when he ultimately signed the bill into law.

In his statement about the signing, Trump repeated his frustrations with the COVID-19 relief bill for providing only $600 checks to most Americans and complained about what he considered unnecessary spending, particularly on foreign aid — much of it proposed by his own budget.

While the president insisted he would send Congress “a redlined version” with spending items he wants removed, those are merely suggestions to Congress. Democrats said they would resist such cuts.

For now, the administration can only begin work sending out the $600 payments.

Most House Republicans simply shrugged off Trump’s push, 130 of them voting to reject the higher checks that would pile $467 billion in additional costs. Another 20 House Republicans — including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a Trump confidant — skipped the vote, despite pandemic procedures that allow lawmakers to vote by proxy to avoid travel to the Capitol. McCarthy was recovering at home from elbow surgery, his office said.

A day after the signing, Trump was back at the golf course in Florida, the state where he is expected to move after Biden is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Click to expand...

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Thanks to the government paying nearly 40% of their income, U.S. farmers are expected to end 2020 with higher profit than 2019 and the best net income in seven years, the Department of Agriculture said in its latest farm income forecast.

Farmers faced challenges throughout 2020 that included the impact of trade dispute s; low prices that drove down cash receipts for corn, cotton, wheat, chicken, cattle and hogs; and weather difficulties such as drought in some areas and an unusual August wind storm stretching from South Dakota to Ohio that centered on Iowa.

Farm cash receipts are forecast to decrease nearly 1% to $366.5 billion, the lowest in more than a decade, measured in real dollars. Direct federal government payments saved farmers’ bottom line: Farmers overall saw a 107% increase in direct payments from 2019, when a third of net income came directly from the government.

The impact of the money varies from one farm to another, depending on whether a farmer owns the land, has significant capital to draw from, has manageable debt and aggressively manages wide commodity price swings.

“The payment to one farm could be a matter of life and death of that farm and for another farm maybe just makes it not quite as bad of a year as it was going to be and everywhere in between,” said Mike Paustian, a farmer who raises hogs and grows soybeans and corn near Walcott in eastern Iowa. “I’ve described it as: If you’re drowning and somebody throws you a life preserver, you’re not going to argue too much about grabbing ahold of it.”

Excluding USDA loans and insurance indemnity payments made by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, farmers are expected to receive $46.5 billion from the government, the largest direct-to-farm payment ever. That includes $32.4 billion in assistance through coronavirus pandemic relief food assistance and Paycheck Protection Program payments to farmers. Additional support comes from more traditional revenue loss programs due to low commodity prices, compensation for trade disruptions resulting from tariff battles and conservation programs assistance.

Federal court bankruptcy data indicates 433 U.S. farms filed for reorganization as of Sept. 30, down from 454 during the same period the previous year.

Overall, net farm income in the United States is expected to increase 43% from 2019 to $119.6 billion, the USDA estimated. Farmers will see the highest level of net farm income, a broad measure of profitability, since 2013, the agency said.

One northeast Iowa farmer said without the federal money it would have been difficult to make ends meet this year but it began to feel like the government checks were motivated by politics from a president seeking support for reelection.

“At first it did help, but then we kept getting payments and I don’t know that those were warranted,” said Rick Juchems, 65, who grows corn and soybeans and custom raises hogs. “The markets had already recovered quite a bit and they’re recovering yet more, so it helps some but it’s one of those things that the second one was more than we needed.”

In a late October campaign appearance in Omaha, Nebraska, President Donald Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

“In fact, some people say our farmers do better now than when they actually had a farm,” he said.

Many top farm states voted again for Trump in November, including Iowa, Nebraska, Texas and Kansas. Several, however, left Trump to vote for Democrat Joe Biden, including Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

Bill Gordon, who with his father raises soybeans and corn in southwestern Minnesota, hopes for improved free trade agreements and a less confrontational approach under Biden in 2021.

“Volatility definitely causes volatility,” he said. “And so if we can get these free trade agreements set up, that are better, and not as confrontational but still benefit both sides, that just benefits agriculture and rural America.”

Click to expand...

Don't Bogart said:

89-90.
Background. Throughout 1989 and 1990, the economy was weakening as a result of restrictive monetary policy enacted by the Federal Reserve. ... The immediate cause of the recession was a loss of consumer and business confidence as a result of the 1990 oil price shock, coupled with an already weak economy.
And of course our favorite. 2008. Again Banks.
With Pres Dump trying to tear apart Frank Dodd.

Click to expand...

https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568

Click to expand...

Ronald Wilson Reagan was the 40th U.S. president, serving from Jan. 20, 1981, to Jan. 20, 1989.1 His first task was to combat the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan promised the "Reagan Revolution," focusing on reducing government spending, taxes, and regulation. His philosophy was, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

Reagan was an advocate of laissez-faire economics. He believed that a free market and capitalism would solve the nation's woes. His policies matched the "greed is good" mood of 1980s America.


1980-1981: The Recession
Reagan inherited an economy mired in stagflation, a combination of double-digit economic contraction and double-digit inflation. He aggressively cut income taxes from 70% to 50% for the top tax bracket to combat the recession. He cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 34%.6 He promised to slow the growth of government spending and to deregulate business industries. At the same time, he encouraged the Federal Reserve to combat inflation by reducing the money supply.

Reaganomics and Tax Cuts
Congress cut the top tax rate from 70% to 50% in 1982.5 This helped spur growth in gross domestic product for the next several years. The economy grew 4.5% in 1983, 7.2% in 1984, and 4.1% in 1985.

Economic growth reduced unemployment for the next several years. It was 8.5% in December 1981. The minimum wage was $3.35 an hour. Congress passed the Job Training Partnership Act in 1982, establishing job training programs for low-income people. The unemployment rate rose to 10.8% by December 1982, then it fell to 8.3% in 1983, 7.3% in 1984, and 7% by December 1985. Reagan cut the tax rate again, to 38.5% this time, in 1987.

Growth was a healthy 3.463% by the end of 1986, but the unemployment rate was 6.6%. It was still higher than the natural rate of unemployment. Reagan cut taxes again to 28%.10 Growth remained at a similar rate at 3.46% in 1987 and rose to 4.1% in 1988.11 Unemployment fell to 5.7% in 1987 and then fell to 5.3% in 1988.

The Policies of Reaganomics
Reagan based Reaganomics on the theory of supply-side economics. This theory proposes that tax cuts encourage economic expansion enough to broaden the tax base over time. The increased revenue from a stronger economy is supposed to offset the initial revenue loss from the tax cuts.

According to the Laffer Curve, this only works if the initial tax rates are high enough to fall in the “Prohibitive Range.” Reagan's first tax cuts worked because tax rates were so high. The 1986 and 1987 tax cuts weren't as effective because tax rates were already reasonable at that time.

Reagan also offset these tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere. He raised Social Security payroll taxes and some excise taxes, and he cut several deductions.

Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46% to 40%, but the effect of this break was unclear.6 He changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured.

Reagan and Deregulation
Reagan was applauded for continuing to eliminate Nixon-era price controls. They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan removed controls on oil and gas, cable television, and long-distance phone service. He further deregulated interstate bus service and ocean shipping.

Reagan deregulated banking in 1980 and Congress passed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. The Act removed restrictions on loan-to-value ratios for savings and loan banks. Reagan's budget cut also reduced regulatory staff at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result, banks invested in risky real estate ventures. Reagan's deregulation and budget cuts contributed to the savings and loan crisis of 1989. The crisis ushered in the 1990 recession.

Reagan did little to reduce regulations affecting health, safety, and the environment. In fact, he reduced these regulations at a slower pace than the Carter administration did.

Reagan's enthusiasm for the free market did not extend to international trade. Instead, he raised import barriers. Reagan almost doubled the number of items that were subject to trade restraint from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988.

Government Spending
Despite campaigning on a reduced government role, Reagan wasn't as successful with this as he was with tax cuts. He cut domestic programs by $39 billion during his first year, but he increased defense spending to achieve "peace through strength" in his opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union.

He was successful in ending the Cold War. This was when he uttered his famous quote, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan wound up increasing the defense budget by 35% to accomplish these goals.1

He did not reduce other government programs. He expanded Medicare and increased the payroll tax to ensure the solvency of Social Security.

Government spending still grew, just not as fast as under President Jimmy Carter. Reagan increased spending by 9% a year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables. It grew from $678 billion at Carter's final budget in fiscal year (FY) 1981 to $1.1 trillion at Reagan's last budget for FY 1989. Carter increased spending by 16% a year, from $409 billion in FY 1977 to $678 billion in FY 1981.

Under Reagan, defense spending grew faster than general spending. It increased 11% a year, from $154 billion in FY 1981 to $295billion in FY 1989.



The Council of Economic Advisers
During his eight-year term, Reagan brought many well-known economists to the Council of Economic Advisers. New chairmen included Murray Weidenbaum, Martin Feldstein, and Beryl Sprinkel. The Council also included William Niskanen, Jerry Jordan, William Poole, Thomas Gale Moore, and Michael Mussa. Niskanen was one of the architects of Reaganomics. The staff included Nobel Prize winner and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Harvard professor Larry Summers. Summers later became President Obama's Director of the National Economic Council.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Thought you might find this interesting. I am still looking through it to see if it is bullshit, but at a quick glance it looks accurate.
https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Thought you might find this interesting. I am still looking through it to see if it is bullshit, but at a quick glance it looks accurate.
https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Thought you might find this interesting. I am still looking through it to see if it is bullshit, but at a quick glance it looks accurate.
https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

if you want to worry about taxes, your taxes will be going up shortly if you live in the US. Your knew President has vowed to raise taxes while campaigning. I have no problem with raising taxes on the billionaires and other elites. Joe Biden is going to raise taxes on everyone in a time when businesses are going out of business nationwide due to lockdowns.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

Just yesterday I heard a news report that New York would soon lose 50% of its restaurants due to them no having dine in service for nine months.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

Reports today mentioned business rents in New York being slashed. How do businesses pay rent when the are closed down? How do property owners pay their mortgages when renters don't pay their rent? Business collapses are coming this year, most likely.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

My town in a state with some of the most regressive lockdowns has nearly half of all businesses shuttered. Local economy was 100% based on tourism.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

No one is working except grocery stores, convenience stores, auto parts stores. All the tourist stores and sit down restaurants are closed permanently. Biggest draw in the region, state campgrounds in every town in two Northern Michigan counties shut down. Bring in thousands of campers every Summer, not open at all this year.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

I remember Obama and cash for clunkers. Auto bailouts. Why did car prices become so high? Cash for clunkers took used cars off the market.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

Obama's cash for first time homeowners. $8,000 tax credit for the purchase of a home. Home sellers just jacked up home prices. Real estate bail out for those buying houses. Paid for by your taxes.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

Biden repeatedly stated that taxes would not be raised on families making less than $400k a year.


You do know there is a pandemic going on right? This has devastated the service economy because we have been acting like we have not understood virus/bacteria and the like for decades.

We need to figure out how to do things differently as a society. You think we would have learned with 60,000 people dying of a flu each year to not breath in each other's bodily fluids by now, but 350k+ dying from this virus unfotuntly is showing us the very real dangers of this.



They can't unless they have a lot of wealth backing them up. That is why Trump and the Republican's lack of a response has been so devastating. Our economy is fucked. We needed a strong federal response to this disaster, but Trump and the Republicans let it crumble (just like they did in 2008 right before Obama took office).

It sucks that they did this to us again.

But since they are legislating for only one demographic who has enough money to snatch up all those struggling loans on the cheap, economic collapses are really in their favor.



Again, pandemic.

How are your hospital's bed capacity doing? Do you think having a bunch of random people who are under the impression it is safe to travel coming into your community would change that?


Pandemics suck. I really wish that people would have not been brainwashed into thinking holding super spreader events was a good idea.

Hopefully once Biden and the Democrats can get some actual stimulus and the vaccine is deployed wide enough we can get back to normal.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

hanimmal said:

And how much do you think getting all those old gas guzzlers off the road helped get our nation to be far less reliant on the middle east's oil?

Also helped metro Detroit buisinesses immensely. All those regular hard working Americans that relied on the auto industry and car dealerships for their livelihoods jobs were saved from that program.



Are you joking? I actually saw my neighborhoods housing prices go from about $170k to the neighbor on one side of my home getting bought up by a investor for $32k, and the other side of my house go for $26k during the Great Recession.

Those programs helped give people the ability to buy a home and helped stabalize prices from those devastating lows for all the hard working people who lost their jobs due to the Republican led economic collapse.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

you quoted too many for me to respond to each well.

I'll attempt.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

How are hospitals in my area capacity wise? Empty.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

I see very few businesses making a big deal about wearing a mask. Everyone is finished with it due to the Governor's marching in BLM protests during lockdown and her husband trying to get her boat and dock put in when she banned boating in the state. She has her vacation home right up here where I live. She is hated in the Northern 2/3rds of Michigan.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

My location is a resort area. People broke the lockdown from downstate, including Mr Governor's Husband to come to their vacation homes. They came into our small communities and aren't wearing masks. All my neighbors are downstaters who came to their vacation homes on the island I live on, none wear a mask or social distance at all. I know of no one who has had it outside of those in the Detroit area. I have rarely worn a mask as the masks available are basically worthless.

Click to expand...

doug58 said:

I attended Biological, Chemical, Nuclear warfare training in the military. I spent two decades transporting individuals with contagious diseases in conjunction with my employment in the USDOJ. A simple cloth mask most people wear offers no real protection. Those simple surgical masks give minimal protection against airborne diseases. They don't seal correctly to block transmission.

n95 masks provide protection but you must be properly fitted, clean shaven. I brought this up to doctors at my local medical center and they couldn't refute it at all. They basically said the mask wearing was to assist in compliance of the populace to social distance and not gather in groups.

When working in the DOJ I was on a transport/security team working frequently in conjunction with US Marshals and Border Patrol in transporting illegal aliens in a Southern border region who were diagnosed with contagious diseases or the bacteria involved disease of Tuberculosis which can be transmitted via coughing when droplets are expelled. I transported them in a van to hospitals where I worked overtime for weeks at a time. I never came back positive for exposure to TB.

Click to expand...