Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2

[theman]

France mandates face masks, while continuing to ban the burqa

France, the originator of the burqa ban, has done more than any other Western nation over the past decade to resist face coverings in public. But as the country begins to emerge from its coronavirus lockdown on Monday, face masks are mandatory.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/france-mandates-face-masks-while-continuing-to-ban-the-burqa/

[Captain_Caveman]

To me, the idea of "other people's money" is more prevalent now than ever before simply because we have never had nearly so much debt. It applies to wherever money is spent.

I guess it is just funny that we only hear that wrt to less affluent people, and not for any of the things that have actually run up the national debt (needless wars over a WMD threat we invented, or tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy). Guess that's not a conversation for this board, though.

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending causes debt. Cut spending and shrink the debt. I have been abdicating for a long time for a 10% across the board cut in all spending.

That's not math, but OK.

Also, did you support the Iraq War? Even a cursory glance at our outlays shows pretty clearly where you can find that 10%, aka military spending.

[Captain_Caveman]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

Well, alright. Never been on it myself.

Either way, kinda gross to be flying the fiscal conservative flag right now. That's not why we have so much debt right now. Stimulating the economy is a total necessity right now.

[Slax]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

I think you're mixing up two different payments. There was a one-time stimulus check that the federal government paid out exactly once and is not going out monthly and will go out to everyone even if they are fully employed. That is not unemployment, and nobody is getting it on an ongoing basis. In addition to that, there is also an added $600 going out monthly for unemployment insurance on top of the base rate, which will expire in July. For a lot of people, that $600 will maybe pay for benefits like health insurance premiums that aren't covered by their employers anymore. For others, it could plausibly make unemployment slightly more lucrative for at most a few months.

EDIT: Apparently the $600 is weekly, not monthly, so I'm wrong.

[Captain_Caveman]

One of the richest countries on Earth should be able to do both. Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment, a lot of the most hurting not even eligible for unemployment (small business owners, etc). I think you are also missing the point of stimulus. The idea is to keep people spending in an economy that is based upon people doing so.

But with everything shut down what are people going to spend the money on? The people who are afraid to go to Wal-Mart or get take out are still going to be afraid even with an extra two grand in their pocket.

Is that a real question? How about health care, rent, car payments, credit card debt, or even takeout or Amazon?

Without continued (consumer) spending, the global economy will crater. You'd also like people to emerge from this without being on financial life support.

[theman]

I guess it is just funny that we only hear that wrt to less affluent people, and not for any of the things that have actually run up the national debt (needless wars over a WMD threat we invented, or tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy). Guess that's not a conversation for this board, though.

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending causes debt. Cut spending and shrink the debt. I have been abdicating for a long time for a 10% across the board cut in all spending.

That's not math, but OK.

Also, did you support the Iraq War? Even a cursory glance at our outlays shows pretty clearly where you can find that 10%, aka military spending.

Like I said, across the board.

The problem is our politicians make deals in the form of "I will give you this if you give me that" There needs to be more "I won't ask for this if you don't ask for that". There is no incentive for politicians for cut spending because this is how they buy votes, be it aid to the poor, military contract that just happen to be in their district (and they are in all districts), union backed public work project, ...

And they know the grand children of the people voting for them are the once that are going to pay for it.

Do you support raising your own taxes to balance the budget? Personally, I pay far too much into the system as it is.

[theman]

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

So some one making $40,000 a year would be better off being unemployed.

"Supercharged unemployment benefits was something Senate Democrats have been fighting for since this process began... It is not a drafting error.” - Senator Ron Wyden

Compared to risking their lives for non-essential jobs with no benefits or health insurance? Probably.

You must have one impressive spread if you are able to grow and harvest all your own food so no one needs to risk their lives to feed you.

[Captain_Caveman]

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending causes debt. Cut spending and shrink the debt. I have been abdicating for a long time for a 10% across the board cut in all spending.

That's not math, but OK.

Also, did you support the Iraq War? Even a cursory glance at our outlays shows pretty clearly where you can find that 10%, aka military spending.

Like I said, across the board.

The problem is our politicians make deals in the form of "I will give you this if you give me that" There needs to be more "I won't ask for this if you don't ask for that". There is no incentive for politicians for cut spending because this is how they buy votes, be it aid to the poor, military contract that just happen to be in their district (and they are in all districts), union backed public work project, ...

And they know the grand children of the people voting for them are the once that are going to pay for it.

Do you support raising your own taxes to balance the budget? Personally, I pay far too much into the system as it is.

#1, your non answer demonstrates that you clearly supported the Iraq War. So there's your 10% right there. Are you clear on that?

In the bigger picture, you are dealing from an economic ideology that has been discredited 1,000 times over. Nothing to do with politics, mind you. But saying that tax cuts don't run up the debt is economic illiteracy, pure and simple. That's like saying a paycut doesn't reduce your household income.

Speaking as someone who is not getting a stimulus check despite having two children, feel free to take back my tax cut. But let's take it a step further and restore tax rates across the board to what they were from the end of WW2 until the early 2000s. More to the point, you absolutely do widespread stimulus from where we are right now. It is literally the only hope to keep the global economy afloat right now. Anything else is all but sure to lose you a lot of money.

[watsonthedragon]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

I think you're mixing up two different payments. There was a one-time stimulus check that the federal government paid out exactly once and is not going out monthly and will go out to everyone even if they are fully employed. That is not unemployment, and nobody is getting it on an ongoing basis. In addition to that, there is also an added $600 going out monthly for unemployment insurance on top of the base rate, which will expire in July. For a lot of people, that $600 will maybe pay for benefits like health insurance premiums that aren't covered by their employers anymore. For others, it could plausibly make unemployment slightly more lucrative for at most a few months.

Just for clarity, the $600 is weekly on top of the base UI rate, not monthly. Basically, in MA at least, any full time employee making under ~$85k base salary is making more on unemployment.

[Captain_Caveman]

So some one making $40,000 a year would be better off being unemployed.

"Supercharged unemployment benefits was something Senate Democrats have been fighting for since this process began... It is not a drafting error.” - Senator Ron Wyden

Compared to risking their lives for non-essential jobs with no benefits or health insurance? Probably.

You must have one impressive spread if you are able to grow and harvest all your own food so no one needs to risk their lives to feed you.

Pretty sure I am not arguing against essential workers working. Also pretty sure that isn't your point in this.

[Slax]

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

I think you're mixing up two different payments. There was a one-time stimulus check that the federal government paid out exactly once and is not going out monthly and will go out to everyone even if they are fully employed. That is not unemployment, and nobody is getting it on an ongoing basis. In addition to that, there is also an added $600 going out monthly for unemployment insurance on top of the base rate, which will expire in July. For a lot of people, that $600 will maybe pay for benefits like health insurance premiums that aren't covered by their employers anymore. For others, it could plausibly make unemployment slightly more lucrative for at most a few months.

Just for clarity, the $600 is weekly on top of the base UI rate, not monthly. Basically, in MA at least, any full time employee making under ~$85k base salary is making more on unemployment.

You're right, corrected my original post. Sorry for the misinformation.

[Captain_Caveman]

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

I think you're mixing up two different payments. There was a one-time stimulus check that the federal government paid out exactly once and is not going out monthly and will go out to everyone even if they are fully employed. That is not unemployment, and nobody is getting it on an ongoing basis. In addition to that, there is also an added $600 going out monthly for unemployment insurance on top of the base rate, which will expire in July. For a lot of people, that $600 will maybe pay for benefits like health insurance premiums that aren't covered by their employers anymore. For others, it could plausibly make unemployment slightly more lucrative for at most a few months.

Just for clarity, the $600 is weekly on top of the base UI rate, not monthly. Basically, in MA at least, any full time employee making under ~$85k base salary is making more on unemployment.

This whole thing misses the point, though. There's no choice here. You are only on unemployment if you get laid off. And if you are laid off, you have no job, at a time with no jobs out there.

[floyd]

Sorry if this was posted already but my uncle (a semi retired infectious disease MD) sent me it and despite my reading a lot about this I learned quite a bit about how the virus (likely) spreads.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

[theman]

#1, your non answer demonstrates that you clearly supported the Iraq War. So there's your 10% right there. Are you clear on that?

In the bigger picture, you are dealing from an economic ideology that has been discredited 1,000 times over. Nothing to do with politics, mind you. But saying that tax cuts don't run up the debt is economic illiteracy, pure and simple. That's like saying a paycut doesn't reduce your household income.

Speaking as someone who is not getting a stimulus check despite having two children, feel free to take back my tax cut. But let's take it a step further and restore tax rates across the board to what they were from the end of WW2 until the early 2000s. More to the point, you absolutely do widespread stimulus from where we are right now. It is literally the only hope to keep the global economy afloat right now. Anything else is all but sure to lose you a lot of money.

You can read an answer any way you want. Whether for it or against it it could have been fought a lot cheaper.

If you never borrow you will have not debt. That is where debt comes from whether you are a government or an individual. If you are making $50,000/year and then get a pay cut to $40,000/year you do not go into debt unless you over spend your means.

Let's also move spending back to where it was following WW2 (after Truman cut the budget in half, despite being told doing so would hurt the economy).

[theman]

Baker: Massachusetts To Reopen In 4 Phases Starting May 18

Gov. Charlie Baker revealed the structure of Massachusetts’ coronavirus reopening plan, which will allow businesses to get back to work slowly. Baker said the state is hopeful the process can begin with Phase 1 on May 18.

Baker initially ordered non-essential businesses to close due to the coronavirus pandemic on March 23.

“We’re anxious to try to get everybody back up and going as soon as it makes sense,” said Baker. “The goal of the reopening plan is to methodically allow certain businesses, services, and activities to resume, protecting public health and limiting a possible resurgence of new COVID-19 cases.”

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/11/coronavirus-covid-19-massachusetts-reopening-news-gov-charlie-baker/

[theman]

Georgia's new cases have remained flat since reopening their economy.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/georgia-coronavirus-cases.html

[Parliament10]

#1, your non answer demonstrates that you clearly supported the Iraq War. So there's your 10% right there. Are you clear on that?

In the bigger picture, you are dealing from an economic ideology that has been discredited 1,000 times over. Nothing to do with politics, mind you. But saying that tax cuts don't run up the debt is economic illiteracy, pure and simple. That's like saying a paycut doesn't reduce your household income.

Speaking as someone who is not getting a stimulus check despite having two children, feel free to take back my tax cut. But let's take it a step further and restore tax rates across the board to what they were from the end of WW2 until the early 2000s. More to the point, you absolutely do widespread stimulus from where we are right now. It is literally the only hope to keep the global economy afloat right now. Anything else is all but sure to lose you a lot of money.

You can read an answer any way you want. Whether for it or against it it could have been fought a lot cheaper.

If you never borrow you will have not debt. That is where debt comes from whether you are a government or an individual. If you are making $50,000/year and then get a pay cut to $40,000/year you do not go into debt unless you over spend your means.

Let's also move spending back to where it was following WW2 (after Truman cut the budget in half, despite being told doing so would hurt the economy).

What's all this got to do with the present COVID-19?
Stay On-Topic you Guys.

~ Parl

[claycarver]

Not only is no one on a $40k salary is getting $4-5k in unemployment...

Before calculating the normal unemployment rate, which is different state to state, everyone unemployed is getting $2,600 a month from the federal government. If your state normally provides half your salary for unemployment, that would mean a $40,000 employee is making a total of $4266 a month in unemployment. threrf23's numbers look right to me.

So some one making $40,000 a year would be better off being unemployed.

"Supercharged unemployment benefits was something Senate Democrats have been fighting for since this process began... It is not a drafting error.” - Senator Ron Wyden

My wife is seeing a substantial pay increase to stay home. It's pretty sweet. She doesn't even have to go through the normal hoops of looking for a job. We only wish she had been furloughed sooner.

I guarantee you that the pay INCREASE to stay home is reason this quarantine is working. There's a big chunk of low wage jobs in the newly unemployed. Between the stimulus check and the increased pay through unemployment, the shut down has been pretty sweet for a lot of people.

[theman]

De Blasio: Hospitalized coronavirus patients should return to nursing homes

Mayor Bill de Blasio said some hospitalized patients who have tested positive for the coronavirus should still return to their nursing homes — even though they risk exposing other elderly residents to the deadly bug.

What could possibly go wrong?

Cuomo Reverses Nursing Home Directive to Take COVID-19 Patients, Requires More Staff Testing

Hospitals cannot release patients to nursing homes in New York unless the patient tests negative for the virus, Cuomo said Sunday

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/cuomo-reverses-nursing-home-directive-to-take-covid-19-patients-requires-more-staff-testing/2410533/

[threrf23]

Sorry if this was posted already but my uncle (a semi retired infectious disease MD) sent me it and despite my reading a lot about this I learned quite a bit about how the virus (likely) spreads.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

As simple as the subject matter is, this was a good read. It sort of covers the science behind common sense.