Bankruptcy, economic depression, pain and suffering

Originally posted by: Boilerman

Every day we don't open the economy, the deeper the depression.  The deeper the depression, the more poor and middle income people who will be dramatically hurt.  More jobs will be lost.  More children without decent food and housing.  More deaths.


Poor people and lower-middle-class folks are doing fine. They all still have jobs filling those employment openings I mentioned. (assuming they want one) A lot of them are even getting a little hazard pay. Couple that with their Donny Dollars and they are doing better than ever. It is the people used to luxuries that are having a hard time adjusting to how the poor and lower-end middle class already live.  

Liberals give vague responses on when to reopen. All they say is less deaths, more tests & more tracing. 

How few deaths, how many tests?

 

There are many parts of the country that are unaffected by this, but have been forced to shutdown. Shouldn't they be allowed to gradually reopen, or does the entire country have to be locked down because the tri-state area has 45% if the cases?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Death also inflicts economic suffering.

 

Businesses can be restarted. Human lives, once lost, cannot be recovered. Bankruptcy does not mean the permanent closure of a business; hell, sometimes it doesn't even mean its temporary closure.

 

I don't think this is a binary choice, though. We can use government aid to get individuals and small businesses through lockdowns that are literally vital in order to reduce the death toll.

 

Republicans have been against this from the start. They've had no problems with handing out trillions (!) to big corporations that have huge cash reserves and could easily weather even a prolonged slowdown.

 

We can get through this, WITH MINIMAL LOSS OF LIFE, if we just get the money to where it's really needed and keep it out of the hands of Republicans.


Well Pelosi held the bill up until she had provisions for both parties to oversee the stimulus monies.

So, I don’t think one party is more blame than the other.

Could we just once try to keep politics out of our discussions and finger pointing?

Golly, Tom, you mean us liberals want to take a scientific approach rather than just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks? 

 

Right now in my low cost of living area people have their pick of manufacturing jobs that don't even require a high school education. For those willing to work 60 - 65 hours a week, they can pull down 70k a year. 

 

And all parts of the country are affected look at the map.  People move back and forth. One guy from a rural area that goes to NY City for work or a visit can reignite the virus there killing tens of thousands of people. 

Edited on Apr 26, 2020 10:39am

Originally posted by: Mark

Poor people and lower-middle-class folks are doing fine. They all still have jobs filling those employment openings I mentioned. (assuming they want one) A lot of them are even getting a little hazard pay. Couple that with their Donny Dollars and they are doing better than ever. It is the people used to luxuries that are having a hard time adjusting to how the poor and lower-end middle class already live.  


Mark is correct.  Most are doing fine today.  Most will not be doing fine tomorrow.

Originally posted by: tom

Liberals give vague responses on when to reopen. All they say is less deaths, more tests & more tracing. 

How few deaths, how many tests?

 

There are many parts of the country that are unaffected by this, but have been forced to shutdown. Shouldn't they be allowed to gradually reopen, or does the entire country have to be locked down because the tri-state area has 45% if the cases?


New York CIty started with a single digit number of confirmed cases....just like SOuth Dakota.   Anyone with their eyes open saw the exponential explosion of cases and deaths in environments that let it go unchecked.    It only took a few weeks.    

 

If your plan is to go back to business as normal then we'll have the NYC pandemic on a national scale.    And thats why smart people listen to scientists and not.....you.

 

the last six weeks have bought us time on a way forward that can prevent that catastrophe.   We will reopen businesses and we will have public gatherings....but not wthout new protocols and protections.    That last part is what the ideep-state, ntelligent people are looking at finalizing.   Probably a good idea to listen to them instead of Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, or the idiots who recommend shoviing CLorox up your ass.    

 

Whaddya think?

Originally posted by: tom

Kevin - what are an acceptable number of deaths in order to reopen?


I would only accept a reopening strategy that costs no additional lives.

 

Since I personally would not volunteer to sacrifice my life for the well-being of corporate America, ethically, I cannot make that choice for several thousand random strangers, either.

 

I don't know what the exact death tolls would be under the various scenarios--no one does. But I do know that if we open up, more people will die than if we don't. Many people have opined that "only" an extra 10,000, or 50,000, or whatever deaths would be "worth it" to get the economy humming again.

 

I consider that stance to be utterly abhorrent. I notice that none of its proponents, like Trumper governors or the Las Vegas mayor, are volunteering to put their heads on the chopping block.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

I would only accept a reopening strategy that costs no additional lives.

 

Since I personally would not volunteer to sacrifice my life for the well-being of corporate America, ethically, I cannot make that choice for several thousand random strangers, either.

 

I don't know what the exact death tolls would be under the various scenarios--no one does. But I do know that if we open up, more people will die than if we don't. Many people have opined that "only" an extra 10,000, or 50,000, or whatever deaths would be "worth it" to get the economy humming again.

 

I consider that stance to be utterly abhorrent. I notice that none of its proponents, like Trumper governors or the Las Vegas mayor, are volunteering to put their heads on the chopping block.


Driving a car causes the loss of additional lives.  Kevin says no driving until it costs "no additional lives".  Wow, that's sensible.

Originally posted by: Boilerman

Driving a car causes the loss of additional lives.  Kevin says no driving until it costs "no additional lives".  Wow, that's sensible.


Yes, and you told us how much you love to rape ten-year old girls and shared with us that video of you burning down a Black church.

 

Your point is so completely fucking stupid, it's not worth a response.

There were 170,000 accidental deaths in the US in 2017. So perhaps Kevin should remain in bed. 

In states that are reopening, nobody is being forced to go out. If you don't feel safe or at risk stay home. But those that want to work or go out they should be allowed. 


Sorry mark, the low income are affected. If a restaurant employed 20 people but is only open for deliveries they now need only a few people. Or that restaurant could be closed. 

What Kevin & many of his kind really open is for this to last until the election, under the theory that they can win in November. 

They don't care how much pain & suffering they cause as long as they achieve power. 

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now