2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[wood minis]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Obama’s policies were about as moderate as you can get in my eyes. I’d argue that Obama’s policy was right of Trump.

-More deportations
-More geopolitical intervening
-Expansion of systems that spy on the American people

I guess it’s just how one views the terms moderate, left, right, etc...

This hits the nail on the head. You also don't hear about drone strikes anymore. They were pretty regular during the Obama administration. But maybe they're still happening without any fanfare.

[TheHeel]

Originally Posted by Locoduck

Read the books, read the manuals...

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Not saying this in a negative light, but weren’t you 7-8 (I think I remember your 9/11 statement gathering your age) when Obama was elected?

Obama’s policies were about as moderate as you can get in my eyes. I’d argue that Obama’s policy was right of Trump.

-More deportations
-More geopolitical intervening
-Expansion of systems that spy on the American people

I guess it’s just how one views the terms moderate, left, right, etc...

Again, not a knock on you or your age whatsoever. I’ve got JoJo older than you but he doesn’t have a fraction of your maturity.

That's 100% true so my perception will be different which is why I come here to learn. I guess for me at least obamacare was a very left policy and that's his biggest accomplishment and then he lost the house.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by wood minis

This hits the nail on the head. You don't hear about drone strikes anymore. They were pretty regular during the Obama administration.

Then again, his administration has had record bombings in Afghanistan.

I think (no real proof) this is because he appears to be a non-interventionist and has just handed that aspect of his administration off to the MI complex.

His public “war” policy has been pretty on point and infinitely better through optics than his predecessor. I can’t say I disagree with much that he’s done on that front, while I can line item my disagreements with Obama’s.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

"were" banking on. I know that in February, unemployment was at record lows for all demographics; most everyone that wanted a job, had a job and that wages were rising for lower income jobs at much higher rate than others. By any stretch of the imagination, the economy was good if not great. Was it propped up by this and that, absolutely. Most economies are. But it was strong. In this aspect, he delivered.

And he is an absolute hypocrite. There's a tweet for everything.

Wage growth for the lower income jobs was predominantly policy driven at the state level with stated increasing the minimum wage. Not federal policy.

Low unemployment numbers are great, but part time employment is neither unemployment nor livable wage employment.

I think that in many ways, Coronavirus has been a truth serum for businesses. We're seeing how stable many businesses really are, and how leveraged some are.

I know for us, we are leaner and still just as productive. And we were strong going into it, strong enough to pay the employees out of pocket for two months prior to PPP coming in without hesitation. The positions we removed after PPP burned up won't come back. Our office space was halved. All in all, it's a huge gain for us...but not for our landlord and not for our former employees. Surely we're not alone and this will take months to shake out nationally.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by mike1498

That's 100% true so my perception will be different which is why I come here to learn. I guess for me at least obamacare was a very left policy and that's his biggest accomplishment and then he lost the house.

That’s fair. I view Obamacare as a moderate to even right leaning compromise on healthcare. It was modeled after Mitt Romney’s policy, after all.

Just my POV. I’m sure others would disagree.

[trixstar]

https://twitter.com/brenonade/status...419798016?s=21


Stable genius

[Jgil316]

The Axios Interview can not be spun by anyone (and I am glad to see no one here trying to)

That was as poor of an interview I have seen from any POTUS.........

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by discostu

Wage growth for the lower income jobs was predominantly policy driven at the state level with stated increasing the minimum wage. Not federal policy.

Low unemployment numbers are great, but part time employment is neither unemployment nor livable wage employment.

I think that in many ways, Coronavirus has been a truth serum for businesses. We're seeing how stable many businesses really are, and how leveraged some are.

I know for us, we are leaner and still just as productive. And we were strong going into it, strong enough to pay the employees out of pocket for two months prior to PPP coming in without hesitation. The positions we removed after PPP burned up won't come back. Our office space was halved. All in all, it's a huge gain for us...but not for our landlord and not for our former employees. Surely we're not alone and this will take months to shake out nationally.

I think the bolded is somewhat unfair. There are millions of small businesses who rely on heavy face to face interaction that simply had no chance of survival when shutdowns were implemented across state lines. I don't believe any economy can/could have withstood the decisions state and federal leaders made and I don't think any business can be judged as a result. Defining strength or weakness of a business based on whether or not you can survive COVID-19 lockdowns for six months is not a reasonable standard.

Some are able to adapt, and that's good. Others cannot and that's reality. I don't mean to derail the thread as it seems to have some good discussion going but I still am quite furious that we've sacrificed this economy and these businesses (and the livelyhood of so many) for what appears to be no reason whatsoever. I've yet to see or hear from a country or leader that says "This is what you should do, it works, it will save lives". This virus is simply going to be timed differently across different states / different countries; the outcome is going to be the same, everywhere from a saving lives point of view.

[mike1498]

I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Both sides please chime in.

I have heard that for a lot of people single health insurance would be cheaper because insurance companies would now have to compete for your services over your company purchasing it for the entire group. Wouldn't this be beneficial because companies can compensate you more for your job since they aren't paying for your health insurance and your health insurance is now a more competitive rate?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Both sides please chime in.

I have heard that for a lot of people single health insurance would be cheaper because insurance companies would now have to compete for your services over your company purchasing it for the entire group. Wouldn't this be beneficial because companies can compensate you more for your job since they aren't paying for your health insurance and your health insurance is now a more competitive rate?

I think you'll find support for decoupling health insurance from your job in this thread. I'm certainly for it.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I think the bolded is somewhat unfair. There are millions of small businesses who rely on heavy face to face interaction that simply had no chance of survival when shutdowns were implemented across state lines. I don't believe any economy can/could have withstood the decisions state and federal leaders made and I don't think any business can be judged as a result. Defining strength or weakness of a business based on whether or not you can survive COVID-19 lockdowns for six months is not a reasonable standard.

Some are able to adapt, and that's good. Others cannot and that's reality. I don't mean to derail the thread as it seems to have some good discussion going but I still am quite furious that we've sacrificed this economy and these businesses (and the livelyhood of so many) for what appears to be no reason whatsoever. I've yet to see or hear from a country or leader that says "This is what you should do, it works, it will save lives". This virus is simply going to be timed differently across different states / different countries; the outcome is going to be the same, everywhere from a saving lives point of view.

I guess the question is how good should a balance sheet be allowed to look to deserve help. I can tell you from doing a report on the oil industry a lot of those small companies are almost entirely leveraged. I don’t blame them, the fed has kept interest rates extremely low for years. But do they deserve the bailout as well?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I guess the question is how good should a balance sheet be allowed to look to deserve help. I can tell you from doing a report on the oil industry a lot of those small companies are almost entirely leveraged. I don’t blame them, the fed has kept interest rates extremely low for years. But do they deserve the bailout as well?

And specifically for small business; depending on your size and industry, one month of no revenue is catastrophic. You have bills, rent, insurances, employees that still require attention and the money is not coming in. And the bigger hit is that there is no certainty to what comes next.

If I told a small business they would have one/two/three month(s) of no revenue that's one thing. But we're five months into this thing now and there's still no "out" here, no plan and no idea of what things are going to look like. It's the terrible uncertainty of it all that makes owning and operating a business extremely difficult right now. Nobody knows what comes next.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

And specifically for small business; depending on your size and industry, one month of no revenue is catastrophic. You have bills, rent, insurances, employees that still require attention and the money is not coming in. And the bigger hit is that there is no certainty to what comes next.

If I told a small business they would have one/two/three month(s) of no revenue that's one thing. But we're five months into this thing now and there's still no "out" here, no plan and no idea of what things are going to look like. It's the terrible uncertainty of it all that makes owning and operating a business extremely difficult right now. Nobody knows what comes next.

So then my next question to you is this the Feds fault then? Should the Fed have made interest rates higher during the expansionary period?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by mike1498

So then my next question to you is this the Feds fault then? Should the Fed have made interest rates higher during the expansionary period?

What do you mean by "this"?

I have no problem with the Fed using Bazooka Joe here to do whatever is necessary to make sure there is not an economic collapse as it relates to COVID-19.

As you noted, during the expansionary period, we didn't reign in spending, bring down the deficit. That's not a Fed problem IMHO, that's a Congress problem. Just as you noted and Disco noted in previous posts, some small businesses are in better position to survive as a result of a variety of factors (some their own doing, some the nature of the lock-downs). As a country, we did ourselves no favors by using the bazookas to spend even during the good times.

Blame is in Congress. Not the Fed.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Well - my Ex-wife got the results and was positive and they told her to assume my 2 daughters are also positive (one has symptoms and the other doesn't)


Now - through contact tracing it was determined that my youngest daughters friend (14 years old) who spent the night, 4 days before my Ex showed symptoms was the vector. Both her grandparents also tested positive (was done before she came over) and they got the results after she left my Ex's house.

Now - awaiting results for my mother in Maine...... smh

Doooood... that sucks. My son lives with his mom and I get him on weekends. It’s tough not knowing what goes on at their household in terms of who they see and whatnot. I’m trying to avoid that Rona.

Any major symptoms? I hope all is well...

[Jgil316]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

Doooood... that sucks. My son lives with his mom and I get him on weekends. It’s tough not knowing what goes on at their household in terms of who they see and whatnot. I’m trying to avoid that Rona.

Any major symptoms? I hope all is well...

My Ex is sick as a dog .... cough, fever, congestion and can not smell at all.
Oldest (she's 18 btw) is congested and can't taste, youngest (she's 15) asymptomatic.

I was supposed to go and spend my birthday with them this coming Friday - we canceled that.

[techtre2003]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Both sides please chime in.

I have heard that for a lot of people single health insurance would be cheaper because insurance companies would now have to compete for your services over your company purchasing it for the entire group. Wouldn't this be beneficial because companies can compensate you more for your job since they aren't paying for your health insurance and your health insurance is now a more competitive rate?

That premise relies on the fact that government would be capable of putting together a working program and staying on a budget. I guess if you have faith the government could pull it off it sounds good. Personally, I don't have that faith.

[mike1498]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

What do you mean by "this"?

I have no problem with the Fed using Bazooka Joe here to do whatever is necessary to make sure there is not an economic collapse as it relates to COVID-19.

As you noted, during the expansionary period, we didn't reign in spending, bring down the deficit. That's not a Fed problem IMHO, that's a Congress problem. Just as you noted and Disco noted in previous posts, some small businesses are in better position to survive as a result of a variety of factors (some their own doing, some the nature of the lock-downs). As a country, we did ourselves no favors by using the bazookas to spend even during the good times.

Blame is in Congress. Not the Fed.

Okay so the fed dropped interest rates right after the Great Recession to help the recovery. Once we started the expansionary period they still kept rates low. In our expansionary period growth was good but you have to assume that a lot of that was attributed to low interest rates. So my question is, does cushioning recessions with low interest rates actually solve the consequences of recession or does it just keep pushing it over until eventually it will collapse because of all the debt we take on to prevent a long recovery?

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

I think the bolded is somewhat unfair. There are millions of small businesses who rely on heavy face to face interaction that simply had no chance of survival when shutdowns were implemented across state lines. I don't believe any economy can/could have withstood the decisions state and federal leaders made and I don't think any business can be judged as a result. Defining strength or weakness of a business based on whether or not you can survive COVID-19 lockdowns for six months is not a reasonable standard.

Some are able to adapt, and that's good. Others cannot and that's reality. I don't mean to derail the thread as it seems to have some good discussion going but I still am quite furious that we've sacrificed this economy and these businesses (and the livelyhood of so many) for what appears to be no reason whatsoever. I've yet to see or hear from a country or leader that says "This is what you should do, it works, it will save lives". This virus is simply going to be timed differently across different states / different countries; the outcome is going to be the same, everywhere from a saving lives point of view.

I agree, but I’d say “somewhat unfair” is an understatement.

Businesses that are newer or expanded right before the shutdown got F’d. Many businesses pay rent of $20k or more in Philly, and the landlords continued to charge this during the shutdowns, and why shouldn’t they? The landlord is running his business all the same. And that’s just the rent. That doesn’t go into insurance, utilities, businesses that sell perishable goods and lost inventory, etc. Many businesses also tried to take care of their employees for as long as they could during the early uncertainty to keep them employed.

Imagine spending five years to save up to start a business, and you get rolling in January 2020. You’re all jazzed up and things are starting to fall into place and you have all of these ideas you want to implement... and then the government says no más. Just punt me right in the nuts while you’re at it.

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

My Ex is sick as a dog .... cough, fever, congestion and can not smell at all.
Oldest (she's 18 btw) is congested and can't taste, youngest (she's 15) asymptomatic.

I was supposed to go and spend my birthday with them this coming Friday - we canceled that.

I wish you and your family the best... for whatever that’s worth from a stranger on a sports card forum.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Both sides please chime in.

I have heard that for a lot of people single health insurance would be cheaper because insurance companies would now have to compete for your services over your company purchasing it for the entire group. Wouldn't this be beneficial because companies can compensate you more for your job since they aren't paying for your health insurance and your health insurance is now a more competitive rate?

First and foremost, if you think that pay will go up simply because an employer is not longer paying for healthcare...that's a reach.

As for healthcare, the ACA was flawed, no one on either side debates that really. But, it was a starting point.

It's unfortunate that the GOP line of "repeal and replace" simply stopped at repeal. Incredibly unfortunate.

[JeremyNick]

Originally Posted by mike1498

I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Both sides please chime in.

I have heard that for a lot of people single health insurance would be cheaper because insurance companies would now have to compete for your services over your company purchasing it for the entire group. Wouldn't this be beneficial because companies can compensate you more for your job since they aren't paying for your health insurance and your health insurance is now a more competitive rate?

I would LOVE to see health insurance sold individually versus sold in group batches to employers.

1. Healthy people would have to carry less of the unhealthy load. You pay more directly for just for your medical history versus the medical history of your company.

2. People will take more accountability for their health. Right now people just pass the majority of the cost off to their company without giving it a second thought.

3. Cost control with more individual focused plans and offerings.

4. Competition. It’s never a bad thing.

[petesahuttt]

Anyone who watched the Axios interview from Monday that still supports him should have a small amount of shame in them. It was embarrassing to watch as a citizen. I really was shocked that he didn't get up and leave. He's going to eff us all.

[cnewby]

Only 3 more months of this virus being completely blown out of proportion by the dims/media!