Jump to content
DeeCee

Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Global Pandemic | PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION TO THIS THREAD

Recommended Posts

It's odd how Canada is the opposite of the United States in that the provinces here are sort of pushing (ish) to gradually re-open, while the feds want to keep the lockdown going. It's the other way around south of the border.

 

@Lordmandeep what's your take on the difference in philosphy between the federal government and provincial governments (seemingly)?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A Marvel Fanboy said:

No wonder most people who lost jobs in US do not want to reopen economy and get back to work:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/unemployment-benefits-higher-than-work-wages/index.html

"As businesses try to get back up and running, a growing number of laid-off workers will be offered their old jobs. And many won't have the option of declining and remaining on unemployment. "

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Killimano3 said:

Good news everyone!

Donald Trump is hitting record high approval again!

Hooray for drinking bleach!

No.  No he is NOT. 

 

The current 538 weighted average has him at 43.3 - 50.7, up about .5 points over the last couple of days.  The high 45.8 - 49.7 at the peak of the rally around the flag effect at the beginning of the month.

 

Remember: Always... always average the polls.  Especially one like that Gallup one which was taken over the span of two weeks.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A Marvel Fanboy said:

No wonder most people who lost jobs in US do not want to reopen economy and get back to work:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/unemployment-benefits-higher-than-work-wages/index.html

 

they get paid more for unemployment.

Ooooooorrrrrr, maybe they're worried about getting sick at the job.

 

Nah, that can't be it.  Must be that they're worthless freeloaders

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OH NO!!!! Some low level workers might get a little extra spending cash for a month or two.  THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!!

 

*Fortune 500 companies back up the Brinks trucks to get billions*

*airlines schedule layoffs the moment they're allowed to after getting bailout money*

*"Small" 2b a year businesses overrun the Small Business Bailout fund in a matter of minutes*

 

This really can not stand.  How DARE those workers get a break they haven't earned!!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Porthos said:

No.  No he is NOT. 

 

The current 538 weighted average has him at 43.3 - 50.7, up about .5 points over the last couple of days.  The high 45.8 - 49.7 at the peak of the rally around the flag effect at the beginning of the month.

 

Remember: Always... always average the polls.  Especially one like that Gallup one which was taken over the span of two weeks.

Even in the Gallup one he fell from last months polls by almost 10 points.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Porthos said:

OH NO!!!! Some low level workers might get a little extra spending cash for a month or two.  THIS IS TERRIBLE!!!!

 

*Fortune 500 companies back up the Brinks trucks to get billions*

*airlines schedule layoffs the moment they're allowed to after getting bailout money*

*"Small" 2b a year businesses overrun the Small Business Bailout fund in a matter of minutes*

 

This really can not stand.  How DARE those workers get a break they haven't earned!!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: 

Airlines need to be seriously looked at once this is done. That industry has been the worst one for customers, they need to give a lot of concessions like free change and cancellation, no charging for different seats and stuff.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

Pretty bad but starting to feel cracks in lockdown forming around me as weather improves in Ontario.

Drove into town to do my once a month trip to Costco.

 

3 weeks ago they were limiting the amount of people in the store.  Today they were not and it was as packed as it ever is.  In theory they required everyone to wear a mask but they were not enforcing it.

 

Colorado relaxed some rules starting today but limits in stores were still supposed to be enforced.

 

It's going to be challenging as we move into nice weather.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever any of us think about the IHME model, I think it's pretty clear that most, if not all of us, would agree that it becomes next to useless once states DO start opening up.  It wrecks a fundamental aspect of the model and makes it more or less an academic exercise.  And with some states opening up right now, I think the time to move on is now (even if I keep looking at state totals for states that aren't opening up).

 

So here might be an alternative:

 

 

This model tries to simulate the sorts of relaxations that might be ahead, among other things.

 

SPOILER ALERT:  Those hoping for a quiet, low-death summer will be disappointed. 

 

===

 

It currently is projecting 950 deaths per day at the start of July and 'only' 850 deaths per day at the start of Aug. 

 

On Aug 4th, it has a total death range of just under 99,000 to all the way up to 292,600, with a prediction line of 170k deaths.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, A Marvel Fanboy said:

No wonder most people who lost jobs in US do not want to reopen economy and get back to work:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/politics/unemployment-benefits-higher-than-work-wages/index.html

 

they get paid more for unemployment.

 

Yes some employees make more off of unemployment. 

 

But...

 

1) Don't forget that many will now have to pay for their own health care insurance.  And of course if they get Covid they'll have to pay their deductible which will eat up much of that extra money.

 

2) If they are full time with benefits and are out of a job for a significant amount of time they will lose those benefits when they come back.   My wife works as a retail cashier and if she would've been out over 30 days she'd lose her insurance and other benefits.  She'd have to work 180 days before being eligible for them again.

 

3) The system is overwhelmed and right now it is almost impossible to get your unemployment.  

 

4) They might not have a job to come back to and there will be an over-supply of workers to jobs so wages will go down again.

 

5) It's a Conservative fallacy that low income workers are lazy and would rather just sit at home smoking pot and taking free money.  In general most people want to work and make a fair wage.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JB33 said:

It's odd how Canada is the opposite of the United States in that the provinces here are sort of pushing (ish) to gradually re-open, while the feds want to keep the lockdown going. It's the other way around south of the border.

 

@Lordmandeep what's your take on the difference in philosphy between the federal government and provincial governments (seemingly)?

 

 

Federal govt has much more space to freely spend on finances and will increases taxes a lot later.

 

Provinces cant 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Porthos said:

ShoddyLimpingIvorybilledwoodpecker-small

 

 

The thing that gets me about Trump's comments about all of this is... He keeps commenting about whatever the number is right now as if that will be close to the final number.

 

Like, dude, not even the IHME model was saying it was going to fall precipitously tomorrow or next week. Not in the middle of April and not now. 

 

Of course, as Matt notes, now he's bringing out the 100k to 200k total again after the last couple of weeks talking up the 60k number. 

 

What he's also doing is occasionally bringing back up the 2m death total of what might happen if we did nothing and say "Well people were predicting 2m deaths and we'll come well under that so we did great!"

 

Which.... Well...

 

ShoddyLimpingIvorybilledwoodpecker-small ShoddyLimpingIvorybilledwoodpecker-small ShoddyLimpingIvorybilledwoodpecker-small

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not a conservative fallacy that some people rather be  on  welfare then work.

 

In Canada people are getting 2000 dollars a month if they lost their job. However some people are leaving work on their own and staying home if they get paid that much monthly.

 

 For example the Federal GOVT in Canada has literally been warning people that anyone who voluntarily left work and has been getting 2000 bucks a month from the GOVT since march will have to pay back the money...because quite a few people just quit lower wage jobs and sat at home even if business was open.

 

Why would the govt issue such warnings if its a fallacy

 

The issue is the number is much smaller then people think but its still a decent amount.

 

 

However the mthly amounts in the USA seem to less for it be a big deal. 

Edited by Lordmandeep
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

Its not a conservative fallacy that some people rather be  on  welfare then work.

 

In Canada people are getting 2000 dollars a month if they lost their job. However some people are leaving work on their own and staying home if they get paid that much monthly.

 

 For example the Federal GOVT in Canada has literally been warning people that anyone who voluntarily left work and has been getting 2000 bucks a month from the GOVT since march will have to pay back the money...because quite a few people just quit lower wage jobs and sat at home even if business was open.

 

Why would the govt issue such warnings if its a fallacy

 

The issue is the number is much smaller then people think but its still a decent amount.

 

 

However the mthly amounts in the USA seem to less for it be a big deal. 

There’s always going to be bad apples that try and scam the system but I’d wager the majority of the people who left jobs did so because they were scared of getting covid and getting others around them sick.
 

I can’t blame anyone who was working at a grocery store or fast food restaurant and making minimum wage ( nothing wrong with that btw) who was scared and didn’t want to risk being at work anymore. 
 

I can only imagine how nerve racking it must be to go to work daily. I haven’t been in a store since like the 15th of March I think. 

Edited by cax16
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

The issue is the number is much smaller then people think but its still a decent amount.

IMO, the real issue is more people get denied funding than cheat the system.

 

The following data is very outdated, but that's because it's looking at the period when the infamous "welfare queens" were being demonized:

 

Quote

Linda Taylor quickly became a political tool wielded for purposes far beyond the contours of her misdeeds. The amount that Taylor actually filched from the AFDC program was much less than authorities claimed. Press reports included unsubstantiated assertions that she raked in tens of thousands of dollars. Reagan repeatedly cited a six-figure income. In reality, a grand jury indicted her in 1974 for receiving payments adding up to a grand total $7,608.02, later increased to $8,865.67. And yet, Cook County spent at least $50,000 to convict Taylor, not to mention what it spent to imprison her nor the resources expended to build the case against her.

 

Her story, and the eventual case against her, fueled a crackdown in the Illinois legislature on supposed welfare fraud, leading to an 88 percent bump in the budget for the designated committee and a partnership with the Chicago police. The Public Aid Department had experimented with offering amnesty to potential welfare fraudsters, but that was ended and, thanks in large part to Taylor’s case, the focus turned to going after them like criminals. Three-quarters of welfare fraud cases were referred to law enforcement by 1979, up from 28 percent in 1970. The department began systematically auditing the AFDC and other programs. Lawmakers even set up an anonymous hotline to receive tips about potential cheats. It would steadily take in more than 10,000 reports a year.

 

The courts followed suit. In the late ’70s, “the Cook County courts were in the grip of a kind of anti–welfare queen hysteria,” Levin reports. They went after other so-called welfare queens aggressively, keeping them locked up on $100,000 bails and pushing to quickly get them prison time.

 


The politician to make the most hay out of Taylor was Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s crusade against welfare began early. In 1971 he called it “a cancer eating at our vitals.” As California governor, he tightened eligibility rules, reduced benefits, and implemented work requirements. But as he campaigned for president for the first time in 1976, he started telling the story of a woman in Chicago who, he said, used 80 names, 30 addresses, and 15 phone numbers to collect benefits that earned her “$150,000 a year.”

 

***SNIPPED FOR BREVITY***

 

Once in the White House, Reagan’s tall tales were used to justify real-life changes. In his first inaugural address, he promised to reduce the federal budget by getting rid of supposed fraud in public programs, including “tighten[ing] welfare and giv[ing] more attention to outside sources of income when determining the amount of welfare that an individual is allowed.” Eventually, Congress would pass $25 billion in cuts to programs that helped the poor. An estimated 408,000 households were cut off from AFDC, while millions more saw their benefits reduced.

 

Then as now, the actual deprivation facing people who turn to cash assistance never generated the kinds of headlines or national outrage that Taylor’s outlandish story did. As Levin notes, in 1974, 12 percent of the country lived in poverty, surviving on a little over $5,000 a year for a family of four. Such a family could expect just $3,456 a year from AFDC to supplement its meager income, an amount that went without an update for years while inflation soared.

 

And the biggest problem with the program was not that people were cheating the system with elaborate, Taylor-style schemes, but that the system was cheating them. An in-depth examination of AFDC in the Chicago area in 1960 found that the biggest problem was public “hostility to this most disadvantaged segment of our population.” A 1970 Associated Press report found that 39 states were “illegally denying the poor either due process or deserved relief benefits.” If there was an epidemic of fraud, it was almost certainly more prevalent among white-collar people such as doctors bilking Medicaid or civil servants who collected both salaries and benefits. A 1978 federal report found that just 1 percent of the annual budget of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was lost to “unlawful, willful misrepresentation (fraud) or excessive services and program violations (abuse).” Less than $500 million of the agency’s losses were in AFDC; most instances of people getting money despite being ineligible were honest mistakes.

 
 

 

I quote this part out of a larger piece about this old story because this was the very period this public perception you mention was solidified.  Even at the height of the concern over so-called welfare fraud, the fraud wasn't that much AND there were more people being victimized by not getting what they deserved.

 

Are there cheats out there?  Of course.  Are there people out there who deserve benefits and aren't getting them.  Yep.  Guess which is worse in my mind.

Edited by Porthos
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Are there cheats out there?  Of course.  Are there people out there who deserve benefits and aren't getting them.  Yep.  Guess which is worse in my mind.

 

 


If we speak of cheats, let us look no further than the current batch of hedge fund managers, stock manipulators, real estate moguls, and the ninnyhammers running this whole boondoggle at the moment. 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.