Total Deaths vs. COVID-19 (Page 10/11)
maryjane OCT 19, 06:47 AM
LBJ alone didn't cause us to get involved in Vietnam and cause 58,000 Americans to die but he got the blame for what should have been on JFK's shoulders.
GW Bush didn't cause the post Katrina debacle but he got the blame for it. (and in NOLA, still is)

Trump closed air travel from China on Jan 31 (effective Feb 2) but allowed tens of thousands of travelers to continue to come in from Europe for over a month (until March 11) and the virus eruption in NYC was directly caused by that failure of national leadership.
The buck stops at the top, and as a CEO of his own company, he should have known that.
Jonesy OCT 19, 08:40 AM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:


I have to disagree with you MJ. Trump didn’t cause those deaths.



Did he directly cause them, no, but indirectly? He downplayed it so hard, and caused so much confusion, especially at the beginning, that many of those that trust what he says took less precautions, considered it a "non issue" and helped spread the infection. Of course those who don't trust or listen to him, didn't follow his advice, so largely he did a disservice and likely caused more damage to his own supporters than anyone else.

And lets face it, if Biden, or Obama was president during this pandemic, and the handling of it was exactly the same as how Trump handled it, you and Republicans in general, would likely be singing a different tune. You would be blaming them for the deaths. Even if you didn't really believe it, because politically it would be an perfect opportunity to criticize him during the election cycle. You can deny that fact if you want for yourself personally, and I'll take your word on it, but don't even try to deny that Republicans in general wouldn't, because we all know they would, its politics after all. So don't pretend to be shocked that the Democrats are taking that narrative, because politically its just too juicy to ignore.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 10-19-2020).]

Boondawg OCT 19, 10:20 AM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

...caused by that failure of national leadership.
.



And you’re stilll going to (or have) vote for him to “ lead” us.

I don’t know if this Biden guy is the answer we’re looking for, but I do know he at least has been in the same room multiple times with someone who has led us.

The one definite is Donald Trump is incapable of leading & uniting the American people.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure a great number of Americans actually want unity or equality.
Some like the color chart just the way it is.

In that sense, White privilege is probably a real thing.

Don, I’m sure every thing you do is well thought out.
Which is why your choice to support this man perplexes me.

That being said, I really don’t care.
About any of them.
My trust in them or the system is almost nonexistent.

Peace.
Lambo nut OCT 19, 11:46 AM

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:


I don’t know if this Biden guy is the answer we’re looking for, but I do know he at least has been in the same room multiple times with someone who has led us.




Best joke I've heard in a while!
Lambo nut OCT 19, 11:48 AM

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

Don, I’m sure every thing you do is well thought out.




Considering the source, this is epic!
Lambo nut OCT 19, 11:49 AM

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:

I really don’t care.





Yet here you are, bitching once again.
theBDub OCT 19, 04:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I'm not sure me responding would really provide any benefit to either of us. You're pretty set in your ways, and I am too. But I did want to answer a few things.

Neither party is really for smaller government. Both sides support MMT at this point, though the Republican side supports it just a little bit less, which is the best I can do between the options.

On voting straight-ticket. I never used to, but honestly, the form of representation that we have right now is not like it used to be. Take out the Romneys and the AOCs, and 99% of the representatives and senators are beholden to the parties. Bill Nelson for example. While I originally used to vote for him because I thought he would help further a pro-space agenda, he did absolutely nothing of the sort. He supported Obama's shutting down of most space programs and re-organization of NASA into more Earth-based projects. This led to catastrophic loses in science and technology. One example.

So now, I vote for the party ideology as a whole, since that is literally who our representatives are going to be voting with 9 times out of 10. To not vote straight ticket is really just ignoring the reality of the situation.

On science. My whole North-East / Leftist side of my family is anti-Vaxx. Science today has less to do with math and hypothesis, and far more to do with which political affiliation the group stands to benefit from.

The death toll is only important because it can be leveraged right now as a political hammer. As I said... I suspect no other president would have done it any differently. From the political aspect, the Democrats fought the president through the entire process... I think we all remember Pelosi in China-town in DC (which if I'm being honest, is not /really/ a Chinatown anymore). We also all SHOULD remember that as soon as he went to close the flights from China and other countries, the Democrats labelled it as racist.

I really am above the politics... I'm not interested in the tit for tat or the political gotchas. I just want to get things done, and this is why I voted for Trump. We've built hundreds of miles of wall, dramatically lowered taxes, gutted the ACA, didn't pass the TTP, actually held China accountable, and active seeks to disregard and push aside influence from foreign powers such as China, European Union, Iran, etc. I really see the Democrat party as more of a collection of corrupt power aspirants who each seek to become part of some imagined aristocracy.



What do you mean you never used to vote straight ticket? Didn't you just say you've voted straight ticket since your first vote with Bill Clinton? Or did I miss something?

The parties do control their candidates to a degree, and I can understand the theory... at a federal or even state level. When you get to judges (especially) and city representatives, no, the party isn't really a big part of who they are and what they'll be doing. It certainly does provide insight into how they think and who they're choosing to affiliate with, but I still choose to research every single candidate and issue on my ballot before voting. There are a ton of unqualified candidates. Here in TX, we have the Railroad Commission that regulates O&G. The Democrat candidate's experience is that she... litigated against O&G. I need someone who has worked in O&G to help regulate O&G. If I voted straight ticket, I would have missed that (and others).

None of the two major parties are for limited government in truth, but the Republicans still claim to be. I see it as one side is doing what they say they'll do, and the other... isn't. I'd love to lower entitlement programs, end many subsidy programs, keep taxes low, and more. Republicans say they agree... then don't do it.

Anti-vaxxers are idiots. My extremely religious and conservative sister is one. Apparently most anti-vaxxers are left. That doesn't change my statement. Most people I know who regularly decry science and facts lean right. It's just a personal observation, I haven't bothered to look up statistics on it (in part because how do you test each conspiracy theory, I feel like it's just hard to scientifically measure).

> "The death toll is only important because it can be leveraged right now as a political hammer."

This is where you completely lose me. No, the death toll is important because >200,000 ****ing people have died. It's nuts, man. It's a massive number of people. That number is absolutely bonkers insane. And of the people who haven't died, many are left with lasting health issues.
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 19, 07:56 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

What do you mean you never used to vote straight ticket? Didn't you just say you've voted straight ticket since your first vote with Bill Clinton? Or did I miss something?




You did miss something. The first time I voted was for Bill Clinton in his reelection bid. I was 18. I voted half Republican / half Democrat, but voted for Bill Clinton. As a senior in high school, I went through the issues and voted on where each one stood, based on what made sense to me at the time.

I slowly became Republican, voting for a Republican president (after Bill Clinton), but voting almost all Democrat for everything else. Now, however... I vote straight ticket Republican... because I recognize that any Democrat I vote for is going to vote with Democrats 99% of the time. Maybe that wasn't a big deal for me years ago, but the Democrat party is completely radical. Here are some of the things the Democrat party supports:

- Open borders / illegal immigration. Why? Because they eventually want to be able to secure their vote forever by bringing in more voters.
- Medicare 4 All... e.g. eliminating private insurance. Right now, corporations pay for 67% of all healthcare. Why do we want to relieve corporations of this burden and put it on the taxpayer?
- Anti-American sentiment. They believe America is inherently flawed, and the only way to fix it is to tear it down and rebuild it. But really, this is disillusioned Democrats that don't understand that what they're really supporting is a Marxist agenda that wants to eliminate America, and they're the stooges.
- More pandering to unions. Let's spend even MORE money on teachers unions and the school system, while providing an even worse product.
- Lowest common denominator ... Democrats do not believe in meritocracy, which I do.
- Socialism vs Capitalism
- Constant wars, and the military industrial complex...
- Democrats don't understand that lower taxes result in higher incomes, which RESULTS in higher tax revenue.



quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
> "The death toll is only important because it can be leveraged right now as a political hammer."

This is where you completely lose me. No, the death toll is important because >200,000 ****ing people have died. It's nuts, man. It's a massive number of people. That number is absolutely bonkers insane. And of the people who haven't died, many are left with lasting health issues.



So, your response above is emotional. As I said before many times ... any death is a horrible loss. But it's only important TO YOU and the media, because it can be used as a political hammer.
rinselberg OCT 19, 08:27 PM

quote
Democrats don't understand that lower taxes result in higher incomes, which RESULTS in higher tax revenue.


This is the one remark from "82-T/A" (message immediately before this one) that I most have in mind, here.

"TCJA" is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; i.e., the first installment of the Trump Tax Plan. If there have been any really significant legislative changes affecting the broad issues of Federal and State evel taxation since the TCJA, I am unaware of it. Not that I follow these $-related issues all that closely. I don't.

This is the conclusion of a "longish" analysis that I just found online.


quote
Despite a decline in effective tax rate that is, on average, approximately five percent from the year preceding the TCJA, and ten percent from years 2015–2017, there are few indicia of the corporate-investment-led economic boom predicted by Trump administration officials. While it is difficult to definitively know why corporations have not significantly reinvested their tax savings in their employees, property, plants, or equipment, we have identified economic theories that predict such a lack of activity. Should further studies find similar results, they will support theories predicting that the incidence of corporate taxation falls mainly upon investors (as opposed to employees or customers), and that investor behavior is largely inelastic with respect to moderate changes in tax rates.

The TCJA cut taxes by $1.5 trillion and in the process conferred significant tax benefits on U.S. corporations. Unlike the predictions of the TCJA’s proponents, economic growth has shown no sign of increasing nearly to the extent necessary for the tax cut to pay for itself. In addition to increases in discretionary spending passed shortly after the TCJA, the United States now faces the largest federal budget deficit it has ever experienced during a period of peace and economic growth. While the long-term impacts of fiscal profligacy are as uncertain as the tax policy effects on economic growth, we should expect that such a sizable reduction in federal tax revenue comes with some economic benefits to offset the burden of increased debt. Based on our study, we have not found any such benefits in the post-TCJA behavior of U.S. corporations.



"Corporate Behavior and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act"
Blog entry from April 2, 2020 (or is that February 4, 2020..?) from Nicholas H. Cohen and Manoj Viswanathan.
The University of Chicago Law Review online.
https://lawreviewblog.uchic...a-cohen-viswanathan/

Chicago U. is my Go To place for these kinds of $-related discussions. And I always "love me" some Austan Goolsbee. With Paul Krugman on the side.


Quincy Adams Wagstaff presided over the legendary Department of Economics at Huxley University.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-20-2020).]

maryjane OCT 19, 10:45 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
> "The death toll is only important because it can be leveraged right now as a political hammer."

This is where you completely lose me. No, the death toll is important because >200,000 ****ing people have died. It's nuts, man. It's a massive number of people. That number is absolutely bonkers insane. And of the people who haven't died, many are left with lasting health issues.



For years, I've tried to explain this issue, and it's almost uniquely American.
People tend to take a very narrow view of events outside their immediate circle, and they draw mental circles around themselves, isolating themselves from the outside world and the events and issues in that outer world. It begins at their own doorstep, then they draw another at the boundary of their block, another at their city limit sign, another at their county line, and one at their state periphery. These concentric circles continue out, one at their region, and then one at the USA boundary. From the outside, it's an ever decreasing set of concentric circles of isolation and insulation. This, is not a new phenomenon either. It's been prevalent in the US for many decades, but with today's electronic news and information, it is much more pronounced, as issues can more easily penetrate those lines now.

"Rwanda? Where's that? How many died? oh well, that's their problem"
"Syria? Who gives a Shiite about Syria...let 'em kill each other"
"What? Someone was beheaded in France? That's way over in Europe. It doesn't affect me and I just don't care what happens to them"
"NY City? That's over a thousand miles away. They can deal with it themselves."
""Corona virus is in Oregon and Washington State? Heck, I'm in Manhattan, I ain't gonna worry about them people out West"
"It's just a couple of people from China, it's completely under control, nothing to worry about"
"In Atlanta and Houston? I'm in New Mexico, we'll be fine here."
"What? They closed down the cruise lines? Wife and I had a vacation planned next month. This sucks!
"50,000 dead from China flu? I don't know a single person that has even had it. I'm not changing how I live because of a bunch of people I don't know"

It goes on and on until the event directly affects the individual at his doorstep or workplace and all of a sudden those affects have penetrated his/her last line of mental defense and that's when the belly aching really starts, but in the meantime, 200,000+ people have died. Some folks think if everyone would just stop talking and writing about it, the whole thing would just go away..out of sight, out of mind, but that won't stop the deaths.