Coronavirus news

[James S. Rustad]

70 percent of the American public approve of the stimulus package.
I assume that if you qualify to receive something, you will refuse it.
Then there is the Republican who sought praise from  his constituents for what they were getting, even though he voted against the bill.

Wrong. I’ll vote against a trillion dollar bridge over the Chicago skyline. But if they build one, I will drive on it.

If you were a congressman who voted against a spending bill that passed anyway, you would point out the good parts of it, too. On balance the bill is a gross miscarriage of justice and contains a huge amount of pure graft and political payoffs. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing good about it.

If I'm going to pay a bunch of money to the federal government in taxes, and the federal government offers me a way to get some of it back, I'm going to take them up on the offer even though I think those payments are stupid.

[D. Engebretson]

At the risk of drifting into some political territory, I wish that this bill could have been bipartisan.  I also wish that folks in the current administration could reach out and give a bit of credit to those who came before them.  But perhaps that's just too much to hope for.  I'm going to listen to the president's prime time broadcast in a few minutes.  I wish, in the interest of unity he might acknowledge that a year later after the initial lock down, those who came before did contribute to where we are today. 

[Charles Austin]

And who kept it from being bi partisan?

[D. Engebretson]

There was no desire to compromise with the other side.  They wanted to 'go big.'  Although some Republican leaders were invited to the White House, their suggestions do not seem to have been heeded, nor those of any in the Republican party.  But they are in charge.  They do not have to meet the other side half way.  And they didn't. 

[Rob Morris]

Funding for a Silicon Valley underground railroad? Not so much.

I disagree. If they can successfully start an Underground Railroad to get everyone away from our hyper-connected slavery to Silicon Valley, then it's money well spent.

[Charles Austin]

David Brooks on why it’s not socialism and “non-partisan:”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/opinion/biden-covid-relief-bill.html

[James S. Rustad]

David Brooks on why it’s not socialism and “non-partisan:”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/opinion/biden-covid-relief-bill.html

Indeed.  David Brooks nails it in this paragraph (bolding mine):

This is not socialism. This is not the federal government taking control of the commanding heights of the economy. This is not a bunch of programs to restrain corporate power. Americans’ trust in government is still low. This is the Transfer State: government redistributing massive amounts of money by cutting checks to people, and having faith that they spend it in the right ways.

What happens when the source of that money dries up?  As related in the MarketWatch quote below, people are beginning to make financial decisions that factor in Joe Biden's presidency.  Further, with the rate of renunciation of US citizenship already at record highs, it's likely that even more will take the ultimate step in tax avoidance.

San Francisco accountant Scott Hoppe had a client who was planning to stretch the sale of founder shares in a tech-sector company over a three-year period.

Instead, the client compressed the installment sale into a one-shot transaction this month.

What accelerated the deal?

The 2020 presidential race. “Assuming all else was equal, that was the driver of the choice,” said Hoppe, principal of the accounting firm Why Blu.

Right now, Hoppe’s client, worth between $10 million and $20 million, will be taxed on capital gains at a rate of 23.8%.

If Democratic candidate Joe Biden beats President Donald Trump — and Democrats retain the House of Representatives and flip the Senate — that client could have potentially been staring at a 39.6% tax rate in two out of the installment sale’s three years.

[Charles Austin]

Brooks has his worries, and I agree with some of them:
However he concludes:
“But income inequality, widespread child poverty and economic precarity are the problems of our time. It’s worth taking a risk to tackle all this.”

[Robert Johnson]

Re: election-centered decision making.

My wife converted a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in November, specifically because she wanted to pay the taxes at the 2020 rates.

[peter_speckhard]

Brooks has his worries, and I agree with some of them:
However he concludes:
“But income inequality, widespread child poverty and economic precarity are the problems of our time. It’s worth taking a risk to tackle all this.”

Exactly. The relief bill has almost nothing to do with coronavirus relief, which is not the problem of our time among serious people anyway. The idiotic response to the virus has been the problem of our time. Massive redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which Democrats always favor, pandemic or not, is all this really is, and it uses the virus as a pretext. That's why Democrats and blue state have been keen to hype the dangers and keep people in a panic; without a perceived "crisis" people would never support trillions of dollars of deficit spending. So, never let a crisis go to waste even if you have to hype up a crisis. 

The bill does not nothing to solve income inequality of child poverty in any long term sense. This is not teaching a man to fish, it is buying a man a fish. It is stupendously short-sighted, opportunistic, partisan, dangerous, and just plain bad. It bails out deficit spending state and local governments without insisting on any reform to keep them from needing to be bailed out again down the road. It is Democrats having the keys to the candy store while the grownups are away.   

[Dave Benke]

Brooks has his worries, and I agree with some of them:
However he concludes:
“But income inequality, widespread child poverty and economic precarity are the problems of our time. It’s worth taking a risk to tackle all this.”

Exactly. The relief bill has almost nothing to do with coronavirus relief, which is not the problem of our time among serious people anyway. The idiotic response to the virus has been the problem of our time. Massive redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which Democrats always favor, pandemic or not, is all this really is, and it uses the virus as a pretext. That's why Democrats and blue state have been keen to hype the dangers and keep people in a panic; without a perceived "crisis" people would never support trillions of dollars of deficit spending. So, never let a crisis go to waste even if you have to hype up a crisis. 

The bill does not nothing to solve income inequality of child poverty in any long term sense. This is not teaching a man to fish, it is buying a man a fish. It is stupendously short-sighted, opportunistic, partisan, dangerous, and just plain bad. It bails out deficit spending state and local governments without insisting on any reform to keep them from needing to be bailed out again down the road. It is Democrats having the keys to the candy store while the grownups are away.

This is a level zero post in terms of helpfulness to the aims of the alpb forum online. 

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

Peter offers what is, in my not so humble opinion (an opinion, however, shared by folks a lot smarter than anyone in this modest forum), a wrong-headed, cynical, erroneous, cruel and unfair stereotyping response which besmirches those he considers on "the other side," paints an extremist view of what has gone on (I guess he doesn't believe that any of the precautions saved any lives or prevented any suffering) and imparts the worst motives to everyone, including the nation's scientific and medical experts and accuses - without even examples - Democrats of stealing the nation's resources.
I can only guess that he preferred the previous "response," which was:
1. denial that there was a virus
2. declaring that stupid "cures" or warm weather would solve the problem
3. ignoring the mounting death toll
4. encouraging behavior said to be dangerous even by his own people
5. failing to put any kind of national response in order
6. failure to fully use the Defense Production act
7. continually lying, even about his own encounter with the virus.
Credit? I suppose there is some. He said to the pharmaceutical companies: "Hey. Go find a vaccine. When you do we'll buy it." Whoo hoo.
But then came the distraction for the "thing" closest to his agenda - re-election. And concern for the virus and its victims fell far below that.
We are, today, on the way to a much better situation than we had (or would have achieved) in the last 12 months. We have leadership against the pandemic from the top, we have concern from the top for those who have died, we have specifics action to see that the vaccines get to everyone. We have economic and financial actions to help those who have lost jobs and businesses, those whose jobs may be slow to return, and families strapped by additional child care or expense.
Yeah, in one way, that is funded by "my" money. I approve.
Peter doesn't. But his "side" lost. (Oh, wait!, he thinks his side didn't lose.)
Good grief.
Peter, do you intend to be vaccinated?

[Charles Austin]

And I will say again what I have said for several years. The most significant moral questions facing our country today has been the actions of national leadership, the problems of immigration, systemic racism, economic injustice, inequitable application of the penalties of our justice system, and extremist loonies infiltrating government.
Lutherans ought to be discussing such things.
But we probably can't. 

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Brooks has his worries, and I agree with some of them:
However he concludes:
“But income inequality, widespread child poverty and economic precarity are the problems of our time. It’s worth taking a risk to tackle all this.”

Exactly. The relief bill has almost nothing to do with coronavirus relief, which is not the problem of our time among serious people anyway. The idiotic response to the virus has been the problem of our time. Massive redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which Democrats always favor, pandemic or not, is all this really is, and it uses the virus as a pretext. That's why Democrats and blue state have been keen to hype the dangers and keep people in a panic; without a perceived "crisis" people would never support trillions of dollars of deficit spending. So, never let a crisis go to waste even if you have to hype up a crisis. 

The bill does not nothing to solve income inequality of child poverty in any long term sense. This is not teaching a man to fish, it is buying a man a fish. It is stupendously short-sighted, opportunistic, partisan, dangerous, and just plain bad. It bails out deficit spending state and local governments without insisting on any reform to keep them from needing to be bailed out again down the road. It is Democrats having the keys to the candy store while the grownups are away.

This is a level zero post in terms of helpfulness to the aims of the alpb forum online. 

Dave Benke

I disagree with you Dave.  I find it apt and accurate.  So is "aims of the alpb forum online" now a version of "woke" and "cancel culture" to be used to silence political reasoning deemed "incorrect" or "a level zero post in terms of helpfulness"?  That's an important consideration for me as I weigh whether to renew my subscription to FL/LF. 

[peter_speckhard]

Brooks has his worries, and I agree with some of them:
However he concludes:
“But income inequality, widespread child poverty and economic precarity are the problems of our time. It’s worth taking a risk to tackle all this.”

Exactly. The relief bill has almost nothing to do with coronavirus relief, which is not the problem of our time among serious people anyway. The idiotic response to the virus has been the problem of our time. Massive redistribution of wealth by the federal government, which Democrats always favor, pandemic or not, is all this really is, and it uses the virus as a pretext. That's why Democrats and blue state have been keen to hype the dangers and keep people in a panic; without a perceived "crisis" people would never support trillions of dollars of deficit spending. So, never let a crisis go to waste even if you have to hype up a crisis. 

The bill does not nothing to solve income inequality of child poverty in any long term sense. This is not teaching a man to fish, it is buying a man a fish. It is stupendously short-sighted, opportunistic, partisan, dangerous, and just plain bad. It bails out deficit spending state and local governments without insisting on any reform to keep them from needing to be bailed out again down the road. It is Democrats having the keys to the candy store while the grownups are away.

This is a level zero post in terms of helpfulness to the aims of the alpb forum online. 

Dave Benke

The topic is coronavirus news. The latest news is the coronavirus relief bill, which is so controversial and divisive it had to be passed in via budget reconciliation because it got literally zero support from one party. If statements that the bill is good or commentary like the Brooks piece belong in this forum, then fierce (and perfectly mainstream) dissent from that opinion also belongs in this forum. As it happens, I was focused on finding a basic point of agreement-- the relief bill was about the redistribution of wealth, not coronavirus relief. The virus was a pretext to get passed what one party always wants passed regardless of the virus. That isn't even a debatable point, it is obvious. Charles, Brooks, and I all agree that this was about addressing other perennial issues, not the coronavirus. If you find that unhelpful to the purpose of this forum, then so is your analysis of minimum wage, housing costs, and your 80% approval of the bill.