COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

I'm not well-versed in Economics, so this is a serious question:

Why are these trillion+ stimulus packages getting doled out mostly to companies and states with essentially leftover scraps going directly to people?

I did the math and based on the number of people filing tax returns and how many dependents they claimed, and if a $1 trillion stimulus went 100% to taxpayers, that would be $4000 per adult and $2000 per child and it seems like that would keep all of us going for a while.

Is it just the reality that both parties are owned by corporations or is there actual benefit to the way it's getting done?

The unemployment benefits, the stimulus checks, aid to schools, aid to local and state governments that can’t go into deficit in times of crisis and otherwise will be cutting lots of jobs...those are enormously beneficial because they are saving jobs and keeping people spending money.

The Paycheck Protection Program is the kind of stuff Republicans do. It’s an ok program concept - money to small businesses to keep people employed, but because they limited oversight and designed it in a specific way, lots of businesses that needed the money were denied, and you have and endless set of politically connected people who somehow got them, like Jared Kushners company, Joel Osteen’s church, Kanye West, billionaire developers, country clubs, and on and on.

Money like the travel bailout...some of that is controversial, because again there are no restrictions or oversight, but again some of that needed to be done. This is a nightmare for the travel industry! We want airports to exist after this and a whole year of shutdown is something you can’t insure against! But again, you have to have some oversight so it doesn’t all go to the CEO while workers are laid off, and that sort of limitation is anathema to these folks. The same thing happened with a lot of the 2008 bank bailouts, they got the money in their hands before anyone could set rules about it. That’s how Steve Mnuchin made a billion dollars, getting into position for that bailout, for example. Other industries like restaurants and bars should have been included in this! They were in the Democratic bills passed last summer, but your local restaurant doesn’t have enough lobbyists to get the Senate Republicans’ attention.

 

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

One or two days isn't going to be a big deal (though she did get her first dose already). We're talking about a thousand or so doses out of millions available. I don't like Pence and don't trust that he will leverage his vaccine in a good way, but I'm not against it in principle, and the narrative that more deserving people are going to go weeks or months without it doesn't fit with the math involved.

I never said more deserving people would wait weeks or months, I said a single day delay will kill someone somewhere and that’s probably true.

Someone in line for the presidency I can understand, if not like. But McConnell has no national security reason to get it and politics is not somehow a job where you should get priority unless it supports the country. Politician connections shouldn’t save your life, but they did. McConnell should get no higher priority than my 95 year old grandmother or my 70 year old mother. But he’s white and well connected, so he did. That’s why Giuliani could get that experimental antibody treatment that only 150,000 doses exist - he’s the presidents lawyer, so he gets the kings treatment. 

I just didn’t believe America was supposed to have a royal class.

[bmags]

14 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Oh so because lots of people at the Capitol building are getting it he should get priority? I’m sure I can’t think of any other places where that’s true. Plus I’m sure there was nothing that could have been done to prevent that.

And oh, his job affects a bunch of people? So does the manager at the nearby Walmart. Vaccinate them. And he’ll, maybe if he was more worried about getting it, it would affect negotiations positively.

You can, reluctantly, convince me that Pence and Pelosi and Grassley should receive it on national security grounds as that is the succession line for the presidency. They cannot be replaced in an emergency. Mitch McConnell should follow the same rules as the rest of us, if it comes based on ages or risk or whatever he should have had to follow that, and if he waits until March, he should be just like some other peon. He’s working an important but not vital job. If he is incapacitated for weeks or dies, the Senate doesn’t shut down.

No one said “Heath care workers, nursing home residents, and important white politicians and businessmen (not women).” Something tells me that wouldn’t have gone over as well.

He is the majority leader of the United States Senate. 
 

Indeed, no one has said...the prioritization plan is still being officially rolled out by ACIP but based on their guidance to date being both older than 65 and a worker in a critical industry it would follow.

But in the meantime yes governors, senate and house leaders, executive, judicial and defense leaders should get vaccines even if they are white or balta dislikes them. 
 

This is some strong “Lol if you are against gun control why do democratic leaders have armed guards” energy in this thread. 

[bmags]

14 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

 

We'd be more likely to get some relief measures if McConnell was laid out for a month

Obviously false.

[bmags]

12 hours ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

One or two days isn't going to be a big deal (though she did get her first dose already). We're talking about a thousand or so doses out of millions available. I don't like Pence and don't trust that he will leverage his vaccine in a good way, but I'm not against it in principle, and the narrative that more deserving people are going to go weeks or months without it doesn't fit with the math involved.

You have to understand that balta accused a poster of murdering people because the poster sat on a bench in a park. His risk calculations all lead to the same place.

[Balta1701]

8 hours ago, bmags said:

He is the majority leader of the United States Senate. 
 

Indeed, no one has said...the prioritization plan is still being officially rolled out by ACIP but based on their guidance to date being both older than 65 and a worker in a critical industry it would follow.

But in the meantime yes governors, senate and house leaders, executive, judicial and defense leaders should get vaccines even if they are white or balta dislikes them. 
 

This is some strong “Lol if you are against gun control why do democratic leaders have armed guards” energy in this thread. 

And that’s why Matt gaetz and Marco Rubio got it today. 

[Balta1701]

8 hours ago, bmags said:

You have to understand that balta accused a poster of murdering people because the poster sat on a bench in a park. His risk calculations all lead to the same place.

I will admit being wrong on that one, but at the time we did not know that it didn’t transmit that way, so it was a great preview of what we are seeing now - deaths piling up because people don’t care any more.

[Jose Abreu]

23 hours ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

I'm not well-versed in Economics, so this is a serious question:

Why are these trillion+ stimulus packages getting doled out mostly to companies and states with essentially leftover scraps going directly to people?

I did the math and based on the number of people filing tax returns and how many dependents they claimed, and if a $1 trillion stimulus went 100% to taxpayers, that would be $4000 per adult and $2000 per child and it seems like that would keep all of us going for a while.

Is it just the reality that both parties are owned by corporations or is there actual benefit to the way it's getting done?

It's pretty much what you assumed at the end there, but the entire logic behind it is just an extension of trickle-down/Reaganomics, which we know doesn't work

[caulfield12]

Let them eat cake.

You can see they're up against the wall with Christmas and the fact it would be awful politically to go home for a couple of weeks without doing anything at all for the actual American people they are supposed to represent.

[StrangeSox]

12 hours ago, bmags said:

Obviously false.

Hope you're happy with the flaming dumpster of dog turds these great leaders negotiated

 

Looking forward to the collapse of state and local governments next year

 

The people who have failed the entire time and are continuing to actively work against containing and controlling COVID and helping the country through extremely difficult times shouldn't be at the front of the line for a vaccine. They ought to be at the back. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

8 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

Hope you're happy with the flaming dumpster of dog turds these great leaders negotiated

 

Looking forward to the collapse of state and local governments next year

 

The people who have failed the entire time and are continuing to actively work against containing and controlling COVID and helping the country through extremely difficult times shouldn't be at the front of the line for a vaccine. They ought to be at the back. 

 

 

 

 

I am happy actually. I was very concerned that the UE extension would lapse and millions would suffer. The $300 supplement gets you to around 80-85% of previous wage for many. 

It also sounds like the dems cleared up a bunch of tax issues that could have lowered income via making people ineligible for EITC if the UE supplement/stimulus check put them over the required amount.

State and local should have happened, but tax receipts have also been coming in higher than expected. It's not the armageddon that was expected in June, and if you choose between getting aid to millions of people who need it AND supplementing the income of most state residents when the economy needs some additional inflation, it's a good trade off.

Obviously this is worse than the rumored 1.3 tril mnuchin/pelosi negotiation in october, and worse than the House bill in May, but the economic recovery bills during this period are so much better than the financial crisis. And now they become the blueprint for future downturns.

[bmags]

On 12/19/2020 at 6:01 PM, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

I'm not well-versed in Economics, so this is a serious question:

Why are these trillion+ stimulus packages getting doled out mostly to companies and states with essentially leftover scraps going directly to people?

I did the math and based on the number of people filing tax returns and how many dependents they claimed, and if a $1 trillion stimulus went 100% to taxpayers, that would be $4000 per adult and $2000 per child and it seems like that would keep all of us going for a while.

Is it just the reality that both parties are owned by corporations or is there actual benefit to the way it's getting done?

I'm going to spend time answering this.

I think first let's go over what was in the CARES act because I think that might at least explain where the actual corporations v. direct to people would come into play (basically $500 billion in additional funds).

Individuals ~ 28%
 - This includes the $1200 cash payment but more importantly, the $600/wk stimulus

Small Businesses - 19%
 - This was the PPP, which provided loans intended to keep small businesses open, allow them to still pay their employees while the virus was shutting things down. It was re-funded in June so this ended up getting an additional amount.

Public Health - 8%
 - Money to hospitals, build out national supplies, and public health programs at a state and local level. This was underfunded, frankly.

State & Local - 17%
- Reimbursing states that needed to spend out of their budgets immediately to build out hospital capacity, 

Education / Other - 2%
- Student loan relief and allowing schools to turn work/study into grants to allow students to keep income while schools are out

Safety Net - 1%
- SNAP benefits, food banks and money for school lunch assistance 

I write these mainly to say that the 28% above (public health lines through safety net) were to me very important to both help with the assistance in fighting the coronavirus and ensuring assistance programs were funded.

For the PPP/Small Business amount, it wasn't designed great, but they idea was you keep people on payroll, keep businesses open, so that you don't end up with a bunch of people on ue, storefronts closed, and less businesses to hire when its over. However...it assumed things would be back to normal in July. This really forced state and local's hand in needing to especially help service industries by re-opening since their loans had been exhausted and needed money to survive. Many closed. But I think designating money in this way makes sense, just needs to happen better.

And, I want to add in .02 on the 28% to individuals. 

Yes, many people got a $1200 check + some money toward their kids. But the most crucial part of this bill was the $600/wk supplement to UE. This was a massive help. For many, many people on the low end of the wage scale they ended up making more money for the next three months. We saw wages, miraculously, go UP in April after this went into law. People in poverty actually decreased in June 2020 compared to June 2019, despite 30 million or so people out of work.

So even though all people eligible didn't get a bigger stimulus check, those that lost their jobs got more than that, a lot more. That said, UE offices were not prepared, and in the future that has to be fixed. The stimulus checks went out faster. There was a whole discussion on how money can get out fast as possible, and unemployment was not the best way to do that. However, this shows how important that $300 supplement is. Most states only pay out 60% of former wages, so this helps get more people close to where they were and spending in the economy normal.

In addition to this, we also see that the US savings rate has increased by a lot during the pandemic ($1.3T), so for those that kept work, they were spending less at restaurants/travel, etc. it's not clear this extra money was that helpful in inflating the economy for a bunch of people. But that's a double-edged sword. If you target more effectively, it takes longer, you miss more that need it. But that $1200 check was only one piece of the puzzle.

So here is where I'd get to the real trade off. The $500 billion that went to corporations/big businesses in the CARES act. That is an additional 25%, and I think probably would account for at least an extra $1,000 but I don't really know tax paying adult numbers and kids.

The breakdown of that money was:

- Airline bailout - airlines were effectively shut down during this period. It kept people on payrolls until a huge round of layoffs happened in september when things didn't really improve. 

- Refundable tax credits - this is similar to PPP but for bigger companies, but basically creating an incentive to keeping people on the payroll. I have no idea if this worked. Quite a few jobs were in fact shed, so who knows the counterfactual at this point, probably will come out over next few years.

The rationale at least was you do want to keep people on payrolls rather than shedding/re-hiring. It can take a while to find a new job, it takes a while to train, it slows things down when you have to re-match all of these employees with new employers even if they want to hire. If you want a snap back recovery, it's harder if a bunch of companies are in bankruptcy or loaded up with debt payments.

That's the rationale.

I'd say looking back at the year, the cash assistance to individuals was wildly successful. To corps? Hard to say. Business didn't collapse as many assumed, with digital tools picking up slack but also people being kept from going bankrupt. How much of it was due to these grants? 

But I'll give some credit here - at the time none of this was known. And this was a sledgehammer approach. The money allotted to individuals was actually pretty good, but went through broken systems. There are a lot more institutions in place to get it to the corps, and that needs to change. Would the money given to corporations have been better to instead go to people? I'd lean that it showed more effectiveness given to people, but we don't really know if this was enough to keep a mass shedding of jobs, which may have made the cash assistance less adequate.

I think the good news is now we know how effective these big assistance payments are. Compared to the "shovel ready projects" approach of the ARRA, this kicked its ass. Had they done the UE supplement instead, I think its fair to say we'd have seen a lot fewer people losing homes in 2008, and a much faster recovery. 

And yeah, I think a lot of this rationale should be applied to the new bill. But anyway, nobody read this far. And I'd also add I don't get that mad in the corporate money because the dems fought to get the $600 assistance as a compromise, and yeah, get what you need to get that money. Sure, tax cuts to oil companies, whatever. Just avoid punitive measures in the bills (like sen. toomey's requirement to restrict money assistance from FED)

 

[mqr]

Getting the Save Our Stages Act in there is pretty neat if the rest is meh. 

[bmags]

49 minutes ago, mqr said:

Getting the Save Our Stages Act in there is pretty neat if the rest is meh. 

And the surprise medical billing ban.

[bmags]

This bill actually doesn't include the liability shields on companies. I didn't catch that initially.

[Dick Allen]

So Joni Ernst who claimed  doctors  were  faking Covid deaths to make money, got her vaccination today.

[Texsox]

15 minutes ago, bmags said:

This bill actually doesn't include the liability shields on companies. I didn't catch that initially.

But it does include a billion or two for more border wall. I guess they think a wall will keep out the virus. 

[Balta1701]

So while I hung out in PHT and worked today, the Us agreed on funds to support a number of southeast Asian nations, declared the Dalai Lama should be able to help choose his successor without Chinese interference, and Trump declared that only certain architectural styles are acceptable for federal buildings. 

This is pretty nuts even to me.

[Balta1701]

9 hours ago, bmags said:

I'm going to spend time answering this.

I think first let's go over what was in the CARES act because I think that might at least explain where the actual corporations v. direct to people would come into play (basically $500 billion in additional funds).

Individuals ~ 28%
 - This includes the $1200 cash payment but more importantly, the $600/wk stimulus

Small Businesses - 19%
 - This was the PPP, which provided loans intended to keep small businesses open, allow them to still pay their employees while the virus was shutting things down. It was re-funded in June so this ended up getting an additional amount.

Public Health - 8%
 - Money to hospitals, build out national supplies, and public health programs at a state and local level. This was underfunded, frankly.

State & Local - 17%
- Reimbursing states that needed to spend out of their budgets immediately to build out hospital capacity, 

Education / Other - 2%
- Student loan relief and allowing schools to turn work/study into grants to allow students to keep income while schools are out

Safety Net - 1%
- SNAP benefits, food banks and money for school lunch assistance 

I write these mainly to say that the 28% above (public health lines through safety net) were to me very important to both help with the assistance in fighting the coronavirus and ensuring assistance programs were funded.

For the PPP/Small Business amount, it wasn't designed great, but they idea was you keep people on payroll, keep businesses open, so that you don't end up with a bunch of people on ue, storefronts closed, and less businesses to hire when its over. However...it assumed things would be back to normal in July. This really forced state and local's hand in needing to especially help service industries by re-opening since their loans had been exhausted and needed money to survive. Many closed. But I think designating money in this way makes sense, just needs to happen better.

And, I want to add in .02 on the 28% to individuals. 

Yes, many people got a $1200 check + some money toward their kids. But the most crucial part of this bill was the $600/wk supplement to UE. This was a massive help. For many, many people on the low end of the wage scale they ended up making more money for the next three months. We saw wages, miraculously, go UP in April after this went into law. People in poverty actually decreased in June 2020 compared to June 2019, despite 30 million or so people out of work.

So even though all people eligible didn't get a bigger stimulus check, those that lost their jobs got more than that, a lot more. That said, UE offices were not prepared, and in the future that has to be fixed. The stimulus checks went out faster. There was a whole discussion on how money can get out fast as possible, and unemployment was not the best way to do that. However, this shows how important that $300 supplement is. Most states only pay out 60% of former wages, so this helps get more people close to where they were and spending in the economy normal.

In addition to this, we also see that the US savings rate has increased by a lot during the pandemic ($1.3T), so for those that kept work, they were spending less at restaurants/travel, etc. it's not clear this extra money was that helpful in inflating the economy for a bunch of people. But that's a double-edged sword. If you target more effectively, it takes longer, you miss more that need it. But that $1200 check was only one piece of the puzzle.

So here is where I'd get to the real trade off. The $500 billion that went to corporations/big businesses in the CARES act. That is an additional 25%, and I think probably would account for at least an extra $1,000 but I don't really know tax paying adult numbers and kids.

The breakdown of that money was:

- Airline bailout - airlines were effectively shut down during this period. It kept people on payrolls until a huge round of layoffs happened in september when things didn't really improve. 

- Refundable tax credits - this is similar to PPP but for bigger companies, but basically creating an incentive to keeping people on the payroll. I have no idea if this worked. Quite a few jobs were in fact shed, so who knows the counterfactual at this point, probably will come out over next few years.

The rationale at least was you do want to keep people on payrolls rather than shedding/re-hiring. It can take a while to find a new job, it takes a while to train, it slows things down when you have to re-match all of these employees with new employers even if they want to hire. If you want a snap back recovery, it's harder if a bunch of companies are in bankruptcy or loaded up with debt payments.

That's the rationale.

I'd say looking back at the year, the cash assistance to individuals was wildly successful. To corps? Hard to say. Business didn't collapse as many assumed, with digital tools picking up slack but also people being kept from going bankrupt. How much of it was due to these grants? 

But I'll give some credit here - at the time none of this was known. And this was a sledgehammer approach. The money allotted to individuals was actually pretty good, but went through broken systems. There are a lot more institutions in place to get it to the corps, and that needs to change. Would the money given to corporations have been better to instead go to people? I'd lean that it showed more effectiveness given to people, but we don't really know if this was enough to keep a mass shedding of jobs, which may have made the cash assistance less adequate.

I think the good news is now we know how effective these big assistance payments are. Compared to the "shovel ready projects" approach of the ARRA, this kicked its ass. Had they done the UE supplement instead, I think its fair to say we'd have seen a lot fewer people losing homes in 2008, and a much faster recovery. 

And yeah, I think a lot of this rationale should be applied to the new bill. But anyway, nobody read this far. And I'd also add I don't get that mad in the corporate money because the dems fought to get the $600 assistance as a compromise, and yeah, get what you need to get that money. Sure, tax cuts to oil companies, whatever. Just avoid punitive measures in the bills (like sen. toomey's requirement to restrict money assistance from FED)

 

A couple things.

First I did read that far and well done. You should have asked me to include some code word in my reply.

Second, it’s a little rough to compare the 2009 ARRA to this bill, because the ARRA was limited to $900 billion when it should have been twice that. The ARRA only included a couple hundred billion in shovel ready projects, roughly 1/2 of that bill was a moderate tax cut spaced out over several years and buried under some theory that people are more likely to spend an extra $10 a week than a one time $520 check (don’t ask).

There were some extensions of unemployment benefits beyond the normal 26 weeks included and that is very useful, as you note, but a big part of this one is that it was actually BIG. You couldn’t possibly do the $600/week supplements and any other tax credits during 2008 because the bill had a price limit due to the necessity of getting Susan Collins on board and her belief that good policy is determined by round numbers.

And 3rd, yeah that $600 a week was really useful, and it’s nice that more of that will happen. But it’s also worth noting that we have still had higher weekly unemployment filings every week since March than were seen at the peak of the Great Recession....so this next bill is, like the ARRA, not big enough.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

and buried under some theory that people are more likely to spend an extra $10 a week than a one time $520 check (don’t ask).

 

I actually believe people will impulsively and always spend the $10 a week. I think if you hand someone $520 they will begin actually thinking about and planning what to buy. They may actually spend the $520 months from now.

And for people who aren't impacted financially by COVID they may just move $520 to savings but would spend the $10 a week.  

[Big Hurtin]

For someone so obsessed with Oregon, I figured this would have already been posted.

not really

 

[Texsox]

8 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:

For someone so obsessed with Oregon, I figured this would have already been posted.

not really

 

Nice. Making America Great Again!

[NWINFan]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

So Joni Ernst who claimed  doctors  were  faking Covid deaths to make money, got her vaccination today.

Quite the lying gal, Joni. And yet, the Dems were so inept, they couldn't take her seat. Yes, the election was fixed all right. Like another poster said, she should have been at the end of the line, if she was in the line at all.

[southsider2k5]

39 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:

For someone so obsessed with Oregon, I figured this would have already been posted.

not really

 

He must have mixed up Antifa and Protifa

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

I actually believe people will impulsively and always spend the $10 a week. I think if you hand someone $520 they will begin actually thinking about and planning what to buy. They may actually spend the $520 months from now.

And for people who aren't impacted financially by COVID they may just move $520 to savings but would spend the $10 a week.  

I thought I said don’t ask.

Anyway, since you did, social science says you’re right, people are more likely to spend the small amounts. 

But there’s a couple problems. First, the effect is small, a few percent at most.

But then, the other part is the politics. People don’t notice those small changes - that’s how the Trump administration was able to pass a huge middle class tax increase, it is phased in slowly over the next 4 years. In 2010 after that bill passed (and the economy had struggled for 2 years), the Republicans took back Congress, and we immediately had multiple government shutdowns and a debt ceiling and default crisis that all negatively impacted growth at a scale larger than that tiny percent difference, let alone the fact that they would not tolerate any additional stimulus.