Toggle sidebar

OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Part III

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
xbure9x said:
so nyc has been a ghost town for a good week now. so cases should continue to increase for another week when the incubation period has ended, then why is everyone still predicting the numbers to climb exponentially until the beginning of May?
Click to expand...
It is not so much new cases, but now that testing is rampant, the jump in numbers is explained by the people that have already had it.

And it has not really been a ghost town. I walked down by Union Square market on Saturday and promptly had to walk away. Lots of people.
 
Even if Trump wants to send workers back at the end of the 15 days, it's up to the governor and local officials to decide if they want to lift restrictions.

With the way things are going in NY, it's highly doubtful Cuomo relaxes the restrictions that soon. He said he wants to implement serological testing to see how many people in the area have been unknowingly exposed to the virus and may have antibodies to the virus, which would allow them to return to work sooner. Great idea but I'm not sure how quickly that can be implemented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
NYR Viper said:
Couldn't the $500b go to small businesses that haven't been named as of yet?
Click to expand...
COULD it...? Sure.

But it ain't the small businesses Trump talks about in his statements...

Furthermore, why exclude specific provisions that make sure 1) the payments are not used for buybacks or executive compensation, 2) they come with requirements for maintaining payroll and collective bargaining agreements, and 3) we know where the money goes? (Among other things.) Do people not remember what happened with the bailouts in '08-'09?

If you've got the time, here's 5 minutes from Elizabeth Warren telling NPR why she voted no on the original proposal.

 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
COULD it...? Sure.

But it ain't the small businesses Trump talks about in his statements...

Furthermore, why exclude specific provisions that make sure 1) the payments are not used for buybacks or executive compensation, 2) they come with requirements for maintaining payroll and collective bargaining agreements, and 3) we know where the money goes? (Among other things.) Do people not remember what happened with the bailouts in '08-'09?

If you've got the time, here's 5 minutes from Elizabeth Warren telling NPR why she voted no on the original proposal.

Click to expand...


Just yesterday Trump said, flat out, that any help the large corporations would be receiving would NOT allow buy backs and would NOT allow for executives to gain larger bonuses from the bail outs. Unless something changed since yesterday at 5pm
 
In the stimulus bill being proposed in the Senate, are there restrictions in there currently on stock buybacks?
 
True Blue said:
You may well be right, but I will await for more updates on it to come out. It is not like Warren is exactly impartial.
Click to expand...
No doubt she's not partial. But do you think she's lying? Because if not, then either you agree with what she says, or you don't.

More to the point, I listed several more specific updates on the previous page. And if you search online, you can find plenty of other sources enumerating the issues with the original bill.

In better news, meanwhile, it appears we have something new coming to the floor as we speak. And the House is apparently ready with their own bill, as well.
 
Last edited:
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
COULD it...? Sure.

But it ain't the small businesses Trump talks about in his statements...

Furthermore, why exclude specific provisions that make sure 1) the payments are not used for buybacks or executive compensation, 2) they come with requirements for maintaining payroll and collective bargaining agreements, and 3) we know where the money goes? (Among other things.) Do people not remember what happened with the bailouts in '08-'09?

If you've got the time, here's 5 minutes from Elizabeth Warren telling NPR why she voted no on the original proposal.

Click to expand...

It sounds like she is still running for President.
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
Juuuust so we're clear as to what happened here (and without getting into politics), negotiations began bipartisan, but then Republicans booted the Dems from the process and worked with the administration to craft the bill, which they then presented to the other side for a vote. And the resulting bill turned out to be one big money grab for corporations (with low oversight as to its use), with little directed towards states, hospitals, or workers. Incredibly, however, it did include a specific provision that no one would even learn where the money went until six months later.



Click to expand...


There are two sides to every story and from what I read, this is accurate but that the democrats are also not free of blame either.

What I can't understand is the 6 month provision. Even if by a miracle, there is no corrupt use of that money, the appearance is so bad that no one would believe it. Le sigh.
 
NYR Viper said:
Just yesterday Trump said, flat out, that any help the large corporations would be receiving would NOT allow buy backs and would NOT allow for executives to gain larger bonuses from the bail outs. Unless something changed since yesterday at 5pm
Click to expand...
Trump has also said multiple times over the last week that he's invoking the Defense Production Act. He still hasn't done it. Again, without getting into politics, the man has a demonstrated track record of indisputable, verifiable, outright, uh... shall we say... mistruths.

The language in the actual bill was either weak or nonexistent, depending on the specific point.

Krams said:
In the stimulus bill being proposed in the Senate, are there restrictions in there currently on stock buybacks?
Click to expand...
There were, but Mnuchin could lift them at will.
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
No doubt she's not partial? But do you think she's lying? Because if not, then either you agree with what she says, or you don't.

More to the point, I listed several more specific updates on the previous page. And if you search online, you can find plenty of other sources enumerating the issues with the original bill.

In better news, meanwhile, it appears we have something new coming to the floor as we speak. And the House is apparently ready with their own bill, as well.
Click to expand...

Yes. I trust gas station sushi and a drink from Bill Cosby more than her. There are a lot of people in congress who have credibility. She is not one of them. If this came from someone like Harris, Sanders, Klobuchar, etc. I'd believe it.

And where is the language in the bill that states Mnuchin could lift them at will? I haven't read anything of the sorts.
 
Inferno said:
In truth, big and small businesses are going to need saving. It's a catastrophic smash to our society what were going thru.
Click to expand...
I agree. But people first, then businesses. Where you are, it may (currently) be more about the economic impact than the human. But have you read the reports/seen the images from NYC?

Also, people can't be allowed to manipulate the drastic steps that we'll need to take in order to profiteer.
 
Gardner McKay said:
Yes. I trust gas station sushi and a drink from Bill Cosby more than her. There are a lot of people in congress who have credibility. She is not one of them. If this came from someone like Harris, Sanders, Klobuchar, etc. I'd believe it.

And where is the language in the bill that states Mnuchin could lift them at will? I haven't read anything of the sorts.
Click to expand...
As opposed to Trump?!?

What exactly has she done that's earned such a lack of trust? Is it because she believed a story in her family that she came from Native American stock? (Then got tested, learned she had very little if at all, and publicly ate crow?)

But honestly, that's fine – don't listen to her. Read the published reports from ALL the Dem Senators. They all voted against it and the objections are consistent. Hell, Manchin voted no, for crying out loud...
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
In better news, meanwhile, it appears we have something new coming to the floor as we speak. And the House is apparently ready with their own bill, as well.
Click to expand...
That too is politicking. I am sure that the new bill is will resemble much more of what the Democratic base would expect.

To me, it is all BS at this point. Both sides will need to meet in the middle and come up with something that both of their bases do not like. Of course the chances of that??
No doubt she's not partial. But do you think she's lying? Because if not, then either you agree with what she says, or you don't.
Click to expand...
As events have shown, it is not like stretching the truth is a rarity for her. Her credibility on being straight up is really not that great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom