(08-12-2020 11:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So basically a bunch of vapid platitudes. Responding from the top:

I don't think our handling of CV-19 has been sterling, by any means, but I'm not sure how to blame it on Trump. If you have some basis for doing so, please share. We just aren't set up as a nation to respond to emergencies, and the "experts" in this case were a bunch of public health bureaucrats with no concept of emergency response.

I don't think it was perfect, either, but I don't buy into the myth that Hillary would have been better or even different, or that Biden or any generic Democrat would be. It just seems to me that no matter what, you,Lad, your friends, and your party are going to find fault with whatever Trump does or doesn't do - the old "crying wolf".
I don't know if I would fault the same people as Numbers, but I do note that Fauci has a narrow mission to save lives from disease, and the president has a broader mission to save the country from economic ruin as well.

Exactly what increases in firearm restrictions do you favor? I favor regulating shooters, not guns. Have a license that is required to purchase or possess firearms or ammo. You have to take a safety course, pass written and demo tests, and it is linked to the criminal database. The restrictions being pushed by the left are generally things that have never had a material impact on gun violence.

Like getting a driver's license, it appears. OK with me, as long as it is not paired with the favorite things on the left as noted in the last sentence.

I favor the income tax approach recommended by Bowles-Simpson and Domenicu-Rivlin--lower and flatter tax rates over a broader tax base (fewer or no exclusions and deductions). And I favor Bismarck universal private health care/insurance and a subsistence-level universal basic income (UBI), based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT) or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, which is basically the NIT in a consumption tax paradigm, and pay for it with a national consumption tax, which also has trade protection implications.

I favor the Fair Tax, effectively a national sales tax to replace the income tax and death tax. Much simpler than Numbers' plan, which also is better than the Democrat's plans for higher and more taxes. So I guess this is one way I differ from Numbers.

As far as the environment, we have gotten past environmental protection to massive power grabs by EPA. I would tell them to get back to protecting the environment. Like you claim to be, I'm a supporter of free market solutions wherever possible. Create a private right to a clean environment and let people sue. Do some sort of carbon tax or cap and trade. But draconian mandates to get off fossil fuels by arbitrary deadlines ignore the fact that before we can get OFF anything, we have to have something to get onto to replace it. And we don't have that yet

Completely disagree with carbon tax and cap/trade. As you (should) know, I think we need to adapt to a changing world, not try to reverse it. Fine with me to find other ways to get energy, and the capitalist system will produce those ways just as it has always done, if you don't tax and regulate it to death. GND is fairy tale poppycock.

Numbers and I also differ somewhat on tariffs. He opposes them - I am OK with Trump using them as a negotiating tool to get action from other countries, as long it remains a tool and not the goal.

(08-13-2020 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

As seems to be normal for you, your friends, and your party, you are unable to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

I am fine with your statement for legals - people who come over filling out the correct paperwork and with the correct permits. I have people like this in my family - my cousin is married to one, and he has been here 40 years and works and supports his family and pays his taxes. I have the highest respect for Miguel. He is still a Mexican citizen.

But there are others, who will not or cannot do it right. The assumption you make that they want to work and pay taxes is not all always true, especially the pay taxes part.. Dodging taxes is widely accepted in mexico as normal, at all levels of society. Why do you think getting wet when they cross the river makes them change? Your plan and the plan of your party, is for somebody to meet them on the north bank with a towel, a driver's license, an EBT card, and a housing voucher, it seems.

Their education level and skills are the mean by which they can get jobs and support themselves. Would your company hire an illiterate worker with no skills or experience who cannot even speak English, just because he wants the work? If they do, does that mean some American does not get the job?

Finally, though, the path to citizenship. This is the Holy Grail for you, your friends, and your party. There already exists a path. It is called doing things legally. Miguel could avail himself of this, if he wanted - Miguel has done everything right.
What you guys - you, your friends, and your party - want is an easy path for those who cheat. More Democrats.

Finally, you bring up the old bromide - they just want a better life. Well, which criminal does not? Is the guy dealing drugs or holding up banks doing because he want a worse life? And BTW, anyone can have a better life if they don't pay their taxes. What a useless argument.

Maybe this is why you don't get people to respond to your questions. Instead of actually having a conversation and asking about more detailed thoughts, you would prefer to write a thesis on what you think liberals think and what you think they believe.

(08-13-2020 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

As seems to be normal for you, your friends, and your party, you are unable to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

I am fine with your statement for legals - people who come over filling out the correct paperwork and with the correct permits. I have people like this in my family - my cousin is married to one, and he has been here 40 years and works and supports his family and pays his taxes. I have the highest respect for Miguel. He is still a Mexican citizen.

But there are others, who will not or cannot do it right. The assumption you make that they want to work and pay taxes is not all always true, especially the pay taxes part.. Dodging taxes is widely accepted in mexico as normal, at all levels of society. Why do you think getting wet when they cross the river makes them change? Your plan and the plan of your party, is for somebody to meet them on the north bank with a towel, a driver's license, an EBT card, and a housing voucher, it seems.

Their education level and skills are the mean by which they can get jobs and support themselves. Would your company hire an illiterate worker with no skills or experience who cannot even speak English, just because he wants the work? If they do, does that mean some American does not get the job?

Finally, though, the path to citizenship. This is the Holy Grail for you, your friends, and your party. There already exists a path. It is called doing things legally. Miguel could avail himself of this, if he wanted - Miguel has done everything right.
What you guys - you, your friends, and your party - want is an easy path for those who cheat. More Democrats.

Finally, you bring up the old bromide - they just want a better life. Well, which criminal does not? Is the guy dealing drugs or holding up banks doing because he want a worse life? And BTW, anyone can have a better life if they don't pay their taxes. What a useless argument.

Maybe this is why you don't get people to respond to your questions. Instead of actually having a conversation and asking about more detailed thoughts, you would prefer to write a thesis on what you think liberals think and what you think they believe.

What did I get wrong?

(08-13-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

As seems to be normal for you, your friends, and your party, you are unable to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

I am fine with your statement for legals - people who come over filling out the correct paperwork and with the correct permits. I have people like this in my family - my cousin is married to one, and he has been here 40 years and works and supports his family and pays his taxes. I have the highest respect for Miguel. He is still a Mexican citizen.

But there are others, who will not or cannot do it right. The assumption you make that they want to work and pay taxes is not all always true, especially the pay taxes part.. Dodging taxes is widely accepted in mexico as normal, at all levels of society. Why do you think getting wet when they cross the river makes them change? Your plan and the plan of your party, is for somebody to meet them on the north bank with a towel, a driver's license, an EBT card, and a housing voucher, it seems.

Their education level and skills are the mean by which they can get jobs and support themselves. Would your company hire an illiterate worker with no skills or experience who cannot even speak English, just because he wants the work? If they do, does that mean some American does not get the job?

Finally, though, the path to citizenship. This is the Holy Grail for you, your friends, and your party. There already exists a path. It is called doing things legally. Miguel could avail himself of this, if he wanted - Miguel has done everything right.
What you guys - you, your friends, and your party - want is an easy path for those who cheat. More Democrats.

Finally, you bring up the old bromide - they just want a better life. Well, which criminal does not? Is the guy dealing drugs or holding up banks doing because he want a worse life? And BTW, anyone can have a better life if they don't pay their taxes. What a useless argument.

Maybe this is why you don't get people to respond to your questions. Instead of actually having a conversation and asking about more detailed thoughts, you would prefer to write a thesis on what you think liberals think and what you think they believe.

What did I get wrong?

Evaluate your statements with a critical eye, and I think you can probably pull out the statements about my personal views on immigration policy that are likely to be incorrect.

(08-13-2020 09:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I support a border policy that allows for those who want to work and pay taxes to have an avenue to do that, regardless of their education level of skills - provide a path to citizenship for people who want to work their ass off and make a better life.

As seems to be normal for you, your friends, and your party, you are unable to discern the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

I am fine with your statement for legals - people who come over filling out the correct paperwork and with the correct permits. I have people like this in my family - my cousin is married to one, and he has been here 40 years and works and supports his family and pays his taxes. I have the highest respect for Miguel. He is still a Mexican citizen.

But there are others, who will not or cannot do it right. The assumption you make that they want to work and pay taxes is not all always true, especially the pay taxes part.. Dodging taxes is widely accepted in mexico as normal, at all levels of society. Why do you think getting wet when they cross the river makes them change? Your plan and the plan of your party, is for somebody to meet them on the north bank with a towel, a driver's license, an EBT card, and a housing voucher, it seems.

Their education level and skills are the mean by which they can get jobs and support themselves. Would your company hire an illiterate worker with no skills or experience who cannot even speak English, just because he wants the work? If they do, does that mean some American does not get the job?

Finally, though, the path to citizenship. This is the Holy Grail for you, your friends, and your party. There already exists a path. It is called doing things legally. Miguel could avail himself of this, if he wanted - Miguel has done everything right.
What you guys - you, your friends, and your party - want is an easy path for those who cheat. More Democrats.

Finally, you bring up the old bromide - they just want a better life. Well, which criminal does not? Is the guy dealing drugs or holding up banks doing because he want a worse life? And BTW, anyone can have a better life if they don't pay their taxes. What a useless argument.

Maybe this is why you don't get people to respond to your questions. Instead of actually having a conversation and asking about more detailed thoughts, you would prefer to write a thesis on what you think liberals think and what you think they believe.

What did I get wrong?

Evaluate your statements with a critical eye, and I think you can probably pull out the statements about my personal views on immigration policy that are likely to be incorrect.

You said you wanted a path to citizenship (for illegals, presumably, since one already exists for legals). Is that the part you are speaking of?

I think of the discussion as point/counterpoint - and I made my counterpoints to your points.

There was a long and rather pointless discussion about the opinions from the right being indistinguishable... and everyone from the left stood by those comments.

Feels pretty crappy, doesn't it.

Let's please stop this (all of us)

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.

Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).

To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.

We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

What happens when I listen to myself?
Born and raised in CA (coastal elite). Go to Rice (common sense heartland). Med school in Milwaukee (heartland again). Practice in CA (elite thing again). Works as a boots-on-the -ground urgent care provider (common sense thing again).

Man am I a mess.

1 in 3 won't get the vaccine

(08-13-2020 11:13 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).

To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

What happens when I listen to myself?
Born and raised in CA (coastal elite). Go to Rice (common sense heartland). Med school in Milwaukee (heartland again). Practice in CA (elite thing again). Works as a boots-on-the -ground urgent care provider (common sense thing again).
Man am I a mess.

Boots-on-the-ground provider makes you something that nobody on the virus task force was. And that's common sense.

And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

(08-14-2020 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

Not any more... he's the coastal golf course ULTRA elite now

(08-14-2020 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

Not any more... he's the coastal golf course ULTRA elite now

All hook and no slice?

(08-14-2020 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

Not any more... he's the coastal golf course ULTRA elite now

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.

(08-14-2020 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 11:13 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  BTW, I see the 2020 election as bringing about Friedman's forecasted coming to a head.

Once again, for the guys in the back of the classroom, what is that forecast?

Posted in #20 above, but will repeat for my friend.
Basically he sees a struggle between experts (basically coastal elites) and common sense (basically heartland). My point with the virus is that we let the "experts" (public health bureaucrats) call the shots instead of "common sense" (boots-on-the-ground responders).

To me, Trump's mistake was not that he didn't listen to the "experts," but that he listened to them to the exclusion of anybody else. He finally took parts of the response away from those "experts," but not before they had screwed the pooch pretty badly.
We should have been listening more to Dr. Chu, instead of sending her a "cease and desist" letter.

What happens when I listen to myself?
Born and raised in CA (coastal elite). Go to Rice (common sense heartland). Med school in Milwaukee (heartland again). Practice in CA (elite thing again). Works as a boots-on-the -ground urgent care provider (common sense thing again).
Man am I a mess.

Boots-on-the-ground provider makes you something that nobody on the virus task force was. And that's common sense.

And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

I hear you say this a lot, and I just wondered, how would it work to have an actively practicing doctor join the task force?

Would the government compensate their employer for requiring them to leave and join the task force? Or would they just be involved on an "as-needed" basis?

(08-14-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I hear you say this a lot, and I just wondered, how would it work to have an actively practicing doctor join the task force?
Would the government compensate their employer for requiring them to leave and join the task force? Or would they just be involved on an "as-needed" basis?

I'm sure they could come up with something.

But I'm very serious about this. We don't do a good job of emergency response as a nation, because we don't have actual responders running things. For one thing, we really don't have any responders set up, it's all ad hoc at the point of attack. We're going to keep having Katrinas and Marias and BP Blowouts and CV-19 go badly until we realize that hey, stuff happens, and we'd best be ready for it.

The much-ballyhooed "Pandemic Response Roadmap" had nothing to do with response. If you don't believe me, read it (it's online) and tell me what part of it dealt with actual response. It was an exercise in bureaucratic turf battles, but nothing about actual response.

When you've got people dying in hospitals, a bunch of public health bureaucrats aren't the people that you need working on the problem.

(08-14-2020 12:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 11:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I would say that your part of California might be more common-sense than Rice.

Not any more... he's the coastal golf course ULTRA elite now

All hook and no slice?

Depends. Hook on the front 9 is good and slice is bad. Hook on the back 9 puts you in the ocean. I follow Hambone, "right down the middle".

(08-14-2020 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I hear you say this a lot, and I just wondered, how would it work to have an actively practicing doctor join the task force?
Would the government compensate their employer for requiring them to leave and join the task force? Or would they just be involved on an "as-needed" basis?

I'm sure they could come up with something.

But I'm very serious about this. We don't do a good job of emergency response as a nation, because we don't have actual responders running things. For one thing, we really don't have any responders set up, it's all ad hoc at the point of attack. We're going to keep having Katrinas and Marias and BP Blowouts and CV-19 go badly until we realize that hey, stuff happens, and we'd best be ready for it.

The much-ballyhooed "Pandemic Response Roadmap" had nothing to do with response. If you don't believe me, read it (it's online) and tell me what part of it dealt with actual response. It was an exercise in bureaucratic turf battles, but nothing about actual response.

When you've got people dying in hospitals, a bunch of public health bureaucrats aren't the people that you need working on the problem.

It is competence. With deference to Yogi, in theory, public health doctors medical specialty is....public health, which makes them actually practicing medicine.
I get what you are saying. Unfortunately, medicine is highly, HIGHLY, regulated in the US. Hospitals and county public health do have and occasionally practice disaster drills. But, these are on a local level and aren't coordinated. What you are asking for is a coordinated response on a national level. What we have learned is that there needs to be a mechanism for this to happen with the appropriate medical leaders empowered to lead appropriately. How is that for a Yogiism? And I wouldn't be a good football coach at Rice.....Right.

(08-14-2020 01:25 PM)ruowls Wrote:  And I wouldn't be a good football coach at Rice.....Right.

Who said you wouldn't be a good football coach at Rice?

(08-14-2020 01:25 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I hear you say this a lot, and I just wondered, how would it work to have an actively practicing doctor join the task force?
Would the government compensate their employer for requiring them to leave and join the task force? Or would they just be involved on an "as-needed" basis?

I'm sure they could come up with something.

But I'm very serious about this. We don't do a good job of emergency response as a nation, because we don't have actual responders running things. For one thing, we really don't have any responders set up, it's all ad hoc at the point of attack. We're going to keep having Katrinas and Marias and BP Blowouts and CV-19 go badly until we realize that hey, stuff happens, and we'd best be ready for it.

The much-ballyhooed "Pandemic Response Roadmap" had nothing to do with response. If you don't believe me, read it (it's online) and tell me what part of it dealt with actual response. It was an exercise in bureaucratic turf battles, but nothing about actual response.

When you've got people dying in hospitals, a bunch of public health bureaucrats aren't the people that you need working on the problem.

It is competence. With deference to Yogi, in theory, public health doctors medical specialty is....public health, which makes them actually practicing medicine.
I get what you are saying. Unfortunately, medicine is highly, HIGHLY, regulated in the US. Hospitals and county public health do have and occasionally practice disaster drills. But, these are on a local level and aren't coordinated. What you are asking for is a coordinated response on a national level. What we have learned is that there needs to be a mechanism for this to happen with the appropriate medical leaders empowered to lead appropriately. How is that for a Yogiism? And I wouldn't be a good football coach at Rice.....Right.

WSJ did a deep dive on systemic issues (world wide) on pandemic response in today's print edition Deadly Virus Was Inevitable

cases fall

Is this perhaps a new trend?

(08-24-2020 02:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  cases fall

Is this perhaps a new trend?

My guess is going to be yes/no.

Based on the number of masks I’ve seen being worn recently at all kinds of places (grocery store, outdoor mall, Lowe’s), it looks like folks may finally be getting on the wear a mask bandwagon.

But given how many students are catching COVID at universities, we could easily see the mask gains be wiped out as all schools restart in the next few weeks. My Hope here is that students don’t transmit the virus outside of their university communities.