(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see you have moved the goal posts from 'every country that has successfully tackled the virus' to 'every country that has limited the number of people in bars'. Bravo.

Restricting bar occupancy may or may not be outlawed by the Constitution depending on a number of factors.

In these god awesome utopias you seemingly bring forth, there is typically no bulwark even as small as that. I guess you havent considered that.

Your post is a paean to those countries that 'have successfully tackled the virus'. Please do tell the differences in the individual and fundamental rights of those countries contrasted with the US. I mean if you want the Chinese-style 'every Tom, Dick, and Chan' has to endure martial law and a shoot on sight quarantine, I am sure that does wonders for the ability of a government to 'successfully tackle the virus'

Do you really think that the ultimate sin qua non of 'successfully tackling the virus' is just the sole act of 'restricting bars' as you posit above?

But please, dont try to hide behind a one liner like that flimsy riposte you put out above. Looks cute, but when you actually dissect it it is really rather empty. Kind of a Matthew McConnahey of responses when you look at it.

But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?

Quote:For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.

Quote:For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.

Quote:(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

Ok?

Let’s say that your restrictions to protect others killed my job, and now you are advocating sending me some money to relieve my distress for a little while.

Pat on the back for you, kind sir.

You see this sequence as unadulterated good?

(12-01-2020 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But Lad will stick to his guns. You have to admire his persistence, even as he switches from six-guns to derringers to howitzers to pea shooters to slingshots.

As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?

Quote:For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.

Quote:For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.

Quote:(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

Ok?

Let’s say that your restrictions to protect others killed my job, and now you are advocating sending me some money to relieve my distress for a little while.

Pat on the back for you, kind sir.

You see this sequence as unadulterated good?

It would depend on how the assistance was structured - if it was a better CARES act, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll because the Fed would cover most of your salary.

Or, if your business went under, ideally the funds would be sufficient to provide coverage until new employment could be found.

And it's not like some industries wouldn't have seen a decrease in patronage without any restrictions - people continue to self-isolate and avoid going to restaurants and bars, even if they're open. So financial support for otherwise healthy businesses was/is still warranted.

But back to my question above - do you disagree with the concept of public health laws entirely?

(12-01-2020 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As if you aren't stuck in your ways?

My guns in this instance are that:
1) some people's risk tolerance is such that it creates a risk to others' health
2) the government (that's local and state, primarily) has the legal ability to enact rationale emergency measures to control a public health crisis
3) the federal government should be involved in providing financial support to US citizens if those measures are necessary

100% sticking to those guns.

I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?

Quote:For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.

Quote:For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.

Quote:(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

Ok?

Let’s say that your restrictions to protect others killed my job, and now you are advocating sending me some money to relieve my distress for a little while.

Pat on the back for you, kind sir.

You see this sequence as unadulterated good?

It would depend on how the assistance was structured - if it was a better CARES act, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll because the Fed would cover most of your salary.

Or, if your business went under, ideally the funds would be sufficient to provide coverage until new employment could be found.

And it's not like some industries wouldn't have seen a decrease in patronage without any restrictions - people continue to self-isolate and avoid going to restaurants and bars, even if they're open. So financial support for otherwise healthy businesses was/is still warranted.

But back to my question above - do you disagree with the concept of public health laws entirely?

What a silly question. The answer is no. But it seems very ...left...of you to frame it as an all or nothing question. Either I must accept all kinds of regulation and all sorts of restrictions, or I must disagree with the concept of public health laws. No middle ground. No “rationale”.

Back to my example - certainly the government should reimburse me for taking my job and killing off my employer, especially if the actions that caused those things were ill advised and excessive. Does sending me a few bucks make it all good? Not in my book. How about yours?

(12-01-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Thank god for the libertarians, for they know what is best for us all

Lolz, this is such a softball I really think I am going to pass. Maybe if you really understood the concept you might note what a highly humorous statement you just made.

Quote: - complete unbridled freedom.

Yes, freedom on the whole is not such a bad thing. Leave it to a progressive to denote it in an utter foul taste manner. I think that hits the subject right on the bullseye there, lad.

Well I really cant pass up the softball anyway --
Maybe if you, actually put your think about it before typing away, you might want to write "Thank god for the libertarians, for they don't know what is best for us all and actually make an effort *not* to cram their ethos down everyone else's throat by the force of government"

Before we get 'caught up' in the back and forth, I want to know those vaunted countries that 'successfully tackled the virus'.

I know the one you chirped about previously and how utterly awesome they were was S. Korea. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

Another that seemingly has 'successfully tackled the virus' is China. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

And yes, each in how they 'successfully tackled the virus' makes me even the more glad to be here. Unlike some, I actually enjoy my individual rights.

Funny thing, it looks like I am in a virus vaccine study. I hope they take me, since, ya know, us dumbasses that voted Trump supposedly are typically the ones that wont vaccinate. Or so my aunt-in-law told me over the holidays.

(12-01-2020 05:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I admire your sticking to your guns, even after the magazines are empty. Well done, sir. Lad fights, never dies.

Isn’t (1) true in every aspect of life?

Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?

Quote:For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you.

And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.

Quote:For (2), I find the word rational to be key. One man’s rational is another man’s insane.

Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.

Quote:(3), I agree, the government should compensate us for the damage they do to us, and it is best if they do that with other people’s money or just print some.

Ok?

Let’s say that your restrictions to protect others killed my job, and now you are advocating sending me some money to relieve my distress for a little while.

Pat on the back for you, kind sir.

You see this sequence as unadulterated good?

It would depend on how the assistance was structured - if it was a better CARES act, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll because the Fed would cover most of your salary.

Or, if your business went under, ideally the funds would be sufficient to provide coverage until new employment could be found.

And it's not like some industries wouldn't have seen a decrease in patronage without any restrictions - people continue to self-isolate and avoid going to restaurants and bars, even if they're open. So financial support for otherwise healthy businesses was/is still warranted.

But back to my question above - do you disagree with the concept of public health laws entirely?

What a silly question. The answer is no. But it seems very ...left...of you to frame it as an all or nothing question. Either I must accept all kinds of regulation and all sorts of restrictions, or I must disagree with the concept of public health laws. No middle ground. No “rationale”.

Back to my example - certainly the government should reimburse me for taking my job and killing off my employer, especially if the actions that caused those things were ill advised and excessive. Does sending me a few bucks make it all good? Not in my book. How about yours?

That isn't how I'm framing it. I'm trying to understand if your quarrel is with the concept or the specifics - it wasn't clear given lines like this: "For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you."

And even now, you talk about the government taking your job and killing off your employer - yes, a very middle ground and rationale comment...

I answered your questions above - you have an axe to grind, keep on grinding.

(12-01-2020 05:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Thank god for the libertarians, for they know what is best for us all

Lolz, this is such a softball I really think I am going to pass. Maybe if you really understood the concept you might note what a highly humorous statement you just made.

Quote: - complete unbridled freedom.

Yes, freedom on the whole is not such a bad thing. Leave it to a progressive to denote it in an utter foul taste manner. I think that hits the subject right on the bullseye there, lad.

Well I really cant pass up the softball anyway --
Maybe if you, actually put your think about it before typing away, you might want to write "Thank god for the libertarians, for they don't know what is best for us all and actually make an effort *not* to cram their ethos down everyone else's throat by the force of government"

Before we get 'caught up' in the back and forth, I want to know those vaunted countries that 'successfully tackled the virus'.

I know the one you chirped about previously and how utterly awesome they were was S. Korea. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

Another that seemingly has 'successfully tackled the virus' is China. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

And yes, each in how they 'successfully tackled the virus' makes me even the more glad to be here. Unlike some, I actually enjoy my individual rights.

Funny thing, it looks like I am in a virus vaccine study. I hope they take me, since, ya know, us dumbasses that voted Trump supposedly are typically the ones that wont vaccinate. Or so my aunt-in-law told me over the holidays.

Do you and George keep a diary of all the liberals who have wrong you?

(12-01-2020 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 03:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did we start talking about a federal ban on masks (or mask use even)?

Isn't that a rather generic example of the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places)??

Not really, since it brings in the federal government, which is problematic (as discussed earlier).

I've advocated for the fed to provide guidance and support, but not to apply a federal mask mandate. So it would be better example if the Fed recommended mask mandates and required all federal employees to wear masks while at work.

Jesus Christ Lad... are you being intentionally obtuse?

Your points are... 1) the Feds need to offer guidance and 2) they need to fund the results

I am asking you to provide a specific example... and absent that, I've come up with my own generic. If you don't like mine, then GIVE ME ONE OF YOURS!! Because I am completely unaware of a situation where a state has been given guidance from the CDC, followed it (without excess, and I have given numerous examples of such excesses) and NOT funded it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I even responded earlier that I didn't think it was the feds job to support any decision the states made.

But you criticised them specifically for not funding it, because 'they' can run a deficit but states cannot.

I don't see how those are connected, because I don't see any state enacting a state-wide stay at home order. If there were states with stay at home orders in place, then I'd see the connection.

As far as I can see, most states do not have significant restrictions on their economies as a whole, but there are clearly targeted restrictions on select industries and how they operate, like restaurants and indoor vs outdoor dining.

Who said ANYTHING about 'stay at home' other than my hypo which is clearly designed to show an example where EVERYONE would agree was 'beyond any experts recommendation'?

Once again, I can't use your examples because you haven't given any, and I'm unaware of what you claim is obvious (that they haven't funded things)... so I am picking an obvious example of something that we ALL would agree is unnecessary

FTR, I can certainly show you recommendations from 'experts' including people affiliated with the CDC that tell people to stay home at almost all costs, so its not nearly as unreasonable as you seem to want to believe. Its just not the consensus opinion. Science doesn't often work in facts in its early stages, and sometimes 'never'.

Quote:Congress has only passed one round of support, and they are stuck negotiating on the second round. A bill passed the house earlier this year, but went nowhere in the Senate.

Not true. They passed a 1 trillion dollar bill which was 'negotiated' up to 1.9 trillion, but the house has stuck to their 2.4 trillion dollar version. As I asked, are you suggesting that 2.4 trillion is what the 'experts' have suggested and that 1.9, or even 1 trillion is not? You're drawing a value judgement about them not doing their jobs by not signing the 'biggest' bill. Have you presented ANY evidence that this is not fulfilling their additional duty to be fiscally responsible? Especially during a pandemic of unknown duration and depth?

Quote:So their lack of a second round of support is why I think they haven't funded it.

I'm trying to understand why you think Congress has funded it, when clearly, nothing has passed. Really, are you actually trying to argue that Congress has funded more relief???

Because there is a difference between doing something and doing 'enough' of something. You need to provide evidence of 'enough'. I agree that they have failed on this second round... and I have told you why.

The reason I take issue with you is because comments like yours... generic and broad are precisely the sort of things that lead to comments like 'never let a crisis go to waste' and 'government over-reach'. I agree they need to do something, but arguing that the ONLY way to do this is to pass the biggest of about 3-4 options that have been discussed is not at ALL the way Congress has ever or should ever work... and this being a pandemic shouldn't change that. All that should happen is that congress should be less interested in pushing their secondary agendas... which almost always mean a BIGGER bill.

Pass what you agree on now.. and work out the rest/details later.... or as the length of the need becomes more obvious. That's been put out there for months now, and only ONE person has categorically refused to do their job.

Quote:1) The reality is states aren't acting the way you are suggesting, which is why I basically said this point was moot (about shutting down entirely).

And I've addressed this moot point before - if there was an agreement between the state and feds that such a drastic measure was needed, then yes, the feds should fund it.

Of course not... thats why it was presented as a hypothetical each time I've presented it. Stop being intentionally obtuse and acting as if I haven't. You're a Rice educated person and for you to do this should be embarrassing to you. It is to me.

Quote:2) Why are you ignoring this delay? This delay is them dropping the ball! The CARES act passed in March - nearly nine months ago!

Reading is fundamental. Post 77. I agreed and placed the blame mostly on Pelosi and gave my support for my position. Why are YOU ignoring this? You're also ignoring that the CARES act was supposed to fund things through (from memory, may be off) Oct 1, and Trump authorized emergency funds hoping that Congress could work out the details. I've said this for months, consistently. I asked you if that is what you were specifically referring to and this is the first time you've answered that simple question.

Quote:The House passed the RESTAURANTS Act in October which specifically earmarked $120 billion to the restaurant industry, which has been getting killed because of restrictions on indoor dining and capacity limits (which are reasonable and supported by the CDC).

And I've given you a specific example of a restriction being placed on bars in NY, which are NOT reasonable and NOT supported by the CDC.

Please show me where the CDC makes any official recommendations about appropriate dining levels (like 25 or 50 or 75%). I'm betting that you're going to find much more general parameters focused on the ability to create distance and not on percentages. You are equating the two, and I have given examples where those things are clearly not equal.

Let me ask you, how are occupancies established? Most often by fire code which deals with not only square footage, but purpose and whether or not sprinklers are present and number and size of exits. So two otherwise identical 1,000 SF spaces could have very different occupancies... yet because they are each 1,000 sf, they could both create the same 'social distancing'.

Here, let me help you

CDC directive on social distancing in restaurants. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...rants.html

Please show me where it says anything about occupancy percentages. It doesn't, because that's not what they recommend. They instead defer to state and local regulations... which may be more draconian...

So again, is the Fed supposed to evaluate all of these individual rules and regulations and decide how much to fund, or are they supposed to fund 'whatever' results from 'however' those entities decide to interpret that guidance, up to and including a complete shut down? If you think a shut down is too much, then tell me where you draw the line? 5 people? 10? 10%? WHat if ONE business simply can't survive at 20%, but another can?

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Covid test for the experts here:

I am in a waiting room in a medical building. I was sent here to wait while my sister sees a doctor.

It has 4 chairs: 3 close together and one separate. The separate one is right by the walkway from the main entrance to elevators.

Which is safer: the three close together or the one by the walkway?

Please just vote, and don’t jump to conclusions about my “point”.

Its a guess... I'm going to pick the one... because the three is most likely to be an adult with kids since this is the 'holding' area. The single will get a lot more 'action' I'd guess... but you asked for an answer. One chair, fewer places for me to contact that could have been infected... higher chance of infection... which I can mitigate with purell.

(12-01-2020 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Thank god for the libertarians, for they know what is best for us all

Lolz, this is such a softball I really think I am going to pass. Maybe if you really understood the concept you might note what a highly humorous statement you just made.

Quote: - complete unbridled freedom.

Yes, freedom on the whole is not such a bad thing. Leave it to a progressive to denote it in an utter foul taste manner. I think that hits the subject right on the bullseye there, lad.

Well I really cant pass up the softball anyway --
Maybe if you, actually put your think about it before typing away, you might want to write "Thank god for the libertarians, for they don't know what is best for us all and actually make an effort *not* to cram their ethos down everyone else's throat by the force of government"

Before we get 'caught up' in the back and forth, I want to know those vaunted countries that 'successfully tackled the virus'.

I know the one you chirped about previously and how utterly awesome they were was S. Korea. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

Another that seemingly has 'successfully tackled the virus' is China. Care to take a guess on how they handled it?

And yes, each in how they 'successfully tackled the virus' makes me even the more glad to be here. Unlike some, I actually enjoy my individual rights.

Funny thing, it looks like I am in a virus vaccine study. I hope they take me, since, ya know, us dumbasses that voted Trump supposedly are typically the ones that wont vaccinate. Or so my aunt-in-law told me over the holidays.

Do you and George keep a diary of all the liberals who have wrong you?

Tell ya what, Ill start keeping one and perhaps you answer a germane question or two, that is, as opposed to making a snide ass and rather shallow reply. Sound good to ya, lad?

Or if ya want, we can both wander down the 'shallow, smug, and snide as fk path' that you engender so well above.

(12-01-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 03:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When did we start talking about a federal ban on masks (or mask use even)?

Isn't that a rather generic example of the role of the government to provide directions on when to say that X activities are too risky for the public good (kind of like the ban on indoor smoking in public places)??

Not really, since it brings in the federal government, which is problematic (as discussed earlier).

I've advocated for the fed to provide guidance and support, but not to apply a federal mask mandate. So it would be better example if the Fed recommended mask mandates and required all federal employees to wear masks while at work.

Jesus Christ Lad... are you being intentionally obtuse?

Your points are... 1) the Feds need to offer guidance and 2) they need to fund the results

I am asking you to provide a specific example... and absent that, I've come up with my own generic. If you don't like mine, then GIVE ME ONE OF YOURS!! Because I am completely unaware of a situation where a state has been given guidance from the CDC, followed it (without excess, and I have given numerous examples of such excesses) and NOT funded it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:I even responded earlier that I didn't think it was the feds job to support any decision the states made.

But you criticised them specifically for not funding it, because 'they' can run a deficit but states cannot.

I don't see how those are connected, because I don't see any state enacting a state-wide stay at home order. If there were states with stay at home orders in place, then I'd see the connection.

As far as I can see, most states do not have significant restrictions on their economies as a whole, but there are clearly targeted restrictions on select industries and how they operate, like restaurants and indoor vs outdoor dining.

Who said ANYTHING about 'stay at home' other than my hypo which is clearly designed to show an example where EVERYONE would agree was 'beyond any experts recommendation'?

Once again, I can't use your examples because you haven't given any, and I'm unaware of what you claim is obvious (that they haven't funded things)... so I am picking an obvious example of something that we ALL would agree is unnecessary

FTR, I can certainly show you recommendations from 'experts' including people affiliated with the CDC that tell people to stay home at almost all costs, so its not nearly as unreasonable as you seem to want to believe. Its just not the consensus opinion. Science doesn't often work in facts in its early stages, and sometimes 'never'.

Quote:Congress has only passed one round of support, and they are stuck negotiating on the second round. A bill passed the house earlier this year, but went nowhere in the Senate.

Not true. They passed a 1 trillion dollar bill which was 'negotiated' up to 1.9 trillion, but the house has stuck to their 2.4 trillion dollar version. As I asked, are you suggesting that 2.4 trillion is what the 'experts' have suggested and that 1.9, or even 1 trillion is not? You're drawing a value judgement about them not doing their jobs by not signing the 'biggest' bill. Have you presented ANY evidence that this is not fulfilling their additional duty to be fiscally responsible? Especially during a pandemic of unknown duration and depth?

Quote:So their lack of a second round of support is why I think they haven't funded it.

I'm trying to understand why you think Congress has funded it, when clearly, nothing has passed. Really, are you actually trying to argue that Congress has funded more relief???

Because there is a difference between doing something and doing 'enough' of something. You need to provide evidence of 'enough'. I agree that they have failed on this second round... and I have told you why.

The reason I take issue with you is because comments like yours... generic and broad are precisely the sort of things that lead to comments like 'never let a crisis go to waste' and 'government over-reach'. I agree they need to do something, but arguing that the ONLY way to do this is to pass the biggest of about 3-4 options that have been discussed is not at ALL the way Congress has ever or should ever work... and this being a pandemic shouldn't change that. All that should happen is that congress should be less interested in pushing their secondary agendas... which almost always mean a BIGGER bill.

Pass what you agree on now.. and work out the rest/details later.... or as the length of the need becomes more obvious. That's been put out there for months now, and only ONE person has categorically refused to do their job.

Quote:1) The reality is states aren't acting the way you are suggesting, which is why I basically said this point was moot (about shutting down entirely).

And I've addressed this moot point before - if there was an agreement between the state and feds that such a drastic measure was needed, then yes, the feds should fund it.

Of course not... thats why it was presented as a hypothetical each time I've presented it. Stop being intentionally obtuse and acting as if I haven't. You're a Rice educated person and for you to do this should be embarrassing to you. It is to me.

Quote:2) Why are you ignoring this delay? This delay is them dropping the ball! The CARES act passed in March - nearly nine months ago!

Reading is fundamental. Post 77. I agreed and placed the blame mostly on Pelosi and gave my support for my position. Why are YOU ignoring this? You're also ignoring that the CARES act was supposed to fund things through (from memory, may be off) Oct 1, and Trump authorized emergency funds hoping that Congress could work out the details. I've said this for months, consistently. I asked you if that is what you were specifically referring to and this is the first time you've answered that simple question.

Quote:The House passed the RESTAURANTS Act in October which specifically earmarked $120 billion to the restaurant industry, which has been getting killed because of restrictions on indoor dining and capacity limits (which are reasonable and supported by the CDC).

And I've given you a specific example of a restriction being placed on bars in NY, which are NOT reasonable and NOT supported by the CDC.

Please show me where the CDC makes any official recommendations about appropriate dining levels (like 25 or 50 or 75%). I'm betting that you're going to find much more general parameters focused on the ability to create distance and not on percentages. You are equating the two, and I have given examples where those things are clearly not equal.

Let me ask you, how are occupancies established? Most often by fire code which deals with not only square footage, but purpose and whether or not sprinklers are present and number and size of exits. So two otherwise identical 1,000 SF spaces could have very different occupancies... yet because they are each 1,000 sf, they could both create the same 'social distancing'.

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Covid test for the experts here:

I am in a waiting room in a medical building. I was sent here to wait while my sister sees a doctor.

It has 4 chairs: 3 close together and one separate. The separate one is right by the walkway from the main entrance to elevators.

Which is safer: the three close together or the one by the walkway?

Please just vote, and don’t jump to conclusions about my “point”.

Its a guess... I'm going to pick the one... because the three is most likely to be an adult with kids since this is the 'holding' area. The single will get a lot more 'action' I'd guess... but you asked for an answer. One chair, fewer places for me to contact that could have been infected... higher chance of infection... which I can mitigate with purell.

Not being intentionally obtuse - I think it's clear that neither of us communicates well with each other on this board. You constantly feel like I misunderstand your points and vice versa.

The fact that we can't agree on what funding Congress has passed (I have no idea what bill Congress passed for $1 trillion - CARES is the only COVID support I'm aware of that has passed Congress), makes it clear that we're just on different pages and this forum isn't really a great place for us to communicate.

(12-01-2020 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you and George keep a diary of all the liberals who have wrong you?

Well, it's hard not to remember a supposed friend finding a picture of your parent's grave, downloading it, defacing it, uploading it, showing it back to you, and then (after you go out of your way to try to talk with him about it) cursing you out.

That sort of malevolence was both searing and shocking. Until then, I honestly would not have believed that anyone I knew was capable of such calculated perversion in the first place, much less of being so cluelessly unremorseful afterward.

And to be clear, I'm not the only one who remembers it; my friends who saw it have not forgotten it either.

More generally, I suppose I do tend to remember people whom I have seen first-hand do unforgivable things, regardless of their politics. It is also true that leftists (not liberals) seem more prone to do such things, at least for political reasons. But that's their failing, not mine.

(12-01-2020 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but as we have come to see, government regulations have stepped in to address some of these instances.

Seat belts, second hand smoke, noise ordinances, etc. We have a history of passing regulations that curtail someone's ability to act in order to protect the other.

There's not a clear line as to when this happens, but it's an obvious and well worn concept. Do you disagree with this concept in its entirety?


And welcome to why I am advocating for financial assistance! See how CARES tried to emulate Germany's work program.


Agreed! And this is why people debate and compromise. There is no perfect answer to where this line is, but it seems like we're arguing about the concept as a whole, which is what troubles me.


Ok?

Let’s say that your restrictions to protect others killed my job, and now you are advocating sending me some money to relieve my distress for a little while.

Pat on the back for you, kind sir.

You see this sequence as unadulterated good?

It would depend on how the assistance was structured - if it was a better CARES act, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll because the Fed would cover most of your salary.

Or, if your business went under, ideally the funds would be sufficient to provide coverage until new employment could be found.

And it's not like some industries wouldn't have seen a decrease in patronage without any restrictions - people continue to self-isolate and avoid going to restaurants and bars, even if they're open. So financial support for otherwise healthy businesses was/is still warranted.

But back to my question above - do you disagree with the concept of public health laws entirely?

What a silly question. The answer is no. But it seems very ...left...of you to frame it as an all or nothing question. Either I must accept all kinds of regulation and all sorts of restrictions, or I must disagree with the concept of public health laws. No middle ground. No “rationale”.

Back to my example - certainly the government should reimburse me for taking my job and killing off my employer, especially if the actions that caused those things were ill advised and excessive. Does sending me a few bucks make it all good? Not in my book. How about yours?

That isn't how I'm framing it. I'm trying to understand if your quarrel is with the concept or the specifics - it wasn't clear given lines like this: "For example, your risk tolerance (low) creates a risk to my health by killing my job to protect you."

And even now, you talk about the government taking your job and killing off your employer - yes, a very middle ground and rationale comment...

I answered your questions above - you have an axe to grind, keep on grinding.

Of course, if the government kills my job (say, chef at a top restaurant) by shutting the restaurant down because they want to protect YOU and your low tolerance to exposure, and months later you want to send me a few hundred, you may think the wrong has been righted, but I don't.

Sometimes you have to work it out, Lad. I cannot spell out everything for you.

I haven't asked you to accept one extreme or the other, have I?

(12-01-2020 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

The Bill of Rights mostly does not apply to any group EXCEPT the Feds. It restricts the Federal government, not the states. STATE constitutions restrict the states.... so how can you be talking about the BOR and NOT be talking about the feds?

Uhh.... hate to tell you the BOR actually *does* apply to the states. Via application of the 14th amendment. The rights that are contained in the Constitution 'flow through' to the individual states through this Amendment.

Example: Heller found the 2nd Amendment to be infringed by the Federal government actions and restrictions in DC. McDonald found that Heller applied in the same manner to the state of Illinois and city of Chicago for similar restrictions.

But, some individualized portions of the BOR are still to be incorporated. (i.e. 7th Amendment right to jury trials in civil cases, right to a grand jury....

But that's what I meant by mostly does not apply. The BOR does not generally speak to the states. Instead is mostly speaks to the Feds, ON BEHALF of the states. The stated purpose of the BOR (In the preamble) was to give the states more confidence that the feds would not abuse their powers. Except for in the general... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.... I stand by the intent of my comment, admitting and appreciating that I could have been MORE accurate or complete.

(12-01-2020 06:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not being intentionally obtuse - I think it's clear that neither of us communicates well with each other on this board. You constantly feel like I misunderstand your points and vice versa.

The fact that we can't agree on what funding Congress has passed (I have no idea what bill Congress passed for $1 trillion - CARES is the only COVID support I'm aware of that has passed Congress), makes it clear that we're just on different pages and this forum isn't really a great place for us to communicate.

The senate had 51+ votes on a bill that would have spent $1 trillion in round 2. This was drastically different from the bill passed by the house at $2.4 trillion. You seem to be fixated on the presence or not of an up or down vote on the floor, when what matters is whether or not it would pass... and REALLY whether or not it would be worth putting into reconciliation. Since they were so far apart, Trump stepped in with Munchin.... and their version was bumped up to $1.9 trillion, PLUS the couple hundred million that Trump threw in from other sources..... meaning the money was about the same, but Pelosi expressed zero interest in anything other than her specific bill. That's not how Congress does or should work.

What a coup it would have been for Democrats for them to agree to Trump's 1.9 trillion over McConnell's $1 trillion... and get the 5-10 Republicans that it would have taken to pass it, over the OBJECTIONS of McConnell and the GOP right before an election? What a tragedy and strategic failure. Party over country.

You speak so authoritatively about what the feds have and haven't done, yet you seem to be completely unaware of things that have been all over the news for weeks and even months.

Here is another reference to it... https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/...story.html

and it even mentions the 'pass what we agree on' which the Senate said was 500 byn in 'paycheck protection program' which is specifically what we are addressing when we're talking about people impacted by things like restaurant occupancy limitations. Like the bloomberg article, it still notes Democrats opposition to protecting employers from covid related lawsuits, which Pelosi later addressed in the bloomberg article that she would only agree to, IF Republicans agreed to even stiffer restrictions.

Here's another... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/09/trump-ra...s-say.html

which calls Pelosi's bill 2.2 trillion and says that it bumps the previous 1.6 trillion to 1.8 trillion... dated only about a week after the house bill was passed.... and now lets get REAL serious... July 27... https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/politics/...index.html Senate proposes $1 trillion... House proposes 3.... and more than 2 months later, passes 2.4.... and in case you've forgotten your schoolhouse rock, bills start in the House.

So again... Whose experts are we supposed to listen to when it comes to things like whether we need $1 trillion or 1.9 trillion or 2.4 trillion or 3, and whether we should agree to 2.4 trillion with 'variable' restrictions or $1.9 trillion with more stringent restrictions?

But more to the real point... I guarantee the CDC hasn't spoken to whether it takes 500byn or 1.9 tril or 2.4 tril or 3 to cover these costs. That's not remotely what they do.

And that's the real rub here.

You said I ignored the 2nd delay. I did not. I even asked you specifically if that was what you were referring to. I prove that I didn't and you just ignore that and move on.

You claim that all of the restrictions currently in place are 'reasonable' and 'supported by the CDC'... and when I present to you the official statement by the CDC about these restrictions and point out that it says nothing about percentages or in any way signs off on any specific regulations, you just ignore that and move on...

The reason we can't communicate is that you state your opinion as facts and ignore factual corrections and requests for proof/evidence of your factual claims. You then take issue with relatively meaningless details, like whether the Senate ever actually PASSED a bill for $1 trillion, or if the majority leader merely said that they had the votes to pass it and recognized that a 250% difference in proposals was going to need significant negotiation to go through reconciliation and then final approval by both houses. Either way, CONGRESS never agreed on a bill. Nobody has EVER denied this.

Please follow this carefully. I have essentially suggested that it might take 2.2-2.4 trillion depending on which article you buy to cover the more stringent requirements of the house version... forcing SOME states to do more than they would have otherwise chosen to do... and that 1.8 to 1.9 trillion as in the others might cover what the states actually want to do... I mean its clear that more stringent requirements come at some cost...

So again... simple questions...

States can't print money, but they can certainly issue bonds and all sorts of other financing tricks (I did this for decades) and raise taxes to pay for needs specific to their locations or opinions in excess of what the government experts agreed upon... which by definition means the lower of the two numbers... not the larger... which is also what Congress would have to do and raise taxes. They can run a deficit, but their financing options are fewer. Munies are tax exempt, treasuries are not.... So we're right back to where I started... and that is asking you why you think that the feds should bear the cost of 'excess' state requirements above the agreed upon levels... OR why you think 2.4 trillion is supported by the experts, but 1.9 trillion (or any other number out there you want to pick up on is not? Why not the original 3 trillion they talked about?

You STILL haven't even tried to respond to this.

Let me clarify something so you don't focus on it... When I say that the lower number is the 'agreed upon' number... its sort of like saying that there seem to be enough votes to pass at least 1.9 trillion in funding... Some want more, and some less... but again, as they can come back to the well again later, there is still an opportunity to increase the numbers... but not to decrease them.

(12-01-2020 08:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-01-2020 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, but I wasn't talking about the Fed when responding to Tanq.

The Bill of Rights mostly does not apply to any group EXCEPT the Feds. It restricts the Federal government, not the states. STATE constitutions restrict the states.... so how can you be talking about the BOR and NOT be talking about the feds?

Uhh.... hate to tell you the BOR actually *does* apply to the states. Via application of the 14th amendment. The rights that are contained in the Constitution 'flow through' to the individual states through this Amendment.

Example: Heller found the 2nd Amendment to be infringed by the Federal government actions and restrictions in DC. McDonald found that Heller applied in the same manner to the state of Illinois and city of Chicago for similar restrictions.

But, some individualized portions of the BOR are still to be incorporated. (i.e. 7th Amendment right to jury trials in civil cases, right to a grand jury....

But that's what I meant by mostly does not apply. The BOR does not generally speak to the states. Instead is mostly speaks to the Feds, ON BEHALF of the states. The stated purpose of the BOR (In the preamble) was to give the states more confidence that the feds would not abuse their powers. Except for in the general... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.... I stand by the intent of my comment, admitting and appreciating that I could have been MORE accurate or complete.

I would state that the BOR almost fully does apply to the states at the present time.

Prior to the 14th, the BOR spoke *solely* to the Federal government. Post 14th, the BOR speaks in whole to the Federal government, and almost all of it to the states.

The preamble does not address the purpose of the BOR.

And, the authors of the BOR (and main proponents) noted that the purpose didnt have anything to do with the states --- it was to safeguard the rights of individuals from the new centralized government. What it did was set in stone the 4th bastion of divided government, and created and delineated the 5th bastion of power.

When it was realized that a state sovereign had the ability to flout the restrictions on individual rights, the provision for the restriction of the BOR on the states was placed into the 14th amendment, para 1. as part of the delineation of power issues that came about due to the war in 1861-65.

Since the 1930s - 40s when most of the issues came to the front, the BOR addresses state power and federal power with nearly equal force.

I have to disagree that the BOR 'mainly does not apply' to the states -- only with view of not ever having the 14th amendment is that valid.

The roots absolutely had the genesis with the view of the Federal govt exclusively, but post 14th amendment that original purpose of 'carving out' the states is no longer the case -- not by a long shot. Currently it *absolutely* speaks to the states for most of it.

(12-01-2020 10:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would state that the BOR almost fully does apply to the states at the present time.

Prior to the 14th, the BOR spoke *solely* to the Federal government. Post 14th, the BOR speaks in whole to the Federal government, and almost all of it to the states.

The preamble does not address the purpose of the BOR.

And, the authors of the BOR (and main proponents) noted that the purpose didnt have anything to do with the states --- it was to safeguard the rights of individuals from the new centralized government. What it did was set in stone the 4th bastion of divided government, and created and delineated the 5th bastion of power.

When it was realized that a state sovereign had the ability to flout the restrictions on individual rights, the provision for the restriction of the BOR on the states was placed into the 14th amendment, para 1. as part of the delineation of power issues that came about due to the war in 1861-65.

Since the 1930s - 40s when most of the issues came to the front, the BOR addresses state power and federal power with nearly equal force.

I have to disagree that the BOR 'mainly does not apply' to the states -- only with view of not ever having the 14th amendment is that valid.

The roots absolutely had the genesis with the view of the Federal govt exclusively, but post 14th amendment that original purpose of 'carving out' the states is no longer the case -- not by a long shot. Currently it *absolutely* speaks to the states for most of it.

You are speaking about a completely different application than I am. Perhaps because I missed much of the thread, I am missing your context. I am merely responding to the idea that I quoted... that 'restricting bar occupancy is prohibited by the BOR??'... The BOR itself is primarily placing limits on the feds power... and as I said, other than the 'all other powers' comment, does not speak to the powers of the states. The fact that the 14th makes such limitations on powers ALSO apply to the states is somewhat immaterial to my point, though it may be directly on point to yours. That is not what I was referring to and merely picked up on a conversation in the middle of it.

A pedantic correction, but said simply, the 14th amendment is not part of the BOR.... thus the laws applying the principles of the BOR to the states do not appear in the BOR but in the 14th, and the language of the BOR was not intended to limit the powers of the states. That was my point, and it seems that you largely agree... with the caveat that what 'was' no longer 'is'. I would say that the powers you speak of are contained in the 14th amendment and not in the BOR. My perspective is perhaps like a figure of speech and not one commonly used in legal circles.

As to the purpose of the BOR, I once again respectfully disagree that the preamble does not address the purpose of the BOR. It specifically says....
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

That sure reads like a 'why' to me, does it not to you?

Perhaps you thought I meant the preamble to the Constitution?