[BostonCard]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/coronavi...-bill.html

The Senate passed a $484 billion bill that replenishes the small business fund, and several other small business oriented programs, plus it funds hospitals to the tune of $75 billion and $25 billion for coronavirus testing.

A fifth bill is expected on its heels that will extend unemployment insurance, send more money to individuals, fund state and local governments and if Trump's tweet on the bottom of the article is anything to go by, maybe infrastructure week will actually happen!

"Money printer go brrrr," as they say.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/coronavi...-bill.html

The Senate passed a $484 billion bill that replenishes the small business fund, and several other small business oriented programs, plus it funds hospitals to the tune of $75 billion and $25 billion for coronavirus testing.

A fifth bill is expected on its heels that will extend unemployment insurance, send more money to individuals, fund state and local governments and if Trump's tweet on the bottom of the article is anything to go by, maybe infrastructure week will actually happen!

"Money printer go brrrr," as they say.

BC

[burger]

So, if the big increase in testing is going to happen, it's in the hands of the White House now.  They've been so incompetent to date that I have zero faith in their ability to get this right.

In the negotiations over this bill, Democrats asked for money to help state budgets and money for contact tracing.  Republicans rejected both.  I don't see how the states will be able to afford the contact tracers with tax revenue cratering.  I saw an estimate somewhere that 300,000 tracers would be needed in the US to match South Korea's efforts per capita.  State and local governments are already laying off and furloughing people.

Thanks for nothing, McConnell and Trump.

[burger]

So, if the big increase in testing is going to happen, it's in the hands of the White House now.  They've been so incompetent to date that I have zero faith in their ability to get this right.

In the negotiations over this bill, Democrats asked for money to help state budgets and money for contact tracing.  Republicans rejected both.  I don't see how the states will be able to afford the contact tracers with tax revenue cratering.  I saw an estimate somewhere that 300,000 tracers would be needed in the US to match South Korea's efforts per capita.  State and local governments are already laying off and furloughing people.

Thanks for nothing, McConnell and Trump.

[JustAnotherFan]

There are so many Americans who have gotten no benefit from the government. Money for small businesses got gobbled up by big business. They lost their jobs. They were gig workers or 1099 or under the table anyway, so even if the small businesses got support they still lost out. They fell through the cracks on the $1200 crumbs. They may get that some day. They have no insurance and did not before this. The only thing they've gotten from the government is false assurances that they'll be okay. I don't see anything Congress and the White House does doing anything meaningful for those who are hanging on by a thread. DC will continue to concern itself with the welfare of those who need it the least.

[JustAnotherFan]

There are so many Americans who have gotten no benefit from the government. Money for small businesses got gobbled up by big business. They lost their jobs. They were gig workers or 1099 or under the table anyway, so even if the small businesses got support they still lost out. They fell through the cracks on the $1200 crumbs. They may get that some day. They have no insurance and did not before this. The only thing they've gotten from the government is false assurances that they'll be okay. I don't see anything Congress and the White House does doing anything meaningful for those who are hanging on by a thread. DC will continue to concern itself with the welfare of those who need it the least.

[oldalum]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

[oldalum]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

[BostonCard]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think they initially wanted a narrowly tailored bill that focused on replenishing the payment protection plan from the SBA.  I think there was always an expectation that another bill would be coming, but I could be wrong.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not entirely sure, but I think they initially wanted a narrowly tailored bill that focused on replenishing the payment protection plan from the SBA.  I think there was always an expectation that another bill would be coming, but I could be wrong.

BC

[magnus]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

The only argument I could find was that Republican senators were arguing that testing should be a state and private industry affair instead of federal.

[magnus]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

The only argument I could find was that Republican senators were arguing that testing should be a state and private industry affair instead of federal.

[burger]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

The only argument I could find was that Republican senators were arguing that testing should be a state and private industry affair instead of federal.

But the republicans also opposed giving any more money to the states.  In fact, McConnell said today that the states should just declare bankruptcy.

How are bankrupt states going to run robust contact tracing operations?

[burger]

Can someone explain why the White House and "Republican leaders" resisted including $ for expanding testing? Was this just a negotiating ploy, or was there some at least semi-legitimate basis for it?

The only argument I could find was that Republican senators were arguing that testing should be a state and private industry affair instead of federal.

But the republicans also opposed giving any more money to the states.  In fact, McConnell said today that the states should just declare bankruptcy.

How are bankrupt states going to run robust contact tracing operations?

[2006alum]

This is beyond outrageous:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253018755854209027?s=20[/tweet]

It is truly a war on government and all who depend on it from folks like McConnell. Those worst hit by a bankruptcy will be state workers, state pension fund recipients, and those whose livelihoods depend either directly (aid) or indirectly (government contracts) on the state. It's unfathomable that an elected official would encourage that.

[2006alum]

This is beyond outrageous:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253018755854209027?s=20[/tweet]

It is truly a war on government and all who depend on it from folks like McConnell. Those worst hit by a bankruptcy will be state workers, state pension fund recipients, and those whose livelihoods depend either directly (aid) or indirectly (government contracts) on the state. It's unfathomable that an elected official would encourage that.

[stupac2]

This is beyond outrageous:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253018755854209027?s=20[/tweet]

It is truly a war on government and all who depend on it from folks like McConnell. Those worst hit by a bankruptcy will be state workers, state pension fund recipients, and those whose livelihoods depend either directly (aid) or indirectly (government contracts) on the state. It's unfathomable that an elected official would encourage that.

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

[stupac2]

This is beyond outrageous:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1253018755854209027?s=20[/tweet]

It is truly a war on government and all who depend on it from folks like McConnell. Those worst hit by a bankruptcy will be state workers, state pension fund recipients, and those whose livelihoods depend either directly (aid) or indirectly (government contracts) on the state. It's unfathomable that an elected official would encourage that.

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

[teejers1]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

[teejers1]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

[2006alum]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

Do you think anyone is suggesting the federal government should cover 100% of the state and local revenue shortfalls? Of course not! But since the federal government has now allocated well over $1 trillion to private sector companies, I guess the better question is why you think the public sector deserves nothing while banks, airlines, and all sorts of private employers deserve bailouts.

[2006alum]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

Do you think anyone is suggesting the federal government should cover 100% of the state and local revenue shortfalls? Of course not! But since the federal government has now allocated well over $1 trillion to private sector companies, I guess the better question is why you think the public sector deserves nothing while banks, airlines, and all sorts of private employers deserve bailouts.

[chrisk]

Trump just trumpeted that Harvard and Stanford turned down the money that the CARES Act allocated to them
(after Trump called out Harvard in yesterday's press conference).

[chrisk]

Trump just trumpeted that Harvard and Stanford turned down the money that the CARES Act allocated to them
(after Trump called out Harvard in yesterday's press conference).

[JustAnotherFan]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

I thought we were working with the assumption that private sector workers were screwed already and the government wasn't going to do anything to help them out beyond a $1200 check (that also goes to public workers).

---

I guess the better question is why you think the public sector deserves nothing while banks, airlines, and all sorts of private employers deserve bailouts.

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

[JustAnotherFan]

That's basically saying that you want the economic hit to be even worse than the great depression! You have to bail out states and municipalities, their revenues are collapsing through no fault of theirs and will remain collapsed for a while, forcing them to lay off massive amounts of people will just make everything worse. Not to mention that they need to be expanding capabilities so we can do the test and trace that every recovery plan I've ever seen calls for!

Private sector companies' revenues are collapsing through no fault of their own, and will remain collapsed for a while.
Private sector employees are getting laid off.

I'm not sure why public employees should be insulated from the pain being felt out there.  At the same time, they should not be disproportionately whacked, either.  Is there a basis for believing the latter is occurring?

I thought we were working with the assumption that private sector workers were screwed already and the government wasn't going to do anything to help them out beyond a $1200 check (that also goes to public workers).

---

I guess the better question is why you think the public sector deserves nothing while banks, airlines, and all sorts of private employers deserve bailouts.

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

[magnus]

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

At least one*

* open for debate (just not on this board. =))

[magnus]

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

At least one*

* open for debate (just not on this board. =))

[stupac2]

Do you think anyone is suggesting the federal government should cover 100% of the state and local revenue shortfalls? Of course not!

I mean, I do. I think the feds should do absolutely everything they can think of to help out. Cover the states/cities budget shortfalls? Sure! Mail checks to everyone every month? Why not? Do a Manhattan project for vaccines? Sure! Why not add one for infrastructure and clean energy and whatever else you can think of?

Spend as much as you can on anything that makes a lick of sense. If you're worried about debt, have the Federal reserve print money. We're staring at massive deflation anyway, we could stand it if inflation his (gasp) 4%. Hell, that would mean there's too much money chasing too few things and you've done your job! Scale back at that point.



I find it utterly baffling that so many on here are bemoaning the unprecedented collapse of the economy, but then seem to want to play Scrooge with opening the federal pursestrings. What's the downside? Inflation? Debt? We can deal with that when the time comes, the downside of too much stimulus is far outweighed by the downside of too little.

[stupac2]

Do you think anyone is suggesting the federal government should cover 100% of the state and local revenue shortfalls? Of course not!

I mean, I do. I think the feds should do absolutely everything they can think of to help out. Cover the states/cities budget shortfalls? Sure! Mail checks to everyone every month? Why not? Do a Manhattan project for vaccines? Sure! Why not add one for infrastructure and clean energy and whatever else you can think of?

Spend as much as you can on anything that makes a lick of sense. If you're worried about debt, have the Federal reserve print money. We're staring at massive deflation anyway, we could stand it if inflation his (gasp) 4%. Hell, that would mean there's too much money chasing too few things and you've done your job! Scale back at that point.



I find it utterly baffling that so many on here are bemoaning the unprecedented collapse of the economy, but then seem to want to play Scrooge with opening the federal pursestrings. What's the downside? Inflation? Debt? We can deal with that when the time comes, the downside of too much stimulus is far outweighed by the downside of too little.

[teejers1]

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

How many folks in the private sector have taxpayer supported pensions for life?

And I never said the public workers who lose jobs should get nothing - quite to the contrary.  They should receive what other recently-unemployed folks are receiving.  

Is there something unfair about that?  And if the feds want to direct some SBA-type loans to public projects . . . sure.

Everything we do to address Covid 19 should be about balancing.  And by definition it won't be perfect.

[teejers1]

How many billionaires work for the federal government?

How many folks in the private sector have taxpayer supported pensions for life?

And I never said the public workers who lose jobs should get nothing - quite to the contrary.  They should receive what other recently-unemployed folks are receiving.  

Is there something unfair about that?  And if the feds want to direct some SBA-type loans to public projects . . . sure.

Everything we do to address Covid 19 should be about balancing.  And by definition it won't be perfect.

[Mick]

There are so many Americans who have gotten no benefit from the government. Money for small businesses got gobbled up by big business. They lost their jobs. They were gig workers or 1099 or under the table anyway, so even if the small businesses got support they still lost out. They fell through the cracks on the $1200 crumbs. They may get that some day. They have no insurance and did not before this. The only thing they've gotten from the government is false assurances that they'll be okay. I don't see anything Congress and the White House does doing anything meaningful for those who are hanging on by a thread. DC will continue to concern itself with the welfare of those who need it the least.

Don't forget the slowdown in an initial unemployment claims office accustomed to dealing with 1/30th the volume.  And tomorrow should announce another 4.5 million initial unemployment claims.  We're now at 26.5 million, folks.  Close to 20% unemployment.  Depths of The Great Depression we were at 24.9%.  That's the wort we got, and it took three years to get there.  We'll be there in less than a month.

[Mick]

There are so many Americans who have gotten no benefit from the government. Money for small businesses got gobbled up by big business. They lost their jobs. They were gig workers or 1099 or under the table anyway, so even if the small businesses got support they still lost out. They fell through the cracks on the $1200 crumbs. They may get that some day. They have no insurance and did not before this. The only thing they've gotten from the government is false assurances that they'll be okay. I don't see anything Congress and the White House does doing anything meaningful for those who are hanging on by a thread. DC will continue to concern itself with the welfare of those who need it the least.

Don't forget the slowdown in an initial unemployment claims office accustomed to dealing with 1/30th the volume.  And tomorrow should announce another 4.5 million initial unemployment claims.  We're now at 26.5 million, folks.  Close to 20% unemployment.  Depths of The Great Depression we were at 24.9%.  That's the wort we got, and it took three years to get there.  We'll be there in less than a month.

[dabigv13]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Our government needs to grow to the task right now, and that task is keeping as many people alive and fed as possible. If that means printing money and sending it they should do that. If that means using the National Guard to collect unused food/produce and distribute it, they should do that. These are unprecedented times and our government needs to rise to the moment, not shrink from its' duties because it doesn't want to be blamed for failure, or rather intends to shovel taxpayer dollars to corporations.

[dabigv13]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Our government needs to grow to the task right now, and that task is keeping as many people alive and fed as possible. If that means printing money and sending it they should do that. If that means using the National Guard to collect unused food/produce and distribute it, they should do that. These are unprecedented times and our government needs to rise to the moment, not shrink from its' duties because it doesn't want to be blamed for failure, or rather intends to shovel taxpayer dollars to corporations.

[Mick]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Yup.  Prosecutors, too.  Then every city can be like SF...

[Mick]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Yup.  Prosecutors, too.  Then every city can be like SF...

[JustAnotherFan]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Yup.  Prosecutors, too.  Then every city can be like SF...

LOL, nice use of sarcasm but I would actually appreciate cops being furloughed. They are some of the worst violators of social distancing and serve as vectors into the most threatened communities. Wouldn't be too upset with prosecutors being furloughed, either. Although the SF DA is one I'd make an exception for.

[JustAnotherFan]

Do you want all your cops to be furloughed right when all the markets are running out of food staples?

Yup.  Prosecutors, too.  Then every city can be like SF...

LOL, nice use of sarcasm but I would actually appreciate cops being furloughed. They are some of the worst violators of social distancing and serve as vectors into the most threatened communities. Wouldn't be too upset with prosecutors being furloughed, either. Although the SF DA is one I'd make an exception for.