So, I guess no stimulus - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: So, I guess no stimulus (/thread-20584.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: So, I guess no stimulus (/thread-20584.html)
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-08-2020
Here's your periodic reminder that four years ago yesterday the Access Hollywood tape came out, and obits for Donald Trump's campaign were being written.
Biden currently leads in polls by more than Clinton ever did, but there is a path for Trump that doesn't involve the above:
1) Trump narrows the lead by a few points from about 10 points nationally to about 6 points nationally
2) The polls are about as wrong in swing states as they were in 2016 (while they were nationally pretty accurate, they were off by about 5 points in PA and MI and about 7 points in Wisconsin).
3) Trump again wins a majority of the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - Mick - 10-08-2020
(10-08-2020, 07:14 AM)oldalum Wrote:(10-07-2020, 08:45 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for.If that is true, it would argue for a sweeping reform of the civil justice system. I'd be very interested in links to some good quality, non-anecdotal evidence for your statement of fact.
I don't know if you would consider this high quality, but the National Judicial College interviewed 446 judges as to the percentage of the time that they agreed with the juries. Choices were in quartiles, 0% to 25%, 25% to 50% and so on. 366 of the 446 chose the 0% to 25% option.
62 judges selected the 25% to 50% option. And 18% chose the 50% to 75% option, meaning they disagreed with the juries more often than not.
To your point:
"One said that an attorney can easily convince a jury to reach a wrong decision by playing on the jurors’ emotions or by focusing on certain details of a case that a judge wouldn’t consider important. This judge offered the example of a case in which an attorney argued that a client arrested for DUI was acting responsibly by sleeping off intoxication in a vehicle instead of driving it."
https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/heres-how-often-trial-judges-disagree-with-a-jurys-verdict/
And an interesting article on jury nullification. Sounds like the percentage of situations in which juries fall prey to emotional arguments is small, but increasing. Also sounds like it's more on the civil side than the criminal side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A%20jury%20nullification%20advocacy%20group,the%20laws%20themselves%20(though%20other
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-08-2020
Bringing this back to the question of stimulus or not...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jyarow/status/1314302567753621509?s=20[/tweet]
I'm glad that government policy is dictated by changes in the stock market (though to be fair, this is hardly the first time; I'm old enough to remember when, 12 years ago, Republicans in the House reacted to a Dow Jones drop of 770 points after the House rejected TARP. TARP was passed less than a week later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#First_House_vote,_September_29
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - murky - 10-08-2020
(10-08-2020, 01:43 PM)Mick Wrote:(10-08-2020, 07:14 AM)oldalum Wrote:(10-07-2020, 08:45 PM)Goose Wrote: Unfortunately in the civil courts today cases are often not decided by who is right, but rather by who the jury feels sorry for.If that is true, it would argue for a sweeping reform of the civil justice system. I'd be very interested in links to some good quality, non-anecdotal evidence for your statement of fact.
I don't know if you would consider this high quality, but the National Judicial College interviewed 446 judges as to the percentage of the time that they agreed with the juries. Choices were in quartiles, 0% to 25%, 25% to 50% and so on. 366 of the 446 chose the 0% to 25% option.
62 judges selected the 25% to 50% option. And 18% chose the 50% to 75% option, meaning they disagreed with the juries more often than not.
To your point:
"One said that an attorney can easily convince a jury to reach a wrong decision by playing on the jurors’ emotions or by focusing on certain details of a case that a judge wouldn’t consider important. This judge offered the example of a case in which an attorney argued that a client arrested for DUI was acting responsibly by sleeping off intoxication in a vehicle instead of driving it."
https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/heres-how-often-trial-judges-disagree-with-a-jurys-verdict/
And an interesting article on jury nullification. Sounds like the percentage of situations in which juries fall prey to emotional arguments is small, but increasing. Also sounds like it's more on the civil side than the criminal side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A%20jury%20nullification%20advocacy%20group,the%20laws%20themselves%20(though%20other
It appears you've stated the results opposite of what the article says. Its the percentage of time the judges disagreed with the jury. Most of the judges are in the category of DISAGREEING with the jury 0-25% of the time.
"Our monthly one-question survey emailed to NJC alumni in June asked trial judges, “About how often do you disagree with the jury’s verdict?”"
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-08-2020
Slate, not exactly a right wing rag, suggests that Pelosi should take the deal that had previously been on offer.
https://slate.com/business/2020/10/nancy-pelosi-relief-trump-deal-take-it.html
The one thing that the article doesn't mention is whether liability relief is a part of that.
In any case, if accurate, the two sides are about $600 billion apart, which is not nothing (it's about the size of TARP), but also in the context of COVID-19 is actually not that much. My guess is that after all the sturm und drang, they will passs something between $1.8 and $2 trillion. Unless Trump has another change of heart.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-09-2020
Update, we are back to where a deal negotiated between Trump and the House may not be passable by the Senate:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/alaynatreene/status/1314601782258159619?s=20[/tweet]
I'm old enough to remember when the House would pass one version of the bill, the Senate would pass another version of the Bill, and they would meet in conference to hash out their differences. It looks like Pelosi is banking on the Senate to acquiesce to anything that Trump signs onto, but as Trump's re-election chances fade, he is caries less sway with congressional Republicans. Of course, this places a bit of a quandry on Pelosi, since she is not negotiating with a unified Republican negotiating position.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-09-2020
LOL
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BChappatta/status/1314621983066390528?s=20[/tweet]
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - oregontim - 10-09-2020
Paul Krugman's latest column in the NY Times today: Trump is Killing the Economy Out of Spite.
Quote:Trump hasn’t even lost yet, but he abruptly cut off talks on an economic relief package millions of Americans desperately need (although as of Thursday he seemed to be backtracking). And his motivation seems to have been sheer spite.
...
As far as I can tell, nobody has offered a plausible political motive, any way in which refusing even to try rescuing the economy helps Trump’s prospects. What this looks like, instead, is vindictiveness.
I don’t know whether Trump expects to lose the election. But he’s already acting like a deeply embittered man, lashing out at people he feels have treated him unfairly, which is basically everyone. And as usual he reserves special rage for smart, tough women; on Thursday he called Kamala Harris a “monster.”
Yet getting a relief deal would have required accepting a compromise with that “nasty” woman Nancy Pelosi. And it seems that he would rather let the economy burn.
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - thatboy - 10-09-2020
(10-08-2020, 12:56 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Biden currently leads in polls by more than Clinton ever did, but there is a path for Trump that doesn't involve the above:
1) Trump narrows the lead by a few points from about 10 points nationally to about 6 points nationally
2) The polls are about as wrong in swing states as they were in 2016 (while they were nationally pretty accurate, they were off by about 5 points in PA and MI and about 7 points in Wisconsin).
3) Trump again wins a majority of the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.
BC
There's also this possibility. Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - Mick - 10-11-2020
The Democrats will get what they want, either before or after the inauguration. The election will give them full control of the House, Senate and Presidency, they'll try to pack the court with, say, 15 judges, then pass legislation to cap it at 15.
There's a lot of failing jurisdictions who've overpromised and/or underspent, and this will be the time to get federal money to solve the majority of their financial problems. My guess is that the Democratic clean sweep will give the Dems a window in which they can ask for and get everything they want. They won't waste it like Trump did.
Oh, and...COVID.
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-11-2020
I think the probability that the Democrats manage to do any of the above is slim to none. Right now they are more likely than not to capture the senate, but if they do so, they will either have a 50/50 split (with Harris breaking the tie) or 51/49. They are unlikely to have the majorities they will require to overcome resistance by swing state senators like Joe Manchin or institutionalists like Dianne Feinstein and Pat Leahy who have said they want to bring back the blue slips that would bring back the ability of home state senators to withhold consent for judicial nominees in the state. It is worth noting that not a single Obama nominated justice to the Fifth Circuit court of appeals made it past Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, despite two seats being open in 2012 and 2013 respectively.
For Democrats to do away with the filibuster, they would need to capture at least 53, and probably 54 or more senate seats, a number that is in the tail end of the probability distribution. For them to pack the court, I think the number would be even higher, or the court would have to start significantly frustrating their legislative agenda (which in any case will probably be much less ambitious than opponents fear). Let's remember that the Democrats had 60 (and, when they lost the special election in Massachusetts, 59) Senate seats in 2009 and they managed to approve PPACA by the skin of their teeth.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - oregontim - 10-11-2020
I'm still hoping that we have a constitutional change of leadership. It's the first time in my life I've worried about that.
If we manage that, then ...
- I hope that the Dems can manage to pull the country together on an orderly and unified response to Covid. I hope they can speak enough to all (instead of just Dems) to depoliticize precautions, masks, contact tracing, CDC, FDA, and careful reopening with respect for jobs and kids in school as well as the virus.
- I hope that the Dems in power manage to slow the pendulum on tribalism and division. I've been voting Dem since the Peace and Freedom party folded in the 1970s, but I'm not a party loyalist. I do blame the current GOP for sanctioned racism, misogyny, corruption, attacks on our longstanding institutions, attacks on the free press, purposeful and intentional lying, and, well (note to self: take a breath) ... that. But I don't want the Dems, if and when they are in power, to wield it the way the GOP has.
But the GOP piled on savagely. They allowed a president to make division a political strategy. They encouraged the lies and corruption. They chose not to oppose racism, alt-right violence, xenophobia, misogyny, and an assault on decency, and an attack on our institutions and the fundamentals of a free press. They put party first, before country.
And now the Dems, if they take power, need to not respond in kind. Push that pendulum back towards the center. Incorporate reasonable Republicans into the narrative.
This issue — the school openings in this thread — is an example of everything that's wrong. We can't seem to discuss the pros and cons without being pulled into taking sides between president and science.
Another example is the current Supreme Court disaster. This isn't just about good and evil, where Dems are good and GOP evil. The Dems made this possible. In our public discourse, we seem to have forgotten that the Dems changed the rules on Supreme Court nominations in 2013, making a mistake that the GOP took cruel advantage of in 2016 with Merrick Garland and again today with Judge Barrett. Dem-sponsored rule changes made this possible.
On Nov. 21, 2013, Senate Democrats deployed the “nuclear option,” so named because of its explosive impact on Senate rules and traditions. They voted 52-48 to reinterpret the words “three-fifths” in Rule 22 to mean “simple majority.” As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would later explain, 52 senators made 60 equal 51.
If the Dems win,may they please restore sanity, and checks and balances, to government.
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - Goose - 10-11-2020
(10-11-2020, 02:06 PM)oregontim Wrote: If the Dems win,may they please restore sanity, and checks and balances, to government.
It would be great if they would do that. Unfortunately, I think there is absolutely no chance. Just asking, who will be the speaker of the House?
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - oldalum - 10-11-2020
(10-11-2020, 02:06 PM)oregontim Wrote: we seem to have forgotten that the Dems changed the rules on Supreme Court nominations in 2013,the 2013 rules change didn't happen in a vacuum; the history of this issue began long before 2013.
and a correction: the 2013 rules change did not apply to Supreme Court nominations
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - OutsiderFan - 10-12-2020
How is this thread about stimulus again?
According to Credit Karma, 1 in 5 Americans will be out of money by Nov. 1. There is no moratorium on evictions. CRE and the underlying CMBS is in danger of collapse.
The Fed says it is ready to magically create $3.5 Trillion to buy U.S. debt (that will never ever be paid off) to fund various rescue programs. Of course, the debt is now the same size as GDP. We have 50 people in the United States who have as much wealth as over 150 million Americans. It's time to massively increase taxes on them so we don't further devalue the wealth of most people in the country.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/business/status/1315335870254182406[/tweet]
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-12-2020
Japan's Government debt accounted for 214.4 % of the country's Nominal GDP in Jun 2020, and it is struggling with deflation, not inflation.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - OutsiderFan - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 08:55 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Japan's Government debt accounted for 214.4 % of the country's Nominal GDP in Jun 2020, and it is struggling with deflation, not inflation.
BC
Who owns Japan's debt? The Bank of Japan?
And if a country can go into so much debt, why the hell not just print money and give it to everyone? Make it like a Monopoly game. Every year, everyone gets I don't know, $20,000 as UBI. That would make more sense than the insanely rigged and stupid system now run by central banks.
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - Mick - 10-12-2020
Speaking of central banks, I wonder if we will move into negative interest rate territory, like the Brits are apparently contemplating:
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-archive-7e16c7b43409cd231028e014f2ca287a
For the uninitiated, negative interest rates require the depositing banks to pay the Fed for the privilege of housing their money. Theoretically, it is meant to spur banks to make more loans.
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - BostonCard - 10-12-2020
(10-12-2020, 09:58 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: And if a country can go into so much debt, why the hell not just print money and give it to everyone? Make it like a Monopoly game. Every year, everyone gets I don't know, $20,000 as UBI. That would make more sense than the insanely rigged and stupid system now run by central banks.
It would make sense if the point at which investors lose confidence in a country's ability to repay loans was predictable and thus precipitated a financial crisis was predictable.
BC
RE: So, I guess no stimulus - OutsiderFan - 10-12-2020
Negative interest rates are completely insane. Not only is the value of your money being destroyed by inflation, banks would charge you to keep your money in the bank.
That said, negative interest rates would make sense if applied to those with something like north of $1,000,000 in the bank. Because we have no problem with people living paycheck to paycheck spending money, but also want to encourage savings so when we have rainy days we don't need more government bailouts, and anyone with over $1,000,000 in the bank is someone who needs to be spending it, not hoarding it.