goskins10

That was not the point. She has 2 old cars that are very much paid for vs brand new cars, and expensive cars at that. So when she said get rid of the badass car it means get a more affordable car not get rid of all cars and walk.

A few people scamming the system is never worth making it too hard for others. I would always rather include some that shouldn't, than exclude some that should be. Never let perfect get in the way of really good.

I get your point and let me be clear that I am in agreement overall. Many people over spend on either a car or a house or both. Living within your means seems to be a foreign concept to many. The only thing I would say is that this has happened so fast that many may not have had a chance to react. And even if they did, selling a car in this market is likely to create a huge loss, especially on high end cars. Hopefully this will change as part of the new normal. Kind of like the depression had on that generation. My gramma would take the buttons off shirts and save them well into her 70s. With 3 kids and husband having heart attacks regularly, she could not afford new buttons much less new shirts. She would fix buttons and then turn long sleeve shirts into short sleeve shirts then into rags to clean house. I expect to see a bit of that kind of thriftiness through fear come out of this. I realize I may be putting too much faith in people but I honestly believe at least some propel will do that. On a side personal note: It's interesting you mention car payments. I admit I like to have new cars. But I liked them more when I was never getting one paid for. I now have a 2015 Acura RDX with less than 50,000 miles on it that I paid off over 2 yrs ago. So every time I look at a car I really like (I have always wanted a BMW - like since 1980!), I always end up looking at what the payment would be not wanting to touch any savings. So far it is a very good enthusiasm killer for wanting a new car! 🙂

Fair enough and I could have been clearer that I agree with you also. We are violently agreeing with each other... 🙂 It is a cluster and has been from the start due to the incompetence of the person in the WH, compounded by his unwillingness to listen to the experts until there is absolutely no other choice. It's all very frustrating.

Full disclosure is that I am in favor of a true UBI. I do not think there should be any means testing at all. Every person of working age in the US should get a check. But once you add any kind of means testing, then it should be focused on getting the help to people who need it most. I agree on this first round to just send them based on the limited criteria they have. But I also think that moving forward they need to do what they can to help focus the help where it's needed. Yes, a few people may get screwed but that is unfortunately going to happen. For me the bigger issue with this stimulus is the amount of money given to corporations that don;t need it and to individuals through the loss of value provision. So much of the stimulus money is going a small number of rich people - those worth over $1M. That should be eliminated - period. Both dems and reps looking out for their donors instead of the American people.

I get what you are saying. Ideally you would target those who lost their jobs. And by saving money there you could increase the income limits so you reach more people who are actually directly impacted. The issue is that the level of administration needed to do that for an initial stimulus would have seriously delayed anyone from getting money. Maybe you do that moving forward. But as someone else said if that is the plan, they should be putting in the framework for it right now.

3/11/21 - President Biden signs Covid relief into law! very good day for the average American! https://news.yahoo.com/president-biden-signs-1-9-191037623.html 3/10/21 - Bill Passes the House! 3/7/21 - The https://www.yahoo.com/money/senate-passes-biden-relief-package-including-stimulus-checks-172010233.html "The legislation includes stimulus payments, the extension of key unemployment programs that are set to lapse in the spring, aid to small businesses, around $350 billion to state and local governments, an increase in tax credits for low- and middle-income families, and $160 billion for a national program on vaccination and testing." 2/27/21 - Biden $1.9T Bill passes House - https://www.yahoo.com/money/house-passes-biden-relief-package-including-stimulus-checks-070640949.html 01/16/21 - Update - Bidens Stimulus Proposal --> https://www.yahoo.com/money/who-gets-a-payment-under-stimulus-check-proposal-171037998.html https://money.yahoo.com/biden-pandemic-stimulus-plan-222717126.html Some highlights: $1.9B package which $465B goes directly to Americans. $1400 check to get to a total of $2000 based on the $600 already sent out. All dependents now are eligible - Previously only children under 17 counted as dependents. Now college students, the elderly, and disabled dependents can be claimed. Income thresholds stay the same but phase out changes based on # of dependents (see chart in article) 12/28/20 - Summary of the bill - https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Summary of H.R. 133 Coronavirus Relief Provisions.pdf 12/23/20 - Update Moving this up front - Latest Stimulus bill passed by congress: https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/politics/second-covid-stimulus-package-details/index.html Additional detail - https://money.yahoo.com/tax-breaks-in-the-new-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-205300030.html https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ127/PLAW-116publ127.pdf This is the first bill - Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ127/PLAW-116publ127.pdf This was the second bill - H.R.6201 - Families First Coronavirus Response Act https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr748/BILLS-116hr748enr.pdf This is a link to the latest bill - the CARES Act. https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/coronavirus-stimulus-package This is focused a bit on retirement impact but also has a good breakdown on the various bills - there have been three so far. It has highlights from all three. https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-stimulus-package-questions-answers.html This article from the NY Times has a pretty good FAQ that addresses individuals and what to expect in terms of a stimulus check. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ALeKk03rdyFezfhw2rXnEH6PUa8YOG91PQ:1586968562273&q=fox+news+on+the+stimulus+package&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5u7HL7uroAhUJTN8KHbt4DZAQt8YBKAF6BAgKEAY&biw=1360&bih=625 So as not to be one sided here, below is a link to Fox News articles on the stimulus. https://www.yahoo.com/gma/tax-provision-coronavirus-stimulus-mostly-benefit-wealthy-study-082040196--abc-news-topstories.html This is the one article that really caught my attention. And maybe someone with more knowledge than I can confirm or deny this article to be accurate. But if believed, their contention is that 80% of he funds allocated for the stimulus will go to roughly 43,000 of the wealthiest in our society, all worth well over $1,000,000. This would represent the second massive shift in wealth from the poor to the rich during this administration. I have made no secret that I hate this administration and believe the republicans have lost their minds. However, that does not mean the dems are innocent. If the above is true, the dems were complicit. They had numbers to keep this from passing with this type of garbage but judging by the 96-0 vote in the Senate, the dems were 100% on board. I am glad to see many in here getting checks. I truly hope it helps. But this package leaves me with more questions than answers. 1. Do they really think a one time check is going to make that much difference? 2. What about people without health care? The package appoves spending for health care but unless i am missing something it's mostly in the form of insurance company reimbursement and an expansion of medicaid. This does not good for those without insurance but are considered middle class in terms of earnings. 3. The democrats put an oversight provision in place and the president immediately removed the person assigned to oversee the the oversight! How can that be legal? Where is outrage from either side? Seems even Dems have their tongues tied. 4. How is this getting paid for? I ask this becasue my fear is this is exactly what the republicans needed to finally put SS and Medicare on the chopping block. 5. And how did the Dems let the anti-abortion language stay in the bill? The CARES allows funds to withheld from hospitals and doctors offices that perform abortions - at least that is the way it reads. This from:https://msmagazine.com/2020/03/31/so-whats-included-in-that-2-2-trillion-coronavirus-stimulus-package-and-whats-missing/ Included: Last-Minute Anti-Abortion Provisions The CARES Act includes some much-needed health and economic resources—but anti-choice legislators also used the dire nature of this relief bill as an opportunity advance an anti-abortion agenda. Conditions inside the stimulus bill create new funding hurdles for Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics that provide health services to the poor. “It has become shamefully clear that not even a global pandemic will stop the Trump administration or Republican Congressional leaders from attacking access to reproductive care,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. There are many more. Those just come off the top of my head. I have some thoughts about these but I am interested in everyone thoughts about the packages, are they good? Bad? indifferent? Is more needed? If so, what? Are there other approaches? For example i saw an idea about offering to pay small businesses to stay closed by offering to pay some major % of their payroll. It seems to me these packages were rushed through with out proper vetting and therefore are not actually in the best interest of the very people they are designed to help. Limited funds for individuals, no help with those without insurance, huge benefits for corporations. Will phase 4 be more of the same? Will the dems finally stand up? My guess is yes and then no. And we know what the republicans want - indentured servants with a false sense of freedom - Ok that's just my version of it. Ok, the latest is Trump signed one EO and 3 Memorandums. This article provides some detail for all 4 of them. In fairness it's from CNN so it's a bit biased. But the technical details are pretty accurate as far as I can tell. - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/09/politics/trump-executive-actions-coronavirus-explainer/index.html Here are the highlights - or lowlights if you prefer: EO for UI continuation - This one provies $300/week from the federal government and asks the states to add an additional $100. So far, only KY, MT, and WV are adding the additional $100.00. Vermont is still thinking about but has made no commitment. 33 States in all are approved to distribute money btu only Fl and TX are the only states actually sending out checks. And of course there are strings attached as there always is with trump. Here is an article with updates. https://www.yahoo.com/money/coronavirus-stimulus-here-are-the-states-approved-so-far-for-the-300-unemployment-benefits-194240970.html The 3 Memorandums: 1. Payroll Tax - He wants to "defer" the payroll taxes (SS and Midecare taxes) fro anyone making less than $100,000. But has made it clear he would later attempt to absolve the responsibility of payback and then get rid of the Payroll Tax altogether - which would in effect kill SS and Medicare. This is his end goal and always has been. 2. Evictions - There is no money and no policy. The bottom line is this give the CDC and the Health and Human Services director the authority to delay evictions if they believe it's necessary to prevent the spread of Covid-19. 3. A 3 month extension of the student relief portion of CARES. This one is actually value added as is. Here is the latest proposal. I typically wait till it's actually passed. But this has some good breakdowns and lot's a bi-partisan support. They have broken into 2 bills. Still not stimulus in either package but there is extended unemployment insurance and other key provisions. https://money.yahoo.com/bipartisan-group-splits-stimulus-220109280.html If I have anything wrong please let me know and I will correct it/them.

Are you sure of that?

I heard a good solution to the employment issue and people paychecks. Instead of bailouts to large corporations and a paltry one time payment to some citizens, the government should offer to pay a certain % of each companies payroll to close until the virus is contained therefore incentivizing businesses to stay closed. The loans are not going to help like they should.

I am not sure if you just hate China that much or you are trying to provide excuses for this administration. I am leaning to intense hate for China because it at least appears you are not a fan of the trump administration at all. You know there are real people over there. People like us who want to eat, sleep, have families, go on vacations, etc. It's not some evil empire where the entire population is out to get us. BTW: We did have boots on the ground until mid 2019 when trump discontinued the position. We had a person in the Chinese CDC. So we had the people in place and China did not throw them out. Trump removed them. He also disbanded the Pandemic Response Readiness team. Had he not done that, there is a real chance they could have had us out in front of this thing and contained it to a smaller geographical area. We can blame China, and they own some of this for sure. But saying this administration only owns a months delay ignores a mountain of data that shows we knew much earlier than that and made the decision to ignore the issue until it became unmanageable. And more importantly, that decisions made before the pandemic even happened seriously weakened our ability to react.

South Korea's testing has been light years more effective than ours. Let's start with about 80% of their testing was done 6 to 8 weeks ago so they were able to quarantine the right areas to create actual containment. Something we have yet to do and are now too late for. At one point they were testing 20,000/day and had drive up testing with immediate results. We are no where near that level of testing now almost 2 months later! Pure numbers do not tell anything close to the full story. Yes, they have a smaller areas to cover but also have vastly less resources yet have thoroughly outperformed us. At ever step South Korea has made us look like the 3rd world country we are about now. We used to be the leader in these things. Now sadly we are not even good followers. We are still mostly flailing about without a sure path. Is it better than it was in March? Yes. But that's not setting the bar very high.

That China and the US handled this poorly can be and are mutually exclusive. Both can be true and I believe are true. China certainly downplayed the impact and potential of the virus. And they still lie about the numbers. However, I know directly from Chinese friends in China that once they acknowledged that the virus was so highly contagious and was spreading so fast, they put measures in place to contain the problem. Measures that we would not be considered here because of the violation of civil rights. My friends are a combination of Chinese nationals and ex-pats from the US and Europe. They are in Suzhou, Changzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhongshan, Hong Kong, and Bejing. I also have a friend here that is originally from China and goes home to her parents and was in fact in China when this all happened - about 200 miles from Wuhan. They all have pretty close to the same report - the government was slow to react, even slower to admit it to the international community, but once they did acknowledge they shut it down. Many of my friends have been back to work for a few months now and there so far has not been any kind re-emergence - at least not nationally. They all also agree the numbers are woefully inaccurate. The US government was also slow to acknowledge how big an issue this was having removed the resources to ensure readiness and to mobilize containment if needed. The biggest need was tests. Let's forget China for a moment. Why could South Korea test 20,000/day with drive up testing with immediate results and we were still only testing a few people a day as a country? Again I have friends and colleagues in South Korea so I know this to be fact. They are not lying abotu their numbers. They did what we should have done. Expedited tests, employ a containment process to catch early outbreaks and contain them before they spread. Instead we were having smoke blown up our ass by our sudden cheerleader in chief (can;t believe that's their excuse). China **** the bed. No arguing that point. However, knowing what we know about China, why was this administration taking their word for it? Part of the reason is through budget cuts aimed at dismantling anything Obama did, they took the boots on the ground in China that could have given better information out and simultaneously disbanded the Pandemic Readiness commission (not it's actual name but you know who i mean). There was enough data from enough other countries and examples of action taken by other countries that the impact had a much better chance of being severely limited. In fairness, maybe not. But we will not know due to the incredible ineptness of our president to allow the experts to do their job, either by removing them from office or not taking their council. It's like knowing that a movie reviewer is garbage but taking their advice anyway. Anyone laying full blame or even a majority of the blame for how big this in the US on China as the primary culprit is just not looking at the entire picture. Sure, they own some of it no doubt. But we should not have been relying on them to begin with. Other countries figured it out. Why didn't we? Answer? Our toddler in chief!

Easy now. First we are just talking because there is not much else to do. And if you read the comments everyone has said it has to be a great deal. What’s not smart is to not listen to offers to drop back just 3 spots and get a bunch of picks. and where did anyone say we trade back and get 3 pro bowlers. Not one person. But you can easily get a stud at 5 and very good players filling holes with the additional picks. It’s irresponsible not to listen but it has to be a really good deal. as for trading back again and again that's as another exaggeration. Only talked MAYBE going back a second time again only if it a really good deal. have to leave all options open going in or you may miss a chance to really help your team.

I totally agree, although I think a 2 next would be enough, but either way I believe i said it's unlikely. Was just thinking out loud and exploring the edges of what might happen with some what ifs. And it's not impossible. It's really all about how much does Miami want Tua and how much they think Detroit would take him if we do what we should at #2 and take Chase (it also assumes Cinn does not take Tua, but then there may be more teams interested in #2 with Burrow on the board - again very unlikely but not impossible. Not directed at you, in case i did not make it perfectly clear, I don't really see any of that happening. Just throwing some thoughts out there. After all isn't that what a thread like this is for?

I certainly see the argument and am mostly there myself. But I think it comes down to compensation. Also, I am not as worried about Simmons being available when we pick. For example, let's say Miami offers 5, 18, this years 2nd (39) and next years 2nd. I don't think you can turn that down. The presumption is that they want Tua. So the draft likely goes like this: #1 Burrow #2 Tua #3 - Detroit has the QB decision taken out of their hands and they need edge so they take Chase Young (they are ecstatic BTW) #4 - I think the Giants go OL to protect Daniel Jones but they have a decision to make. They might even trade back with someone really jonseing for Simmons thinking there are enough good Ts in the 1st they can still get someone depending on how far back they go. #5 - The good news for us is there are 2 quality players left for Detroit - Simmons and Okudah. We take whoever is left. I would also consider trading back again if someone gave a reasonable offer. You could trade back and still get a quality OL and likely CB with at least 2 picks in the 1st. Dallas, Minn, Philly all need CB desperately. They see Okudah at #5 they may make a run at trading. If not, you stay put and take him. Same with SImmons. Let's say Miami pulls a switch and takes Young at #2 - very unlike but not impossible. I cannot imagine Detroit passes on Tua. Could not be a more perfect situation. He can sit for a few years and learn. But let's say Detroit decides they are all in this year and take Simmons - very possible since Patricia is on the hottest of hot seats. The Giants are very unlikely to take Okudah. I would be surprised if in this scenario if they did not go OL. So again we get Okudah and extra picks. Again, I think the most likely scenario is we stay put at 2 for Young and I am totally on board with that. But I would not rule out trading back if the price was right. And if they do, I think there is enough other talent they could come out of it really nice.

To this point, I have a friend who is a store manager for Target. She and her staff feel like they are considered expendable. And most people coming in are grumpy and take it out on them. Like they "want" to be out of Clorox, Toilet Paper, etc! However, all it takes is a few kind words of appreciation and to let them know that is this type of circumstance they are literally putting their lives on the line so we can get the things we need to survive in our homes. So I second Jumbo in asking everyone to give a kind word to the cashier at the grocery store or the gas station, the people working at Target, WalMart, Dollar General, CVS, Walgreen etc. Acknowledge their sacrifice and let them know they are appreciated. You have no idea how much you are helping them just get through the day and not feel like society views them as expendable.

I have felt this way for a long time. Just stop showing him. Stop reporting on him unless it truly is a matter of national importance. Stop giving him a platform to whine. He already has twitter.

The sad part is now they are even accusing Fox of being fake news if they say anything against trump. Instead they are turning to the real nuttso places like OAN, Drudge Report and Breitbart. They make Fox look like the beacon of truth. I have a friend who lives on the Eastern Shore - works in Salisbury. She was at a gas station/convenience store and overheard the owner telling a deliveryman the Corona Virus was planted by the Chinese to keep Christians from observing Easter in church where they belong. Just not sure what you do with that. That level of mind numbing ignorance is hard to penetrate.

Thanks for posting. I don't watch enough John Oliver. I typically catch up on him on planes across the ocean when i have an international trip. But obviously don't have any of those right now. OAN rose in prominence with the whole QAnon conspiracy which it fecklessly promoted the deep state theory with the brilliant premise that despite the outward bickering, trump and Mueller were working together to take down the the deep state from within. They also promoted such great conspiracies like the one about democrats and Hollywood elites running a pedophile slave trafficking ring out of the basement of a downtown DC Pizzeria that does not have a basement. That was quickly followed by the Seth Rich murder conspiracy. These are just a few of the many incredibly dangerous conspiracies from the extreme right shamelessly promoted by OAN. As even some parts of Fox have found themselves calling trump out for some of his idiocy, he has turned to OAN because as you see they traffic in pure right wing extremist hate, misinformation and conspiracy - you know the things our toddler in chief thrives on. And as you heard him say, "They are very good to me!" That being such a important job of the press - to be nice to the president - NOT!

Because Home Depot and Costco have things people need to buy to live. There nothing you need to do at church that is life critical. I am astounded at how blind people are to this that seem incredulous as to why congregating at a church for no reason other than you want to is a problem.

You said not to assume trumps statements were driven by politics and that others were making the same statements early on and they are not being blamed. However, when you look at what was actually said, many were saying it looked like it was no more dangerous than the flu - but they also said we need to watch this very carefully until we know for sure, something trump left out. Also, citing Vox and Buzzfeed - sorry those are both really bad examples. I would expect nothing but drivel from them. They are as biased as Drudge Report and Brieghtbart but in the opposite direction. And I posted an article from WaPo on Feb 1 saying that while it appears the flu is a bigger problem now we need to be wary and interviewed Dr Fauci so what you said is not exactly true. Having said all that, all he would have to do is come out and say: I missed it. I really thought this would be a small deal but I was wrong and we are now doing what we can, then I would be 100% with you even as much as I can't stand the manchild. But he refuses to take any kind of ownership. This makes his actions now and especially early much more egregious - and yes politically motivated. I do not see that as a very big jump.

And I made the case that for trump it very much was and still is a partisan issue. It has never been about what is right for the country unless absolutely forced to, only what he sees as his best political gain. Nd he continued well into March - not just the end of February, not just early March, but into late March also. And he is forcing others around him to do the same. Here is an ad that goes to March 22. I wish they would update. But still, as late as March 22nd he was acting as if this was going away soon and his administration had it competently under control. Yes, the ad is from a large progressive Super Pac - but all they did was quote him. The only statement somewhat out of context is the hoax thing - which I agree he never said the disease was a hoax, although he came very close. What he did imply is that the democrats would use this as a way to remove him from office when he has done nothing wrong, which is bull****. And they kept in "this THIER new hoax". So again YES,. trump has been making decisions based on what he perceives is the best political outcome for him.

First, those organizations simply report the news, especially the Washington Post. I know it's fashionable to state they are all 100% agenda driven but that is false. Do they have agendas? Yes. But that does not mean all coverage of everything is driven by that narrative. As for Buzzfeed and Vox, if that's where you (meaning people in general, not you personally) get your news, that's your problem. Same as getting it from Drudge Report or Brieghtbart - stupid is as stupid does. The president and his administration on the other hand is supposed to know and react appropriately to what is actually happening. And there is more and more evidence that they knew this could be a huge problem as early as November but due to trump worrying about his image he forced the people in his administration to continue down playing this until well into March. It was just a little over a week ago that he admitted this could be bad - then immediately him and his supporters started making up stories about how it was other people fault - impeachment being one. Deflection and lies. It is the governments responsibility to keep us accurately informed, something they still are not doing. They lied about tests, they lied about medical equipment, they lied about the spread in the US, they were late with every decision required to limit this. That is why it is pure fact - not just supposition - the trump has made most of his corona virus decisions based on politicos and how he thinks it makes him look. wants to remain king. Outside the China travel ban, trump has missed just about every opportunity to do the right thing in favor of doing what he perceives as what will help the most (or do the least damage) to his reputation and chances on winning in 2020. But in the end he couldn't give a fiddlers **** about people other than himself and his immediate family. Ok, with that out of the way, here is an article from the Post on Feb 1 (The time period you mentioned) stating that "for now" the Flu is a bigger deal. But until we know what the Corona Virus is and what the final potential can be it will be feared more than the flu. They even interview Dr. Fauci who discusses why the the need for a heavy focus on Corona. This is a far cry from claiming it's nothing. And like most publications they continued to give trump a chance to catch up and do the right thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/time-for-a-reality-check-america-the-flu-is-a-much-bigger-threat-than-coronavirus-for-now/2020/01/31/46a15166-4444-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html Once better data came out they started reporting it, through no help from a administration. So your contention that they should be chastised for reporting it for political gain for the "left" is wrong (what ever the "left" actually means since it seems there are many different definitions, and most of them are wrong in the purest sense of the true definition)

It should be that if any teacher gets sick the superintendent is charged with assault and if they die, they are charged with murder. Unlikely to happen. But if it did, it may stop this kind of non-sense.

I agree with your overall point about churches being non-essential - with one adjustment. I do not agree liquor stores are essential. Both are choices, not necessitates. And both can be put off until this thing is under control - assuming that can actually happen considering he lack of taking it serious much of the country seems to be taking it.