The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Whenever a US politician grant a billion dollars to a "worthy" purpose, such as keeping an airline alive, that amounts to three dollars per US citizen. Whenever a politician grants a trillion dollars to keep the economy running, that amounts to three thousand dollars per citizen. That includes newborn babies and retired grandmas. Whenever you hear "a trillion dollars worth of support", if you have four kids that is eighteen thousand dollars for your little family.
It must be paid by the tax payers; there is noone else to pay it. You and your family must pay back those eighteen thousand dollars. Maybe some of it is, in the first stage, paid by business life, through the taxes they pay. Where do they get their money? From their customers, the man in the street. If their taxes rise by a total of half a trillion, their income must raise by half a trillion. Their only way to do that is to raise their prices. So maybe your six-person household pays "only" nine thousand dollars in direct tax rise, but another nine thousand dollars in raised product prices. That is per trillion that is granted to keep business up.
I think that lots of people think of these trillions are money that they (or business) receive as a gift, without being worried about who gives this gift. They do not view the granting of a trillion as taking away three thousand dollar per person in the household from the economy of that household. But that is what it really is. Of course, some of it might manifest in other ways, e.g. schools having less funds to employ teachers or to buy new textbooks. Maybe they have to cancel the planned class trip. Maybe the village marching band loose their funding so they can't employ a conductor, and must close down. So you may see it not as money taken away, but as services and public offerings taken away. Nevertheless, you experience a loss. The total comes out as three thousand dollars per citizen, per trillion granted to "the economy".
A lot of people will agree, "It is a good idea to spend a trillion dollars to keep economy going". Far fewer will agree "Our six person family think it is a good idea to take eighteen thousand dollars from your household budget to keep economy going" - even though these are in fact saying the same thing.
You're looking at not only what is readily seen, but also what is unseen, which is the foundation of all clear economic analysis.
Unfortunately, very few people do this. Politicians say "we're going to create jobs", hoping that no one thinks of the jobs that would have been created naturally, instead of in favored sectors, if taxpayers could have spent their money as they saw fit.
Or "we need to stimulate the economy", dragging consumption forward instead of saving (which translates into investing) for a rainy day, while simultaneously fooling businesses into thinking that actual demand exists when it is only transient and artificial.
There are countless other examples, but suffice it to say that most economic analysis, often from so-called professionals, is either superficial or outright lying to justify immoral practices.
This is concerning: "We should get used to news of this kind," said Associate Professor Volodymyr Bilotkach, a lecturer in air transport management at the Singapore Institute of Technology. "We'll see more airlines go under."
go under ?
- under water ?
- under ground ??
- under pants
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil. Synonyms: pest, plague, CCP
I do not think I broke the rules of the Site.
Speaking the Truth should never be breaking the rules anywhere. That is called Freedom of Expression.
That Right is enshrined in your constitution.
If that breaks the rules, the rules are wrong.
His decisions have been to based solely on what would get him reelected. Not uncommon amongst politicians from either party. Arguably, pleasing their constituency is their job.
What stands out with the primary subject in this case is the way things are spouted out and 'walked back' so continiously that it's become a ridiculous new normal. For those of you who have read "1984", the concept of Double Think has, in fact, become a reality among his supporters. Questioning folly is answered with an insult to the questioner. If reality makes "him" look bad than it's labeled "Fake News" and can thus be dismissed.
The most horrific and sad thing is that, for his supporters, it works. A magic reset button they want pushed for self validation. Still - one can't give him all the blame, even at the government level (2016 elections are OVER): it is the "enablers" in the congress that must now accept the blame - willing to throw the country they claim to love under that proverbial bus for political gains - something enshrined in their behavior since after the 2008 elections.
What's going on now, however, is at such an astounding level that I'd never believe it as even plausible for a movie script.
Remember - if you dare - that "he" even encouraged violent attacks on those who disagreed with him at his per-election rallies. If I recall, even offering to cover any legal expenses they incur. That should disturb anyone.
Sometimes, it's not the event nearly so much as the degree. Like a driver speeding: 40mph in a 30mph zone is not the same as 95mph in a 30mph zone.
We do not yet know what the situation will be like in November. In the worst case scenario, the chance of taking over is probably the greatest. But are we sure that the opponent really wants to take over and take responsibility for cleaning up the mess? If a new, far more intense wave of infection is in the process of building up, the economy is wrecked, and people are close to revolting, I could understand if the opponent rather stays low, and say: Those who let it loose, those who spent trillions on ensuring profits rather that health, let those take the job of getting the country back on its feet again!
I am certainly not saying that is is like that. I don't even think that it is probable. But I see it as possibility, at least in theory.
Trump's November opponent will not lay low. Both sides are power gluttons and think that many of their opponents are seriously misguided if not evil. (They're both right.) And the typical voter is an imbecile who thinks that government is all unicorns and rainbows, and that it can kiss anything and make it better. It's unlikely that Trump would be blamed for problems with the virus, but he could well be blamed for economic problems, whether the virus is an explanation or not. This is pretty much an historical fact when it comes to US elections, recent examples being Bush the First and Carter.