COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

This is the funniest **** ever.


https://twitter.com/breitbartnews/st...212672005?s=21

Breibart paid a bunch of doctors to hold a pretty conference and this is the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

What we needed, we didn't get. I get it, we didn't have all the info we needed in February and March and it can be easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say 'why did/didn't we do this?' but the problem the administration simply cannot legitimately point to anyone else as the problem on is having/creating/submitting a general plan. They didn't then and yet all these months later still have not really had any sort of comprehensive plan for states to go by. They haven't always even gone by the CDC, which only deals with the health aspects. The only thing Trump was doing early on was having weekly calls with all the governors.

Had he directed his task force and allowed them to do what one should have been doing in this time, there would have been federally constructed pipelines for PPE and equipment instead of states fending for themselves. There would have been solid guidelines on when and how things should be shut down as well as when and how they could reopen.

Every area is different, not just state by state but community by community. I live very rural and there's basically never been more than 10-15 positives within 45 miles of me this entire time, yet schools and businesses shut down for 2 months...but 60 miles away was one of those early hot spots in a meat packing plant. So not every area should have been handled the same and it's not up to the federal government to make the direct calls, but it IS the federal government who should have put together and continued to amend adaptable guidelines.....and Trump is absolutely to blame for that not happening, even these months later.

Yet he can determine he needs to use our own citizens (federal agents) to combat our own citizens (protesters) often without the knowledge OR support of the governors and mayors those citizens are in.......AND directly say he's sending them to 'Democratically controlled' cities.

Listen, I'm still registered Republican, but it's becoming more and more embarrassing to say that....but it'd not be much less so to be registered Democrat. What I do know is that WHATEVER view I had of Trump in February....has been dropping lower on an almost daily basis since then.

---

These are fair points but I’ve always been the person who believes states should be handling state issues and the federal govt supports and helps the states but they don’t handle their issues. Each state should have made their own decision on what to do.

And you call these people “protestors” which shows the lack of knowledge you have on the issue. These people aren’t protestors they’re agitators who are out to cause issues and problems. And yes, the feds have the right to be there and protect FEDERAL property


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Any media that isn't super conservative leaning is bad. That's about as deep as his analysis goes.

---

Good one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

Good one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...ln_400x400.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

These are fair points but I’ve always been the person who believes states should be handling state issues and the federal govt supports and helps the states but they don’t handle their issues. Each state should have made their own decision on what to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

To me it's a pretty simple pyramid. A county takes care of itself at the direction of the state (which is coordinating all its counties), which takes care of itself at the direction of the nation (which should be coordinating all its states). Everything starts from the top, its how our country is designed.

You cant be a no show at the very top and then expect everything else to fall in line on it's own. And we had an example play out right in front of us, states moved in a panicked manner because they were left out to dry. Both red and blue states.

There is a reason states, and citizens in states, pay federal taxes. It's not for them to go missing when a crisis occurs, its for them to step up when a crisis occurs.

Trumps just a failure. It is what it is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I’m curious what you guys think of unemployment benefits and the 600 per week.

You think that’s fair? Should it be less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

I’m curious what you guys think of unemployment benefits and the 600 per week.

You think that’s fair? Should it be less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I think my state gives out about $50-300 a week and that's a ****ing joke. I think that $600 on top of that is bringing things close to where they should be. I could do a bit more than half of my mortgage on the maximum amount that they offer. I don't know anywhere near here that would be indoors that I could get for close to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I think my state gives out about $50-300 a week and that's a ****ing joke. I think that $600 on top of that is bringing things close to where they should be. I could do a bit more than half of my mortgage on the maximum amount that they offer. I don't know anywhere near here that would be indoors that I could get for close to that.

---

Yeah, but you could pay a mortgage where I live with it. I get that they wanted it done fast, but it was sloppy. If you are going to give people more than they make working on unemployment then just send out direct payments to everyone under a certain income level and call it a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I think my state gives out about $50-300 a week and that's a ****ing joke. I think that $600 on top of that is bringing things close to where they should be. I could do a bit more than half of my mortgage on the maximum amount that they offer. I don't know anywhere near here that would be indoors that I could get for close to that.

---

It really doesn’t incentive people going back to work when they can sit at home and make nearly 30,000 per year with being unemployed. At some point you have to go back to what it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

It really doesn’t incentive people going back to work when they can sit at home and make nearly 30,000 per year with being unemployed. At some point you have to go back to what it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

So people should make less than $30,000 to not go back to jobs because they don’t exist in a collapsed market due to a literal global pandemic. Got it.

I hope you get to experience hard times someday. You really could use to understand the world a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brewersfan255

It really doesn’t incentive people going back to work when they can sit at home and make nearly 30,000 per year with being unemployed. At some point you have to go back to what it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If you are getting 30 on unemployment Im guessing you had to be FT and living in a state with both a high cost of living and high maxs on unemployment rate. I am not sure what the solution is right now but if receiving the equivalent of 15 an hr short term is a better look for theses people then returning to stable FT work it seems to they were getting treated like trash. That doesn’t mean enhancing benefits won’t keep some people home and that it shouldn’t be a concern. It just means I don’t know if its “unfair” that they got some change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

Yeah, but you could pay a mortgage where I live with it. I get that they wanted it done fast, but it was sloppy. If you are going to give people more than they make working on unemployment then just send out direct payments to everyone under a certain income level and call it a day.

---

I think that is part of the problem. There are a lot states where you could not pay a mortgage anywhere in the state with 600 bucks. Maybe if you put 75% down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On average, state maximums in normal circumstances is around $400/week. What that means is if a full time employee making $10/hr is laid off, they'd receive their normal paycheck but if they made more, they'd have maxed out. When I first heard of the extra $600/week I assumed this just meant people wouldn't max out so quickly; it would take someone making $25/hr to max out, but people making less would make what they had been making (i.e. someone making $20/hr would get the $800/wk they had been).

But that's not what happened....if I'm not mistaken, someone making $10/hr and someone making $25/hr (or $40/hr for that matter) has been getting the same $1,000/wk.

IMO what SHOULD have happened was that the maximums in each state be raised the $600, not just that EVERYone got the $600 extra. Now, some say some people weren't making a livable wage before...but that's what they'd been living on prior to the pandemic and quite likely what they'd need to after...not sure during an emergency is when to try and adjust that.......but even if they did, it would have been an easy formula to add a percentage on top of what would've been their maximum. I see people saying they can't live on what they were getting even WITH the extra $600...how the hell were they living BEFORE?

and now they've stuck themselves (Congress)...they did the extra $600 and now need to continue with something......continuing with the extra $600 is becoming less and less fair to those lower income people who HAVE gone back to work, but if they reduce benefits the screaming will be deafening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

I think that is part of the problem. There are a lot states where you could not pay a mortgage anywhere in the state with 600 bucks. Maybe if you put 75% down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I agree with that.

People haven't been GETTING $600, they've been getting $600 OVER what they would've gotten in normal times.
So how were these people paying their bills BEFORE Covid or BEFORE losing their jobs? Where did their prior bills increase since they were laid off? The ONLY thing I can think of would be if they were buying health insurance they lost...and most would qualify for reduced COBRA insurance if so.

so talking about mortgage levels is really not that relevant other than people who were already making north of 50k, people more likely to be able to weather a short term reduction in income