SectionC3

update: still no data or article to support your tax and spend theories. But plenty of time to invent ways to try to blame Nancy Pelosi for the president's irresponsible financial policies. Cool picture. Got a response on the merits?

That's a $350 billion (with a "B") dollar program, right? Perhaps instead of focusing on a tiny slice of that spending package, and ignoring the Trump tax and spend policies of the past 3.5 years, we should focus on the issue whether the package itself would have been necessary had the President of the United States (the one who claims to have "absolute authority") proactively addressed the pandemic.

I'm not going to click on the link, but I might suggest that you read the part about the president's veto power if it's in there.

That's the ticket. "RINOs." Got it. So the "RINOs," Pelosi, and Schumer are responsible for the irresponsible spending. Makes perfect sense. I had to edit the post because I missed the corollary to the theory: there are so many RINOs that a presidential veto of all of this irresponsible spending would be overridden, so naturally the president doesn't bother to exercise his veto power with respect to such issues and instead will focus on eliminating the RINO source of the problem. Now I think I've covered all of the bases. One more thing: still no study or data to support your "tax and spend" conservatism points.

Typical Trumper response. Ignore the balance of the points, and instead attempt to undermine through distraction. I'll let the WHO answer your question: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/15/835179442/we-alerted-the-world-to-coronavirus-on-jan-5-who-says-in-response-to-u-s. I'll add that important measure taken by the WHO (alerting the international community to the concern in early January 2020, and publishing the genetic sequence of the virus approximately one week later) occurred approximately one month before the President of the United States attempted to wish the virus away, suggesting that it would just "disappear," and characterized the virus as a political hoax. The bottom line is that while the WHO warned the world of the dangers of coronavirus, the President of the United States deluded himself and attempted to delude the public into ignoring the problem. I suspect that most would not believe that unemployment numbers prompted by the pandemic, the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression, are a hoax. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if those numbers would be as high as they are had the person with "absolute authority" in this country, I don't know, respected the threat and pushed for the development of an aggressive testing program, and similarly pushed the scientific community to begin drug therapies for the virus. That sort of was the point of the WHO publishing the genetic sequence of the virus. In any event, I'm all ears if you have a response on the merits to the litany of other criticisms I raised with respect to the president's mishandling of the pandemic. This is rich. Got a study to support your point? If not, when exactly will the "spending now . . . generate income in the future?" And, more importantly, will the "spending now," which frankly has occurred inversely through the reduction in receivables by the US Treasury occasioned by the Trump tax cuts for the rich, generate enough income to pay for itself in the future? The data thus far says that the tax and spend approach of the president (who, not that you need the civics lesson, must approve the "Pelosi" spending to which you refer given that Republicans control the Senate, and that Democrats only control the House) has not worked: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises. I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to "Schumer" spending, since Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, control the Senate. That said, my understanding of fiscal conservatism is that it involves things like low taxes for all and balanced budgets. Not tariffs, tax giveaways to the top 2%, and massive deficit spending.

"[W]ould be the very definition of a schittshow?" With respect, what's going on right now is nuts. Bananas. Do you watch the President's press conferences? One day he's saying that he takes no responsibility for the pandemic response. The next day he claims absolute authority. His cavalier approach to the truth is beyond anything that I could have comprehended before this presidency. Don't agree with him? You're fake news. Or nasty. Or a bad reporter. Or a liar. It doesn't matter if you're the New York Times or even the Wall Street Journal. I wrote that paragraph before I even read your "whataboutism" point with respect to China, navigating the podium, and her foundation. I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, but what you said . . . it has no basis in truth, logic, or reason. It's rank speculation and willfully ignorant of the atrocious job that this president has done with respect to the pandemic response. The Boston Globe said it better than I ever could: Trump is "epically outmatched" by the pandemic. We see it live every day in these bonkers pressers from the White House. We see it when Jared Kushner is put in charge, acts like a moron in front of a microphone, and then is sidelined. We see it when Peter Navarro, a smart person but one uneducated in matters of this nature, fights an experienced, accomplished virologist with respect to the loosening of social distancing restrictions. We see it when COVID testing remains a significant impediment to pandemic control and economic awakening, despite the fact that the president said a month ago that "anyone who wants a test can have one." We see it in old news clips in which the president tried to wish the virus away and deemed it a political hoax. We see it when the president blows the dog whistle to blame Obama and China for the problem without acknowledging his own missteps. We see it with the ridiculous attempt to pin this mess on the WHO. And, most sadly, we see it in the so-called "fake news" reports of ER docs, nurses, and families affected by this crisis.

Got some facts? Or a link?

It's the biggest (and maybe the only) "hoax" of the Trump presidency. I can't comprehend how fiscal conservatives could have supported this administration even before the coronavirus. They're free traders; he instituted a bunch of new taxes through his tariff program. The deficit was growing rapidly and was out of control even before coronavirus. And now, with this giveaway . . . I received a little over $3,000 for nothing. If that's not socialism (and this is coming from a true blue, union Democrat) I don't know what is. With respect to the religious conservatives, I get that Trump gave them two Supreme Court judges who might give them a shot at overturning Roe. (Ultimately I suspect that Roberts won't go along with it, but that's a conversation for another day.) The moral compromises that must be drawn to support this president, however, . . . I find stunning. There's no other way to put it. And as for the constitutional conservatives, if this week's nugget about "absolute authority" doesn't put you over the edge then nothing will. The national emergency declaration to support wall construction was legal nonsense, but that pales with respect to this man's patent misunderstanding of the document that he purports to love. It amazes me that the "rule of law" crowd sticks by this guy after the Mueller report (read it, I did, refused to make a determination with respect to legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting obstruction charges), the wall fiasco, and now this nonsense about absolute power. *** One more point: Even Matt Drudge is turning on this guy. The intellectual conservatives know that this president is off the rails. He might be a nationalist, and he is a narcissist, but he is definitely not a conservative.

The recession is here. Hopefully it doesn't turn into a depression. None of knows (or at least none of us has been willing to say) the extent to which the Pegulas are leveraged. I wonder whether it's not so much debt load or cash flow that is a problem, but a hit to the investment portfolio caused by the coronavirus downturn. Assuming they're into the energy sector (an assumption, to be sure, but not an altogether unreasonable one), they could have taken huge losses in the last two months. By way of example, I bought a small amount of VDE after Iran seized a couple of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. That investment is down about 50% as of today. It's probably just as bad for domestic energy holdings as well. In any event, the layoffs on the hockey side of things aren't a great sign for a new stadium (not that I want one because I prefer a renovated New Era). The dynamic on the state side obviously has changed as a result of the pandemic, and it looks like the amount of private money might have dwindled as well as a result of recent events.

I'm bored so I'll take a case at your candidate. Dennis Lauscha? NFL experience, also runs a successful small-market winter sports team, and has experience with special events (e.g., NCAA post-season events, all-star games, etc.).

Good for you. Thanks for your service and for donating your plasma. We're all in this together, and you have more than done your part. The crowd thing is going to be interesting. The theory here is that the in-stadium crowds help viewership. I wonder if nets pipe in crowd noise and try to use a little VR effect to "paste" fans into backgrounds.

No doubt. Would the telereview still constitute a physical? Or would that simply be a review of medical records? I'm not a doctor, so this might be off-base, but I'm wondering whether ROM, strength tests, etc., would be relevant to measuring recovery and would be necessary for a complete and contemporaneous evaluatioun of the subject. I suppose (and correct me if I'm wrong) that there might be an indicator of automatic failure based on imaging (avascular necrosis would show upon an x-ray, right?). But I just . . . it sounds like BS to me that this guy underwent a physical given the current circumstances.

I'm curious as to when those physicals were conducted. (Or, better put, if those physicals actually were conducted, given the pandemic.)

It's all about winning. Win and you're relevant. Win and you're noticed. It doesn't matter if you play in Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay, Kansas City, or any other midwestern, small market.

I hate to say it but at this point I agree with him. The problem is the peak in New York City will be followed by growth in other places, e.g., New Orleans, Boston, Detroit, etc. Hopefully the summer kills this thing off, but right now I have my doubts that we're closer to the end than to the beginning.

A bit touchy, eh? I re-read what I wrote and I'm still not sure I held anyone to a higher standard. Just because I might disagree with the treatment of discharged employees by the Pegulas (who happen to the the subject of this thread) doesn't mean that I'm singling them out. The fact of the matter, though, is that I wrote that I appreciate both sides of things. It's tough for employees across our economy to be cast aside as many have been over the past two weeks. The flip side is that there has to be a business for these employees to come back to. One way to preserve the business might be to let the government fund the employees at significant discount (not sure what the haircut is on unemployment, maybe 40% of prior take home is provided?) during the crisis, which appears to be what the Pegulas have done. The bottom line on my end is that when all of this is over I will treat well businesses that had the means to treat their employees well during this fiasco and then did so. The Pegulas' donation is a step in the right direction for them. Delaware North's act of providing at least one week severance to its employees is a good thing. We'll see how things go from here.

Good on them for going this. I'm still torn on how I feel about their treatment of their employees during the pandemic. On the one hand, I'm not impressed with the layoffs in the absence of even modest termination pay (two weeks' wages/tips, for example). On the other hand, I appreciate that there has to be a business for the employees to return to when this is over. And it may be that preserving the hospitality aspects of the business required the cutbacks. Hopefully we put the brakes on the spread of the virus and this is a non-issue in a couple of months.

Bill Ackerman and the money people agree with this. Completely. Entirely. Because it’s right, from both a human and an economic perspective. And if we want to worry about whether Stefon Diggs fits well at the “X” receiver come July (instead of stressing about where I’m going to find a gallon of 1% milk for my kids), it’s time to take it seriously. Now I’m done. Whether you agree or disagree with what I’ve said here, I hope that you all are safe and that you and your loved ones are healthy. We’re all in this together.

Nice try, but you’re forgetting what you said and taking my response completely out of context. You said, and I quote, “infectious disease experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown.” I responded by noting, among other things, that the article you cited referred to a cost-benefit analysis discussed by a single expert. In view of the narrow scope of that article, I specifically said that, “it’s not fair to say that experts do NOT AGREEwith a total lockdown based on that article.” Now, you’ve modified your position and said that “it is totally fair to say that all experts do not agree with a total lockdown.” That point accounts for the fact that you have referenced only a single expert in support of the “no-lockdown” point, but ignores the prospect that the expert at issue simply wonders at what point the cost of an extended lockdown would outweigh the benefit of that tack. With that, I’m done arguing on the Internet for the day. And, frankly, I responded to the aforementioned nonsense only because we’re in the midst of a national crisis in which the stupidity and selfishness of others may affect the “group” (e.g., our community as a whole). Generally I have a libertarian view about such things. Want to smoke cigarettes? Go for it. You’ll probably help keep Social Security alive for my generation. Want to drink yourself stupid on Friday nights? Have at it, as long as you don’t drive or assault anyone. But this is different. And we have to be smart about things and work together to maintain the institutions that we love (and so that we have the ability to argue about such institutions when all of this hopefully passes).

“Shutdown” and “bailout” are two different things. You’re talking about a bailout, and that does require Congressional approval. The problem we’re running into right now is the philosophical discord over “bottom up” funding (Democrats) or “top down” help (Republicans). We’re also hitting the point that Democrats don’t want Trump to have unfettered discretion over hundreds of billions of dollars in aid. A compromise on the first point probably is in order, but with the way this administration has hurt labor (read the Janus decision of the Supreme Court to see how unions have been gutted recently) I have a hard time believing that anyone who reads this message board and who pays some attention to national politics shouldn’t lean more toward the Democratic position on that issue. With respect to the question of discretion . . . I have my views on the matter, as I’m sure everyone here does. Those points probably are best left for a different forum.

Did you read the article? The expert quoted therein acknowledged that the medical benefits of a shutdown must be weight against the costs of a stoppage of economic activity. I’m glad that the infectious disease expert has dusted off his or her apparent background in economics to share with us. That sarcasm aside, there is a point to be made that a cost/benefit analysis is required with respect to a shutdown. But it’s not fair to say that experts do NOT AGREE with a total lockdown based on that article.

With respect, it doesn’t. Under these circumstances Trump (or any president) could issue an executive order declaring a shutdown. Given the deference this country typically has shown executives in times of national crisis, and given the deference the current version of the Supreme Court has shown the executive branch, there’s little practical impediment to what I have suggested. Enforcing the order is a bit of a different kettle of fish, but there is precedent for the National Guard to assist in that respect. By the time a challenge to the order would wind its way through the courts, the crisis almost certainly would have either passed or become so severe that nobody in their right mind would question the executive action.

A voice of reason. Completely agree. We need to act like Italy so that we don’t become Italy. The economy can handle a 30- or 60-day hard shutdown. Ask Bill Ackerman. It’s what the market wants. But a certain someone in DC flipped his lid yesterday when the S&P dropped below its January 2017 level. The point re: the S&P is that Americans now have had basically dead money (dividends notwithstanding) for the Trump presidency. And since Trump measures his presidency by the S&P index . . . An overreaction today was to be expected. It’s pretty sad that the test of my grandparents generation was getting on a boat and risking limb and life to defend our society. My generation is asked only to ration food for a little while, binge Netflix, and find a way to make unemployment, savings, and credit cards cover a couple of months of expenses. And we are failing.

I think the coaching staff likes this kid. Might be why they traded in a younger Shaq for an older Addison. I wonder if the idea is to let Johnson grow for another year or two while Addison is here and, over time, give Johnson a growing numbers of snaps.

Solid point about the wise use of capital. We basically traded our first this year (which likely would have been invested in a receive who would have taken some time to reach the level of Diggs's anticipated production), one year of Bodine (who would have been cut anyway in August 2019) and one year of Teller (who also would have been cut in August 2019) for Diggs. Maybe the fourth next year gets replaced with a comp pick if Phillips leaves on a big deal (not sure how the formula works). Either way, a 1 + the equivalent of a 5 in 2020 capital for a bona fide #1 with four years of very reasonable term (at least in football dollars) who happens to play X and can beat man coverage ... capital well spent. Great job by Beane not only yesterday, but last August in getting something for guys who he was going to cut and using that value to sweeten the pot to get a #1 receiver.