There should be a national dialogue in getting back to work

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Treat violent rioters as harshly as you treat salon owners trying to save their businesses, that’s all I ask . . .

 

 

UPDATE: Harsh, but fair:

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

The “Experts” Led Us Into a Cul-De-Sac by Design

 

It is incredible that the US economy was shut down on the basis of the predictions of a faulty model, as discussed here. Not just one, but ALL of the doomsday predictions from that model were wrong!

Who knows how many lives and livelihoods were destroyed as the “unintended consequences” of authoritarian policy decisions of largely Democrat governors? Missed elective surgeries and treatments, suicides, mental depression, increased drug and alcohol use, etc., etc. The lives affected are merely speed bumps on the road to Democrat political hegemony in America.

 

And then there is the evidence emerging that all efforts should have been focused on risk groups instead of slamming the general population and destroying the economy, as reported here:

2.1 million Americans, representing 0.62% of the U.S. population, reside in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

(Nursing homes are residences for seniors needing help with activities of daily living, such as taking a shower or getting dressed, who also require 24/7 medical supervision; assisted living facilities are designed for seniors who need help with activities of daily living, but don’t require full-time on-site medical supervision.)

 

Among states reporting their death totals, 42% of COVID deaths have taken place in long-term care facilities; we also estimate the share as 42% for the full U.S. population, based on incorporating the demographics of the non-reporting states.

Let that sink in: 42% of all COVID-19 deaths are taking place in facilities that house 0.62% of the U.S. population.

In other words, if 43% of deaths from the ChiCom virus are from nursing home and long-term care facilities, then that amounts to 43,000 of the 100,000 deaths of Americans in nursing home and long-term care facilities. That simple statistic never gets reported by the legacy media because it doesn’t fit the doomsday narrative.

 

More at the Link: https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2020/05/31/the-“experts”-led-us-into-a-cul-de-sac-by-design/

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESE DAYS, I GUESS WE HAVE TO BE GRATEFUL FOR SMALL MEASURES OF GOOD SENSE: 

 

Portland Walks Back Its Plan to Revoke Sidewalk Cafe Permits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[GG]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Im not sure how they tally it up but with that sort of rise, I would imagine that it did rise substantially over the past month.   Maybe @GG would know

 

I'll check in with our economists.

[Rob's House]

[BuffaloHokie13]

21 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

How do they define personal income?  I got a tax refund for the first time in years and the budgeting system I use recorded it as “income”. So were the stimulus checks counted at income?  Does this include the unemployment checks?  If so and it likely does no one needs to work. This is proof that the government can take care of all of us!  ?

My admittedly thin understanding is that the stimulus checks were a tax credit, and they will effectively count as income next cycle. I actually rushed to file my taxes ahead of the stimulus in an effort to minimize my check because of that, and also I didn't really need it. 

 

Not sure how unemployment works, but I'd imagine that is also income unless the check is issued pre-taxed. Not sure how much sense it makes to tax checks that are being funded by taxes in the first place, but they do love to take their piece of every transaction...

[GG]

20 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Im not sure how they tally it up but with that sort of rise, I would imagine that it did rise substantially over the past month.   Maybe @GG would know

 

Don’t have their answer yet, but my hunch is that this is mostly timing related.   They totaled up the $1,200 stimulus payments that were approved in April and that provided a huge monthly boost to incomes.   May will tell a vastly different story.

[Magox]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Don’t have their answer yet, but my hunch is that this is mostly timing related.   They totaled up the $1,200 stimulus payments that were approved in April and that provided a huge monthly boost to incomes.   May will tell a vastly different story.

 

Yeah, I have little doubt that it's as a result of the stimulus and the unemployment benefits

[mead107]

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

[Buffalo_Gal]

25 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

You would punish the business owners a second time?

 

[SoCal Deek]

My Southern California office reopens today. We’ve worked out a socially distant seating plan, and we’ll see how it goes. We’re allowing employees to keep working from home if they have a personal / family issue or other preexisting condition. Should be interesting!

[plenzmd1]

This piece nails what my thoughts have been since about mid to late April, when real data and facts started to emerge and decisions could be based on science and not models.These lockdowns, while not scientifically correct, also disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The very same people "far left liberals" pretend to always fight for, are getting devastated , and may not recover.

 

BTW, i really like Muhammad El-Erain, wicked smart dude.

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-06-01/great-unequalizer

 

[SectionC3]

37 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

 

That makes sense.  Destroy the insurance policy (assuming it covers the loss) for political reasons.  

[plenzmd1]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

That makes sense.  Destroy the insurance policy (assuming it covers the loss) for political reasons.  

read somewhere yesterday that a lot of insurance policies do not cover social unrest..not sure if that is accurate or not. . But may be advantages to business owners to have that plan enacted..whats a couple hundreed million thrown on a trillion?

[SoCal Deek]

47 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

I’d be interested to see if any business property insurance policies even cover social unrest, but assuming that they do, are you suggesting that the building owner shouldn’t make a claim against the policy....and instead  just sit there, with their business destroyed, in hopes of making a statement? Not gonna happen.

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’d be interested to see if any business property insurance policies even cover social unrest, but assuming that they do, are you suggesting that the building owner shouldn’t make a claim against the policy....and instead  just sit there, with their business destroyed, in hopes of making a statement? Not gonna happen.

 

Well said.  Nobody complained when they accepted the premiums.  If the policy covers the loss, then it should pay.  Not debatable. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Well said.  Nobody complained when they accepted the premiums.  If the policy covers the loss, then it should pay.  Not debatable. 

I’m not sure if people understand how insurance works. You have to make a claim before you get paid. The insurance company doesn’t call you! You call the insurance company.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure if people understand how insurance works. You have to make a claim before you get paid. The insurance company doesn’t call you! You call the insurance company.

 

Yup.  And this idea that business owners and those who have been damaged as a result of the violence shouldn’t get what they paid for is just one more nutty thing in a nutty time.  

 

I’ve been out of the coverage game for awhile, but I suspect that social unrest is an issue with respect to business interruption policies only insofar as unrest that shutters a business won’t trigger coverage (or will trigger an exception), whereas interruption occasioned by physical damage would be covered.  

[Reality Check]

1 hour ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

They should sue the state and local governments for their gross negligence. Then again, maybe they will prefer a bailout when the time is right.