You didn't ask a question. You made a statement. "I'd rather see the lists of how trillions were spent by banks and Mnuchin that was future taxpayer money if you don't mind." You'd rather see lists about trillions of dollars than think about millions of unborn children being killed.

Well, I keep forgetting. It's that literal thing again. I'll just view your statement as you saying you will send me a hundred bucks ASAP.

Quote:

---

Fiscal responsibility, and accountability goes to helping more people faster don't you thing? What we can't talk about people and money at the same time or what?

---

I agree with that. The problem is that when I make that same point concerning the economy, you go ballistic and accuse me of valuing money over lives. It seems to be another one of those things that's OK when you do it, but not OK for conservatives to do.

1. We differ on the children thing, and I have asked you if your abortion objection extends to the females who have resources and make regular visits to the obygn office to make sure they don't carry possible pregnancies to term. However that aside as a guy that seems to be beyond my control and yours too, save for the poorest or less resourced females without insurance or even a doctor that go to public clinics like PP where to stop abortions you also stop the millions of others they serve with health care. You should also consider I might have more pressing stuff in my life that doesn't leave much time to even consider your life crusade against abortions which we've been dealing with for eons now.

2. Yes we have discussed it, but I've never gone ballistic even when you get snarky about it over a disagreement in terms and tactics. I can be the same way, but I can assure you going ballistic is a mischaracterization by you of my responses. In our discussions we should be open to data and details by which we can formulate a plan of action. I don't think I have personally ever jumped on you and accused you of many things, more you taking it that way in my opinion, but I could be wrong given my ability to be aggressive at times.

Quote:

---

if your abortion objection extends to the females who have resources and make regular visits to the obygn office to make sure they don't carry possible pregnancies to term.

---

Otherwise known as AN ABORTION! So yes, I would oppose that as I've told you repeatedly.

That's what I though, so you don't have to assume you are on your own in that regard. You are.

I would ten thousand times rather be "alone" on that issue than to simply be willing to throw human lives away.

Seems we have different things we worry about. Right now I hope my peeps and everybody else don't get sick and die. Probably why I have been calling them so much and they keep calling me.

Quote:

---

Seems we have different things we worry about.

---

Exactly.

Good luck with what's worry you.

https://imgur.com/gallery/S4IjCQB?fbclid

That was pretty good Ben, considering the WH has just experienced it's second case of infection, and the top doc is in quarantine.

I guess the new strategy is business as usual despite rising infections and deaths.

Is it possible to agree that one can want to protect the vulnerable and also open the economy? Why does that seem so difficult for people?

I can agree, but is a SAFE reopening possible? Like BBQing in the back yard during a tornado is a great idea? I get being scared of having no money and losing everything you worked for, disruptions can really be terrifying, but a healthy country can rebuild faster and better than an unhealthy one.

Quote:

---

Is it possible to agree that one can want to protect the vulnerable and also open the economy? Why does that seem so difficult for people?

---

Because the same people who think it's OK to be 25 tril in debt are the ones trying to understand how to reopen the economy.

There is no such thing as a safe reopening, just like there is no such thing as a safe drive to work, a safe marriage, a safe childbirth, or a safe day at work. We can lessen risk, but we can't eliminate it. We cannot just go on week after week and allow this economy to fall apart. The suffering that would bring on would be enormous, so we have to do as Tom suggested and reopen in a manner that is as safe as we can come up with.

you are completely disregarding the health impact that a poor economy will bring and the non-covi19 health concerns that are being ignored or put off because of this single focus on preventing infection (which I'm not so sure is possible . All we are really doing is delaying the inevidible on the hope that a vaccine or treatment can be achieved ) .

Thousands of procedures have been delayed . I know someone who has had to go to the emergency room twice because a procedure he was scheduled to have done in April was cancelled . He now has a 'tentative ' date some time in June ... and that only happened because his doctor had to make a special appeal on his behalf. How many diagnostic procedures have been cancelled ? We are not talking about liposuction . We are talking about serious issues.

Hospitals are shutting down ;private practices going out of business. I know someone who depends on routine visits to his doctor who is now scrambling to find another doctor who specializes in the areas he needs .

And this is just one small part of the economy. Many small business will not recover . What happens to the former employees who no longer have health coverage ? The states can't even manage to get the unemployment checks out ,let alone cover the medical needs of the unemployed .

SAFE ? Well lets see . There are fewer auto accidents because the economy is shut down. So why not just dictate that people can't drive ? That would insure safety on the roads . Humans were not meant to live in a bubble . Humans have lived with the threat of pandemic since we became a species .

H2N2 killed 2 million worldwide in 1958 , The world economy was not shut down. The 1968 flu killed 1 million . The world economy did not shut down. HIV has killed over 36 million .

Currently there are between 31 and 35 million people living with HIV, the vast majority of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 5% of the population is infected.

Before there were treatments to contain it ,and before it was discovered how it is transmitted ,the world did not shut down it's economy .
The logic of the shutdown was to prevent the overwhelming of the hospital system. The goal was to 'flatten the curve'. That has been achieved . Timeget people back to work . You would think that the libs would want that too. How else is all those freebies supposed to be paid for ?

Very good post, Tom. Risk can be mitigated, but generally cannot be eliminated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Because the same people who think it's OK to be 25 tril in debt are the ones trying to understand how to reopen the economy.

There is no such thing as a safe reopening, just like there is no such thing as a safe drive to work, a safe marriage, a safe childbirth, or a safe day at work. We can lessen risk, but we can't eliminate it. We cannot just go on week after week and allow this economy to fall apart. The suffering that would bring on would be enormous, so we have to do as Tom suggested and reopen in a manner that is as safe as we can come up with.

---

Ignoring the virus is no solution, and consider that workers go home after a shift.

Yes. It would be much better for those worker to have no home to go to since they could not pay their bills. No car. No food. No hope. Now that's a really good, panicky plan.

Good news for free speech. Police officer reprimanded for supporting Trump elected president of Chicago police union.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news...on/vi-BB13RHzZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you are completely disregarding the health impact that a poor economy will bring and the non-covi19 health concerns that are being ignored or put off because of this single focus on preventing infection (which I'm not so sure is possible . All we are really doing is delaying the inevidible on the hope that a vaccine or treatment can be achieved ) .

Thousands of procedures have been delayed . I know someone who has had to go to the emergency room twice because a procedure he was scheduled to have done in April was cancelled . He now has a 'tentative ' date some time in June ... and that only happened because his doctor had to make a special appeal on his behalf. How many diagnostic procedures have been cancelled ? We are not talking about liposuction . We are talking about serious issues.

Hospitals are shutting down ;private practices going out of business. I know someone who depends on routine visits to his doctor who is now scrambling to find another doctor who specializes in the areas he needs .

And this is just one small part of the economy. Many small business will not recover . What happens to the former employees who no longer have health coverage ? The states can't even manage to get the unemployment checks out ,let alone cover the medical needs of the unemployed .

SAFE ? Well lets see . There are fewer auto accidents because the economy is shut down. So why not just dictate that people can't drive ? That would insure safety on the roads . Humans were not meant to live in a bubble . Humans have lived with the threat of pandemic since we became a species .

H2N2 killed 2 million worldwide in 1958 , The world economy was not shut down. The 1968 flu killed 1 million . The world economy did not shut down. HIV has killed over 36 million .

Currently there are between 31 and 35 million people living with HIV, the vast majority of those are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 5% of the population is infected.

Before there were treatments to contain it ,and before it was discovered how it is transmitted ,the world did not shut down it's economy .
The logic of the shutdown was to prevent the overwhelming of the hospital system. The goal was to 'flatten the curve'. That has been achieved . Timeget people back to work . You would think that the libs would want that too. How else is all those freebies supposed to be paid for ?

---

Forget those freebies, irrelevant spin. Let's go with NEED to weather the storm. At this time I won't get into personal stories, but as a collective we have been exposed for many structural shortcomings that should have been addressed long ago.

In all of this discussion, it does not escape me that, due to being 67, I am in the high risk group. I am otherwise in good health. Still, I understand that we cannot just let weeds start growing in the highways. We have to get the economy back up to full speed.

Hey Tal. Guess who else is in the high risk group? 8D

Poor people of color, especially those who get the "essentials" label, and secret service agents? Oh you mean me, and the wife?