Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?

Topic:  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
Author
Message
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 6,313

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/20/2020 7:29:01 PM 
allen wrote:
JSF wrote:
PhiTau74 wrote:
Dianne Feinstein dumped $6.4M of stock so you democrats can stick your politics up your ass where it belongs.


We should not care because a Democrat did it? Is that what you're saying?


They are both guilty, Feinstein is just as bad as the 4 republicans.


Obviously though, the poster thinks that since one democrat did this, the 4 republicans should get a break.....The rest of us says they are all wrong!!! That is the difference! Al Franken resigns on allegations, Trump, still president and its the victims fault.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/20/2020 10:29:52 PM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
no laws were broken, Congress several years ago made this type of thing legal for them (you or I tried that, well that is a different story). Ethical??? Well when did members of Congress or the Senate have ethics?

If you never expect them to be ethical, you are never disappointed.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 5,521

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/21/2020 3:15:00 AM 
Sure looks like he violated the Stock Act.

https://www.newsweek.com/stock-act-richard-burr-kelly-loe...


"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/21/2020 11:03:59 AM 
Kevin Finnegan wrote:
L.C. wrote:
I totally agree that we failed spectacularly as a country in preparing for this. I blame in as much as anything on the partisan divide in both politics and the media. Trump started out right, banning flights from China, for which he was attacked by the media and the other party. Then he downplayed the risk, for which he was attacked by the media and the other party. Whatever one party says is black, the other party says is white. Nowhere is there cooperation or teamwork. It is completely dysfunctional.

By contrast, my State has done it completely correctly. The Republican Governor and the Mayors of the major cities, both Republican and Democrats, met first, and agreed on a plan. They announced a consistent plan, and a single source for news, such that no one at any level is issuing contrary statements. Everything is coordinated and consistent, and it is a united front. We have only 2 cases of community spread so far, though I expect more after some students no doubt went to be infected on Spring Break, but our plan is already in place and implemented. I commend our Republican Governor, and I commend my Democrat Mayer. Both have done a fabulous job, and they have restored my faith that government does not have to be dysfunctional.


Despite the rambling nature of his pressers, Andrew Cuomo in NY seems to be doing his best to make this non-partisan. He has spoken highly at times of the federal government.

There are some misconceptions that have certainly arisen from this. Two you mentioned, LC. President Trump did not early on ban flights to/from China. He has mentioned this and even talks about how he got quite a lot of flak from the Democrats for this. Neither of these points are true. He put travel restrictions on travel to China on Jan 31, but did not ban it. And, of record, no Democratic leaders argued against the restriction.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-tra... /

I got a good laugh out of that article. Wow, the lengths people will go to to dice words to prevent giving Trump credit for even the one thing he did right astound me. OK, OK, it wasn't a COMPLETE travel ban because Americans could return home, so long as they also went through a 14 day quarantine. OK, OK, not EVERY Democrat was critical of his "travel ban", though some were. OK, OK, while his "travel ban" was in direct defiance of the the advice of the World Health Organization guidelines (who are considered to be the world experts on containing pandemics), not EVERY expert opposed it.

So, to be more politically correct, let me rephrase my statement above:
"Trump started out right, banning most travel and from China, except for returning Americans, who had to be quarantined 14 days, for which he was attacked by some of the media and some members other party, and for which he was criticized by the World Heath Organization".


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Mike Johnson
General User



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,492

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/21/2020 2:10:54 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Kevin Finnegan wrote:
L.C. wrote:
I totally agree that we failed spectacularly as a country in preparing for this. I blame in as much as anything on the partisan divide in both politics and the media. Trump started out right, banning flights from China, for which he was attacked by the media and the other party. Then he downplayed the risk, for which he was attacked by the media and the other party. Whatever one party says is black, the other party says is white. Nowhere is there cooperation or teamwork. It is completely dysfunctional.

By contrast, my State has done it completely correctly. The Republican Governor and the Mayors of the major cities, both Republican and Democrats, met first, and agreed on a plan. They announced a consistent plan, and a single source for news, such that no one at any level is issuing contrary statements. Everything is coordinated and consistent, and it is a united front. We have only 2 cases of community spread so far, though I expect more after some students no doubt went to be infected on Spring Break, but our plan is already in place and implemented. I commend our Republican Governor, and I commend my Democrat Mayer. Both have done a fabulous job, and they have restored my faith that government does not have to be dysfunctional.


Despite the rambling nature of his pressers, Andrew Cuomo in NY seems to be doing his best to make this non-partisan. He has spoken highly at times of the federal government.

There are some misconceptions that have certainly arisen from this. Two you mentioned, LC. President Trump did not early on ban flights to/from China. He has mentioned this and even talks about how he got quite a lot of flak from the Democrats for this. Neither of these points are true. He put travel restrictions on travel to China on Jan 31, but did not ban it. And, of record, no Democratic leaders argued against the restriction.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/the-facts-on-trumps-tra... /

I got a good laugh out of that article. Wow, the lengths people will go to to dice words to prevent giving Trump credit for even the one thing he did right astound me. OK, OK, it wasn't a COMPLETE travel ban because Americans could return home, so long as they also went through a 14 day quarantine. OK, OK, not EVERY Democrat was critical of his "travel ban", though some were. OK, OK, while his "travel ban" was in direct defiance of the the advice of the World Health Organization guidelines (who are considered to be the world experts on containing pandemics), not EVERY expert opposed it.

So, to be more politically correct, let me rephrase my statement above:
"Trump started out right, banning most travel and from China, except for returning Americans, who had to be quarantined 14 days, for which he was attacked by some of the media and some members other party, and for which he was criticized by the World Heath Organization".


My disgust with Trump isn't based on his ending travel from China or in restricting travel from Europe. It was his consistently dismissing its seriousness while doctors on the stage with him - Fauci and Birz - were disagreeing with him. It was only a few days ago when USA case numbers were skyrocketing that Trump changed his tune. He even managed to keep a straight face when insisting that he recognized Covid-19 as a pandemic from the beginning. Question: How many Americans were treating the pandemic lightly because of the president's dismissiveness?

Well, there is one more thing about Trump and the pandemic that disgusts me. I'm thinking back to the first president to place on his oval office desk the sign: The Buck Stops Here. He was, of course, Harry Truman.

As you know, when Trump was asked if he took responsibility for the slow response to Covid-19, he said, "I take no responsibility at all." Were Truman still alive, he might send Trump this desk sign: The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here.

Here is a seemingly safe prediction: When the nation does get through this pandemic, Trump will crow that it was his leadership that saved us.


http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/21/2020 3:24:18 PM 
I think Trump, after his "Travel ban with exceptions", did everything worse than I could have imagined possible, saying that it was just the flu, or that it would vanish on it's own. He has done better lately, but people have long memories, and I think he will lose in a landslide of his own creation, and will have no one but himself to blame. I am, though, impressed with Dr. Fauci.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,008

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/21/2020 8:14:01 PM 
L.C. wrote:
I think Trump, after his "Travel ban with exceptions", did everything worse than I could have imagined possible, saying that it was just the flu, or that it would vanish on it's own. He has done better lately, but people have long memories, and I think he will lose in a landslide of his own creation, and will have no one but himself to blame. I am, though, impressed with Dr. Fauci.


My wife and I briefly discussed this and the upcoming election over dinner tonight. He's starting to shift the blame to China - it's all their fault, they kept information from us, etc. His ethnocentric base are loving it. When this thing begins to clear up, he will take all of the credit and his minnions will be back in his camp and some of those who are thankful to still be alive and weren't necessarily his supporters will bow to the waving American flag and support him too.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/22/2020 4:51:27 PM 
And now Congress is going to fail to deliver an aid bill in time for markets opening tomorrow. Why? Reports are that it's that Republicans are refusing to include a provision Dems are pushing for that bailed out companies not lay off employees during the course of the aid. If this bailout isn't money to keep people employed by devastated industries (airlines, hospitality companies) what's it for?

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/22/2020 9:17:12 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
And now Congress is going to fail to deliver an aid bill in time for markets opening tomorrow. Why? Reports are that it's that Republicans are refusing to include a provision Dems are pushing for that bailed out companies not lay off employees during the course of the aid. If this bailout isn't money to keep people employed by devastated industries (airlines, hospitality companies) what's it for?

And other rumors are that Pelosi won't agree to the bill because she wants to pad it with even more of her special ideas, such as forgiving $10,000 in student loans for everyone with student loans.

Which is right? Or both? Or, is it just that both parties are playing dysfunctional partisan politics, as usual? Why not pass a stripped down bill with things everyone can agree to, and then start negotiation on a second bill?

Alan Swank wrote:
My wife and I briefly discussed this and the upcoming election over dinner tonight. He's starting to shift the blame to China - it's all their fault, they kept information from us, etc. His ethnocentric base are loving it. When this thing begins to clear up, he will take all of the credit and his minnions will be back in his camp and some of those who are thankful to still be alive and weren't necessarily his supporters will bow to the waving American flag and support him too.

Alan, what is your scenario where things "begin to clear up" before the election? There won't be a vaccine for 18 months, which will be long past the election. I can think of only a few ways it can go from here during 2020. Some possibilities that I can think of include:
1. Social distancing is ineffective because people won't follow it, so we explode to a massive disaster in May, with 60-100 million infected in May, and millions dead because the hospitals can't deal with that.
2. It stops spreading for the summer, and returns in October-November, just in time to reach it's peak for the election.
3. Social distancing is effective, and slows the spread to a manageable level, though it doesn't stop the spread completely. We struggle on, using social distancing for the next 18 months until a vaccine is available with perhaps 150,000 cases a month.

I'm sure there are more, but the only one of those where things "begin to clear up" before the election is where 60-100 million are infected in May with massive deaths, and then there are enough that have been infected that things "begin to clear up". In any of the above three scenarios, I see Trump losing in a landslide, though #3 is probably best for him.

Last Edited: 3/22/2020 9:28:41 PM by L.C.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 10:03:45 AM 
L.C. wrote:

Which is right? Or both? Or, is it just that both parties are playing dysfunctional partisan politics, as usual? Why not pass a stripped down bill with things everyone can agree to, and then start negotiation on a second bill?


There's a key difference between those things though. What does a stripped down bill "with the things that everyone can agree to" accomplish if the trillion dollars handed out doesn't even come with a guarantee that companies receiving that money not lay off employees during the course of the aid? That's the entire point of the bill, right?

I can see the argument that Pelosi insisting on student loan forgiveness now is poor timing, but at the same time we're hurtling towards an unemployment rate of 30% -- which would eclipse the max rate during the Great Depression. Providing student loan forgiveness IS an economic stimulus. That's money that will go into spending that wouldn't otherwise. It may be an unpopular policy position amongst Conservatives, but it's not as though it's unrelated to the crisis we're trying to solve right now.


Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 11:49:41 AM 
The Dems now have a majority in the Senate due to 5 GOP Senators having to self-quarantine thanks to Rand Paul.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 1:25:38 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
There's a key difference between those things though. What does a stripped down bill "with the things that everyone can agree to" accomplish if the trillion dollars handed out doesn't even come with a guarantee that companies receiving that money not lay off employees during the course of the aid? That's the entire point of the bill, right?

I can see the argument that Pelosi insisting on student loan forgiveness now is poor timing, but at the same time we're hurtling towards an unemployment rate of 30% -- which would eclipse the max rate during the Great Depression. Providing student loan forgiveness IS an economic stimulus. That's money that will go into spending that wouldn't otherwise. It may be an unpopular policy position amongst Conservatives, but it's not as though it's unrelated to the crisis we're trying to solve right now.

Certainly it makes sense to defer all Student loan payments for a two years, interest free. That is all that is needed to keep the loan payments from being a drag on the economy. Anything over that is just pork. As for the layoff provision, whether that's appropriate or not is dependent on a host of other factors. Different companies are affected differently. For some businesses it makes no sense NOT to lay off employees. Does it make sense to have hotels around the country fully staffed, with 0 customers? Not unless you are going to convert them into quarantine facilities. I'd rather see them fund start up shops to make surgical masks, or something else, useful, than to force employers to hire employees to do nothing.

As a FWIW, I have yet to lay off any employees. We've cut hours in half for everyone, though, and are using rotating vacations with multiple people out every week so that the others can get more hours. No one is complaining. They realize that we are all in this together. We can keep this up for a month or two before we have to take additional action. The people of America are wonderful, and we should never forget that. We need to work together, and we CAN get through this.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,008

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 2:09:59 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
And now Congress is going to fail to deliver an aid bill in time for markets opening tomorrow. Why? Reports are that it's that Republicans are refusing to include a provision Dems are pushing for that bailed out companies not lay off employees during the course of the aid. If this bailout isn't money to keep people employed by devastated industries (airlines, hospitality companies) what's it for?

And other rumors are that Pelosi won't agree to the bill because she wants to pad it with even more of her special ideas, such as forgiving $10,000 in student loans for everyone with student loans.

Which is right? Or both? Or, is it just that both parties are playing dysfunctional partisan politics, as usual? Why not pass a stripped down bill with things everyone can agree to, and then start negotiation on a second bill?

Alan Swank wrote:
My wife and I briefly discussed this and the upcoming election over dinner tonight. He's starting to shift the blame to China - it's all their fault, they kept information from us, etc. His ethnocentric base are loving it. When this thing begins to clear up, he will take all of the credit and his minnions will be back in his camp and some of those who are thankful to still be alive and weren't necessarily his supporters will bow to the waving American flag and support him too.

Alan, what is your scenario where things "begin to clear up" before the election? There won't be a vaccine for 18 months, which will be long past the election. I can think of only a few ways it can go from here during 2020. Some possibilities that I can think of include:
1. Social distancing is ineffective because people won't follow it, so we explode to a massive disaster in May, with 60-100 million infected in May, and millions dead because the hospitals can't deal with that.
2. It stops spreading for the summer, and returns in October-November, just in time to reach it's peak for the election.
3. Social distancing is effective, and slows the spread to a manageable level, though it doesn't stop the spread completely. We struggle on, using social distancing for the next 18 months until a vaccine is available with perhaps 150,000 cases a month.

I'm sure there are more, but the only one of those where things "begin to clear up" before the election is where 60-100 million are infected in May with massive deaths, and then there are enough that have been infected that things "begin to clear up". In any of the above three scenarios, I see Trump losing in a landslide, though #3 is probably best for him.



Very good question and points LC. Number one is the scariest to me and maybe the most likely although I think eventually folks will wake up and the numbers won't be as high as you've outlined here. Just today, on my way back from the mailbox (drove there and went to the drive up mailbox) I saw two young women/girls walking down the street sharing cigarette. On the way there, I guess I was driving fast enough when another young woman whipped around me and then sped through at 25mph zone. My point is, just like 9 11, the serious and significance of what had happened and what is happening wore off very quickly and we were back to our selfish ways rather quickly.

My hope is that some combination of current or easily modified and tested drugs stem the seriousness of this illness so that far fewer folks die. Of course that could backfire too if people take the attitude that "oh well, there's a drug for that."

https://woub.org/2020/03/23/order-coming-to-limit-prescri... /

If this thing is anything like 1918, what comes in the fall will be far worse than what we've had so far. The question is will we be ready for it.

Last Edited: 3/23/2020 2:12:00 PM by Alan Swank

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 3:08:04 PM 
L.C. wrote:

As for the layoff provision, whether that's appropriate or not is dependent on a host of other factors. Different companies are affected differently. For some businesses it makes no sense NOT to lay off employees. Does it make sense to have hotels around the country fully staffed, with 0 customers?


The whole point of this is to pay people who can't work and to keep them on their employers payroll because we have a truly insane system in the United States that insists on linking health insurance to employment status.

From a 'business' perspective, of course it make no sense "NOT to lay off employees." But only when it's your money. When you're getting bailed out by the government and being given free money to keep your payroll intact, it's hardly a bridge too far to require you to, you know, keep your payroll intact.

L.C. wrote:

I'd rather see them fund start up shops to make surgical masks, or something else, useful, than to force employers to hire employees to do nothing.


This is not an either or proposition. Not injecting this money directly to businesses to keep their payrolls intact leads to a 25-30% unemployment rate and a huge uninsured rate. It overwhelms the Unemployment Insurance infrastructure (which doesn't provide a large enough benefit to support most people anyhow) and increases the uninsured rate at the worst possible time to do so.

You can do that and fund surgical mask production. In fact, the 'Defense Production Act' that Trump signed but has refused to enact does exactly this. It gives you the ability to mandate the production of necessary items from private companies and, conveniently, provides them with a big ol' customer in the form of the federal government. Why we haven't started that process yet is truly baffling. Instead states are now bidding against each other over limited resources all because companies are concerned about profit margin.

L.C. wrote:

As a FWIW, I have yet to lay off any employees. We've cut hours in half for everyone, though, and are using rotating vacations with multiple people out every week so that the others can get more hours. No one is complaining. They realize that we are all in this together. We can keep this up for a month or two before we have to take additional action. The people of America are wonderful, and we should never forget that. We need to work together, and we CAN get through this.


I'll be laying off 10% this week and asking the remainder to take a pay cut, which puts us in a place to make it through 3 months of this should our projections bear out.

Last Edited: 3/23/2020 5:16:18 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/23/2020 7:14:15 PM 
Keep in mind this: If I lay off employees, who will end up paying them during the time they are laid off? Me, of course. The nominal unemployment tax rate is 3.5% here, but as you build up a fund, it goes down. I haven't laid anyone off in 30 years, so my fund is large enough that I haven't paid any tax in years. If I lay off my entire staff, my fund will vanish quickly, and go negative, which will mean that for the next few years I'll have a 10% tax rate to make it up, and continue to pay excess tax until my fund is back to where it is now. So, if my employees draw $100,000 in benefits chargeable to me, I'll have to pay $100,000 in excess taxes over the coming years.

Alan Swank wrote:
Very good question and points LC. Number one is the scariest to me and maybe the most likely although I think eventually folks will wake up and the numbers won't be as high as you've outlined here. ...

I think/hope that it is unlikely. I'm optimistic that social distancing will work to substantially limit the spread. For that matter, I hope the common cold and the regular flu are both also crushed in the process.


Alan Swank wrote:
...My hope is that some combination of current or easily modified and tested drugs stem the seriousness of this illness so that far fewer folks die. Of course that could backfire too if people take the attitude that "oh well, there's a drug for that." ...

Good scenario. I like it. I hope that if social distancing can't continue, we can also have enough testing that those infected can be identified and quarantined.

Alan Swank wrote:
...If this thing is anything like 1918, what comes in the fall will be far worse than what we've had so far. The question is will we be ready for it.

Until there's a vaccine, anything is possible. Let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Well, now we wait to see how much impact Social distancing makes. It normally would take 2 weeks before you see the impact, but with the students taking Spring break an an opportunity to spread it, that will add another week before you see the difference. Thus, I'm looking for the first week of April before we really know.

By the way, I'll point out an interesting thing about the stats. In the US there are now 552 deaths, and 295 who have recovered. All the other cases remain open. One of the traits of this that has been very different is that many of those who are going to die, die quickly, while those who are going to recover take a long time.

Last Edited: 3/23/2020 8:51:45 PM by L.C.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 9:29:15 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Keep in mind this: If I lay off employees, who will end up paying them during the time they are laid off? Me, of course. The nominal unemployment tax rate is 3.5% here, but as you build up a fund, it goes down. I haven't laid anyone off in 30 years, so my fund is large enough that I haven't paid any tax in years. If I lay off my entire staff, my fund will vanish quickly, and go negative, which will mean that for the next few years I'll have a 10% tax rate to make it up, and continue to pay excess tax until my fund is back to where it is now. So, if my employees draw $100,000 in benefits chargeable to me, I'll have to pay $100,000 in excess taxes over the coming years.


The UI fund isn't capable of handling what's already here, let alone what's coming. The current bill on the negotiating table adds 250 billion dollars to help cover the difference. States are rapidly changing the requirements around UI and I'd be shocked if businesses are asked to replenish the fund after this. The way UI is structured isn't designed to cover living expenses for 2 million new people per week. They've already implemented new Emergency Paid Sick Leave laws and implemented means for employers to be reimbursed through taxes they've already paid. I expect something similar for unemployment.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 12:41:50 PM 
I never plan based on potential government bailouts. I plan to survive without. I feel like I'd be better off without bailouts because I feel like I can survive better than my competitors. In any case, keeping my staff together is my goal, and I'll resist layoffs as long as possible. As a result, I do feel like businesses that are quick to lay off should be forced to replenish their fund.

I think the worst is in, now, and we'll start to see improvement from here. I think that case growth will taper off due to the social distancing, and that, combined with improved treatment methods, will allow them to relax the social distancing, and things will move back towards normal. My goal for yesterday was for US cases to stay under 43,900, and they ended up at 43,734. For today, anything under 56,400 will represent improvement.

I'm very hopeful that the 20 or so trials going on with hydroxychloroquine will have positive results. It worked in vitro. It worked in vivo as well, in both small Chinese and French studies, and there are anecdotal stories of successes. That definitely does NOT mean that I recommend that anyone go out and buy Aquarium cleaner (chloroquine phosphate) and take that! Anyone that does that is an idiot. Now, if you want to get a little quinine by drinking tonic water, go for it. Adding a little gin and some lime will make it taste even better. ;)


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 1:41:49 PM 
L.C. wrote:
I never plan based on potential government bailouts. I plan to survive without. I feel like I'd be better off without bailouts because I feel like I can survive better than my competitors. In any case, keeping my staff together is my goal, and I'll resist layoffs as long as possible. As a result, I do feel like businesses that are quick to lay off should be forced to replenish their fund.


Not planning based on government bailouts is all well and good. But what about businesses that were completely disrupted -- to the point that they couldn't function -- as a result of government shutdowns? I have a case where employees of mine are working on a contracted project involving public transportation in a city that shut down all non-essential public transportation. Overnight they told us that they only had 10% of the work that there was the day prior. The funds are basically a pass-through from the federal transportation budget, and because of the shut down, the funds were shut down, too. Because of a government shut down that I had no control over I should have to pay an increased unemployment tax? Or pay out of pocket to employ these folks indefinitely despite the fact that my client -- the city in question -- won't be able to pay me for those payroll costs?

Glad that you have a business that seems capable of some level of normalcy during these times. There are many others that don't. The idea that small business owners should be responsible for planning around a global pandemic that, in some cases, made it illegal for them to have customers seems weird to me. Restaurants and bars are forced to close. They should have to pay an increased tax rate despite playing no role in the decision to shut down? Because they were "quick" to lay off, they should have to bear the brunt of the costs associate with those layoffs?

I'm glad you haven't had to lay anybody off. I hope that streak continues. But entire industries -- industries that employ tens of millions of people -- are shut down. Lay offs were an unavoidable reality and in no way reflect upon how well they've run their business in many, many cases. Insisting people who were "quick" to lay off during the worst financial shock our country has ever seen should pay the price for doing so is -- to be perfectly frank -- sanctimonious bullshit. Unprecedented times demand new solutions.

Last Edited: 3/24/2020 2:10:46 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 2:34:44 PM 
Yes. Some that's exactly how the unemployment fund is supposed to work. Businesses that are more stable, and less likely to have to lay people off pay less, and people that have to lay people off more often pay more. The rates can vary from 0% to 10%. I have no problem with that. As I said, depending on how long it goes, I will eventually have to lay people off. My business is off about 60%, and dropping more every day, so I wouldn't call that very "normal". My expectation is that I will have to lay people off, and when I do, I will have to later replenish the fund.

One of the great strengths of the capitalist system, per Russian economist Kondratiev, is that periodic recessions and depressions would purge the excesses out of the system, and reinvigorate it for another period of growth. It is during periods of stress on the system that people learn the value of savings, and the dangers of debt. I'm not big on bailouts in the first place, and this bill has become so bloated with pork that I hope it gets vetoed, and Congress is forced to make a legitimate effort at something appropriate.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
.... Insisting people who were "quick" to lay off during the worst financial shock our country has ever seen should pay the price for doing so is -- to be perfectly frank -- sanctimonious bullshit. Unprecedented times demand new solutions.

No, what you have written is sanctimonious bullshit. This is not unprecedented. There have been things like this throughout history. How did the US survive 1918? We didn't have bailouts then. Yet, somehow we survived. We didn't have bailouts in any of the many depressions of the 19th century, yet we survived. It's not a common situation, but neither is it unique, nor even unexpected. Consider this talk by Bill Gates from a couple years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI

Last Edited: 3/24/2020 2:50:39 PM by L.C.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 3:23:07 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Yes. Some that's exactly how the unemployment fund is supposed to work. Businesses that are more stable, and less likely to have to lay people off pay less, and people that have to lay people off more often pay more. The rates can vary from 0% to 10%. I have no problem with that. As I said, depending on how long it goes, I will eventually have to lay people off. My business is off about 60%, and dropping more every day, so I wouldn't call that very "normal". My expectation is that I will have to lay people off, and when I do, I will have to later replenish the fund.


Yes, I'm aware of how the unemployment fund is supposed to work. I think any rational assessment of it makes it quite clear it's not a sufficient backstop given what's currently facing. I do not think a solution that demands increased payroll costs from the businesses that have been hardest hit by this shut down makes any sense. I get you're fine with it. I disagree and think it's bad policy. To be very clear, mine is not amongst the businesses who have been hardest hit by this. I would expect a very minor increase to my FUTA/SUTA rates after this. My concern is for businesses who have lost 80 and 90% of revenue -- if not 100% -- who will, after all of this, have to pay up to 10% on every dollar down the road because the shut down stripped away 100% of their customers.

Many states were already having difficulty funding UI programs, even before this. North Carolina, for instance, only actually pays unemployment benefits to 11% of its unemployed residents. They don't reject so many claims because they're flush with cash. In 9 states, the duration of benefits have been halved. They didn't do that because of all of the money they had laying around. Some states provide as little as 21% of wages. And that's before the newest influx of unemployment filings. There were 2.25 million last week. The largest number during the 2008 recession in a single week was 660 thousand. At the rate we're going, even a 10% payroll tax isn't going to replenish the fund. Hence the 250 billion dollar injection.

Doesn't sound like a solid solution to this problem to me.

L.C. wrote:

No, what you have written is sanctimonious bullshit. This is not unprecedented. There have been things like this throughout history. How did the US survive 1918? We didn't have bailouts then. Yet, somehow we survived. We didn't have bailouts in any of the many depressions of the 19th century, yet we survived. It's not a common situation, but neither is it unique, nor even unexpected. Consider this talk by Bill Gates from a couple years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI


We got through past depressions and recessions by introducing new and better legislation. The Great Depression led directly to social safety net programs, including unemployment insurance and social security. What I'm suggesting is that we consider attacking this problem through better legislation and changing systems that clearly don't do enough.

As for whether or not this is unprecedented, can you find me an unemployment claims chart from our history that looks like this: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/21/21188529/initial-unemployme...

Last Edited: 3/24/2020 3:41:36 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,008

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 3:55:55 PM 
Here is really telling interactive site:

https://www.unacast.com/covid19/social-distancing-scoreboard

Unfortunately Athens is not doing as well as the state average in staying put.

Last Edited: 3/24/2020 3:56:59 PM by Alan Swank

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 9,241

Status: Online

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 4:45:51 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...We got through past depressions and recessions by introducing new and better legislation. The Great Depression led directly to social safety net programs, including unemployment insurance and social security. What I'm suggesting is that we consider attacking this problem through better legislation and changing systems that clearly don't do enough.

As for whether or not this is unprecedented, can you find me an unemployment claims chart from our history that looks like this: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/21/21188529/initial-unemployme...

We got though the 30's by using the threat of court packing to re-write the Constitution, giving the Federal Government powers it was never intended to have, and thus dooming the country to inevitable ruin. We have shown that we can kick the can down the road a long ways, but how much further can we kick it before the inevitable financial collapse? I used to feel guilty about the horrible state of the country we are leaving to our children, a country saddled with debt and approaching collapse. Yet, as I see their solutions, more spending and more debt, I no longer do. As badly as out generation ran the country, they will prove that they can run it even more poorly.

Even large countries eventually collapse if they get so much debt that it becomes clear it will never be paid back. We aren't at that point yet, but people are still willing, even eager, to spend dramatically more. The day will come when the interest on the debt will become so great that it will force some harsh choices.

There are no charts showing the unemployment stats for the 19th Century, or earlier, because there were no such stats. It's certainly true that the sudden start of this event is unusual, in that there was a single event that was the cause, rather than a slowly unwinding economy. That doesn't necessarily make it any different in the end.


ďWe have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.Ē ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 5:07:22 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...We got through past depressions and recessions by introducing new and better legislation. The Great Depression led directly to social safety net programs, including unemployment insurance and social security. What I'm suggesting is that we consider attacking this problem through better legislation and changing systems that clearly don't do enough.

As for whether or not this is unprecedented, can you find me an unemployment claims chart from our history that looks like this: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/21/21188529/initial-unemployme...

We got though the 30's by using the threat of court packing to re-write the Constitution, giving the Federal Government powers it was never intended to have, and thus dooming the country to inevitable ruin. We have shown that we can kick the can down the road a long ways, but how much further can we kick it before the inevitable financial collapse? I used to feel guilty about the horrible state of the country we are leaving to our children, a country saddled with debt and approaching collapse. Yet, as I see their solutions, more spending and more debt, I no longer do. As badly as out generation ran the country, they will prove that they can run it even more poorly.

Even large countries eventually collapse if they get so much debt that it becomes clear it will never be paid back. We aren't at that point yet, but people are still willing, even eager, to spend dramatically more. The day will come when the interest on the debt will become so great that it will force some harsh choices.

There are no charts showing the unemployment stats for the 19th Century, or earlier, because there were no such stats. It's certainly true that the sudden start of this event is unusual, in that there was a single event that was the cause, rather than a slowly unwinding economy. That doesn't necessarily make it any different in the end.


You've gone from Americans are resilient and we'll get through this to we're a doomed empire in a handful of posts. Interesting evolution there.

There's only one difference between your generation and the newest: what they want to spend the money on. Younger people think we should spend on housing, a social safety net and guaranteed healthcare. Your generation thought trillions of dollars dumped into literally endless wars was a good use of the money. Different strokes, I guess.

But it is funny how only one of those groups is written off as naive, while the other gets to treat 609 billion dollars in annual military spending as an inevitability because they made it one.


Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 6,008

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 5:13:04 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...We got through past depressions and recessions by introducing new and better legislation. The Great Depression led directly to social safety net programs, including unemployment insurance and social security. What I'm suggesting is that we consider attacking this problem through better legislation and changing systems that clearly don't do enough.

As for whether or not this is unprecedented, can you find me an unemployment claims chart from our history that looks like this: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/21/21188529/initial-unemployme...

We got though the 30's by using the threat of court packing to re-write the Constitution, giving the Federal Government powers it was never intended to have, and thus dooming the country to inevitable ruin. We have shown that we can kick the can down the road a long ways, but how much further can we kick it before the inevitable financial collapse? I used to feel guilty about the horrible state of the country we are leaving to our children, a country saddled with debt and approaching collapse. Yet, as I see their solutions, more spending and more debt, I no longer do. As badly as out generation ran the country, they will prove that they can run it even more poorly.

Even large countries eventually collapse if they get so much debt that it becomes clear it will never be paid back. We aren't at that point yet, but people are still willing, even eager, to spend dramatically more. The day will come when the interest on the debt will become so great that it will force some harsh choices.

There are no charts showing the unemployment stats for the 19th Century, or earlier, because there were no such stats. It's certainly true that the sudden start of this event is unusual, in that there was a single event that was the cause, rather than a slowly unwinding economy. That doesn't necessarily make it any different in the end.


You've gone from Americans are resilient and we'll get through this to we're a doomed empire in a handful of posts. Interesting evolution there.

There's only one difference between your generation and the newest: what they want to spend the money on. Younger people think we should spend on housing, a social safety net and guaranteed healthcare. Your generation thought trillions of dollars dumped into literally endless wars was a good use of the money. Different strokes, I guess.

But it is funny how only one of those groups is written off as naive, while the other gets to treat 609 billion dollars in annual military spending as an inevitability because they made it one.




Be careful with that wide paint brush my man. I'm guessing LC and I are about the same age and it was my generation that stopped the war in Vietnam. I'm not sure it's a generational thing as much as a ideological thing. Look at the states that are lagging behind in sheltering from this virus and those are the same states that have poor educational systems, wave the flag and fight wars, and voted for trump. Take a look at the link that I posted a few posts ago and compare it to this electoral college map from 2016 and it's very clear who is taking this seriously and who isn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president

Last Edited: 3/24/2020 5:15:34 PM by Alan Swank

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,541

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Does Dewine know something that we donít. Was the MAC tournament a significant risk?
   Posted: 3/24/2020 5:17:33 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...We got through past depressions and recessions by introducing new and better legislation. The Great Depression led directly to social safety net programs, including unemployment insurance and social security. What I'm suggesting is that we consider attacking this problem through better legislation and changing systems that clearly don't do enough.

As for whether or not this is unprecedented, can you find me an unemployment claims chart from our history that looks like this: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/21/21188529/initial-unemployme...

We got though the 30's by using the threat of court packing to re-write the Constitution, giving the Federal Government powers it was never intended to have, and thus dooming the country to inevitable ruin. We have shown that we can kick the can down the road a long ways, but how much further can we kick it before the inevitable financial collapse? I used to feel guilty about the horrible state of the country we are leaving to our children, a country saddled with debt and approaching collapse. Yet, as I see their solutions, more spending and more debt, I no longer do. As badly as out generation ran the country, they will prove that they can run it even more poorly.

Even large countries eventually collapse if they get so much debt that it becomes clear it will never be paid back. We aren't at that point yet, but people are still willing, even eager, to spend dramatically more. The day will come when the interest on the debt will become so great that it will force some harsh choices.

There are no charts showing the unemployment stats for the 19th Century, or earlier, because there were no such stats. It's certainly true that the sudden start of this event is unusual, in that there was a single event that was the cause, rather than a slowly unwinding economy. That doesn't necessarily make it any different in the end.


You've gone from Americans are resilient and we'll get through this to we're a doomed empire in a handful of posts. Interesting evolution there.

There's only one difference between your generation and the newest: what they want to spend the money on. Younger people think we should spend on housing, a social safety net and guaranteed healthcare. Your generation thought trillions of dollars dumped into literally endless wars was a good use of the money. Different strokes, I guess.

But it is funny how only one of those groups is written off as naive, while the other gets to treat 609 billion dollars in annual military spending as an inevitability because they made it one.




Be careful with that wide paint brush my man. I'm guessing LC and I are about the same age and it was my generation that stopped the war in Vietnam. I'm not sure it's a generational thing as much as a ideological thing. Look at the states that are lagging behind in sheltering from this virus and those are the same states that have poor educational systems, wave the flag and fight wars, and voted for trump. Take a look at the link that I posted a few posts ago and it's very clear who is taking this seriously and who isn't.



The same generation that stopped the war in Vietnam started a 2 decade (and counting) war in the Middle East as soon as they were old enough to be in charge. It's okay to paint with a broad brush when the target's the side of a barn.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  101 - 125  of 166 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2020 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties