video game industries are going to make quite a bit during this period of time

hope game stop don't scum bags

So Mitch forced a cloture vote, knowing that it would fail, to put pressure on the Democrats. Not one Democrat voted for it, and it wasn't exactly a razor thin margin.

But sure, Democrats are supposed to just sign whatever Mitch and Mcnuchin put in front of them, because time is of the essence, even though Trump's delayed response is part of the reason we're in this mess.

It'll work itself out. If the Democrats have to, they'll make serious concessions, because they're the governing party.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 23 2020 08:36am

just curious your opinion a week or so from your (paraphrasing) "i wish a country would try the no restrictions and only social distancing approach" statement.

if i recall you said basically not to shut down with stay in protocols, essentially what Italy or the UK did.

My opinion hasn't really shifted from that because i still think an extreme overreaction can be just as damaging. Time will tell, but imo i still think UK, Brazil, India responses are better.

i think, and i agree, that it's really a question of damage in money or money and deathtoll. we could save a lot of money by not staying home, but we'd lose more lives.

and different sectors would be affected, think of the strain on retirement homes if a large amount of residents died. or how many people would get subpar funerary services with parlors forced to expedite the process. nothing world shattering but the implications are a serious ripple effect in either case.

What was in this bill that the dems opposed

heyo north texas here, 200+ confirmed cases, my non essential job refusing to close down cuz money(and im p much gonna get the virus, hope im asymptomatic !!1! )! yay capitalism arent you guys glad you voted trump????

353k global cases confirmed according to Johns Hopkins and 15,430 deaths. Equals a 4.36% case fatality rate, higher than WHO original rate of 3.4%

From what i read so far it's the corporate bailouts. By bailouts, it's interest free loans to companies like the airlines.



I think the damage in money is a good summarized way to put it, but it doesn't encapsulate the multi faceted impact. Like if you are a retiring couple and you only saved enough to withdraw 2.5 grand a month from your nest egg and that covers all your essential expenses but now because of the stock market crash (even old people are exposed to stock the market) you're only able to withdraw 2 grand then you will have to cut some corners. Maybe cut corners on nutrition, cut corners on daily vitamins? Idk. It's incredibly difficult to quantify and say xxxx amount of people will die in the long run because of less purchasing power because their savings tanked but to me it's impossible to see how death rate would be less rather than more when people are poorer. Now apply that on a global scale. Maybe i'm overthinking it, but we can't really say deaths or death rates are independent of wealth or savings.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Mar 23 2020 09:09am