Liberals' Erroneous Claim About Reopening the Economy

[Twilight Hue]

I have heard a demonstrably false claim repeated many times on this site, as well as on liberal media such as The Young Turks. The claim is that stay-at-home protesters and people who want the economy reopened primarily are "super rich" and greedy. It seems that many people fail to realize that the stay-at-home orders affect the poor much more strongly than the rich. Consider the fact that only 6 percent of people in Florida who have applied for unemployment benefits have actually received them, and only 3 percent of small business loans in the state have been approved.

Only 6 percent of Florida jobless claims paid, 3 percent of small business loans approved

Additionally, the New York unemployment system is reportedly "collapsing" because it is not built to handle such a large volume of people filing for unemployment benefits.

NY Unemployment System Collapsing Amid Coronavirus Layoffs: Cuomo


For people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, and need these unemployment benefits to buy groceries to SURVIVE and PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES, the lockdown is extremely destructive. Those who are "super rich", on the other hand, have plenty of money in savings to fall back on when they lose their jobs and their portfolios take a hit. So let's eliminate this false claim that people who want the economy reopened "only care about the super rich" or "care more about money than lives." The lockdown is barely affecting the super rich, but it is severely affecting the poor.

I also hope that we can all agree that if the government is demanding that people no longer work, they had better provide for the people who rely on work to survive and provide for their families.

Liberals claim to care about the poor. Yet they try to shame and silence people who voice their legitimate concerns about losing their jobs and becoming homeless and starving. I don't understand it. This idea that the economy only affects the "super rich" and that stay at home protests are funded by "billionaires" obviously couldn't be further from the truth.

That's why I don't trust liberals no further than I can throw them.

Anybody with half a brain can tell when they say they're concerned about the middle class and the poor they are just feeding lines and lines of worthless BS to placate people so they can continue on spouting their BS while telling them that they care and love them tons and tons. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Of course it's noteworthy to know that most people in power are millionaires and billionaires in their own right and rest assured they're quite comfortable themselves in the worst of times and are not too concerned about the State of affairs unless of course it hits their own personal pocketbooks which clearly has not occurred, and givin the mass of wealth, won't be for a long long while.

 

[PureX]

We can't afford keeping the economy shutdown until there's enough testing for contact tracing and targeted quarantining. Anti-body testing will tell us how prevalent and truly survivable is being infected by Covid-19; early anti-body testing data suggests this China corona virus disease is far more widely spread and less deadly than had been earlier suspected by scientific consensus.

We can afford it. It's easy. We just need to stop throwing billions of dollars at rich corporations that don't need it, but can afford to bribe congressmen and senators to give it to them, and give that money to the people who need it to buy essentials, instead. That would buy us plenty of time to get the virus under control. In fact, we should have frozen all non-essential commerce for the duration. All we really need to keep operational the supply chain of essential goods and service. The rest of the economy could be put on hold, and then picked back up right where it left off, when we're ready.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We can afford it. It's easy. We just need to stop throwing billions of dollars at rich corporations that don't need it, but can afford to bribe congressmen and senators to give it to them, and give that money to the people who need it to buy essentials, instead. That would buy us plenty of time to get the virus under control. In fact, we should have frozen all non-essential commerce for the duration. All we really need to keep operational the supply chain of essential goods and service. The rest of the economy could be put on hold, and then picked back up right where it left off, when we're ready.

But...but...but...you've forgotten about all those poor billionaires whose bank accounts won't be increasing by $100 million a month! How will they get by? Gad, you're cold-hearted...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's why I don't trust liberals no further than I can throw them.

Anybody with half a brain can tell when they say they're concerned about the middle class and the poor they are just feeding lines and lines of worthless BS to placate people so they can continue on spouting their BS while telling them that they care and love them tons and tons. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Of course it's noteworthy to know that most people in power are millionaires and billionaires in their own right and rest assured they're quite comfortable themselves in the worst of times and are not too concerned about the State of affairs unless of course it hits their own personal pocketbooks which clearly has not occurred, and givin the mass of wealth, won't be for a long long while.

Closed stores amd shut down factories arent effecting their pocketbook? Is that why they money? Again?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

People are already dying because domestic violence related homicides have spiked, along with sales of alcohol. There's probably already been suicides because people with mental illnesses can't access the services they rely on (therapy, support groups, etc.). This is not a good situation. Obviously this lockdown can't go on for much longer. We're going to have to figure out a way to get things going again while looking out for our health.

There have been suicides. I read a very sad story about one today--a 17 year old girl who thought the lockdown would never end. Mental health is a real concern but it always gets thrown under the bus.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There have been suicides. I read a very sad story about one today--a 17 year old girl who thought the lockdown would never end. Mental health is a real concern but it always gets thrown under the bus.

We understand your concern, but we have to accept the fact that -- as humans -- we will encounter difficult situations, sometimes situations that seem insurmountable. This happens to everybody. It doesn't have to be a virus, or being asked not to go to the bar. It could be the loss of a parent, a child, a lover. It could be the loss of a job, or discovering you're gay. It could be finding out your president is an incompent toad with delusions of grandeur and a huge need for ego stroking.

And the bitter truth is this...most of us deal with adversity. Some of us fairly well, others not so well. A few even turn it into opportunity. And, alas, a few can't cope, and take desperate measures such as you suggest. But it doesn't matter what the cause is, the problem is with those individuals themselves. And we get how tragic that is, but there's little we can do about it. We cannot protect everybody from everything adverse!

You are correct, mental health does have a lot to do with it. I'm suffering like mad, right now, because as an orphan who lived in 40 (hated!) foster homes, I have never been at all comfortable with being cooped up at home. Yet here I am. Yes, I'm miserable, yes, I'm screaming to get out...but I will also manage to get through this, and I'll rejoice like mad when I'm able to go out and sit at my local pub again.

But I'm sorry to tell you, it does no good at all to conflate the mental health issues, or the fragility, of a few, when the plain fact is that the vast majority of us can -- even though we're not thrilled about it -- weather the storm. This is, unfortunately, what we're required to do as humans.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

We understand your concern, but we have to accept the fact that -- as humans -- we will encounter difficult situations, sometimes situations that seem insurmountable. This happens to everybody. It doesn't have to be a virus, or being asked not to go to the bar. It could be the loss of a parent, a child, a lover. It could be the loss of a job, or discovering you're gay. It could be finding out your president is an incompent toad with delusions of grandeur and a huge need for ego stroking.

And the bitter truth is this...most of us deal with adversity. Some of us fairly well, others not so well. A few even turn it into opportunity. And, alas, a few can't cope, and take desperate measures such as you suggest. But it doesn't matter what the cause is, the problem is with those individuals themselves. And we get how tragic that is, but there's little we can do about it. We cannot protect everybody from everything adverse!

You are correct, mental health does have a lot to do with it. I'm suffering like mad, right now, because as an orphan who lived in 40 (hated!) foster homes, I have never been at all comfortable with being cooped up at home. Yet here I am. Yes, I'm miserable, yes, I'm screaming to get out...but I will also manage to get through this, and I'll rejoice like mad when I'm able to go out and sit at my local pub again.

But I'm sorry to tell you, it does no good at all to conflate the mental health issues, or the fragility, of a few, when the plain fact is that the vast majority of us can -- even though we're not thrilled about it -- weather the storm. This is, unfortunately, what we're required to do as humans.

With all due respect, I don't think you fully understand the catastrophic implications of a sustained shutdown of the economy. If this lockdown continues much longer, the vast majority of us will NOT weather the storm. Food supply chains are already in jeopardy, and if this continues, food shortages are coming for all of us. I watched a video today showing farmers in California literally DESTROYING millions of dollars worth of crops. Most people, including "experts" don't understand the interconnectedness of the economy. If food supply chains are destroyed, a crisis far worse than the virus is coming. With food shortages will come starvation, along with violent fights for limited resources. You think this is an exaggeration? It's not. The majority of farmers are already concerned about it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

With all due respect, I don't think you fully understand the catastrophic implications of a sustained shutdown of the economy. If this lockdown continues much longer, the vast majority of us will NOT weather the storm. Food supply chains are already in jeopardy, and if this continues, food shortages are coming for all of us. I watched a video today showing farmers in California literally DESTROYING millions of dollars worth of crops. Most people, including "experts" don't understand the interconnectedness of the economy. If food supply chains are destroyed, a crisis far worse than the virus is coming. With food shortages will come starvation, along with violent fights for limited resources. You think this is an exaggeration? It's not. The majority of farmers are already concerned about it.

Hubert, you are wrong...I get all that. I'm extremely disturbed about it, and I am very well aware of the potential costs.

My problem is, I can't tell you definitively which response is right, which is wrong. I can't see all ends -- nor can most people alive, I suspect. Thus, we all have to take our best shot, our best guess.

But at the end of the day, if all we can really do is guess, then my own default position is that the guesses that are backed with the best science are -- on balance (and only on balance) -- the most lilkely to be useful.

Yes, they may also be wrong. But when so much is at stake, tell me: what criteria are most important to you? Which are most likely to lead to the best outcome? And how do you know?

 

[Salvador]

We can afford it. It's easy. We just need to stop throwing billions of dollars at rich corporations that don't need it, but can afford to bribe congressmen and senators to give it to them, and give it to the people who really do need, it, instead. That would buy us plenty of time to properly prepare for reopening commerce. In fact, we should have frozen all non-essential commerce for the duration. All we really need to do is keep the supply chain of essential goods and service functioning. The rest of the economy could be put on hold, and then picked back up where it left off when we're ready.

But...but...but...you've forgotten about all those poor billionaires whose bank accounts won't be increasing by $100 million a month! How will they get by? Gad, you're cold-hearted...

Please let's also consider people like me and my wife who are on the verge of loosing our millionaire status as well as loosing our planned lavish retirement if the U.S. economy were to remain mostly shutdown for several more weeks.

 

[Sunstone]

They insinuate that reopening the economy only benefits "big corporations" and "rich people."

It's also been insinuating by people on this forum including @Sunstone and @sun rise .

Only benefits "big corporations" and "rich people"? Please do not misrepresent my views.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have heard a demonstrably false claim repeated many times on this site, as well as on liberal media such as The Young Turks. The claim is that stay-at-home protesters and people who want the economy reopened primarily are "super rich" and greedy. It seems that many people fail to realize that the stay-at-home orders affect the poor much more strongly than the rich. Consider the fact that only 6 percent of people in Florida who have applied for unemployment benefits have actually received them, and only 3 percent of small business loans in the state have been approved.

Only 6 percent of Florida jobless claims paid, 3 percent of small business loans approved

Additionally, the New York unemployment system is reportedly "collapsing" because it is not built to handle such a large volume of people filing for unemployment benefits.

NY Unemployment System Collapsing Amid Coronavirus Layoffs: Cuomo


For people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, and need these unemployment benefits to buy groceries to SURVIVE and PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES, the lockdown is extremely destructive. Those who are "super rich", on the other hand, have plenty of money in savings to fall back on when they lose their jobs and their portfolios take a hit. So let's eliminate this false claim that people who want the economy reopened "only care about the super rich" or "care more about money than lives." The lockdown is barely affecting the super rich, but it is severely affecting the poor.

I also hope that we can all agree that if the government is demanding that people no longer work, they had better provide for the people who rely on work to survive and provide for their families.

Liberals claim to care about the poor. Yet they try to shame and silence people who voice their legitimate concerns about losing their jobs and becoming homeless and starving. I don't understand it. This idea that the economy only affects the "super rich" and that stay at home protests are funded by "billionaires" obviously couldn't be further from the truth.

Nice half of the argument. I see plenty of liberals and centrists demanding protections for low income people at the moment, rental protections, income supplements and the like.

 

[PureX]

Please let's also consider people like me and my wife who are on the verge of loosing our millionaire status as well as loosing our planned lavish retirement if the U.S. economy were to remain mostly shutdown for several more weeks.

If all non-essential business had been put on hold for the duration, that invested wealth would have been protected, and still there when business was reopened.

 

[metis]

If all non-essential business had been put on hold for the duration, that invested wealth would have been protected, and still there when business was reopened.

Nobel Prize for Economics recipient Joseph Stiglitz stated last week that we need to remain somewhat longer in our stay-at-home mode because if we open up too soon and the virus spreads even faster because more have it, this would be more damaging to our economy than what we are now going through.

Let me add that several studies, such one done in the Czech Republic that has led to a low rate of the spread of the virus there, found that masks and gloves are crucially important to wear even after we start opening things up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They insinuate that reopening the economy only benefits "big corporations" and "rich people."

It's also been insinuating by people on this forum including @Sunstone and @sun rise .

I do not get the same impression from TYT that you have, apparently. Maybe that's because I've seen them go on at length about how they understand people's frustrations, that people cannot afford to be out of work this long and about how the government should be taking care of them during all of this. I've also seen them complaining about big corporations getting much better bailouts and support than the average American who truly needs it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sweden hasn't locked down at all and hasn't seen nearly the catasrophic numbers of cases and deaths that Italy and Spain (countries that have been under lockdown for over a month) have seen. There is no evidence that the lockdowns are even working.

And these so-called "medical experts" kill 250,000-440,000 people per year due to giving incorrect dosages and making other mistakes because they can't perform simple arithmetic. Why should I trust anything those incompetent idiots have to say?

Most of the US has been under lockdown and you're somewhere around 47,000 deaths at this point and something like 850,000 infections. What do you think the death toll would be if the US had not locked down and just carried on as usual? Obviously much higher.

As to Sweden, I'm not sure what you're talking about:

"Sweden's controversial coronavirus strategy has led to nearly 10 times the number of deaths of other Nordic countries — and it serves as a counterargument to US citizens calling for their country to reopen"
Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors. Here's where it went wrong.


And as to evidence that lockdowns are working:
Preliminary study finds UK lockdown is slowing spread of COVID-19
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/world/lockdown-lift-vaccine-coronavirus-lancet-intl/index.html
France's lockdown saved 60,000 people from Covid-19 'slaughter'



EDIT: UPDATE since YESTERDAY at 9:55 AM - the US is now at 50,000 deaths

 

[SkepticThinker]

With all due respect, I don't think you fully understand the catastrophic implications of a sustained shutdown of the economy. If this lockdown continues much longer, the vast majority of us will NOT weather the storm. Food supply chains are already in jeopardy, and if this continues, food shortages are coming for all of us. I watched a video today showing farmers in California literally DESTROYING millions of dollars worth of crops. Most people, including "experts" don't understand the interconnectedness of the economy. If food supply chains are destroyed, a crisis far worse than the virus is coming. With food shortages will come starvation, along with violent fights for limited resources. You think this is an exaggeration? It's not. The majority of farmers are already concerned about it.

So working on fixing problems with food supply chains instead of simply returning to normal and putting millions of lives at risk. Human beings are capable of some pretty amazing things when we actually put some effort into it.
Where is all this American exceptionalism and ingenuity we've all been hearing about for decades?

 

[shunyadragon]

They insinuate that reopening the economy only benefits "big corporations" and "rich people."

It's also been insinuating by people on this forum including @Sunstone and @sun rise .

Insinuations do not reflect your previous denigrating accusations. I am not a fan of The Young Turks, but your stereotyping acrid vindictive post does not warrant much consideration.

 

[Shad]

sure if you're willing to die to open your economy, at least you'll be free when you die, me, I'll be sheltering at home.

So either you are on a lot government dole or have money to burn. There are a lot of people that have neither option

 

[Shad]

We can afford it. It's easy. We just need to stop throwing billions of dollars at rich corporations that don't need it, but can afford to bribe congressmen and senators to give it to them, and give that money to the people who need it to buy essentials, instead. That would buy us plenty of time to get the virus under control. In fact, we should have frozen all non-essential commerce for the duration. All we really need to keep operational the supply chain of essential goods and service. The rest of the economy could be put on hold, and then picked back up right where it left off, when we're ready.

When a nation is 22+ trillion in debt "afford" has no meaning really.

 

[PureX]

When a nation is 22+ trillion in debt "afford" has no meaning really.

"Debt" is an idea. An idea that can be rejected, or altered, as we choose. It's not a god that must be heeded upon pain of death.