The more people that comply the lower the R0 will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Printable View
The more people that comply the lower the R0 will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Yep, the more people observed wearing masks will make the R0 fall....it’s a contrived number based on estimates and biased data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I'll be screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I’m all for Making America Great Again. That will require a better understanding of math and science. It will require ingenuity. Some of the comments fromTrump in the last few days and his deference to Fauci, give me pause. Trump is a great business man. He lacks a lot when it comes to math and science....He has a tendency to remove people that do not agree with him. I consider it his biggest fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
In the words of Andy Dufresne “ Get busy living or get busy dying”.
There are many people over the years that died so we could live with freedom and liberty. I wonder what they would say in today’s world.
He should have cleaned house of all those obummer appointees who have been undermining his presidency. He has done some, and is presently continuing to do more, but he has not done enough. After he is re-elected he needs to make sweeping dismissals through the executive branch bureaucrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
Fauci is not some all-knowing perfect person. He offers advice and guidance from strictly one point of view. Fauci was not elected president, Trump was, and it is up to Trump to take all the information presented and make a decision. It's kind of like my CPA...he is a brilliant CPA. Knows the tax code forward and backward, has contacts in the IRS who he can call and get some guidance on some matters. He gives me advice on how to manage my business/personal affairs from a tax-ramification point of view. I listen intently to his guidance, but ultimately it is my decision, and sometimes I see things from a business management perspective which does not follow the strictest tax benefit route. He will nod and move on to the next item. There are purists who are experts in their fields who can offer great advice, and there are managers who can take that wealth of information, which sometimes is in opposition to each other, and make management decisions that best marries all the perspectives.
Problem is that when Trump listens to his experts and then goes against them he comes up with bad ideas like treating the body with UV and disinfectant.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Fauci has stated that Trump has given him everything that the task for has asked for and when they asked for it. Gov of California and New York said the exact same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
People that say negative things about Trump receive retribution. Do you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
No.
A medical doctor, Stanford School of Medicine, a Dr. Robert Pearl, wrote an article on this virus mess. In it he states the R0 for measles = 18 and for the common flu it = 12. It is ridiculous to expect an R0 = .9 for this strain of a virus. It is not realistic. Measles is not a big killer, about 450 Americans, mostly children, die each year from it. But the flu kills 35,000+ each year and we're perfectly OK operating at an R0 = 12 for it. And he states, after examining the latest, more accurate data on the rate of spread, the "point of no return" to defeat C-19 using lockdowns and separation as a tool has past(passed?). Using regression analysis that ship sailed February 6th. I don't believe there was any such mitigation in place in the first week of February. Hell, Pelosi was still inviting everyone to please come CROWD IN Chinatown on Feb. 24th. Mardi Gras in New Orleans was Feb 25th, and DeBlasio and his goofy chief of health were encouraging everyone to ride crowded subways and patronize NY establishments.
Caveat: Dr. Pearl did not consult with Goosey before publishing this article. So, take it all with a grain of salt. Dr. Pearl just practices and teaches medicine at a prestigious school, what does he know?
And what does Dr. Pearl recommend that we do?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Dr. Pearl need not consult with me, we already agree. In fact, he has been saying the EXACT same thing I have been saying all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertp.../#606169a3145bQuote:
Had the CDC provided enough test kits—or had the government allowed private laboratories to distribute them—back in early February, health officials could have, theoretically, pursued containment.
But now, recognizing the impossibility of it, California announced it would no longer trace or quarantine people exposed to the virus.
The lone approach that offers hope now is trying to slow the spread of the disease so as reduce the total number of people infected at any one time. The now-ubiquitous “flattening the curve” graph is part of an effort to slow the rate of infection so as to avoid a rush on critical-care units. A flattened curve could help ensure there are enough beds, respirators and healthcare professionals available for coronavirus patients who go on to develop pneumonia.
Like everyone else, like every other article I have read, he recommends we all listen to you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But, if his analysis is correct and the lockdown ship has sailed (Feb 6th)...and that is probably close, whether 2/6 is the exact date, it's probably not too far off. Given the asymptomatic nature of this disease we don't really know how wide spread it is. He mentions several possible courses but appears to give greatest emphasis to riding it out toward herd immunity now.
I will add we need to flip the script and quarantine the sick and infected, not the healthy. If it is truly too late to effectively apply the lockdown methodology, then let's stop that nonsense. There are other health risk factors to be considered as well.
Wow. The more I read from Dr. Pearl, the more I see we are in lockstep. You forgot to mention this from the article you clearly read:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And this:Quote:
Early data suggests the R0 of COVID-19 is between 2.5 and 3.0. However, the actual number depends not only on the biology of the disease but on the actions people take.
For example, when people observe social distancing and adhere to rigid shelter-in-place measures, the number drops. In the UK, where strict lockdown protocols and frequent testing are in place, the R0 is low (currently estimated to be 0.62).
Quote:
As explained here, the R0 value shows the potential transmissibility of the disease, and its careful monitoring constitutes both the safest and fastest way for the United States to implement a reopening strategy:
If R0 is less than 1.0, each infected person transmits the virus to less than one other individual. As a result, the disease incidence will decline and the virus will slowly die out.
If R0 equals 1.0, each infected person will transmit the virus to one other individual. As a result, the infection rate will remain constant (though the curve will be flat) and there won’t be a future spike (or second wave).
If R0 is more than 1.0, each infected person will pass the virus onto more than one individual. As such, the number of infected people will rise and the number of individuals needing critical care can quickly surge.
If we want Americans to better understand the relative safety and preparedness of local and regional “reopening” plans, we must base our decisions on this important number.
Yeah, that is not exactly what he said. You should go back and read his article again.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Dr. Pearl is like my MD doppleganger.
You posted an article dated March 19. The one I just read is dated April 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I read and quoted that one too. That was my quotes about R0.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
- the fact that UK achieved a R0 of 0.62 with lockdowns
- the fact that controlling transmissibility is the important factor in reopening
I encourage you to reread your article.
Wrong aqain Mr. Burger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-chiefs-early-missteps-set-back-coronavirus-response-11587570514
Who appointed that idiot over the objections of Democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Also, what executive doesn’t ask “what is our backup plan if this fails?”
Mr. Burger is interested in "the truth," not any facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
It’s not just this article that proves your statement wrong and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Your TDS keeps you from thinking rationally.
You were wrong about the Mueller report, wrong about quid pro quo, and you’re wrong about this.
Wrong about what? Did Azar suggest treating people with UV and disinfectant?Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Ok Hamilton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I just read the article again and it is completely consistent with what I have been telling you guys from day 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Let’s review:
Trump appointed a failure to lead HHS over the objection of democrats.
Trump’s decision to restrict travel to China wasn’t a maverick move against the advice of his advisors.
Trump failed to manage Azar and failed to ask the follow-up questions any good CEO would ask when managing a crisis.
Azar, like all other loyalty hounds, will say what he needs to say not to piss off and draw the retribution of a boss that can’t handle criticism.
What did I miss?
Oh yeah. Forgot one other fact from the article. The US is STILL failing on testing months later. As if the guys in charge can’t learn from their previous mistakes.
Epic failure of leadership.
Because of failures by the CDC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You’re delusional and a joke to just about everyone on this board.
But keep the comedy coming.
You understand the CDC reports to Trump, right? He is in charge of managing them via his appointee to the HHS.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
He hired an incompetent yes-man manager to direct the CDC and he failed to manage the manager.
Back to civics for you, Mr. Magoo.
Yes, you should definitely know what incompetent leadership looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I don't see how you can take what Trump said seriously, yet deny Biden, Pelosi and others called Trump xenophobic regarding his China ban.. to use your words.. "context".. ROFL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Do you really think the Gov of California and Cuomo fear Trump?? ROFL...
Dems have correctly been calling Trump xenophobic since he was campaigning for President. Hard to believe you missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Don’t know if you missed the briefing, but Trump was definitely serous. Not a hint of sarcasm in his tone.
I see you didn’t answer the question. What happens when people criticize Trump? There is no doubt that there are consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Trump can’t fire Cuomo or Newsom but he can withhold needed assistance. They have to walk a fine line to get what they need.
Of course I do. Trump has been president for over 3 years now. We all know what incompetent leadership looks like, you just haven’t learned how to identity it yet, Magoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Here is the full quote from Pelosi on January 31:
“The Trump Administration's expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,"
There can be NO DOUBT that her comments were regarding the expansion of the Muslim travel ban that the administration issued the same day as the China travel restrictions. Pelosi has never criticized the China travel restrictions.
Not only did the Chicoms create this virus and unleash it on the world, lie about it, reject offers to help, and deny independent findings about it, but they hoarded all the tools (PPEs, etc.) the world needed early on to deal with it. And now they are selling fake testing kits..."counterfeit" is the actual term used by those nations who bought them. Some of those fake testing kits ended up in the US. As if it wasn't bad enough there were inaccurate test kits early on, returning overwhelming false positives, but for the Chicoms to sell fake kits they know don't work is criminal.
As I always do, I look for a silver lining in all things. In this case I hope the world, including this country, take this as a wake up call and treat China the way it is: a criminal rogue nation.
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I may be Mr. Magoo but my vision is still a lot better than yours Hamilton.
Your problem is your biases significantly impact your interpretation of the facts.
You see obstruction where there isn't any.
You see quid pro quo where there isn't any.
You say Trump hasn't followed the advice of the Covid-19 experts when he has, much to his detriment I might add.
You have always held Trump to a higher standard than any President or CEO in history. That's a very naive point of view.
I acknowledge and understand Trump's faults but also realize he is by far the lesser of two evils. I could never support a democratic party that is out to fundamentally transform America to a completely socialist, globalist country, and that is willing to destroy this country and anyone in it to get what they want. I might add that unfortunately there are a lot of republicans that fall into that same boat with the Democrats.
I didn’t say he hasn’t followed his advisors. I said “when he doesn’t.” Go back and read the post, this time with your glasses. When he doesn’t follow them, he seems to have terrible ideas - like treatment with UV and disinfectant.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
I hold Trump to the same standard as Obama who I was very critical of. Trump could never be a CEO of anything other than a closely-held corporation where he was a majority shareholder. You are clueless if you think otherwise. He is bankrupted 6 of his businesses and completely shuttered at least a dozen others. His lack of accountability, lack of attention to detail, unethical conduct, dishonesty and poor judgment disqualifies him for being a CEO of a publicly traded company.
There was obstruction (and abuse of power). You should also read the Mueller report. It was quite an indictment of how anti-American Trump really is. It says their is ample evidence that shows (1) he wanted Russia to interfere, (2) he sought their help publicly and through Don Jr, to get them to interfere, (3) that Russia did in fact interfere for the purpose of helping him. The only element that Mueller couldn’t prove was that Russia and Trump had “an agreement.”
The Mueller report did outline a case for obstruction of justice but said that he did not have the authority to bring it. He pointed out that Congress had the power. They punted. The report is damning. Put on your glasses and read it.
:laugh: Love it! back to the Mueller Report. Guess America's enemy has run out of new BS so he's having to recycle the old.
BTW, Putin and Russia wanted Krooked Killary to win and did what they could to help in that endeavor. That azzhole, John Brennen, covered it up, but evidence is leaking out. Fortunately for the good people of this country, and the world, Killary was such a flawed candidate that not even Putin could rescue her campaign.
I worked with a guy whose entire family contracted Lyme Disease. Guess how they treated it? UBI (UV and hydrogen peroxide injection), ozone immersion, oral doses of "Clorox"...they don't have Lyme's anymore!
I am not the one that brought it up. Magoo did.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
How did they determine they didn’t have it anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTEK
Find this interesting, Alaska has the lowest infection numbers and Hawaii isn't too far behind. Ak has 339 cases, Haw 606 cases as of latest reporting. In Alaska's case, especially, it's a low-population, sparsely populated state...they've been practicing social distancing since...well, forever! I'm sure that contributes to the good numbers. But, just as importantly, both states are isolated from regular interstate travel. I don't know how much this matters in the big picture re: the C-19 crisis, but it is interesting that the two geographically isolated states are doing well in comparison to others. But then, I see that Montana has 448 cases, which is better than Hawaii's numbers, so it's not just isolation. Then again, I think Hawaii has a larger population and is significantly more dense than Montana's.
As I said, maybe there is no statistical significance to Alaska's and Hawaii's numbers, but it just struck me that those states seem to be fairing fairly well and they are off by themselves in the boonies.
It’s a conspiracy! Wake up people!
Attachment 14521
Well...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
but that sign makes as much sense as some of the policies that have been implemented. Such as C-19 can't/won't be spread in the big box stores (Walmart et al) but definitely will be if some mom & pop store opens!! That silly sign also makes as much sense as some of the so-called "follow the science" nonsense that is being pushed.
LOL. Now THIS looks like Guisslapp's doppelganger. He is just about this logical when he twists everything around to being Trump's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
His favorite game is "degrees of separation from Donald Trump", but he widens the distance for anything he deems good, and twists himself into an illogical pretzel to blame him for perceived wrongs.
You mean by holding Trump responsible for executive branch agencies? Who else in government could be responsible?Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Probably a reason for Montana's numbers being less than Hawaii is the number of tourists. I imagine early on some tourists brought it in. I seem to recall Hawaii implementing a 14-day quarantine at some point which eliminated tourists.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Hawaii's low numbers could also be due to heat and sunlight (-:.
I mean, Trump still blames Obama for the failures in COVID 3 years after he took over, so why is it unfair to blame the guy who hasn’t done anything about it over the last 3 years and was at the helm when the response was mismanaged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
They went to an old Apache medicine man and he did an examination!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
quote:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
1h
Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking?
States should not be getting US taxpayer dollars to shore up mis-managed state and local governments. DeBlasio wants 7B from Feds because NYC deserves it..
And right on cue, he shows up with his p&^%$ hat and sign proclaiming Trump to be the devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But he has no issue bailing out poorly run businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
What poorly run businesses are those? Have you seen those businesses' financial statements? Do you know anything about their management?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Airlines have been doing lots of buybacks to prop up their share prices. Capitalize the gains, but socialize the losses?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Which is your point? That we should bail out poorly run states and municipalities or that we should not be passing the payroll protection loans/grants?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
There is a policy issue here besides "whatever Trump does will be wrong".
The PPP isn’t about bailing out business. It is about bailing out employees and those providing the real estate for the small business to operate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
In order for the loan to be forgiven, 75% had to be used for payroll. Rent and the portion of mortgage going to interest are also forgiven.
Which allows the business to stay in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But it wasn’t about the OWNER. That is the point. The owner doesn’t directly profit. He is just a conduit to paying the employees and landlord. That is how the PPP is designed. Airline bailouts do profit the shareholders.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
BUT the owner stays in business because of it. And the owner would have had a full workforce if they hadn't done the idiot Schumer "unemployment on steroids" scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The airlines, too, will stay in business because of the bailouts. Of course if the airlines failed (which they would), AOC would get her dream scenario where the green new deal would be implemented by default.
It was stupid to shut down the economy in the first place. I suspect lots of folks in third world countries will be starving soon because of it. It would have been dumber to have the federal government assume a lot of the powers given to the states, which you seem to be for (until you are against it when it puts Trump in a bad light). I was against Bush's bailout of the automobile industry, and for the most part I am against the bailout of the airlines as well (except it was the government that worked to destroy both of them).
Speaking of AOC....New York should be in great condition after refusing to shell out the 3 billion dollars to Amazon (AOC said it, not me). They can certainly use those funds to shore up any shortfall they may have as a result of this pandemic. Maybe they can actually buy the PPE and hospital equipment they should have had....but blamed the federal government for not giving it to them.
Are you for the feds bailing out the states and cities? If my money goes to bail out New York, I want some say in how New York is run. Taxation without representation was settled a long time ago.
The owner definately profits from this. At least in a lot of scenarios. The PPP has been poorly executed. You want to rag on Trump for that it's a valid criticism although there is plenty of blame to go around in washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
My company (that I work for, I am not the owner) received a loan despite the fact that we have still been working. So basically everyone under the threshold will be free work for the company (also the rent will be paid). That is definitely going to help out the business and the owner. It will be a big help to the business so I'm not complaining, but it will definitely have a big affect on the bottom line for a bit.
My wife's company ( she is the owner) wasn't approved for a loan in the first round because of the way they incentivized the loans to the banks. We are hoping she gets approved this go round. She actually resumed operations today.
Small businesses could have laid off their workforce and sought forbearance on rent/mortgage. The PPP was meant to avoid the knock-on effects of small business collapse on the rest of the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
Letting the airlines collapse wouldn’t end air travel, but it would change ownership structure.
Is Louisiana going to need a bailout?
Sure, I was going to type in that qualifier. You have to state that your business is impacted by COVID, but you don’t have to actually shut down to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
State and local governments should be fully covered for costs incurred directly because of the pandemic.
State and local governments shouldn't get a dime from outside those jurisdictions to cover pre-existing budget shortfalls due to bad decisions on government-sector pensions, benefits for illegals, excessive taxing policies that have eroded their own tax bases, etc.
yes, but that was true before COVID. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I'm ok with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
I bet it’s way higher then that even. I’m betting 500,000 easily.
Published 2 hours ago
China could have 50 times more coronavirus cases than claimed, Trump administration official says
As the international community, including Chinese citizens, raises questions about the Chinese government's tally of coronavirus cases and the communist nation's mortality rate, new details are emerging about just how far off official government calculations have likely been, Fox News has learned.
Last week, the People's Republic of China increased their official count of fatalities inside Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus outbreak, by 50 percent in just one day, increasing the overall tally by 1,290 people.
US OFFICIALS CONFIRM FULL-SCALE INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER CORONAVIRUS ESCAPED FROM WUHAN LAB
Now, a Trump administration official tells Fox News they estimate the PRC has miscalculated and underreported the true tally nationwide by at least a factor of 50. “PRC numbers as reported today seem to be arithmetically impossible,” the official said.
“Again, we don’t know the real numbers today, but we do know the about 80,000 infections and 4,000 deaths as reported by the Chinese Communist Party propaganda are not even remotely close,” the person added.
Intelligence sources, asked about recent reports of funeral homes in Wuhan becoming overwhelmed by the volume of new corpses and plagued by a shortage of urns to hold virus victims' remains, declined to confirm the existence of classified satellite images. They did affirm, however, that the reporting is within the realm of possibility based on the evidentiary record.
COVID-19 vaccine: The ethical dilemma of 'human challenge trial'Video
In support of this claim, officials point to the existence of seven funeral homes inside Wuhan city with a total incineration capacity of about 2,000 corpses per day. They also flag recent reporting that incinerators have been in near-constant use for 24 hours per day over the past several weeks. They note that, at this rate, the city's incineration capacity nears 60,000 corpses per month.
More
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-official-says
Does that include loss of excise taxes Louisiana makes from oil and gas due to global demand destruction?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
Also as previously reported, officials in Wuhan didn't order tens of thousands of urns to handle only 4,000 deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Not with any bailout money from the government, because that is not allowed.. Trust me on this.. I happen to know a lot more about this subject than you do..
That isn’t what I said. What I said is that they have been doing buybacks. Some responsible companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nvdia) sit on billions on cash. The airlines have been using their positive cash flow to buyback shares to inflate their stock price rather than build up big cash reserves. Had they built up their balance sheets they might not need to be bailed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
I am not sure you know more than I do about this even though you work in the industry - especially if you don’t know what I just said above. I do know that companies receiving bailouts are having to agree to not do buybacks for a period. That doesn’t exactly excuse their previous financial mismanagement which benefitted shareholders at the expense of taxpayers today.
Omniscience is achievable for those educated beyond their level of intelligence.
It is hard to drown in the shallow end of the pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Does it benefit anyone else associated with the airlines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Be careful. You have been in the shallow end for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Everyone who has a job directly and indirectly associated with the industry.
Airlines would declare bankruptcy and then reorganize. Commercial aviation isn’t going away. The only thing that really changes is the capital structure and owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
They already are being impacted. Flights are being reduced and still flying at reduced capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by tech70
Less jet fuel getting burned is not good for oil and refining.
Less demand for airplanes which hurts the manufacturers and Thor suppliers.
Etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Well consider I am sitting on those officer phone calls with the largest airline in the world, I would probably say I do.. Although I haven't served on Seal Team 6, or been an Instructor at TopGun, or graduated from medical school like you have..:icon_roll:
Then you know that American Airlines spent over 95% of its free cash flow in the last decade on share buybacks. They gave back over 12 billion to shareholders in the last 5 years alone in buybacks and dividends.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
So, they wouldn’t exactly need a bailout if they didn’t do that, right?
That is my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Well you are wrong again.. but it's just not worth going into the details to prove you wrong, Yes they did do some share buybacks but that was only within the last 2-3 years not decades.. A decade ago they were in bankruptcy and emerged in Dec 2013.. almost 2014..
I said in the last decade. Most of their buybacks came in 2015 and 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Over the past 5 years American has been renewing its fleet and has been cash flow negative, taking on debt and returning half of its operating cash flow to shareholders.
But you know that, too.
Which part am I wrong about?
I will give you this, though. Bailing out even the mismanaged airlines is far FAR better than bailing out the bad actors that caused the financial system collapse in 08-09.
I can agree with that statement; a bunch of folks should still be in prision. Note that Southwest has not furloughed anyone (yet) even with more than 50% of the flightrs cancelled. Also note that every airport has received bailout money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
ACEP and AAEM issue joint statement condemning the misinformation spread by the urgent care owners in Bakersfield, posted previously on this thread.
https://www.acep.org/corona/COVID-19...isinformation/
Forced under penalties if they didn't by the likes of Dems: Waters, Schumer, Todd, Frank beginning in 2002 and joined by Senator obummer in 2004, Congress threatened and then made it palatable for lenders by changing the rules of Fannie and Freddie and allowing insurance to cover "bad" loans lenders were handed the keys to vault. Bush signed it into law citing that as an opportunity for more Americans to realize the dream of home ownership. Large, and politically powerful organizations, like the NAR, threw their weight behind it all...and off and winging we went! Oh, how great it all was!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Then when it all collapsed we needed villains to blame...and the big, evil, RICH bankers made such an easy target. They were FORCED, at the point of the bayonet (expression), to do it in the first place, then got all the grief afterwards. Meanwhile Maxine Waters, and that bunch quietly slipped out of the side door...."don't blame us." Those are your BAD ACTORS!
Is that it? Is there nothing more? Do these ACRAP organizations offer any stats, scientific evidence to dispute Dr. Erickson, or are people just supposed to accept "Those guys are wrong"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The egregiously bad data analysis done and spread by Dr. Erickson deserved an F-. I already told you what was wrong with it and it was blatant.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
The mortgage credit risk that these banks took on was NOT the financial tsunami that took down the financial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
It was the root cause of it all. It led to packaging mortgages and selling those as investments...higher risk loans bringing bigger returns (and risk). Etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Nope! you're not gonna get away with protecting your puppet masters: Maxine Waters, Chuckie Schumer and the other Dems. It was THE DEMS that caused the financial crash of 2008, and it was a DEM, the worst POTUS in history and his goofy sidekick, Quid Pro Quo Joe, that caused the weakest recovery in US history.
Rewriting history doesn't work on the BB&B Political Forum. We know better.
You do realize the GSE’s lending standards weren’t any worse than the rest of the mortgage market, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That total value of the subprime loans was a minuscule fraction compared to all the sidebet financial instruments that institutions were trading, such as CDSs which had a notional value of more than 650 TRILLION dollars when the house of cards fell.
It was the collapse of those bets, not the meager by comparison subprime market that did the damage. The size and extent of those financial instruments were the result of deregulation.
Details on how the Apple/Google contact tracing app works.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...antine-testing
Yes, deregulation wrought by the advent of the forced subprime mortgage market. It was all related and it all began with those Congressional hearings led by Maxine Waters, Chuckie Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank....at one time those hearings could be found on YouTube, both the 2002 and 2004 hearings. I'll go look now but I suspect they have been taken down.
For any other reading this thread...and in case you don't remember or didn't know. The gist of this financial crash was giving loans for $200K, $300K houses for people who had no business, no means to service that debt. The original roots of this dates back to Jimmy Carter who first issued an executive order during the high mortgage rates of the late 1970's designed to allow lenders to work with folks. 99% of all lenders stayed away from it back then. Then Bill Clinton stepped it up with an executive order and/or getting Congress to pass a law that would allow lenders to take some liberties designed to help more folks buy a house. But that measure left it 100% voluntary and again 99%+ of lenders shied away from it. It wasn't until the Maxine Waters-led Congressional committee got involved...and YES! Pres. Bush signed it into law...that it changed from voluntary to mandatory under threat of penalties. And, in 2004, it was Congress and Pres. Bush again, that made it more acceptable to lenders with deregulation and the changing of laws for Fannie and Freddie and all of that.
Bankers, and others, were like...let me get this straight, you want us to make loans that we KNOW can't be serviced and for each loan we will make HUGE amounts on origination fees, etc...and then you will make us whole for every loan default, and if we don't agree to this, we'll have to pay HUGE fines? Congress: Yes, that is correct. Bankers: Oh, in that case, where do we sign up?
The total subprime mortgage market in 2008 was around 500 billion. The size of the sidebets that were being traded was over 650 trillion. Even if all the subprime loans went bad, that ALONE wouldn’t take down the financial system. It was all the leveraged risk taking in the financial instruments that caused the collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Btw, the consumer credit debt was around 14 trillion in 2019. Not sure what it is now.
Again...well, not arguing that the subprime mess was the sole cause. I have said it opened the door, thanks to those Dems forcing/threatening lenders. The lenders were refusing to do it, just as they had when Carter first gave them a chance, then later when Clinton made it even more possible, and then again in 2002 when the Waters committee revisited the matter under the guise of opening up the housing market to segments of the population who were struggling to secure mortgages. It took Congress in 2004, with threats (a stick) and guarantees and deregulation (a carrot) before lenders finally acquiesced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But, you know all of this. So stop playing that silly "bankers be greedy and bad" card and the Congressional Dems who drove the whole mess are not responsible.
I am not even talking about the lending. It was the folks designing and trading derivatives that took on magnitudes more risk than the underlying mortgage the instrument was based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
There was a documentary on all of that...might can find it on YouTube. Very interesting...very sad too. People did get greedy, but those who were hurt the most were done so by people like pension fund managers and the like. In that documentary it showed a province in Norway or Sweden that invested heavily in the mortgage-backed investment vehicles and got clobbered when the bottom dropped out. Their whole pension fund for retired public workers crashed. A whole lot of people jumped in and played the game and some got filthy rich but most took a hit. Oh well, so sorry, so sad. They saw only how much could be made and disregarded the risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I didn't invest even one dime in any of that mess. My mortgage banker went ballistic when I first asked him about it all. I admit when it all first coming out, in late 2003 into 2004, I was curious about it. I asked him how can a bank afford to make loans below the prime rate, meaning they would lose money on every loan. He explained that's not what the "sub prime" was referring to. And quickly added, this bank won't be participating in any of that scheme. Most small, local and regional banks did not get involved.
What was that huge insurance company that went bankrupt? And all those brokerages. like Lehman Brothers, that tanked. A price was paid by many. And it all traces back to Maxine Waters, Chuckie Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and later joined by Barry Hussein Obummer.
Now...hasn't it been nice to reflect back on a historic economic collapse and forget about the current one? Needed a break from today's reality.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...