Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

People who have the money to run for office - after all, money is still the mother's milk of politics - will have people to oversee their affairs while they serve in congress or wherever.

That's part of the point. We shouldn't be led only by "people who have enough money to run for office and have people to oversee their affairs." I was very gratified to see a LOT of "everyday people" get voted in this past (2018) election. I am hoping it happens again in 2020.

So, what's your take on people going to Washington and ending up filthy rich at the taxpayers' expense?

If it is indeed "at the tax-payer's expense"...I don't like it or support it or want it. For example, I don't think the U.S. taxpayer should be footing the bill for Trump's weekly golf trips. He should have a reasonable number of vacation days, like the rest of us, and he should foot his own bills for transportation. I understand we need to provide security, and that will add to the cost of their vacations, but spending the equivalent of 334 years worth of presidential salary for endless golf excursions in inexcusable - and even more so given it was what he explicitly complained about with Obama.

If the riches come from "celebrity" and not "office," I have no problem with it so long as it does not create a conflict of interest. Don't start giving speaking tours while you are in office - but after you are out of office, if people want to pay you to speak - so be it. Same for publishing books.

And I completely agree with barring politicians from becoming lobbyists for a significant period of time after leaving office - long enough for their "connections" to have cycled out. If we have 12 year term limits, 12 years would seem about right. You can spend up to 12 years in office, then have to wait 12 years before becoming a lobbyist. So long as there are no term limits, the bar should be "for life."

[carpedm9587]

A tax increase is a lot easier to stomach when you can vote in your own pay raise to compensate. Although I'm not sure what the solution is for that one. If it was left up to the voters, then politicians would never get a pay increase. Perhaps politician pay should be tied in some way to the economy as an automatic mechanism.

As noted in my post to CP (which hit after you posted this), I think salaries should be locked to the median/mean income level in the U.S., adjusted annually. Then the only way to get a raise is to lift the boat for everyone. To that end, median might be better than mean, or some formula should be generated that combines the two so it really requires everyone to be lifted for a raise to be realized.

[Mountain Man]

So, what's your take on people going to Washington and ending up filthy rich at the taxpayers' expense?

Nancy Pelosi is a classic example. She is worth far, far more than she could have possibly gotten from a congressman's salary alone.

[Sparko]

Nancy Pelosi is a classic example. She is worth far, far more than she could have possibly gotten from a congressman's salary alone.

Yeah, let's watch AOC and see what happens with her. She couldn't afford an apartment when she moved to DC.

[KingsGambit]

I don't remember which city it was, but I read a local story where one city council member (who I believe was either retired independently wealthy) proposed that every city council member start working for free for the next year and forgo their salaries out of "solidarity" with other workers. Everybody else voted it down because they legitimately couldn't pay the bills otherwise. It does seem unlikely that many "average" people can manage to get elected to Congress, but we shouldn't make it impossible to actually swing it in the cases where it does happen.

[carpedm9587]

I have been watching the data pretty closely, and an odd thing happened today. We closed 4/16 with a total of 677,570 cases in the U.S., which is an increase of 33,481 over the report of 644,089 at the end of 4/15. but the Worldometer site says only 29,567 new cases were reported. We also closed 4/16 with 34,617 deaths, which is a whopping 6,088 increment over the 4/15 closing of 28,529, but Worldometer is reporting 2,174 new deaths.

I suspect that the numbers have been adjusted to include the spike in at-home deaths happening in many cities around the country, but I cannot find confirmation. Is anyone else tracking and does anyone else have an insight as to what is happening?

For all the claims of things "turning around," I don't see it in the numbers. After a brief depression of both new cases and deaths, the numbers from the last three days have been ugly.

BTW - for all of those comparing things to the flu, despite all of the social isolation, we now have lost as many people as the "average" flu season - and we did it in just over 3 weeks. Not exactly the flu...

[NorrinRadd]

Ah - but the lot of you didn't excuse Obama's behavior, now did you? That would be what I mean by 'being held to the same standard'. What Obama literally would have been lynched for by this crowd is treated as 'no big deal' when done by Mr. Trump.

I literally believe you have literally become so deranged that you literally no longer have any idea what "literally" means.

[NorrinRadd]

Hey now!

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah - here too. Fortunately I am now (mostly) retired. So we're spending our time on helping out in the community, home projects, a 4,000 piece puzzle, and watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe in chronological order. It's SO exciting!

Get some Puzz-3D puzzles. Those are great.

[shunyadragon]

I have been watching the data pretty closely, and an odd thing happened today. We closed 4/16 with a total of 677,570 cases in the U.S., which is an increase of 33,481 over the report of 644,089 at the end of 4/15. but the Worldometer site says only 29,567 new cases were reported. We also closed 4/16 with 34,617 deaths, which is a whopping 6,088 increment over the 4/15 closing of 28,529, but Worldometer is reporting 2,174 new deaths.

I suspect that the numbers have been adjusted to include the spike in at-home deaths happening in many cities around the country, but I cannot find confirmation. Is anyone else tracking and does anyone else have an insight as to what is happening?

For all the claims of things "turning around," I don't see it in the numbers. After a brief depression of both new cases and deaths, the numbers from the last three days have been ugly.

BTW - for all of those comparing things to the flu, despite all of the social isolation, we now have lost as many people as the "average" flu season - and we did it in just over 3 weeks. Not exactly the flu...

the predictions and assessments of his 'advisors have been all over the place, and there later, ah . . . after the fact predictions sort of fit my previous predictions, but with the bogus claim of 'defeating the the virus.'.

The natural bell curve path of the virus fits my predictions in the past as between late April to May centering on May 1 as a fairly regular natural virus bell curve tapering off in May into maybe June. Actually around the world the path of the virus bell curve in larger western countries is following this bell curve depending on when the pandemic began in that country or region. Countries like Italy infected early have a predictable earlier peak then the USA. Russia was infected later, and therefore will have a more prolonged bell curve. The smaller humps withing the larger pattern are later infections in populations of those in some way isolated that did not have immunity. This is the problem with when we lift the measures to reduce the spread of the virus, because much of the country has been somewhat isolated from the virus like some counties in North Carolina, and subject to later infections.

My predictions of fatalities in the USA was 15-30,000, but the spread of the virus by many infected with little or no symptom upped my predictions to 40 to 50,000 which are more reasonable based on the history of this pandemic without the wild predictions made by some without any basis in the actual history of the virus. The poor health of the elderly and vulnerable population in the West likely contributed to the higher fatality rate. There is another factor that I consider possible that the countries in the Orient have herd immunity from coevolution with coronaviruses, as described by the regional coevolution of Herpes viruses with their hosts, but The Lurch strongly disagrees. This may explain part of the difference between the infection rate in the Orient and the West, notwithstanding the fact that countries like South Korea and Japan were far more aggressive and proactive in dealing with the pandemic.

I also made the prediction the Trump would do a victory dance to claim his efforts will defeat the virus, and like China claiming they defeated the virus, and no as in past pandemics the Virus does what the virus does. We may implement measures to reduced the fatalities, but no we cannot defeat the virus anymore than we can not defeat the flu nor simple colds.

By the way the fatality rate from country to country and region to region in the West is more correlated to the elderly age percentage and vulnerability of the population then any difference in the efforts of the individual countries implemented to reduce impact of the COVAG-19 pandemic. Northern Italy has the highest average age than most countries. at 79.9 See: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus. The best source I can fined on the daily reporting of the data.

There is a possible correlation that in the Orient the elderly population is in much better health than in Western countries. When I was in China the older generations were in the parks with me doing hours of Tai Chi and other exercises. Unfortunately the younger generations in the Orient are not in as good health as the older generations,

[oxmixmudd]

I literally believe you have literally become so deranged that you literally no longer have any idea what "literally" means.

You believe a large number of things that are provably wrong, so why should I care?

[carpedm9587]

Get some Puzz-3D puzzles. Those are great.

I made one of of the Neuschwanstein Castle, which my elderly mother gave to me. Apparently I once gave it to her and she never made it because Dad got sick shortly afterwards. She returned it and I finished it fairly quickly. Then I was digging through our closet and came across a 4,000 piece puzzle of that exact same castle. This morning, that castle was on my desktop where Microsoft rotates a new image every day or so.

image-1-shutterstock_502823398.jpg

Maybe the fates are trying to tell me something!

[lilpixieofterror]

That's part of the point. We shouldn't be led only by "people who have enough money to run for office and have people to oversee their affairs." I was very gratified to see a LOT of "everyday people" get voted in this past (2018) election. I am hoping it happens again in 2020.



If it is indeed "at the tax-payer's expense"...I don't like it or support it or want it. For example, I don't think the U.S. taxpayer should be footing the bill for Trump's weekly golf trips. He should have a reasonable number of vacation days, like the rest of us, and he should foot his own bills for transportation. I understand we need to provide security, and that will add to the cost of their vacations, but spending the equivalent of 334 years worth of presidential salary for endless golf excursions in inexcusable - and even more so given it was what he explicitly complained about with Obama.

If the riches come from "celebrity" and not "office," I have no problem with it so long as it does not create a conflict of interest. Don't start giving speaking tours while you are in office - but after you are out of office, if people want to pay you to speak - so be it. Same for publishing books.

And I completely agree with barring politicians from becoming lobbyists for a significant period of time after leaving office - long enough for their "connections" to have cycled out. If we have 12 year term limits, 12 years would seem about right. You can spend up to 12 years in office, then have to wait 12 years before becoming a lobbyist. So long as there are no term limits, the bar should be "for life."

[lilpixieofterror]

pix - no. And you know it. He is demanding his name on the checks. He clearly believes that is in HIS best interests. It certainly serves not one other person on the face of the Earth to have that signature there. And that pretty much says all that needs to be said. If you are not honest enough to admit this is a purely self serving move with an eye to the election (Who's signature was on your relief check - vote for him!) then that is your problem, not mine.

[Cow Poke]

You believe a large number of things that are provably wrong, so why should I care?

Because he's a fellow Christian and Jesus commanded you to love him.