HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why $2 trillion isn't nea...

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 01:46 PM

Why $2 trillion isn't nearly enough...

In one graph from today's New York Times.





Yeah, it's just one week, but this isn't going to last just a few weeks.

How many will die because of the single most corrupt and incompetent president since Warren Harding and his greasy enablers in Congress?

November needs to be a clean sweep, so we can begin to rebuild the country.

4 replies, 482 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why $2 trillion isn't nearly enough... (Original post)
LudwigPastorius Mar 2020 OP
Eliot Rosewater Mar 2020 #1
NoMoreRepugs Mar 2020 #2
LudwigPastorius Mar 2020 #3
Igel Mar 2020 #4

Response to LudwigPastorius (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 01:51 PM

1. Typical fucking cons, they dont understand that if they dont make it ENOUGH

THEIR lives, THEIR portfolios will suffer even more.

Go ahead, make it so 30 million Americans have no money, no food, no prescriptions, see how you like the way they react

STUPID FUCKING REPUBS

not only would that cause massive violence but the economy tanks exponentially more than it needed to..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LudwigPastorius (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 02:00 PM

2. 3.3 million represents what portion of the working public??

3% - 5% - what??? With some economists talking of potential 15-20+% unemployment Iíd think we might need a few more TRILLION.... but hey, donít forget, we canít possibly afford healthcare for everyone can we??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreRepugs (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 02:11 PM

3. The reply from Dr. Evil today, when asked about these record unemployment claims:

"I just think these numbers right now are not relevant, and whether they're bigger or smaller in the short-term," Mnuchin said."


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-government-response-updates-mnuchin-jobless-claims-report/story?id=69811625

They're relevant when you're out of a job, you asshole!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LudwigPastorius (Original post)

Thu Mar 26, 2020, 02:48 PM

4. It's not the whole pie.

It's like taking a picture of the bread plate at a restaurant, tweeting it out, and saying, "THIS is what they're serving us!"

The assumption is it's the meal because otherwise the statement seems overblown. It's a true statement, but the inference that you make is false. Pan out and you see the salad, the beverage, and the rest of the dinner.

The $2400 would be enough for most couple for a month or more. But while the numbers of claims are high--3 million?--3 million out of 131 million. 2.3% of workers.

The number will certainly go up. A lot. But take where I live--over half of workers are considered "essential" and are not just allowed to work, they're requested to work. And they, too, will get the $1200, helping to keep things going. (You know that "multiplier effect" that was magic with the first stimulus. It hasn't entirely gone away. But with the velocity of money being way down, in all likelihood, the multiplier, already less a number than a range, will shrink.)

And that's in addition to the pass-through funding, state unemployment (which is good for 26 weeks), etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread