AAPalmTree
Well-Known Member
FIFY
Furlough Estimates
- Thread starter ZapBrannigan
- Start date
FIFY
Skåning
Well-Known Member
Yeah but not all jobs are equal. Chinese laborers building the railroad, or 10 year olds working in a factory - those are jobs that helped American companies prosper and profit massively. But they aren't good for our society. It took decades of effort from labor and unions to enact change and get to where we are today, I'd argue we aren't all the way there yet.
Don’t be bringing the Constitution into this conversation.
AAPalmTree
Well-Known Member
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say.
Skåning
Well-Known Member
Maybe I jumped in at a bad time. I thought your comment about this country prospering on jobs was misplaced and that was my response.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm sorry, I know that plenty of people believe this pablum, but it simply isn't so. Yes, most businesses are small businesses, and only 40% of small businesses generate a profit in a given year, but that's because most small businesses fail within a few years of starting up. Businesses that don't fail do generate profits, do have to show them on their tax returns, and do pay taxes. This is reality. Not talk radio spin.
You sound like Kramer on Seinfeld talking about write-offs when he couldn't explain to Jerry what a write-off actually was.
HJB
Well-Known Member
Never found that show funny, so no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I listen to any talk radio. I’m only going off of what I’ve seen. I’ve been around it my entire life. If you don’t think CPAs/ accounting firms can manipulate numbers to see fit then there’s not much to talk about. I’ve seen “small” businesses that have been around for over 30 years, and never shown a profit to the IRS.
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
It’s a lot harder to prosecute this behavior than it should be. See: LRC Presents: All the President's Lawyers: Tuesday’s other sh*t show on Apple Podcasts
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Actually, it goes even further back then that. In summer 2007 a full 15 months before the 2008 election, then Senate majority leader Schumer said that they would NOT confirm a potential Bush SCOTUS nominee in case one opened up until after the 2008 election. He said this well over a year+ from the election, even though no one died/retired at the time he made that comment. The Democrats clearly and explicitly set that expectation, and said they would use their power of the Senate majority and not confirm a potential Bush nominee.
No different than what Schumer said he'd do in 2007. It's just that the gloves are on the other party now.
Getting rid of the filibuster can easily come back to haunt the Democrats, as can packing the Supreme court. It's a huge case of careful what you wish for. Bottom line is what the Republicans did in 2016 wasn't anything special. The Dems would have done the same thing if a Bush appointee came in 2007 or 2008. They made it clear if the Dems ruled the house, no Bush SCOTUS appointee was gonna get approved.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Getting back to layoffs............................................
CNN published an article that there is no going back to normal. I think that's sensationalist horse crap, but the media is strong and they have a following. Ultimate bottom line, so as long as we use terms like "social distancing," airline travel is not going above 50% of 2019 levels, hotels and restaurant business will continue to be decimated, normal jobs are not going back to the office, and life as it existed prior to March is not coming back. This vaccine better work. Volunteers are reporting severe chills (one candidate broke his own tooth with chattering from the chills), some are reporting severe headaches, and according to that CNN article, "all say it's worth it to fight Covid."
It's clear at this point the ENTIRE country's hopes are pegged on an effective vaccine. I pray it works - God forbid if any people come down with neurological issues like the one volunteer did with Astra Zeneca's vaccine in England. If there is any failure like that with the vaccine once it is out, then it is game over.
CNN published an article that there is no going back to normal. I think that's sensationalist horse crap, but the media is strong and they have a following. Ultimate bottom line, so as long as we use terms like "social distancing," airline travel is not going above 50% of 2019 levels, hotels and restaurant business will continue to be decimated, normal jobs are not going back to the office, and life as it existed prior to March is not coming back. This vaccine better work. Volunteers are reporting severe chills (one candidate broke his own tooth with chattering from the chills), some are reporting severe headaches, and according to that CNN article, "all say it's worth it to fight Covid."
It's clear at this point the ENTIRE country's hopes are pegged on an effective vaccine. I pray it works - God forbid if any people come down with neurological issues like the one volunteer did with Astra Zeneca's vaccine in England. If there is any failure like that with the vaccine once it is out, then it is game over.
You can’t be fiscally conservative and for universal healthcare.
I called this would happen back in May when it became obvious the psychological trauma this has had on people. They’re already starting the shift from coronavirus to include the flu and common cold as grounds for social distancing and wearing masks. I thought that wouldn’t happen until after Covid had completely faded but here we are. As long as infectious diseases exist it’s game over.
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
BOOTY CARE INSURANCE
Screaming_Emu
Joe Conventional
Conservatives be like “WE NEED A HUGE MILITARY!”
But also “THE GUBMENT IS CARELESS WITH MONEY!”
Suggest doing further study on the fiscal cost of having a significant portion of the population uninsured.
I suggest researching healthcare costs before the government got involved. Tuition as well.
turbomax97
What can brown do for you?
Pelosi claims an additional bailout is imminent.
CFIscare
Well-Known Member
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
You're (probably not) forgetting to factor in the reduction in state funding to universities and the affect it's had on tuition.
SrFnFly227
Well-Known Member
Per student yes, but an overall reduction is a common misconception. This article is from 2015 so the numbers will be a little outdated, but I doubt much has changed since then. Two quotes for those among the JC group who refuse to click on news article links.
"In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher."
"As the baby boomers reached college age, state appropriations to higher education skyrocketed, increasing more than fourfold in today’s dollars, from $11.1 billion in 1960 to $48.2 billion in 1975. By 1980, state funding for higher education had increased a mind-boggling 390 percent in real terms over the previous 20 years. This tsunami of public money did not reduce tuition: quite the contrary."
Opinion | The Real Reason College Tuition Costs So Much (Published 2015)
It’s not because states have cut funding for higher education.
