Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
You Can't Sit At Home Without An Income - You Can't Go To Work And Get Coronavirus
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Intelligent Party
Jun 3, 2020, 9:39:12 PM6/3/20
to
The U.S. has a huge problem. COVID has not gone away, and is not going to go
away. The issue is you cannot go to work and get COVID, and you cannot stay at
home without an income and a forbearance on rent and debt. And 60% of businesses
will fail if there is not a forbearance on debt and rents. Letting businesses
fail due to COVID is not the free market. It is madness. For this ought to be an
"Economic Pause," and not a "Great Depression."
It's time for Congress to step in and enact the following plan:
1. $1,250 per month for every man woman and child, until COVID is over, + one year
past the end of COVID, so they do not have to work, and are only working for extra
money. Not because they could otherwise die without money/starve/be without
housing, and can thereby be exploited by employers. Dependents ought to get their
payments directly, akin to child support.
We can't keep from going to work indefinitely without incomes, but if we go to
work we will die, and the healthcare costs will be enormous. The cost of COVID
should go all into the National Debt. $1,250 per month for every man woman and
child should be paid out for starters. $15,000 per person per year. $416 Billion
per month, $5 Trillion per year. The Fed will buy the bonds. Congress can go
into debt indefinitely it's just fiat money at the top, the Fed prints money and
buys the Bonds for Congress to spend. Inflation is the other side of the coin,
and not our concern here. We need a fiscal stimulus.
There will not automatically be revenues and employment the day COVID is over, and
so the protectionism must continue for 1 year after.
It's what we buy as a society, that we purchase what we need at the bottom and
thereby build the bottom. If supermarkets and take-out have inflation, then maybe
people will open more supermarkets and take-out?
A forbearance on rent and debt, except new rent and new debt. New lending, debt,
and renting ought _not_ be subject to this provision.
Non-payment of credit card debt acquired before the provision date, ought to still
say "OK" or "PAID AS AGREED" during COVID, and for one year following COVID, and
no lawsuits ought be allowed to ensue. Likewise, landlords ought not be allowed
to give bad references regarding nonpayment of rent during COVID, or be reported
to a government agency which will handle it, and no lawsuits in favor of landlords
for back payments or non payments during COVID and for one year following COVID
ought to be allowed - while the same landlords will have no obligations to bank
mortgages. But new rentals and new debt ought not be subject to this provision.
Forbearance is for all non-new debt and rent, such as student loans, car loans,
corporate loans and bonds, and debt, and any other loans.
New lending, new debt, new mortgages, and new renting ought not be subject to this
provision.
The forbearance means the banks will not be getting any mortgage or credit card
payments at all, and the Fed may temporarily have to lend more to banks. This is
an "Economic Pause," the banks aren't holding troubled assets.
2. Employee protections. Employees must be able to quit and come back at any time
before or after COVID is over, and with no penalty. As the landscape may change
and they assess the danger in their County/community. Employees must be fully
advised as to this right, and continue to be warned as to the dangers of working,
at the office entrance. Employing someone to commit self-harm is the issue, but
at least with the $1,250 and forbearance they are not forced to work or die
without money.
3. Consumers must be protected from sale, and fully know and continue to be warned
by advisement at any opening store entrances, about COVID. Consumer protections -
Advisement, Marketing, Advertising, as well as not creating crowds for economic
profit, as this is harder to regulate if it is not persistent. The thing is, we
really should study what advisements ought to be to regulate. For instance, the
grievance is addressed in that we can put labeling on Cigarettes, but Cigarettes
have insufficient labeling. Good advisement regulation deserves attention. But
restrictions ought to be between the government and the commercial entity, and
between the commercial entity and its patrons. Regulation of commerce, and
trespassing. Not crimes between citizens and the government.
4. a) Stay-at-home-from-work - Willfully. This should still be advice, but up to
the employee. The Employer does not have to be prohibited if the people are not
forced into work, as they have a forbearance and $1,250. Businesses can exercise
corporate responsibility and stay closed if they do not have to pay debt and rent.
No more demonstrators to open the economy. Employees merely need advice like
Consumers do.
b) Respect for other's personal space. Social Distancing, based on protecting and
respecting another person's personal space, not for violating the government.
While your right to use public property without violating others is sacrosanct,
you cannot come within the determined number of feet of someone without _that_
person's permission. 6 feet while moving normally, and 10-15 feet while
stationary where crowds are not a potential. Where crowds are a potential, 10-15
feet while moving, and 20-30 feet while stationary may be better, as this social
distancing is more likely to be broken.
Negligence may be rebuked and shall be excused, intentionally violating someone's
personal space is potentially criminal, though two wrongs do not make a right, any
more than three do, and three don't, and especially in this confusing evolving
environment, as always, forgiveness is in order for the repentant. People really
ought to be more tolerant, and love one another more, during COVID. It's your
personal bubble, why not keep it a good one.
c) Keeping a distance for your own safety. While you absolutely have a right to
come within the determined number of feet of someone who consents, during COVID it
is *strongly* suggested you do not associate with strangers at all, and you limit
the number of people you associate with entirely. It would be entirely stupid to
be at a party with people you do not even meet, but putting yourself at greater
danger. If you can't work miracles, or meet with someone who does, this covers
Church. While you always 100% have every right to go to Church, according to the
First Amendment, Human Rights, and _God_. As leaders, Congress ought to advise
Church leaders, of their right, while strongly suggesting and imploring them not
to encourage congregations, until COVID is more certainly passed.
No Stay-At-Home orders ought ensue. Just advice. Even non-commercial public
parties are technically legal, if a perimeter is set up around them to protect
other's desires to social-distance. Congress just advises against this general
notion if you don't know all the people in your group and who they associate with.
The less risk you take, the less danger you're in. Commercial public assembly
is the only prohibition for the sake of Consumers, that Congress ought sanction
the Governors, Mayors, and Counties prohibit. For the sake of employees,
Congress' economic plan allows employees to make their own decisions while
assessing the existent landscape, and not having to work for food and housing to
stay alive.
We can't pin our hopes on a Vaccine. We want to buy no more COVID. We don't want
to be Totalitarian, yet unless all the States do it as good as New York State, and
New Jersey State have been doing it, it may cost way more, and if COVID has not
gone away in 4 months to 1 year, what purchase will we have to show for all our money?
away. The issue is you cannot go to work and get COVID, and you cannot stay at
home without an income and a forbearance on rent and debt. And 60% of businesses
will fail if there is not a forbearance on debt and rents. Letting businesses
fail due to COVID is not the free market. It is madness. For this ought to be an
"Economic Pause," and not a "Great Depression."
It's time for Congress to step in and enact the following plan:
1. $1,250 per month for every man woman and child, until COVID is over, + one year
past the end of COVID, so they do not have to work, and are only working for extra
money. Not because they could otherwise die without money/starve/be without
housing, and can thereby be exploited by employers. Dependents ought to get their
payments directly, akin to child support.
We can't keep from going to work indefinitely without incomes, but if we go to
work we will die, and the healthcare costs will be enormous. The cost of COVID
should go all into the National Debt. $1,250 per month for every man woman and
child should be paid out for starters. $15,000 per person per year. $416 Billion
per month, $5 Trillion per year. The Fed will buy the bonds. Congress can go
into debt indefinitely it's just fiat money at the top, the Fed prints money and
buys the Bonds for Congress to spend. Inflation is the other side of the coin,
and not our concern here. We need a fiscal stimulus.
There will not automatically be revenues and employment the day COVID is over, and
so the protectionism must continue for 1 year after.
It's what we buy as a society, that we purchase what we need at the bottom and
thereby build the bottom. If supermarkets and take-out have inflation, then maybe
people will open more supermarkets and take-out?
A forbearance on rent and debt, except new rent and new debt. New lending, debt,
and renting ought _not_ be subject to this provision.
Non-payment of credit card debt acquired before the provision date, ought to still
say "OK" or "PAID AS AGREED" during COVID, and for one year following COVID, and
no lawsuits ought be allowed to ensue. Likewise, landlords ought not be allowed
to give bad references regarding nonpayment of rent during COVID, or be reported
to a government agency which will handle it, and no lawsuits in favor of landlords
for back payments or non payments during COVID and for one year following COVID
ought to be allowed - while the same landlords will have no obligations to bank
mortgages. But new rentals and new debt ought not be subject to this provision.
Forbearance is for all non-new debt and rent, such as student loans, car loans,
corporate loans and bonds, and debt, and any other loans.
New lending, new debt, new mortgages, and new renting ought not be subject to this
provision.
The forbearance means the banks will not be getting any mortgage or credit card
payments at all, and the Fed may temporarily have to lend more to banks. This is
an "Economic Pause," the banks aren't holding troubled assets.
2. Employee protections. Employees must be able to quit and come back at any time
before or after COVID is over, and with no penalty. As the landscape may change
and they assess the danger in their County/community. Employees must be fully
advised as to this right, and continue to be warned as to the dangers of working,
at the office entrance. Employing someone to commit self-harm is the issue, but
at least with the $1,250 and forbearance they are not forced to work or die
without money.
3. Consumers must be protected from sale, and fully know and continue to be warned
by advisement at any opening store entrances, about COVID. Consumer protections -
Advisement, Marketing, Advertising, as well as not creating crowds for economic
profit, as this is harder to regulate if it is not persistent. The thing is, we
really should study what advisements ought to be to regulate. For instance, the
grievance is addressed in that we can put labeling on Cigarettes, but Cigarettes
have insufficient labeling. Good advisement regulation deserves attention. But
restrictions ought to be between the government and the commercial entity, and
between the commercial entity and its patrons. Regulation of commerce, and
trespassing. Not crimes between citizens and the government.
4. a) Stay-at-home-from-work - Willfully. This should still be advice, but up to
the employee. The Employer does not have to be prohibited if the people are not
forced into work, as they have a forbearance and $1,250. Businesses can exercise
corporate responsibility and stay closed if they do not have to pay debt and rent.
No more demonstrators to open the economy. Employees merely need advice like
Consumers do.
b) Respect for other's personal space. Social Distancing, based on protecting and
respecting another person's personal space, not for violating the government.
While your right to use public property without violating others is sacrosanct,
you cannot come within the determined number of feet of someone without _that_
person's permission. 6 feet while moving normally, and 10-15 feet while
stationary where crowds are not a potential. Where crowds are a potential, 10-15
feet while moving, and 20-30 feet while stationary may be better, as this social
distancing is more likely to be broken.
Negligence may be rebuked and shall be excused, intentionally violating someone's
personal space is potentially criminal, though two wrongs do not make a right, any
more than three do, and three don't, and especially in this confusing evolving
environment, as always, forgiveness is in order for the repentant. People really
ought to be more tolerant, and love one another more, during COVID. It's your
personal bubble, why not keep it a good one.
c) Keeping a distance for your own safety. While you absolutely have a right to
come within the determined number of feet of someone who consents, during COVID it
is *strongly* suggested you do not associate with strangers at all, and you limit
the number of people you associate with entirely. It would be entirely stupid to
be at a party with people you do not even meet, but putting yourself at greater
danger. If you can't work miracles, or meet with someone who does, this covers
Church. While you always 100% have every right to go to Church, according to the
First Amendment, Human Rights, and _God_. As leaders, Congress ought to advise
Church leaders, of their right, while strongly suggesting and imploring them not
to encourage congregations, until COVID is more certainly passed.
No Stay-At-Home orders ought ensue. Just advice. Even non-commercial public
parties are technically legal, if a perimeter is set up around them to protect
other's desires to social-distance. Congress just advises against this general
notion if you don't know all the people in your group and who they associate with.
The less risk you take, the less danger you're in. Commercial public assembly
is the only prohibition for the sake of Consumers, that Congress ought sanction
the Governors, Mayors, and Counties prohibit. For the sake of employees,
Congress' economic plan allows employees to make their own decisions while
assessing the existent landscape, and not having to work for food and housing to
stay alive.
We can't pin our hopes on a Vaccine. We want to buy no more COVID. We don't want
to be Totalitarian, yet unless all the States do it as good as New York State, and
New Jersey State have been doing it, it may cost way more, and if COVID has not
gone away in 4 months to 1 year, what purchase will we have to show for all our money?
Intelligent Party
Jun 5, 2020, 5:35:27 PM6/5/20
to
COVID may last 4 months to over 12 months if we don't do things right. All this
equity should not be destroyed as people continue to earn passive incomes on debt
and rent, while no active revenues are being produced by many companies.
It will not harm the economy any worse to stop all debt and rent payments until
COVID passes, will it? How?
The Republican borrowing and lending to corporations who pay their debts to
passive income holders, and could just have a stay, is a curious way to spend the
taxpayer's trillions. Though to the extent those sometimes risky trillions are
coming back, that lending won't increase the National Debt. Easy credit isn't
spending as much as pure spending, but if that's how it is, it sure makes it sound
like a lot more than it is. - Yet why aren't JC Penny and Neiman Marcus borrowing
from the government's $3 trillion credit package?
Yet new borrowing should not be subject to such a stay.
It should be clear, the fact that clothing or any companies were weak before COVID
is not an excuse to let COVID push them over the brink!
Why should people pay their savings, to the rent on their apartments or to their
mortgages, during COVID?
At the least forbearance on some industries like clothing companies - which have
failed and are failing, and Airlines, which are no doubt the brink of bankruptcy.
Medical companies and essential companies may benefit from COVID. Might health
insurance companies fail?
Are there essential industries, that yet aren't being used during COVID, that
merit the most protection?
And there is the rent of consuming food without pay, spending down your savings.
It should all be on the government. Not on the economy. The economy crashes
because the National Debt is defaulted upon, is not what's going to happen. The
National Debt will not be defaulted upon at $40 Trillion. How high above this it
could go, deserves analysis. You just pay the debt by issuing more debt, that's
the way funny money works. And fiat money is what our basis is.
[Greece doesn't have its own central bank, and is like a State, like if California
kept issuing bonds. Before default became impossible for Congress the inflation
and rates would have gone up, and the Fed and Congress are fully in control of
adjusting the National Debt in any which way they want in such a crisis, such as
moving rates to 0% just on that debt, while rates on everything else may be high
possibly. This is a time of National Security. Of course, if it wasn't a debt
driven society, how would the Fed stop inflation? Like if the Fed has no bonds to
sell, how would the corporate bond rates be higher? Can the Fed create bonds, and
sell them at a high rate, just as it creates money and buys Congress's bonds at a
low rate. Probably theoretically, just like it creates money. However the issue
is what we do today, and default however theoretical, isn't going to happen on $40
Trillion. Okay, so the Fed buys Congress' bonds at a low rate, and high price,
and then raises rates, and sells them at a high rate and a low price. No
theoretical crisis possible. The Fed appears all powerful. Anyway, a default if
possible would at worst be something we have to accept to save ourselves from
COVID. But, yeah, it's good to know if it is possible.].
Again, a default on the National Debt would be an acceptable way to save ourselves
/ our country, from COVID, but 1) The Response to the Greek Example above, just
proved it's not possible, and 2) we do still want to know it is a possibility if
it is, before going through with it anyway, we should make all decisions knowing
their implications and assessing how likely given the value of them. But, we're
not going anywhere near a default possibility so far, if it was possible, which it
doesn't seem it is.
So inflation would be the issue, but is not the issue here. After COVID, after
the stay is lifted, there may be higher inflation, and resultingly higher rates at
the same Stock Market valuation. This means the economy won't be able to *grow*
as fast in the future. IF we don't want more inflation, we won't be able to issue
as much debt as a society as a whole, after COVID, to spend on purchase of capital
and labor, because we already issued the debt to spend on consumption = sales
revenues, during COVID, yet we are concerned with the economy not *shrinking*, and
not having a *meltdown*, and a Great Depression (incidentally, requiring SPENDING
on WAR to get us out of it) right now. It's National Security already.
Tax revenues aren't necessarily going to be very high this year either.
And JC Penny can fail 12 months after COVID-19 is over, and not now.
Evictions stayed for one year after COVID is over, is demanded and imperative.
Except on new borrowing and new lending and new renting.
Allowing businesses to fail, isn't going to help the economy to grow. That is not
free market capitalism. That is madness.
If they're really such poor businesses, they can fail 1 year after COVID-19 is
over I guess. ["I guess," cause don't you think it's better to protect all
businesses, than to let potentially productive businesses fail. There could be
another side to this, like ongoing languishing businesses, but if there is
productive opportunity, wouldn't they switch into that, rather than letting them
fail beforehand. So that would be like all bonds are unsecured, thus could only
sue for liens, and any new debt issue or sale would have to pay the liens before
the company or owners could receive it, yet bankruptcies generally wouldn't be,
and the company could keep trying. This is just a general contemplation though,
not pertinent to COVID. What other sorts of business debt protection could their
be?].
The economy is not suddenly going to be at full steam, the day business doors open
once again, that they will have any money to pay their rents or their debts.
Then Congress or someone should protect credit reports from bad marks for
non-payment. Renters can not just stop paying otherwise, or they will be 100%
unable to get a lease in the future for their bad credit reports. The point of
credit reports all goes to housing, and missed housing payments affect ability to
attain housing the most.
Landlords do not report monthly to credit agencies like bank credit cards. Rather
if there is a missed payment they 1)sue for eviction [-which goes to credit
report], 2) could tell a future landlord when a reference is checked, 3) may
report nonpayment to a credit agencies without suing? Which probably shouldn't be
allowed anyhow, as many landlords falsely charge tenants who have recently quit
for disputed cleaning charges and the like. 70% of landlords are sphincters.
That renters have to be able to sue, if subsequently denied housing, for
non-payment during COVID-19.
Lenders should not be protected while paused industrious businesses fail. The
burden should fall upon the lenders who's investments were at risk, and who will
recover their investments to whatever _normal_ degree after COVID-19, upon which
INTENT AND ABILITY to repay will resume, without consequence for non payment
during COVID-19 at all, ever.
The lenders/creditors will get a BETTER RETURN on their investments back if they
hold on to them, rather than getting pennies on the dollar if liquidated due to
COVID-19.
Lenders have passive incomes.
equity should not be destroyed as people continue to earn passive incomes on debt
and rent, while no active revenues are being produced by many companies.
It will not harm the economy any worse to stop all debt and rent payments until
COVID passes, will it? How?
The Republican borrowing and lending to corporations who pay their debts to
passive income holders, and could just have a stay, is a curious way to spend the
taxpayer's trillions. Though to the extent those sometimes risky trillions are
coming back, that lending won't increase the National Debt. Easy credit isn't
spending as much as pure spending, but if that's how it is, it sure makes it sound
like a lot more than it is. - Yet why aren't JC Penny and Neiman Marcus borrowing
from the government's $3 trillion credit package?
Yet new borrowing should not be subject to such a stay.
It should be clear, the fact that clothing or any companies were weak before COVID
is not an excuse to let COVID push them over the brink!
Why should people pay their savings, to the rent on their apartments or to their
mortgages, during COVID?
At the least forbearance on some industries like clothing companies - which have
failed and are failing, and Airlines, which are no doubt the brink of bankruptcy.
Medical companies and essential companies may benefit from COVID. Might health
insurance companies fail?
Are there essential industries, that yet aren't being used during COVID, that
merit the most protection?
And there is the rent of consuming food without pay, spending down your savings.
It should all be on the government. Not on the economy. The economy crashes
because the National Debt is defaulted upon, is not what's going to happen. The
National Debt will not be defaulted upon at $40 Trillion. How high above this it
could go, deserves analysis. You just pay the debt by issuing more debt, that's
the way funny money works. And fiat money is what our basis is.
[Greece doesn't have its own central bank, and is like a State, like if California
kept issuing bonds. Before default became impossible for Congress the inflation
and rates would have gone up, and the Fed and Congress are fully in control of
adjusting the National Debt in any which way they want in such a crisis, such as
moving rates to 0% just on that debt, while rates on everything else may be high
possibly. This is a time of National Security. Of course, if it wasn't a debt
driven society, how would the Fed stop inflation? Like if the Fed has no bonds to
sell, how would the corporate bond rates be higher? Can the Fed create bonds, and
sell them at a high rate, just as it creates money and buys Congress's bonds at a
low rate. Probably theoretically, just like it creates money. However the issue
is what we do today, and default however theoretical, isn't going to happen on $40
Trillion. Okay, so the Fed buys Congress' bonds at a low rate, and high price,
and then raises rates, and sells them at a high rate and a low price. No
theoretical crisis possible. The Fed appears all powerful. Anyway, a default if
possible would at worst be something we have to accept to save ourselves from
COVID. But, yeah, it's good to know if it is possible.].
Again, a default on the National Debt would be an acceptable way to save ourselves
/ our country, from COVID, but 1) The Response to the Greek Example above, just
proved it's not possible, and 2) we do still want to know it is a possibility if
it is, before going through with it anyway, we should make all decisions knowing
their implications and assessing how likely given the value of them. But, we're
not going anywhere near a default possibility so far, if it was possible, which it
doesn't seem it is.
So inflation would be the issue, but is not the issue here. After COVID, after
the stay is lifted, there may be higher inflation, and resultingly higher rates at
the same Stock Market valuation. This means the economy won't be able to *grow*
as fast in the future. IF we don't want more inflation, we won't be able to issue
as much debt as a society as a whole, after COVID, to spend on purchase of capital
and labor, because we already issued the debt to spend on consumption = sales
revenues, during COVID, yet we are concerned with the economy not *shrinking*, and
not having a *meltdown*, and a Great Depression (incidentally, requiring SPENDING
on WAR to get us out of it) right now. It's National Security already.
Tax revenues aren't necessarily going to be very high this year either.
And JC Penny can fail 12 months after COVID-19 is over, and not now.
Evictions stayed for one year after COVID is over, is demanded and imperative.
Except on new borrowing and new lending and new renting.
Allowing businesses to fail, isn't going to help the economy to grow. That is not
free market capitalism. That is madness.
If they're really such poor businesses, they can fail 1 year after COVID-19 is
over I guess. ["I guess," cause don't you think it's better to protect all
businesses, than to let potentially productive businesses fail. There could be
another side to this, like ongoing languishing businesses, but if there is
productive opportunity, wouldn't they switch into that, rather than letting them
fail beforehand. So that would be like all bonds are unsecured, thus could only
sue for liens, and any new debt issue or sale would have to pay the liens before
the company or owners could receive it, yet bankruptcies generally wouldn't be,
and the company could keep trying. This is just a general contemplation though,
not pertinent to COVID. What other sorts of business debt protection could their
be?].
The economy is not suddenly going to be at full steam, the day business doors open
once again, that they will have any money to pay their rents or their debts.
Then Congress or someone should protect credit reports from bad marks for
non-payment. Renters can not just stop paying otherwise, or they will be 100%
unable to get a lease in the future for their bad credit reports. The point of
credit reports all goes to housing, and missed housing payments affect ability to
attain housing the most.
Landlords do not report monthly to credit agencies like bank credit cards. Rather
if there is a missed payment they 1)sue for eviction [-which goes to credit
report], 2) could tell a future landlord when a reference is checked, 3) may
report nonpayment to a credit agencies without suing? Which probably shouldn't be
allowed anyhow, as many landlords falsely charge tenants who have recently quit
for disputed cleaning charges and the like. 70% of landlords are sphincters.
That renters have to be able to sue, if subsequently denied housing, for
non-payment during COVID-19.
Lenders should not be protected while paused industrious businesses fail. The
burden should fall upon the lenders who's investments were at risk, and who will
recover their investments to whatever _normal_ degree after COVID-19, upon which
INTENT AND ABILITY to repay will resume, without consequence for non payment
during COVID-19 at all, ever.
The lenders/creditors will get a BETTER RETURN on their investments back if they
hold on to them, rather than getting pennies on the dollar if liquidated due to
COVID-19.
Lenders have passive incomes.
Intelligent Party
Jun 7, 2020, 4:01:54 AM6/7/20
to
0 new messages