Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[FIPurpose]

He should require it to comply with the law, of course.  He could start by stopping funding it untl it does.

Which law? Nations all get to make their own laws and every nation regularly just plays by whatever rules they want. The US deploys military assets whenever they want regardless of laws. France is legendary for protecting French citizens from international extradition even for crimes as heinous as child rape. Japan holds people in jails that are straight out of WWII torture camps after farse trials that yield 99.9% conviction rates. Every country makes it up as they go along, there is no world government that actually has the legal authority to force every nation to do the same thing.

As for Biden: Biden keeps to 'quiet diplomacy' as calls for Israel-Hamas cease-fire ramp up. This is how you do diplomacy. You don't call all the Jews terrorists. You don't call for the annihilation of the country. Quiet, peace-targeted diplomacy. This is quite honestly the opposite of a Biden outrage. Biden's doing the mature and sensible thing here right now. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread to be praising the president, but I think it bears mentioning.

No one suggested this or said anything close to it. People even clarified for you that they weren't saying this. And as far as I can tell, not even the most radical members of congress have said this. Stop strawmaning.

[former player]

He should require it to comply with the law, of course.  He could start by stopping funding it untl it does.

Which law? Nations all get to make their own laws and every nation regularly just plays by whatever rules they want. The US deploys military assets whenever they want regardless of laws. France is legendary for protecting French citizens from international extradition even for crimes as heinous as child rape. Japan holds people in jails that are straight out of WWII torture camps after farse trials that yield 99.9% conviction rates. Every country makes it up as they go along, there is no world government that actually has the legal authority to force every nation to do the same thing.

As for Biden: Biden keeps to 'quiet diplomacy' as calls for Israel-Hamas cease-fire ramp up. This is how you do diplomacy. You don't call all the Jews terrorists. You don't call for the annihilation of the country. Quiet, peace-targeted diplomacy. This is quite honestly the opposite of a Biden outrage. Biden's doing the mature and sensible thing here right now. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread to be praising the president, but I think it bears mentioning.

Which law?  Try the UN Charter.

And again, no-one has called "all the Jews terrorists" and no-one has called for the annilation of Israel.

[PDXTabs]

He should require it to comply with the law, of course.  He could start by stopping funding it untl it does.

Which law? Nations all get to make their own laws and every nation regularly just plays by whatever rules they want. The US deploys military assets whenever they want regardless of laws. France is legendary for protecting French citizens from international extradition even for crimes as heinous as child rape. Japan holds people in jails that are straight out of WWII torture camps after farse trials that yield 99.9% conviction rates. Every country makes it up as they go along, there is no world government that actually has the legal authority to force every nation to do the same thing.

Sure, but as a US voter and taxpayer I'm still going to oppose arms exports to these assholes.

EDITed to add, and why should we be paying $3.8B/yr to their military?

[GuitarStv]

He should require it to comply with the law, of course.  He could start by stopping funding it untl it does.

Which law? Nations all get to make their own laws and every nation regularly just plays by whatever rules they want. The US deploys military assets whenever they want regardless of laws. France is legendary for protecting French citizens from international extradition even for crimes as heinous as child rape. Japan holds people in jails that are straight out of WWII torture camps after farse trials that yield 99.9% conviction rates. Every country makes it up as they go along, there is no world government that actually has the legal authority to force every nation to do the same thing.

Illegal US military actions don't excuse Israeli ones.  Japanese conviction rates don't impact the day to day human rights abuses that go on in occupied Palestine.

FWIW, I'm against all of the bad stuff you've mentioned.  But we were discussing the bad stuff that Israel is currently doing and what Biden's response should be.  A measured and reasonable response (cutting off military funding) would seem to make sense in this case, would it not?

As for Biden: Biden keeps to 'quiet diplomacy' as calls for Israel-Hamas cease-fire ramp up. This is how you do diplomacy. You don't call all the Jews terrorists. You don't call for the annihilation of the country. Quiet, peace-targeted diplomacy. This is quite honestly the opposite of a Biden outrage. Biden's doing the mature and sensible thing here right now. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread to be praising the president, but I think it bears mentioning.

I think the outrage comes from the massive military funding that the US hands over to Israel every year (close to 4 billion dollars).  Funding that is being used to kill civilians right now, and that has historically been used to maintain illegal occupation of Palestinian land and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Quiet, peace-targeted diplomacy is great and much preferred!  But if it's simply being used to get the Palestinians to stop firing rockets and the Israelis to stop blowing up civilians while ignoring the ongoing Israeli human rights abuses I suspect that all that this diplomacy is likely to do is postpone the conflict.

[PDXTabs]

Since this is a Biden bashing thread:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. blocked a proposed statement being considered by United Nations Security Council members on Monday that would have condemned the violence in Gaza and called for a cease-fire between warring parties, diplomats said. - WSJ: U.S. Blocks U.N. Statement on Violence in Gaza

[GuitarStv]

Since this is a Biden bashing thread:

WASHINGTON—The U.S. blocked a proposed statement being considered by United Nations Security Council members on Monday that would have condemned the violence in Gaza and called for a cease-fire between warring parties, diplomats said. - WSJ: U.S. Blocks U.N. Statement on Violence in Gaza

Emphasis on "Quiet! don't talk about peace!" in the diplomacy.

[LennStar]

My surprise level is about -40
That happens roughly once per round of attacks, which happen about once per year (or at least that is what I feel).


btw. Don't think the UN is a place of enlightened people for the betterment of humanity. Like every big institution there is corruption. China buys votes with credits, the US with foreign aid. That's cheaper than military after all.

[By the River]

Another Biden policy to debate.   Pipelines.   Apparently the Keystone pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to Texas refineries is bad.  However, just this week, the admin lifted sanctions on the companies building Russian's Nord stream 2 pipeline that ships oil to Germany and may pose dangers to Ukraine and Poland. 

[nereo]

Another Biden policy to debate.   Pipelines.   Apparently the Keystone pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to Texas refineries is bad.  However, just this week, the admin lifted sanctions on the companies building Russian's Nord stream 2 pipeline that ships oil to Germany and may pose dangers to Ukraine and Poland.

Seems there is an inherent difference between oil that traverses sovereign soil and a pipeline that does not...

[FIPurpose]

Another Biden policy to debate.   Pipelines.   Apparently the Keystone pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to Texas refineries is bad.  However, just this week, the admin lifted sanctions on the companies building Russian's Nord stream 2 pipeline that ships oil to Germany and may pose dangers to Ukraine and Poland.

Seeing as how the Keystone pipeline is highly dubious if it's even profitable? All new pipelines should be given an extremely skeptical eye.

Russia wants to waste money on their own pipelines? Ok.

[nereo]

Also, the keystone pipeline had been operational for over a decade. It’s the keystone XL segment that is under review.

[PDXTabs]

Another Biden policy to debate.   Pipelines.   Apparently the Keystone pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to Texas refineries is bad.  However, just this week, the admin lifted sanctions on the companies building Russian's Nord stream 2 pipeline that ships oil to Germany and may pose dangers to Ukraine and Poland.

Seems there is an inherent difference between oil that traverses sovereign soil and a pipeline that does not...

Also, international sanctions are a big deal. As long as those companies are sanctioned no US companies (including insurance companies) or banks can touch them. That's a big deal for international business. Eg, you could find yourself running a Canadian company that wanted to work on some other project with these companies and it becomes a big legal and financial nightmare.

EDITed to add: and it isn't an oil pipeline, it's a natural gas pipeline.

Nord Stream projects have been opposed by the United States as well as by several Central and Eastern European countries because of concerns that the pipelines would increase Russia's influence in the region. The U.S. resistance to Nord Stream 2 is also influenced by the country's increased production of natural gas, which gives the U.S. Congress economic incentive to resist the Russian supply of gas to the EU, in favour of U.S. shale gas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

[LennStar]

Another Biden policy to debate.   Pipelines.   Apparently the Keystone pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to Texas refineries is bad.  However, just this week, the admin lifted sanctions on the companies building Russian's Nord stream 2 pipeline that ships oil to Germany and may pose dangers to Ukraine and Poland.

There is a difference between
A) a pipeline on your soil and a pipeline on another countrie's soil where you should have no fucking say in if it is build or not
B) a pipeline opposed for economic or ecologic reasons and one opposed for poplitical reasons - though of course you could say the politics "You should buy our gas not that from Russia, why do you think we build special harbors for shipping gas?" is economic.

[Sid Hoffman]

No one suggested this or said anything close to it. People even clarified for you that they weren't saying this. And as far as I can tell, not even the most radical members of congress have said this. Stop strawmaning.

Here it is:

Israel is pretty clearly a terrorist organization.  The Israelis have been using unlawful violence and intimidation against Palestinian civilians for more than half a century now.

Note multiple points here:

1) He states Israel is not a country. That is a crucial point, as it puts him well outside of even the United Nations, as well as the USA and as you mentioned, every US congressperson.
2) He states that it is a terrorist organization. This is the second key point which leads to the third.
3) Terrorists have to be caught, captured, and depending on the country will serve anything from long jail sentences to execution.

GuitarStv, please enlighten us on what you believe should happen to members of a terrorist organization. You've said "stop providing military aid" but I think we all know that isn't what the law prescribes id done to terrorists. After all, read the post above quoted from GuitarStv: he mentions terrorists and laws. So under the law, what is the punishment for terrorism?

[PDXTabs]

2) He states that it is a terrorist organization. This is the second key point which leads to the third.
...
GuitarStv, please enlighten us on what you believe should happen to members of a terrorist organization. You've said "stop providing military aid" but I think we all know that isn't what the law prescribes id done to terrorists. After all, read the post above quoted from GuitarStv: he mentions terrorists and laws. So under the law, what is the punishment for terrorism?

Why does GuitarStv have to come up with all the solutions?

But to quote Dr Ishai Menuchim from the Committee Against Torture (also Yesh Gvuel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Israeli army reservist AFAIK) on previous Israeli government operations "It’s state terrorism and it’s immoral, it’s wrong and I think that the people responsible for this policy of terror should be on trial, should be put in prison for that." - https://www.journeyman.tv/film_documents/4776/transcript/

[GuitarStv]

No one suggested this or said anything close to it. People even clarified for you that they weren't saying this. And as far as I can tell, not even the most radical members of congress have said this. Stop strawmaning.

Here it is:

Israel is pretty clearly a terrorist organization.  The Israelis have been using unlawful violence and intimidation against Palestinian civilians for more than half a century now.

Note multiple points here:

1) He states Israel is not a country. That is a crucial point, as it puts him well outside of even the United Nations, as well as the USA and as you mentioned, every US congressperson.
2) He states that it is a terrorist organization. This is the second key point which leads to the third.
3) Terrorists have to be caught, captured, and depending on the country will serve anything from long jail sentences to execution.

1)  No, I didn't say this at all.  Israel is certainly a country.
2)  Yes, Israel has been performing the unlawful use of violence and intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.  That's the dictionary definition of terrorism.
3)  No, this isn't true at all.  I mean, maybe it would happen in a perfect world . . . but terrorism occurs regularly in North Korea, but nobody is catching, capturing, or imprisoning Kim Jong Un.  He freely travels the world.  Terrorism certainly occurred under US watch with full authorization of the military and the Bush administration at Abu Grahib prison . . . but no people in positions of power were punished in any way.  There are plenty of examples from around the world where terrorism and terrorist acts have gone unpunished.

GuitarStv, please enlighten us on what you believe should happen to members of a terrorist organization. You've said "stop providing military aid" but I think we all know that isn't what the law prescribes id done to terrorists. After all, read the post above quoted from GuitarStv: he mentions terrorists and laws. So under the law, what is the punishment for terrorism?

Sure!

In an ideal world, members of a terrorist organization who enact or help to plan terrorism should be tried for their crimes and spend time in prison.  I don't advocate that every American be tried as a terrorist for US  actions against civilians in Abu Grahib, I don't advocate that every Palestinian be tried as a terrorist for the actions against civilians in Israel, and I don't advocate that every Israeli be tried as a terrorist for the actions against Palestinians in Gaza.  These would all be quite unreasonable positions to take.

'Terrorism' is legally treated differently depending on the laws of the country, and as far as I'm aware there is no set punishment that is internationally recognized for the crime.  Ideally, punishment should be decided by an international court on a case by case basis.


It was earlier mentioned why I mentioned Israel's terrorism at all . . . it seems to be commonly ignoring in reporting:

In news coverage I regularly see talk about Hamas being a terrorist organization . . . because it targets Israeli civilians.  This does happen, and I don't want to minimize the hurt that this causes.  But Israel has also been indiscriminately executing civilians throughout this conflict.  I don't buy the 'oopsies, we have accidentally killed fifty odd children so far but we really meant to kill the bad Hamas guys' from Israel any more than I buy the 'oopsies, we accidentally killed a couple civilians by wildly firing rockets into Tel Aviv, but we really meant to kill those Israelis who are oppressing us' from Hamas.  They're both bullshit.  But it's distressing to see only one sides terrorism being acknowledged.  Especially when the other side is responsible for so much greater civilian death.

I don't believe that all Israelis are terrorists, just as I don't believe that all Palestinians are terrorists.  But the ones who are causing the deaths of civilians in order to advance their political aims certainly are.

[Just Joe]

https://youtu.be/Fo77sTGpngQ

Watched this last night. Curious about everyone's opinions.

[gentmach]

Cavalier authoritarianism.  Not a good look.  Probably not written by Biden though, to be fair.

Thank God the people who refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask weren’t the ones being asked to make sacrifices for the war effort in WWII.

LOL a laughable comparison

What’s next, is the government going to tell me I can’t walk on the interstate!? How DARE they make rules for the common good!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

[nereo]

Cavalier authoritarianism.  Not a good look.  Probably not written by Biden though, to be fair.

Thank God the people who refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask weren’t the ones being asked to make sacrifices for the war effort in WWII.

LOL a laughable comparison

What’s next, is the government going to tell me I can’t walk on the interstate!? How DARE they make rules for the common good!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

Huh??
Even if we use the numbers you provided, these measures saved tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands from becoming seriously ill.  Seems like that qualifies as effective to me

[GuitarStv]

Cavalier authoritarianism.  Not a good look.  Probably not written by Biden though, to be fair.

Thank God the people who refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask weren’t the ones being asked to make sacrifices for the war effort in WWII.

LOL a laughable comparison

What’s next, is the government going to tell me I can’t walk on the interstate!? How DARE they make rules for the common good!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

Not entirely sure I follow your complaint here.  You've posted a study that clearly showed the effectiveness of mask mandates - even without checking to see if places are actually following them.

The 2% number you're using (which I believe is a misreading of the study - because you seem to be treating it like an absolute 2% when the value given is a compounding percentage of growth) is actually a pretty darned good result.

Take seatbelts.  We all wear seatbelts because they save lives, right?  Well to pick a year at random that I can find stats for . . . in 2017 there were 227,558,385 car accidents in the US (https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-safety).  It's estimated that for the same year, seatbelts saved 14,955 lives (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/seat-belts).  That means that seatbelt save lives in 0.00657% of car accidents.  Should seatbelt laws be tossed out?

[Davnasty]

The 2% number you're using (which I believe is a misreading of the study - because you seem to be treating it like an absolute 2% when the value given is a compounding percentage of growth) is actually a pretty darned good result.

My financial advisor said they're only going to charge me 2%, sounds pretty reasonable...

[bacchi]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

[Psychstache]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

" 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.' -Mark Twain" -Psychstache

[LennStar]

I love Mark Twain, he was the best sarcast of all times.

But I feel like the one from Einstein about compound interest is the best here.

[nereo]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

It would be nice if Gentmatch responded and participated in a dialog.  However that used has a history of dropping some data-point quoted from an article and [mis]using it to object to a pretty commonly held premise, then not respond to any of the follow up commentary. 

In other words, classic trolling.

[gentmach]

Cavalier authoritarianism.  Not a good look.  Probably not written by Biden though, to be fair.

Thank God the people who refuse to get vaccinated or wear a mask weren’t the ones being asked to make sacrifices for the war effort in WWII.

LOL a laughable comparison

What’s next, is the government going to tell me I can’t walk on the interstate!? How DARE they make rules for the common good!

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

Huh??
Even if we use the numbers you provided, these measures saved tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of thousands from becoming seriously ill.  Seems like that qualifies as effective to me

Not really. As I pointed out in the COVID thread, the PCR tests were done incorrectly for most of 2020, resulting in far more false positives.

Per New York Times (https://archive.md/TuTbB)

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.
With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.
In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.
Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.
“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

So the COVID numbers are already inflated. So whatever numbers you are thinking of, start cutting them down. This is clearly not as contagious as it was made out to be.

Also as of today, May 25th, the death toll is 583,228. Two percent of that is 11,664. So tens of thousands saved is a bit much.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

Considering that I'm looking at double digit inflation and 3 month lead times for materials? No. It wasn't worth it. Not for a measley percentages that I'm seeing here.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

It would be nice if Gentmatch responded and participated in a dialog.  However that used has a history of dropping some data-point quoted from an article and [mis]using it to object to a pretty commonly held premise, then not respond to any of the follow up commentary. 

In other words, classic trolling.

Some of us don't work at computers. We can't sit on a forum all day and seeth like certain people do.

[bacchi]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

Considering that I'm looking at double digit inflation and 3 month lead times for materials? No. It wasn't worth it. Not for a measley percentages that I'm seeing here.

Well, sure. You can put any value on deaths and cases vs money that you want. It just seemed odd to use a data crunching study that concludes A for your opinion of anti-A.


It's not just 2% on top, though. It's a 2% daily growth rate (what guitarstv wrote).

Two outcomes were examined: the daily percentage point growth rate of county-level COVID-19 cases and county-level COVID-19 deaths.

(bolded)

It's like the penny trick question. Which is better: $1000 right now or a penny a day, doubled, for a month?

Increasing the infection rate by 2% daily is a LOT more than 583,228 * .02 additional deaths.


Edit: Looking at Figure (1), the growth rate accelerates over time, which is what we expect from mandates that change. It only becomes 2% around day 90. There are of course brakes on this growth. The most obvious is seeing hospital parking lots crammed with refrigerated trucks or, like in India, people dying in their cars as they wait for treatment. That type of thing tends to compel people to be more cautious, even if they have a goatee, work out all day, and take vitamins.

[nereo]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

It would be nice if Gentmatch responded and participated in a dialog.  However that used has a history of dropping some data-point quoted from an article and [mis]using it to object to a pretty commonly held premise, then not respond to any of the follow up commentary. 

In other words, classic trolling.

Some of us don't work at computers. We can't sit on a forum all day and seeth like certain people do.

Uh... so when somebody disagrees both with your conclusions and your use of a source, and points out how a pattern in these sorts of responses... you respond with an ad hominem attack.

Several posters have done an even better job pointing out why your assertions are misconstrued.  I'll just reiterate that the mask mandates have saved tens of thousands of lives, affirmed by your own source, and reduced the suffering of countless more.  As requirements go, asking people to wear a mask is pretty minimal - as citizens and members of society we are asked to do far more demanding tasks all the time. From that I conclude that they were absolutely, unquestionably worth it, and I only wish they had been implemented earlier, more broadly and with greater compliance.

[Kris]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%. Mandates wouldn't be a problem if they were effective, which they clearly are not.

Because SCIENCE!

(bolded)

Your conclusion -- that mandates weren't effective -- is literally the opposite of what the authors of the study concluded. ???

Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8).
[...]
The current study builds upon this evidence...
[...]
Community mitigation policies, such as state-issued mask mandates and prohibition of on-premises restaurant dining, have the potential to slow the spread of COVID-19, especially if implemented with other public health strategies (1,10).

How did you misread this?

It would be nice if Gentmatch responded and participated in a dialog.  However that used has a history of dropping some data-point quoted from an article and [mis]using it to object to a pretty commonly held premise, then not respond to any of the follow up commentary. 

In other words, classic trolling.

Some of us don't work at computers. We can't sit on a forum all day and seeth like certain people do.

Uh... so when somebody disagrees both with your conclusions and your use of a source, and points out how a pattern in these sorts of responses... you respond with an ad hominem attack.

Several posters have done an even better job pointing out why your assertions are misconstrued.  I'll just reiterate that the mask mandates have saved tens of thousands of lives, affirmed by your own source, and reduced the suffering of countless more.  As requirements go, asking people to wear a mask is pretty minimal - as citizens and members of society we are asked to do far more demanding tasks all the time. From that I conclude that they were absolutely, unquestionably worth it, and I only wish they had been implemented earlier, more broadly and with greater compliance.

Yeah. That’s what trolls do.

[Telecaster]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

Masks and lockdown measures only slowed the spread by 2%.

That's not what that document says. 

[By the River]

The barely hidden racism of Biden is very off-putting to me.  During the campaign he famously said "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."  Yesterday he had another episode of this.  Speaking in Tulsa, Biden said “The data shows young black entrepreneurs are just as capable of succeeding given the chance as white entrepreneurs are, but they don’t have lawyers. They don’t have, they don’t have accountants, but they have great ideas.”

Seriously? Does he think every white entrepreneur has a family full of accountants or lawyers?  No, you find them as you need them.  There are search engines, message boards, other places to find help.  I've looked in the entrepreneurship forum on this site, there are members helping other members without regard to racial or other meaningless differences.   

[FIPurpose]

The barely hidden racism of Biden is very off-putting to me.  During the campaign he famously said "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."  Yesterday he had another episode of this.  Speaking in Tulsa, Biden said “The data shows young black entrepreneurs are just as capable of succeeding given the chance as white entrepreneurs are, but they don’t have lawyers. They don’t have, they don’t have accountants, but they have great ideas.”

Seriously? Does he think every white entrepreneur has a family full of accountants or lawyers?  No, you find them as you need them.  There are search engines, message boards, other places to find help.  I've looked in the entrepreneurship forum on this site, there are members helping other members without regard to racial or other meaningless differences.

What? How about a fuller context of that quote:

Just imagine, if instead of denying millions of entrepreneurs the ability to access capital and contracting, we made it possible to take their dreams to the marketplace to create jobs and invest in our communities. The data shows young Black entrepreneurs are just as capable of succeeding given the chance as White entrepreneurs are, but they don’t have lawyers. They don’t have accountants, but they have great ideas. Does anyone doubt this whole nation would be better off from the investments those people make? And I promise you, that’s why I set up the National Small Business Administration that’s much broader, because they’re going to get those loans. Instead of consigning millions of American children to under-resourced schools, let’s get each and every child three and four years old access to school. Not daycare, school.

Biden is responding to the fact that Blacks are far less likely to be given access to loans and startup capital for similar ideas. And that if they had been given that capital they would've been able to hire the lawyers and accountants that give businesses a leg up. Please explain how this is "barely hidden racism", when what he's describing has been a long known fact.

[brandon1827]

Its really easy to cherry-pick parts of a statement to make someone look like something they're quite obviously not...it's typical Fox News, OAN, etc. tactics

[Tyler durden]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Perhaps it was quoted in the speech / statement he gave.

What policies do seem to be not at all hidden racism but rather direct is part of the recent COVID relief bill. Under direction from the Biden Admin. the SBA opened a 21 day window for applications of restaurant owners who were minority or women owned to apply for relief/money. Anyone else could not apply. And as these things go by the time the 21 day window would close, the funds would be gone.

So white men, please go to the back of the line.

Thankfully the courts stepped in and stopped this. Dividing people by race & gender to allow special privileges is not a Biden policy I would like to see continue.

[nereo]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Seriously??

Start looking up red-lining. 
Here’s a data-link to get you going (open-source!)
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/announcements/redlining-data-now-in-arcgis-living-atlas/

[Tyler durden]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Seriously??

Start looking up red-lining. 
Here’s a data-link to get you going (open-source!)
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/announcements/redlining-data-now-in-arcgis-living-atlas/

Thank you but I dont see how your link is relevant.

Redlining has/had to do with banks lending for homes, IE real estate. The quote above from Biden is about blacks getting access to start up capital to hire lawyers and accountants. Those are 2 very different things.

[GuitarStv]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Perhaps it was quoted in the speech / statement he gave.

What policies do seem to be not at all hidden racism but rather direct is part of the recent COVID relief bill. Under direction from the Biden Admin. the SBA opened a 21 day window for applications of restaurant owners who were minority or women owned to apply for relief/money. Anyone else could not apply. And as these things go by the time the 21 day window would close, the funds would be gone.

So white men, please go to the back of the line.

Thankfully the courts stepped in and stopped this. Dividing people by race & gender to allow special privileges is not a Biden policy I would like to see continue.

Yes, this is a long standing issue.

https://www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ase_brief_startup_financing_by_race.pdf
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28154/w28154.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/venture-capital-2020-still-really-white/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/06/banking-while-black-minority-business-owners-with-better-credit-scores-than-white-counterparts-face-worse-treatment-more-scrutiny/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2018/02/15/founders-and-venture-capital-racism-is-costing-us-billions/?sh=2a93b42d2e4a
https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/racial-borrowing-gap
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-to-get-a-mortgage-racial-bias-in-lending-2020-6
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/black-homeowners-pay-13-464-more-on-their-mortgages-study-says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/

[Tyler durden]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Perhaps it was quoted in the speech / statement he gave.

What policies do seem to be not at all hidden racism but rather direct is part of the recent COVID relief bill. Under direction from the Biden Admin. the SBA opened a 21 day window for applications of restaurant owners who were minority or women owned to apply for relief/money. Anyone else could not apply. And as these things go by the time the 21 day window would close, the funds would be gone.

So white men, please go to the back of the line.

Thankfully the courts stepped in and stopped this. Dividing people by race & gender to allow special privileges is not a Biden policy I would like to see continue.

Yes, this is a long standing issue.

https://www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ase_brief_startup_financing_by_race.pdf
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28154/w28154.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/venture-capital-2020-still-really-white/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/06/banking-while-black-minority-business-owners-with-better-credit-scores-than-white-counterparts-face-worse-treatment-more-scrutiny/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2018/02/15/founders-and-venture-capital-racism-is-costing-us-billions/?sh=2a93b42d2e4a
https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/racial-borrowing-gap
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-to-get-a-mortgage-racial-bias-in-lending-2020-6
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/black-homeowners-pay-13-464-more-on-their-mortgages-study-says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/

I read the first PDF link thus far. In it it states that "Native Hawaiians & Blacks were the most likely groups to avoid financing because they BELEIVED their business would be rejected by lenders". Which came first the denial or lack of application ?

I couldnt read the Washpost one, its behind a paywall.

The rest seem to have to do with red lining. Not relevant.

[GuitarStv]

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

Perhaps it was quoted in the speech / statement he gave.

What policies do seem to be not at all hidden racism but rather direct is part of the recent COVID relief bill. Under direction from the Biden Admin. the SBA opened a 21 day window for applications of restaurant owners who were minority or women owned to apply for relief/money. Anyone else could not apply. And as these things go by the time the 21 day window would close, the funds would be gone.

So white men, please go to the back of the line.

Thankfully

the courts stepped in and stopped this. Dividing people by race & gender to allow special privileges is not a Biden policy I would like to see continue.

Yes, this is a long standing issue.

https://www.kauffman.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ase_brief_startup_financing_by_race.pdf
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28154/w28154.pdf
https://www.wired.com/story/venture-capital-2020-still-really-white/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/06/banking-while-black-minority-business-owners-with-better-credit-scores-than-white-counterparts-face-worse-treatment-more-scrutiny/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2018/02/15/founders-and-venture-capital-racism-is-costing-us-billions/?sh=2a93b42d2e4a
https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/racial-borrowing-gap
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-deny-mortgages-for-blacks-at-a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-to-get-a-mortgage-racial-bias-in-lending-2020-6
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-19/black-homeowners-pay-13-464-more-on-their-mortgages-study-says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/

I read the first PDF link thus far. In it it states that "Native Hawaiians & Blacks were the most likely groups to avoid financing because they BELEIVED their business would be rejected by lenders". Which came first the denial or lack of application ?

You don't seem to have read very closely.  The next paragraph says:

• Minorities are disproportionally hurt by the cost of and lack of access to capital. While approximately 16 percent of minority owned businesses report profits being negatively impacted by the cost and lack of access, only about 10 percent of nonminority-owned businesses report the same.
• Black entrepreneurs, in particular, are almost three times as likely as whites to have profitability hurt by lack of access to capital and more than twice as likely as whites to have profits negatively impacted by the cost of capital.

It makes sense that groups that experience the most racism when getting a loan would be more likely to believe that racism will come into play when trying to get a loan.

But that aside, it seems to very clearly meet your demand:

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

I couldnt read the Washpost one, its behind a paywall.

https://medium.com/how-to-blogs/how-to-get-around-newspaper-paywalls-in-2020-read-article-for-free-768b5cbe201f.

The rest seem to have to do with red lining. Not relevant.

Systemic racism when applying for loans is certainly relevant.  People who have had experience with racism when applying for loans are less likely to believe that they'll be treated fairly, and then less likely to apply for other loans.  That's a pretty significant reason to consider the impacts of the practice of redlining.

[nereo]

The rest seem to have to do with red lining. Not relevant.

I’d argue it’s extremely relevant.  On average, 50% of a person’s net worth comes their home.  Absent that substantial asset any client is less likely to be granted access to startup capital. That’s how systemic racism works - deliberate policies (i.e. redlining) impact adversely impact a minority, but that impact echos throughout the entire system.

[Tyler durden]

Biden’s response to historic racism is ... more racism!  Because 2 wrongs equal a right or something

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stopping-racial-bias-in-covid-relief-11622421892

[JLee]

Biden’s response to historic racism is ... more racism!  Because 2 wrongs equal a right or something

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stopping-racial-bias-in-covid-relief-11622421892

I'm starting to think you're simply here to troll and not to have any sort of intelligent discussion. Go back and review the previous posts and all the references that you skipped over.

[Tyler durden]

Biden’s response to historic racism is ... more racism!  Because 2 wrongs equal a right or something

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stopping-racial-bias-in-covid-relief-11622421892

I'm starting to think you're simply here to troll and not to have any sort of intelligent discussion. Go back and review the previous posts and all the references that you skipped over.

I said that I simply disagree that red lining is relevant to lack of capital for start ups. It gives an example in the very first article 16% of minority owned business is neg. impacted by lack of capital compared to 10% of non minority owned. So were not talking 16% vs 0% or 50% vs 5%. Its showing a 6% difference, which the article goes on to explain is partially/mostly by blacks simply not applying for a loan from a bank. Maybe they dont apply because people like Biden tell them not to bother since they'll be discriminated against anyway.

Trolling is not disagreeing. I read the info, its not that compelling.

And this thread is about critiquing Biden... as I am. His policies of heaping on more racism to punish whites now for the sins of whites in the past is a terrible idea, in my opinion. Per the article I linked, white restaurant owners are told to not bother applying for assistance. I've seen those signs before in book they just changed one word for today's times. "whites need not apply"

[GuitarStv]

I read the info, its not that compelling.

That's probably because you've moved the goalposts, ignored inconvenient details brought up by others, and experienced highly selective incompetence when convenient for you.



To elaborate - you started off asking this question:

Is there data out there backing up this claim that Blacks are less likely to be given a loan for startup capital?

There is, plenty of it, and it was provided.  Even in the only study provided that you appear to have bothered to read.  You haven't yet in any way acknowledged that your question was fully answered yet though.  Instead a pivot appears to have been made - and now you're saying that the proven discrimination is not significant enough for anyone to need to do anything about.  We can discuss this new line of reasoning, but not until we've closed the previous one.  To do otherwise is a common tactic of internet trolls.

Also, rather than disagree and present your logic you've simply ignored the discussion about the impacts of redlining - apparently because it doesn't fit with the world view you're espousing and/or you have no valid reasoning to give.  This behaviour is unproductive in a discussion and can be indicative of an internet troll.

I'm also a little bit confused how this person:

I couldnt read the Washpost one, its behind a paywall.

Is posting this paywalled article, a short while later:

Biden’s response to historic racism is ... more racism!  Because 2 wrongs equal a right or something

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stopping-racial-bias-in-covid-relief-11622421892

This sort of highly selective incompetence is often used by internet trolls.


Please note, I'm not accusing you of being an internet troll at all - just attempting to demonstrate how that conclusion could be reached by a reasonable person.

And this thread is about critiquing Biden... as I am. His policies of heaping on more racism to punish whites now for the sins of whites in the past is a terrible idea, in my opinion. Per the article I linked, white restaurant owners are told to not bother applying for assistance. I've seen those signs before in book they just changed one word for today's times. "whites need not apply"

FWIW, I agree - Biden's policy doesn't seem to be well designed, and I think that it was a mistake for him to bring it forward.  While the reasoning behind it is understandable, I can't support it.

I'm curious though, now that we've established that racism in lending both exists and does negatively impacts black owned businesses . . . what kind of proposal would you suggest as a fair way to address the problem?

[nereo]

FWIW, I agree - Biden's policy doesn't seem to be well designed, and I think that it was a mistake for him to bring it forward.  While the reasoning behind it is understandable, I can't support it.

I'm curious though, now that we've established that racism in lending both exists and does negatively impacts black owned businesses . . . what kind of proposal would you suggest as a fair way to address the problem?

Thinking this through, I think two approaches are needed

The first is the most immediate, and the one that Biden has (clumsily, perhaps) tried to address: People of color have suffered substantially more through this pandemic in every metric I've seen - long-term unemployment, death, severe illness, etc.

Then there's the much longer issue of disproportionately fewer black-own businesses, upper-management representation, educational opportunities - in short systemic racism. Here AA policies can close the gap but as TD was perhaps trying to point out, we can't ever reach equality in this manner.  Which is the paradox.   There's some role to be played by setting governmental standards (with overwatch) to reduce the discriminatory practices in the future. 

[By the River]

Last week, the Commerce department announced it would double the anti-dumping tariff on Canadian lumber from 8.99% in 2018 to 18.32% in 2019 (apparently a retroactive tax increase on importers). 
This of course has to go through a review process but thank god it's happening.  Lumber prices in the US are so low that apparently all of the domestic companies are going out of business because of cheap imports from Canada.  /s

[GuitarStv]

FWIW, I agree - Biden's policy doesn't seem to be well designed, and I think that it was a mistake for him to bring it forward.  While the reasoning behind it is understandable, I can't support it.

I'm curious though, now that we've established that racism in lending both exists and does negatively impacts black owned businesses . . . what kind of proposal would you suggest as a fair way to address the problem?

Thinking this through, I think two approaches are needed

The first is the most immediate, and the one that Biden has (clumsily, perhaps) tried to address: People of color have suffered substantially more through this pandemic in every metric I've seen - long-term unemployment, death, severe illness, etc.

For this, I believe that an benefits should be somehow tied to the losses and suffering incurred by the pandemic - not race.  This will then disproportionately benefit those who were harmed, which really should be the goal of such a policy.  If it benefits one race more than another, so be it - that just means that people of that race were harmed more.

Then there's the much longer issue of disproportionately fewer black-own businesses, upper-management representation, educational opportunities - in short systemic racism. Here AA policies can close the gap but as TD was perhaps trying to point out, we can't ever reach equality in this manner.  Which is the paradox.   There's some role to be played by setting governmental standards (with overwatch) to reduce the discriminatory practices in the future.

Yes, this is the much more difficult issue.  Affirmative action is a deeply flawed process, but it is also the only one that I've heard that really attempts to address systemic racism in any concrete manner.

[Poundwise]

Last week, the Commerce department announced it would double the anti-dumping tariff on Canadian lumber from 8.99% in 2018 to 18.32% in 2019 (apparently a retroactive tax increase on importers). 
This of course has to go through a review process but thank god it's happening.  Lumber prices in the US are so low that apparently all of the domestic companies are going out of business because of cheap imports from Canada.  /s

That is weird. It's so difficult to find lumber right now; why do this??

[Tyler durden]

Guitarstv -

From the bloomberg article...

"Black borrowers pay $13,464 more over the life of a home loan, with interest, mortgage-insurance and tax expenses higher than for their White counterparts, further hurting African Americans’ ability to save for retirement, according to a new study.

The biggest reason for the gap is the risk-based pricing found in most U.S. mortgages, which disadvantage Black borrowers because they tend to make smaller down payments and have lower credit scores, said the report’s authors,"

I dont think the article is proving the point you think it is. Blacks paying PMI because of smaller down payments or low credit scores is not racism. Its not red lining. Its just life. Its true of everyone regardless of skin color.

You claim im moving goal posts. I disagree. I had asked if there was data backing up they would be less likely to be given a loan. The understanding being they are being denied because of skin color. Your own link shows they are denied because they are simply not applying.



The paywall thing... I pay for the WSJ i dont for the Post. Not sure what to say. Im not trying to be hypocritical in linking to a paywalled account. Chalk it up to an oversight.

One could argue that red lining practices ( which should be illegal of course ) have shifted to loans for start up capital. it's possible, even probable but the data presented to me thus far was not compelling. Again, unless you feel not applying for a loan is somehow similar to the racist practices of red lining. On that we can agree to dis agree.

[Tyler durden]

FWIW, I agree - Biden's policy doesn't seem to be well designed, and I think that it was a mistake for him to bring it forward.  While the reasoning behind it is understandable, I can't support it.

I'm curious though, now that we've established that racism in lending both exists and does negatively impacts black owned businesses . . . what kind of proposal would you suggest as a fair way to address the problem?



The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race

From our government to schools to corporations the sooner we can get to the above quote the better. Obviously people are going to be A**holes and continue to be racist and discriminate. I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

I think of that meme. the more meme if you google it. Biden see's racism and starts screaming more! more! lol

Any goal should have a measurable level of achievement. When do we know that the goal is done? Same goes for affirmative action. it has a goal, we should have something concrete to know when its done. For now, we can sit back and scream more!