Believe it or not I care about others who are not me. It's not right to get benefits that others will have to pay for.
Balanced budgets are good. They can be achieved by reducing spending or increasing taxes. Spending money not there and letting someone else in the future deal with the debt is irresponsible and immoral. It's kicking the can down the road.
Im against ballooning national debt. Balanced budgets, meaning not running continual deficits year after year, is an admirable goal.
Seriously, did you really think this was a good point? Did you actually bother to do the math or did you just go "$7 billion is a big number, this proves my point"?
"Aha, the 'asking questions' tell for cognitive dissonance! Dogbert turned me on to this in 1997 at a seminar in Las Vegas! I don't agree with everything he says, sometimes he's wrong about everything, but he's totally right about this one! You've automatically lost the argument!"
At some point you have to balance lives saved with economic catastrophe, because long-term economic catastrophe will kill many people as well. By how much?Are you seriously expecting me to give you a perfectly precise number? I already stated the death rate I'm willing to accept. If you are too stupid to be able to do the math off of that, then that's your problem, not mine. Dude, can you do math?https://www.mss.go.kr/site/eng/02/20202000000002019110610.jspThere are something like 13 million people employed in micro and small-sized business in Korea. $7 billion would equal about $540 dollars per person. That's not anywhere near enough to handle a 75% decline in business. Seriously, did you really think this was a good point? Did you actually bother to do the math or did you just go "$7 billion is a big number, this proves my point"?
What "long-term economic catastrophe"? You're begging the question.
You can't give me a number but you continue to bang on about doing the math. "something like"--are you just making these numbers up? How about a link or three?
But so far you're OK with killing off anyone over 50 and the obese. Who's next--the mentally handicapped, the physically handicapped, babies with birth defects?
As for government stimulus, not every business would qualify and the government could use more than the surplus if necessary. That number just shows your claim that a stimulus would bankrupt the government is without foundation.
Small businesses across the board are seeing a 75% reduction in sales.
For reference:I'm not posting these to embarrass you. I just want to know if your perspective has changed now that you know you've been using a massively inflated number (about 55-60% higher than what small business actually reported). A lot of your arguments are rooted in the 75% decline in profits being catastrophic (your word, not mine).
Yes, I don't think that the budget surplus is sufficient to make a long-term impact or cover all losses. It could fund some short-term stimulus, but it's not going to save every struggling business.
That said, the rules have shifted so many times that it might not have much of an impact at all. For example, there was a period late last year when cafes had to convert to take-out only, but that was at Level 3 (if I remember correctly). I think gyms and certain other businesses were forcibly closed at one point, again at a lower level, while now they can operate under certain guidelines. This is anecdotal, of course, but several people have said they don't really notice any difference between Levels 3 and 4 in terms of what they can / can't do. The sparser number of people on the street may be due to self-imposed social distancing.