Massive US Coronavirus Stimulus Includes Research Dollars, Some Aid To Universities (sciencemag.org) 124
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: The $2 trillion stimulus package that the U.S. Senate is working to approve today is aimed at helping the country cope with the massive impact of the coronavirus pandemic. But it also includes at least $1.25 billion for federal research agencies to support scientists trying to better understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition, it extends a financial hand to universities that have shut down because of the pandemic, some of which could go to support research that has been disrupted.
Details of the legislation have yet to emerge after Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress worked out their differences in negotiations that ran into the early morning. But a 22-page summary (PDF) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee this morning contains these highlights:
- The National Institutes of Health would receive $945 million for "vaccine, therapeutic, and diagnostic research" on COVID-19 as well as on "the underlying risks to cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions."
- The National Science Foundation would receive $76 million to supplement an ongoing program that allows scientists to jump into the field for pilot studies on all manner of natural disasters.
- The Department of Energy's Office of Science would get $99.5 million to cover the additional costs of operating user facilities at its national laboratories, including support for equipment and staff.
- The U.S. Forest Service would get $3 million to "reestablish experiments impacted by travel restrictions" stemming from the pandemic, including an ongoing forest inventory.
In addition, three research agencies would receive a total of $86 million "to support continuity of operations" affected by COVID-19. NASA would receive $60 million for the costs of rescheduling scientific missions, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would get $20 million to supplement "life and property related services" within its National Weather Service, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive $6 million to support "research and measurement science" aimed at developing better diagnostics and testing of the coronavirus.
Details of the legislation have yet to emerge after Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress worked out their differences in negotiations that ran into the early morning. But a 22-page summary (PDF) released by the Senate Appropriations Committee this morning contains these highlights:
- The National Institutes of Health would receive $945 million for "vaccine, therapeutic, and diagnostic research" on COVID-19 as well as on "the underlying risks to cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions."
- The National Science Foundation would receive $76 million to supplement an ongoing program that allows scientists to jump into the field for pilot studies on all manner of natural disasters.
- The Department of Energy's Office of Science would get $99.5 million to cover the additional costs of operating user facilities at its national laboratories, including support for equipment and staff.
- The U.S. Forest Service would get $3 million to "reestablish experiments impacted by travel restrictions" stemming from the pandemic, including an ongoing forest inventory.
In addition, three research agencies would receive a total of $86 million "to support continuity of operations" affected by COVID-19. NASA would receive $60 million for the costs of rescheduling scientific missions, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would get $20 million to supplement "life and property related services" within its National Weather Service, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive $6 million to support "research and measurement science" aimed at developing better diagnostics and testing of the coronavirus.
Here's your money back (Score:3, Insightful)
sorry, we took it out of your budget in the first place.
For now at least, because we are not convinced that you are doing anything usefull with it in the first place anyway.
So maybe next year we cut your budget again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
one area that no one is talking about: decimate the fucking millitary budget. take THEIR money. who the fuck is gonna be fighting wars when you can't breath, due to lungs filling with fluid?
we have better things to do that ramp up and up and up, our already too big military.
decimate that motherfucker. they are rich beyond belief. they had a good run, but, hell, REAL PEOPLE NEED THAT MONEY, NOW.
admit it. its a good source of funding and we need it more than they do. they have bilked this country for lo
Free money? Inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations like that because they raise their prices, but don't pay employees more.
It' kind of depends actually (Score:2)
The tricky part is stopping that investor class from hovering it up just as fast as it's printed, like they're trying to do with the bail outs needed to prevent mass homelessness.
Re: (Score:2)
The tricky part is stopping that investor class from hovering it up just as fast as it's printed
Au contraire. The government can print or borrow money for ~0% and can loan it to corporations at the prime rate of about 3%. So we should let them "hover up" as much as they want, since it will turn a profit for the taxpayers.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A technicality, but it's not beyond the limit, because the limit is set in law. It just so happens that the cardholder can adjust that limit any direction they want with a vote.
There is a non-statutory limit as well, but we appear to be nowhere close to that - when nobody wants to buy the bonds and T-bills being issued.
Even with all the debt, US Treasury instruments are still the safest place to park money, because a payment has literally never been missed.
Re: (Score:2)
The national credit card is far from maxed out. People are still eager to loan the government money at practically no interest rate.
The founding fathers established a national bank, so while some may have warned against it, those people were in the minority.
The point of a Federal Reserve is to not let politicians print as much money as they like. By making it an independent agency, they cannot just print bills to cover whatever. Which would be even worse than the current system.
The US government definite
Re: (Score:2)
The main effect of making new money is to cause inflation, to lower the value of the money we have, and the money we make.
Recessions are deflationary. So a little inflation is a GOOD THING. During the 2008 recession, the Fed pumped trillions of new dollars into the economy, yet inflation remained stubbornly LOWER than their target of 2%.
Inflation hawks have been wrong so often that nobody listens to them anymore.
Corporations like that because they raise their prices, but don't pay employees more.
Wages have been rising faster than prices for several years.
Also, inflation isn't the same for everyone. Lower-income people spend more on goods and less on services than higher-income people. Inflation on goods is
Re: (Score:1)
"Wages have been rising faster than prices for several years."
Yes, they have, well from Google's first link.
Of course Forbes also says the "average" wages have been, not actual.
A minimum wage earner hasn't.
A much longer down Google entry of "TheFederalist" says your wrong, but that is in 2014 so I guess several years may be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
1. What you're suggesting would mean bailing out on our allies, leaving them hanging. That'll piss them off, and they won't be very inclined to come help us when we need help. Oh and by the way no country in the history of civilization has ever stood completely alone, with no allies, for very long.
2. Our many enemies in the world would be throwing parties to celebrate our weakened presence on the
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree with many of your points, I'm not sure why you are moderated Offtopic and Troll. Your post is perfectly on topic and while you may be a bit combative you certainly a making a coherent case. Oh well, poor moderation it seems. As for your points.
1) The US is arguably overly generous with the military support it provides to its allies. The best way I know of to measure relative military spending is the ratio of spending to GDP. The world average is 2.1%, and the US sits at 3.2%. That is about
Re: (Score:2)
1. I don't actually dispute we spend more on military support for other countries. But when you're #1, you have to look like you're #1, or people start to doubt you, think you're just being a braggart; the optics are as important as the substance. Yes, I am saying basically 'dress to impress'; similar psychology to how you really pu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is one area that Trump is probably more correct on is giving the generals a freer hand in military conflicts.
Do you mean the way he forced the generals to backstab the Kurds, over the vehement objection of the military and diplomatic corps?
Or do you mean the way he skedaddled out of Afghanistan against the advice of the generals?
Re: (Score:3)
Or the way he "pardoned" a Navy Seal who shot a young girl in cold blood against the wishes of the chain of command.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And $25m goes to the perfoming arts, so the aid package is all well spent right. We don't need scientists and engineers, what's important is that actors can be well paid to tell us what they think. That's enough, surely.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that people in the arts are out of work right now too, right? Not a whole lot of performances of Broadway shows, orchestras, or operas going around these days, what with all the theaters and auditoriums being closed. But I guess it's fine, because putting the hammer to the arts is always popular with the conservative crowd.
Don't be a fucking twit.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is advocating putting a hammer to folks in the arts.
But you have to admit, it isn't the most pressing issue we face right now.
Those in the arts out of work, would they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one area that no one is talking about: decimate the fucking millitary budget. take THEIR money. who the fuck is gonna be fighting wars when you can't breath, due to lungs filling with fluid?
A better idea would be to use the personnel and organization of of the military as part of the response. There is a lot that a hierarchical organization trained for teamwork and with its own self-contained global supply network can do.
Re: (Score:2)
just mathematics... (sorry for all of the leading zeros)
$2,000,000,000,000 - stimulus package
$0,000,945,000,000 - for vaccine, therapeutic, and diagnostic research
$0,000,076,000,000 - to supplement an ongoing program that allows scientists to jump into the field for pilot studies on all manner of natural disasters.
$0,000,099,500,000 - to cover the additional costs of operating user facilities at its national laboratories
-$0,000,003,000,000 - to reestablish experiments impacte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shit. See, this is why I'm poor.
The trouble with science is a lot doesn't pay off (Score:2)
This is why the government needs to be in charge of and paying for Basic Research. You can never get anyone to pay for it because it's like planting a tree when you'll be dead before you can enjoy it's shade. Most folks don't have the moral fortitude to do that at scale...
It's more about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right, and those numbers they added are peanuts compared to the entire bill. My guess is the alleged administration merely went along so they'd have talking points when people start questioning their funding of research. Thankfully, Congress has been adding back money to the science agencies that the alleged administration has tried to cut, but not enough to make up the difference.
Just yesterday, the administration promulgated rules decreasing the role of science in regulatory decisions on the ground
Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill just grinds my gears.
Two trillion dollars. Two trillion that our government doesn't have, that it has to borrow, a debt that we will leave our children to bear. Don't get me wrong...in a disaster like this, stimulus is needed. But stimulus is best when we don't have much debt to begin with. Because, during strong economic times, we should have been paying down our debt, to prepare for troubling times such as this. You know, like in 2003-2008, where we had a roaring economy...except we decided instead, you know, to fight two wars while at the same time giving giant tax breaks to corporations and individuals making ridiculous amounts of money. Or, you know, like in 2015-2019, where we had a growing economy...except, you know, we decided to keep fighting one war and spend ridiculous amounts of money on "defense spending" while at the same time giving giant tax breaks to corporations and individuals making ridiculous amounts of money. Twenty years ago, we were $3.5 trillion in debt. Now we're $23 trillion, oh, wait, I'm sorry, $25 trillion in debt.
And by the way, this isn't the end of it. COVID19 isn't even close to gone. Does anyone -really- think that this will solve our dead-in-the-water economy? All this bill does is give a drowning man a life preserver. But this economy's still going to need a rescue boat. Once COVID19 is gone, and everyone can come out of their homes, jobs don't just magically reappear overnight. And at -that- moment, that's when you'll see the next round of trillion dollar stimulus. I expect we'll be at $28 trillion by July 2021.
And I also predict that, by July 2021, China will have the world's #1 GDP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that government debt is not even conceptually similar to personal debt right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your comment is useless. If you're going to try and contradict the parent, you need to actually do it. Trying to force everyone else to guess what you're talking about is just a way to give the illusion of having a valid point.
He was assuming that people are more familiar with macroeconomics than they actually are.
If you run up debt on your credit card, you have to pay back that debt out of your future earnings.
Government debt doesn't work that way. There is no need to "pay back" the debt out of future earnings (taxes). Instead, as the Fed (which is sort of only quasi-government) expands the money supply, they buy bonds. These bonds are held by the Fed, and any money earned is paid back to the treasury. When the bonds come due, the Fed rolls them over by buying new bonds.
So it is basically free money. There is only a problem if the interest on the bonds is more than economic growth plus inflation. So if the economy grows by 2% and inflation is 2%, then we are okay as long as the interest rates stay below 4%.
So how much does the government pay in interest? Roughly ZERO percent.
So the government can borrow with impunity, and NEVER pay back the money.
Of course, things can get out of hand, but we have been adding a trillion or so in debt per year with no problem for over a decade. We will know there is a problem when inflation starts rising, but so far inflation is LOWER than what the Fed considers healthy for the economy and some increase in inflation would be welcomed.
Re: (Score:1)
but so far inflation is LOWER than what the Fed considers healthy for the economy
Yet most people struggle to afford housing, education, healthcare, or children. 10s of millions need assistance to pay for food. One financial crisis follows another and money needs to be printed exponentially just like in failed economy. The Fed are a bunch of Bernie Madoff level scammers
Re: (Score:2)
He was assuming that people are more familiar with macroeconomics than they actually are.
Bullshit. He had one or more arguments to make, out of many which he could have made, and by insulting the parent rather than actually making any of those arguments he stroked his own ego while preventing anyone from making a counterpoint. Keeping it vague forces anyone who wants to disagree to erect a strawman, and argue with the point that they assume he was trying to make.
As for your argument: the fact that the government can borrow money with zero interest right now, at this moment, does not alleviat
Re: Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
government debt is almost entirely unlike personal debt.
And to expand further, AMERICAN government debt is unlike the debt of other countries.
If France issues debt, they can get in trouble if their debt pile expands faster than the French economy.
But the American dollar is the world's reserve currency. So we only get in trouble if our debt pile grows faster than the WORLD economy.
The entire world subsidies our profligacy and irresponsibility.
It is good to be the king.
Re: (Score:2)
we can only maintain a 0% interest rate in an emergency like this one.
You should ask the Japanese about that.
Japanese bonds have been at or near zero for 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The equivalent to personal debt is to just keep rolling that personal debt over to a new credit card with a low introductory interest rate. So long as you can keep on finding a new bank to issue you another credit card to roll that debt over too before the real interest rate kicks in, you can keep on spending more than your income and be fine. When you can longer get a new credit card to roll over to, you are suddenly in big trouble.
The same basic thing applies to government debt. So long as they can kee
Re: (Score:3)
Watch the fun and games if interest rates ever go up above zero though.
Interest rates can go well above zero before there is any problem.
But that isn't much of a threat because the Fed has a lot of control over interest rates. The problem is that if they hold them too low for too long, it may trigger inflation.
But Japan has had sky-high debt and rock bottom interest rates for 30 years, and rather than inflation, they have had the opposite: A deflationary cycle that they have struggled to break out of.
We are in an era when governments can apparently create oceans of money out
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the modern monetary theory. Money printer go brrr! [twimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you are right. Personal debt will only sink the person and a few stiffed companies. Government debt can sink the entire economy and everyone gets stiffed.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch for a big round of price increases, which politicians will call "gouging." Actually it will be the beginning of a wave of inflation. Let's all hope it doesn't end in hyperinflation and us invading Poland.
Re:Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The old adage of "a stitch in time saves nine" applies here. Our safeguards and disaster-prevention systems were dismantled and effectively sold for stock market gains. Now we need them, and it turns out it's a lot more difficult (and expensive) to rebuild that capacity under immediate pressure for an immediate need.
This has happened several times before, and yet we keep dancing the same tune. The more we dismantle the government, the more the price rises when we realize how badly we need a strong government. The days of self-sufficient nomads are long gone. It was first said about revolutionaries, but another old line now holds true for individuals in our society: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Re: (Score:2)
I get your point.. but there's a flip side to that viewpoint.
One could instead say that if government resources weren't wasted on Quixotic pointlessness like trying 'cure' poverty, 'fix' criminals, or 'curing' drug use, then we'd be able to use those dollars for situations where government IS a necessity.
No government program ever dies. MANDATORY social spending is TWO THIRDS of the Federal budget. There are places - like a widespread epidemic - where centralized government is critically useful. But ours
Re: (Score:1)
The costs you mention are also symptoms, not causes. Medicare costs are astronomical precisely because American medical care costs several times more than equivalent care elsewhere in the world. That's not because American care is somehow better... it's because there's no effective regulation on prices for a service with very little effective competition.
As for the heights of doorknobs and the care of prisoners, those are actually our government doing the thing it's supposed to do: Improving the quality of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you realize that Medicare dictates the prices it will pay.
I'm well aware of that... The problem is the prices are still fixed at rates far higher (150%-900% as I recall from my days working with medical billing data, but I don't have a source offhand) than other developed nations with fixed-rate healthcare.
It's not market forces - it's the Government deciding how much it wants to pay, and it pays that.
Ah, not exactly... The Medicare rates are determined by computations based on price data from the medical industry (the AMA, according to your source).
Asking Government to solve the problem it created in the first place, by making itself even bigger and more powerful, is pretty irrational...
The proposed alternative is to keep giving control to the even-bigger and even-more-powerful healthcare-for-pro
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware of that... The problem is the prices are still fixed at rates far higher (150%-900% as I recall from my days working with medical billing data, but I don't have a source offhand) than other developed nations with fixed-rate healthcare.
So the problem is the Government CHOOSES to fix the prices too high. And thus, Government must step in, take over all of healthcare, and make it better. Really?
Ah, not exactly... The Medicare rates are determined by computations based on price data from the medical industry (the AMA, according to your source).
Perhaps we should look at other costs incurred, then, when comparing our costs against other nations. For example, German medical malpractice awards cap out around $650,000 [loc.gov], well below what the US does. We have much higher liability insurance costs [institutef...reform.com] because of this - and that should be accounted for.
Additionally, consider access [nih.gov]. "On the other ha
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words, anyone affected by a disaster should just stop being poor. Got it.
Of course, after you spend your savings on one disaster, then you're not prepared for the second disaster. In a run of particularly bad luck, only those with ample savings will survive. Those that don't have literally nothing to lose, so they might as well try their hand at massive armed robbery to get the wealth they need to survive... and it turns out we just reinvented warlords.
You might as well just say openly what you
Re: (Score:3)
I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL...OH my..that's a good one.
I'm trying to visualize if you actually were able to type that with a straight face....
OH MY....haha...thanks for the laugh, I needed a good one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense, she was at least mature, professional, and adult about things, not just a spoilt brat whose had everyone else fund him all his life and so has no concept of the limitations of money.
She also wouldn't have trashed America's place in the world like Trump, none of us other countries give a shit what America things now because it's pulled away from global leadership, and when that happens, it means the world is going to leave you behind.
But that's what Putin wanted by putting Trump in in the first pla
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, there's no shortage of food or shelter in the country. There's a healthcare shortage because hospitals have been run like a Walmart for the last 20 years using "Just in Time" methods, which means the bare minimum amount of staffing needed to meet current demand.
But there's still plenty of goods and services.
The problem we have is getting money into the hands of people who spend it instead of adding a few more zeros to Jeff Bezo's net worth. No matter how greedy the man is at this point it's no longer money he can spend, it's power he wields. The power to make you do as he says.
That right there's your real problem. You're being ruled over.
Did you read it? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I agree that the economy will need a jump start at the other end of this, to restore its inertia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"China has not wasted a single penny on war, and thatâ(TM)s why theyâ(TM)re ahead of us. In almost every way."
-- Jimmy Carter
Re: (Score:2)
Old Jimmy probably needs to be brought up to date. China has expended plenty in their raping the world's economies to concentrate production in China. They simply don't spend it on kinetic action....although that might change when Jin-ping realizes he's going to die before they screw Taiwan.
Re: (Score:1)
OK.... (Score:2)
And I also predict that, by July 2021, China will have the world's #1 GDP.
We'll hold you to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. All the billionaires combined don't have $2T in the bank.
Re: (Score:3)
correct.
did you look under their mattresses?
BINGO.
(dude, the rich own the entirety of this world. not sure what world you live in, but the classes have never been farther apart, in modern history; and the rich are at the top of their game. they have money. of course they fucking do, don't be a dunce.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:1)
All the billionaires in the WORLD own a combined $8T. So when are you going to sell off Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon, AliBaba, ... to get to the $2T you need? Who is going to employ people when you destroyed the world economy?
Re: (Score:2)
What new owners? You just killed off any billionaire. Who is going to buy a multi-billion dollar company if you killed off all potential purchasers? Isn't the new owner just going to become a billionaire you can then kill off? I'm certain you're an idiot, but you can't be that big of an idiot to not think this through.
You're not thinking like a billionaire (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh, we HAVE the money. its held in the banks of the rich.
time to put the rich folks into wood chippers and take their money.
Why bother when you can just print more? There is an infinite amount of cash in the federal reserve.
they'll have to live with 1 or 2 LESS YACHTS, but its a price that they'll have no choice but to pay. that, or guillotine.
Personally I would love it if the rich actually spent money. At least when you purchase something value goes back into the system. They should be encouraged to spend away their fortunes on as many yachts as their hearts content. Anything is better than idle cash.
again, see how things pan out, but we're looking at a thousand year kind of event, something the world has NEVER seen before, in recorded history.
The world has seen far worse.
the rich are going to have to pay. because THAT IS WHERE ALL THE MONEY CURRENTLY IS, dammit.
They are already paying politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, are you an accountant: Fellas, we think this is an acceptable amount of death to provide for our bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be realistic here, the only reason there's a blanket "lockdown" in effect is because politicians would rather take overly drastic measures in response to this virus outbreak rather than appear weak when it comes time for elections. Aside from the AC's drivel about boomers not wanting to "let go of the power", the sentiment that was expressed isn't entirely incorrect. Shutting down the bulk of the nation's economy is a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that can be handled without mass unemployment and
Re: Just gonna come out and say it... (Score:2)
Disclaimer, I work in clinical healthcare, and just switched to mandatory 12-14 hours days.
Re: (Score:2)
"Disclaimer, I work in clinical healthcare, and just switched to mandatory 12-14 hours days."
Ugh. I must say - I don't envy you needing to work those kind of hours.
But, let me be the first to thank you for doing it. God Bless you.
Throwing money at the problem (Score:2)
Is anyone surprised? Anyone think it would do any good for the next 3-6 months?
Re: (Score:2)
No, at least no thinking people so that leaves out most of Congress and the alleged administration. This is merely a sop to Wall Street and what's-his-name's re-election chances. My guess is that it is pushing on a string. They'd have done better to spend it on health infrastructure which would get people back to work sooner.
Debt (Score:3)
https://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]
That's it? out of 2 TRILLION? (Score:3)
1.25 Billion out of 2000 Billion = 0.06% for research?
Not even 2-4%?
Looks like disaster capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
$3m for trees!
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah they should have used that 1.25 billion for helicopters for commies.
For that money... (Score:2)
...one could have a small war or 2.
Re: (Score:3)
‘Even a small wars would be overkill”
Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Primeminister.
Ramming a bill through without the public AGAIN (Score:4, Interesting)
No one is asking why the bill is not available on The Congressional Ballot [congress.gov].
We are okay with taking summary PDFs or listening to Mainstream Media for what is going to be in the bill. Did we forget about all the bailouts from 2008? Did we already forget about media manipulation from 2016? Seriously sheeple, wake up. Do you know that every bill goes through Congress the same way? Bill introduced, Text is available for the public to view, House deliberates and makes changes, Text is available for the public to view, Senate deliberates and makes changes, Text is available for the public to view , then sends off to our president for signing. This time they are doing all of this work behind the scenes. What is so secretive that we, the people, can't see what we are going to have to deal with. Ask why, you may be surprised at what you find..
Why are you okay with this? You have just as much of a right to know as a taxpayer. But no one is thinking about that, everyone is thinking of OMG Coronavirus. This is how we are going to end up with a Digital Dollar or the codified loss of your privacy rights. At the last second, the bill appears to the public but before anyone can object it will be signed by the president and made into law. Markets will skyrocket as the world rejoices that we just spent our way out of a pandemic.
Don't be a fool. Don't create another 2008. Write, call, email, smoke signal your elected officials and ask to see the bill before it goes for a vote.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Trump hasn't signed it yet. (Score:2, Offtopic)
I doubt he will- they blocked access to money for him and his cronies...
Re: (Score:2)
The White House was involved in the Senate negotiations and Trump said last night (this morning) that he would sign it.
Making such flawed assumptions suggests that you might be approaching political questions in the wrong way.
Joke of the week just couldn’t help myself. (Score:5, Funny)
A plane with 4 passengers, Trump, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and a Greta Thunberg aboard, is about to crash.
There are only 3 parachutes.
Trump says, “I am the smartest man in the world, and I’m needed to save America” grabs a chute and Jumps.
Boris says, Im essential to stopping Covid-19 in the UK” grabs a chute and jumps.
Merkel looks at Greta and says, “Im at the end of my life, and you are just at the start, so take the chute.
Greta says, “Oh, don’t worry, there are still 2 parachutes, the smartest man in the world just jumped out with my school bag”
How Dare You! (Score:2)
Meanwhile Greta's generation is gathering in large crowds the beaches on spring break and licking toilet seats on TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
A plane with 4 passengers, Trump, Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and a Greta Thunberg aboard, is about to crash.
There are only 3 parachutes.
Trump says, “I am the smartest man in the world, and I’m needed to save America” grabs a chute and Jumps.
Boris says, Im essential to stopping Covid-19 in the UK” grabs a chute and jumps.
Merkel looks at Greta and says, “Im at the end of my life, and you are just at the start, so take the chute.
Greta says, “Oh, don’t worry, there are still 2 parachutes, the smartest man in the world just jumped out with my school bag”
Insurance requote against the censorious trolls with mod points. However, if I (ever) had a mod point I would save it for something more creative. This is quite an ancient joke. I can't even remember who the first butt was, even if Trump is the biggest so far.
Actually, when you consider BJ against Trump, maybe the joke should have had two backpacks and only two parachutes? Have to reword the last half...
Agency funding? (Score:3)
NIH - Makes sense to give them money to work on a cure/vaccine.
NSF - Makes a little less sense. A fund to help them "jump in" on disasters? What does that even mean and why is special funding needed?
DoE - Makes even less sense. Are they planning to fight a virus with nukes or something?
Forrest Service - Okay, no. That makes no sense whatsoever. I thought this was for fighting a pandemic and keeping the economy going, why the f-k is there an earmark to count trees?
Likewise, is this the best bill to allocate funds to NASA to cover rescheduling? Maybe it is, but $20 million to NOAA to support entirely unrelated activity sure as hell doesn't belong in this bill.
Its more than $2T, its extra $4T+ (Score:2)
Final text of the bill has not been released, but according to a legislative draft, the new law would establish a $4.5 trillion corporate bailout fund overseen by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, with few substantive constraints. Some outlets are reporting this as a $500 billion fund, but $425 billion of that can be leveraged 10 times over by the Federal Reserve, resulting in a multi-trillion-dollar program.
Link to article [huffpostbrasil.com].
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the price tag of economic stimulus amounts to roughly $6 trillion, which includes $2 trillion for direct assistance, and roughly $4 trillion in Federal Reserve lending power.
Link [googleusercontent.com]
Financing programs to help the U.S. economy pull out of the coronavirus crisis could be worth $4 trillion, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sunday.
Link [cnbc.com]