Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

Masks are effective in reducing the spread of coronavirus. End of story.

then why did Fauci downplay wearing them to the general public? its irresponsible , and the reality is it costs lives - so therefore its criminal.That wasn't a statement made out of ignorance, it was a calculated statement that he made based on circumstances. In other words he ignored the science and mislead the public.

and its not about being an idiot. For gods sake you're telling me to believe what Fauci is saying TODAY and disregard what he said in February while readily admitting he intentionally misleads the public. It doesn't work that way and you know it. He was hoisted on the nation as the single voice of the "science" and he is on record saying for the average individual they don't need to wear a mask. So you have a man who makes statements that literally determines whether people live or die like actuary tables and we're supposed to go with whatever he says "today"

He is the idiot, not the people you demand believe every word he says on any given day. Fuck him, the man of science.

[aTm]

He is a part of the health propaganda machine. Back then he didnt want people buying masks, so the health machine says whatever it needs to to make that happen. Now they want people wearing masks always so they say that. His job is propaganda.

[eCat]

He is a part of the health propaganda machine. Back then he didnt want people buying masks, so the health machine says whatever it needs to to make that happen. Now they want people wearing masks always so they say that. His job is propaganda.

the "I believe the science" crowd isn't buying it.

and if Fauci is the kind of guy that will mislead the public on wearing masks based on availability, then who is to say he isn't the kind of guy that would "downplay" the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine or steroid treatments for a multitude of justifications.

[aTm]

Which side is the "I believe the science" crowd? Both sides of this mask argument make the claim that they are on the side of science.

[eCat]

that's kind of my point

The man of science has muddled the argument on wearing masks. Lets set aside the actual effectiveness of them. I'd give Fauci a pass if he truly believes masks worked and was consistent with their usage. But that wasn't what he did. He tried to avoid a panic on mass usage when demand outstripped supply, and in doing so he placed doubt in the mind of several million Americans on whether a mask is necessary at all. To make matters worse you have people who believe we should follow everything Fauci says to the letter because he is the face of the science behind Covid-19 pandemic treatment . Kamala Harris went on a debate viewed by millions saying she would not take the vaccine unless Fauci told her to.

Can you imagine Fauci downplaying the effectiveness of the vaccine because he wanted to make sure first responders got it ahead of the general public or maybe he decides its more important that China gets its than Americans. "I don't think a vaccine is necessary at this time"

and yet its very easy to imagine him doing it, he'd do it without hesitation if he felt the circumstances called for it.

[aTm]

I can imagine him saying a lot of dumb things...

[hedge]

"Fuck him, the man of science."

That seems to be the main republican campaign slogan these days. I don't think it's going to age well...

[hedge]

It seems like pretty much anybody with a triple digit IQ could discover for themselves whether masks are effective in preventing viral spreading...

[eCat]

no, they are all idiots remember? They can only listen to a man of science

and he told them a mask wasn't necessary in February

[aTm]

I suspect the masks do have a small impact on the spread of the virus, but probably are also adding additional health impacts to the people that wear them.

Occasionally the mask will get lucky and prevent spreading, but the reality is that what most people are wearing is the equivalent of building a cyclone chain link fence around your house and expecting it to keep out the mosquitos. The mask is part of a balanced breakfast... according to the CDC it will "slow the spread of COVID-19 when worn consistently and correctly by a majority of people in public settings and when masks are used along with other preventive measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and cleaning and disinfecting." But the reality is that wearing the mask is the sugar blasted honey smacks part of the "balanced breakfast" and its the social distancing, frequent handwashing, and cleaning and disinfecting that does all of the work. Propaganda wise the mask is most effective at being a constant reminder to people not to just go about their normal lives, to do the rest of that other stuff to prevent the virus, and my guess is that people are also discouraged from getting close to other people that are wearing masks psychologically.

[eCat]

in the past week I've noticed that in rural settings no one is wearing a mask, and I mean no one

around my place in the suburbs, its maybe 50%, all the employees of box stores and groceries are wearing masks, but maybe 50% of the customers at best are wearing them.

I think the decline started when people started eating in again and it was stupid to wear a mask from the door to your table and then take it off while you eat and carry on, then put the mask on to walk out for 20 feet, and over time people just stopped wearing them.

and certainly no one is interested in enforcing it around here

[Tree]

I just read that Biden wants to change the 401K tax structure. Under his proposal, people making over $80K would be negatively affected in the tax break they get for saving pre-tax into a 401K while people in the lowest tax brackets would see a tax credit at the end of the year that would decrease their tax obligation. However the net effect is they would lose the initial tax break which means they would see little to no pre-tax savings. For the few people in the lowest tax brackets actually capable of investing in a 401K, it would cost them more initially.

See a similar trend here ? With Obamacare, even though it was supposed to save everyone money, people making over $80K or therabout ended up getting fucked with higher deductibles and increased premiums while relatively few people benefited from the ACA.

And now Biden, even after publicly stating that he would not tax people making less than $400K isn't even elected yet and is proposing going after one of the few benefits left to help the middle class by "evening" out the tax structure so people who can't invest in the stock market, are even less excited about it by giving them the dreaded tax credit while decreasing the amount of their take home pay.

This is only the start with him. He will be a nightmare for the middle class - because regardless of what they say, you can't pay for welfare programs by only taxing the relatively few rich. You have to go after the masses out there who are making $120K - $250K in mixed income suburban households.

Why in the fuck would any politician think lowering the tax benefit for the middle class contributing to their retirement in a time when Social Security is on life support is a good idea?

401k contributions being pre-tax is unfairly slanted toward higher income earners. I haven't read all the fine print but the proposal may just be trying to level out the playing field, something we need to be doing a lot more of across the board if we don't want a lot more Americans in poverty.

And we can reach an adequate level of safety nets just by going after billionaires, big corporations, and the bloated military budget. Even well-to-do families that make a few million per year don't need to be touched, although as you probably know super-rich folks love to use the middle and upper middle class as cannon fodder to protect themselves, both in terms of policy and propaganda.

[hedge]

Human Resources called me and asked if I wanted to participate in our company's 401K, I told them I couldn't run that far...

[eCat]

401k contributions being pre-tax is unfairly slanted toward higher income earners. I haven't read all the fine print but the proposal may just be trying to level out the playing field, something we need to be doing a lot more of across the board if we don't want a lot more Americans in poverty.

And we can reach an adequate level of safety nets just by going after billionaires, big corporations, and the bloated military budget. Even well-to-do families that make a few million per year don't need to be touched, although as you probably know super-rich folks love to use the middle and upper middle class as cannon fodder to protect themselves, both in terms of policy and propaganda.

I'm not happy that America shifted away from pensions and focused on 401Ks but that is the world we live in and its not coming back.

so if you're saying its unfairly slanted to people who earn more money, well the entire world is unfairly slanted to people that earn more money, that's how the world works, and I don't believe for a second that cutting the military by some margin while still maintaining superiority and only taxing the super rich would provide basic income security for the millions of Americans that are in margins are below poverty level.

The ACA said there were 44 million Americans without healthcare and that wasn't even counting the 20m or so illegals

[Tree]

401k contributions being pre-tax is unfairly slanted toward higher income earners. I haven't read all the fine print but the proposal may just be trying to level out the playing field, something we need to be doing a lot more of across the board if we don't want a lot more Americans in poverty.

And we can reach an adequate level of safety nets just by going after billionaires, big corporations, and the bloated military budget. Even well-to-do families that make a few million per year don't need to be touched, although as you probably know super-rich folks love to use the middle and upper middle class as cannon fodder to protect themselves, both in terms of policy and propaganda.

I'm not happy that America shifted away from pensions and focused on 401Ks but that is the world we live in and its not coming back.

so if you're saying its unfairly slanted to people who earn more money, well the entire world is unfairly slanted to people that earn more money, that's how the world works, and I don't believe for a second that cutting the military by some margin while still maintaining superiority and only taxing the super rich would provide basic income security for the millions of Americans that are in margins are below poverty level.

The ACA said there were 44 million Americans without healthcare and that wasn't even counting the 20m or so illegals

Things being slanted toward folks with more money is fine. It should be that way. Even your most ardent leftist intellectual has never tried to say we should just divvy things up into even shares and call it a day. It's the degree to which we let greed run rampant and let those with the most money make all the policy that is the problem. So sure, do your ingenuity and your meritocracy, but how about make the billionaires still pay the same amount of tax that would be paid if say 25,000 separate people/families made that same money. If you don't at least do that much you have an instant revenue problem, which is where we're at.

Also, keep in mind Biden is a right of center candidate. You want solutions that just take from the very top and not the middle class, you should have supported Bernie.

[Tree]

Human Resources called me and asked if I wanted to participate in our company's 401K, I told them I couldn't run that far...

I knew from day 1 that you were the fattest poster here.

[hedge]

I'm not even the doorman at the Fatty Hall of Fame in this place...

[hedge]

[eCat]

good to know she has the former NBA player, pissed away his money, arrested for theft, addicted to opioids, moved back to the place he hated and is desperately trying to become relevant again vote

[eCat]

sadly for the democrats they'd really have to be creative to come up with an October surprise that actually means something

Starting with the fake Steele Dossier Clinton devised they accused Trump of watching prostitutes piss on a bed and virtually every day since they've tried to hold him accountable for some lie or transgression all the way up to impeachment. The public is just tone deaf to whatever they say now either believing its a witch hunt or the democrats lack the teeth to make anything stick.

If Trump does win, and I'm not saying he will or won't, its hard to imagine them being more incompetent as a political body.