Mini-editorial: 'Reopening' has become a political issue

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I just had this thought pop into my head; is this alignment due to ideological thinking differences? Look at the response to Covid. Are Democrats viewed as "have nots" because they tend to take a stance that life > resources? Dem led areas have been quicker to lockdown more harshly and longer to consider reopening. Saving just one life is worth total economic collapse and ruin to them.

On the flip side, Republicans (often considered the "haves") appear to value resources over life. The view is "there will be deaths, but we must maintain resources so those that survive will have the means to do so and be prosperous in the future".

If my thoughts above are true (in most cases), then the Republican model more closely matches the rules of nature. The strong survive and control access to resources, the weak are weeded out and the species (or even groups within the species) grows stronger and thrives. Admittedly it does seem a cruel system, but it's how our world was created (or has evolved), and these rules of nature apply to ALL earthly organisms, not just humans.
This gets muddy though. Many of the have nots are affected just as equally to the haves during a lockdown, like hospitality workers. That disparity is then blamed on the haves for not providing during the lockdown.

On the flip side of this, older haves are the most affected by death assuming that an opened up economy gets them the virus.

Fundamentally the virus was given to the Democrats to exploit on a silver platter.


Anyone supporting economy or livelyhoods is sure to lose.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I just had this thought pop into my head; is this alignment due to ideological thinking differences? Look at the response to Covid. Are Democrats viewed as "have nots" because they tend to take a stance that life > resources? Dem led areas have been quicker to lockdown more harshly and longer to consider reopening. Saving just one life is worth total economic collapse and ruin to them.

On the flip side, Republicans (often considered the "haves") appear to value resources over life. The view is "there will be deaths, but we must maintain resources so those that survive will have the means to do so and be prosperous in the future".

If my thoughts above are true (in most cases), then the Republican model more closely matches the rules of nature. The strong survive and control access to resources, the weak are weeded out and the species (or even groups within the species) grows stronger and thrives. Admittedly it does seem a cruel system, but it's how our world was created (or has evolved), and these rules of nature apply to ALL earthly organisms, not just humans.
This gets muddy though. Many of the have nots are affected just as equally to the haves during a lockdown, like hospitality workers. That disparity is then blamed on the haves for not providing during the lockdown.

On the flip side of this, older haves are the most affected by death assuming that an opened up economy gets them the virus.

Fundamentally the virus was given to the Democrats to exploit on a silver platter.


Anyone supporting economy or livelyhoods is sure to lose
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
This gets muddy though. Many of the have nots are affected just as equally to the haves during a lockdown, like hospitality workers. That disparity is then blamed on the haves for not providing during the lockdown.

On the flip side of this, older haves are the most affected by death assuming that an opened up economy gets them the virus.

Fundamentally the virus was given to the Democrats to exploit on a silver platter.


Anyone supporting economy or livelyhoods is sure to lose
True, the virus does not discriminate. However, the difference is the older Haves are more willing to take the risk in order to ensure their familie's economic survival (kids, grandkids, etc.) It's a different mindset.

The Have Nots will blame the Haves for economic disparity regardless of pandemic. The disparity becomes worse as the economy collapses as the Haves will be able to financially ride it out for at least a while, and many Have Nots will be stricken into poverty almost immediately. There are exceptions on both sides, but I think this is accurate for the majority.

In conjunction with my thoughts above, the only way anyone touting economy/livelihood loses is in the realm of social media. At the end of this ordeal, those focused on economy (as a whole) will have fared much better and recover much more quickly than those who ran in fear gave up everything for self preservation.

I find it interesting how people accuse others of being selfish for choosing to take the risk to live life as normal and preserve our economy and the strength of our country for future generations / those who survive the pandemic. Is it not more selfish to demand everyone in society give up everything to protect individuals (which is what we are currently doing)?
 

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
YOU ARE RIGHT 9. THE HAVES ALWAYS WANT MORE AND IT DOESNT MATER WHO THEY STEP ON TO GET IT. AND IT STARTS AT THE VERY TOP IN THIS COUNTRY.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
True, the virus does not discriminate. However, the difference is the older Haves are more willing to take the risk in order to ensure their familie's economic survival (kids, grandkids, etc.) It's a different mindset.

The Have Nots will blame the Haves for economic disparity regardless of pandemic. The disparity becomes worse as the economy collapses as the Haves will be able to financially ride it out for at least a while, and many Have Nots will be stricken into poverty almost immediately. There are exceptions on both sides, but I think this is accurate for the majority.

In conjunction with my thoughts above, the only way anyone touting economy/livelihood loses is in the realm of social media. At the end of this ordeal, those focused on economy (as a whole) will have fared much better and recover much more quickly than those who ran in fear gave up everything for self preservation.

I find it interesting how people accuse others of being selfish for choosing to take the risk to live life as normal and preserve our economy and the strength of our country for future generations / those who survive the pandemic. Is it not more selfish to demand everyone in society give up everything to protect individuals (which is what we are currently doing)?
There is only one sort of agreement with the Left I have on all this, an I will get to that in a second.

For the Haves who run or own their small business, it will collapse and the employees, which are have nots in many cases, will lose their job and go on unemployment if they can. The argument from the left, which is similar to raising the minimum wage, is that small businesses should't be in business if they can't ride out the pandemic, just as they say they shouldn't be in business if they can't pay 15 an hour. That is very unrealistic. What the have nots don't understand is that the is enormous personal and economic risk for many small businesses just to get off the ground and if they fail, the small business owner could be out on the street just like the have nots. It really is about personal responsibility in how individuals can ride out economic downturns. Have nots believe, incorrectly, that these businesses should have enough savings, since they themselves don't.

Why do the have nots assume that any business or corporation has savings? I understand why really poor people don't have savings, but its a complete wrong assumption that any business or corporation has loads of liquidity. What the left and the have nots don't understand is that if small businesses fail at an alarming rate, the only ones left are the large corporations who then can pay the have nots an even lower salary until the floor of minimum wage is hit. To sum it up, it doesn't benefit anyone other than large corporations if the economy fails.

Now, getting to the virus in and of itself, I have to ask why is the left so worried about the older population dying? I mean, I get it. Can't they simply stay home? I hear that "this isn't how the virus works". It seems a bit selfish IMHO for people who are at risk to expose themselves. Why should I stay home so they can go out? The argument is that even someone who stays home and at risk can still get it, but I'm not sure exactly how. If we take a look locally here, the nursing homes shut down visitations in early march and very few have had cases here in my county. Another county over had a high incidence in a VA home because the VA home still allowed visitors.

Now, where will agree with the Left, on a compromised measure, is that anyone who works in close quarters and is at risk because of either age or underlying health issues should be allowed to collect unemployment, which I think is the crux of most of the argument.

The story has significantly changed. It was supposed to be about flattening out the curve and not overwhelming the hospitals, which in most of the country this hasn't been an issue. Now its about completely reducing the spread which is an untenable situation not just economically, but socially and for the mental wellbeing of all citizens.

We had 9 million die during the great recession. Many deaths were tied to starvation, suicides, crime and other health issues.

The other issue is that if the economy collapses, so will many Hospitals and health providers collapse. Government heathcare won't solve this issue either because there won't be any taxes in a poor economy to pay for that healthcare. Just look at what happened during the great recession. Many school districts here had budgets that were half what they used to be, and the quality of education suffered for it.

The assumption also from the left is that we an either keep borrowing or suffer from hyper inflation and that will "preserve the future of the economy". Greece during WWII is a good example of how hyper inflation is very bad, espcially on the global level. Their dollar was worthless because they over borrowed and overprinted just to maintain their army during WWII. Businesses failed because other countries refused to take their dollar. We had a 3 percent inflation rate in 2011 and it actually stifled much of the economy in certain sectors. We will probably have another 3 to 4 percent inflation rate in the next year or two. To prop the whole country up until we have a vaccine would cost us 10s of Trillions which would give us an inflation rate close to double digits in the years to come.
 
Last edited:

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
VERY WELL SAID DJ.

I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM TOO IS, PEOPLE THAT ARE ON UNEMPLOYMENT STILL HAVE THE MENTALITY THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO GET BETTER QUICKLY AND THEY SPEND JUST LIKE THEY ARE STILL WORKING. MOST STILL ARENT PUTTING SOME BACK. I STILL SAY THE HAVES ARE THE ONES RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND ARENT SUFFERING LIKE REGULAR FOLKS.

IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER WHEN KATRINA HIT. IT ONLY HIT A SMALL PART OF AMERICA, BUT AN IMPORTANT PART. GAS AND FOOD PRICES SKYROCKETED, FOR AWHILE. COVID IS TOUCHING MOST ALL BUSINESSES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN TO PRICES WHEN THINGS START GETTING BACK TO SOME TYPE OF NORMAL. THOSE BUSNESSES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE UP THE LOST CAPITAL SOME HOW.
 
Top