Why Left Supports Lockdown?

[Kriegsspiel]

I think the simplest reason is that leftists are the most authoritarian faction in America today, and the lockdown is combining two things they really love. It's authoritarian heavy handedness, and they're getting money from the government to buy stuff that other people are still working to produce.

Maybe the best reason is that the sources of news they prefer go on all day every day blaming Trump, and that this virus is really scary and everyone should stay inside until they say. It probably feels good to them that the news is constantly telling them that staying inside is the best thing to do right now, because it's damaging to America as a whole, and Trump by extension. Occasional-Cortex exemplified that aspect when she got all giddy that oil and gas workers were losing their jobs. I'm guessing they'd prefer this state of affairs to go on until after the elections this fall.

[Smith1776]

I think the simplest reason is that leftists are the most authoritarian faction in America today, and the lockdown is combining two things they really love. It's authoritarian heavy handedness, and they're getting money from the government to buy stuff that other people are still working to produce.

Indeed, and one of the most problematic things is that the "free" money from the government is so seductive. I've been libertarian leaning since I discovered Browne and the PP. That was about 4 years ago. 4 years of exposure to libertarian ideas and philosophy.

Now all of the sudden this CERB program comes along here in Canada and I'm like "Oooooh!!! Free money!"

We discussed this in another thread, and I think I'm still on the right side relative to being hypocritical. However, I'm able to see why the ideas of the left require a special resistance.

[CT-Scott]

The media is hyping up the story as being "Trump supporters" against the lockdown, and the fools who are waving flags, Trump banners, and not wearing masks or practicing social-distancing, while going out to protest, are allowing that to remain the headline. People spend too much time focusing on left vs right, as opposed to looking for common ground.

There are a lot of left-leaning people who don't have the privilege of living with (and off of) their parents, and who aren't working in a remote-work-friendly occupation. There are a lot of left-leaning people working in the restaurant and hotel industry, for example, who will be negatively impacted medium-to-long-term. The question I wonder about: Are most of these people in a low-enough income bracket such that the $1200 stimulus check + unemployment checks (boosted by an extra $600) getting close to what they were making before? For some, probably. For some younger folks, maybe that's even a bit *more* than they were making. And they're getting it as free money, with a vacation from their 40 hour/week job. But two things:

1) For left-leaning people where those checks *aren't* enough today, we'll see more and more of them getting vocal. Again, if you're a right-leaning person who wants to get back to work, don't be a jackass and make this a pro-Trump issue. Leave your Trump banners at home, wear a face covering, don't get too close to your fellow supporters, and carry signs that make it clear that you can't afford to pay your bills.

2) For people where those checks *are* enough currently, it can't continue on forever (can it?). Are we going to keep paying unemployment to people until those same types of jobs can come back again? Until a cure/vaccine is available (or we learn that most people have gotten it already, have antibodies, and those antibodies prevent you from getting sick - which may not be the case), I don't see how restaurants can safely open up for eat-in dining. Once the free money stops flowing, those people will get more antsy. But if a cure/vaccine is a long ways away (or never happens) and/or the virus mutates and having antibodies isn't good enough, it may never be "safe enough" for certain jobs to come back. I suppose planes and trains can start moving again, with people needing to wear masks (but is that even good enough?). And where will you be traveling to? A vacation destination won't seem as appealing if you can't eat out and if certain things are closed/limited because of social distancing requirements.

At this point, barring a vaccine/cure/immunity, if/whenever that happens, I don't see how the world economy doesn't get hit really hard over the next year or longer. I suppose the other possibility is that we eventually decide that we have no other choice but to risk our lives (and the lives of others). That may be the most realistic eventuality, but it could make for a pretty depressing time to be alive.

[vnatale]

The question I wonder about: Are most of these people in a low-enough income bracket such that the $1200 stimulus check + unemployment checks (boosted by an extra $600) getting close to what they were making before? For some, probably. For some younger folks, maybe that's even a bit *more* than they were making. And they're getting it as free money, with a vacation from their 40 hour/week job.

How can anyone not be getting as much? On regular unemployment, depending upon what state you live in, you get 1/2 to 2/3's of what you normally make plus another $600 on top of that. Regular unemployment is considered taxable income. Has anyone heard if this $600 is or is not considered taxable income?

In both cases, you are not having social security / medicare withheld, which is 7.65% of gross wages otherwise.

VInny

[Tyler]

It seems like leftists support the lockdown going on in perpetuity and the right wing as well as libertarians oppose the lockdown.

Emphasis on "seems".

On this issue I think it's important to not confuse the popular propaganda storyline (left loves science and wants to save grandma, right is stupid and wants everyone to die) with how normal people actually think. Hard working people of all political persuasions are hurting right now and many would love nothing more than to get back to work. How the media complex weaponizes the issue for political purposes is IMHO a completely different issue.

If anything, I think the true brewing conflict is on class lines rather than party lines. Populists vs elitists. So what you're seeing is really the elitists desperately grasping at control while the populists are getting more restless every day. And since the media absolutely sees themselves in the elite crowd, they'll do whatever is necessary to shill for that outcome.

[vnatale]

Tomfoolery, you had me until the last 2 paragraphs. Those last 2 paragraphs are partially accurate, but what does it have to do with the rest of your argument?

And please tell me how Boomers 'pillaged SS and Medicare'. They and their employers paid into the system for an entire career with the expectation that they would receive certain benefits when they retired. It is not Boomers' fault that this government created Ponzi scheme is now running out of money. Don't get me started on how pension promises made to federal, state, county and municipal employees are sacred on the backs of taxpayers but everyone else: too bad.

The boomers voted in the politicians who increased SS and Medicare benefits. Old people disproportionately vote more than younger people, primarily for the reason that they understand they can vote in politicians that elicit wealth transfers from young to old. The young are too stupid to figure that out and don’t vote. And some young, like me, who have figured it out, aren’t socialists and therefore have no candidates to vote in that will cut SS.

No sane person would say SS is sustainable at current payouts and payins. Once all the boomers retire, SS will be cut and also payins will increase through higher payroll taxes, screwing over Gen X and further at the expense of boomers.

It may not be boomers fault that FDR created this system, but boomers are tacit and helped expand it and increase payouts unsustainably through their elected officials.

From its inception Social Security (and, also, Medicare) is a grand (national) Ponzi scheme.

Vinny

Vinny

[Xan]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, except that it is within the rights of each citizen to vote for politicians who will support their agendas.

Not to derail this further, but it is the responsibility of all federal elected officials (and therefore, I believe, voters) to not violate the Constitution.

[shekels]

Tomfoolery, you had me until the last 2 paragraphs. Those last 2 paragraphs are partially accurate, but what does it have to do with the rest of your argument?

And please tell me how Boomers 'pillaged SS and Medicare'. They and their employers paid into the system for an entire career with the expectation that they would receive certain benefits when they retired. It is not Boomers' fault that this government created Ponzi scheme is now running out of money. Don't get me started on how pension promises made to federal, state, county and municipal employees are sacred on the backs of taxpayers but everyone else: too bad.

The boomers voted in the politicians who increased SS and Medicare benefits. Old people disproportionately vote more than younger people, primarily for the reason that they understand they can vote in politicians that elicit wealth transfers from young to old. The young are too stupid to figure that out and don’t vote. And some young, like me, who have figured it out, aren’t socialists and therefore have no candidates to vote in that will cut SS.

No sane person would say SS is sustainable at current payouts and payins. Once all the boomers retire, SS will be cut and also payins will increase through higher payroll taxes, screwing over Gen X and further at the expense of boomers.

It may not be boomers fault that FDR created this system, but boomers are tacit and helped expand it and increase payouts unsustainably through their elected officials.

So is it the generation BEFORE the Boomers to blame also...?

Who is on the HOOK for the non-marketable government IOUs that SS holds.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2012/06/22/soc ... ted-bonds/

YOU are also to blame for continuing the Ponzi scheme. What have you done that will stop it?

[vnatale]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, except that it is within the rights of each citizen to vote for politicians who will support their agendas.

Not to derail this further, but it is the responsibility of all federal elected officials (and therefore, I believe, voters) to not violate the Constitution.

+1000

I'll derail even further. Almost all politicians are slimy criminals who are looking out for themselves and their cronies rather than their constituency. The problem is that for them to stay in power, it is virtually required to play the game.

Exactly. Everyone thinks it is all the rest of the politicians who are that way, not their own. Otherwise they'd not constantly re-elect their own.

And, whatever happened to the Tea Party and deficits? Do those Tea Party people still even exist?

Vinny

[Xan]

And, whatever happened to the Tea Party and deficits? Do those Tea Party people still even exist?

I think in the current climate the argument is that it's government restrictions which are putting people out of business, so government should help people affected.

[Tortoise]

A slightly different perspective is that support for the lockdowns is largely based on age brackets.

My impression thus far is that the lockdowns tend to be supported by both older/retired people (whether liberal or conservative) and young people who haven't yet established themselves in the working world.

Older/retired people: At higher risk for Covid-19 and aren't as severely impacted by the lockdowns as younger people since they aren't dependent on income from a job. (Many members of this forum are in this group, conservative and liberal alike, and they appear to lean toward supporting the lockdowns.)

Young people without an established job/career: At lower risk for Covid-19, but also aren't as severely impacted by the lockdowns as other people since they don't yet have much income from a job. Many of them can be supported by their parents during the lockdown. Plus, they might even enjoy a little free government money on top of that. (Have you guys recently been on Reddit, which largely consists of this age bracket? The "Reddit hive mind" definitely tends to support the lockdowns.)

The people who tend to oppose the lockdowns are those who have an established job or career that they still depend on heavily (i.e., retirement isn't yet a good option). Especially if remote work isn't an option for them.

[vnatale]

And, whatever happened to the Tea Party and deficits? Do those Tea Party people still even exist?

I think in the current climate the argument is that it's government restrictions which are putting people out of business, so government should help people affected.

Were we not also running Trillion $$$ deficits when the tax cuts were made? I don't remember hearing anything from them then either.

Vinny

[CT-Scott]

The people who tend to oppose the lockdowns are those who have an established job or career that they still depend on heavily (i.e., retirement isn't yet a good option). Especially if remote work isn't an option for them.

I think it's worth breaking this group into two. As you stated, the ones in this group who *can't* work remotely are obviously going to be more apt to be opposed to the lockdown, and are going to have an itching ear to hear what they want to hear as far as any new scientific evidence that gets released daily. I suspect that most people who are able to work remotely and aren't worried about losing their job are in the "better safe than sorry" pro-lockdown camp.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that anyone who is being hit hard financially by this decision (or, relatedly, is not directly impacted by their current paycheck, but is worried about the longer-term financial impact to their 401k's, for example) are more likely to be anti-lockdown.

As we look at the various demographics and where they stand, it seems obvious to me, but we should question whether their personal financial impact is coloring their perspective as to whether or not it's now "safe enough" to go back to work.

I still have no idea whether or not it's "safe enough" from a health-risk perspective to reopen the economy. I'm fortunate enough that I can work remotely and that any negative impact to my employer would be indirect and wouldn't be in the near-term. As such, I realize that I'm more fortunate than many others. I also try to put myself in the shoes of others who aren't so fortunate. I wish there was an easy answer to this, but I don't think there is one, yet.

For anyone who is gung-ho about reopening the economy, let me ask you this, though:

1) Would you be willing to sign a contract which allowed you to go back to work with the stipulation that should you get sick with COVID-19, that hospitals would be allowed to put you in the back of the line (compared to someone who was not willing to sign such a contract)?
2) Should you get sick and someone who came in contact with you also got sick, and could show some level of evidence that they may have gotten sick from you, would you agree that it should be allowable for that person to sue you for financial damages? Should that person die, would it be reasonable to consider that criminal charges might be filed against you and you might serve time in prison?

I'm not advocating for either of those things, but just throwing them out as thought exercises. As I stated above, my heart goes out to anyone that is being hit hard by the current situation, whether health-wise or financially.

[shekels]

For anyone who is gung-ho about reopening the economy, let me ask you this, though:

1) Would you be willing to sign a contract which allowed you to go back to work with the stipulation that should you get sick with COVID-19, that hospitals would be allowed to put you in the back of the line (compared to someone who was not willing to sign such a contract)?
2) Should you get sick and someone who came in contact with you also got sick, and could show some level of evidence that they may have gotten sick from you, would you agree that it should be allowable for that person to sue you for financial damages? Should that person die, would it be reasonable to consider that criminal charges might be filed against you and you might serve time in prison?

I'm not advocating for either of those things, but just throwing them out as thought exercises. As I stated above, my heart goes out to anyone that is being hit hard by the current situation, whether health-wise or financially.

"1) Would you be willing to sign a contract which allowed you to go back to work with the stipulation that should you get sick with COVID-19, that hospitals would be allowed to put you in the back of the line (compared to someone who was not willing to sign such a contract)? "

If you agree that Overweight persons with Diabetes and Smoking related disease along with a host of other ailments that are contributable to peoples actions have the same contract.

"2) Should you get sick and someone who came in contact with you also got sick, and could show some level of evidence that they may have gotten sick from you, would you agree that it should be allowable for that person to sue you for financial damages? Should that person die, would it be reasonable to consider that criminal charges might be filed against you and you might serve time in prison?"

If you agree You can be Sued for false claims and the burden of proof is on you to prove such claims. 'Innocent till Proven Guilty"
Then comes into Question of how did you get the Virus to pass it on.
Also what if Criminal Charges are filed if you pass on the the Flu, Measles, Chicken Pox?
Maybe we could put a Star on peoples clothing to see who is at fault.

For people who are not Gung-ho to open the Economy we could also ask the question. WHY?

[CT-Scott]

"1) Would you be willing to sign a contract which allowed you to go back to work with the stipulation that should you get sick with COVID-19, that hospitals would be allowed to put you in the back of the line (compared to someone who was not willing to sign such a contract)? "

If you agree that Overweight persons with Diabetes and Smoking related disease along with a host of other ailments that are contributable to peoples actions have the same contract.

That's a great response. Someone may have some good counterarguments to this point, but I can't think of a great one at the moment.

"2) Should you get sick and someone who came in contact with you also got sick, and could show some level of evidence that they may have gotten sick from you, would you agree that it should be allowable for that person to sue you for financial damages? Should that person die, would it be reasonable to consider that criminal charges might be filed against you and you might serve time in prison?"

If you agree You can be Sued for false claims and the burden of proof is on you to prove such claims. 'Innocent till Proven Guilty"
Then comes into Question of how did you get the Virus to pass it on.
Also what if Criminal Charges are filed if you pass on the the Flu, Measles, Chicken Pox?
Maybe we could put a Star on peoples clothing to see who is at fault.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there have already been cases where someone has been prosecuted when they had HIV, had sex with someone without informing them ahead of time, and then that other person contracted HIV. I think in the current Coronatimes we've also seen a couple of cases of people being arrested/cited for intentionally coughing on someone. So you're points have merit, but I think we could see more of this.

For people who are not Gung-ho to open the Economy we could also ask the question. WHY?

Well, I think my post discussed several concerns. Is it not obvious to you why a lot of people are concerned about reopening the economy while so much is still unknown about the virus (including whether having antibodies are adequate protection) and while no definite cure/treatment/vaccines have been determined yet?

[Libertarian666]

Tomfoolery, you had me until the last 2 paragraphs. Those last 2 paragraphs are partially accurate, but what does it have to do with the rest of your argument?

And please tell me how Boomers 'pillaged SS and Medicare'. They and their employers paid into the system for an entire career with the expectation that they would receive certain benefits when they retired. It is not Boomers' fault that this government created Ponzi scheme is now running out of money. Don't get me started on how pension promises made to federal, state, county and municipal employees are sacred on the backs of taxpayers but everyone else: too bad.

Agreed.

[shekels]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there have already been cases where someone has been prosecuted when they had HIV, had sex with someone without informing them ahead of time, and then that other person contracted HIV. I think in the current Coronatimes we've also seen a couple of cases of people being arrested/cited for intentionally coughing on someone. So you're points have merit, but I think we could see more of this.

Yes there has been cases with HIV. This has to do with Intent

For people who are not Gung-ho to open the Economy we could also ask the question. WHY?
Well, I think my post discussed several concerns. Is it not obvious to you why a lot of people are concerned about reopening the economy while so much is still unknown about the virus (including whether having antibodies are adequate protection) and while no definite cure/treatment/vaccines have been determined yet?

Yes and most likely there will never be a vaccine. So if is health reason should we structure our economy to not allow Heart Disease, Diabetes, Car accidents . Or should people take some responsibility from their actions and avoid the best they can without shutting down the country?
Texas is not New York or Fla or Michigan. You are not safe leaving you House. Death comes to us all but there are things you can do to forestall it.

[CT-Scott]

The comments about Social Security seem off-topic, but we've never let that stop us before here, so I'll just chime in briefly...

I recognize SS as being a Ponzi scheme. It's also been shown that a lot of the higher-earners put more in than they will ever get back out, and a lot of lower-earners end up getting more out of it than they ever put into it.

I've been open to the notion of abolishing it altogether, but now that I've put in so much to it for many years (and as a high-earner), I personally/selfishly look forward to hopefully getting some money back from the government one day to supplement my other retirement savings.

You never know what the future brings, but I personally wouldn't get too worried about it becoming insolvent and not getting anything out of it. I think it would be too big of a hot button for them to ever allow that to happen. I do anticipate that they may come up with new ways to underreport inflation levels, so as to minimize how big the checks will be. Similarly, I fully anticipate new ways they'll dream up to decrease payouts to people who have large savings accounts, or some such thing. So, it's possible that many of us could get really screwed over on that when it comes time to collect. Hopefully if it's based on the size of my savings account being too big, then that should mean that I'll still be doing OK, even if I get little-to-nothing from SS.

[Kbg]

I kinda like the idea of let the states handle it mostly and the Federal government can handle interstate/international policy. Why should it be that one size must fit all...that's how it is argued most of the time.

I live in a more rural state and distance clearly makes a difference in the statistics so we should probably have different policy than say NY and NJ where it has clearly had a devastating effect. Only a complete and utter moron would deny that and anyone would say otherwise for those two states instantly gets put on my I will never pay attention to anything they say/write again list.

Everything in life isn't binary. Too many people try to make it so.

One thing that I do believe the administration and commerce gets a big F- for is testing resources. This should have gone to the front of the line for focus and a solution. Good data really is a necessity to intelligently make decisions on this issue.

Finally, this is yet another issue where you can just turn off the news and get a pretty good idea of what is going on and what works or does not work by just looking at the data.

[Kriegsspiel]

All of these percentages are, as they say, problematic.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Mountaineer]

All of these percentages are, as they say, problematic.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

On the surface, it is very problematic, but I think a lot of those people feel like the problem is being made to seem worse than it is, and that the 'treatment' (i.e., ruining the economy and bankrupting millions) may be worse than the disese.

Very problematic indeed. 53% to 84% the people would rather live in North Korea, former USSR, Venezuela, etc. Surely not! That had to have been a strangely worded poll question - I hope.

[Kriegsspiel]

That had to have been a strangely worded poll question - I hope.

Page 62:

54355.png (56.66 KiB) Viewed 5947 times

[Xan]

That had to have been a strangely worded poll question - I hope.

Page 62:

54355.png

Wow... The use of "some" in each of the options makes it clear that people believe there is NO case in which liberty is more important than safety. NO case!

[shekels]

That had to have been a strangely worded poll question - I hope.

Page 62:

54355.png

Let the Take Over Proceed on schedule.

[vnatale]

That had to have been a strangely worded poll question - I hope.

Page 62:

54355.png

Why the surprise? The government's reactions to 9/11 and the public's subsequent compliance to all these reactions already well demonstrated all of this.

Vinny