OT Coronavirus: America in chaos, News and Updates. One million Americans dead and counting (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SlyPokerDog
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trump-rewrites-the-book-on-emergencies-11587142872
Trump Rewrites the Book on Emergencies
For the first time in U.S. history, an administration is responding to a crisis with deregulation and decentralization.
By
Christopher DeMuth
April 17, 2020 1:01 pm ET
Washington’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is upending one of the most durable patterns of American politics. Throughout history, national emergencies have led to a more powerful and centralized federal government and to the transfer of federal power from Congress to the executive branch. This time, the federal response rests largely on state and local government and private enterprise, with a wave of deregulation clearing the way. The Trump administration has seized no new powers, and Congress has stayed energetically in the game.
The historical pattern is powerful and might have seemed inevitable. In times of war, natural disaster and economic upheaval, action is king. The president and his officials and agencies can act with much greater dispatch than Congress can. They may be forgiven for crossing statutory or even constitutional boundaries—in a crisis, the test of legitimacy is perceived effectiveness. But emergency actions often set precedents for normal times.
Moreover, crises generate proposals for preventing their recurrence. These typically take the form of an agency that, with the benefit of hindsight, could have nipped the crisis in the bud. Positing an omnicompetent government authority is political misdirection: It elides the profound problems of uncertainty and conflicting information and interpretation that precede every catastrophe. That is a sure recipe for highly concentrated, discretionary power.
These tendencies were dramatically on display in the first two national emergencies of the 21st century, 9/11 and the 2008 financial collapse. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration and Congress created two gigantic agencies with extraordinary powers and insulation from congressional control, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence was centralized and bureaucratized; federal police powers were extended down to driver’s licenses and much else; the administration established wide-ranging surveillance programs.
In response to the 2008 crisis, the administration arranged corporate mergers and bailouts with only fig leaves of statutory authority. It spent hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional appropriation. These crisis expedients provided the template for the Obama administration’s unilateral responses to mere political frustrations—congressional inaction on its climate change, immigration and other legislative proposals. At the same time, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 commissioned an army of new regulatory authorities with unprecedented discretion and autonomy.
It is not only crises that propel the administrative state. Lesser events of the 2000s—accounting scandals and a spike in energy prices—also led to new layers of freewheeling federal power. But major emergencies have unfailingly been major inflection points.
Until now. In responding to the coronavirus, the Trump administration has confined itself to longstanding statutory authorities that have been invoked routinely in responding to lesser emergencies. President Trump has used the Stafford Act of 1988 to provide states with emergency financial assistance—but has deferred to their decisions regarding social confinement, business closures, testing and treatment. He has employed the Defense Production Act of 1950 to cajole manufactures to prioritize urgently needed medical equipment—but has relied primarily on consultation, coordination and publicity to coach a private-sector-led mobilization. He has declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which can potentially trigger extraordinary regulatory powers—but so far he has used it only for deregulatory purposes, waiving Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules that restrict telemedicine and interstate medical practice.
Mr. Trump has received criticism from all sides for these measured responses. It is said, on the one hand, that he should aggressively commandeer state police powers and industrial resources to mount a uniform national response—and, on the other (sometimes by the same critics), that the crisis will sooner or later unleash the authoritarian ambitions Mr. Trump has supposedly been harboring all along.
His replies have been characteristically adamant. He has extolled his administration’s performance on the measures that are unarguably federal jurisdictions—restricting foreign travel, deploying the military’s medical resources, mobilizing production of materials in short supply and allocating them among states and cities, providing information on the spread of the virus and guidance on mitigation measures. He has been jealous of federal prerogatives and sharply critical of governors and business executives he regarded as uncooperative.
Trump Rewrites the Book on Emergencies
For the first time in U.S. history, an administration is responding to a crisis with deregulation and decentralization.
By
Christopher DeMuth
April 17, 2020 1:01 pm ET
Washington’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic is upending one of the most durable patterns of American politics. Throughout history, national emergencies have led to a more powerful and centralized federal government and to the transfer of federal power from Congress to the executive branch. This time, the federal response rests largely on state and local government and private enterprise, with a wave of deregulation clearing the way. The Trump administration has seized no new powers, and Congress has stayed energetically in the game.
The historical pattern is powerful and might have seemed inevitable. In times of war, natural disaster and economic upheaval, action is king. The president and his officials and agencies can act with much greater dispatch than Congress can. They may be forgiven for crossing statutory or even constitutional boundaries—in a crisis, the test of legitimacy is perceived effectiveness. But emergency actions often set precedents for normal times.
Moreover, crises generate proposals for preventing their recurrence. These typically take the form of an agency that, with the benefit of hindsight, could have nipped the crisis in the bud. Positing an omnicompetent government authority is political misdirection: It elides the profound problems of uncertainty and conflicting information and interpretation that precede every catastrophe. That is a sure recipe for highly concentrated, discretionary power.
These tendencies were dramatically on display in the first two national emergencies of the 21st century, 9/11 and the 2008 financial collapse. In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration and Congress created two gigantic agencies with extraordinary powers and insulation from congressional control, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Intelligence was centralized and bureaucratized; federal police powers were extended down to driver’s licenses and much else; the administration established wide-ranging surveillance programs.
In response to the 2008 crisis, the administration arranged corporate mergers and bailouts with only fig leaves of statutory authority. It spent hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional appropriation. These crisis expedients provided the template for the Obama administration’s unilateral responses to mere political frustrations—congressional inaction on its climate change, immigration and other legislative proposals. At the same time, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 commissioned an army of new regulatory authorities with unprecedented discretion and autonomy.
It is not only crises that propel the administrative state. Lesser events of the 2000s—accounting scandals and a spike in energy prices—also led to new layers of freewheeling federal power. But major emergencies have unfailingly been major inflection points.
Until now. In responding to the coronavirus, the Trump administration has confined itself to longstanding statutory authorities that have been invoked routinely in responding to lesser emergencies. President Trump has used the Stafford Act of 1988 to provide states with emergency financial assistance—but has deferred to their decisions regarding social confinement, business closures, testing and treatment. He has employed the Defense Production Act of 1950 to cajole manufactures to prioritize urgently needed medical equipment—but has relied primarily on consultation, coordination and publicity to coach a private-sector-led mobilization. He has declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which can potentially trigger extraordinary regulatory powers—but so far he has used it only for deregulatory purposes, waiving Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules that restrict telemedicine and interstate medical practice.
Mr. Trump has received criticism from all sides for these measured responses. It is said, on the one hand, that he should aggressively commandeer state police powers and industrial resources to mount a uniform national response—and, on the other (sometimes by the same critics), that the crisis will sooner or later unleash the authoritarian ambitions Mr. Trump has supposedly been harboring all along.
His replies have been characteristically adamant. He has extolled his administration’s performance on the measures that are unarguably federal jurisdictions—restricting foreign travel, deploying the military’s medical resources, mobilizing production of materials in short supply and allocating them among states and cities, providing information on the spread of the virus and guidance on mitigation measures. He has been jealous of federal prerogatives and sharply critical of governors and business executives he regarded as uncooperative.
RipCityDSCPL
Could be worse, at least it's not Lonzo.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,822
- Likes
- 3,423
- Points
- 113
How stupid can you be. Stay-at-home orders are the exact opposite to sending Jews to concentration camps. The Jews knew being sent to one meant their likely deaths. A stay-at-home order issued is to prevent death.
oldfisherman
Unicorn Wrangler
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Messages
- 3,806
- Likes
- 5,495
- Points
- 113
There is no doubt, she is a wacko.
She is to the extreme right wing what Sanders is to the extreme left wing.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
What an idiotic thing to say
Strenuus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,915
- Likes
- 36,291
- Points
- 113
How you doing riverman? Its been great seeing you. How you been doing during all of this?
CupWizier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 11,265
- Likes
- 7,664
- Points
- 113
I must have missed that highlighted part first time around as that's a totally hilarious statement that my post you responded to proved that I hate trump. Hell son, all you had to do is ask me if all my posts from the past hadn't convinced you.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Sounds fun. Wanna learn to juggle? I hear it’s great during this mitigation.
JoshuaHall
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,298
- Likes
- 1,387
- Points
- 113
It is a lightswitch, we shut things down and it shut off.
Also, your premise ignores the people who have already had the disease.
they’re much more likely to attend events, go to the gym, etc.
The faster people get infected — and recover — the more people who will be willing and able to go out in public.
This also ignores the population who are already willing to “risk it” because they think they are invincible ... look no further than the beaches in Jacksonville opening up.
Will it be “back to normal”? Probably not.
But we don’t need back to normal. ANYTHING that stimulates the economy would be beneficial, to some.
And applying it to my own life, if they lifted regulations, I’d go back to business as usual & fly back to the States.
I also assume it would be like going to a Portland Fire game back in the day... I could get nosebleed seats then end up front row.
Works for me.
If every state re-opened tomorrow do you think it wouldn’t have an impact (positively) on the economy? That seems like the bigger question. I would bet my life it would.
Not saying it’s the best idea ... but the economic argument is accurate and quite viable, imo.
JoshuaHall
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,298
- Likes
- 1,387
- Points
- 113
What’s it say about the people who continue to vote the same 2 parties into office then and fail to recognize that they have essentially the same goals and platforms?
the vast majority of voting Americans are too stupid to understand politics?
So if starts at the top, it starts with voters, and the people who continue to vote (R) or (D) are really the idiots.
BigGameDamian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 33,658
- Likes
- 13,644
- Points
- 113
The Professional Fan
Big League Scrub
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,851
- Likes
- 6,746
- Points
- 113
riverman
Writing Team
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 68,536
- Likes
- 67,753
- Points
- 113
I was born for life threatening epidemics!
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,501
- Likes
- 25,638
- Points
- 113
More like a transformer blowing. You gotta call the power company to climb the pole.
The trouble is, they aren't invincible. Thinking you have a superpower is not as good as actually having a superpower.
Where are you now?
I'm sure your argument is right in some sense - but the same argument says we shouldn't have shut it down to begin with. Just carry on as if nothing was happening. Let the bodies stack up and keep on keeping on. The business of America is business, after all.
barfo
crandc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 23,319
- Likes
- 30,206
- Points
- 113
Well of course, we all know Nazis were about keeping people from getting sick. Just like in 2009 we learned Nazis were about getting people health insurance.
crandc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 23,319
- Likes
- 30,206
- Points
- 113
Bullshit. Sanders isn't insane and he knows what a Nazi is.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,501
- Likes
- 25,638
- Points
- 113
No doubt the CDC fucked up. Also, the FDA fucked up. Also, the State Dept. fucked up. Dept. of Commerce fucked up. Dept. of Defense fucked up. The White House fucked up. The President fucked up.
Where was it that the buck stops?
barfo
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
The Professional Fan
Big League Scrub
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,851
- Likes
- 6,746
- Points
- 113
The hypocrisy has now reached fully painful and ridiculously stupid levels
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,226
- Likes
- 14,407
- Points
- 113
Reminds me of that famous Facebook post from a guy railing about Obamacare and, when challenged about what he'd do if he had no insurance, said he had nothing to worry about because he had a great plan through the ACA.
Sometimes, the awareness is lacking.
wizenheimer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24,961
- Likes
- 37,997
- Points
- 113
executive branch
executive branch
executive branch
executive branch
executive branch
executive branch
the executive
it only stops near this particular executive when he can stuff it in his pocket
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Looks like the what I expected was gonna happen. Once those taxes from businesses run dry, they will be laying off public workers.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-013523376.html
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-013523376.html
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,501
- Likes
- 25,638
- Points
- 113
All the states and cities are running out of money. The federal government will have to bail them out, but Trump doesn't want to yet.
He would like them to do him a favor, though.
barfo
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
https://www.okayafrica.com/africans-in-china-guangzhou-evicted-left-homeless-blamed-for-coronavirus/
Africans In China are Being Evicted from Their Homes and Blamed for Spreading Coronavirus
Footage of Africans sleeping on the streets of Guangzhou has caused outrage online. Now, African governments are putting pressure on Beijing to take action.
Fears of a second wave of coronavirus in China have led to widespread racism and xenophobia against African populations. Reports of Africans being forced out of their homes in Guangzhou, China have caused fear amongst its African community and backlash across social media.
As China faces more cases of the novel coronavirus, much of the blame has been placed on foreign nationals who are being accused of importing new cases into the country. Guangzhou, nicknamed "Little Africa," has the highest population of African immigrants—largely from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Uganda—who have long been a target of racial discrimination. Tensions further escalated over the weekend when Chinese state media reported that five Nigerians had contracted the virus and passed it onto a local restaurant owner.
Africans In China are Being Evicted from Their Homes and Blamed for Spreading Coronavirus
Footage of Africans sleeping on the streets of Guangzhou has caused outrage online. Now, African governments are putting pressure on Beijing to take action.
Fears of a second wave of coronavirus in China have led to widespread racism and xenophobia against African populations. Reports of Africans being forced out of their homes in Guangzhou, China have caused fear amongst its African community and backlash across social media.
As China faces more cases of the novel coronavirus, much of the blame has been placed on foreign nationals who are being accused of importing new cases into the country. Guangzhou, nicknamed "Little Africa," has the highest population of African immigrants—largely from Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Uganda—who have long been a target of racial discrimination. Tensions further escalated over the weekend when Chinese state media reported that five Nigerians had contracted the virus and passed it onto a local restaurant owner.
magnifier661
B-A-N-A-N-A-S!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 59,328
- Likes
- 5,588
- Points
- 113
Fail. The Cares Act gave them funding. The fact that you are trying to play like the federal government carries that purse is laughable.
wizenheimer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24,961
- Likes
- 37,997
- Points
- 113
I'm trying to think how big an impact relaxing the stay at home orders is really going to have
people aren't going to go to restaurants and bars. They'll cut their own hair rather than go to barbers. They aren't going to get their teeth cleaned. They won't be going to the movies.
I think people are really overestimating what relaxing restrictions will do for the economy. And I think they are really underestimating the impact if there's a major spike in infections. That will crater any resurgence in the economy and make things worse than they are now. People don't feel safe now....there's not going to be an explosion of economic activity until that fear is at a much lower level....IMO
people aren't going to go to restaurants and bars. They'll cut their own hair rather than go to barbers. They aren't going to get their teeth cleaned. They won't be going to the movies.
I think people are really overestimating what relaxing restrictions will do for the economy. And I think they are really underestimating the impact if there's a major spike in infections. That will crater any resurgence in the economy and make things worse than they are now. People don't feel safe now....there's not going to be an explosion of economic activity until that fear is at a much lower level....IMO
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,501
- Likes
- 25,638
- Points
- 113
Cares Act gave them some funding, mostly specifically for covid response. That doesn't begin to make up for their general budget shortfall due to the economic consequences.
You can say that it isn't a federal problem, which is the Trumpian answer to all problems, but then what is your preferred solution?
barfo
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,501
- Likes
- 25,638
- Points
- 113
The more gullible members of the Trump cult will welcome a painful death in the ICU if it means owning the libs.
barfo
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 45,748
- Likes
- 34,810
- Points
- 113
Letting people eat cake.