The Hill Belches Dem Sweep ‘Would Bring Biggest Boost to Economy’

NewsBusters ^ | 9/29/2020 | Joseph Vazquez

[JV3MRC]

The Hill just did some vomit-inducing PR for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and other Democrats on the economy. It cited economists from an organization that had predicted economic disaster under Trump in 2016.

Also, one of those “economists,” is a Hillary Clinton donor. But, don’t expect The Hill to disclose that.

The outlet pushed a propaganda piece headlined, “Analysis: Biden victory, Democratic sweep would bring biggest boost to economy.” Reporter Sylvan Lane Lane referenced Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist, “registered Democrat,” and Hillary Clinton donor Mark Zandi and associate economist Bernard Yaros, who reportedly modeled four potential outcomes of the November 2020 elections. Not surprisingly, the two economists, showing their leftist bent, “argued that a total Democratic sweep would bring the biggest boost to the economy because of Biden’s plans to spend trillions on infrastructure, education and the social safety net while boosting trade and immigration.” Ridiculously, they “argued that the higher taxes proposed to fund part of these plans would not slow the economy in a meaningful way.”

[hanamizu]

So, you’re gullible and believing of all government propaganda numbers. Got it. I don’t discuss issues with idiots.

---

Perhaps I am gullible. It’s not that I believe all government propaganda numbers, I’m just looking at the numbers that are available. What kind of numbers are you looking at and where do they come from?

I simply have a hard time believing that Covid/Wuhan/CCP virus is “just the flu” and there is nothing really there to worry about and that the shutdown of big parts of the American economy is 100% political. I have no doubt that much of it is political and that democrats would love to tank the economy and blame President Trump.

But that fails to explain why Netanyahu shut down Israel at the beginning of the Jewish holiday or why Boris Johnson is talking about keeping Britain shut down until Christmas. And France is reimposing restrictions in parts of the country as well. I realize you have a policy of not discussing issues with idiots, but do you have an explanation for these moves overseas?

[hanamizu]

No..but that’s a bogus argument with a bogus %

---

I’m in the happy age group that has about a 5% chance of dying from the virus should I catch it. I’m not living in fear, but I have been avoiding large crowds, etc.

I would not drive a car, nor do I think would you, if 5% of all car trips ended in fatalities. I’m quite aware that air travel is safer than car travel, except of course when it isn’t.

And I do understand that a 5% death rate also means a 95% recovery rate, which is good, wonderful even, but I’d still rather not catch it.

[antidisestablishment]

Sorry, perhaps you’re correct for >70.

That’s the best guess at the moment; however, the excess death rates are falling quickly won’t support this long term. If you look at the trends, we should be below pandemic rates by Oct-Nov. That’s if we don’t see another spike.

[central_va]

Major gas lighting ops going on here.

[M-cubed]

where are you getting your 5% number?????

I believe that's a bogus number to start with...

[hanamizu]

where are you getting your 5% number?????
I believe that’s a bogus number to start with...

---

This is from the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

It might be bogus, I don’t know. On the other hand, what other sources are there? I haven’t taken the time to check, but I’m sure Britain’s NHS has statistics available for death rates there. Canada likely as well.