DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus It's taxpayer funds!

On my FB feed this morning are numerous Repubs asking if the tRumpf haters are going to accept and thank tRumpf for the $1000 check they think he's cutting everyone to help out..

First off, It's taxpayer cash I believe that would have to be approved by Congress, second why would I thank tRumpf for giving me my own money?

Now If he's going to cut me a check from his personal account, then I would see the need to be appreciative and say thanks.

Somehow I doubt the donald gives that much of a damn.

At least he is giving back some of my tax money. Only other President that ever gave back some of my tax money was W.

I would rather get my tax money back than some deadbeat getting it for doing nothing.

Somehow I don't think you understand the Chinese have waged war. More people are going to go bankrupt or be nearly broke after seeing a 401 with $800,000...working folks, end up with nearly nothing. Be happy for that. Guess what, the super rich are still going to be better. Broker and advisors protect the big clients first. People who worked for 40 years and have a decent sum take the back burner.

China released this thing knowing it would grind us to a halt heading towards elections. You want to talk about election interference?

Wake up my friend, it is happening before your eyes. Russia is in on it too with their price war with the Arabs.


Good for you, we get senile Joe and everybody is broke.

That is a great America. Just what they want.

You are a friend, but comments like those make it hard to maintain. Figure it out.

My first thought was why would Trump give a penny out of his pocket to an ingrate like him ...

Its very sad watching hate overwhelm the minds of folks that are normally intelligent ... very sad ... this is just another example of that hate rearing its ugly head ...

All y’all MAGA hatters make sure to burn those checks, you welfare queens. Socialism sucks, remember? Lol don’t spend a dime of it.

Wouldn't socialism be more when they take peoples money and give it to someone else?

Besides I'd rather they give money to the us, the people, rather than just bailing out companies again and leaving all the people to lose their homes and get deeper in debt.

Here come the bailouts again. Tax payers will get chump change and trump’s billionaire buddies like Bloomberg will take the cream again.

Alex Jones, is that you?

It does cause me to feel sorry for you.

I think one would first have to believe that many of the low wage, fast food and grocery workers pay in to the tax base. Most people understand that those on the low end of the wage spectrum, especially those with a family, already get back more in refunds than they actually pay in. So won't they actually be getting "someone elses money"?



I know I'll get smacked in the head by progressives for say this, but I think a balance has to be struck. I do agree it's critical to get money into the hands of working people who will be, and are losing their jobs. I see that as the more immediate and dire need.

On the flip side of the coin, giving them temporary help until this thing subsides, won't help in the long term if the companies they work for go belly up and they have no jobs to return to.

Agreed, and it is why I included the word "just" in the sentence "rather than just bailing out companies".

There are many small business that will need help as well, my best friend runs a small printing shop, 4 people. Hurricane Irma nearly made him close up shop because he paid his workers for the time off while electric was out (10 days). 2 of them ended up collecting FEMA money while out of work, which kind of ticked him off.

It will certainly take a multipronged approach that must be inclusive. I would say it's safe to say that some will fall through the cracks. That isn't a Democrat or republican thing. It's a federal government thing.

Well we know who is hoarding the tinfoil.

If you want to keep the economy going the checks should be $2000 to every household monthly until this is over. You can set limits if you want, but people will spend this money into the economy almost immediately helping businesses and people with the same money. JMHO

Trickle up for a change.

Blasphemy!

So if you hate trump and accept this money, you are a hypocrite.

What's that make a trump supporter that accepts this money,,,,,Oh,, Yeah.. A socialist....

I think limits are being set to not create a panic any more than we are already seeing. If you notice, most every corporation, sports entity, state and local government are using short term time lines for postponing things.

Most of us know those will be extended. But if you go into it saying they are being postponed for long periods of time, it sets up a mind set that this thing will last for a very long time. We know it will be, but setting the stage in everyone's mind I don't see as positive.

Why do you think Trump has started calling it "The Chinese virus".

It removes all of his shortcomings to feed into the idea of the conspiracy theorists and those who wish to absolve him of what he has, or in this case, hasn't done.

They must find a foreign entity to blame and accuse.

Because it draws the spotlight to him, good or bad, he likes to be the center of attention.

Extremely unprofessional IMO.

Through history, and over the last century especially, diseases have frequently been named for the place where they first emerged. Examples follow:

Spanish Flu: An H1N1 flu virus which spread worldwide in 1918-1919, killing an estimated 50 million people. It’s not known exactly where it originated, but Spanish media were first to report on it, and the Spanish king contracted it, so the name was coined and stuck.

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): A coronavirus outbreak, first reported in Saudi Arabia, in 2012-13.

Ebola: a rare and deadly disease named for a river in Zaire, now DRC, in the 1970s.

Guinea Worm: Known for centuries under various names, but named for the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa in the 17th century.

West Nile virus: A mosquito-borne virus, named for West Nile region of Uganda where it was first isolated in the 1930s.

German Measles: Rubella, named not for its origin, but because German physicians were first to identify it in the 19th century.

Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever: Emerged in Omsk, Russia in the 1940s.

Marburg virus: An Ebola-type hemorrhagic virus named for a town in Germany where an outbreak occurred in a lab in the 1960s.

Lassa fever: A hemorrhagic fever named for a town in Nigeria where it was identified in the 1960s.

St. Louis Encephalitis: Named for St. Louis, Missouri, where an epidemic emerged in the 1930s.

La Crosse Encephalitis: Named for La Crosse, Wisconsin, in the 1960s.

Hantavirus: Linked to rodents, some strains can be lethal to humans. Named for the Hantan river in South Korea, where it was isolated in the 1970s.

Ross River Fever: A flu-like disease traced to Ross River, Australia, in the 1920s.

Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever: A tick-borne infection named for the Rocky Mountains, since the 1920s.

Lyme Disease: Named for Lyme, Conn., the location of a 1970s outbreak

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the latest conspiracy theories being floated around at the exact time he changed to China Virus. The entire planet was calling it the Coronavirus. It already had a name.

Dude, this isn't just about billionaires. This is about people who worked 40 years and managed to accumulate $600-700,000 in a IRA that is getting wiped out.

That is what you need to be worried about. Don't worry about the billionaires. They have enough that their golden parachute is going to land them nicely.

It's about the millions upon millions of workers, be it the shop floor or office who stand to get wiped out.

That is the shrinking middle and upper middle class.

Maybe that is something not important to you, but it is to me because damn near everybody can attain that with effort.

Now I get your attack on me in the other thread. Sorry you are losing money in the markets bro. But grinding the poor into the dirt isn't going to change that. If you want it to bounce back, take care of the bottom and it will trickle up fast.

I don't see it as grinding anybody in to the ground. The Dems are using this to push political gain.

Solar panel tax cuts. Nobody is going to buy solar panels tomorrow. They are too bust looking for toilet paper and hand sanitizer.

I am losing plenty in the market, but all is good. I have been in a strong cash, gold, and bond position for a good while, so unless the fed goes broke, well, then we are all broke.


Look, I get the sarcasm. If trickle down doesn't work, trickle up doesn't work twice as fast.

Jobs is what powers the boat. If there are no jobs, workers aren't going to work.


And sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. Call it strange times. I just don't see a need to bicker politically over stupid stuff. Just free up the money. It is what it is, the markets have to work just like the banks have to work. You can't have panic selling.

If a bank has $1million in deposits from a million people, everybody can't show up at the door wanting to withdraw their $1. The money isn't there. Banks loan money and make money from that. People want to buy a house, or the farmer wants to plant a crop and needs $30. Scale it up from raw, simple numbers.

Well I've never seen anything like what we are going through right now. A few months ago, I would have thought it impossible to hear the government tell everybody to stay home. And even though I think Trump is an idiot, I would never imagine him tanking the economy in this way, voluntarily. End of the day this is new territory, we've never had this much to lose on both sides of the scale where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I personally think you have to put lives first because the money is just a man made concept like our entire economy... it can be rebuilt or remade. But we are not going to replace a million people or 100 thousand people like we could money.

But I understand financial loss and it sucks ass too.

spewing crap like this with no data = BS.

NOW THIS IS A BAILOUT PACKAGE

Pelosi $2.5 Trillion Plan Has Mortgage Reprieve: Congress Update

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-2-5-trillion-virus-005743928.html

Dems once again bailing out the individual Americans FIRST. Now that’s KAG for you. This wouldn’t even help me cause loI have no debt. But for the mass majority of Americans, NOT the privileged few, this would be ideal.

This is big and bold and the kind of action we need.

this is basically the right on social media right now. fox news and the GOP included.

D: We want to increase SS payments.
R: No.

D: We want guarantees for sick pay.
R: No.

D: We want to know which corporations get bailout $.
R: No.

D: We want to prevent companies from using bailout $ for stock buybacks.
R: No.

D: Money for all families?
R: No.

D: Focus on hospitals and healthcare workers?
R: No.

D: Some kind of oversight?
R: No.

D: ...
R: Ok. Bill is done. Vote for it now please.

D: No.
R: Why are you being obstructionist?

[url=ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli...r/#2a45399e3ceb][url=ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli...r/#2a45399e3ceb][url=ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli...r/#2a45399e3ceb]ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli...r/#2a45399e3ceb[/url][/url][/url]

This is an article from Forbes this morning of the highlights of the house democrats bill: If you want to read the 1400 page bill, there is a link if you want to read.
Their stimulus check for a family of 5 making under 150k would be $7,500.
Enhanced unemployment checks, special rules for dipping into your 401, lots of other stuff

One area that gets completely looked over is the Cruise ship industry



You Thought The Senate Stimulus Bill Was Huge? House: Hold My Beer
Kelly Phillips Erb
Kelly Phillips ErbSenior Contributor
Taxes

Last week, the Senate introduced what I described as "a massive bill" intended to provide direct economic relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. That bill didn't move forward over the weekend. The House responded with "hold my beer." The Senate version of the bill was 247 pages long. But the House Democrats’ version? It's 1,404 pages long. Not a typo. 1,404 pages long.

The House version has been dubbed the "Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act." You can read it here (downloads as a PDF). But since you probably won't - and neither will many members of Congress - follows are some of the highlights (settle in):

Spending. The first two hundred pages (or so) provide funding for various government agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of Prisons, for coronavirus programs. In addition to paying the Architect of the Capitol and salaries for Senate Employee Child Care Center, the bill would provide additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus."

Today In: Taxes

Paid Family Leave. The bill amends (and expands) the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The bill would apply to private and public sector employees, no matter the size of the employer. Employees who have been on the job for at least 30 calendar days would be entitled to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave to respond to the coronavirus. This would include self-quarantines and care for family members. Specifically, employees would be entitled to two full weeks of unpaid leave, and then receive a reduced benefit. Costs to employers would be offset by tax credits.

Paid Sick Leave. The bill would also provide relief for sick employees, again, regardless of the size of the employer. Specifically, eligible full-time employees would be entitled to two weeks of emergency paid sick leave to take care of themselves or family members.

PROMOTED

Medicaid, Medicare, and Private Insurance. The bill would provide additional resources for Medicaid and Medicare. Among other things, tests for COVID-19 would be at no cost to those on Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance. A special enrollment period would allow uninsured folks to get coverage through the exchanges, and would provide subsidies for those eligible for COBRA.

Unemployment. About a third of the way through the bill (whew), the House tackles unemployment. The bill would provide an "emergency enhancement" or temporary unemployment compensation (UC) of $600 a week for workers eligible for state or federal UC benefits; this would be in addition to regular state or federal UC benefits. Some coverage would also be made available to self-employed individuals, with reduced benefits payable to those entering the workforce.

Housing. This bill would temporarily ban landlords from filing evictions on most renters and would provide financial assistance to renters. Homeowners would be protected, too, with a ban on foreclosures and repossessions, as well as mortgage forbearance, for some time after the pandemic ends.

Debt Collection. Debt collectors would be barred from taking action, including suing in court, against consumers, small businesses, or non-profits for some time after the pandemic ends.

Student loans. Like the Senate bill, the House bill would also provide relief for student borrowers, including those with private loans.

Small Business Loans & Debts. The bill would provide loans to qualifying small businesses, including independent contractors, at zero percent interest if the small business doesn't terminate employees during the pandemic; forgiveness would be available for companies that meet specific hiring criteria. The bill would also extend protections for small businesses who owe debts.

Buybacks. On page 712 (!), we finally get to one of the provisions that reportedly stalled the original bill in the Senate: buybacks. Under this version of the bill, companies would be barred from making stock buybacks until the crisis has ended.

Restrictions on Aid. And on page 727 (!), the House includes language that was another sticking point. Under the proposal, corporations that receive federal aid under the bill would be subject to restrictions including limits on executive bonuses, bans on golden parachutes (excess compensation for executives with separation packages), stock buybacks (yes, again), dividend payments, and spending money on lobbyists.

Current Students. As in the Senate bill, the proposal would allow more flexibility for students who were unable to remain enrolled in school as a result of a qualifying emergency.

Voting. Much has been made of the voting provisions in the bill. The idea is to provide mechanisms for voting in federal elections during a state of emergency, public health emergency, or national emergency, including infectious disease. Considering that I'm trying to figure out how the self-quarantine will allow me to vote in my state primaries, I appreciate the idea. But did we need 60-some pages of voting legislation just now? The House felt that we did.

Federal employee protections. As expected, the proposal provides for federal employees, including telework opportunities and childcare reimbursement.

Aviation Industry Bailouts/Relief. Call it what you want, but the bill would offer relief for those in the airline industry, including airports and small community air service. Contrary to rumor, the bill does not extend similar assistance to the cruise industry (in fact, I believe the word "cruise" appears just once in the bill). On the consumer side, the bill would also prohibit price gouging and would require refunds during national emergencies. And yes, you've already seen the headlines, so you know there are environmental requirements which include mandating airlines who receive federal assistance to fully offset their carbon emissions starting in 2025.

Stimulus Checks. You and I both know why you're really here, but the House makes you wait around for the goods. Stimulus checks don't make an appearance until nearly 1,100 pages into the bill. Under the proposal, the government would provide an "economic assistance amount" to taxpayers. Checks would be more significant than in the Senate proposal, up to $1,500 per adult, or $3,000 for married couples filing jointly, as well as $1,500 per child (sorry, no more than three kids). That would make the base amount for immediate payments $7,500 for a family of five. Checks would start to phaseout for those earning more than $75,000 ($150,000 for joint returns and surviving spouses), but unlike the Senate proposal, there's also an amount for a head of household: $112,500. Checks would be based on 2020 income even though we haven’t yet filed 2020 returns (it’s a head-scratcher). As with the Senate proposal, the check would be treated as an advance against a tax credit. Unlike the Senate proposal, you wouldn’t have to have earned income to get the checks: unemployed individuals still qualify. And as with the Senate bill, checks would not be subject to reduction, offset, or levy.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC). The proposal would tweak the requirements for the EITC, allowing young adults who are not students with no qualifying children to claim the credit. It would also remove the earned income piece from CTC calculations and boost the value to $3,000 with a more substantial credit ($3,600) for children under the age of six.

Net Operating Losses (NOL). Taxpayers and tax professionals can breathe a sigh of relief that NOL provisions made it into this proposal, too (NOLs are also addressed in the Senate proposal). This bill would allow businesses to carry back losses from 2018, 2019, and 2020 to the past five years. Restrictions would apply.

Payroll Tax Credit. Employers who hold onto employees during the pandemic would be eligible for a refundable payroll tax credit. The 80% credit would offset the employer's share of Social Security taxes up to $10,000 per employee. Limitations apply, including limits on the number of employees (fewer than 1,500 employees) and a requirement that the employer demonstrate certain losses.

Filing Deadlines. As with the Senate bill, the House bill would push off the filing deadline for individual 2019 tax returns to July 15, 2020 - again, moot since the filing deadline was officially extended on March 20, 2020. This bill would also extend the due date for estimated payments for 2020 to October 15, 2020. In other words, there would be no need to write separate checks for the skipped April and July estimated payment dates if the proposal passes.

Special Rules for Retirement Accounts. The bill would allow for tax-favored "coronavirus-related" distributions from individual retirement plans.

RMDs. I just wrote my Senators about this today (yes, really). I've received several emails from readers asking about temporary waivers of RMDs from retirement plans while markets are down. The House proposal would waive RMDs for 2020.

No Inclusion of Certain Over-The-Counter Medical Products As Qualified Medical Expenses. 1404 pages and nary a mention of menstrual care products. I only bring this up because I was perplexed (but I'm not gonna lie, not sorry) to see a provision in the Senate bill that would extend qualifying medical expenses treatment for menstrual products to MSAs, HSAs, HRAs and the like. That didn't make it into the House bill.

No Charitable Contributions Provisions. Also not in this version? Language to move some charitable contributions above-the-line, or suspend the limits on cash donations for individuals. Both were in the Senate bill.

Other Matters. The bill does, however, finish up with about 50 pages of "other matters."

As before, keep in mind that this is just a proposal - and it's my first read of the bill (so please don't send angry emails). It's long: did I mention that? And it’s super, super dense. I slogged through as best I could. And here's my takeaway: This isn't getting through the House and the Senate. So, take this summary with a grain of salt and please (please) don't run out and spend that stimulus check that you don't yet have in hand.

Remember, this bill is in addition to HR 6201, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which already passed in the Senate. You can read more about the highlights of the bill in our prior coverage here. The President signed the bill into law on March 18, 2020.

It's also in addition to the $8.3 billion emergency health package, passed earlier this month.

Clearly, things are happening at a rapid-fire pace these days. As tax updates become available, we'll keep you updated. Keep checking back for details.

Lol and Moscow Mitch is literally saying right now we’re in this together. BS he’s full of it. The economy was great we can last a few weeks without a paycheck. He’s using deplorable scare tactics on the public stage. What a traitor. Always projecting his flaws and incompetent leadership on the Dems. Pffft the trump era

Dems actually want the majority of americans taken care of.

its almost as if people are mad the house dems are doing what they were elected to do.

The GOP’ers only care about the stock market. Screw the real tax payers!

bro they are pumping EVEN MORE money in the market as we speak.

snap of the fingers for the elites, slow roll for everyone else.

I see that. Te gov’t isn’t protecting us. They are using us to save themselves. Both sides. I lost 2 sources of income last week. I’m ok because I’ve been saving but I’m not doing any federal taxes or paying Utility bills or mortgage until federal relief comes. So they’re on the clock not me. No skin off my nose.

j/c

Fox News hosts eye shutdown end as Trump says 'cure' can't be worse than 'problem'

President Trump and some of the biggest voices on Fox News started to aggressively push the same message on Monday: That the strict measures currently in place to halt the spread of the coronavirus cannot last indefinitely and should, perhaps, be eased after the 15-day shutdown period. "We can't let the cure be worse than the problem," Trump said at the daily briefing, repeatedly hammering home that same message.

At the briefing, Trump said he didn't want a medical problem to become an economic problem, seemingly disregarding the fact that the two are closely linked. The President added that decisions on how to tackle the pandemic should not solely be left to medical professionals. "If it were up to the doctors, they may say, 'Let's shut down the entire world,'" Trump said, adding, "You know, we can't do that."

That line of thinking sounded awfully similar to what Fox personalities have started to argue. "Our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces — whipping up fear over this virus," Fox host Steve Hilton said Sunday. "They can afford an indefinite shutdown. Working Americans can't, they'll be crushed by it." On Monday morning, Laura Ingraham tweeted that doctors "should not be the determinative voices in policy making now or at the end of 15 days." And Larry Kudlow appeared on Fox to argue that "the cure can't be worse than the disease."

Even Tucker Carlson, who has been one of the voices on Fox that has taken the coronavirus seriously, said, "You can't just let epidemiologists run a country of more than 320 million people." Carlson said it was "vital" to find a "balance" between fighting the virus and allowing the economy to function. Carlson later hosted Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick who suggested grandparents "take a chance" on their "survival" in "exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren." Patrick said, "If that's the exchange, I'm all in."

Moore and Laffer also lobbying

Over at WaPo, the newspaper reported Monday that Stephen Moore and Art Laffer— two Fox regulars — have also been "lobbying the White House for more than a week to consider scaling back the recommendation that restaurants, stores and other gathering spots be closed." Moore told WaPo, "From my sources, the view in the White House is shifting toward getting the economy reopened."

There is some dissent

Not everyone at Fox is on board with Trump's idea. Fox Business reporter Charles Gasparino, who is often blunt in his assessments of the President, pushed back against the idea of ending the shutdown. Gasparino said "the hospital systems" can't likely "take the flood of patients" that will need to be admitted if those policies are lifted. "They haven't been prepared because, essentially, central government was downplaying it for so long," Gasparino added.

Hayes' point

MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted Monday, "I'm watching the 'just let the virus do it's thing and keep the economy humming' school of thought grow on the right. And it seems worth noting something crucial." Hayes wrote, "Just think of the economics of this: if you stopped lockdowns, and sent everyone back to work, lots and lots of people would get sick. You'd have workplaces where half the staff were out. And this would roll through all kinds of places, people who maintain the electrical grid and water treatment and sewage systems, etc."

"Not only that, as the hospitals filled up and horror stories emerged, you'd have tons of deaths from things other than Covid-19 that couldn't get treated," Hayes added. "This would make ppl more scared of getting the bug and lead to further retreat. Which is to say, even if you care about economic activity as the only value here, it's really not clear that anything like 'business as usual' is even a possibility in the midst of a roaring pandemic, even if you let everything stay open."

Trump to do Fox town hall

I would expect that questions about the shutdown and what will happen at the end of the 15-day period will arise Tuesday when Trump and members of his coronavirus task force join Fox for a virtual town hall. The event is set to take place at 12pm ET and will be moderated by Harris Faulkner and Bill Hemmer. Doctors Marc Siegel, Nicole Saphier, and Mehemet Oz will also join...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/media/fox-news-donald-trump-coronavirus-reliable-sources/index.html

Trump vows to reopen US economy even as deaths from coronavirus rise

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/m...oronavirus-rise

j/c


'Where's Fauci?' America panics as doctor absent again from White House briefing

Infectious disease expert, who has politely sparred with Trump, has become a calming presence in a time of deep uncertainty

Moments after Donald Trump approached the lectern to open the daily taskforce briefing on the coronavirus pandemic, mild panic broke among viewers online.

Where was Dr Anthony Fauci, the 79-year-old infectious disease expert who has become a regular fixture and a calming presence alongside the president?

The alarm reflected just how much the nation has come to rely on the wisdom of the straight-talking doctor from New York as the virus spreads, with the worst yet to come.

For the many anxious Americans tuning in from the confinement of their homes, Fauci is avoice of reason in a time of deep uncertainty. And his absence at yet another briefing raised was cause for concern.

Had he been sidelined for contradicting the president? Was he ill?

Asked about his absence by a Guardian reporter, Trump said: “I was just with him” – explaining that Fauci was “at a taskforce meeting”. A White House official confirmed Fauci’s attendance at earlier meetings that day and insisted his absence was in keeping with a commitment to rotate speakers “depending on the news of the day”.

Fauci himself attempted to allay concerns about his current status – professionally and physiologically. Reached at his home on Sunday, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told Science magazine that he was “exhausted” but otherwise “good”.

“I mean, I’m not, to my knowledge, coronavirus-infected,” he said, adding with a laugh: “To my knowledge, I haven’t been fired.”
Trump vows to reopen US economy even as deaths from coronavirus rise
Read more

But the doctor went further. He conceded that some of what Trump has said does not “comport” with the facts. Fauci, who has served six US presidents, said he is working with the members of the taskforce to ensure Trump shares accurate information from the podium about the coronavirus, but admitted that it can be a difficult task.

“But I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down,” Fauci said. “OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.”

From behind the podium, Trump has repeatedly made inaccurate or misleading claims about the coronavirus outbreak from the availability of testing to the development of a vaccine. And on more than one occasion, it has fallen to Fauci to politely but firmly correct the president – sometimes in real time.

At recent briefings, Trump, acting on instinct, has promoted a widely-available malaria drug as a possible antidote to Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Asked by a reporter if it was true that the drug could prevent the disease, Fauci was blunt.

“The answer is no,” he replied, explaining in his distinctive Brooklyn accent that the science was simply not there yet. “The information that you’re referring to specifically is anecdotal.”

Later in the briefing, Fauci placed a hand over his face when Trump interjected and referred to the state department as the “deep state department”. The doctor’s face-palm was an instant internet meme, even as some noted that he had touched his face in violation of public health guidelines.
Coronavirus: the week explained - sign up for our email newsletter
Read more

“I don’t want to embarrass him,” Fauci said of his diplomatic approach, in a weekend interview with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. “I don’t want to act like a tough guy, like I stood up to the president. I just want to get the facts out.”

Trump, ever reluctant to share the spotlight, has taken note of Fauci’s heightened national profile – the interviews, the TV appearances and the dedicated following. Inviting him to speak at a press conference last week, Trump remarked: “I think everybody out here knows you pretty well.”

He added: “Tony has been doing a tremendous job working long, long hours. And you’ve seen a lot happen, but this has been – it’s been a great experience, and working with you has been terrific.” That was 13 March.

Ten days later, Trump’s opinion of the doctor appears not to have been dimmed by their disagreements.

“I like Dr Fauci a lot,” he told reporters on Monday.

But did Fauci agree with Trump’s latest declaration – that he could soon begin easing restrictions on social distancing and public activities recommended by public health officials to help contain the spread of the coronavirus?

Trump paused, then replied: “Well, he doesn’t not agree.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/dr-fauci-press-conference-white-house-coronavirus

You not can’t not make this stuff up.

Congrats!

That is probably the biggest crybaby piece you have ever posted.

You don’t even know who to congratulate for it.

That's pretty much the only kind of BS you can post when confronted with the facts.