Complaining they want your money without conditions or that the Democrats won’t give them your money without conditions?
1 Like
My best works for the State Dept. He explained to me last that that both sides are trying to snake their way into some nonsense with this bill, but the Dems’ bullshit seemed far more WTF ?
I’m complaining that the Democrats are insisting a bunch of stuff that is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the Coronavirus be included.
How hard is that to understand?
That’s just it.
You can argue about how much goes to businesses and under what conditions vs how much goes to individuals. That’s what a good faith negotiation should look like.
This is just naked opportunism that will hopefully be remembered for a long time.
If I understood him correctly he said the Rep’s were using the $1000.00 as a tax refund advance and when taxes are filed you’d have to repay it, but that was about it on their end. The Dem’s loaded their end up with Greta Thunberg wish list shit.
So are the Republicans. Rand Paul had wanted provisions that were about Afghanistan.
Bailing out Boeing, which wanted a bailout even before coronavirus, has exactly what to do with coronavirus? What exactly does unrelated to coronavirus even mean? They want provisions that are related to the bailout money which in turn is related to the economy.
Disgusting, isn’t it ? These cocksuckers are so out of touch with avg Americans
Good lord I know you’re all about splitting hairs and playing “gotcha” debate games but COME ON.
Boeing employs hundreds of thousands and supplies critical military hardware for the US Military.
Same stuff on both sides my ass.
On the part of corporations who want tax payer money, again, with nothing in it for tax payers. If a company wants tax payer money and the government says, “OK, you obviously have issues with how you run your business so we’ll give you the money but…we want some oversight on behalf of the taxpayers.” The companies can always say no. These corporations want their cake and to eat it too. Is this a free market or a handout market?
2 Likes
I didn’t say they aren’t worth saving but if they can’t manage their company effectively then I would say it’s fair for taxpayers to have more oversight and more say in how they do things.
If you only listen to one side, that would be expected.
I will not defend the whole list of what either side wants, but to me ensuring that the money is used properly in bailouts is something that I would be stubborn on if I was a legislator. We want to protect those thousands of jobs, we want companies to be prepared for a rainy day. I don’t want tax payer money going to executive bonuses and shareholder profits.
1 Like
I think any reasonable American feels the same way but recognizes a sense of urgency that isn’t normally present.
I think any reasonable American will expect and tolerate less than 100 percent efficiency in how the money gets handled.
That said I would LOVE to hear someone defend the list @doogie linked,
Go on. Explain why that is good policy and good leadership right now.
And do they really expect to get everything? This is politics so there will inevitably be compromise.
1 Like
Is the GOP not making demands as well?
The way I understand it, the House passed a bill, and it went to the Senate. The Senate could have voted on the bill and passed it, but instead the GOP controlled Senate modified it, and now don’t agree on it.
I would need to see the GOPs list of demands to make a fair comparison of reasonableness of what both sides are demanding.
From doogie’s list I agree with items 1 and 2. Producing pay statistics should cost a company about 1 hr of labor, and the cost of a MS excel license. We have to have an operational post office for the upcoming election. It is critical to democracy especially with corona. IMO, the rest of the list is not defensible as a relief bill. However, I need to see the GOP’s demands as well, to evaluate if this is just horse trading items.
Ultimately, I think items 3 and 4 should be passed (why do we want to limit democracy?), but may not be defensible in a relief bill (basically we should have these things, but maybe not appropriate now).
The GOP wants the Treasury to have 500 billion dollars it can use as loans and loan guarantees at its own discretion. There is no provision when it comes to who can get the money or how they can use it. Even Trump said he had an issue with it.
Of course they are, but I haven’t seen anything that’s remotely on par with the Pelosi stuff.
They don’t seem to be holding this process up to insist on provisions for a national wide concealed carry law, school vouchers or anything like that.
Seem? Facts over feelings.
I’m sure none of us have actually read the bill.
Yes. Seem. I chose that word deliberately.
You’re saying that the plain as day provisions being insisted on by Pelosi are somehow justified because there is surely something hidden in the Bill that’s just as bad.
You just can’t say what it is.
That’s what I call a classic zecarlo pwi move.
One of McConnell’s provisions was to pay poorer people less than wealthy people. $600 to the poor, $1200 to the middle class and up. Is that defensible? Seems to me the poorer you were the more you are hurting now.
1 Like
I didn’t say that at all. I doubt nothing is hidden in the bill from either side. I did refer to the 500 billion dollars the Republicans want to give to the Treasury to use at their discretion.