Such as?
Poor getting $600, middle class and up getting $1200. Technically it is if you were exempt from federal taxes you get $600, and if not you get $1200.
A lot on that list I disagree with. Arguably only a few that should really be considered in this bill. Are we really going to compare 10k in student loan forgiveness (no idea if that is accurate just going off his list) to 500 billion in bailout money that the administration can pick and choose on?
The size and scope of things asked for in this thing matters a lot. Why is the GOP not demanding conditions for money they are giving out? Why are they not saying (at least in this bill) what companies?
Which do you think is at more risk of fraud at a high level? Student loan forgiveness or Boeing getting 60 billion? We did this blank check to companies not even that long ago and look what they did with it.
Serious question: is there a bigger risk than giving billions out to companies no questions asked? Maybe there is and I’m not aware. If you don’t think many ceo’s aren’t licking their lips seeing how low the stock market is. And an infusion of money to do that with? Even better.
Didn’t the actual President say he couldn’t guarantee he wouldn’t use the money? Think about that a blank check to administration for discretion where the actual President says “yeah I may be using this money.” If that didn’t happen forgive me as my lunch break is almost over and I have to meet with a client.
If it did happen how is that not much more potentially fraudulent and concerning than pretty much everything else?
Okay your source for that was the Washington Post, which curiously didn’t actually explain what any of the stipulations were, and used slippery language to make that point.
Who gets $600 vs who gets $1200? The article didn’t say. I wonder why those details were left out… probably nothing, the wapo gives it to you straight!
Everything I read said the republicans were going with a 75k cap where benefits start to taper, which seemed reasonable to me.
Even if what you said is true and Mc Connell is just Mr. Scrooge, it’s still pertinent. Unlike carbon credits for the airlines.
I read 100 pages, set it down, came back later and read another 100 or so.
Looked outside and said forget it, the yard needs mowing.
Que sera, sera.
2 Likes
Okay, so neither of us has read the 1400 page bill, right?
What do you put the chances that the Senate Dems would have voted for the House bill without modification? I put it damn near 100%.
If that is the case, it is obvious Senate GOP added things in that the Senate DEMs did not like. So both are guilty of trying to add in their special causes to the bill. That is my point.
Again, my qualm is not that disagreement exists. An agreement about how much to give to someone making 30k vs 100k should be relatively easy to arrive at, and I’ve seen no signs that Republicans are negotiating that sort of thing in bad faith.
My gripe is that the Democrats are disagreeing about the absence of a whole bunch of shit that has nothing to do with the crisis at hand. The Republicans aren’t holding this bill up to insist on, say, nationwide concealed carry reciprocity or other unrelated pet projects.
But by all means, keep repeating…
Same stuff on both sides…
Same stuff on both sides…
Same stuff on both sides…
That is in no way evidence that they are being fair players. Being unaware of something does not make it not exist.
Okay let’s run with that. Let’s say there’s something that’s just awful in the bill. We don’t know what it is, but it’s there, and it is the Republicans fault.
How does that justify what the Democrats are doing?
Well, I showed you some evidence about an issue I have with the Senate GOP modified bill (and Senate Dems have issue with). You dismissed it as fake news as you didn’t like the source, but in no way showed it as invalid evidence. So I have provided you evidence, but you prefer to ignore it. Then you say you see no evidence, but that is not a valid way to determine if your assertion is true or not.
I am arguing against your point that this seems like a one sided issue. Not that what the Dems are doing is justified.
Or they could have just removed the garbage.
1 Like
I did provide one change to the bill by the Senate GOP above in this thread, so it is more than just removing parts.
How does it justify pointing the finger at one party? Or do we just have higher standards for democrats?
1 Like
Bailouts with no condition and a giant amount of money to the administration to do what they want are two massive pieces of garbage.
1 Like
Because the Republicans are meeting my standards for what I expect from Congress right now. Today. On this most grave of issues. The Democrats are not, for reasons explained thoroughly here.
Giving away money to large corporations, no strings attached?
1 Like
Serious question: is there a bigger risk than giving billions out to companies no questions asked? Maybe there is and I’m not aware. If you don’t think many ceo’s aren’t licking their lips seeing how low the stock market is. And an infusion of money to do that with? Even better.
Didn’t the actual President say he couldn’t guarantee he wouldn’t use the money? Think about that a blank check to administration for discretion where the actual President says “yeah I may be using this money.” If that didn’t happen forgive me as my lunch break is almost over and I have to meet with a client.
If it did happen how is that not much more potentially fraudulent and concerning than pretty much everything else?
Asking again you may have not seen it when I edited.
There appeared to be many strings. We can debate how many and what type. In fact, that’s exactly what should be up for discussion. But giving and loaning huge amounts of money to businesses and individuals is exactly what we want Congress to be doing right now.
Now is not the time to debate national concealed carry reciprocity, school vouchers, net neutrality or the green new deal, but one party thinks it is exactly the time to bring this kind of unrelated stuff up.
But hey, just keep saying it.
Same stuff on both sides.
Same stuff on both sides.
Same stuff on both sides.
And then there is this:
White House agrees to oversight of massive $500 billion Treasury loan program designed to soften coronavirus impact on businesses
Yes. Spending time debating unrelated crap, using your friends in the media to mislead the public and accomplishing nothing is probably worse.
I’m all for debate about attaching strings to make this as broadly beneficial as possible. That’s what needs to be hashed out, not diversity quotas for American private businesses or any of the other shit on Pelosis list of nonsense.