Agreed. Without conditions? Absurd. Take a look at how airlines and Boeing prepared for the potential for hard times. Bailout of these companies is likely a necessity. But how much less of a necessity if they had been prudent before? Not guaranteeing they are prudent now is a mistake of huge proportions. Look at how it was used last time.
Boeing wants 60 billion. 43 billion back to shareholders between 2013 and 2019. Why be trusting of them?
Agreed on many. Which has the potential for bigger corruption student loan forgiveness or bailouts no strings?
One provides direct relief for people. The other hopes big business won’t do what they always do.
How does Boeing, which is relevant and SHOULD be up for discussion, have anything to do with Pelosis list?
Really doggie asks it well. Someone defend Pelosis move. Anyone.
Best we’ve seen is “same stuff on both sides, no real examples”, a wapo article with an unbacked claim that McConnel wants to give poor people half, and someone thinks Boeing gets too much.
We are arguing against your assertion that one side is to blame for silly additions to the relief bill and holding up the process. Not that the Democrats are blameless.
The game is the game. Both sides know they have the potential for getting what they want here. They do it every time these massive things get discussed. It’s fucked up but don’t act like it’s one side doing it alone.
How is bailing out the post office if needed less of a priority than Boeing? How is student loan forgiveness? Don’t both of these things have the opportunity to effect more people than Boeing? Don’t both of these carry less risk? It seems like these places to start makes more sense than sending companies who we KNOW have the potential to misuse it massive piles of cash.
Bills should absolutely be rejected until guarantees for use are determined. Look what happened last time.
What’s wrong with what Pelosi wants?
I’m done with this today. You guys win.
Same stuff on both sides.
I can no longer see any meaningful distinction between the conduct of our two parties in Congress on this issue. I’m not sure why I found it problematic at all.
Same stuff on both sides.
No one has disagreed with that. They are just saying we shouldn’t pass a bill regardless.
They both want different things and you agree more with what one side wants than the other. It’s not that complicated really. But make no mistake about it they are both playing the game. You’re just rooting for one side more. Which is completely fine. I don’t like what I see on both sides. But they are both pushing for things they want. Because this is the “perfect” time for it. Because people want to pass a bill more than anything.
It’s all a shitty process but pretending only one side is playing is just denying the truth. It’s why pork was laden in all the security bills regarding post 9/11 and bills during the last crisis.
I’m sold. Same stuff on both sides.
Biden/Corn Pop 2020!
Back to trying to work from home on a deeply over trafficked system!
What’s crazy is expecting more from those assholes.
Too late. Biden wrapped a pool chain around Corn Pop and strung him up. Or something.
I suppose worrying about if Biden remembers accurately a story from 1962 is more concerning than Trump saying he isn’t sure if he wouldn’t use bailout money, downplaying the significance of Coronavirus, saying Mexico would pay for the wall, and he’d eliminate the debt in 8 years.
All stuff done in the last 5 years. At least we have evidence that what Biden said is accurate. We can’t say the same for the Trump list. If it’s all a lie I guess we will have to disagree with the significance of that lie from back then versus the ones I listed.
You’ve sold me same both sides and all that
I will concede one point. It seems that the democrats are coming in with a whole list of unrelated demands (I think 2 or 3 of the items on doogie’s list are relevant), while the GOP seems to be on topic, but mismanaging money is kinda a big deal in a relief bill.
So yes, the GOP are more one topic I concede that. However, I do think they have some critical errors in the way they want to spend.
Should a 1.5 trillion dollar bill be passed in a week? With the circumstances now it is debatable.
Aren’t negotiable items pretty typical to ask for things the other side likely won’t agree and you find common ground through there? It seems with the last senate bill from what I’ve read those things aren’t even being discussed.
“No, that’s all out and McConnell knows that. All that stuff is out, that’s not really on the table any more and [is no different than] some of the garbage they put on the table to begin with,” Jones said, referring to GOP pork.
“What this is boiling down to is about two things, it is boiling down to whether there should be any transparency of $500 billion of taxpayer money. I’ve got colleagues accused — and I use that word — of insider trading and I’ve got the president of the US owning restaurants and resorts and golf hotels and we need to know where that money is going to go,” he said.“
The second thing, he added, was “a stabilization fund for counties and city governments. Those people are hemorrhaging money … they need a special fund.”
These both sound like pretty rational reasons for blocking a bill to me. Especially the first part. I can’t figure out for the life of me why anyone would be against having conditions for giving 500 billion dollars to someone.
I agree that we need to know how 500 billion is going to be spent. I was just conceding that the Democrats are asking for unrelated things, and the GOP is on topic, but has major flaws in their wants for the bill as well.
One idea I have been thinking about is how about giving people the $1200, but then instead of bailing out companies with 500 billion, giving people stock market credits to buy stocks or index funds. Boeing wants more money, sell stock to get it. Then we also solve a portion of our retirement shortage issues as well.
I actually really like the idea of giving tax payers stock in the companies their money is bailing out.
I like that it will make a really high percentage of Americans a bit richer, and if they keep their money in long term it could turn into a sizable amount. It also, reduces the ability of the ultra rich from from profiting further from a company bailout.
Just giving them the stocks of the bailed out companies is a good alternative also.
Thank you, @mnben87.
Maybe more later when I gain the patience to muddle through all of the bullshit.
Trump on FOX:
“…Easter is such a special Holiday to me…”
