Sounds like a deal on the stimulus bill was just struck (as in, less than an hour ago). Cannot help but think about the "Sky is falling" attitude after the bill was rejected on Monday.
Sounds like a deal on the stimulus bill was just struck (as in, less than an hour ago). Cannot help but think about the "Sky is falling" attitude after the bill was rejected on Monday.
Not surprised. Can't wait to hear both sides bitch about it tomorrow...
Sounds like a deal on the stimulus bill was just struck (as in, less than an hour ago). Cannot help but think about the "Sky is falling" attitude after the bill was rejected on Monday.
By waiting 24 hours the Democrats got:
1.) The phase-in removed so lowest-income workers receive the full $1200 rather than only a portion
2.) $100 billion extra for hospitals
3.) Major extension and increase to unemployment benefits for the duration of the crisis, including people who usually don't qualify.
4.) At least some oversight of the corporate bail-out.
But yeah, it definitely wasn't worth waiting a SINGLE DAY to get those things.
And, for the record, we were told Democrats should eat the $500 billion dollar corporate bailout to get everyone the money now. They have (though at least they managed to remove the sole discretion from Mnuchin's hands). Do NOT come bitching about corporate America in a year's time. You said we should swallow it, and it's been swallowed. You can bet I won't forget. They also got this:
It bans stock buybacks by companies getting aide for a year. And the 6 month "no one knows where the money is going" is gone. It's absolutely laughable these 7 or 8 things weren't worth waiting a DAY for:
Sounds like a deal on the stimulus bill was just struck (as in, less than an hour ago). Cannot help but think about the "Sky is falling" attitude after the bill was rejected on Monday.
By waiting 24 hours the Democrats got:
1.) The phase-in removed so low-income workers receive the full $1200 rather than only a portion
2.) $100 billion extra for hospitals
3.) Major extension and increase to unemployment benefits for the duration of the crisis, including people who usually don't qualify.
4.) At least some oversight of the corporate bail-out.
But yeah, it definitely wasn't worth waiting a SINGLE DAY to get those things.
Yeah, cuz the Republicans totally caved. What did they give up exactly? Fucking sham. Both sides got what they could and we get to say 'whoo hoo'! What % of the package goes to everyday folks? We're played like fiddles and get to lick the boots of the powers that be. Does anybody really believe the Democrat 'hold-out' was anything but a sham? The only reason the Republicans didn't get EVERYTHING they wanted was because the Dems held the house. Thank God for small favors I guess, but the idea that this was some kind of 'bi-partisan' agreement is ludicrous.
Sounds like a deal on the stimulus bill was just struck (as in, less than an hour ago). Cannot help but think about the "Sky is falling" attitude after the bill was rejected on Monday.
By waiting 24 hours the Democrats got:
1.) The phase-in removed so low-income workers receive the full $1200 rather than only a portion
2.) $100 billion extra for hospitals
3.) Major extension and increase to unemployment benefits for the duration of the crisis, including people who usually don't qualify.
4.) At least some oversight of the corporate bail-out.
But yeah, it definitely wasn't worth waiting a SINGLE DAY to get those things.
Yeah, cuz the Republicans totally caved. What did they give up exactly? Fucking sham. Both sides got what they could and we get to say 'whoo hoo'! What % of the package goes to everyday folks? We're played like fiddles and get to lick the boots of the powers that be. Does anybody really believe the Democrat 'hold-out' was anything but a sham? The only reason the Republicans didn't get EVERYTHING they wanted was because the Dems held the house. Thank God for small favors I guess, but the idea that this was some kind of 'bi-partisan' agreement is ludicrous.
I'm not sure what they are supposed to do to please anyone. Yesterday they were heartless bastards for objecting to a no oversight slush fund. And today because they only got moderate changes to it they are just another side of the same bad coin. These aren't real criticisms, unless we exist on a different planet than we did 24 hours ago.
Yeah, keep thinking that. The answer to saving to planet is fucking the middle class. Sorry but it's true.
I know I've asked questions about this before, but I'm still not clear why you think this. I wonder if what you're really objecting to are proposals driven by economic and political ideals (like housing for all, minimum wages and reduction in income inequality) - as opposed to a narrower program aimed just at addressing climate change. The status quo in many areas is designed to benefit corporations, rather than individual people.
In terms of the impact on the planet there are lots of things that can be done to make savings, for instance:
- substantially increasing the amount of renewable energy (which is cheaper than using fossil fuels).
- improving electrical infrastructure to make local production and distribution of energy more efficient (to make best use of renewables).
- mandatory standards on the amount and type of packaging to make recycling much easier and vastly more efficient (reducing the cost of future goods).
- improving the energy and water efficiency of existing and new buildings (plenty of opportunities there for easy wins, but typically blocked at the moment due to potential mis-matches between the person that pays for the upgrade and the person that gets the benefit).
I can see that libertarians would object to some of the above on the grounds of their political views, but if the discussion is about costs and not politics then such objections should be left to one side along with many of the more political proposals that get thrown into the discussion of something like the Green New Deal.
The above are just proposals to save money compared to the current position. That doesn't take account of the fact that we're not actually in a neutral situation. If we don't take action then there will be enormous future costs as a result of climate change, so it would make sense to take further actions (that would actually increase costs) in order to mitigate the costs coming from climate change.
There are of course lots of other things that can be done that would have an impact on the way we live, which are not cost related and would therefore not have a disproportionate impact on the middle class. You mentioned air travel for instance, which is indeed a very large contributor to CO2 production. One of the proposals to deal with that is through a form of quota system, rather than just using price mechanisms which make it available only to the rich.
Yeah, keep thinking that. The answer to saving to planet is fucking the middle class. Sorry but it's true.
I know I've asked questions about this before, but I'm still not clear why you think this. I wonder if what you're really objecting to are proposals driven by economic and political ideals (like housing for all, minimum wages and reduction in income inequality) - as opposed to a narrower program aimed just at addressing climate change. The status quo in many areas is designed to benefit corporations, rather than individual people.
In terms of the impact on the planet there are lots of things that can be done to make savings, for instance:
- substantially increasing the amount of renewable energy (which is cheaper than using fossil fuels).
- improving electrical infrastructure to make local production and distribution of energy more efficient (to make best use of renewables).
- mandatory standards on the amount and type of packaging to make recycling much easier and vastly more efficient (reducing the cost of future goods).
- improving the energy and water efficiency of existing and new buildings (plenty of opportunities there for easy wins, but typically blocked at the moment due to potential mis-matches between the person that pays for the upgrade and the person that gets the benefit).
I can see that libertarians would object to some of the above on the grounds of their political views, but if the discussion is about costs and not politics then such objections should be left to one side along with many of the more political proposals that get thrown into the discussion of something like the Green New Deal.
The above are just proposals to save money compared to the current position. That doesn't take account of the fact that we're not actually in a neutral situation. If we don't take action then there will be enormous future costs as a result of climate change, so it would make sense to take further actions (that would actually increase costs) in order to mitigate the costs coming from climate change.
There are of course lots of other things that can be done that would have an impact on the way we live, which are not cost related and would therefore not have a disproportionate impact on the middle class. You mentioned air travel for instance, which is indeed a very large contributor to CO2 production. One of the proposals to deal with that is through a form of quota system, rather than just using price mechanisms which make it available only to the rich.
I could accept a quota system. My main concern is that there's always a gas tax mentioned whenever I hear talk about fighting climate change. I can't think of a worse tax for the middle and lower class (especially in states like Michigan where almost everybody owns a car).
Well the loophole there is the president doesn't control his businesses, his sons now do.
Well he never actually gave up control. Anyway, this will end up another lawsuit. Except Trump's probably hoping some Trump appointed Judges rule in his favor. That's the main reason they are there after all as far as he's concerned.
In terms of the impact on the planet there are lots of things that can be done to make savings, for instance:
- substantially increasing the amount of renewable energy (which is cheaper than using fossil fuels).
- improving electrical infrastructure to make local production and distribution of energy more efficient (to make best use of renewables).
- mandatory standards on the amount and type of packaging to make recycling much easier and vastly more efficient (reducing the cost of future goods).
- improving the energy and water efficiency of existing and new buildings (plenty of opportunities there for easy wins, but typically blocked at the moment due to potential mis-matches between the person that pays for the upgrade and the person that gets the benefit).
I can see that libertarians would object to some of the above on the grounds of their political views
Actually, there are no political reasons to oppose any of those things--so sayeth the Libertarian. I, myself, have advocated for significantly increasing the amount of production from renewable sources, primarily solar.
Some group in Florida convinced a law firm to file a class-action suit against the PRC for it handling of the corona outbreak. Yeah, okay--good luck with that.
The Democrats aren't political neophytes. They know damn well the consequences of denying the aid package and starting a partisan fight over the bill would lead to it all being delayed and the people who live paycheck to paycheck- who can't collect one- will suffer in the meantime. That's an acceptable trade-off to them, as long as they can divert the blame onto their political rivals.
So this is basically saying whoever presents their proposal first wins?? Like a 100-meter dash?? .
It's not about who wins. You are so concerned with Democrats looking better than Republicans that you can't see that yes, the timing is extremely important, because people don't have enough food now, not later. They can't pay rent now, not later. The political reality is that they can not ask for Heaven and Earth in their bill and receive it, and they know it. They are putting up a pointless fight to grandstand in order to bolster their image at the expense of the well being of people. You know it, and I know it.
As an aside, I object to the Democrat bill because it demands a 15$ minimum wage to receive aid for your company, and is just a laundry list of their own pet projects that is all just bait to try to get it shot down. I mean, isn't that the Democrats own objection? It is fundamentally unserious, and doesn't give me much more anyway. The small buisness that I work for simply can't afford 15$ for everyone and will likely go out of buisness when this is said and done. Maybe there is a small business provision in there, I admittedly only read the article and not the bill despite my newfound free time.
It's not about who wins then Republicans should make a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill.
They should also stop McConnell from performing silly stunts like holding show votes and wasting everyone's time.
Get mad at Republicans for putting out a non-starter.
The Democrats object so strongly to Republicans putting forth a partisan bill that they did the exact same thing with their own bill. Apply this to every other scenario in American politics. It is a meaningless objection that condemns the entirety of American politics, not solely this scenario. If it were a reason to reject a bill there would never be a bipartisan agreement ever again.
People in need could have been helped. They weren't because the Democrats said no, and decided to guarantee their own bill to fail by doing everything they objected to in the first place. Maybe something will be worked out, maybe it won't at this point, but this is the reality at the present moment.
Again, your position is "Democrats MUST agree to whatever is presented to them by Republicans" and that "Republicans have absolutely no obligation to consider any Democratic proposals whatsoever". It must be fun playing basketball with you. I assume you demand two possessions for every one your opponent gets. But you gave away why you think this when you said something or exactly to the effect of "Democrats have no leverage because not enough people voted for them". And it's really stunning, in the end, that they managed to gain control of the House with this apparently being the reality of the situation. One might even say it's a miracle.
The Republicans hold the Senate and Executive Branch of government while the Democrats hold just the House. It makes perfect sense for them to lead in this scenario, and their bill was up for a vote first in a time of emergency. That's two good reasons I can see for the Democrats to be the ones to have to come to the table.
But no, they didn't. Their bill is not an attempt by any means to act in the bipartisan manner they have suddenly found so much respect for. So I reject all arguments about bipartisanship for the nonsense that they are.
This is not how the United States government works. The House of Representatives isnt obligated to abnegate its responsibility in a bicameral legislature simply because the other party holds the executive branch.
Also, the Democrats are very much "at the table". In fact, they were "At the table" negotiating to make the stimulus bill acceptable to them at the same time as McConnell was holding manipulative show votes.
Your outrage is selective.
I mean, in some ways it is, because both of them are holding up the process by each trying to send gift packages to their favored groups. I can acknowledge that. Can you? Mostly not, because it's the Democrats who began the halting of the process by denying the aid package and starting a pointless fight to advocate for their various lobbies at the expense of everyone else. I know how hard it is in this group to accept that they aren't paragons of virtue and righteousness in everything that they do, but that's how it is.
All will be forgiven in my eyes if they actually come to a compromise tommorow. Whatever poison pills each group wants to insert, the election is coming up. Plenty of time to put it on the table at that point.
But yeah, "they aren't legally obligated to do good things" isn't convincing. Sure, nothing is forcing them, they are just terrible for not doing it.
It's not enough, obviously, but what else can you expect from the U.S gov? The whole process has been hopelessly corrupt and I seriously wish it wasn't Biden vs Trump because neither of them are capable of explaining this to the general public.
3 Republican Senators led by Lindsey Graham are now holding up the bill because they believe the extra $600 Democrats negotiated into unemployment benefits will "incentivize people not to work". Couldn't be more on brand if they tried.
The Democrats aren't political neophytes. They know damn well the consequences of denying the aid package and starting a partisan fight over the bill would lead to it all being delayed and the people who live paycheck to paycheck- who can't collect one- will suffer in the meantime. That's an acceptable trade-off to them, as long as they can divert the blame onto their political rivals.
So this is basically saying whoever presents their proposal first wins?? Like a 100-meter dash?? .
It's not about who wins. You are so concerned with Democrats looking better than Republicans that you can't see that yes, the timing is extremely important, because people don't have enough food now, not later. They can't pay rent now, not later. The political reality is that they can not ask for Heaven and Earth in their bill and receive it, and they know it. They are putting up a pointless fight to grandstand in order to bolster their image at the expense of the well being of people. You know it, and I know it.
As an aside, I object to the Democrat bill because it demands a 15$ minimum wage to receive aid for your company, and is just a laundry list of their own pet projects that is all just bait to try to get it shot down. I mean, isn't that the Democrats own objection? It is fundamentally unserious, and doesn't give me much more anyway. The small buisness that I work for simply can't afford 15$ for everyone and will likely go out of buisness when this is said and done. Maybe there is a small business provision in there, I admittedly only read the article and not the bill despite my newfound free time.
It's not about who wins then Republicans should make a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill.
They should also stop McConnell from performing silly stunts like holding show votes and wasting everyone's time.
Get mad at Republicans for putting out a non-starter.
The Democrats object so strongly to Republicans putting forth a partisan bill that they did the exact same thing with their own bill. Apply this to every other scenario in American politics. It is a meaningless objection that condemns the entirety of American politics, not solely this scenario. If it were a reason to reject a bill there would never be a bipartisan agreement ever again.
People in need could have been helped. They weren't because the Democrats said no, and decided to guarantee their own bill to fail by doing everything they objected to in the first place. Maybe something will be worked out, maybe it won't at this point, but this is the reality at the present moment.
Again, your position is "Democrats MUST agree to whatever is presented to them by Republicans" and that "Republicans have absolutely no obligation to consider any Democratic proposals whatsoever". It must be fun playing basketball with you. I assume you demand two possessions for every one your opponent gets. But you gave away why you think this when you said something or exactly to the effect of "Democrats have no leverage because not enough people voted for them". And it's really stunning, in the end, that they managed to gain control of the House with this apparently being the reality of the situation. One might even say it's a miracle.
The Republicans hold the Senate and Executive Branch of government while the Democrats hold just the House. It makes perfect sense for them to lead in this scenario, and their bill was up for a vote first in a time of emergency. That's two good reasons I can see for the Democrats to be the ones to have to come to the table.
But no, they didn't. Their bill is not an attempt by any means to act in the bipartisan manner they have suddenly found so much respect for. So I reject all arguments about bipartisanship for the nonsense that they are.
This is not how the United States government works. The House of Representatives isnt obligated to abnegate its responsibility in a bicameral legislature simply because the other party holds the executive branch.
Also, the Democrats are very much "at the table". In fact, they were "At the table" negotiating to make the stimulus bill acceptable to them at the same time as McConnell was holding manipulative show votes.
Your outrage is selective.
I mean, in some ways it is, because both of them are holding up the process by each trying to send gift packages to their favored groups. I can acknowledge that. Can you? Mostly not, because it's the Democrats who began the halting of the process by denying the aid package and starting a pointless fight to advocate for their various lobbies at the expense of everyone else. I know how hard it is in this group to accept that they aren't paragons of virtue and righteousness in everything that they do, but that's how it is.
All will be forgiven in my eyes if they actually come to a compromise tommorow. Whatever poison pills each group wants to insert, the election is coming up. Plenty of time to put it on the table at that point.
But yeah, "they aren't legally obligated to do good things" isn't convincing. Sure, nothing is forcing them, they are just terrible for not doing it.
I literally already acknowledged that. It was the central thesis to my point that was rejecting your argument to begin with. Here let me find you a few examples.
Which bill would you prefer right now, the GOP senate one, or the Democrat House one?
Both sides are obstructing. If the Democrats were to pass a bill like the one reference above, McConnell would not bring it up for a vote (Obstruct). Just as the Democrats are obstructing the Senate bill right now.
I agree, Poison pills are a thing in legislation. @WarChiefZeke has every right to be upset (as does everyone) at what's going on, but that doesnt mean that the GOP arent manipulating the situation at the same time as Democrats are refusing to pass the bill.
There's blame to go around.
Do you understand why it's incredibly difficult to have a good faith argument with you when something like this happens? I've been saying 2 things for the last 3 days
1 - It's hypocritical to blame Democrats for not passing a bill but giving the Republicans a pass because they're fundamentally doing the same thing.
2 - a bill will be passed anyways, and hopefully the negotiations will take out a lot of the unnecessary parts.
3 Republican Senators led by Lindsey Graham are now holding up the bill because they believe the extra $600 Democrats negotiated into unemployment benefits will "incentivize people not to work". Couldn't be more on brand if they tried.
$600 extra? Holy shit, I'm going to retire right now!
3 Republican Senators led by Lindsey Graham are now holding up the bill because they believe the extra $600 Democrats negotiated into unemployment benefits will "incentivize people not to work". Couldn't be more on brand if they tried.
$600 extra? Holy shit, I'm going to retire right now!
They are apparently worried that since the $600 is (apparently) tacked onto EACH unemployment payment, that some people will make more than they do going to work. Ignoring that a.) they CAN'T go to work and b.) this is not permanent. Regardless, taking this position in the middle of a pandemic and economic meltdown is lunacy. Especially when you're planning on bailing out the fucking crusie ship industry.
Translation: Democrat resistance is good; Republican resistance is bad. Why am I not surprised?
It is highly unlikely that money received will be tax-free. Incidentally...for those of you who still think the government can spend only money that it has collected in taxes....doesn't that mean that any money you receive from the government was yours in the first place? If they had not taken it from you then you would have had it in your pocket already.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to call for a recorded vote, which will a) force House Members to return to the chamber in order to cast their vote and b) could delay passage of any measure by a couple of days. Pelosi has already spoken with the House physician about this because, yes, Ocasio-Cortez really is that petty and spiteful. We already know she hates Democrats--won't pay party dues, backing candidates running against Democrats, etc--so it isn't surprising that she hates everyone else, as well.
Biden is back after spending a week being invisible. It has not been a good week for him--teleprompter blunders, touching his face in public, saying "we need to take care of the cure, that will make the problem worse, no matter what" (what? *shrug*), then coughing into his hand while on Jake Tapper's show. There is a reason his handlers kept him out of public view for a week--this is what happens when they let him out for a little sunshine.
"The real people". Every criticism we've ever had of him is coalescing at once. It is impossible to confront this crisis with this megalomaniacal maniac in charge.
The Democrats aren't political neophytes. They know damn well the consequences of denying the aid package and starting a partisan fight over the bill would lead to it all being delayed and the people who live paycheck to paycheck- who can't collect one- will suffer in the meantime. That's an acceptable trade-off to them, as long as they can divert the blame onto their political rivals.
So this is basically saying whoever presents their proposal first wins?? Like a 100-meter dash?? .
It's not about who wins. You are so concerned with Democrats looking better than Republicans that you can't see that yes, the timing is extremely important, because people don't have enough food now, not later. They can't pay rent now, not later. The political reality is that they can not ask for Heaven and Earth in their bill and receive it, and they know it. They are putting up a pointless fight to grandstand in order to bolster their image at the expense of the well being of people. You know it, and I know it.
As an aside, I object to the Democrat bill because it demands a 15$ minimum wage to receive aid for your company, and is just a laundry list of their own pet projects that is all just bait to try to get it shot down. I mean, isn't that the Democrats own objection? It is fundamentally unserious, and doesn't give me much more anyway. The small buisness that I work for simply can't afford 15$ for everyone and will likely go out of buisness when this is said and done. Maybe there is a small business provision in there, I admittedly only read the article and not the bill despite my newfound free time.
It's not about who wins then Republicans should make a bipartisan bill instead of a partisan bill.
They should also stop McConnell from performing silly stunts like holding show votes and wasting everyone's time.
Get mad at Republicans for putting out a non-starter.
The Democrats object so strongly to Republicans putting forth a partisan bill that they did the exact same thing with their own bill. Apply this to every other scenario in American politics. It is a meaningless objection that condemns the entirety of American politics, not solely this scenario. If it were a reason to reject a bill there would never be a bipartisan agreement ever again.
People in need could have been helped. They weren't because the Democrats said no, and decided to guarantee their own bill to fail by doing everything they objected to in the first place. Maybe something will be worked out, maybe it won't at this point, but this is the reality at the present moment.
Again, your position is "Democrats MUST agree to whatever is presented to them by Republicans" and that "Republicans have absolutely no obligation to consider any Democratic proposals whatsoever". It must be fun playing basketball with you. I assume you demand two possessions for every one your opponent gets. But you gave away why you think this when you said something or exactly to the effect of "Democrats have no leverage because not enough people voted for them". And it's really stunning, in the end, that they managed to gain control of the House with this apparently being the reality of the situation. One might even say it's a miracle.
The Republicans hold the Senate and Executive Branch of government while the Democrats hold just the House. It makes perfect sense for them to lead in this scenario, and their bill was up for a vote first in a time of emergency. That's two good reasons I can see for the Democrats to be the ones to have to come to the table.
But no, they didn't. Their bill is not an attempt by any means to act in the bipartisan manner they have suddenly found so much respect for. So I reject all arguments about bipartisanship for the nonsense that they are.
This is not how the United States government works. The House of Representatives isnt obligated to abnegate its responsibility in a bicameral legislature simply because the other party holds the executive branch.
Also, the Democrats are very much "at the table". In fact, they were "At the table" negotiating to make the stimulus bill acceptable to them at the same time as McConnell was holding manipulative show votes.
Your outrage is selective.
I mean, in some ways it is, because both of them are holding up the process by each trying to send gift packages to their favored groups. I can acknowledge that. Can you? Mostly not, because it's the Democrats who began the halting of the process by denying the aid package and starting a pointless fight to advocate for their various lobbies at the expense of everyone else. I know how hard it is in this group to accept that they aren't paragons of virtue and righteousness in everything that they do, but that's how it is.
All will be forgiven in my eyes if they actually come to a compromise tommorow. Whatever poison pills each group wants to insert, the election is coming up. Plenty of time to put it on the table at that point.
But yeah, "they aren't legally obligated to do good things" isn't convincing. Sure, nothing is forcing them, they are just terrible for not doing it.
I literally already acknowledged that. It was the central thesis to my point that was rejecting your argument to begin with. Here let me find you a few examples.
Which bill would you prefer right now, the GOP senate one, or the Democrat House one?
Both sides are obstructing. If the Democrats were to pass a bill like the one reference above, McConnell would not bring it up for a vote (Obstruct). Just as the Democrats are obstructing the Senate bill right now.
I agree, Poison pills are a thing in legislation. @WarChiefZeke has every right to be upset (as does everyone) at what's going on, but that doesnt mean that the GOP arent manipulating the situation at the same time as Democrats are refusing to pass the bill.
There's blame to go around.
Do you understand why it's incredibly difficult to have a good faith argument with you when something like this happens? I've been saying 2 things for the last 3 days
1 - It's hypocritical to blame Democrats for not passing a bill but giving the Republicans a pass because they're fundamentally doing the same thing.
2 - a bill will be passed anyways, and hopefully the negotiations will take out a lot of the unnecessary parts.
That comment wasn't replying to you, and I do acknowledge that you did so.
I personally don't think it's hypocritical. I expect Democrats to be more willing to spend on social welfare because it's a central issue of theirs. When Republicans are offering any form of limited UBI I see it as an exception to the rule. I had hoped Democrats cared enough about the issue to bite the bullet and let it pass without incident. But as long as it gets passed I really don't care.
Bernie is now trying to save the extra unemployment benefits. If Graham and his merry-men don't drop their objection to the extra money for workers and are successful in getting it removed, he will hold it up over the corporate bailout until it is put back in. It is QUITE fucking clear who is fighting for who in this scenario. Anyone who questions that is living in a fantasy-land.
Let me be clear here: Graham is arguing the extra $600 a week will incentivize people to quit their job. You can't even GET unemployment insurance if you quit. You can only get it if you are laid off or sent home. He doesn't even know how the process works on a fundamental level.
Funny how a lot of the never socialism people are now demanding their bailouts checks. How the turntables.
More bad news. The checks may not go out til May according to CNN. If you don't already have direct deposit information on file with the IRS, it may take 4 months. Rashida Talib is now pushing to send pre-paid debit cards now that this has come to light.
It's not getting much attention compared to New York (where they are now discussing needing mobile morgues), but the shit is about to hit the fan in New Orleans as well. I can't recall being frightened by world events before. This frightens me.
It's not getting much attention compared to New York (where they are now discussing needing mobile morgues), but the shit is about to hit the fan in New Orleans as well. I can't recall being frightened by world events before. This frightens me.
9/11 was terrifying. More terrifying than this IMO. You see this coming. After 9/11 you really didn’t know what was happening or going to happen. I at the time also worked downtown Ottawa (Canada’s capital) so there was that as well. Downtown shutdown quick then.
It's not getting much attention compared to New York (where they are now discussing needing mobile morgues), but the shit is about to hit the fan in New Orleans as well. I can't recall being frightened by world events before. This frightens me.
9/11 was terrifying. More terrifying than this IMO. You see this coming. After 9/11 you really didn’t know what was happening or going to happen. I at the time also worked downtown Ottawa (Canada’s capital) so there was that as well. Downtown shutdown quick then.
I'm old enough to remember the original Gulf War. People were worried about WW3 then. Also the Y2K panic was pretty big too. Lots of the same BS with people panic buying staples. Generators were the toilet paper of Y2K...
It's not getting much attention compared to New York (where they are now discussing needing mobile morgues), but the shit is about to hit the fan in New Orleans as well. I can't recall being frightened by world events before. This frightens me.
9/11 was terrifying. More terrifying than this IMO. You see this coming. After 9/11 you really didn’t know what was happening or going to happen. I at the time also worked downtown Ottawa (Canada’s capital) so there was that as well. Downtown shutdown quick then.
I'm old enough to remember the original Gulf War. People were worried about WW3 then. Also the Y2K panic was pretty big too. Lots of the same BS with people panic buying staples. Generators were the toilet paper of Y2K...
People erroneously believe Y2K was all hype because nothing happened. Nothing happened because of the tireless work by IT professionals.
Regardless, I believe what we're facing dwarves everything else just mentioned.
It's not getting much attention compared to New York (where they are now discussing needing mobile morgues), but the shit is about to hit the fan in New Orleans as well. I can't recall being frightened by world events before. This frightens me.
9/11 was terrifying. More terrifying than this IMO. You see this coming. After 9/11 you really didn’t know what was happening or going to happen. I at the time also worked downtown Ottawa (Canada’s capital) so there was that as well. Downtown shutdown quick then.
I'm old enough to remember the original Gulf War. People were worried about WW3 then. Also the Y2K panic was pretty big too. Lots of the same BS with people panic buying staples. Generators were the toilet paper of Y2K...
My stepfather fought in the Gulf War... sorta, he was a sanitation engineer. Your shit was his business he always use to say.
And Y2K panic was real but stopped. Just look up 2K20 wrestling game glitch bug to see what could have been.
Comments
Not surprised. Can't wait to hear both sides bitch about it tomorrow...
By waiting 24 hours the Democrats got:
1.) The phase-in removed so lowest-income workers receive the full $1200 rather than only a portion
2.) $100 billion extra for hospitals
3.) Major extension and increase to unemployment benefits for the duration of the crisis, including people who usually don't qualify.
4.) At least some oversight of the corporate bail-out.
But yeah, it definitely wasn't worth waiting a SINGLE DAY to get those things.
And, for the record, we were told Democrats should eat the $500 billion dollar corporate bailout to get everyone the money now. They have (though at least they managed to remove the sole discretion from Mnuchin's hands). Do NOT come bitching about corporate America in a year's time. You said we should swallow it, and it's been swallowed. You can bet I won't forget. They also got this:
It bans stock buybacks by companies getting aide for a year. And the 6 month "no one knows where the money is going" is gone. It's absolutely laughable these 7 or 8 things weren't worth waiting a DAY for:
Democrats literally just got everyone's salary covered. I eagerly await the recriminations headed their way anyway.
Yeah, cuz the Republicans totally caved. What did they give up exactly? Fucking sham. Both sides got what they could and we get to say 'whoo hoo'! What % of the package goes to everyday folks? We're played like fiddles and get to lick the boots of the powers that be. Does anybody really believe the Democrat 'hold-out' was anything but a sham? The only reason the Republicans didn't get EVERYTHING they wanted was because the Dems held the house. Thank God for small favors I guess, but the idea that this was some kind of 'bi-partisan' agreement is ludicrous.
I'm not sure what they are supposed to do to please anyone. Yesterday they were heartless bastards for objecting to a no oversight slush fund. And today because they only got moderate changes to it they are just another side of the same bad coin. These aren't real criticisms, unless we exist on a different planet than we did 24 hours ago.
I know I've asked questions about this before, but I'm still not clear why you think this. I wonder if what you're really objecting to are proposals driven by economic and political ideals (like housing for all, minimum wages and reduction in income inequality) - as opposed to a narrower program aimed just at addressing climate change. The status quo in many areas is designed to benefit corporations, rather than individual people.
In terms of the impact on the planet there are lots of things that can be done to make savings, for instance:
- substantially increasing the amount of renewable energy (which is cheaper than using fossil fuels).
- improving electrical infrastructure to make local production and distribution of energy more efficient (to make best use of renewables).
- mandatory standards on the amount and type of packaging to make recycling much easier and vastly more efficient (reducing the cost of future goods).
- improving the energy and water efficiency of existing and new buildings (plenty of opportunities there for easy wins, but typically blocked at the moment due to potential mis-matches between the person that pays for the upgrade and the person that gets the benefit).
I can see that libertarians would object to some of the above on the grounds of their political views, but if the discussion is about costs and not politics then such objections should be left to one side along with many of the more political proposals that get thrown into the discussion of something like the Green New Deal.
The above are just proposals to save money compared to the current position. That doesn't take account of the fact that we're not actually in a neutral situation. If we don't take action then there will be enormous future costs as a result of climate change, so it would make sense to take further actions (that would actually increase costs) in order to mitigate the costs coming from climate change.
There are of course lots of other things that can be done that would have an impact on the way we live, which are not cost related and would therefore not have a disproportionate impact on the middle class. You mentioned air travel for instance, which is indeed a very large contributor to CO2 production. One of the proposals to deal with that is through a form of quota system, rather than just using price mechanisms which make it available only to the rich.
Well the loophole there is the president doesn't control his businesses, his sons now do.
I could accept a quota system. My main concern is that there's always a gas tax mentioned whenever I hear talk about fighting climate change. I can't think of a worse tax for the middle and lower class (especially in states like Michigan where almost everybody owns a car).
Well he never actually gave up control. Anyway, this will end up another lawsuit. Except Trump's probably hoping some Trump appointed Judges rule in his favor. That's the main reason they are there after all as far as he's concerned.
Actually, there are no political reasons to oppose any of those things--so sayeth the Libertarian. I, myself, have advocated for significantly increasing the amount of production from renewable sources, primarily solar.
Some group in Florida convinced a law firm to file a class-action suit against the PRC for it handling of the corona outbreak. Yeah, okay--good luck with that.
I mean, in some ways it is, because both of them are holding up the process by each trying to send gift packages to their favored groups. I can acknowledge that. Can you? Mostly not, because it's the Democrats who began the halting of the process by denying the aid package and starting a pointless fight to advocate for their various lobbies at the expense of everyone else. I know how hard it is in this group to accept that they aren't paragons of virtue and righteousness in everything that they do, but that's how it is.
All will be forgiven in my eyes if they actually come to a compromise tommorow. Whatever poison pills each group wants to insert, the election is coming up. Plenty of time to put it on the table at that point.
But yeah, "they aren't legally obligated to do good things" isn't convincing. Sure, nothing is forcing them, they are just terrible for not doing it.
It hasn't been agreed by Congress yet and I think they are reluctant to release details unless and until it is.
I literally already acknowledged that. It was the central thesis to my point that was rejecting your argument to begin with. Here let me find you a few examples.
Do you understand why it's incredibly difficult to have a good faith argument with you when something like this happens? I've been saying 2 things for the last 3 days
1 - It's hypocritical to blame Democrats for not passing a bill but giving the Republicans a pass because they're fundamentally doing the same thing.
2 - a bill will be passed anyways, and hopefully the negotiations will take out a lot of the unnecessary parts.
$600 extra? Holy shit, I'm going to retire right now!
They are apparently worried that since the $600 is (apparently) tacked onto EACH unemployment payment, that some people will make more than they do going to work. Ignoring that a.) they CAN'T go to work and b.) this is not permanent. Regardless, taking this position in the middle of a pandemic and economic meltdown is lunacy. Especially when you're planning on bailing out the fucking crusie ship industry.
It is highly unlikely that money received will be tax-free. Incidentally...for those of you who still think the government can spend only money that it has collected in taxes....doesn't that mean that any money you receive from the government was yours in the first place? If they had not taken it from you then you would have had it in your pocket already.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to call for a recorded vote, which will a) force House Members to return to the chamber in order to cast their vote and b) could delay passage of any measure by a couple of days. Pelosi has already spoken with the House physician about this because, yes, Ocasio-Cortez really is that petty and spiteful. We already know she hates Democrats--won't pay party dues, backing candidates running against Democrats, etc--so it isn't surprising that she hates everyone else, as well.
Biden is back after spending a week being invisible. It has not been a good week for him--teleprompter blunders, touching his face in public, saying "we need to take care of the cure, that will make the problem worse, no matter what" (what? *shrug*), then coughing into his hand while on Jake Tapper's show. There is a reason his handlers kept him out of public view for a week--this is what happens when they let him out for a little sunshine.
"The real people". Every criticism we've ever had of him is coalescing at once. It is impossible to confront this crisis with this megalomaniacal maniac in charge.
That comment wasn't replying to you, and I do acknowledge that you did so.
I personally don't think it's hypocritical. I expect Democrats to be more willing to spend on social welfare because it's a central issue of theirs. When Republicans are offering any form of limited UBI I see it as an exception to the rule. I had hoped Democrats cared enough about the issue to bite the bullet and let it pass without incident. But as long as it gets passed I really don't care.
Let me be clear here: Graham is arguing the extra $600 a week will incentivize people to quit their job. You can't even GET unemployment insurance if you quit. You can only get it if you are laid off or sent home. He doesn't even know how the process works on a fundamental level.
More bad news. The checks may not go out til May according to CNN. If you don't already have direct deposit information on file with the IRS, it may take 4 months. Rashida Talib is now pushing to send pre-paid debit cards now that this has come to light.
9/11 was terrifying. More terrifying than this IMO. You see this coming. After 9/11 you really didn’t know what was happening or going to happen. I at the time also worked downtown Ottawa (Canada’s capital) so there was that as well. Downtown shutdown quick then.
I'm old enough to remember the original Gulf War. People were worried about WW3 then. Also the Y2K panic was pretty big too. Lots of the same BS with people panic buying staples. Generators were the toilet paper of Y2K...
People erroneously believe Y2K was all hype because nothing happened. Nothing happened because of the tireless work by IT professionals.
Regardless, I believe what we're facing dwarves everything else just mentioned.
My stepfather fought in the Gulf War... sorta, he was a sanitation engineer. Your shit was his business he always use to say.
And Y2K panic was real but stopped. Just look up 2K20 wrestling game glitch bug to see what could have been.