|
Replies: 23
| visibility 900
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9433
Joined: 12/18/13
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 4:57 PM
|
|
Cool. I need my check, and all the illegals living with me need their back pay from the last two bills. Awesome work Dems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9433
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 5:01 PM
|
|
"#### helping Americans." - GOP 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 5:04 PM
|
|
What part of “illegals” is American? Did you read the bill?
Most help for Americans: everything open
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83119]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80156
Joined: 11/29/99
|
South Americans and Mexicans are also Americans.***
Feb 2, 2021, 5:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: South Americans and Mexicans are also Americans.***
Feb 2, 2021, 6:46 PM
|
|
you are correct, sir. nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 5:43 PM
|
|
I was hoping that the 10 Republicans would find a way to work with the Dems to avoid reconciliation, but their original position was so inadequate as to show that they were not really serious about bipartisanship.
Perhaps this threat of using reconciliation will prompt them to make a serious effort at compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 6:47 PM
|
|
Liberals: compromise means that we get what we want, but we had a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 9:08 PM
|
|
Both sides have to want to compromise. The 10 Republicans offer showed that they did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 2, 2021, 9:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9433
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 3, 2021, 12:18 AM
|
|
Ah yes, the "don't be surprised if we have a temper tantrum when the majority of Americans think differently than us" argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 3, 2021, 1:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24768]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42489
Joined: 7/31/10
|
$600M right now seems a tad short... In the car industry,
Feb 3, 2021, 1:52 AM
|
|
it would be termed a "lowball"...I'd like to think some reasonable cuts in some areas could have been negotiated, but when things are left that far apart, it's not even on the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 3, 2021, 8:40 AM
[ in reply to Re: We don't need Republicans ] |
|
T3
You have no idea what Biden might have been willing to do IF the Reps had come in with a serious plan - but they did not. So the Dems, who control all 3 elected houses of government, are prepared to move on without them. Elections have consequences.
I will not be surprised if there is still some type of compromise in store here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11684
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: We don't need Republicans
Feb 3, 2021, 8:49 AM
[ in reply to Re: We don't need Republicans ] |
|
Blah, blah, blah. Militancy and obstructionism, and dusting off the old Fight Obama playbook.
It isn't going to work for one simple reason - people need this money, and those Republicans needed to get their names on that bill and show that they could be reasonable people. Instead all they showed is that they were the same old sticks in the mud they always were and had no real intentions of working with anybody even for the greater good in a time of severe need, and they'll duly get run over, and to mucho applause. That's never good politics. Not only do you never want to be seen losing, you really don't want people to like it when you lose bigly.
There was actually a lot of surprise on the Dems' side that the Republicans in question weren't more serious about negotiating; they thought there would be more interest. So they just sort of collectively looked around and said: okay, so it's the hard way then. So be it.
Tactically, the general consensus is, this was a pretty big mistake by that middle caucus. Actually, tactically and strategically, the Republicans seem to be blundering from mistake to mistake right now...collectively and individually, they are really flailing and the Q-wing of the party looks like they're trying to literally skin and eat the old guard, which is making life really easy for Joe Biden right now.
I do understand why the actual old-guard fiscal conservatives are reflexively trying to swing back to their actual principles after the Trump years; they've had a rough four years. But this wasn't ever going to go well; the timing could not have been worse for them. They needed to get themselves a place at Joe's table; instead they just got punted to the sidelines again, and the stark partisanship will continue on. And their hand has never been weaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
More fake independence from Quozzel
Feb 3, 2021, 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11684
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: More fake independence from Quozzel
Feb 3, 2021, 9:28 AM
|
|
Trump was all over the map with that last round of stimulus. One day walking away from the table in a snit saying there will be no negotiations, ever. The next day he' hopping up and down like a three-year-old on Red Bull demanding $2K checks for everybody. "Bipolar" doesn't even begin to describe it. Far be it for me to defend Nancy Pelosi - who I have described variously as a "vampire", a "cold-blooded vote counter", and a "praying mantis who probably consumes her partners after sex", but you know, if that sounds like a love poem to you, well, so be it. Still, kinda hard to blame her for not walking back into that mess, especially after the Master of the No Deal gifted her the W and stormed away from the table in a rage and a huff his own silly self.
And I do question how much practical effect just throwing money at all this is really going to have. And the Dems do love to just throw money at stuff...and a lot of it goes right into the wind. And then there's those "unintended consequences"...one of which was that whole Reddit Rebellion thing, all those stimulus checks that just Stonk'd the stock market and almost put the Street in the poorhouse...and hey, let's dump another trillion or so in capital out there all at once and see what happens, I'm sure it'll be fine.
The Road to Hades, as they say, is often paved with the very best of intentions. But the New Deal, however clumsily, got us through the Great Depression, and these often-clumsy efforts are what we've got right now to get us through this, too. Because we are not okay and we will not be okay if we let nature just run its course; COVID was flat breaking us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Only in this bizzaro world is a ~$600BB relief package...
Feb 3, 2021, 10:35 AM
[ in reply to Re: We don't need Republicans ] |
|
offered 1-2 months after a ~$900BB relief package judges as an completely insincere effort.
{disclaimer I don't think judging a package's effectiveness by the price tag is correct}
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
A few points....
Feb 3, 2021, 7:59 AM
[ in reply to Re: We don't need Republicans ] |
|
First, when the effectiveness of a bill is judged primarily by its price tag, that is always a red flag to me.
Second, from a political perspective, it would have been much smarter to pass the things the WH and Senate republicans essentially agree on in one bill - mainly, unemployment extensions (GOP would have given in to $400/week vs $300/week), small business relief, additional funding for vaccines, school funding, etc... Then the Dems could have put all the other measures in a different bill and passed it by reconciliation, if they want to...$15 fed min wage, local and state funding, and so on. If the dems believe in those issues, they should be able to stand on their own!
Third, the idea that a $693BB package is insufficient after passing an $892BB package in December is somehow insufficient is absurd to me.
Forth, to send out more direct payments without current need testing is unbelievably wasteful. A basing payments based on 2019/pre-pandemic income is stupid. I get why it was done in the first round, but to have done that again in December and now again in 2021 is ridiculous. From an income perspective, I had a down year in 2019 and a much better year in 2020, yet I'm getting stimulus payments (albeit a small amount) based on my 2019 filings, yet I haven't suffered an income issue from COVID at all. Meanwhile, someone who may have had a good year in 2019 and then lost their job in 2020 may be receiving nothing.
And lastly, tying a federal minimum wage hike to the COVID relief bill is disgusting and dems should be called out and shamed because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: A few points....
Feb 3, 2021, 8:55 AM
|
|
flow
1. I always thought that the analysis was cost - benefit. I am not sure what good it does to look at the cost of a bill without examining the benefits.
2. I think the Dems would still consider splitting the bills if the Reps had indicated that they would help get the relief part passed quickly, but so far they are hedging their bets.
3. The first bill was always intended as a first step. The course of this virus and its economic impact is an ongoing and dynamic thing. Each medical and political step has to be assessed given the current situation. Right now, there's a good chance that this will go on longer than we might have hoped (I hope I am wrong).
Many economists have suggested that, after the recession of 2008, the unemployment and other difficulties of the recovery were exacerbated by going too small in the stimulus package. Dems want to learn from those mistakes and avoid them this time.
4. This package is a relief AND stimulus bill. Dems want to help those in desperate need for sure, but they also want to stimulate the economy to help reduce those desperate circumstances. I am sure you can spend that money in your community in ways that will help small businesses and their employees.
5. I take your point about the minimum wage, but Dems are not the only ones to package their legislation. This is common practice in DC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So back in December (before the election) Pubs
Feb 3, 2021, 10:16 AM
|
|
were all about the $2000 but Mitch wouldn't allow it.
Now that they have the chance to actually pass 1400 around Mitch, NOT A SINGLE ONE VOTES FOR IT
What changed Pubs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Because the bill contains a lot more than just...
Feb 3, 2021, 10:19 AM
|
|
direct payments to individuals. You can't throw in a federal minimum wage hike to a covid relief bill and then spin it that the GOP doesn't support higher direct payments to individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Ahhh.. that's why.
Feb 3, 2021, 10:23 AM
|
|
was the min wage hike put in the bill before or after reconciliation?
I don't know the answer to the follow scenario, but if it was after, then dems may have seen it as "well they aren't going for it anyways, we might as well put in our wish list without them"
If the min wage was in the bill before reconciliation talks, then yeah it's political theater to make it seem like pubs don't want to help people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31894]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37182
Joined: 11/22/03
|
It's been in their plan from the beginning...
Feb 3, 2021, 10:31 AM
|
|
meaning the new plan introduced when the took over the WH and Senate.
If I was in Congress, I would vote against this bill as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 900
|
|
|
50
