Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Who will win the messaging war on COVID relief? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Ok
So they put a bill to the R senate that was just cash for Americans. They knew it wouldn’t pass. You and I knew it wouldn’t pass
Why didn’t they pass the 1400 the first day they had the votes and work on the rest later?
The General
Footballguy
I mean there’s no removing the part that politicians are in a position where they are voted in. That can’t be removed.
Even in a perfect world people are going to legitimately disagree about the best way to help people.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
I don’t know. The wheels move slowly.
I saw Bernie asked a similar question a week or so ago and he said the speed at which the Senate is moving is fast.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Right, so we have come ful circle. If the Ds REALLY WANTED to send checks to Americans .....if that was their priority.....they could’ve done that the first week they had the votes, right?
The General
Footballguy
I don’t think so.
People correct me if I wrong with all the various mechanisms that there are to pass stuff.
Initially there is a push to get a bipartisan bill. One that gets 60 votes in the Senate. This is what people always scream for them to do.
That alone is going to take time. Even in a world where people have only good intentions, reasonable people can disagree with the best way to help people. That stalled.
Dems determine to pass things via procedures that they can do with 50 votes plus Kamala. Which is what is starting to happen now.
As mentioned earlier, Bernie who would know the process as well as anyone, was saying things are progressing quickly by Senate standards.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Apparently the $15 minimum wage for federal employees was a big sticking point for the GOP. That's a large chunk of the check. The rest of the money is going to some combination of states, businesses and people. There's also money in the bill to fund more vaccination sites as well as more testing resources and money for schools. The only part that I'd consider cutting at this point is the money directly to states....it needs to go to local municipalities and regular people before it goes to the states IMO.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
My understanding is they are sending checks based on 2019 income, but you can file for more on your 2020 return if your income has decreased
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
Lol this is comical to ask. A media which is almost entirely left leaning and certainly at a minimum anti republican and someone seriously asks who will win the messaging war. Thats rich
bigbottom
Footballguy
I’m told the minimum wage provision has now been removed. And in any event, I don’t see how that would have been a large chunk (or any chunk) of the funding for the bill. The federal government wasn’t proposing funding the minimum wage increase were they?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
It was a proposal for an increase in the federal minimum wage (applying to employment in all 50 states), which doesn’t mean it’s only for federal employees.
The Commish
Footballguy
Wouldnt the fed govt have to pay their emps that too? I feel like were talking past each other or im saying something wrong.
bigbottom
Footballguy
You said that a big chunk of the 1.9 trillion cost of the bill was attributable to the federal minimum wage. I haven’t seen an analysis, but I wouldn’t think that would be the case at all. Also, an increase in the federal minimum wage is far more likely to impact private employment than federal employees. I would think the vast majority of federal employees make more than $15 per hour, though I could be wrong.
Edit: This article provides a good overview of what comprises the various costs of the 1.9 trillion stimulus package.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry...misspoke here. Chunk of the issue.....not the check....The Commish said:
bigbottom
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
This is a CNN link. Its not legitbigbottom said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks for the responses to this thread. It’s certainly not a comical question to ask. The last two times there were major one sided bills signed (Obamacare and the Trump tax cuts), Democrats failed to win the messaging war. They were completely defeated by Obamacare (in the next election they were blown out of the water) and with the Trump tax cuts the public was largely divided.
The everlasting myth that the mainstream media is biased towards the Democratic side has always been false, demonstrably so whenever it’s put to the test. But far too many people go on believing it anyhow.
The everlasting myth that the mainstream media is biased towards the Democratic side has always been false, demonstrably so whenever it’s put to the test. But far too many people go on believing it anyhow.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction
Footballguy
No. It's because America is still center-right about spending and center-left about social issues. The media is left. You can keep repeating your opinion about this and BLF/Antifa and you're just spectacularly misguided and pretty much wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
I appreciate your use of adjectives. I’d rather be spectacularly misguided than, say awfully misguided or frightfully misguided. It’s more showy, like Liza Minnelli in a sparkly dress.
rockaction
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
You say that but I vehemently disagree with you. I am 100% certain the media is left leaning and of course I'm not the only one. Of course if you are on the left, you will say that's not true, I get that. And as I said, if not left leaning, then definitely anti-republican.
rockaction
Footballguy
Some libertarians call the media "statist media." That is, the media doesn't come from the left or the right, but rather, it is generally disposed to be favorable to government action, intervention, and presence in many walks of life. Usually, given that the United States is a country that emphasizes negative rights (in other words, you have little or no affirmative or positive rights except for the right to be left alone by your fellow citizens), this "statist media" is going to cheer on corrections and give itself a leftward bent because our default setting is right-of-center. So why statist? Well note how the media often discusses the military. Heck, it broadcasts and almost cheers war, for instance, hardly something cheered on or spoken in jingoistic terms by the left in the country. The media never discusses the defense budget, for instance, only left-wingers and libertarians do. In another sense, the media loves regulation. You name the regulation in the name of safety or protection, and the legacy media eats it up. Never a bad bureaucrat.
Just something to consider.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
The way many FBG’ers talk about their financial status is anyone actually going to get stimulus money?
rockaction
Footballguy
I will. My status sucks. I'm in credit card debt. I could use it. But, of course, I'm one of the ones that doesn't want to see a $15/hr. minimum wage shoved through. Why? Because when we're up and running again, it's going to be harder for me to get temporary jobs in office settings. They'll either not be wanting to hire at that rate or they're going to retain senior staff and give them more hours instead of taking on temps, which is where I would personally be.
Labor laws seem to always hurt the ones on the back end of employment. For instance, California passed a law that made freelance writers no longer independent contractors but employees. When I went to apply to Pro Football Focus to watch and chart games, I was informed that the California statute prevented them from accepting work from me (there was a provision in the bill that you could only accept so many pieces from a person before he or she became an employee). So by protecting freelancers that are already working, they killed the market for me from becoming a freelancer for a desirable company. It's just reflexive thinking to think you'll raise the minimum wage and, Bowles and Gintis's fast food studies notwithstanding, not expect companies to adjust their hiring practices by hiring less. Doesn't make a lick of sense. All raising the fed. min. wage does is secure and help those who have union jobs with seniority. Which is rubbish to me.
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
I think it should save the government a considerable amount. The only real argument I can see for it being in the COVID bill is that it is part of the plan to pay it. I have not heard anybody make this argument though.bigbottom said:
We spend a lot of money on assistance for the working poor. We do need to end the subsidizing of employers who pay unlivable wages. I think a UBI is a far better solution, but not remotely politically feasible. An increase in the minimum wage has issues but is probably the best feasible way to deal with this.
All that being said, I don't really think it should be in a relief bill. I suspect it may have even been put in the plan to have something big to give up during negotiations.
rockaction
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Politico article - Inside Bidenworld's plan to punish the GOP for opposing Covid Relief
Seems like the Dems learned some stuff from the last time around, that's encouraging.
Seems like the Dems learned some stuff from the last time around, that's encouraging.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's a layup politically, but they can always brick it. Given their past performance, it's what I'm expecting honestly. Hopefully I am wrong.
Insein
Footballguy
That seems like a random question but I suppose at the time it made a lot of political sense for the US to show financial support to countries close to the Soviet Union in order to help keep them from Soviet control. I don't know if the aid served any other benefit but political. Even then I'm sure there were plenty of Americans who felt all that money would have been better served at home than in Europe.
rockaction
Footballguy
It's not really that random. Most historians consider it a really wise investment of foreign aid. I'm wondering whether you're opposed to aid in general, or whether it's situation-specific, and that question is usually a telling one (for those who are aware of the Marshall Plan). It helps me suss out your ideas about aid, whether they're in line with someone like Ron Paul, or whether you object to foreign aid on a case-by-case basis. And whether or not you know what the Marshall Plan was before you react to a more abstract question where I just directly asking you if you're against foreign aid, a questioning that might entail a different or shaded answer.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
No, he's right and you're wrong, here. "Vehemently" is a more appropriate modifier for "disagree", whereas "spectacular" would be more appropriate for "disagreement".
timschochet
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Seems the politics are the after effect here...in shaping the message after the bill passes. Not that it is what matters most...but its what is next. And they are right...they have to think about it and message it...because they know the opposite is going to happen. They know the Republicans are going to put their spin on it...and they know it will be about spending. That is going to be the message we hear going into the next midterms.
supermike80
Footballguy
Not bitter at all. It's an honest opinion based on what I see as I look around the web. I look at a lot of it. Internet and TV mostly(not so much print, but theinternet is kinda print anyway)
I mean do I like it? No. But I don't like bias of any sort in my media. Unfortunately I can't stop that from happening. However to me the left bias is very clear.
Mile High
Footballguy
What were the Republicans playing right before the Georgia Senate elections when the president and the Democrats were both saying to Mitch let's vote on giving the people $2000 right now and he passed on that deal?
That must be for the full amount. It doesn't phase out until 100,000 and 200,000. Have a couple kids and households making a quarter of a million dollars will be getting checks.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Based on what is known, it sounds like you’re right.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/personal-finance/targeted-1400-stimulus-check-calculator/
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
If you’re trying to “gotcha” me as if I’m a fan of the Rs you’re barking up the wrong tree
Mile High
Footballguy
Fair enough. I guess it's a gotcha to the Rs in the house and Senate. They had a chance before and they still do to vote to help. If they again choose not to vote yes it's on them.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
well that's a lie, they didn't try to compromise, they have the power and they used it. they also didn't do the best for the American people with a paltry % of the covid relief actually going to the people
Biden is a politician, he lies and they'll use the bi-partisan talk as a means but its expected. GOP will try and hamstring the DNC every chance they get, making Biden and this administration look as bas as possible just like Democrats did
core policies might be different, but the strategies and tactics and politician talk etc is all the same - cloaked in lies and accusations and finger pointing
Mile High
Footballguy
I said earlier in hindsight it was a mistake to say we should try healing He should have said we have the power and will do what we want.
Similar threads
