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.
This seems disingenuous. The Democrat-controlled House passed a standalone bill for COVID stimulus checks. The Republican-controlled Senate ignored it. Seems like it was the GOP that rejected bipartisanship, no?
You are correct. No GOP can defend that. But Democrats have the opportunity with this bill to seize the moral high ground now that they're in control. Instead it's carbon copy partisanship.
Me: I admittedly haven't read the entire bill
What does that have to do with the merits of Brown's actual statement?This isn't "thought" unique to Democrats
Answer this honestly, though, separate and apart from the contents of this particular bill, which I admit to not having read. What good does the moral high ground do? Will anyone in the MAGA crowd cross over and vote for Democrats or support liberal policies if Democrats claim the moral high ground? For that matter, would anyone in the MAGA crowd even acknowledge that the Democrats have the moral high ground, or would they persist with the liberals are evil tripe?
Nothing....sorry....I was responding to this part of the post:What does that have to do with the merits of Brown's actual statement?
I'm confident there is pork in the bill. I am not confident in GOP interpretation on quantity. Just like I am not confident in Dems evaluating GOP bills.
There will never be any common ground between hard-line MAGA and hard-line Progressives.
I would rewrite your first sentence to "There will never be any common ground between hard-line MAGA and even moderate Democrats." Given that, plus the fact that, at this point, the majority of the GOP is hard-line MAGA, what is the incentive for claiming moral high ground (again, ignoring the specific contents of this bill which I haven't read)?
How about the GOP opposes the bill because they want the economy to tank. It will help them in 2022 and 2024 elections.
Yeah. Sorry. If people can't understand the intrinsic value of moral high ground without needing a specific incentive...then no amount of explanation is going to be worth the effort.
How about if I rephrase to "What is the political benefit to claiming moral high ground?"
Don't know what it'll take for both sides to realize they work for us and not their ego.
...and the Dems support it because they think their partisan pork projects will please their constituents and...gasp...help in 2022 and 2024 elections?
I'm guessing this is a bit of ironic snark as this is exactly the reason the GOP was claiming the Dems weren't hopping on board with things like the tax cuts and the coronavirus package just before the election.
It was before the Dems won the two Senate races in Georgia. McConnell thought Republicans were going to win those races and therefore he would have more power to shape the deal.
What's in the Bill? Would you say that we need another 1.9T in COVID relief or could it be pared down to something smaller? Has the previous COVID funds been exhausted yet (rhetorical: the answer is no)?timschochet said:
I'd expect a stimulus package would help boost the economy and a lack of stimulus would lead to slower growth. Is there something wrong with the Democrats doing something that will improve the economy over the next 4 years so they win elections that makes iit as bad as the GOP deliberately trying to hurt the economy so they can regain power?
Again, it’s not just “give The people stimulus money and help the economy.”
I would be guilty of settling for the lesser of two evils. We need to work on getting better candidates instead of a political American Idol.
Yeah you would. Look at the points of contention. They are bickering over what to give us, not the pet projects. The argument is being made that individuals are getting too much money
Here's a high level summary so far. Ignore the "fact check" part and yahoos poor layout of slipping in links to other articles in the middle of the main article. But essentially it's another bloated spending bill that gives 9% directly to Covid related items, 22% to the stimulus checks, 13% to unemployment, 27% to state and local governments and schools (which is a really vague way of giving money to individual states of their choosing). The remaining 29% is not really explained (even the article contradicts itself saying 85% goes to relief but that only adds up to 71%). Ultimately, some of the American people will get up to 35% of the the money from this thing. 36% will go to state and local governments to use at their discretion. Then the rest will go to pet projects thrown in.
In fairness, that's the flashpoint. That's where the spending hits home to most voters. But pork is fine!
Then the states can fund that individually. It doesn't need to be thrown in here as a favor to whoever congressman. Especially as they have basically destroyed so many jobs in the private sector over the last year.
Lol.
Every state can pay for their own roads and bridges then. Anyway doesn't matter. It's passing.
Your right not big projects just 101.5 million for the two jobs. Still work so why cry about that.
I think this is a ridiculous way to look at it.
No it wont. Schools will either open before they get this money or it will be august and this money wont matter one bit.
Its baffling to me how less than half amount (allegedly...havent read it myself yet) is the flashpoint. How dumb are we as a colective?
So, no? You havent read it? Started reading through the unemployment part tonight. Bill states this is to support those who have lost their jobs during covid. If we're going to pretend that extra money isnt there because of the hardship caused by covid and meant to help ease the hardships, i doubt we're going to have a productive conversation.
In fairness, I think it's because they have the votes now to do it. Don't waste an advantage, seems to be the theme.
