Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, The Commish said:

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

This really is the part that got me also.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 605
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I call  on all the anectdotes from far right leaning folks who know someone's cousin or sister or grandmother that got three mail in ballots and 2 checks and all that jazz.

90% of congress probably doesnt either.

Party over country.  They don't want to give Biden a win.

6 hours ago, jm192 said:

I think this is a ridiculous way to look at it.  

For the record, I'm not particularly upset over the pork projects.  It's been happening for decades and won't stop anytime soon.  The thread is about why Republicans are holding it up.  This is why.  

But to say "Look at all the work this creates."  Why don't we fund trillions of dollars worth of bridges with tax dollars in every state?  That'll create all of the work for everybody.  

It would take about $2 trillion to fix roads/bridges/sewer and it is money the US needs to spend. Separate issue from covid relief but another big issue facing the country. It really shouldn’t be in this bill; it should be another trillion dollar infrastructure bill. Someday, when this comes up, I hope we can do something regardless of which party proposes it. The fact that some of this stuff gets stuck into other bills isn’t really all that surprising to me, because there is a lack of action on this issue and it isn’t something we can ignore.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

No it wont. Schools will either open before they get this money or it will be august and this money wont matter one bit.

I’ve never been good with finances and budgets - especially when looking at them in a political setting.  However, he referred to making up loses - if I use money allocated to me for other things to help open school and then move COVID money to cover for that then it seems reasonable to say it’s helping to open schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I’ve never been good with finances and budgets - especially when looking at them in a political setting.  However, he referred to making up loses - if I use money allocated to me for other things to help open school and then move COVID money to cover for that then it seems reasonable to say it’s helping to open schools.

And the schools that have been open the whole time? Just a stack of cash to use for whatever?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

It would take about $2 trillion to fix roads/bridges/sewer and it is money the US needs to spend. Separate issue from covid relief but another big issue facing the country. It really shouldn’t be in this bill; it should be another trillion dollar infrastructure bill. Someday, when this comes up, I hope we can do something regardless of which party proposes it. The fact that some of this stuff gets stuck into other bills isn’t really all that surprising to me, because there is a lack of action on this issue and it isn’t something we can ignore.

IMO, part of this problem is how Congress has completely shirked its budgetary duty going back many years now.  When was the last true budget?  Vs these continuing resolutions and omnibus bills and adding this or that to every single bill?

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/its-not-news-congresss-budget-process-wreck-it-should-be

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things I love about our district is their transparency.  It's been that way since we moved here in 2017 and took me by surprise..refreshing.  Our district has allocated (not spent yet of course because they don't pay future salaries) monies for all the extra teachers they needed to staff both online and in person learning.  That money still isn't enough to pay all those required.  They also fronted a million bucks or so for equipment (computers for the kids, tablets etc) and these new funds will be used to replenish those funds.  To say the money won't help is a pretty bizarre thing to say IMO.  I'm absolutely confident you'll find some specific circumstances where it's probably true, but for the most part it won't be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about the question posed by @timschochetto start the thread, I think much of it hinges on how one should interpret a "no" vote on the bill.  As best as I can explain:

1) Some people, like timschochet, seem to be looking at the vote as a take-it-or-leave-it type situation. Democrats are the majority and are the only party that can even bring a bill to the floor.  Republicans should know they aren't going to get the bill that they want.  It's either the Democratic bill or nothing.  If it's just a binary choice like that, even Republicans who oppose certain parts of the bill should still vote for it because there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done and this bill is better than doing nothing.  One unflattering way to interpret the Republican no votes is as an expression that "the downsides of this bill are worse than the upsides" which is a view that seems prettty easy to criticize when the bill would help alleviate so much suffering.

2) Most Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be looking it more as "this bill is much different from the bill that I would choose, so I am going to vote against it."  They know that it will pass and they want their "no" vote to be perceived as a "I didn't vote for THESE parts of the bill."  If they can get people to buy that narrative, then they get the advantage of being able to criticize any parts of the bill that prove to be unsuccessful or unpopular, while still giving the impression that they would have voted for the bill if only that stuff wasn't in there.

I don't think there's a clear answer about how a "no" vote should or will be interpreted.  Both interpretations seem pretty reasonable.   I'd imagine that mainstream media will largely present it as #1 (look at these horrible Republicans who won't vote to help people!) while right-wing media will largely present it as #2 (look at these horrible Democrats who put all this bad stuff in the bill!)  The people will be similarly divided. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

In thinking about the question posed by @timschochetto start the thread, I think much of it hinges on how one should interpret a "no" vote on the bill.  As best as I can explain:

1) Some people, like timschochet, seem to be looking at the vote as a take-it-or-leave-it type situation. Democrats are the majority and are the only party that can even bring a bill to the floor.  Republicans should know they aren't going to get the bill that they want.  It's either the Democratic bill or nothing.  If it's just a binary choice like that, even Republicans who oppose certain parts of the bill should still vote for it because there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done and this bill is better than doing nothing.  One unflattering way to interpret the Republican no votes is as an expression that "the downsides of this bill are worse than the upsides" which is a view that seems prettty easy to criticize when the bill would help alleviate so much suffering.

2) Most Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be looking it more as "this bill is much different from the bill that I would choose, so I am going to vote against it."  They know that it will pass and they want their "no" vote to be perceived as a "I didn't vote for THESE parts of the bill."  If they can get people to buy that narrative, then they get the advantage of being able to criticize any parts of the bill that prove to be unsuccessful or unpopular, while still giving the impression that they would have voted for the bill if only that stuff wasn't in there.

I don't think there's a clear answer about how a "no" vote should or will be interpreted.  Both interpretations seem pretty reasonable.   I'd imagine that mainstream media will largely present it as #1 (look at these horrible Republicans who won't vote to help people!) while right-wing media will largely present it as #2 (look at these horrible Democrats who put all this bad stuff in the bill!)  The people will be similarly divided. 

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

 

That's the support now.  The next elections aren't for 18 months, there's plenty of time for Republicans to convince people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2021 at 10:53 PM, unckeyherb said:

Is it not possible to simply put forth a bill that funds COVID relief and only COVID relief?  I get the idea that pork is included in most maybe all bills.  But the numbers I’m seeing is that something like 9% of the bill is actually funding for people affected by COVID to be applied this year.  Shame on everyone for playing politics with this.  Just propose a bill that does what it is intended to do.  If the gop still turns their nose up at it then they can suffer the consequences.  I doubt that would be the case.  ####### ridiculous 

This

We are supposed to believe that the Dems wanted to do the 2000 when Trump was still in office. The only reason they put it up was because they knew the Republicans wouldn’t go for it. This bill just proves that.
If they are so worried about the American people and want to help the American people get some relief so badly why are they adding all this crap to this bill? They have the votes to push through JUST stimulus checks now, why aren’t they doing it ?

@The General

we discussed this over a month ago, still no relief bill

Do you feel any differently about what I typed today than you did then ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

 

I just took a quick (~5 minute) glance at the bill.  It's actually not too difficult to see what's in it from a scan of the Table of Contents and then looking at detail as desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

This

We are supposed to believe that the Dems wanted to do the 2000 when Trump was still in office. The only reason they put it up was because they knew the Republicans wouldn’t go for it. This bill just proves that.
If they are so worried about the American people and want to help the American people get some relief so badly why are they adding all this crap to this bill? They have the votes to push through JUST stimulus checks now, why aren’t they doing it ?

@The General

we discussed this over a month ago, still no relief bill

Do you feel any differently about what I typed today than you did then ?

I don’t remember everything we talked about.

Are there politics at play yes. They are about to pass checks but they have already been lowered during this process (from 2K to 1400) and were still being negotiated down in terms of who can get them (what income level receives them) up until the past couple days. 

So what exactly has votes and doesn’t?

This 9% actually going to covid number is probably highly debatable - I’m not sure what that is based on. One persons pork is another persons important issue to helping people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

The general public won't see the long term effects of spending like this.

Wait until we see $3 a gallon gas.  Then they'll turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

 

75% agree with the stimulus, no way 75% want the add-ones. I want neither.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The General said:

I don’t remember everything we talked about.

Are there politics at play yes. They are about to pass checks but they have already been lowered during this process (from 2K to 1400) and were still being negotiated down in terms of who can get them (what income level receives them) up until the past couple days. 

So what exactly has votes and doesn’t?

This 9% actually going to covid number is probably highly debatable - I’m not sure what that is based on. One persons pork is another persons important issue to helping people. 

No they were not

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

Except they're not.

This is a great post, but I disagree with the last sentence, because the polls dispute it. We know that over 75% of the public wants this, and that includes over 50% of Republican voters. I know that some conservatives are arguing, "well they don't know what's in it." But that argument, even if true doesn't change anything.

 

"That argument doesn't change anything."

Tim, would you like 1400$, tax free?  Is anyone going to say no to free money?

To act like "The polls show everyone want this bill" is misleading.  People aren't being asked "Do you think we should spend millions of federal dollars on a bridge for new york or tunnel for California?"  

People are struggling and you're citing polls asked if they want financial support.  Duh, they do.  

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

75% agree with the stimulus, no way 75% want the add-ones. I want neither.

Agreed. The vast majority of the public likely believes most of the $1.9 trillion is stimulus checks...when in fact it's barely 25% ($465B).

In fact, only 52% of the price tag is checks, unemployment ($350B) and vaccine support ($180B). Beyond that people have no clue about other "add-ons" (e.g. state bailouts = $350B).

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sand said:

The general public won't see the long term effects of spending like this.

Wait until we see $3 a gallon gas.  Then they'll turn.

going to have $4 a gallon within 8 months IMHO.  I'm thinking no drilling on federal lands.  No fracking on federal lands.  No new leases on federal lands.   Unstable Middle East(shocker-but more than normal).  Reduced USA oil supply because of regulations on pipelines or just flat shutting them down.  Just a few, many more factors.

I hope I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Agreed. The vast majority of the public likely believes most of the $1.9 trillion is stimulus checks...when in fact it's barely 25% ($465B).

In fact, only 52% of the price tag is checks, unemployment ($350B) and vaccine support ($180B). Beyond that people have no clue about other "add-ons" (e.g. state bailouts = $350B).

What is the basis for the state bailouts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

What is the basis for the state bailouts?

For states it is based on share of unemployed workers (CA, NY, MA, DC at top of list)...for cities "using a formula that targets funds to areas of greatest need."

Doesn't take a political rocket scientist to know where most of the funds will go...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, shadrap said:

going to have $4 a gallon within 8 months IMHO.  I'm thinking no drilling on federal lands.  No fracking on federal lands.  No new leases on federal lands.   Unstable Middle East(shocker-but more than normal).  Reduced USA oil supply because of regulations on pipelines or just flat shutting them down.  Just a few, many more factors.

I hope I'm wrong.

I'm doing what Biden did with his "100 million doses" goal - set the bar at what was already in the cards.  In reality I believe we have a real good shot at $3.50.

Unless you're in Cali, in which case you're already at $4.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stoneworker said:

Agreed. The vast majority of the public likely believes most of the $1.9 trillion is stimulus checks...when in fact it's barely 25% ($465B).

In fact, only 52% of the price tag is checks, unemployment ($350B) and vaccine support ($180B). Beyond that people have no clue about other "add-ons" (e.g. state bailouts = $350B).

I haven't read the bill and don't have time to.   What does a state bailout consist of?

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the rover said:

I haven't read the bill and don't have time to.   What does a state bailout consist of?

At a guess, replentishing the lost tax revenue at the state level.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

At a guess, replentishing the lost tax revenue at the state level.  

specifically, what lost tax revenue are you referring to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, the rover said:

specifically, what lost tax revenue are you referring to?

Anything from gas taxes to car and truck licensing, to funds from gambling (state lotttery and casinos).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

This is why I'm not understanding why this is necessarily a bad thing. 

Moral hazard. According to the bill's "needs-based" formula...if two states had equal financial challenges, the one that manages their challenges better will get punished...the other gets a bailout. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stoneworker said:

Moral hazard. According to the bill's "needs-based" formula...if two states had equal financial challenges, the one that manages their challenges better will get punished...the other gets a bailout. 

Money goes to where it is most needed.  Would you rather there be no money allocated to state and local governments or would you rather see it allocated equally, regardless of need?  Trying to understand your objection to needs-based funding.

Edited by the rover
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the rover said:

Money goes to where it is most needed.  Would you rather there be no money allocated to state and local governments or would you rather see it allocated equally, regardless of need?  Trying to understand your objection to needs-based funding.

I just stated it. Moral hazard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the rover said:

Money goes to where it is most needed.  Would you rather there be no money allocated to state and local governments or would you rather see it allocated equally, regardless of need?  Trying to understand your objection to needs-based funding.

That is a much better use of taxpayer money vs sending it overseas for partisian pork projects.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, The General said:

I can’t follow all the bull#### these guys do. It’s like a full time job :lol:

 

Exactly

Dems ran on “people are hurting, people need stimulus checks, kids are hungry...!!!!!!!!”

Now they’re adding their pet projects and it’s March and these people that needed and were promised immediate help are still waiting 

Its bull####. They’re all liars 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Exactly

Dems ran on “people are hurting, people need stimulus checks, kids are hungry...!!!!!!!!”

Now they’re adding their pet projects and it’s March and these people that needed and were promised immediate help are still waiting 

Its bull####. They’re all liars 

They like to score points. They like to slow the other side down, they like to let the other side not get wins.

If there was a vote for 2K checks in December, Pelosi who was the tweet I was responding to would have voted for them, right? That was on the table from Trump and like 6 Republican Senators. These moderate Dems who now want the payments smaller maybe would have not who knows. I didn’t hear what they said in December maybe they went on the record, maybe everyone just assumed they would have voted for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Exactly

Dems ran on “people are hurting, people need stimulus checks, kids are hungry...!!!!!!!!”

Now they’re adding their pet projects and it’s March and these people that needed and were promised immediate help are still waiting 

Its bull####. They’re all liars 

Who expected this to be passed before unemployment expired March 14? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The General said:

They like to score points. They like to slow the other side down, they like to let the other side not get wins.

If there was a vote for 2K checks in December, Pelosi who was the tweet I was responding to would have voted for them, right? That was on the table from Trump and like 6 Republican Senators. These moderate Dems who now want the payments smaller maybe would have not who knows. I didn’t hear what they said in December maybe they went on the record, maybe everyone just assumed they would have voted for it.

One more time

 The Dems ran on “People need this $ now!!!”

”vote for us!!! , WE WILL GET YOU THE MONEY YOU SO BADLY NEED IMMEDIATELY!!!”

joe the savior to Georgia— “ VOTE BLUE AND CHECKS WILL GO OUT IMMEDIATELY “

I guess he doesn’t know the definition of immediately?

 

why aren’t they just putting up a bill that is cash for hungry people right now. Just the checks , nothing else? You know....like they promised?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

One more time

 The Dems ran on “People need this $ now!!!”

”vote for us!!! , WE WILL GET YOU THE MONEY YOU SO BADLY NEED IMMEDIATELY!!!”

joe the savior to Georgia— “ VOTE BLUE AND CHECKS WILL GO OUT IMMEDIATELY “

I guess he doesn’t know the definition of immediately?

 

why aren’t they just putting up a bill that is cash for hungry people right now. Just the checks , nothing else? You know....like they promised?

They are failing at that. 

One more time for me: if they put up a bill that had just 2K checks would it pass today? Would it have passed Jan 21? Both seem like a no.

Would a 2K bill passed on Dec 26th. It seems like perhaps, we don’t know because it never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The General said:

They are failing at that. 

One more time for me: if they put up a bill that had just 2K checks would it pass today? Would it have passed Jan 21? Both seem like a no.

Would a 2K bill passed on Dec 26th. It seems like perhaps, we don’t know because it never happened.

Yes it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

Moral hazard. According to the bill's "needs-based" formula...if two states had equal financial challenges, the one that manages their challenges better will get punished...the other gets a bailout. 

It does bother me that my state of Illinois will likely get a multi-billion infusion ...in the sense that we've been mismanaged for decades by the Democrats here.  A bailout will once again delay any substantive changes to address the root causes of the state's problems.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

My new favorite phrase is "forced congress to read the bill".

Have to disagree here. This is typical bull#### from a hack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

More likely just not the answer you want to hear.

Seriously, there are 3 choices:  don’t provide funds to states and local governments; provide funds equally, or based on population; or provide funds based on need.  Which of these three approaches would you choose?  “Moral hazard” is not an answer to this question.

I guess there is a fourth option of providing funds based on the least amount of need, but I’m assuming no rational person would be advocating for that.

Edited by the rover
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tri-man 47 said:

It does bother me that my state of Illinois will likely get a multi-billion infusion ...in the sense that we've been mismanaged for decades by the Democrats here.  A bailout will once again delay any substantive changes to address the root causes of the state's problems.

And those problems are only going to get worse, starting with people leaving the Chicago area.  

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

One more time

 The Dems ran on “People need this $ now!!!”

”vote for us!!! , WE WILL GET YOU THE MONEY YOU SO BADLY NEED IMMEDIATELY!!!”

joe the savior to Georgia— “ VOTE BLUE AND CHECKS WILL GO OUT IMMEDIATELY “

I guess he doesn’t know the definition of immediately?

 

why aren’t they just putting up a bill that is cash for hungry people right now. Just the checks , nothing else? You know....like they promised?

:goodposting:

 

Exactly, they ran on it and it worked...now they aren’t delivering. The blind followers will never learn sadly. 
 

You are exactly right, if they truly wanted to help people take the garbage out of the bill and it would pass. But, you know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

:goodposting:

 

Exactly, they ran on it and it worked...now they aren’t delivering. The blind followers will never learn sadly. 
 

You are exactly right, if they truly wanted to help people take the garbage out of the bill and it would pass. But, you know. 

It’s going to pass even with the “garbage.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shadrap said:

going to have $4 a gallon within 8 months IMHO.  I'm thinking no drilling on federal lands.  No fracking on federal lands.  No new leases on federal lands.   Unstable Middle East(shocker-but more than normal).  Reduced USA oil supply because of regulations on pipelines or just flat shutting them down.  Just a few, many more factors.

I hope I'm wrong.

Here are some factors in gas pricing - https://www.convenience.org/Topics/Fuels/Changing-Seasons-Changing-Gas-Prices

I noticed that OPEC isn’t going to raise production.  I’m sure that will raise some prices with increased demand and no drilling here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • timschochet changed the title to The Covid Relief Bill

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...