Trump signs stimulus executive actions: 1) +$400 for unemployment but States pick up 25%. 2) Suspend Medicare/Social Security withholding. 3)...

[pcgeek11]

Who should have started earlier? The House has a bill. THey passed it 2 months ago. Does the Senate have one? Why not? I tire of this both sides BS.

I know you do...

The house passed a bill known to be unacceptable to the Senate... It goes on and on...

 

[nickqt]

I know you do...

The house passed a bill known to be unacceptable to the Senate... It goes on and on...

Is Mitch McConnell "the Senate"?

Was there a vote in the Senate to just pass the House version?

Both Sides!

 

[pcgeek11]

Is Mitch McConnell "the Senate"?

Was there a vote in the Senate to just pass the House version?

Both Sides!

The Senates point of view is too much add on weight to the bill which should be about Covid-19 relief.



The bill also modifies or expands a wide range of other programs and policies, including those regarding:

• broadband service,
• immigration,
• student loans and financial aid,
• the federal workforce,
• prisons,
• veterans benefits,
• consumer protection requirements,
• the U.S. Postal Service,
• federal elections,
• aviation and railroad workers, and
• pension and retirement plans.

These things may very well need attention, but not as added weight to a bill for Covid-19 Relief.

We all know why they added it in with the Covid Bill... Don't we?

 

[Jhhnn]

I am of the opinion that this didn't sneak up on any of them. Due to their shitty negotiating in recent history they should have started earlier. But as always they seem to wait until the last minute on everything except their vacations and recess'.

I'm of the opinion that Trump never was negotiating in good faith. They never budged from their original position at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Senates point of view is too much add on weight to the bill which should be about Covid-19 relief.



The bill also modifies or expands a wide range of other programs and policies, including those regarding:

• broadband service,
• immigration,
• student loans and financial aid,
• the federal workforce,
• prisons,
• veterans benefits,
• consumer protection requirements,
• the U.S. Postal Service,
• federal elections,
• aviation and railroad workers, and
• pension and retirement plans.

These things may very well need attention, but not as added weight to a bill for Covid-19 Relief.

We all know why they added it in with the Covid Bill... Don't we?

Where did you get that list?

 

[pcgeek11]

Where did you get that list?

Here:

H.R.6800 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): The Heroes Act

Summary of H.R.6800 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): The Heroes Act

www.congress.gov

I did edit out some of the things that shouldn't be an issue but here is an overview:

Among other things, the bill

• provides FY2020 emergency supplemental appropriations to federal agencies;
• provides payments and other assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments;
• provides additional direct payments of up to $1,200 per individual;
• expands paid sick days, family and medical leave, unemployment compensation, nutrition and food assistance programs, housing assistance, and payments to farmers;
• modifies and expands the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides loans and grants to small businesses and nonprofit organizations;
• establishes a fund to award grants for employers to provide pandemic premium pay for essential workers;
• expands several tax credits and deductions;
• provides funding and establishes requirements for COVID-19 testing and contact tracing;
• eliminates cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatments;
• extends and expands the moratorium on certain evictions and foreclosures; and
• requires employers to develop and implement infectious disease exposure control plans.

The bill also modifies or expands a wide range of other programs and policies, including those regarding

• Medicare and Medicaid,
• health insurance,
• broadband service,
• medical product supplies,
• immigration,
• student loans and financial aid,
• the federal workforce,
• prisons,
• veterans benefits,
• consumer protection requirements,
• the U.S. Postal Service,
• federal elections,
• aviation and railroad workers, and
• pension and retirement plans.

 

[nickqt]

The Senates point of view is too much add on weight to the bill which should be about Covid-19 relief.



The bill also modifies or expands a wide range of other programs and policies, including those regarding:

• broadband service,
• immigration,
• student loans and financial aid,
• the federal workforce,
• prisons,
• veterans benefits,
• consumer protection requirements,
• the U.S. Postal Service,
• federal elections,
• aviation and railroad workers, and
• pension and retirement plans.

These things may very well need attention, but not as added weight to a bill for Covid-19 Relief.

We all know why they added it in with the Covid Bill... Don't we?

Republicans think any money allocated to anyone who doesn't already have money is too much.

Of course, you didn't answer my question.

Did The Senate get to vote on just passing the House bill?

Is Mitch McConnell "the Senate"?

 

[ivwshane]

The Senates point of view is too much add on weight to the bill which should be about Covid-19 relief.



The bill also modifies or expands a wide range of other programs and policies, including those regarding:

• broadband service,
• immigration,
• student loans and financial aid,
• the federal workforce,
• prisons,
• veterans benefits,
• consumer protection requirements,
• the U.S. Postal Service,
• federal elections,
• aviation and railroad workers, and
• pension and retirement plans.

These things may very well need attention, but not as added weight to a bill for Covid-19 Relief.

We all know why they added it in with the Covid Bill... Don't we?

Do you need an education on how a bill becomes a law or will you be posting for three pages about how not amending the house bill to remove the “added weight” from the house is an example of “both sides”?

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you need an education on how a bill becomes a law or will you be posting for three pages about how not amending the house bill to remove the “added weight” from the house is an example of “both sides”?

No, Thanks. I'm done...

 

[ivwshane]

No, Thanks. I'm done...

Smart move.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Republicans think any money allocated to anyone who doesn't already have money is too much.

Of course, you didn't answer my question.

Did The Senate get to vote on just passing the House bill?

Is Mitch McConnell "the Senate"?

And you think you Dems can just sugar coat whatever bills you want with anything you want under the guise of "Here pass this, it's an emergency wink wink".

 

[nickqt]

And you think you Dems can just sugar coat whatever bills you want with anything you want under the guise of "Here pass this, it's an emergency wink wink".

Still no answer.

Keep on keepin' on, collaborator.

 

[fskimospy]

I know you do...

The house passed a bill known to be unacceptable to the Senate... It goes on and on...

So in other words their opening offer was unacceptable to the other side, which is true in basically all negotiations. The Republicans never bothered to respond though, because they wanted to wait until the last minute.

The Democrats attempted to start negotiating and the republicans refused. Thanks for confirming you understand who was irresponsible here. For once you’re acknowledging reality!

 

[SMOGZINN]

So in other words their opening offer was unacceptable to the other side, which is true in basically all negotiations. The Republicans never bothered to respond though, because they wanted to wait until the last minute.

The Democrats attempted to start negotiating and the republicans refused. Thanks for confirming you understand who was irresponsible here. For once you’re acknowledging reality!

This exactly. This is the path that almost every bill that makes it to the President's desk works. One chamber passes it and the other chamber modifies it, and passes it back, then the originator either passes it or modifies it again, and the process repeats until it is passed by both chambers. The idea that the bill failed because the House did not pass something that was already acceptable to the Senate is crazy.

If the Senate had just modified the bill to something that could pass their chamber then the House would have very likely approved it. The real problem here is that Mitch knew that he could not draft a bill that would pass his house because Republicans do not even majority agree that there should be another bill.

 

[zinfamous]

this is....not a good look for you.

 

[zinfamous]

In defense of s0me0nesmind1, the relief bill that the house passed had no chance of ever getting Republican votes. Pelosi knew that, and I'd imagine that most people here knew that as well. The amount of funding being offered by the house would be considered "Socialist welfare" to most conservatives.

so, again, R's are dead-set against offering what 70-80% of the country needs and actually wants.

why do you guys keep stumbling into making the argument for your opposition?

 

[zinfamous]

Without digging way into the rabbit hole, every politician I have heard in moderately recent times (recent means within the last 25 years) has said some version of current personal and business insurance expenses will become taxes and there may be cuts to other parts of the budget or as Bernie and Warren said "yes there will be more taxes"
I seriously don't know anyone respectable who has claimed medicare for all would be free because reasons. I have heard the typical lunatic who makes outrageous claims who is not a policy maker or a candidate or an insurance expert or well any type of expert except in maybe collectible cards or manga or whatever make a claim that medicare for all would be free.
I have had deplorable friends make the claim sort of like you did in jest or an attempt to smear someone but even those guys know it is not what is being talked about.
Everyone understands medicare for all means what you pay for healthcare now becomes a tax meaning some would save money, some would spend more money and most would be more or less in the same position they currently are. The benefit isn't necessarily in the cost savings it is in the reliable coverage for all and no fear of an illness leading to bankruptcy, plus cutting all the irritating billing bullshit like in network vs out of network.
We literally have the most expensive healthcare in the world and we have mediocre results from our care vs dollars spent. There is no place in the world that runs healthcare like we do, there is no place in the world that runs a successful free market based health system.

Republicans always claim that Democrat proposals always mean NEW, ADDITIONAL! taxes on top of what currently exists. That has never been true, and in the vast majority of major policy proposals, has never been an argument.

Yes, it's part of taxes, but these taxes are already paid for the most part.

 

[ultimatebob]

so, again, R's are dead-set against offering what 70-80% of the country needs and actually wants.

why do you guys keep stumbling into making the argument for your opposition?

On the flip side, you're going to have problems convincing people to go back to food service, retail, or warehouse jobs that pay 50 cents an hour over minimum wage when the Democrats were offering roughly $20 an hour * to sit at home collecting unemployment until the end of the year.

* I came up with $20 an hour by taking the original $600 a week government unemployment benefit from the CARES act, added an estimated $200 a month in state benefits, and then divided by 40 hours a week. Yes, I know that the state benefits can be either higher or lower than that depending on the state. If anything, I'm probably being conservative on that estimate.

 

[K1052]

On the flip side, you're going to have problems convincing people to go back to food service, retail, or warehouse jobs that pay 50 cents an hour over minimum wage when the Democrats were offering roughly $20 an hour * to sit at home collecting unemployment until the end of the year.

* I came up with $20 an hour by taking the original $600 a week government unemployment benefit from the CARES act, added an estimated $200 a month in state benefits, and then divided by 40 hours a week. Yes, I know that the state benefits can be either higher or lower than that depending on the state. If anything, I'm probably being conservative on that estimate.

This presumes the virus was under control and demand returned to something like normal levels. Had we controlled the virus and fixed consumer confidence we would not require extraordinary economic support.

 

[SMOGZINN]

On the flip side, you're going to have problems convincing people to go back to food service, retail, or warehouse jobs that pay 50 cents an hour over minimum wage when the Democrats were offering roughly $20 an hour * to sit at home collecting unemployment until the end of the year.

* I came up with $20 an hour by taking the original $600 a week government unemployment benefit from the CARES act, added an estimated $200 a month in state benefits, and then divided by 40 hours a week. Yes, I know that the state benefits can be either higher or lower than that depending on the state. If anything, I'm probably being conservative on that estimate.

You are right, having tasted what it is like to actually have enough money to live on they are going to demand higher pay to do those jobs.
That is how job markets work.

 

[fskimospy]

On the flip side, you're going to have problems convincing people to go back to food service, retail, or warehouse jobs that pay 50 cents an hour over minimum wage when the Democrats were offering roughly $20 an hour * to sit at home collecting unemployment until the end of the year.

* I came up with $20 an hour by taking the original $600 a week government unemployment benefit from the CARES act, added an estimated $200 a month in state benefits, and then divided by 40 hours a week. Yes, I know that the state benefits can be either higher or lower than that depending on the state. If anything, I'm probably being conservative on that estimate.

This has already been studied, with unemployment as high as it is there has been no statistically meaningful effect on people returning to work.

Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce employment

The analysis, supported by Yale’s Tobin Center for Economic Policy, comes as Congress debates whether to extend the expanded unemployment benefits.

news.yale.edu

 

[ivwshane]

On the flip side, you're going to have problems convincing people to go back to food service, retail, or warehouse jobs that pay 50 cents an hour over minimum wage when the Democrats were offering roughly $20 an hour * to sit at home collecting unemployment until the end of the year.

* I came up with $20 an hour by taking the original $600 a week government unemployment benefit from the CARES act, added an estimated $200 a month in state benefits, and then divided by 40 hours a week. Yes, I know that the state benefits can be either higher or lower than that depending on the state. If anything, I'm probably being conservative on that estimate.

Except for the fact that if a job is available, that is the employer says they have hours available for employees to work, they don’t get unemployment.

Except for that tiny detail, you’d be right.

 

[ultimatebob]

This presumes the virus was under control and demand returned to something like normal levels. Had we controlled the virus and fixed consumer confidence we would not require extraordinary economic support.

Except for the fact that if a job is available, that is the employer says they have hours available for employees to work, they don’t get unemployment.

Except for that tiny detail, you’d be right.

I guess that depends on how you lost work. If you were temporally furloughed, sure. I'd imagine that a lot of people eventually got laid off permanently once their employers realized that this wasn't going to be over in two weeks.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess that depends on how you lost work. If you were temporally furloughed, sure. I'd imagine that a lot of people eventually got laid off permanently once their employers realized that this wasn't going to be over in two weeks.

That's true but if they are earning more than before then they'll most likely be contributing to the economy more than they would have which will help to keep things going. Its a win win until things get back to normal.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's true but if they are earning more than before then they'll most likely be contributing to the economy more than they would have which will help to keep things going. Its a win win until things get back to normal.

Economic literacy!? That's a stretch for Americans. None of us were educated for that.