Democrats Block Senate Coronavirus Package

[pnewton]

I know it’s naive, but I always hope that we can go beyond shallow partisan bickering and actually get into the substance of the issue.

Yes, it was naive. Abortion and Nazis come up everywhere it would seem. Godwin’s law demands that if one has no reasoning, then something unrelated must be interjected. It is as if someone would be playing a physical trump card in a game of backgammon, and think that means he won. Logic is a rarity anymore.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

So your concern for needed relief is surpassed by your annoyance at Trump’s businesses possibly benefitting? (something we cannot even be sure of)

I suspect if you ask people who need the relief, they don’t take much solace in your principled stand.

I loathe pork as much as the next guy from both parties, but this hardly seems like the bill to plant your flag on.

I too would prefer a 100% clean relief bill, but neither side is likely to do that, so why are you mad at only one side?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

When certain posters seek to not only paint Trump as a bad guy in every situation, but makes statements like “Democrats are pro-family” as a counterpoint, what exactly do you expect people to say? It is kind of hard to see the good people do when they support such grave atrocities.

Take abortion and Nazis out of it. Does it make sense to say “Mr. Walker is a generous man and a real phlanthropist when it comes to environmental causes; if only he didn’t promote child pornography so much.” That’s the kind of evil we are talking about; it is literally just as grave.

Again, the solution is easy - abandon the most heinous of policies, and you’d have a hard time not being seen for the good you do. The democratic party is the ones who refuse to do that.

 

[upant]

So I take it that you, and @upant, are ok with the provision in the bill in which $450 billion would be given to corporations without our knowledge until after the election.

it had bipartisan support, both sides could live with what was drafted until nancy stepped in and pulled the plug. if the democrat and republican senators could live with it in this era of disagreement, I sure could.

nancy is doing exactly what you are claiming, she is putting things into the bill for her cronies, are you okay with that?

I was hoping for an answer that went beyond whataboutism.

it isn’t whataboutism, it is what stopped the bill. what does postal bailout, collective bargaining powers for unions, voter registration laws, etc have to do with this emergency when people and companies need the money?

as clyburn said it is a way to restructure things to fit their vision. this is what is not okay; taking advantage of the American citizen when they are down.

 

[billsherman]

Yes, it was naive. Abortion and Nazis come up everywhere it would seem. Godwin’s law demands that if one has no reasoning, then something unrelated must be interjected. It is as if someone would be playing a physical trump card in a game of backgammon, and think that means he won. Logic is a rarity anymore.

Indeed, it was. I thought, that as a Catholic forum, important matters could be considered in a context aside from their partisanship. Alas, I was mistaken.

I’ve commented exclusively on only a single provision in an enormous bill, yet been condemned for a variety of things I’ve never stated:

So your concern for needed relief is surpassed by your annoyance at Trump’s businesses possibly benefitting? (something we cannot even be sure of)

So, you didn’t want to hear a comparison and wanted to defend a double standard.

personal animus against the President

What is it about this pandemic and it’s impact on lives and the economy that is you okay with?

nancy is doing exactly what you are claiming, she is putting things into the bill for her cronies, are you okay with that?

it isn’t whataboutism, it is what stopped the bill. what does postal bailout, collective bargaining powers for unions, voter registration laws, etc have to do with this emergency when people and companies need the money?

as clyburn said it is a way to restructure things to fit their vision. this is what is not okay; taking advantage of the American citizen when they are down.

Exactly none of those things are related to my concern: The bill’s provision that recipients of $450 billion would be unknown until after the election. This would deprive citizens of knowing where their money went, and be highly suggestive that some of it would go to people up for election in November. To me, that is supremely unethical and violates the spirit of the American republic. In fact, some might call it a gateway for corruption.

Alas, we can’t discuss this matter seriously. Instead we have to call people names, and accuse them of a variety of things they’ve never mentioned that are only tangentially related to the point at hand.

My two questions from above remain unanswered:

Are you ok with this in principle, or just because it’s a provision included by Republicans?

Second, do you think it is ethical for Donald Trump’s businesses to benefit from money in this bill without him disclosing it until after the election?

 

[JonNC]

Exactly none of those things are related to my concern: The bill’s provision that recipients of $450 billion would be unknown until after the election.

I think I did respond to this, but each of my responses was because of something you said.

This would deprive citizens of knowing where their money went, and be highly suggestive that some of it would go to people up for election in November.

And this regularly happens in legislation. I take note that you were not concerned enough with Pelosi trying to hide Planned Parenthood money.

To me, that is supremely unethical and violates the spirit of the American republic. In fact, some might call it a gateway for corruption.

But money for executing the soon to be born is not?

Alas, we can’t discuss this matter seriously. Instead we have to call people names, and accuse them of a variety of things they’ve never mentioned that are only tangentially related to the point at hand.

Part of the problem is you seem to want to narrow the conversation for your own interests.

Are you ok with this in principle, or just because it’s a provision included by Republicans?

Second, do you think it is ethical for Donald Trump’s businesses to benefit from money in this bill without him disclosing it until after the election?

From my previous post, a direct response to your question:
If businesses that have been harmed by the virus and the government response are to be helped, that means all of them, and personal animus against the President should be ignored.

 

[JonNC]

Indeed, it was. I thought, that as a Catholic forum, important matters could be considered in a context aside from their partisanship. Alas, I was mistaken.

Oh, please. Pretending that your posting isn’t partisan is silly. Contrary to the plea to Godwin by @pnewton , Pelosi tried to stick Abortion money into the bill. That makes it relevant to the discussion, particularly since it is irrelevant to the crisis.
As someone posting on a Catholic forum, are you concerned about that?

I’ve commented exclusively on only a single provision in an enormous bill, yet been condemned for a variety of things I’ve never stated:

Each of my comments were targeted at comments you made, so to imply that you were “condemned “ (no one condemned you) for things you didn’t say is incorrect.

 

[upant]

Exactly none of those things are related to my concern:

Second, do you think it is ethical for Donald Trump’s businesses to benefit

I was hoping for an answer that went beyond whataboutism.

you want to cherry-pick the bill but get upset when others describe why your concern is your concern and not a bipartisan concern. both parties didn’t have an issue with this, but you do. don’t you think the Dems would be all over it if they thought it just benefited trump? if the Dems are okay with it, so am I.

the reason it was blocked wasn’t because of your concern but nancy wanting to pay her supporters. why isn’t this a concern? oh, because she isn’t trump.

it isn’t whataboutism, it is the reason why your concern isn’t important to me.

 

[Victoria33]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1242141596541427713

 

[upant]

here is what they want

how much of it is related to the emergency and how much to their progressive goals,

as clyburn said it is a way to restructure things to fit their vision.

people need to remember this when they vote.

Corporate pay statistics by race and race statistics for all corporate boards at companies receiving assistance.

Bailing out all current debt of postal service

Required early voting

Required same day voter registration

10k bailout for student loans

For companies accepting assistance, 1/3 of board members must be chosen by workers

Provisions on official time for union collective bargaining

Full offset of airline emissions by 2025

Greenhouse gas statistics for individual flights

Retirement plans for community newspaper employees

$15 minimum wage at companies receiving assistance

Permanent paid leave at companies receiving assistance

 

[pnewton]

Take abortion and Nazis out of it.

Thank you.

When certain posters seek to not only paint Trump as a bad guy in every situation, but makes statements like “Democrats are pro-family” as a counterpoint

That’s easy. Simply point out the part of this package, the points being presented as pro-family, in which the Democrats are not really looking after families, if that is what you think. The topic.

When certain posters seek to not only paint Trump as a bad guy in every situation

Then use the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is the not reciprocity but a moral imperative. If you really think it is wrong to always paint Trump as the bad guy in every situation (and it is wrong), then do not do that to Democrats.

Contrary to the plea to Godwin by @pnewton , Pelosi tried to stick Abortion money into the bill.

If that happened, then it would be appropriate to talk about, sort of. It would still be a side bar. I found this from politifact.

PolitiFact | No, Pelosi wasn’t caught trying to add abortion funding into coronavirus bill

I think it should be sufficient to say such an act would be reprehensible, as it would doom a much needed act for a political stunt, and move on. I do not approve of Nancy Pelosi by no means. She is one of the most politically petty people in Congress and indicative of why Congress is broken. She is completely incapable of seeing beyond her own position and power.

The democrats are trying to hijack a crisis to further unrelated agenda actions

Some Democrats are doing this, as are some Republicans. If both sides were not trying to gain political strides, we would already have an “emergency” bill. It takes two to dance the DC tango.

 

[marybobo]

I don’t think the president is running his business at this time. He has two sons and one daughter who are doing so.

 

[Maximus1]

Great post. Sunshine is the best policy here

 

[Maximus1]

Why not a blind trust like predecessors?
Why are sons running the business actively engaged in government business?
Seems like a posture of involvement in a sea of precedent of non involvement

 

[dvdjs]

They are not blocking these items; they will surely pass. They are blocking the sleazy half trillion dollar secret slush fund. When that is fixed, the bill will be passed.

 

[Maximus1]

You are right. The idea of having 500 billion not earmarked beyond political ambition is exactly contradictory to the Senate’s existence.

 

[GKMotley]

Including the features listed by upant above? Maybe with unfunded union pension relief?

 

[dvdjs]

Including the features listed by upant above?

I don’t know whether that list comes from, or to what degree, it is true. Some of them sound good and appropriate to this bill aimed at dealing with effects of the pandemic.

 

[GKMotley]

As noted in a number of threads, the points are widely asserted, and rarely denied, though occasionally parsed or polished a little.

I even saw a Rahm Emanuel reprise of the old “never let a good crisis go to waste”. Rep. Clyburn expressed that well.

I see none of them as good, or addressing any aspect of the current conditions in any direct way, save in attempting to follow Emanuel’s logic.

 

[dvdjs]

As noted in a number of threads, the points are widely asserted, and rarely denied, though occasionally parsed or polished a little.

I would like to see what is in bill, rather than someone’s spin. And don’t intend to spend time denying widely asserted, but undocumented, claims.

I see none of them as good

I see the effort towards mail-in voting as very important.
it is analogous to the efforts made in higher education to move to on-line learning, en masse, to in industry to tele-commuting. Important work is getting done, while the social distancing is accommodated. I think that voting is important work.