Democrats Block Senate Coronavirus Package

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
redal said:
Seems Mitch wants only to be able to say he proposed something, even though it favored big business
Click to expand...
I’m “big business”. I have a 401k and an IRA.
I’m also someone who Only briefly worked for a large corporation 40 years ago. But those investments, modest though they are, make me big business.
There is no dichotomy between big business and individuals. The lines are too blurred to distinguish.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
But those investments, modest though they are, make me big business.
There is no dichotomy between big business and individuals.
Click to expand...
If you call individuals big business, then then there is no distinction.
But as Lincoln once pointed out, calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
 
Reminds me of the time the Obama Administration circumvented bankruptcy law to put the UAW and its pension at the top of the heap of creditors during the GM bankruptcy proceedings in 2009. Only to find out that they had screwed other workers via other union pension plans that had significant investments in GM bonds that received a more serious haircut as a result of the UAW being moved up. Somehow I don’t think it’s coincidence the Obama Administration didn’t try that stunt again.

The lesson is one has to exercise some care when messing with businesses. To put restrictions on buybacks as part of a government bailout deal is fine, but don’t make all buybacks illegal and don’t nationalize the company. Because chances are very good that both government and private pension plans are quite dependent on the performance of big business bonds and stocks. In addition to IRA’s and 401k’s.
 
Maximus1 said:
Nancy? This is the Senate.
Click to expand...
she stepped in, google it
Maximus1 said:
The voice of families.
Click to expand...
they are destroying the family with their hedonistic lifestyles. their social programs have done nothing but keep people dependent on the government. these same programs all have marriage penalties that destroy the family.

most importantly they have taken and are keeping God out of the picture.

no, they are not the voice of the family
Maximus1 said:
Democrats are the advocates of non corporate America.
Click to expand...
both sides are in bed with corporate America
 
dvdjs said:
If you call individuals big business, then then there is no distinction.
Click to expand...
This is correct, because corporations, no matter how big, consist of only individuals: shareholders, management, employees, customers. A corporation does not exist outside of the individuals who make it up.

Attempts to divide Americans in this way is despicable.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Nancy? This is the Senate.
Click to expand...
Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) ripped Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) Monday for interfering and derailing a Senate vote on an emergency coronavirus stimulus package.

“Yesterday, the speaker of the House showed up with an agenda, and all of a sudden it got taken over at the leadership level,” Thune said on the Senate floor. “Now, instead of talking about helping workers, we’re talking about the Green New Deal and all kinds of other things, demands that the unions and other special interest groups want to see in this deal.” (Washington free beacon)
Click to expand...
if you didn’t think the Dems have an agenda besides the immediate emergency,
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) said the coronavirus pandemic presented an opportunity “to restructure things to fit our vision” late last week.
Click to expand...
here are a few examples
a thread by journalist Rachel Bovard, who obtained an early copy of the 1,400-page Pelosi bill, that highlights some of the new Democratic bill’s provisions, including bailing out the post office, mandating “risk limiting audits” of elections, as well as same-day voter registration, and other non-crisis-related, long-time Democrat wishlist items, among them more strict fuel emissions guidelines for airlines, wind and solar tax credits, and collective bargaining powers for unions.
Click to expand...
early reports on Pelosi’s bill “show a piece of legislation packed with handouts, bailouts, and cash offerings to the Democrats’ top constituencies,
Click to expand...
 
But according to Maximus, Democrats are the party that cares for families! Comical that some believe that garbage.
 
My, folks on this thread love to point fingers! This non-partisan summary is not from Breitbart:

"Schumer countered on the Senate floor Monday that ongoing talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were fruitful and could result in an agreement as early as today. “We’re very close to reaching a deal,” Schumer said, calling the procedural votes “irrelevant” to the ongoing talks. Schumer said that once a deal was reached, Democrats would not object to expedited consideration of what will amount to one of the most dramatic financial rescue efforts in American history.

While there is general consensus on key provisions of the package, including small business loan guarantees and direct cash payments, Democrats want more conditions placed on funds to assist large corporations to ensure, for instance, that the money goes to protect workers’ jobs and not stock buybacks to benefit shareholders."


Avoiding the partisan sites makes the issues much clearer.
 
Last edited:
Could you, or any of the others who are taking the Republican side on this bill, kindly respond to this contentious issue:

“In my mind, the truly abhorrent idea in the bill is the secrecy clause. How can the public benefit by concealing the recipients? It can’t, the only beneficiary would be those who receive a bailout and get to conceal it until AFTER the election.”

I’m curious if that provision bothers you. I think it’s material, and I’m curious if you ladies and gentlemen think it’s material as well.

Thanks in advance.
 
Nepperhan said:
We’re very close to reaching a deal,” Schumer said
Click to expand...
they had a deal until nancy came to the senate and laid down the law. it was a bipartisan bill, it just didn’t cover nancy’s cronies.
billsherman said:
Could you, or any of the others who are taking the Republican side on this bill, kindly respond to this contentious issue:
Click to expand...
why wasn’t it an issue before nancy came to the senate? it was bipartisan.
 
billsherman said:
“In my mind, the truly abhorrent idea in the bill is the secrecy clause. How can the public benefit by concealing the recipients? It can’t, the only beneficiary would be those who receive a bailout and get to conceal it until AFTER the election.”
Click to expand...
The contentious issue is the insistence by Pelosi that funds be included for Planned Parenthood. I’m not onboard with using execution of the soon to be born to prevent coronavirus.

As for secrecy, no one who supported ACA has any room to talk.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”
Click to expand...
 
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.

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?

I was hoping for an answer that went beyond whataboutism. 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.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
But according to Maximus, Democrats are the party that cares for families! Comical that some believe that garbage.
Click to expand...
I don’t. Those folks stopped serving the interests of working people a long time ago. And of families, which most working people have.
 
billsherman said:
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?
Click to expand...
It’s not ethical for him to have business to begin with. His job is president of the US. That’s supposed to be his only job. Not ceo of trump industries.
 
upant said:
they had a deal until nancy came to the senate and laid down the law. it was a bipartisan bill, it just didn’t cover nancy’s cronies.
Click to expand...
It was a Senate bill. Bills require both houses to pass. This sort of interjection is simply a way to short cut time in conference committee. I do not like that she did this, but it was part of the process. Also, it was not really bipartisan. McConnell also could have moved things quicker by more compromise. But it seems that compromise it not something the United States is very adept at any longer, at least under this administration, and the Obama administration.

I do not blame the politicians exclusively. Just a look through this thread and there are several examples of how the American mindset have become too set and divisive to move forward with any compromise, even in an emergency. The Democrats and the Republicans (even here) would drown while arguing how to best arrange the deck chairs as the Titanic sank.
 
billsherman said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not okay with any of this. What is it about this pandemic and it’s impact on lives and the economy that is you okay with?
I would by perfectly happy to see a clean bill that helps individual Americans and businesses who have been ordered to close or reduce business by government. No need to fund all manner of things unrelated to the current crisis, particularly an odious and evil group like Planned Parenthood.
billsherman said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
billsherman said:
I was hoping for an answer that went beyond whataboutism
Click to expand...
So, you didn’t want to hear a comparison and wanted to defend a double standard. Sorry I couldn’t oblige.
billsherman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should review your post.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top