Why is Covid relief bill gridlocked?

I didn't hype anything. i just said that it is an inappropriate role for federal government to subsidize other tax collecting entities. If I didn't say that it is corrupt I will say that here.

 

Certainly no more corrupt that writing checks to highly profitable corporations and businesses that are paying executives multi million dollar salaries.If we are ever to get back to normal cities will desperately need their public transportation much of which is shut down right now due to lack of riders. Pelosi wants to see the cities and states getting some financial help while Rich Mitch wants to make sure his corporate benefactors are protected against all liability from Covid related lawsuits.

 

The "system" is the same for everyone. The rich have benefited from risk, hard work, blind luck or whatever else you want to add in other than the system.

 

Yes, I believe federal government has no business subsidizing anything. I should have clarified that.

 

That's an interesting fantasy, and utterly divorced from reality.

 

It's not the same for everyone, and via 'dynasty-ism' the vast majority of the superrich are there because they are lucky enough to be born into wealth and privilege. No one is against the hard working entrepreneur. But some of those are engaging in borderline monopolies, so that might fall under antitrust, we'll just have to wait and see what happens with, say Amazon and FB.

But these facts are irrelevant, the relevant point being the superrich, regardless of how they got their, lucky or otherwise, as I have previously stated, have benefited disproportionately from the system. See, the only relevant point, for tax policy, is the naked fact of it.

 

This has nothing to do with a system. No system operates with luck.

More accurately they have taken advantage of the opportunities better than you or I have. Or their ancestors did.

 

People who are born into rich dynasties are lucky. You can jump up and down hoot and holler, but nothing changes that fact.

And yes, I current system allows for that fact. The system isn't based on it, it merely allows it.

Stay focused, don't get confused.

Some have, many, through shear luck, were born into it.

But, again, and I repeat: That fact is, indeed, irrelevant to the point I made that the superrich benefit disproportionately from the system. therefore they should shoulder the greater tax burden.

 

I didn't hoot and holler. I included luck in my earlier post.

You are the confused one. You want it to be illegal to amass a fortune and pass it on to your family. Pretty radical. Way too radical for me.

If you had read what wrote more carefully you would know that I said that.

I don't know what system you are talking about but I do know that they do shoulder the majority of the income tax received by government. So the tax law appears to agree with you.

 

Unless you read the text book. I agreed with you.

 

They’re holding out for the only constituency that matters. They want liability protection for corporations and they’ve taken it beyond the pale to negligence. That’s all we need now. Legal protection for bad acts and actors.

The Republican Party couldn’t be more transparent.

 

Blue states have screwed the pooch literally and figurative for years, they've stuck themselves with unsalvageable and unworkable pension plans that guaranteed they would have to go bankrupt at some point, with or without covid, the most covid did was speed up the process a bit. The rest of America should not be on the hook for their arrogance and stupidity.

 

The only policy recommendation I alluded to ( feel free to prove me wrong, I dont recall making such a suggestion ) was dems want to enact policies that shrink the gap and slow the growth of dynasty-ism, which would include an progressive tax on inheritance. No where did I suggest 'making it illegal'.

 

You said "the system allows it." In order to disallow it one would have to legislate. No? What you say makes no sense to me because I think we need much, much less government requiring much, much less taxation. But that is another subject for another time. I hate the idea of stealing from someone that earned or at least received money legally in order to give it to someone who didn't. Nothing could be more unfair in my view. I take the side of freedom almost always. Robin Hood died long ago.

 

Dems are playing politics as usual.

 

Since you didn't qualify the statement, making it illegal would mean disallowing ALL inheritance, which I never suggested. If asked, I'll express my view, that it should be restored and increased above a certain threshold ( and I'll let the experts duke it out on that one ).

"less government" i.e, 'small government' etc., is a meaningless trope. What is need is good government at the right amount.

Taxes are not theft. Being taxed does not equal 'less freedom', as taxes assure civilization will continue and not fall into anarchy.

The state has a legitimate claim on incomes per the constitution, The amount is set by elected legislators under the concept of the 'consent of the governed".

I find it interesting that I'm forever bumping into the conservative mentality which you exhibit on this subject, (others go completely into bizarro areas, like a government job equals 'being on the dole' or those who favor good government are communists) which is wrong.

 

Of course but that right amount should be a bunch smaller. For reasons I have explained in other threads I believe federal government should only do four things - defend the country, deal and treat with other countries, maintain a stable currency and resolve interstate disputes. The rest should go to state governments or the private sector or the trash can. That is specific. Your "right amount" is the trope.

They are not theft. They are confiscation. It isn't the taxes that cause less freedom, it is the oversized government that collects it.

Correct.

If you don't want to bump into me simply stop reading my posts. I would say that what communists want is not good government. It is proven to be bad government.

 

Pelosi's people are here fellow privileged multi-$Millionaires, though even some sensible patriotic Dems are starting catch on.

Frosh House Dem to Pelosi: Pass a COVID-19 relief bill if you want my vote for speaker



Capitulation?

No, it’s not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who expressed a resigned tolerance to Nancy Pelosi’s upcoming re-election as House Speaker. For Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, however, the months-long failure to produce a relief bill could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back — maybe. The moderate from MN-03, also part of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, tells the Star Tribune that he issued an ultimatum to Pelosi, and that he plans to stick by it:

In an hourlong meeting just before Thanksgiving, Phillips said he told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that his support for her in a leadership vote on Jan. 3 will depend on getting a deal by then.

“Most people who meet with the speaker and discuss support for her ask for a committee assignment … or for personal favors,” Phillips said. “[My request] was pretty simple and it, frankly, has repercussions to me and others and they have already started.”

Without a deal, Phillips said, he will cast his ballot for someone else for speaker, though he declined to say whom he might support. A request for comment from Pelosi’s office was not returned.
​

The timing on this ultimatum certainly raises some questions. Phillips says that he got “flooded with calls” from his colleagues since putting Pelosi on the spot. Just a few days later, Pelosi suddenly shifted off her ridiculously over the top $2.4 trillion demand and the HEROES Act and backed the newer centrist framework for Phase 4 relief discussions. And now, reportedly, Pelosi has even backed away from bloc-grant state and local government aid, which she had earlier sworn to get no matter how many folks that destroyed.

The shift has become rather remarkable, as The Hill pointed out today. She's finally coming around to Cocaine Mitch's sensible centrist position.

Ice Cream Nancy has been trying to spin her climb-down as a staging strategy, but it was a full-on retreat — and that her caucus notices.

House Democrats said the emerging deal is a major blow to Pelosi. Weeks before the election, White House negotiators had offered the Democrats a $1.9 trillion relief package, but Pelosi rejected it at the time, saying it fell short of the $2.2 trillion that was needed.

Now, months later and with tens of thousands of more Americans dead from the pandemic, Pelosi is preparing to accept a COVID-19 package that is about $1 trillion less than that last White House offer.​

Did Phillips’ threat force Ice Cream Nancy to capitulate to Cocaine Mitch's sensible position? Ice Cream Nancy only has a nine-vote majority in the next session of Congress. That means she can only afford to lose four or five votes in her caucus in the Speaker election to avoid going to a second ballot — or losing altogether to Rising Republican Star Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader. Either would be a humiliation that would all but force Ice Cream Nancy into her long overdue retirement.

If Phillips managed to get a handful of House Democrats to back up that ultimatum, then that would explain why Pelosi suddenly moved off her lard-assed pork-filled HEROES Act and got comfortable with getting sensible.

Funny how watching her career as party leader go down in flames got her off stupid.

 

Why is Covid relief bill gridlocked?

~ Ask Nancy Pelosi.

 

The Democrats including Bernie Sanders are calling for a smaller stimulus package so you are wrong. Trump and Hawley want bigger stimulus. Both Republican. Only AOC is pushing for bigger stimulus on the D side.

That's not true and you know it.

She is that cruel. My wife listens to stimulus updates every day on YouTube. Stop taking us as stupid people.

Nancy said she wanted 2.2 trillion forever. Trump went up to 1.8 trillion with Mitch and Nancy refused.

Now Nancy is willing to go less than 1 trillion because Biden won and she publicly stated that.

The current plan has no stimulus and a Republican, Josh Hawley wants stimulus as does Trump. Bernie Sanders did but is now changing the amount to smaller.

Biden in a new ad said covid relief depends on who wins the Senate races in Georgia because he does not want to compromise with Republicans.

So yes the DEMOCRATS ARE THE PROBLEM. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Mitch has not been helping much but has been willing to compromise in the past.

Nancy wanted billions for the post office to pay them to help rig the election. Her 2.2 trillion deal was a joke.

Nancy also admitted to not agreeing on a deal to hurt Trumps chances of reelection.

Stop defending BS from your own party.

I suggest you listen to LA LATE on YouTube. He is no Republican and gives fair unbiased stimulus updates.

 

You just contradicted yourself.

You are dismissed.


Bernie wants more, though, you are wrong


Dems want more, repubs want less. The only reason it's less than a trillion and no stimulus checks is because of repubs, dems are holding out for stimulus checks, and I think they are going to get them. So, if I get a stimulus check, it won't be repubs I'll be thanking, it will be dems.

 

The Democrats wanted 2.2 trillion before Biden won and now it's less than 1 trillion because Biden won.

It's not hard to understand.

 

On Friday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., took to the chamber’s floor to ask for immediate consideration of a bill he has proposed that would include $1,200 stimulus checks for individuals, $2,400 per married couple and $500 per child, the same amounts that were distributed in the first round.

“It’s the least that we can do,” Hawley said. “It should be the first thing that we can do.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/18/gop-senators-fight-over-need-for-second-1200-stimulus-checks.html

 

I was watching on another forum the righties starting to complain about tax increases in their states.
Coming soon to a forum near you.
The North East was just hit first. Every state will have the same problem.
Florida can just defund the police I guess.

Damaging cuts have already begun. In Georgia, policymakers approved a 10 percent cut for 2021, including a nearly $1 billion cut for K-12 public schools and cuts to programs for children and adults with developmental disabilities, among others. Maryland enacted $413 million in emergency spending cuts including large cuts to colleges and universities. Florida’s governor vetoed $1 billion in spending that lawmakers approved before the crisis and ordered agencies to look for 8.5 percent more in possible cuts for fiscal year 2021. The state also cut money for community colleges and services related to behavioral health, including opioid and other substance use treatment services, crisis intervention services, and services for people experiencing homelessness.

 

Well, I saw a news line in passing that the next stimulus has hit a snag, again.

I think some politicians in Congress have gotten greedy again and are trying to negotiate large personal stimulus checks again.

Why put the stimulus package in danger of not passing?? The only reason to keep negotiating is if they don't want any stimulus at all.

My personal position is that Congress should skip on personal checks until January 2021. But if we want any jobs available after the end of the Coronavirus pandemic, then giving aid to businesses now should be a primary concern.