You really believe that? It took so long so they could make sure the evil orange man didn't get any of the money?
Do you think any of them said "this is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision" so let's use this crisis to our advantage, obstruct, and sneak in our various items we wish we could pass?
I think it was a bad time to try to implement components of the Green New Deal, if that's what some of those reported additions by Pelosi, or whichever Democrat it was, were. Yes, I absolutely believe that that had something to do with part of the delay, that they wanted to ensure that "the business fund would be distributed fairly and that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin would not use it to help Trump and his allies." Trump is a crook, and is using his presidency to enrich himself, his friends, and his family. He didn't become president out of the goodness of his heart. I don't honestly understand why you wouldn't believe such a thing.
"Chuck Schumer made sure businesses controlled by Trump, his family, and top US officials couldn't get money from the government's $2 trillion coronavirus bailout fund"
"On Sunday, the president indicated that he had not ruled out congressional aid for the Trump Organization should the bailout funds become available."
That probably had something to do with the delay. They wanted some assurance that none of the funds would be diverted into Trump's properties, i.e. his pockets.
And WHY is she blocking the aid? The WHY's are fairly congruent.
She wasn't "blocking the aid", she was refusing to accept the terms as they were currently written. Trump was literally ordering aid to be blocked, and for totally different reasons. Nancy wasn't doing it solely to make a political opponent look bad so she would improve her odds in an upcoming election. This isn't me defending Nancy, it's me saying that meme made a dumb argument/comparison.
In the middle of a brutal sprawling pandemic, on a day when 100 Americans died and our confirmed cases topped 43,000, Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, went on Fox News and said that older Americans would be willing to die in order to preserve the economy; that the elderly are the acceptable collateral damage of boosting the Stock Market. Not coincidentally, this unthinkably macabre theory came on the same day that Donald Trump began suggesting he will send people back to work next week—even as doctors and scientists have been begging people to take self-isolation guidelines seriously because the virus is approaching uncontainable levels.
This is the repugnant sham of pro-life Christianity revealed in all its grotesque ugliness. This is what the Religious Right really thinks about human life: if the price is right, it is all expendable. This is the economy of soul capitalism: their money is worth your life. Other's supply can meet their greedy demand. For all their tearful, showy displays of phony religion, all their impassioned pleas about embryos in the womb being sacred—they will let sentient human beings with grandchildren and spouses and decades of wisdom, die on the altar of their 401Ks.
Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and money." I never see these pro-life Christian Republicans wearing that verse on their chests or brazenly broadcasting on social media, because then they'd be forced to face their fraudulence, forced to admit their hypocrisy—and they'd have to confess that the teachings of Jesus and the sanctity of life aren't all that critical when there's a buck to be made.
Call me strange, but I don't think the sick or the elderly are expendable just so Republicans can hold the presidency or so some already wealthy people can become even wealthier. I don't see them as acceptable collateral damage of temporarily boosting the Dow or nudging Donald Trump's poll numbers. Maybe I'm not a "pro-life" Christian—just a decent human being who believes people living here right now, deserve to be here as long as they can. I don't give a damn about the economy if it costs us humanity. I'll be okay with that balance in my ledger.
My understanding is that if the senate passes a bill, at that point it has to be forwarded to the House and the House has to pass it as well before it gets sent to the President. Pelosi was offering her bill to the Senate, I guess, to essentially say if this gets passed in the Senate, then it's essentially passed in total.
It doesn't appear that those things Fox has listed are necessarily relevant to the stimulus. Perhaps the money for airline emissions thing is to ensure that the airlines actually use their profits for something beneficial instead of just dumping it into their own stock to inflate the price of it. Also, there are other things the bill lacks that Pelosi finds unacceptable, from what I've seen/read. Fox wouldn't want to make her decision to delay seem reasonable in any way of course. They didn't mention the 500 billion Qwazzy mentioned, for example.
Interesting, if true, the remarks here about how the measure had bipartisan support until 'leadership' stepped in to throw a wrench in the works:
Who says they're against anything listed in that tweet? The devil is in the detail, as they say, so perhaps in the however-many-page full bill there are inclusions or omissions that the Democrats aren't settled with. I mean, would it be crazy to think that @ReaganBattalion might possibly be leaving out the nuance that makes the Democrats' objections seem less absurd?
Top comment on Facebook right now for one of Bernie Sander's posts relating to the stimulus/bailout bill:
Quote
It shows how out of touch republicans are with average Americans and how little they think of us. They think if they toss us a grand we’ll look the other way while they hand giant wads of cash to rich donors. Thank you and the other Democratic senators who are standing in their way of profiting off of the crisis.
I can't tell who's to blame. My impression is Democrats are putting the interests of individual people first where Republicans are putting businesses/corporations first. I imagine that neither is 100% accurate and I'd like to believe they simply have a difference of opinion about what's most appropriate.
I read that Democrats want any company/corporation that receives bailout money to commit to no longer engaging in stock buybacks, not just for the duration of the loan like Rep. Crenshaw is reporting, but permanently, so they'll be less likely to need another bailout if/when we have another situation like this. I've read that the airline industry has for many years now (not sure how long) spent, perhaps on average, 96% of all their profits on stock buybacks - buying their own stock to artificially(?) increase its value as opposed to having any cash in reserve for situations like this (to somewhat self-insure). As it stands, they can spend recklessly knowing that they're an industry the government will always bail out since they're deemed critical (for good reason). Dems seem to want to ensure they take responsibility with their earnings going forward, not just temporarily. Airline industries have been reporting record profits for a while now (again, what I've read - I'm not extremely versed in all this stuff).
Why should they, private entities, be able to skirt responsibility with the knowledge that the government will always have their back when the shit hits the fan? Think of all the other industries that can't do that and what a huge disadvantage that is.
Nasty habits aside, that bit of information seems to suggest to me that the likelihood of it's origins being a "boneheaded accident" has dropped, and the statistical likelihood of it being an intentionally engineered combination has increased.
This article claims to "know" that the virus wasn't man made.
Just wanted to extend a message of support for haunted as well. That sounds awful/terrifying, the situation with your son (the four-month-old). Keep us up to date on how things are going with him, and you as well.
Perhaps interesting to recall what CNN thought was important as of January 30
And remember on February 26th when Trump said this?
Quote
"When you have 15 people and the 15 within a couple days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."
Man, talk about being clueless. That or just straight up lying. So many people these days don't trust the mainstream media, and they look to Trump for the 'truth'. We'll never know how many more people were infected because he chose to continually deny reality and downplay the seriousness of the issue, and they relied on his judgment instead of actual experts.
Then, two days before the WHO officially declared Covid-19 a pandemic, this is what Trump wanted his 74+ million followers, and the rest of the country, to focus on:
He's essentially suggesting that we should carry on no differently than how we would during flu season, or to be no more concerned about this than the flu. Like I said, who knows how many more people have been endangered by his insistence on sharing his own ignorant assessments instead of deferring to the actual experts, like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, etc. He's since changed his tune, and I believe that was on the 18th or 19th? So he gets some credit for that, but it might have been too little, too late.
Nothing has stood out as far as connection issues for me. Netgraph is smooth, without any red lines really that I have noticed (I noticed like a single one, but I believe that was during a map change, which happens sometimes).
Show Posts
