Democrats Block Coronavirus Bill That Provides Lifeline To Economy, Families

Oh, you guys are on fire today.

 

The hyper-partisan whining is to be expected.

Recall that Obama's precedent, his massive stimulus package to overcome the Bush/Cheney Great Recession, received 0 Republican votes in the House, and only 3 in the Senate.

Democrats are now far, far more eager to support Republicans' huge spending package than Republicans were to get behind the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

These are the provisions that Democrats are advocating as part of the Trump $ trillion+++ federal bail out:

Plump the direct payments that would go out to Americans under the bill, proposing $1,500 per person, instead of the $1,200 on the table under the Republican Senate plan. Unlike the latest plan from Senate Republicans, however, higher earners would have to pay back part or all of the assistance over three years if their taxable income is $75,000 or more for a single filer or $150,000 or more for couples filing jointly.

Health care providers and community health centers would receive about $150 billion, while hospitals would get an additional $80 billion in low-interest loans. The proposal is more in line with industry requests, compared to the $75 billion Senate Republicans have offered.

The unemployed would get an extra $600 per week on top of state or federal benefits in order to replace 100 percent of lost wages. The measure would also extend paid sick leave benefits to cover individuals, such as health care workers and first responders, who were cut out of Congress’ second coronavirus response.

House Democrats want to go much bigger in sending emergency money to federal agencies, proposing hundreds of billions more than the $242 billion Senate Republicans have pitched, according to a Democratic aide.

The Democratic plan would also expand health insurance premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act and beef up the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the Dependent Care Credit.
​

Mindlessly falling in line behind shelling out taxpayer dollars in the trillions should not be the automatic stamp upon which some insist. Proposing improvements is eminently meritorious.

 

Maybe you can explain to me why all the progressive pork that has nothing to do with the current crisis is being pushed by the Democrats, nobody else seems to want to.

Why? Why solar subsidies? Why taxpayer-funded donations to the Endowment for the Arts? Just why?

 

There are many others the Dems are trying to push in this bill.

 

Which is the issue, we cannot leave anyone out during this — their cannot be winners and losers. We basically need a pause.

 

Please show me where I have supported what they have proposed?
I have said “no pork”, a bill that is a slim and get’s as much done quickly that doesn’t involve massive amounts of fraud and waste.

 

trump has proven he cannot be trusted with no strings attached money, even with strings attached he still commits fraud. Put requirements and restrictions in place and remove the 6 months clause and we are good to go.
You can throw in whatever lies you need to in justifying how you view my position but it isn’t changing.

 

WTF are you talking about, if CFA needs a loan give them a loan. What the hell do their beliefs have to do with it?

 

Some meritorious, some as bargaining tools, as both sides work toward legislation that will be acceptable to most in both parties, unlike its 2009 precursor.

 

You position and the premise of it is quite clear as I said. Go start I hate Trump and everything about him and everything he does thread, it serves no purpose here.

 

The bill we are discussing in this thread was not passed because of this very reason. It is the exact purpose of this thread.

Sorry that dear leader has been shown to be a fraud and that people do not believe him to objectively administer half a trillion in funds.

Feel free to start the I love trump and he is god thread.

 

So your position is that the dems would not pass a bill without the oversight they demand so they... countered with a ton of pork? In what universe is that effective governing?

 

Trump is not in the Congress.

 

Democrats in the senate voted down the proposal, several of them interviewed said the reasoning was the slush fund with zero oversight besides trump and the six month waiting period on disclosing those recipients.

The Democratic pork bill was introduced in the House.

 

Correct but he would have been overseeing the slush fund — that is not acceptable. “I'll be the oversight, I'll be the oversight. We're gonna make good deals.” -DJT

 

Bottom line...

Democrats are happy the economy is crashing. They think it is doom for trump.

Democrats are blocking the relief to make the economic damage as painful as possible.

This is just like when Democrats hid hurricane relief from hurricane victims to blame trump and write stories about how he didn't care.

 

Yeah, I understand - and I agree with that single point. How in f*** is the correct response to add a bunch of pork???

 

I never said it was. I like parts of the house bill more than the senate bill but overall the senate bill would have been the better option had those two portions not ever been included. We will likely see a mix of the two bills with much of the Democratic “wish list” removed and restrictions placed on the loans.

 

I'm not sure how you can defend any amount of pork in the stimulus bill. It's shameful. I hope people don't forget.

 

Who else but the Treasury is supposed to and is better equipped to do so?

 

What do you consider the unregulated $500,000,000,000.00 portion that will have oversight by the president* to be?
Is that not pork?

 

Not anyone that trump has any say over. Not up for debate. If I was Democrat’s there isn’t a proposal I would pass (even the House bill) that gave this man that kind of money. No way.

 

Of course it's not, the loans are intended to keep companies solvent. It IS NEEDED!!! Now, of course there should be oversight but no, it's not pork.

 

I agree the overall program is needed but oversight from an independent body is required. The way the current bill is written 100% of the funds could be given to trump properties and then that fact hidden for six months — longer if they try to fight the disclosure in court. Not saying that it would happen but that it is even a possibility makes the entire bill a non-starter.

It could be completely innocuous or it could turn into a wasteland of fraud and corruption — looking at who would be providing the oversight leans toward the latter.

 

We are in agreement on this point.