Political Discussion

Please, please let this be a first step to the GOP stepping further and further away from insane conspiracy theories and their supporters.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blasted Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s embrace of “loony lies and conspiracy theories” as a “cancer for the Republican Party.”

“Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell said in a statement first shared with The Hill. “This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.”

McConnell didn't mention Greene by name in his three-sentence statement, but his rare, scathing remarks about a freshman GOP lawmaker from the other chamber suggests he recognizes the potential damage her violent rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories could inflict on congressional Republicans as they try to take back both the House and Senate in next year’s midterms.

thehill.com

McConnell says Taylor Greene’s embrace of conspiracy theories a ‘cancer’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday blasted Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s embrace of “loony lies and conspiracy theories” as a “cancer for the Republican Party…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
@Melt Face Molly Drop @TenderLovingKiller®
We were talking about why they couldn't just send us out checks. I found an article on why they are so hesitant and basically, it comes down to a law from 2010 that says that if you raise the deficit, you have to off set that expenditure from social services (this only happens with simple majority passed laws; all bets are off if they can get 10 Republicans to agree with them).

So Democratic leaders are preparing to use a process known as budget reconciliation, which would allow them to pass Biden's proposal without getting 60 votes in the Senate, which would require at least 10 Republicans.

But under the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, known as PAYGO, new laws that raise the national debt automatically trigger offsetting cuts in some safety net programs.

The cuts can be avoided, budget experts say, only with 60 Senate votes — leaving Democrats back where they started, because it's unclear whether Republicans would vote to prevent the cuts after having opposed a partisan relief package.

"It's Medicare. It's farm subsidies," said Marc Goldwein, a budget expert at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It's a bunch of programs that would be cut."

www.nbcnews.com

Democrats risk unintended Medicare cuts if they pass partisan Covid relief

Under a 2010 law, bills that add to the debt trigger automatic cuts. And preventing them would require Republican support.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
nolalady said:
@Melt Face Molly Drop @TenderLovingKiller®
We were talking about why they couldn't just send us out checks. I found an article on why they are so hesitant and basically, it comes down to a law from 2010 that says that if you raise the deficit, you have to off set that expenditure from social services (this only happens with simple majority passed laws; all bets are off if they can get 10 Republicans to agree with them).

So Democratic leaders are preparing to use a process known as budget reconciliation, which would allow them to pass Biden's proposal without getting 60 votes in the Senate, which would require at least 10 Republicans.

But under the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, known as PAYGO, new laws that raise the national debt automatically trigger offsetting cuts in some safety net programs.

The cuts can be avoided, budget experts say, only with 60 Senate votes — leaving Democrats back where they started, because it's unclear whether Republicans would vote to prevent the cuts after having opposed a partisan relief package.

"It's Medicare. It's farm subsidies," said Marc Goldwein, a budget expert at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It's a bunch of programs that would be cut."

www.nbcnews.com

Democrats risk unintended Medicare cuts if they pass partisan Covid relief

Under a 2010 law, bills that add to the debt trigger automatic cuts. And preventing them would require Republican support.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, it sounds like last time it happened they voted to bypass it so not to kill Medicare. My guess is if they were to force a floor vote not to strip $25 billion from Medicare I bet most GOP would vote to bypass the rule. Medicare is extremely popular and GOP fucking with older voters Medicare would not be a popular with a good chunk of their voting base.
 
Ahhhhhhhh, this is why they are delaying the vote.

The nation’s biggest business lobby is pushing Democrats to slash COVID relief checks for middle class families, despite new census data showing that nearly half of those families have lost income because of the pandemic. Top Democrats are now reportedly considering excluding millions of those families from the checks, and President Biden himself has said he is willing to negotiate with Republicans on limiting eligibility for the checks.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $82 million lobbying in Washington last year, sent a letter to the White House and Congress on Tuesday urging them to consider “targeting any additional stimulus checks based on income, loss of employment, or similar criteria.”

The corporate lobbying group — whose members undoubtedly benefit from a desperate workforce — attempted to twist census data showing broad economic devastation to make the point that families earning more than $50,000 don’t need new survival checks.

“While the pandemic induced recession has created near unprecedented levels of hardship, the impact has not been universal,” the Chamber wrote. “The Census Bureau Pulse survey indicates that while a majority of households with less than $50,000 in income have experienced a loss of employment income, a majority of household with more than $50,000 in income — including those between $50,000 and $150,000 — have not experienced any loss in earned income.”

This is a misleading way to frame the census survey results. Recent census data shows that 45 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 have experienced a loss of employment income since March 2020 — including 48 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $75,000. Nearly a quarter of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 say they expect to lose employment income over the next four weeks.

The Chamber is adding its voice to a chorus of pleas in the Beltway to limit who’s eligible for COVID relief checks. The campaign was first kicked off by discredited austerity economist Larry Summers and columnists at the Washington Post and Bloomberg News, which are owned by billionaires Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg respectively.

The campaign to limit survival check eligibility was recently boosted by a study by economists at Opportunity Insights, a Harvard University think tank bankrolled by the family foundations of billionaires Mark Zuckerberg, Bloomberg and Bill Gates.

The study, based on consumer spending data, found that “households with incomes above $78,000 will spend only $45 of the $600 payments they received” within the first month of the checks being sent. The authors wrote that “these households have largely returned to work, and have even accrued additional savings.”

www.dailyposter.com

Dems Threaten To Exclude Families Crushed By Pandemic

Corporate lobbyists are pressing Dems to limit eligibility for survival checks, even as new census data show nearly half of middle class families lost income during the pandemic.
www.dailyposter.com www.dailyposter.com

 
nolalady said:
Ahhhhhhhh, this is why they are delaying the vote.

The nation’s biggest business lobby is pushing Democrats to slash COVID relief checks for middle class families, despite new census data showing that nearly half of those families have lost income because of the pandemic. Top Democrats are now reportedly considering excluding millions of those families from the checks, and President Biden himself has said he is willing to negotiate with Republicans on limiting eligibility for the checks.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $82 million lobbying in Washington last year, sent a letter to the White House and Congress on Tuesday urging them to consider “targeting any additional stimulus checks based on income, loss of employment, or similar criteria.”

The corporate lobbying group — whose members undoubtedly benefit from a desperate workforce — attempted to twist census data showing broad economic devastation to make the point that families earning more than $50,000 don’t need new survival checks.

“While the pandemic induced recession has created near unprecedented levels of hardship, the impact has not been universal,” the Chamber wrote. “The Census Bureau Pulse survey indicates that while a majority of households with less than $50,000 in income have experienced a loss of employment income, a majority of household with more than $50,000 in income — including those between $50,000 and $150,000 — have not experienced any loss in earned income.”

This is a misleading way to frame the census survey results. Recent census data shows that 45 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 have experienced a loss of employment income since March 2020 — including 48 percent of households earning between $50,000 and $75,000. Nearly a quarter of households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 say they expect to lose employment income over the next four weeks.

The Chamber is adding its voice to a chorus of pleas in the Beltway to limit who’s eligible for COVID relief checks. The campaign was first kicked off by discredited austerity economist Larry Summers and columnists at the Washington Post and Bloomberg News, which are owned by billionaires Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg respectively.

The campaign to limit survival check eligibility was recently boosted by a study by economists at Opportunity Insights, a Harvard University think tank bankrolled by the family foundations of billionaires Mark Zuckerberg, Bloomberg and Bill Gates.

The study, based on consumer spending data, found that “households with incomes above $78,000 will spend only $45 of the $600 payments they received” within the first month of the checks being sent. The authors wrote that “these households have largely returned to work, and have even accrued additional savings.”

www.dailyposter.com

Dems Threaten To Exclude Families Crushed By Pandemic

Corporate lobbyists are pressing Dems to limit eligibility for survival checks, even as new census data show nearly half of middle class families lost income during the pandemic.
www.dailyposter.com www.dailyposter.com

Click to expand...

I am having trouble making that chart about spending make sense. What is the relevance of the first month? Does it really make sense that people in all income brackets with or without jobs only spent an average of $174 in a month from the first check? And why is the trend reverse for the first and second check? People making over $78k were definitely not the hardest hit from layoffs last year. Skeptical to say the least.

We finally got our check this week and spent it immediately and we are still employed. I have no idea how any data gathering outfit could have determined that I spent the check on anything vs spending our paychecks on the same amount. My spending didn't go up until it filters down to there being a smaller credit card payment eventually. If they are basing it on consumer spending changes, wouldn't it make sense that it wouldn't go up if people needed the money? Or would be offset by spending less on other things like most people during the pandemic? Unless they have proof that everyone deposited the rest of their checks into savings and never withdrew them all year I am struggling to understand how it is trustworthy.

I realize that my case is an anecdote and not related to a study. Just sharing.
 
Last edited:
dhodo said:
I am having trouble making that chart about spending make sense. What is the relevance of the first month? Does it really make sense that people in all income brackets with or without jobs only spent an average of $174 in a month from the first check? And why is the trend reverse for the first and second check? People making over $78k were definitely not the hardest hit from layoffs last year. Skeptical to say the least.

We finally got our check this week and spent it immediately and we are still employed. I have no idea how any data gathering outfit could have determined that I spent the check on anything vs spending our paychecks on the same amount. My spending didn't go up until it filter down to their being a smaller credit card payment eventually. If they are basing it on consumer spending changes, wouldn't it make sense that it wouldn't go up if people needed the money? Or would be offset by spending less on other things like most people during the pandemic? Unless they have proof that everyone deposited the rest of their checks into savings and never withdrew them all year I am struggling to understand how it is trustworthy.

I realize that my case is an anecdote and not related to a study. Just sharing.
Click to expand...
And also realize that they are dealing with pre-pandemic data. None of their analysis was done with 2020 tax info, because it's not there yet. How can this study be valid or legitimate? Your points are EXACTLY what we should question in this study. It's a bad study that's being used as a political tool to limit stimulus checks--stimulus checks that are currently based on 2019 income data. This is why we need to scrutinize these studies before we use them as a basis for any decision making.
 
nolalady said:
And also realize that they are dealing with pre-pandemic data. None of their analysis was done with 2020 tax info, because it's not there yet. How can this study be valid or legitimate? Your points are EXACTLY what we should question in this study. It's a bad study that's being used as a political tool to limit stimulus checks--stimulus checks that are currently based on 2019 income data. This is why we need to scrutinize these studies before we use them as a basis for any decision making.
Click to expand...

yea my wife lost her job twice through all of this. That stimulus would immediately go to some repairs we have to do encaustic of the recent windstorm. This kind of sucks.
 
Dtknuckles said:
yea my wife lost her job twice through all of this. That stimulus would immediately go to some repairs we have to do encaustic of the recent windstorm. This kind of sucks.
Click to expand...
I still think it is going to pass fairly close to how it was initially put out there. I think some pols would rather it be for less and are leaking to the press as such but ultimately they will end up going along with whatever ends up as part of the the reconciliation proposals. A proposal put together by the Bernie Sanders lead Senate Budget Committee.

As far as delays go, I don’t think it’s anything too conspiratorial. The government only moves fast if it absolutely has to. The House just passed Biden’s stimulus plan yesterday and the Senate just today finally passed the organizing resolution for the Dems to take control of the committees. Which is fucked up that it has taken so long but not surprising that the GOP would whine and drag their feet. Anyways I think things will go (relatively) swiftly from here and wouldn’t be surprised if additional checks weren’t heading out to people by the end of this month.
 
This is tricky to express because I don't want it to come off as a complaint - my wife and I earn well together so we are in the group that got very little when the last stimulus came around. But, we're not rich by any means and my wife's student loans will be an anchor for a couple/few more years. With that being said; I feel like if we were to get the full stimulus, we'd be in good shape to immediately inject it into the economy, or possibly donate even more than we usually do to organizations for the needy. I don't love that we are excluded, because I feel we could do some good with the money.

Or hell, if there was a program in place to divert the amount allotted to us straight to people about to be evicted or struggling to feed their families I'd be interested in something like that too.
 
ranbalam said:
This is tricky to express because I don't want it to come off as a complaint - my wife and I earn well together so we are in the group that got very little when the last stimulus came around. But, we're not rich by any means and my wife's student loans will be an anchor for a couple/few more years. With that being said; I feel like if we were to get the full stimulus, we'd be in good shape to immediately inject it into the economy, or possibly donate even more than we usually do to organizations for the needy. I don't love that we are excluded, because I feel we could do some good with the money.

Or hell, if there was a program in place to divert the amount allotted to us straight to people about to be evicted or struggling to feed their families I'd be interested in something like that too.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. They need to worry less about a few extremely rich asshole getting a couple thousand bucks they don’t need and worry more about getting money into the hands of people who need it. The metrics they are using now are not very well thought out to begin with. Give the people money. I promise the government holding on to the $$ they would save by targeting eligibility isn’t going to be put to a better use.
 
ranbalam said:
This is tricky to express because I don't want it to come off as a complaint - my wife and I earn well together so we are in the group that got very little when the last stimulus came around. But, we're not rich by any means and my wife's student loans will be an anchor for a couple/few more years. With that being said; I feel like if we were to get the full stimulus, we'd be in good shape to immediately inject it into the economy, or possibly donate even more than we usually do to organizations for the needy. I don't love that we are excluded, because I feel we could do some good with the money.

Or hell, if there was a program in place to divert the amount allotted to us straight to people about to be evicted or struggling to feed their families I'd be interested in something like that too.
Click to expand...

putting money into the hands of all Americans will increase the demand for products and services more so with the middle class. The lower class are paying off debt and past due bills.
 
John is just your average everyday Republican...

...You gotta give the CSPAN host props, he gets handed a big ball of crazy and still has the ability to stoically ask a follow up question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top