House and Senate overwhelmingly pass atrocious relief bill. Trump slams it and says he'll veto.

[Trunkage]

First time in my life I hear that.


Is there like, a reason that they have to stay a republican thing, when a lot of democrat voters seem to want and need them though?

Is it like political cooties where if the republicans touched something we get their cooties if we do it too?

Isn't covid something worthy of realigning what things are republican and what things are democrat over? I mean, we did get the new deal during the last depression. I think it's fitting we get republican cooties and money this one.

Man, I thought the last stimulus bill was a realignment becuase Trump and McConnell ended up being secret Socialists. But then I remembered a fuckton of extra ammendment that only helped the rich being in that bill too

 

[Dreiko]

Man, I thought the last stimulus bill was a realignment becuase Trump and McConnell ended up being secret Socialists. But then I remembered a fuckton of extra ammendment that only helped the rich being in that bill too

The last bill gave like 3 trillion to corporations, if it had given all that money as stimulus checks to individuals then it'd have a point but no, the stimulus was just their way of passing the money to corporations at a time where going against the bill would have been politically disadvantageous. Now the election is over so they get to actually stand against crap bills but the last one was much worse than this one.

 

[tstorm823]

If direct stimulus checks are the Republican way of doing things, why'd they fucking block it smart guy?

Because the problem right now isn't actually the economy at large. The economy doesn't really need to be stimulated. Select industries are being harmed by the pandemic in a big way, but it's not a typical recession. Many industries are still bomming, and If the pandemic were to disappear overnight, everything would come roaring back immediately. The stimulus checks, like many of the covid related efforts, were all about the appearance of doing something rather than actually being important.

Is there like, a reason that they have to stay a republican thing, when a lot of democrat voters seem to want and need them though?

It's a difference in the basic philosophies of the parties. Republicans see people are individual actors and politicians as elected leaders, democrats see people as parts of collective groups and politicians as representatives of those groups. Downstream from those viewpoints, Republicans see collective decisions made by the state as dictates, Democrats tend to see them as cooperative efforts. Republicans don't like dictating economic activity, Democrats like cooperative economic efforts. It's a perspective thing.

So when Republicans feel economic stimulus is necessary, it's typically going to look like "get money into the people's hands and let them do what they want with it" or "let people keep more of their money."
When Democrats feel economic stimulus is necessary, they're typically looking to spend that money on things themselves, because if the goal is to get money spent in the economy, they may as well be spending it on things they think are nationally important.

It would be strange for the party that sees themselves as pure extensions of the populace to focus on direct universal payments, because direct universal payments are admitting that the people know better what to do with the money for themselves than the government does. When Democrats spend money, they believe they're doing that for the people, so giving money to the people to spend for themselves is just adding an unnecessary step. Like, Andrew Yang in the primaries was pretty cozy with right-wing Americans for a reason. The divide between Republicans and Democrats isn't actually that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are progressive. That's only true in some ways, and is subject to change every generation. The divide between the parties is on a completely different axis.

 

[Dreiko]

Because the problem right now isn't actually the economy at large. The economy doesn't really need to be stimulated. Select industries are being harmed by the pandemic in a big way, but it's not a typical recession. Many industries are still bomming, and If the pandemic were to disappear overnight, everything would come roaring back immediately. The stimulus checks, like many of the covid related efforts, were all about the appearance of doing something rather than actually being important.

It's a difference in the basic philosophies of the parties. Republicans see people are individual actors and politicians as elected leaders, democrats see people as parts of collective groups and politicians as representatives of those groups. Downstream from those viewpoints, Republicans see collective decisions made by the state as dictates, Democrats tend to see them as cooperative efforts. Republicans don't like dictating economic activity, Democrats like cooperative economic efforts. It's a perspective thing.

So when Republicans feel economic stimulus is necessary, it's typically going to look like "get money into the people's hands and let them do what they want with it" or "let people keep more of their money."
When Democrats feel economic stimulus is necessary, they're typically looking to spend that money on things themselves, because if the goal is to get money spent in the economy, they may as well be spending it on things they think are nationally important.

It would be strange for the party that sees themselves as pure extensions of the populace to focus on direct universal payments, because direct universal payments are admitting that the people know better what to do with the money for themselves than the government does. When Democrats spend money, they believe they're doing that for the people, so giving money to the people to spend for themselves is just adding an unnecessary step. Like, Andrew Yang in the primaries was pretty cozy with right-wing Americans for a reason. The divide between Republicans and Democrats isn't actually that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are progressive. That's only true in some ways, and is subject to change every generation. The divide between the parties is on a completely different axis.

I think the philosophical difference is that I think a democratic position is get money into people's hand "irrespective of whether they work or not because they have human rights and deserve a minimum standard of living" that's the actual point of difference. What people spend their tax returns/tax cuts on isn't relevant when they have no jobs and pay no taxes. A position that involves taxes fundamentally presupposes people work and that already is republican framing that we ought deny.

Basically the party difference is whether there should be requirements to providing human rights we can afford or whether people should just get them because they live here and are human citizens of the US.


If you concede the requirement of having a job as a prerequisite for human rights you've already abandoned our position and are firmly within theirs.

And this all is not even beginning to cover the fact that the government is a reason for why people lack jobs in tens of millions of occasions. All of the above is a general thing that ought be the case even without government-mandated-unemployment. When you add that into the mix you gotta go above even what I described as compensation for wages lost. When we don't even meet the basic general standard in our philosophical approach here to consider further compromises is absurd.





Also, this wasn't directed at me but I gotta respond; a good chunk of the closed businesses did so permanently. Amazon and Wallmart are doing fine sure but to say that if they made a magic cure everyone would open everything up again is a huge lie.

 

[Shadyside]

We really won't get anything until Joe comes in. We will probablly have a government shutdown.

 

[Worgen]

Defying Congress, Trump vetoes defense bill, threatens government shutdown

U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan defense policy bill on Wednesday and raised the prospect that the United States could face a government shutdown during a pandemic, stirring new turmoil in Washington as he headed to Florida for Christmas.

www.reuters.com

This goes into things a bit more.

" Trump also demanded the bill be stripped of foreign aid, which is included in every annual federal spending bill - and was requested by his own administration last year. He objected to other government activities funded by the 5,500-page bill, such as fish breeding and funding for the Smithsonian museums. "

He really does seem to just want to burn things down at this point.

 

[Dreiko]

Defying Congress, Trump vetoes defense bill, threatens government shutdown

U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed a bipartisan defense policy bill on Wednesday and raised the prospect that the United States could face a government shutdown during a pandemic, stirring new turmoil in Washington as he headed to Florida for Christmas.

www.reuters.com

This goes into things a bit more.

" Trump also demanded the bill be stripped of foreign aid, which is included in every annual federal spending bill - and was requested by his own administration last year. He objected to other government activities funded by the 5,500-page bill, such as fish breeding and funding for the Smithsonian museums. "

He really does seem to just want to burn things down at this point.

I just don't think he even knows what his own administration requests. Or maybe they lied to him about it like they did with the afghanistan troop numbers.

 

[Agema]

I just don't think he even knows what his own administration requests.

This, I think, is eminently possible. I doubt Trump pays a great deal of attention to all manner of bills put before him - unless he gets something out it, he just doesn't care. On the other hand, I actually agree that at this stage he wants to burn things down, to punish all the people he feels have opposed him or betrayed him, because he's one of the world's worst losers.

Or maybe they lied to him about it like they did with the afghanistan troop numbers.

This is not possible, because bills are published material on official record.

They were only able to lie to him because he was too lazy and incompetent to properly look. And I think it was Syria, not Afghanistan. But the real issue of that story is not that he was lied to, but that he folded so easily when arguments against were put across. This again is because he doesn't really know or care to be able to take a grip of the situation.

 

[Houseman]

because bills are published material on official record.

Didn't the people who were asked to vote on the bill get, like, 2 hours to read 5,000 page bill before voting on it?

 

[Worgen]

I just don't think he even knows what his own administration requests. Or maybe they lied to him about it like they did with the afghanistan troop numbers.

I think at this point hes pissed at the turtle for not backing his 'election fraud' bs more and this is lashing out to hurt republicans.

 

[tstorm823]

I think the philosophical difference is that I think a democratic position is get money into people's hand "irrespective of whether they work or not because they have human rights and deserve a minimum standard of living" that's the actual point of difference.

I don't think you're thinking this through. When have Democrats ever pushed for policy that put money into people's hands irrespective of their position in life? I don't think that's ever happened, or ever will.

 

[Worgen]

I don't think you're thinking this through. When have Democrats ever pushed for policy that put money into people's hands irrespective of their position in life? I don't think that's ever happened, or ever will.

You might want to check this out about Bush's $300 rebate.

Did the Bush Economic Stimulus Package Work?

President George Bush launched an economic stimulus package in 2008 to head off a recession. What were the pros and cons of the plan, and did it work?

www.thebalance.com

Also, just so you know, the stimulus also wasn't irrespective of position in life since if you were making over $100k a year the amount started going down till it got to nothing at I think like $120k.

 

[Drathnoxis]

6000 page bill? That's insane! The way the American government works is bonkers if stuff like that can even get passed. Surely it would make sense to limit the scope of a vote to one particular issue. If you want to vote on streaming, then vote on streaming, if you want to vote on tax write offs then vote on tax write offs. How does it make any sense at all to lump everything under the sun under one bill and vote on it all at once?

I hope this doesn't impact let's players at all.

 

[Worgen]

6000 page bill? That's insane! The way the American government works is bonkers if stuff like that can even get passed. Surely it would make sense to limit the scope of a vote to one particular issue. If you want to vote on streaming, then vote on streaming, if you want to vote on tax write offs then vote on tax write offs. How does it make any sense at all to lump everything under the sun under one bill and vote on it all at once?

I hope this doesn't impact let's players at all.

This is a yearly spending package that funds the government for the whole year, so yeah, its going to be really long. Also, if its veto then we run into a situation where we might end up seeing a government shutdown, which is really really badly timed.

 

[Drathnoxis]

This is a yearly spending package that funds the government for the whole year, so yeah, its going to be really long. Also, if its veto then we run into a situation where we might end up seeing a government shutdown, which is really really badly timed.

And there's no way to break it down in anyway, and you know, limit it to spending and not introducing other random laws? Really long is an understatement. 5,593 pages is so long that it's not possible to be comprehensible to anybody that hasn't spent a month exclusively studying it, and if people are voting for things they don't comprehend what is the government even for?

 

[Worgen]

And there's no way to break it down in anyway, and you know, limit it to spending and not introducing other random laws? Really long is an understatement. 5,593 pages is so long that it's not possible to be comprehensible to anybody that hasn't spent a month exclusively studying it, and if people are voting for things they don't comprehend what is the government even for?

Its a huge spending bill, its going to be massive. Government is really complicated and a lot of people seem to forget that. This bill has been negotiated for awhile now so the chambers should have a decent knowledge of what is contained. At this point its kinda too late to change anything since its gone through both chambers, any changes would have to go from one chamber to the other then be confirmed then sent back if I remember right before it can go to the presidents desk again.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Its a huge spending bill, its going to be massive. Government is really complicated and a lot of people seem to forget that. This bill has been negotiated for awhile now so the chambers should have a decent knowledge of what is contained. At this point its kinda too late to change anything since its gone through both chambers, any changes would have to go from one chamber to the other then be confirmed then sent back if I remember right before it can go to the presidents desk again.

Maybe that's just an excuse you tell yourself to cope with the fact that your government is insane.

 

[Worgen]

Maybe that's just an excuse you tell yourself to cope with the fact that your government is insane.

Show me a sane government and Ill show you a group of people with less then 2000 members.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Show me a sane government and Ill show you a group of people with less then 2000 members.

You'll have to wait until my insurgents are all in place.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

This is a yearly spending package that funds the government for the whole year, so yeah, its going to be really long. Also, if its veto then we run into a situation where we might end up seeing a government shutdown, which is really really badly timed.

Except there's also things in there that have nothing to do with spending.