Republican coronavirus bill hits roadblock in U.S. Senate; negotiations continue

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

I did not assert anything, you inferred it with the usual bias. Obviously having both the house and senate is an advantage to get things done. 

 

But maybe after this crisis is over, it will be done. I am sure you will still moan and bash the man who you obviously have an emotional irrational hatred for regardless of what happens. 

 

How will you survive until 2024 with this rage? 

Really, You didn't claim that it was easier for Bill Clinton to work during impeachment proceedings  than if is for Trump now because Clinton had to deal with a Republican controlled House and Senate? Do you read what you write?

"Bill Clinton had the advantage of a republican controlled house and senate during this time, so getting things done was much easier,"

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Can you please list them in the bill, with page numbers. 

 

Thank you 

Just noticed this. I haven't found a convenient article listing them for me but I did find the original senate bill. Here's one particularly vicious and nasty provision from page 6. Section 1102

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818721616/read-senate-republicans-latest-coronavirus-relief-bill

It singles out non profit organizations receiving Medicaid funding.It makes them ineligible for small business loans. Nice. During a pandemic to go after medicaid funded SBO's. If you want to argue that Democratic proposals were not relevant, fine. But I didn't find any that were vicious.

 

 

[Chiphigh]

47 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The senate had their own prescription drug bill in September."

 Please, how feeble can you get. Maybe if you had just called it by some neutral term like "impeachment attempt" you might have a point. Well half a point. But categorizing it the way you did -  "If we weren't busy with an unfounded impeachment farce in January, it might have already been done" --obviously reveals the ludicrousness of your current effort to claim that citing it wasn't political in nature and that you weren't blaming anybody. It is to laugh.

And it's a typical ploy of people who haven't got the facts behind them to try and make it personal by making such statements as "Stop the emotional irrational outrage of the orange man bad syndrome and deal with that". You've got nothing. 

Sorry for pointing out the obvious bias you have when using "facts" 

 

And it was an unfounded partisan impeachment attempt. 

[mtls2005]

One imagines Micky Arison is working the phones hard right about now?

 

 

[Chiphigh]

45 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really, You didn't claim that it was easier for Bill Clinton to work during impeachment proceedings  than if is for Trump now because Clinton had to deal with a Republican controlled House and Senate? Do you read what you write?

"Bill Clinton had the advantage of a republican controlled house and senate during this time, so getting things done was much easier,"

No, but I did point out the fact that one party was in control of both the house and the senate. Do you have a comprehension issue? But then that would require no bias 

[Chiphigh]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Just noticed this. I haven't found a convenient article listing them for me but I did find the original senate bill. Here's one particularly vicious and nasty provision from page 6. Section 1102

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818721616/read-senate-republicans-latest-coronavirus-relief-bill

It singles out non profit organizations receiving Medicaid funding.It makes them ineligible for small business loans. Nice. During a pandemic to go after medicaid funded SBO's. If you want to argue that Democratic proposals were not relevant, fine. But I didn't find any that were vicious.

 

 

So you find one thing that you did not like, but ignore the ridiculous amount of progressive policies jammed in the house bill to feed the woke agenda during a crisis. 

 

You really are trying In vain to defend these leftist loons and what they tried. It is sad to see how blind bias pollutes common sense. 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

It is sad to see how blind bias pollutes common sense. 

Looking at your posts I have to agree.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

"None of this is in your link."... And it clearly is. 

 

And I would like the prescription drug bill passed. If we weren't busy with an unfounded impeachment farce in January, it might have already been done. The senate had their own prescription drug bill in September. 

 

But we know that wasn't the most important thing to do was it?

None of this was in your link.  Your evidence was buried in a poorly labeled 800 page link in your link.  That certainly wasn't clear.

 

It's off-topic, but everyone who lives outside of the Trump bubble recognizes that the impeachment was well founded.

Edited March 27, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Can you please list them in the bill, with page numbers. 

 

Thank you 

Can you please tell us where the Senate bill has been made available to the public?

 

For some reason the Senate doesn't seem to be as transparent with their bill as the House was with theirs.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Bill Clinton had the advantage of a republican controlled house and senate during this time, so getting things done was much easier, I guess you ignored that fact. 

 

Oh those pesky facts... 

Wow.  You think that was an advantage?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

Bonanza for Rich Real Estate Investors, Tucked Into Stimulus Package

 

It also includes a potential bonanza for America’s richest real estate investors.

 

Senate Republicans inserted an easy-to-overlook provision on page 203 of the 880-page bill that would permit wealthy investors to use losses generated by real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market. The estimated cost of the change over 10 years is $170 billion.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/bonanza-for-rich-real-estate-investors-tucked-into-stimulus-package/ar-BB11L4im

A plum for real estate investors.  What a surprise.

[Chiphigh]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

None of this was in your link.  Your evidence was buried in a poorly labeled 800 page link in your link.  That certainly wasn't clear.

 

It's off-topic, but everyone who lives outside of the Trump bubble recognizes that the impeachment was well founded.

It was blatantly clear, unless you don't want to look. 

 

Everyone outside the orange man bad bubble knows the impeachment was unfair and unfounded. If it was well founded, it would have been supported in a bipartisan manner. But you keep believing what you need for the next 4 year term. 

[Chiphigh]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Wow.  You think that was an advantage?

Yes as would be an advantage if it was a democratic house and senate. It helps get legislation passed. But you would have to be unbiased to see that, which you clearly aren't. 

[Chiphigh]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Can you please tell us where the Senate bill has been made available to the public?

 

For some reason the Senate doesn't seem to be as transparent with their bill as the House was with theirs.

 

 

Well Bruce, if you weren't so blatantly biased, you would have read it in a previous post. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818721616/read-senate-republicans-latest-coronavirus-relief-bill

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

No, but I did point out the fact that one party was in control of both the house and the senate. Do you have a comprehension issue? But then that would require no bias 

Oh, I understood perfectly what you wrote, What I don't understand is why you think it's easier  for a President to have both the Senate and House controlled by the opposition party rather than for a President to have only one the House controlled by the opposition party? That makes sense how?  

Edited March 27, 2020 by bristolboy

[Chiphigh]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Oh, I understood perfectly what you wrote, What I don't understand is why you think it's easier  for a President to have both the Senate and House controlled by the opposition party rather than for a President to have only one branch controlled by the opposition party? That makes sense how?  

I did not say it's easier for the president, I said it is easier to get legislation passed. 

 

Are you done with this yet? 

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

I did not say it's easier for the president, I said it is easier to get legislation passed. 

 

Are you done with this yet? 

Well if it's easier to get legislation passed, as you assert (and a very dubious assertion it is) and the President is part of that process, you know, he wields the veto, then how is it not easier for the President? And what's more this has nothing to do with both Houses of Congress. This is about the Senate which is controlled by fellow Republicans. How difficult can it be for the President to forcefully intercede with Senate Republcians? Apparently, very. 

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

It was blatantly clear, unless you don't want to look. 

 

Everyone outside the orange man bad bubble knows the impeachment was unfair and unfounded. If it was well founded, it would have been supported in a bipartisan manner. But you keep believing what you need for the next 4 year term. 

It was not in the article you linked to.  You did not identify the need to go through a link at the bottom of the article and read through a 1404 page bill to find the information you used.  That is far from "blatantly clear".

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Yes as would be an advantage if it was a democratic house and senate. It helps get legislation passed. But you would have to be unbiased to see that, which you clearly aren't. 

Yet you described it as an advantage for Bill Clinton to have a Republican House and Senate.  That doesn't help get legislation passed.  It's not an advantage.  Didn't you know that?

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Well Bruce, if you weren't so blatantly biased, you would have read it in a previous post. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818721616/read-senate-republicans-latest-coronavirus-relief-bill

That is an earlier, and much shorter, version of the bill.  Not the one that was passed.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

It was blatantly clear, unless you don't want to look. 

 

Everyone outside the orange man bad bubble knows the impeachment was unfair and unfounded. If it was well founded, it would have been supported in a bipartisan manner. But you keep believing what you need for the next 4 year term. 

So the republicans fighting for their lives and therefore standing by their president proves the impeachment was unfair and unfounded.

 

This reasoning is beyond belief.

[Chiphigh]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Well if it's easier to get legislation passed, as you assert (and a very dubious assertion it is) and the President is part of that process, you know, he wields the veto, then how is it not easier for the President? And what's more this has nothing to do with both Houses of Congress. This is about the Senate which is controlled by fellow Republicans. How difficult can it be for the President to forcefully intercede with Senate Republcians? Apparently, very. 

During an unprecedented 3 year constant attack based on a false narrative and manufactured evidence , I would think it's very difficult to get things done. No fan of the Paul Ryan led house which was a disaster either. 

 

But as I said, do you think in the middle of this event, your whinging about not getting a bill for pharmaceutical prices is a constructive way to get the relevant results to the people out of work? Leftists never stop pushing the silly agendas. 

 

But I do feel better about npr and PBS getting millions in a health crisis, well done Nancy. 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

During an unprecedented 3 year constant attack based on a false narrative and manufactured evidence , I would think it's very difficult to get things done. No fan of the Paul Ryan led house which was a disaster either. 

 

But as I said, do you think in the middle of this event, your whinging about not getting a bill for pharmaceutical prices is a constructive way to get the relevant results to the people out of work? Leftists never stop pushing the silly agendas. 

 

But I do feel better about npr and PBS getting millions in a health crisis, well done Nancy. 

Nonsense. The House and Senate managed to pass a huge tax bill. They nearly succeeded in derailing Obamacare. It's clear you don't understand how these bodies work. Certain committees were delegated to deal with impeachment. Plenty of work got done. It's Trump who apparently broke down and couldn't work while the current Congress was in session.

 

Your remarks about me whinging re pharmaceuticals prices must be a case of either doublethink or amnesia. I responded to your false comment blaming the impeachment proceedings for the failure of the Senate pharmaceutical bille to be taken up. And as the evidence overwhelmingly shows, if anyone is to blame it's Mitch McConnell most to blame, followed closely by Donald Trump for not exerting himself on its behalf.. So who's doing the "whinging". Truly bizarre.

 

Are you also going to congratulate Nancy on getting $600 additional per week for each American on unemployment? Or, to your way of thinking, does that pale into insignificance alongside the funding for NPR and PBS?

Edited March 27, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

During an unprecedented 3 year constant attack based on a false narrative and manufactured evidence , I would think it's very difficult to get things done. No fan of the Paul Ryan led house which was a disaster either. 

 

But as I said, do you think in the middle of this event, your whinging about not getting a bill for pharmaceutical prices is a constructive way to get the relevant results to the people out of work? Leftists never stop pushing the silly agendas. 

 

But I do feel better about npr and PBS getting millions in a health crisis, well done Nancy. 

I've been thinking about it and maybe you're right, Maybe there is something wrong with NPR and PBS getting millions in a health care crisis. Pretty damned sneaky! Thank goodness the honorable Republican ladies and gentlemen in the Senate would never stoop to exploiting a national crisis to help a special interest group...oh wait a minute...a report is coming in now...

Bonanza for Rich Real Estate Investors, Tucked Into Stimulus Package

A small change to tax policy could hand $170 billion in tax savings to real estate tycoons.

Senate Republicans inserted an easy-to-overlook provision on page 203 of the 880-page bill that would permit wealthy investors to use losses generated by real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/coronavirus-real-estate-investors-stimulus.html

 

Can anyone think of a very prominent real estate tycoon who would benefit from such a bill?

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I've been thinking about it and maybe you're right, Maybe there is something wrong with NPR and PBS getting millions in a health care crisis. Pretty damned sneaky! Thank goodness the honorable Republican ladies and gentlemen in the Senate would never stoop to exploiting a national crisis to help a special interest group...oh wait a minute...a report is coming in now...

Bonanza for Rich Real Estate Investors, Tucked Into Stimulus Package

A small change to tax policy could hand $170 billion in tax savings to real estate tycoons.

Senate Republicans inserted an easy-to-overlook provision on page 203 of the 880-page bill that would permit wealthy investors to use losses generated by real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/coronavirus-real-estate-investors-stimulus.html

 

Can anyone think of a very prominent real estate tycoon who would benefit from such a bill?

 

You should probably dig a little deeper into who the good guys and who the bad guys are. By all insider accounts, leadership of both parties went straight to the $4.25 Trillion corporate largesse over lower ranking Democrat and even some Republican Senators, who got run over on this deal. Any oversight is primarily after the fact which is meaningless. Plenty of oversight and red tape though for small businesses looking for relief.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You should probably dig a little deeper into who the good guys and who the bad guys are. By all insider accounts, leadership of both parties went straight to the $4.25 Trillion corporate largesse over lower ranking Democrat and even some Republican Senators, who got run over on this deal. Any oversight is primarily after the fact which is meaningless. Plenty of oversight and red tape though for small businesses looking for relief.

Another case of both sidesism. We do know that the democrats held out for greater relief for the unemployed and for hospitals and emergency health care. We also know that they killed an attempt made on behalf of Mnuchin to allow him to conceal the loans he made to big corporations for up to 6 months and to make them without outside approval.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Another case of both sidesism. We do know that the democrats held out for greater relief for the unemployed and for hospitals and emergency health care. We also know that they killed an attempt made on behalf of Mnuchin to allow him to conceal the loans he made to big corporations for up to 6 months and to make them without outside approval.

 

Right it was both sides who took the size of the corporate largesse as a given. That was never a point of contention. The headline $500 Billion, which is bad enough is just a tiny part of it.

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Right it was both sides who took the size of the corporate largesse as a given. That was never a point of contention. The headline $500 Billion, which is bad enough is just a tiny part of it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/democrats-slush-fund-republican-rescue-package-143565

[lannarebirth]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/23/democrats-slush-fund-republican-rescue-package-143565

 

Pull out and take a wider view. The $4 + Trillion lending facility is for mega corporations to buy out their small and midsize competitors whose revenue has gone to zero and do not have the same access to capital. Hopefully we can get a roll call vote on this bill. There was no "good fight" about that at all.

 

Just like corporations consolidated power after the Great Recession, to the detriment of 10's of millions of gig, part time and contract workers, corporations will come our of this crisis MUCH more powerful than before.

 

Hey, did you donate to the fund for Amazon workers? Didn't see anything on the WaPo about it. They know who signs their paychecks and controls their career prospects.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20200320133040/https://amazonrelieffund.org/

 

 

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Pull out and take a wider view. The $4 + Trillion lending facility is for mega corporations to buy out their small and midsize competitors whose revenue has gone to zero and do not have the same access to capital. Hopefully we can get a roll call vote on this bill. There was no "good fight" about that at all.

 

Just like corporations consolidated power after the Great Recession, to the detriment of 10's of millions of gig, part time and contract workers, corporations will come our of this crisis MUCH more powerful than before.

 

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/business/economy/fed-coronavirus-stimulus.html

It's a lot more broad based than you characterize it. Granted, given that the Trump administration has mostly given up on anti-trust enforcement, in fact enforcement of corporate infractions of all kinds, the situation could get worse.

Edited March 27, 2020 by bristolboy