McConnell puts off vote on $2,000 aid checks, urges Senate override Trump defense veto

[webfact]

McConnell puts off vote on $2,000 aid checks, urges Senate override Trump defense veto

By David Morgan and Susan Cornwell

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), walks from the Senate floor following an agreement of a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) aid package on Capitol Hill Washington, D.C., U.S., December 21, 2020. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday put off a vote on President Donald Trump's call to boost COVID-19 relief checks and urged the Senate to override his veto of a defense bill, in a rare challenge to his fellow Republican three weeks before Trump leaves office.

 

McConnell acted shortly after Trump assailed Republican leaders on Twitter, calling them "weak" and "tired" in an apparent effort to get the Senate to increase COVID-19 checks from $600 to $2,000 and to support his defense bill veto.

 

After McConnell addressed the start of a rare year-end Senate session, Trump tweeted that the Senate must approve the higher payments as soon as possible, "unless Republicans have a death wish."

 

McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, blocked immediate consideration of a measure to increase COVID-19 relief payments, suggesting instead that the Senate would begin to examine the issue along with two others Trump has raised - the integrity of elections and limits on big technology companies.

 

"This week the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus," he said. McConnell did not elaborate on what action, if any, the Senate would take on stimulus checks.

 

A combined $892 billion bipartisan coronavirus relief package and $1.4 trillion spending bill that Trump signed into law on Sunday contains $600 checks for people hit hard financially by the coronavirus.

 

 

Democrats believe the stimulus check issue could give them an advantage in two critical Georgia runoff elections next week that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate and the fate of President-elect Joe Biden's agenda when he takes office on Jan. 20.

 

U.S. stocks dipped into negative territory after McConnell rejected Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer's call for the Senate to approve the increased stimulus aid by unanimous consent.

 

PARTING WAYS

McConnell refused to cave to Trump's demands on the military bill.

 

"For the brave men and women of the United States armed forces, failure is simply not an option," he said. "So when it's our turn in Congress to have their backs, failure is not an option either. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation one more time, when we vote tomorrow."

 

With the New Year's Day holiday on Friday and a new Congress due to be sworn into office on Sunday, lawmakers have only a short time to act.

 

Republicans in Congress have largely stuck with Trump through four turbulent years during which he was impeached, became the focus of an inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and oversaw the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic which has killed 333,000 people in the United States.

 

Due to leave office in 22 days, Trump is angry that his party's lawmakers have not fully backed his false claims of fraud in his November election loss to Biden, as well as their efforts to override a presidential veto for the first time since he took office in 2016 and their opposition to his efforts to give people bigger aid checks.

 

'WEAK AND TIRED'

In a tweet storm just before the Senate session started, Trump attacked "weak and tired" Republican leaders.

 

"WE NEED NEW & ENERGETIC REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP," he wrote in a tweet falsely claiming that voter fraud caused his defeat in the Nov. 3 election.

 

"Republican leadership only wants the path of least resistance. Our leaders (not me, of course!) are pathetic. They only know how to lose!" he wrote without mentioning any party leader by name.

 

Addressing the Republican-dominated chamber, Schumer said it should not adjourn until it addresses COVID-19 stimulus checks and the defense policy bill.

 

The Democratic-led House of Representatives on Monday approved the increase in direct payments to $2,000. However, it faces a tough path in the Republican-led Senate, with many Republicans asserting it would cost hundreds of billions of extra dollars.

 

Instead of allowing immediate action on stimulus checks, McConnell emphasized the importance of provisions in the bipartisan relief package that Trump signed on Sunday, calling it “our shot at getting help to working families on the urgent timeline that they need.”

 

Final passage of the COVID-19 aid increase in the Senate would require 60 votes including the backing of a dozen Republicans.

 

At least five Republicans have so far voiced support for the higher payments.

 

The House on Monday voted to override the president's veto of the defense policy bill and if the Senate seconds the House action, it becomes law. It would be the first veto override of Trump's presidency.

 

Trump said he blocked the defense legislation because he opposed a provision to rename military bases named after generals who fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy during the Civil War, and because he wanted it to overturn liability protections for social media companies, an issue unrelated to national security.

 

(Reporting by David Morgan; additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Alistair Bell and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-30

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Somtamnication]

I understand the reluctance due to fiscally conservative politics, but this money is truly badly needed. This is about hunger, homelessness and taking care of our own.

 

  

[Henk Langeweg]

Clash of the Fossiles over the backs of the poor ...

[tonray]

5 Repubs already said they would vote for it....supressing the  vote again...because if he held it today...it just might pass. The whole system of allowing the majority party, be it Republican or Democrat to control what items get voted on and what items get buried seems antiquated and leads to extreme partisanship as each party can stifle any issue they deem is not in their best interests as a party even if it would pass by a democractic vote.  The whole system needs reform starting with the Electoral college and then term limits and procedural reforms.

[PatOngo]

Well, things are not great again in the home of the brave and the land of the free!

[Tug]

Looks like the grim reaper is up to his usual stonewall kill the bill he is what he is Mitch won’t change 

[Jeffr2]

I posted this in another thread, but worth reposting here.

 

The vast majority of these funds will go to people who don't really need it.  Like, retired expats, who didn't really lose money from this pandemic.  The US economy grew at some 33% last quarter.  Only certain industries are hurting (restaurants, travel, etc).  The rest of the economy is doing OK, and some sectors are booming.

 

Focus the funds on those without jobs.  Those who are waiting in lines at food banks.  A sight I've never seen in all my years. 

 

25,000 in line here.  Just one of many in the US now.

 

https://www.fox8live.com/2020/11/16/people-need-get-food-turkeys-dallas-food-bank-drive-thru/

 

[tonray]

12 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Like, retired expats, who didn't really lose money from this pandemic.

Nonsense...the pandemic caused the Federal Reserve to suppress interest rates to keep asset values elevated. This in turn depressed the value of the dollar globally and certainly feeling that here against the baht. Costing me on average several hundred dollars per month compared to pre-pandemic xchange rates.

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, tonray said:

Nonsense...the pandemic caused the Federal Reserve to suppress interest rates to keep asset values elevated. This in turn depressed the value of the dollar globally and certainly feeling that here against the baht. Costing me on average several hundred dollars per month compared to pre-pandemic xchange rates.

Agreed!  But the dollar goes up, the dollar goes down.  Been happening for decades.  It's a way off from when I first got here!

 

If you were in the market, you did OK.  As I've said, save the money for those who have NO income and can't put food on the table.  The US is better than that.

[thailand49]

40 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I posted this in another thread, but worth reposting here.

 

The vast majority of these funds will go to people who don't really need it.  Like, retired expats, who didn't really lose money from this pandemic.  The US economy grew at some 33% last quarter.  Only certain industries are hurting (restaurants, travel, etc).  The rest of the economy is doing OK, and some sectors are booming.

 

Focus the funds on those without jobs.  Those who are waiting in lines at food banks.  A sight I've never seen in all my years. 

 

25,000 in line here.  Just one of many in the US now.

 

https://www.fox8live.com/2020/11/16/people-need-get-food-turkeys-dallas-food-bank-drive-thru/

 

 

40 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I posted this in another thread, but worth reposting here.

 

The vast majority of these funds will go to people who don't really need it.  Like, retired expats, who didn't really lose money from this pandemic.  The US economy grew at some 33% last quarter.  Only certain industries are hurting (restaurants, travel, etc).  The rest of the economy is doing OK, and some sectors are booming.

 

Focus the funds on those without jobs.  Those who are waiting in lines at food banks.  A sight I've never seen in all my years. 

 

25,000 in line here.  Just one of many in the US now.

 

https://www.fox8live.com/2020/11/16/people-need-get-food-turkeys-dallas-food-bank-drive-thru/

 

Let me stir the pot a bit, I agree a bit with you but look at it this way?  the checks are suppose to go to those with income 75,000 or less?  Whatever amount from what I do know those who are collecting unemployment also get a check if they are paying taxes? This being government, in general, can't seem to run anything the first stimulas package many of the funds were distributed poorly or went to the wrong people and business and many experts don't expect this one will do better?

 

I have read articles from economic experts checks are the fasting way to help the economy since it is spent and goes back into the economy which is what happened the first time. I don't see how government leaders can see or know who really is in need?  Sure those in food lines yes the greatest and riches country in the world sad to see.  I'm retired and a expat here in Thailand I don't need the money even if I did I would take it out of the ATM and only be helping the economy here I really have no problem if I didn't get one.

 

The problem I'm having although retired I still pay taxes, I still have property in the U.S. which one is an apartment building which I pay a good amount of insurance and property tax to my City. These property are clear and free my tenants have been with me with years many are protected due to rent control I've contact all of them and ask specifics as to how the virus are affecting them virtually all of them I've given some break two don't even pay rent now collecting unemployment. I think I'm doing more than my share.

 

When it comes to politician although these bills are separate I find it very tough for some GOP law makers like Rand Paul to say where is the money going to come from? that we need to tighten the belt yet in the budget bill they just gave away money to see how some Crab is going to react when on a treatmill? The pork (Billions) in these bills then in front of the cameras say we don't have the money don't people think that is hypocritical or a bit late in the game? 

 

I  didn't vote for Trump and I'm not saying make America great again but shouldn't be keep that money in house now to help Americans and those who are out of work and in food lines?  Am I wrong and the only one who feels like this? 

[Kelsall]

Nice of Trump to give the $2000.  I'll probably use it to buy stuff on Amazon and ship here.  So some of it will go to the US and some to Thailand in the form of customs duties.

[Susco]

20 minutes ago, tonray said:

Nonsense...the pandemic caused the Federal Reserve to suppress interest rates to keep asset values elevated. This in turn depressed the value of the dollar globally and certainly feeling that here against the baht.

 

Expect some more dollar depressing then when the checks are approved, or where do you think the money will come from?

 

Nobody forced you to go live abroad, so exchange fluctuations are something you brought on yourself

[mtls2005]

A bit of show to allow perdue and loeffler (and a few others) to vote for the $2,000, but the reaper won't let it get to 60.

 

 

 

 

[tonray]

13 minutes ago, Susco said:

exchange fluctuations are something you brought on yourself

????????????????????

[tonray]

15 minutes ago, Susco said:

 

Expect some more dollar depressing then when the checks are approved, or where do you think the money will come from?

 

Nobody forced you to go live abroad, so exchange fluctuations are something you brought on yourself

As long as I am paying taxes as an American citizen...I deserve my payment...simple as that...you want to free me from the burden of paying tax while I live overseas...great...all for it..

[Jeffr2]

25 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Nice of Trump to give the $2000.  I'll probably use it to buy stuff on Amazon and ship here.  So some of it will go to the US and some to Thailand in the form of customs duties.

Why didn't he go for this 8 months ago when this bill first came up?  Or, a month ago?  In the end, it's up to Mitch and he's not going for it.  Nor are a majority of the GOP senators.

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, tonray said:

As long as I am paying taxes as an American citizen...I deserve my payment...simple as that...you want to free me from the burden of paying tax while I live overseas...great...all for it..

Jeez.  This is for people who are hurting big time.  No job, no food, etc.  Not expats unhappy with exchange rates.  Wow....

 

Paying taxes while overseas is another topic...and a good one.

[Phuketshrew]

Anyone else see the irony in overweight people in their $50,000 SUV's queuing up for food hand outs? 

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, Phuketshrew said:

Anyone else see the irony in overweight people in their $50,000 SUV's queuing up for food hand outs? 

Sure, there are a few like that.  But the vast majority are desperate.  I know few people who own a 50k SUV who'd wait 2-3 hours in line for a $20 handout.  Very few.

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, tonray said:

5 Repubs already said they would vote for it....supressing the  vote again...because if he held it today...it just might pass. The whole system of allowing the majority party, be it Republican or Democrat to control what items get voted on and what items get buried seems antiquated and leads to extreme partisanship as each party can stifle any issue they deem is not in their best interests as a party even if it would pass by a democractic vote.  The whole system needs reform starting with the Electoral college and then term limits and procedural reforms.

As an outside observer it does seem remarkable that the US Senate, with it's electoral system whereby each state has two senators, whether California with 38 million or Wyoming with 580 thousand, can claim to be even remotely representative. I can see an argument for it as a "revising chamber" rather like the UK's unelected "House of Lords" or the Canadian Senate - which whilst unelected does at least have members appointed in an appropriate ratio to the provinces populations. Most surprising is that the Senate Majority Leader, with no electoral mandate as far as I can see, has, or has assumed, the power to decide and direct legislative policy!

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

I understand the reluctance due to fiscally conservative politics, but this money is truly badly needed. This is about hunger, homelessness and taking care of our own.

 

  

Yes and no.

At the high income levels that are included, most of the money would just be banked.

I know it's very hard to means test this kind of thing but why not much more money for the truly needy and also much more money for public measures that will actually STOP the pandemic such as vaccines?

 

Spend money, yes. But spend it much more intelligently. 

 

Opinion | Why increasing the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000 is a bad idea - The Washington Post

 

Quote

Why increasing the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000 is a bad idea

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, tonray said:

As long as I am paying taxes as an American citizen...I deserve my payment...simple as that...you want to free me from the burden of paying tax while I live overseas...great...all for it..

I don't know about "deserve" or not. If they had decided to exclude expats, that wouldn't have exactly been the injustice of the century. But yes expats are theoretically included (though personally I still haven't received the original 1200). 

 

On the other hand I would say that expats "deserve" some benefit from Medicare if they are otherwise eligible based on paying into it, but that has never happened and probably never will. 

 

These government policies are so often unfair and/or illogical. Personally I believe in bigger government but also much smarter government. I know, a pipe dream.  

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Phuketshrew said:

Anyone else see the irony in overweight people in their $50,000 SUV's queuing up for food hand outs? 

Not really. They might have families they need to feed and even overweight people do need to eat sometimes. 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Nice of Trump to give the $2000.  I'll probably use it to buy stuff on Amazon and ship here.  So some of it will go to the US and some to Thailand in the form of customs duties.

Nice of trump to finally agree with the dems, pity he didnt do it earlier.

 

But what makes you think the senate will approve it?

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes and no.

At the high income levels that are included, most of the money would just be banked.

I know it's very hard to means test this kind of thing but why not much more money for the truly needy and also much more money for public measures that will actually STOP the pandemic such as vaccines?

 

Spend money, yes. But spend it much more intelligently. 

 

Opinion | Why increasing the stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000 is a bad idea - The Washington Post

 

 

For starters those funds would be better spent on the unemployed at the previous $600 per week rate. And paid retroactively as well.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

For starters those funds would be better spent on the unemployed at the previous $600 per week rate. And paid retroactively as well.

I agree. This entire stimulus thing, 600 or 2000, is coming off as mostly politics and not so much about actually directly solving the problems. 

[Jeffr2]

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I agree. This entire stimulus thing, 600 or 2000, is coming off as mostly politics and not so much about actually directly solving the problems. 

A director of a food bank made a great recommendation.  Instead of cash, give people vouchers to eat at restaurants.  Stay at hotels.  Etc.  Help support that part of the economy that's doing terrible. 

 

Interesting suggestion.

[Emdog]

43 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Nice of trump to finally agree with the dems, pity he didnt do it earlier.

 

But what makes you think the senate will approve it?

Trump knew it wouldn't pass the senate before he threw another tantrum grenade at US system. Funny how Republicans get all "fiscally conservative" when it comes to average Americans but have no problem with massive tax cut that 80% went to the rich, and 1/4 not even to Americans...

[Sujo]

32 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Trump knew it wouldn't pass the senate before he threw another tantrum grenade at US system. Funny how Republicans get all "fiscally conservative" when it comes to average Americans but have no problem with massive tax cut that 80% went to the rich, and 1/4 not even to Americans...

Thats what repubs do.

 

Fiscally conservative,but only to the poor.

 

Right to life, but only until its born.

[billd766]

8 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

I understand the reluctance due to fiscally conservative politics, but this money is truly badly needed. This is about hunger, homelessness and taking care of our own.

 

  

Trump will not suffer hunger or homelessness and he has been taking care of his own (self) for the past 4 years.