McConnell sees 'no realistic path' in Senate for House bill on $2,000 checks

[webfact]

McConnell sees 'no realistic path' in Senate for House bill on $2,000 checks

By Susan Cornwell and David Morgan

 

FILE PHOTO: Construction for the upcoming presidential inauguration ceremony is seen outside of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, U.S., December 28, 2020. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday said a Democratic bill to raise coronavirus relief checks to $2,000 from $600 was unlikely to clear the Senate anytime soon, likely killing an effort to boost the aid that was championed by President Donald Trump.

 

McConnell said on the Senate floor that a bill passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which sought to meet Trump's demands for bigger checks, "has no realistic path to quickly pass the Senate."

Republican Senator John Cornyn told reporters that he thought it unlikely that Congress would act to increase the checks given McConnell's remarks.

 

Asked if he expected Republicans to face political blow-back, Cornyn said: "No, not in any normal world," noting that Congress had already approved trillions of dollars in relief for an economy battered by the pandemic.

 

Trump had ramped up pressure on fellow Republicans to back the bigger COVID-19 stimulus checks for struggling Americans in a series of tweets over recent days. "$2000 ASAP!" Trump wrote on Twitter early on Wednesday.

 

The intraparty tensions over the effort to increase the payments from the $600 already approved by Congress were exacerbated by a second showdown over an effort in Congress to override Trump's veto of a defense policy bill.

 

The Republican-controlled Senate was set to take a step closer to what would be the first veto override of Trump's nearly four years as president with a procedural vote on Wednesday.

 

With a new Congress due to be sworn into office on Sunday following November's election, McConnell's remark suggested the legislation that passed the House on Monday could simply expire.

 

McConnell said the $2,000 checks were not targeted and would go to some people who do not need them.

 

Late on Tuesday, the Senate leader introduced a bill that combined the $2,000 checks with provisions scrapping certain legal protections for social media companies and calling for a study of election security, a major issue for Trump, who claims without evidence that fraud helped Democrat Joe Biden defeat him in the November election.

 

Since most Democrats do not support the second two measures, the maneuver looked set to kill off prospects for all three.

 

On Tuesday the president attacked Republican leaders as "pathetic" and accused the party of having a "death wish" if it did not back raising the stimulus payments or scrap the legal protections for social media companies.

 

The cracks in Trump's relationship with senior Republican lawmakers come three weeks before the president hands over power to Biden on Jan. 20.

 

Congressional Republicans have largely stuck with Trump through four turbulent years, but the president is angry that they have not fully backed his claims of election fraud.

 

The House of Representatives overturned Trump's defense bill veto on Monday. Once procedural hurdles in the Senate are cleared, a final vote could come later in the week or over the weekend.

 

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and David Morgan; additional reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt, Lisa Lambert, Jeff Mason and David Brunnstrom; writing by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Michelle Price, Noeleen Walder, Jonathan Oatis and Howard Goller)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-12-31

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

Surprise surprise surprise......not! Don’t rember old Mitch complaining on the last go around when big business sucked up the funds earmarked for small business  no money for the working folk you suck Mitch McConnell!

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Late on Tuesday, the Senate leader introduced a bill that combined the $2,000 checks with provisions scrapping certain legal protections for social media companies and calling for a study of election security, a major issue for Trump, who claims without evidence that fraud helped Democrat Joe Biden defeat him in the November election.

He is holding the American people  hostage so he can get trump's pet projects trough , and give new oxygen in trump's assertions that the election was stolen from him. 

If $ 2000 is not right , how would an election fraud commission , legal protection for social media make it right? 

[Jeffr2]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

He is holding the American people  hostage so he can get trump's pet projects trough , and give new oxygen in trump's assertions that the election was stolen from him. 

If $ 2000 is not right , how would an election fraud commission , legal protection for social media make it right? 

He put the poison pill in that bill to kill it.  And to a certain degree, he's right.  2k checks will go to many who don't really need the money.  There's got to be a better way to help those out of work, or who's business is dying.  I recommend more funding to the states to let them handle it locally. 

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He put the poison pill in that bill to kill it.  And to a certain degree, he's right.  2k checks will go to many who don't really need the money.  There's got to be a better way to help those out of work, or who's business is dying.  I recommend more funding to the states to let them handle it locally. 

BS, if he did not want it to pass, he did not have to introduce a bill at all. 

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.

 

[Credo]

16 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He put the poison pill in that bill to kill it.  And to a certain degree, he's right.  2k checks will go to many who don't really need the money.  There's got to be a better way to help those out of work, or who's business is dying.  I recommend more funding to the states to let them handle it locally. 

I understand your point, but the stimulus is provided not for people, per se, it's to stimulate the economy.   

 

[bunnydrops]

44 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He put the poison pill in that bill to kill it.  And to a certain degree, he's right.  2k checks will go to many who don't really need the money.  There's got to be a better way to help those out of work, or who's business is dying.  I recommend more funding to the states to let them handle it locally. 

Todays NYT said the same.  The money should go to the unemployed. Those that are still working would just put the money in the bank  and not help the economy.

[Jeffr2]

35 minutes ago, sirineou said:

BS, if he did not want it to pass, he did not have to introduce a bill at all. 

Not so sure about that.  From what I've read, he did this as a way out, giving in to all 3 things Trump wanted, knowing fully well it wouldn't pass.  Smart man.  Though he's a disgusting politician.  Time for that dinosaur to retire.

 

[Jeffr2]

33 minutes ago, Credo said:

I understand your point, but the stimulus is provided not for people, per se, it's to stimulate the economy.   

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/business/economy/600-dollar-stimulus-check.html

Most Americans Are Expected to Save, Not Spend, Their $600 Check

 

While lawmakers debate increasing the stimulus payments to $2,000, experts say it would make far more sense to give more money to the unemployed.

[PatOngo]

The old dinosaur, is'nt it time he was turned out to pasture?

[Credo]

35 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

Todays NYT said the same.  The money should go to the unemployed. Those that are still working would just put the money in the bank  and not help the economy.

The bill provides for continued unemployment payments.   The big problem is that if unemployment benefits get to be too high, it is a disincentive to working.   It also means that those who are employed would be severely disadvantaged by continuing to work in low-paying, but essential jobs.   

Means testing would be the best use of the money, however, that requires time and bureaucracy.   Sadly, Congress has had time to come up with a plan, but they never have.   

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Credo

[Eric Loh]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

On Tuesday the president attacked Republican leaders as "pathetic" and accused the party of having a "death wish" if it did not back raising the stimulus payments

Fitting scene of The Godfather warning of death wish to those who crossed him. How apt for the Don. 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Credo said:

The bill provides for continued unemployment payments.   The big problem is that if unemployment benefits get to be too high, it is a disincentive to working.   It also means that those who are employed would be severely disadvantaged by continuing to work in low-paying, but essential jobs.   

Means testing would be the best use of the money, however, that requires time and bureaucracy.   Sadly, Congress has had time to come up with a plan, but they never have.   

 

 

There was no problem last time with the $600 dollar supplementary payments. When work opened up, the unemployed went back to their jobs.

 

The $600 unemployment bonuses did not lead to people working less, Yale study shows

• Economists at Yale University found no evidence that the $600 weekly jobless benefits Congress authorized in March reduced employment.
• A study from the Chicago Fed had similar findings.
• The studies' results directly challenge a claim frequently made by Republican lawmakers and members of the Trump administration that the extra unemployment payments decreased people's desire to reenter the workforce.

$600 unemployment bonuses did not lead to less work, Yale study shows - Business Insider

[Walker88]

There's one reason and one reason only, IMO, that traitor mcconnell wants only $600 and not $2000:  mcconnell knows the economy will suffer more if the checks are lower, and after 20 Jan he can try to foist the blame on President Biden, giving himself---in his addled mind---a better chance to salvage his fascist, autocratic Party.

 

It is cold, uncaring, typical republican politics, putting Party above country and people.

 

The talk some repub clowns spew about 'but the deficit!' is so hypocritical, because the $2 trillion tax cut that went virtually 100% to the wealthy hammered the deficit, but since money went to the Donor Class, it's OK with mitch.

[Credo]

45 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There was no problem last time with the $600 dollar supplementary payments. When work opened up, the unemployed went back to their jobs.

 

The $600 unemployment bonuses did not lead to people working less, Yale study shows

• Economists at Yale University found no evidence that the $600 weekly jobless benefits Congress authorized in March reduced employment.
• A study from the Chicago Fed had similar findings.
• The studies' results directly challenge a claim frequently made by Republican lawmakers and members of the Trump administration that the extra unemployment payments decreased people's desire to reenter the workforce.

$600 unemployment bonuses did not lead to less work, Yale study shows - Business Insider

But now we are talking about unemployment + $2,000.   That's a little different scenario, especially if you plan on only giving it the unemployed.   

 

Somewhere, someone made a decision to stimulate the economy.   There is money in the bill for other programs as well.   

[herfiehandbag]

Just a question - who actually gave this Mr McConnell the power to effectively govern the United States, and exactly what mandate does he ( or for that matter the United States Senate) actually have. I ask because he is one of the Senators from a state with a population of 4.5 million, yet appears to have a death grip on the government of a country of some 330 million; ignoring the decisions of a President and the House of Representatives, and seemingly intent on (relishing) crippling the incoming administration, both executive and legislative branches.

Edited December 31, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, Credo said:

But now we are talking about unemployment + $2,000.   That's a little different scenario, especially if you plan on only giving it the unemployed.   

 

Somewhere, someone made a decision to stimulate the economy.   There is money in the bill for other programs as well.   

Last time it was unemployment plus $1200. You think that $800 is a crucial difference?

As for someone, "somewhere made a decision to stimulate the economy.." your point being? My point is that it's a very inefficient way to stimulate the economy. Most of that money will end up being socked away in a bank.

[bunnydrops]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

The bill provides for continued unemployment payments.   The big problem is that if unemployment benefits get to be too high, it is a disincentive to working.   It also means that those who are employed would be severely disadvantaged by continuing to work in low-paying, but essential jobs.   

Means testing would be the best use of the money, however, that requires time and bureaucracy.   Sadly, Congress has had time to come up with a plan, but they never have.   

 

 

You can't get unemployment help if you quit or are or, most of time, fired.

[Thomas J]

First off the government is using the "stimulus" banner to misrepresent these bills.  Yes the people get a small check but much of the spending goes to pork projects and is wasted.  Second, do you think you can borrow on your credit card to prosperity?  This money is borrowed.  The latest stimulus bill as $2 trillion.  That is $16,666 per family in the USA based on 120 million families.  Right now interest rates are near zero.  If or should I say when interest rates recover to anywhere close to their norms the interest on servicing the $27 Trillion dollars will wipe out spending for anything else.  Borrowing unlimited amounts of money is like a Ponzi scheme that eventually will crash.  When it does, the consequences for both the USA and the world will be far far worse.  If $2,000 per person does not matter, then why not make it $10,000 or $100,000.  It is long term poison and it is only a matter of increments how you get to the lethal dose. 

 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

First off the government is using the "stimulus" banner to misrepresent these bills.  Yes the people get a small check but much of the spending goes to pork projects and is wasted.  Second, do you think you can borrow on your credit card to prosperity?  This money is borrowed.  The latest stimulus bill as $2 trillion.  That is $16,666 per family in the USA based on 120 million families.  Right now interest rates are near zero.  If or should I say when interest rates recover to anywhere close to their norms the interest on servicing the $27 Trillion dollars will wipe out spending for anything else.  Borrowing unlimited amounts of money is like a Ponzi scheme that eventually will crash.  When it does, the consequences for both the USA and the world will be far far worse.  If $2,000 per person does not matter, then why not make it $10,000 or $100,000.  It is long term poison and it is only a matter of increments how you get to the lethal dose. 

 

Japan has a debt to GDP ration twice that of the USA. Japan's problem has been battling deflation.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

BS, if he did not want it to pass, he did not have to introduce a bill at all. 

This way he averts a big part of the criticism on not passing the bill, and tries to put the blame on the Democrats for not accepting Trump's pet projects, which are supported by many, many Americans, especially those who really need the money.

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

First off the government is using the "stimulus" banner to misrepresent these bills.  Yes the people get a small check but much of the spending goes to pork projects and is wasted.  Second, do you think you can borrow on your credit card to prosperity?  This money is borrowed.  The latest stimulus bill as $2 trillion.  That is $16,666 per family in the USA based on 120 million families.  Right now interest rates are near zero.  If or should I say when interest rates recover to anywhere close to their norms the interest on servicing the $27 Trillion dollars will wipe out spending for anything else.  Borrowing unlimited amounts of money is like a Ponzi scheme that eventually will crash.  When it does, the consequences for both the USA and the world will be far far worse.  If $2,000 per person does not matter, then why not make it $10,000 or $100,000.  It is long term poison and it is only a matter of increments how you get to the lethal dose. 

 

How do you feel about the help businesses, big and small, are getting from this and the previous stimulus package?

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Japan has a debt to GDP ration twice that of the USA. Japan's problem has been  deflation and lowflation

 

[Thomas J]

Just now, stevenl said:

How do you feel about the help businesses, big and small, are getting from this and the previous stimulus package?

I think the entire stimulus package was flawed.  There is an old saying that politicians do "something" to create the illusion that they are helping.  If you wanted to help the USA economy then invest in some infrastructure projects that will provide benefits for decades to come.  Not give money to the Kennedy Fine Arts Center. 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I think the entire stimulus package was flawed.  There is an old saying that politicians do "something" to create the illusion that they are helping.  If you wanted to help the USA economy then invest in some infrastructure projects that will provide benefits for decades to come.  Not give money to the Kennedy Fine Arts Center. 

Because infrastructure plans have to be approved and ready to go before money gets disbursed. The US doesn't have the luxury of time.

[stevenl]

49 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I think the entire stimulus package was flawed.  There is an old saying that politicians do "something" to create the illusion that they are helping.  If you wanted to help the USA economy then invest in some infrastructure projects that will provide benefits for decades to come.  Not give money to the Kennedy Fine Arts Center. 

Why mention art, that seems to show a bias? Doesn't the staff at the Kennedy Fina Arts Center deserve to stay employed? Why not mention the big and small companies, see the post following mine?

 

Yes, infrastructure would have been good, was mentioned once in March, but didn't hear anything about it anymore.

Edited December 31, 2020 by stevenl

[John Drake]

Here is what else McConnell said: 

Quote

"The Senate is not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help," Mr McConnell said on the chamber floor.

 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55484625

 

By "rich friends," does he mean Boeing and other defense contractors, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and the rest of the piggish banks,  American Airlines, and the rest of the airlines, and cruise companies? All of whom already have received trillions of dollars?How about Foremost Group, Inc? If you haven't heard of Foremost, you should. It is the shipping company owned by current Secretary of Transport Elaine Chao's family. Chao, of course, is married to Mitch McConnell. 

Quote

In China, the Chaos are no ordinary family. They run an American shipping company with deep ties to the economic and political elite in China, where most of the company’s business is centered. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/politics/elaine-chao-china.html

 

No, I don't think Mitch meant any of these people, however. He's too worried about you and me getting an extra $1600.

[John Drake]

And, if you're wondering how much money Mitch McConnell's wife's family business received for Covid relief, how about between $350,000 and $1 million. That was just from the first Covid bailout for big business. And McConnell thinks the rest of us getting an extra $1400 makes us "rich." Get this guy outta there!  

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had no knowledge of a federal loan that went to a shipping company led by the family of his wife, U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, a spokesperson for the senator said Tuesday. Foremost Group, a New York-based business Chao's parents founded, received a loan of between $350,000 and $1 million from the Paycheck Protection Program, according to data the U.S. Small Business Administration released this week. 

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/07/firm-run-elaine-chao-and-mitch-mcconnells-family-got-federal-ppp-loan/5390273002/

 

But it's okay, you see, because Mitch didn't know. 555

[vandeventer]

7 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Not so sure about that.  From what I've read, he did this as a way out, giving in to all 3 things Trump wanted, knowing fully well it wouldn't pass.  Smart man.  Though he's a disgusting politician.  Time for that dinosaur to retire.

 

Now I am confused are we talking about Biden?