~* Make America Great Depression Again -- Official Thread of Corona Virus infected markets *~

[Fizzzzle]

29 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I'm a fan of abolishing the 17th amendment. Only in the context of abolishing the senate entirely, however

Guess who has to vote to repeal it and basically vote themselves out of a job.

 

Technically there is a way for an amendment to be established or repealed by state legislatures, but it's incredibly complicated.

[Fizzzzle]

Also, I've made the point before that our current structure actually makes the House useless. The House can pass all the bills they want, it's the Senate Majority Leader that decides if bills even get voted on in the Senate, and essentially dictates the contents of said bills. Why not cut out the middle man and just have the Senate write the bills? (or eliminate the Senate)

[Jason]

Senate Passes $1.9 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

The package delivers a new round of financial assistance to Americans grappling with the impact of the pandemic. The House will need to vote on the final version.

 

[Uaarkson]

Why does it have to go back to the house? I’m so confused.

[Jason]

Just now, Uaarkson said:

Why does it have to go back to the house? I’m so confused.

 

Because the Senate watered down the bill. So it's not the exact same bill.

[osxmatt]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

Senate Passes $1.9 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Package

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

The package delivers a new round of financial assistance to Americans grappling with the impact of the pandemic. The House will need to vote on the final version.

 

 

I'll be curious to hear more about $3,600/yr for kids under 6 and $3,000/yr for kids under 16.

 

The way I read it, it comes in the form of equal monthly checks from the IRS, and replaces the $2,000 tax credit. But I'm not sure if it's per child, and if it's permanent.

[Ricofoley]

It is wild to think about all the stuff that had to go exactly right to get here. I'd say that this bill also would not have happened were it not for Trump continuing to bitch about Dominion machines or whatever into January and suppressing his own party's turnout.

[Chairslinger]

15 minutes ago, Ricofoley said:

It is wild to think about all the stuff that had to go exactly right to get here. I'd say that this bill also would not have happened were it not for Trump continuing to bitch about Dominion machines or whatever into January and suppressing his own party's turnout.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

Trump literally did about half a dozen things to lose the GOP the Senate in January.

 

Which makes it all the more amazing that they are lining up to kiss the ring of this two time losing political timebomb.

[Chairslinger]

1 hour ago, Uaarkson said:

Why does it have to go back to the house? I’m so confused.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

Because the Senate watered down the bill. So it's not the exact same bill.

 

 

Basically anytime the bill is changed it needs to replay the proces, I think.

 

But as the process goes on and the two sides get closer the process will be more of a formality.

 

I don't think the House is going to hold things up too much at this point, but I could be wrong.

[SaysWho?]

Analysis was from a few days ago.

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Analysis was from a few days ago.

 

 

 

 

It's great news but it's a damn shame because if not for political BS we could have done even better. Our bar is so fucking low.

[Anathema-]

Lifting six million children out of poverty is a low bar? I wish there was more too but the hyperbole doesn't help anyone either. 

[Fizzzzle]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

Lifting six million children out of poverty is a low bar? I wish there was more too but the hyperbole doesn't help anyone either. 

I think it's more about the optics of "it could have been more" when the Democrats hold all 3 branches of government. Like, obviously, it's a good thing, but they caved to a party that they don't have to cave to. The obsession with "bipartisan support" is hamstringing them because the Republicans pretty much vote in a monolith. By tailoring legislation to compromise with Republicans, they're basically still acting like the Republicans are the majority party. The frustration over the last couple months has surrounded the fact that Democrats finally actually have power and won't use it for the things they promised, and are compromising on things they don't have to compromise on.

[Joe]

Let’s wait and see what happens with a separate minimum wage bill before everyone freaks out.

[CitizenVectron]

If the Dems don't kill the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation then I will panic.

[PaladinSolo]

21 hours ago, Ricofoley said:

It is wild to think about all the stuff that had to go exactly right to get here. I'd say that this bill also would not have happened were it not for Trump continuing to bitch about Dominion machines or whatever into January and suppressing his own party's turnout.

Or these people could have just voted for Ossoff to begin with instead of wasting our time.

[Fizzzzle]

38 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

If the Dems don't kill the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation then I will panic.

Think about those of us who live in this country.

[PaladinSolo]

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

I think it's more about the optics of "it could have been more" when the Democrats hold all 3 branches of government. Like, obviously, it's a good thing, but they caved to a party that they don't have to cave to. The obsession with "bipartisan support" is hamstringing them because the Republicans pretty much vote in a monolith. By tailoring legislation to compromise with Republicans, they're basically still acting like the Republicans are the majority party. The frustration over the last couple months has surrounded the fact that Democrats finally actually have power and won't use it for the things they promised, and are compromising on things they don't have to compromise on.

Where did they do this?  They compromised with Manchin with minor concessions, but overall they absolutely did not compromise with the GOP.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

4 hours ago, Anathema- said:

Lifting six million children out of poverty is a low bar? I wish there was more too but the hyperbole doesn't help anyone either. 

 

I mean, I said it's great news, but yes, it's a low bar when you have all 3 branches of government and promised way more than what is actually happening. I'll take what I can get, but yes, it's a low bar. It's not hyperbole. $15 minimum wage - gone. Skinnier UI which cuts out 12 million Americans - done. Etc. Damn man, you have it out for me don't you?  

 

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

I think it's more about the optics of "it could have been more" when the Democrats hold all 3 branches of government. Like, obviously, it's a good thing, but they caved to a party that they don't have to cave to. The obsession with "bipartisan support" is hamstringing them because the Republicans pretty much vote in a monolith. By tailoring legislation to compromise with Republicans, they're basically still acting like the Republicans are the majority party. The frustration over the last couple months has surrounded the fact that Democrats finally actually have power and won't use it for the things they promised, and are compromising on things they don't have to compromise on.

 

This.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

41 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Where did they do this?  They compromised with Manchin with minor concessions, but overall they absolutely did not compromise with the GOP.

 

Compromising with Manchin is compromising with the GOP given he's trying to "middle ground" a bill that didn't need it.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

I see they have learned the basics. It's something.

[CitizenVectron]

 

[Greatoneshere]

19 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

Manchin's an idiot, straight up.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Good Lord - he's BEYOND insufferable and it's only going to get WORSE!

[PaladinSolo]

30 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Compromising with Manchin is compromising with the GOP given he's trying to "middle ground" a bill that didn't need it.

Can't pass anything without him, and hes absolutely capable of torpedoing the whole thing if hes not happy with it, which is why we had dems scrambling Friday, don't have to like it but have to live with it.

[Pikachu]

Needed to win more seats in November.

[Spork3245]

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

I think it's more about the optics of "it could have been more" when the Democrats hold all 3 branches of government.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I mean, I said it's great news, but yes, it's a low bar when you have all 3 branches of government

2 of 3, Mr. Tuberville  

[Fizzzzle]

The Judicial branch was not initially a "branch" of government. It was lower house - upper house - executive. Judicial only became a "branch" of government once Judicial Review became a thing in the early 1800's, but it was never meant to be one of the three branches. It just kind of happened. So when I say three branches, I mean House, Senate, and Executive. The courts are their own thing.

[Joe]

10 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

The Judicial branch was not initially a "branch" of government. It was lower house - upper house - executive. Judicial only became a "branch" of government once Judicial Review became a thing in the early 1800's, but it was never meant to be one of the three branches. It just kind of happened. So when I say three branches, I mean House, Senate, and Executive. The courts are their own thing.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution does it list the House and the Senate as separate branches of government. Come on 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

The Judicial branch was not initially a "branch" of government. It was lower house - upper house - executive. Judicial only became a "branch" of government once Judicial Review became a thing in the early 1800's, but it was never meant to be one of the three branches. It just kind of happened. So when I say three branches, I mean House, Senate, and Executive. The courts are their own thing.

Bruh

[Joe]

Awkward!

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

6 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

2 of 3, Mr. Tuberville  

 

Bruh, I don't know how to count, gimme a break.