[OutsiderFan]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

[OutsiderFan]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

[dabigv13]

Here's why OF-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy...deduction/

Corporate entertainment deductions have been Trump's thing for a while. This is the sweetener for him.

[dabigv13]

Here's why OF-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy...deduction/

Corporate entertainment deductions have been Trump's thing for a while. This is the sweetener for him.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's why OF-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy...deduction/

Corporate entertainment deductions have been Trump's thing for a while. This is the sweetener for him.

So basically, a backdoor way of monetizing the presidency - which is illegal - is the price to get POTUS signature. Just like a mob boss. It's a wonder he's not asking for a cut of each $600 check.

[OutsiderFan]

Here's why OF-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy...deduction/

Corporate entertainment deductions have been Trump's thing for a while. This is the sweetener for him.

So basically, a backdoor way of monetizing the presidency - which is illegal - is the price to get POTUS signature. Just like a mob boss. It's a wonder he's not asking for a cut of each $600 check.

[lex24]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month. Thank Gawd. It’s been open season on him on the board. Despite the “Terry Rule”. Understandable as to why. He deserves it. So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics. I’m no fan of McConnell. Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion.

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

[lex24]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month. Thank Gawd. It’s been open season on him on the board. Despite the “Terry Rule”. Understandable as to why. He deserves it. So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics. I’m no fan of McConnell. Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion.

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

[OutsiderFan]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month.  It’s been open season on him on the board.  Despite the Terry Rule”.  Understandable as to why. He deserves it.  So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to  slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics.  I’m no fan of McConnell.  Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion. 

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

How can it really be "name calling" to call someone the Grim Reaper, when that person has taken pride in calling himself the same name?

[OutsiderFan]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month.  It’s been open season on him on the board.  Despite the Terry Rule”.  Understandable as to why. He deserves it.  So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to  slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics.  I’m no fan of McConnell.  Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion. 

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

How can it really be "name calling" to call someone the Grim Reaper, when that person has taken pride in calling himself the same name?

[lex24]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month.  It’s been open season on him on the board.  Despite the Terry Rule”.  Understandable as to why. He deserves it.  So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to  slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics.  I’m no fan of McConnell.  Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion. 

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

How can it really be "name calling" to call someone the Grim Reaper, when that person has taken pride in calling himself the same name?

If there is going to be a rule it should be evenhandedly applied.

[lex24]

It would have been political suicide for the Grim Reaper, AKA Mitch McConnell, to not get a Covid relief bill passed by Congress before Christmas. So I never doubted one would be passed.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...540528002/

People say the POTUS will sign it, but what would be his motivation to do so? What is in it for him? More importantly, what will he ask for in return for signing it? He's already threatened to veto the NDAA bill which sits on his desk waiting to be signed, because it doesn't eliminate Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (not in the bill) and because it mandates changing military base names named after confederate soldiers. The NDAA must be vetoed by Dec. 23 or it becomes law. Would the POTUS ask for a new election to be held as a condition of signing this Covid relief bill? Something else as insane? I just fail to see why he would sign the Covid relief bill with no drama.

I thought we aren’t supposed to resort to name calling.  But I guess certain name calling is ok.  And the NDAA has nothing to do with COVID. Trump will be out in a month.  It’s been open season on him on the board.  Despite the Terry Rule”.  Understandable as to why. He deserves it.  So relaxing the rule on Trump made sense.

BUT using this to  slam one side of the aisle risks opening up broader political topics.  I’m no fan of McConnell.  Hell, I’m no fan of Congress. It’s approval rate is something like 18%. Deservedly. But I don’t think this Board wants that discussion. 

So if politics is out, an actual balanced use of the Terry Rule would be nice. And if it’s out of bounds to use labels such as health “Czars” , it should be OOB to use such terms as “ Grim Reaper”.

Anyone out there to comment on this. Bueller?

How can it really be "name calling" to call someone the Grim Reaper, when that person has taken pride in calling himself the same name?

If there is going to be a rule it should be evenhandedly applied.

[chrisk]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

[chrisk]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

[OutsiderFan]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

[OutsiderFan]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

[Goose]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

Totally agree with the majority of your post. Unfortunately, I think the House and Senate members both are balancing their constituents at large and the special interests that got them elected. The main problem however is partisanship. Both Pelosi and McConnell have the positions they hold because they are capable of maintaining party discipline even in the face of massive problems with their party's position. The Republicans have supported Trump through thick and thin, no matter what he did. That isn't because they all loved him (although some undoubtedly do). It was because their party leaders told them that if they didn't toe the line, they would never get re-elected and would never get any bill (and associated pork) passed again. The Democrats do the same thing. Yes, these elected officials should stand up to party pressure, but they won't.

The USA made our two party system work because there was relatively light party discipline. Starting with Gingrich, that changed. Remember that Pelosi got her job originally because she could be the Democratic Gingrich. This highly partisan system is what has plagued many other Democracies and created very adversarial situations. It basically doesn't work. We now have it here in the USA. That is what must change. John McCain's vote in the Senate against destroying "Obamacare" is probably the last vote  of conscience we are going to see in our lifetime unless something radical changes. The rest of the Congress doesn't have it in them IMHO.

[Goose]

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

Totally agree with the majority of your post. Unfortunately, I think the House and Senate members both are balancing their constituents at large and the special interests that got them elected. The main problem however is partisanship. Both Pelosi and McConnell have the positions they hold because they are capable of maintaining party discipline even in the face of massive problems with their party's position. The Republicans have supported Trump through thick and thin, no matter what he did. That isn't because they all loved him (although some undoubtedly do). It was because their party leaders told them that if they didn't toe the line, they would never get re-elected and would never get any bill (and associated pork) passed again. The Democrats do the same thing. Yes, these elected officials should stand up to party pressure, but they won't.

The USA made our two party system work because there was relatively light party discipline. Starting with Gingrich, that changed. Remember that Pelosi got her job originally because she could be the Democratic Gingrich. This highly partisan system is what has plagued many other Democracies and created very adversarial situations. It basically doesn't work. We now have it here in the USA. That is what must change. John McCain's vote in the Senate against destroying "Obamacare" is probably the last vote  of conscience we are going to see in our lifetime unless something radical changes. The rest of the Congress doesn't have it in them IMHO.

[Griffins78]

Doh! So now Trump comes in from the golf course and torpedoes the bill. Hasn’t read it. Doesn’t know what’s in it. Crazy!

[Griffins78]

Doh! So now Trump comes in from the golf course and torpedoes the bill. Hasn’t read it. Doesn’t know what’s in it. Crazy!

[BostonCard]

By now you should know not to take anything Trump says seriously or literally.  Nancy Pelosi has already said she will pass a bill increasing the payout to $2000 by voice vote, so it will be interesting to see what happens.  It wouldn’t be a bad thing if, as a result of this, the help that goes to families increases.

BC

[BostonCard]

By now you should know not to take anything Trump says seriously or literally.  Nancy Pelosi has already said she will pass a bill increasing the payout to $2000 by voice vote, so it will be interesting to see what happens.  It wouldn’t be a bad thing if, as a result of this, the help that goes to families increases.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I'm just enjoying the piss out of the POTUS attacking and trying to undermine the Senate Majority Leader, while the Republican Party devolves into a civil war between House and Senate members arguing over overturning the election results.  Imagine dying on this hill.

Now you know why I expressed great skepticism the POTUS would sign the relief bill as passed, when I started this thread.

The POTUS is undermining McConnell, Perdue & Loeffler, who have all been delivering a "$600 is enough" message. McConnell has to be REALLY pissed about right now. Will be fun to see how he tightens the screws on the POTUS, because that is coming. The marriage of convenience is over and divorce is imminent.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm just enjoying the piss out of the POTUS attacking and trying to undermine the Senate Majority Leader, while the Republican Party devolves into a civil war between House and Senate members arguing over overturning the election results.  Imagine dying on this hill.

Now you know why I expressed great skepticism the POTUS would sign the relief bill as passed, when I started this thread.

The POTUS is undermining McConnell, Perdue & Loeffler, who have all been delivering a "$600 is enough" message. McConnell has to be REALLY pissed about right now. Will be fun to see how he tightens the screws on the POTUS, because that is coming. The marriage of convenience is over and divorce is imminent.

[lex24]

I'm just enjoying the piss out of the POTUS attacking and trying to undermine the Senate Majority Leader, while the Republican Party devolves into a civil war between House and Senate members arguing over overturning the election results.  Imagine dying on this hill.

Now you know why I expressed great skepticism the POTUS would sign the relief bill as passed, when I started this thread.

The POTUS is undermining McConnell, Perdue & Loeffler, who have all been delivering a "$600 is enough" message. McConnell has to be REALLY pissed about right now. Will be fun to see how he tightens the screws on the POTUS, because that is coming. The marriage of convenience is over and divorce is imminent.

“Divorce is imminent “. One can only hope.

---

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

Totally agree with the majority of your post. Unfortunately, I think the House and Senate members both are balancing their constituents at large and the special interests that got them elected. The main problem however is partisanship. Both Pelosi and McConnell have the positions they hold because they are capable of maintaining party discipline even in the face of massive problems with their party's position. The Republicans have supported Trump through thick and thin, no matter what he did. That isn't because they all loved him (although some undoubtedly do). It was because their party leaders told them that if they didn't toe the line, they would never get re-elected and would never get any bill (and associated pork) passed again. The Democrats do the same thing. Yes, these elected officials should stand up to party pressure, but they won't.

The USA made our two party system work because there was relatively light party discipline. Starting with Gingrich, that changed. Remember that Pelosi got her job originally because she could be the Democratic Gingrich. This highly partisan system is what has plagued many other Democracies and created very adversarial situations. It basically doesn't work. We now have it here in the USA. That is what must change. John McCain's vote in the Senate against destroying "Obamacare" is probably the last vote  of conscience we are going to see in our lifetime unless something radical changes. The rest of the Congress doesn't have it in them IMHO.

When Reagan got his Tax Bill  through in ‘86, it had strong bipartisan support. It was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostonkowski.  Clinton worked with Gingrich on the welfare reform bills.  Move forward to Obama and Trump. Their two biggest legislative achievements are the ACA and the Tax Reform bill. Both passed on pure party line votes.  So when Trump took office, the GOP pushed to gut the ACA.  Biden and the Dems will now go to work to gut Tax Reform.  

That’s what happens when it’s pure party line voting.

[lex24]

I'm just enjoying the piss out of the POTUS attacking and trying to undermine the Senate Majority Leader, while the Republican Party devolves into a civil war between House and Senate members arguing over overturning the election results.  Imagine dying on this hill.

Now you know why I expressed great skepticism the POTUS would sign the relief bill as passed, when I started this thread.

The POTUS is undermining McConnell, Perdue & Loeffler, who have all been delivering a "$600 is enough" message. McConnell has to be REALLY pissed about right now. Will be fun to see how he tightens the screws on the POTUS, because that is coming. The marriage of convenience is over and divorce is imminent.

“Divorce is imminent “. One can only hope.

---

Nonpartisan Concord Coalition encapsulates this 5600 page monstrosity into the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/blog-po...9f345ee35e

This spending bill embodies everything wrong with the Congress. Where in the mother*cking hell are the hearings? The floor debate? Why not have a government spending bill, and a separate Covid Relief bill?  Why not have the House work in a bi-partisan fashion to get a bill passed, then have the Senate do one, and have a conference to reconcile the two? Not like they didn't have time.

Having a select number of House and Senate members negotiate with each other, instead of each house passing its own bill, is terrible. Not only does this not allow the Congress to work as designed, does anyone think House reps have the exact same interests as Senators? I'm guessing the House reps have much more interest in the interests of the cities and towns in their districts.

I don't know if booting McConnell out of power will help get us back to a functioning Congress, that has the Senate take up House-passed bills for debate, but we are going to weaken ourselves irreversibly if we keep on operating in this "here's a 5,500 page bill you've never seen before. We vote in two hours" bullshit.

Totally agree with the majority of your post. Unfortunately, I think the House and Senate members both are balancing their constituents at large and the special interests that got them elected. The main problem however is partisanship. Both Pelosi and McConnell have the positions they hold because they are capable of maintaining party discipline even in the face of massive problems with their party's position. The Republicans have supported Trump through thick and thin, no matter what he did. That isn't because they all loved him (although some undoubtedly do). It was because their party leaders told them that if they didn't toe the line, they would never get re-elected and would never get any bill (and associated pork) passed again. The Democrats do the same thing. Yes, these elected officials should stand up to party pressure, but they won't.

The USA made our two party system work because there was relatively light party discipline. Starting with Gingrich, that changed. Remember that Pelosi got her job originally because she could be the Democratic Gingrich. This highly partisan system is what has plagued many other Democracies and created very adversarial situations. It basically doesn't work. We now have it here in the USA. That is what must change. John McCain's vote in the Senate against destroying "Obamacare" is probably the last vote  of conscience we are going to see in our lifetime unless something radical changes. The rest of the Congress doesn't have it in them IMHO.

When Reagan got his Tax Bill  through in ‘86, it had strong bipartisan support. It was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostonkowski.  Clinton worked with Gingrich on the welfare reform bills.  Move forward to Obama and Trump. Their two biggest legislative achievements are the ACA and the Tax Reform bill. Both passed on pure party line votes.  So when Trump took office, the GOP pushed to gut the ACA.  Biden and the Dems will now go to work to gut Tax Reform.  

That’s what happens when it’s pure party line voting.

[2006alum]

When Reagan got his Tax Bill  through in ‘86, it had strong bipartisan support. It was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostonkowski.  Clinton worked with Gingrich on the welfare reform bills.  Move forward to Obama and Trump. Their two biggest legislative achievements are the ACA and the Tax Reform bill. Both passed on pure party line votes.  So when Trump took office, the GOP pushed to gut the ACA.  Biden and the Dems will now go to work to gut Tax Reform.  

That’s what happens when it’s pure party line voting.

I think you've put the cart before the horse:

[The Senate GOP] went about this by escalating an arms race that had been building in the Senate for the better part of a decade: the increasingly aggressive use of rules and procedures by successive minorities to frustrate the will of the majority. The very first bill to be considered on the Senate floor in the 111th Congress, in early January of 2009, before Obama was even inaugurated, was the Public Land Management Act, a sweeping conservation measure with broad bipartisan support that would protect 2 million acres of parks and wilderness in nine states. The Republicans filibustered, forcing a series of votes and requiring a weekend session to finish. The bill eventually passed, 77–20.

The same tactics were deployed against most other initiatives, and expanded into new realms. Traditionally, only votes on the most controversial judicial nominees had been delayed or filibustered, although the number crept upward during Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. Under McConnell, Republicans have also filibustered noncontroversial nominees, many later confirmed unanimously. They have filibustered even nominees put forward by Republican senators, and required separate votes for district-court judges, who used to be confirmed in groups as a matter of routine. The resulting increase in vacancies has exacerbated a shortage of judges across the country, leading many districts to declare “judicial emergencies”—vacancy levels so high that they threaten the courts’ ability to function. McConnell bet (correctly) that he would pay no political price for this type of obstruction, because the White House and the media would be preoccupied with other things—things even harder to accomplish as the Senate calendar filled up. . . . 

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”

And then there was this choice quote from 2010:

N.J.: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

[2006alum]

When Reagan got his Tax Bill  through in ‘86, it had strong bipartisan support. It was sponsored in the House by Dan Rostonkowski.  Clinton worked with Gingrich on the welfare reform bills.  Move forward to Obama and Trump. Their two biggest legislative achievements are the ACA and the Tax Reform bill. Both passed on pure party line votes.  So when Trump took office, the GOP pushed to gut the ACA.  Biden and the Dems will now go to work to gut Tax Reform.  

That’s what happens when it’s pure party line voting.

I think you've put the cart before the horse:

[The Senate GOP] went about this by escalating an arms race that had been building in the Senate for the better part of a decade: the increasingly aggressive use of rules and procedures by successive minorities to frustrate the will of the majority. The very first bill to be considered on the Senate floor in the 111th Congress, in early January of 2009, before Obama was even inaugurated, was the Public Land Management Act, a sweeping conservation measure with broad bipartisan support that would protect 2 million acres of parks and wilderness in nine states. The Republicans filibustered, forcing a series of votes and requiring a weekend session to finish. The bill eventually passed, 77–20.

The same tactics were deployed against most other initiatives, and expanded into new realms. Traditionally, only votes on the most controversial judicial nominees had been delayed or filibustered, although the number crept upward during Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. Under McConnell, Republicans have also filibustered noncontroversial nominees, many later confirmed unanimously. They have filibustered even nominees put forward by Republican senators, and required separate votes for district-court judges, who used to be confirmed in groups as a matter of routine. The resulting increase in vacancies has exacerbated a shortage of judges across the country, leading many districts to declare “judicial emergencies”—vacancy levels so high that they threaten the courts’ ability to function. McConnell bet (correctly) that he would pay no political price for this type of obstruction, because the White House and the media would be preoccupied with other things—things even harder to accomplish as the Senate calendar filled up. . . . 

“We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals,” McConnell says. “Because we thought—correctly, I think—that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan’ tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there’s a broad agreement that that’s the way forward.”

And then there was this choice quote from 2010:

N.J.: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

[Farm93]

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

Bigger incentives are needed, but they really should be directed towards those that need them. 

There are going to be lots of people earning less than the ceilings that are earning very close to what they have always earned.   There are going to be people with fully paid homes and no real debt in their lives.   There are going to be young adults living at home, but not earning a lot of money in the early phase of their careers. 

All of those types, and many more, would get the money and not plow it immediately into economic activity. 
Is this type of distribution the most efficient allocation?  No 
Might it be the way to go given the complexity of establishing a needs test?  Perhaps

Either way DJT could have been involved in this process at any point in the last 7 months.   Most of what is on the table now has been on the table since May.   He didn't really drive McConnell to get closer to Pelosi's number which apparently is now close to the Trump number.   As the inaction progressed he eventually signaled he would agree to sign the current bill, but decided at the last moment to grab the spotlight again.

It is so curious because Trump essentially jumped back into the spotlight to now highlight he is more aligned with Democrats than Republicans.   I am confident McConnell is not happy as the DJT video might as well be a campaign video for the two Democrats running for the two senate offices in GA.

Sadly, ongoing government funding is tied in this bill too.   So this tactic may impact the ability for the government to function while fighting a pandemic and trying to coordinate the distribution of vaccines.

~4 weeks and then the USA will get back to a more normal level of political dysfunction.   Can't wait.

[Farm93]

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

Bigger incentives are needed, but they really should be directed towards those that need them. 

There are going to be lots of people earning less than the ceilings that are earning very close to what they have always earned.   There are going to be people with fully paid homes and no real debt in their lives.   There are going to be young adults living at home, but not earning a lot of money in the early phase of their careers. 

All of those types, and many more, would get the money and not plow it immediately into economic activity. 
Is this type of distribution the most efficient allocation?  No 
Might it be the way to go given the complexity of establishing a needs test?  Perhaps

Either way DJT could have been involved in this process at any point in the last 7 months.   Most of what is on the table now has been on the table since May.   He didn't really drive McConnell to get closer to Pelosi's number which apparently is now close to the Trump number.   As the inaction progressed he eventually signaled he would agree to sign the current bill, but decided at the last moment to grab the spotlight again.

It is so curious because Trump essentially jumped back into the spotlight to now highlight he is more aligned with Democrats than Republicans.   I am confident McConnell is not happy as the DJT video might as well be a campaign video for the two Democrats running for the two senate offices in GA.

Sadly, ongoing government funding is tied in this bill too.   So this tactic may impact the ability for the government to function while fighting a pandemic and trying to coordinate the distribution of vaccines.

~4 weeks and then the USA will get back to a more normal level of political dysfunction.   Can't wait.

[2006alum]

Bigger incentives are needed, but they really should be directed towards those that need them. 

There are going to be lots of people earning less than the ceilings that are earning very close to what they have always earned.   There are going to be people with fully paid homes and no real debt in their lives.   There are going to be young adults living at home, but not earning a lot of money in the early phase of their careers. 

After the $75k income threshold, the checks decline in value by $5 for every $100 in 2019 earnings, so someone who made $100,000 would get a check for $1,250 if the amount were raised to $2,000.

I'd love to know who these young adults are who live at home by choice and wouldn't find $2,000 useful as a security deposit to move into their own apartment (or service their five or six figure student loan debt).

I'd love to know who these people are with fully paid homes and no debt who make $75k. Presumably they don't live anywhere near the Bay Area, LA, NYC metro, DC metro, Portland, or Seattle.

Given the grotesque slush fund that was the PPP and Cares Act corporate giveaways, I'd like to see ten angry posts about that before anyone rants about a few hundred dollars unnecessarily making their way into the hands of middle class Americans.

[2006alum]

Bigger incentives are needed, but they really should be directed towards those that need them. 

There are going to be lots of people earning less than the ceilings that are earning very close to what they have always earned.   There are going to be people with fully paid homes and no real debt in their lives.   There are going to be young adults living at home, but not earning a lot of money in the early phase of their careers. 

After the $75k income threshold, the checks decline in value by $5 for every $100 in 2019 earnings, so someone who made $100,000 would get a check for $1,250 if the amount were raised to $2,000.

I'd love to know who these young adults are who live at home by choice and wouldn't find $2,000 useful as a security deposit to move into their own apartment (or service their five or six figure student loan debt).

I'd love to know who these people are with fully paid homes and no debt who make $75k. Presumably they don't live anywhere near the Bay Area, LA, NYC metro, DC metro, Portland, or Seattle.

Given the grotesque slush fund that was the PPP and Cares Act corporate giveaways, I'd like to see ten angry posts about that before anyone rants about a few hundred dollars unnecessarily making their way into the hands of middle class Americans.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

The reality is the POTUS gives not a solitary crap about $2,000 checks for Americans, because he doesn't care about us even a little bit. He is trying to bully GOP Senators to go along with his coup attempt, by attacking and undermining GOP leadership as Scrooges at Christmas. At the same time, the POTUS wants no bill passed, to f*ck over Americans for voting against him, and because he wants a government shutdown as a result of no bill passing.

I agree with Amy Klobuchar. The Congress should reject the $2,000 and override any veto of the bill. Why? Because the White House agreed with all the bi-partisan, bi-cameral negotiations as they were happening, and a compromise agreement was reached that should be honored. If the Congress wants additional direct payments, they can pass them in the next Congress. We don't allow people to blow up negotiations and hold the country hostage, after we have agreements. It's just bad governance and shouldn't be allowed to happen. The Congress needs to re-assert its power. Ignoring the latest POTUS dust kicking and overriding any veto of the passed government spending and Covid relief bill is the way to do this.

Of course, this is where things are going to end up anyway, when you game it out.

Pelosi jumped on the opportunity to have larger checks, but the reality is this is not going to happen, because all it takes is one House rep to object to the form of session being held on 12/24, for no vote to be held. There are plenty of GOP reps who didn't even want the amount passed by Congress, who will object. This means no $2,000 amendment will pass the House and the Senate will not have to take the vote McConnell is loathe to take, that the POTUS thought would happen. In the end, this bill is going to pass even it it takes overriding a veto to do it. Congress can't go home for the year having not passed a relief and spending bill to keep the government open during a pandemic. Then again, I don't see how it helps the POTUS if he refuses to sign a bill to give Americans some relief instead of none, when he will be overridden anyway.

So, once again, the POTUS exercises spectacularly terrible judgment. He thinks he is doing something to help himself, but in the end is just screwing himself over. He thought he could checkmate the Senate with $2,000 checks, believing the House would pass it and then force the Senate to vote on it.  But as usual, his ignorance about not knowing how things work, in this case, the House rules, is going to make it all blow up in his face. He is either forced to sign the bill when he sees his gambit failed, or he gets a veto overridden, both make him a weak loser.

For a preview, watch what happens on the NDAA today. The POTUS threatened to veto it if Section 230 wasn't repealed. Now, McConnell and Schumer have an agreement on a veto override on that bill if it is vetoed today. At the same time, the House has scheduled a special session on Dec. 28 to override any possible veto. My guess is the POTUS won't do anything and the bill will become law without his signature today, but we will see.

[OutsiderFan]

I'm glad DJT is screaming about $2,000 checks. No idea if he cares or just wants to throw a tantrum, but either way, when AOC and Josh Hawley agree on something, my view is that it almost certainly has to be right.

The reality is the POTUS gives not a solitary crap about $2,000 checks for Americans, because he doesn't care about us even a little bit. He is trying to bully GOP Senators to go along with his coup attempt, by attacking and undermining GOP leadership as Scrooges at Christmas. At the same time, the POTUS wants no bill passed, to f*ck over Americans for voting against him, and because he wants a government shutdown as a result of no bill passing.

I agree with Amy Klobuchar. The Congress should reject the $2,000 and override any veto of the bill. Why? Because the White House agreed with all the bi-partisan, bi-cameral negotiations as they were happening, and a compromise agreement was reached that should be honored. If the Congress wants additional direct payments, they can pass them in the next Congress. We don't allow people to blow up negotiations and hold the country hostage, after we have agreements. It's just bad governance and shouldn't be allowed to happen. The Congress needs to re-assert its power. Ignoring the latest POTUS dust kicking and overriding any veto of the passed government spending and Covid relief bill is the way to do this.

Of course, this is where things are going to end up anyway, when you game it out.

Pelosi jumped on the opportunity to have larger checks, but the reality is this is not going to happen, because all it takes is one House rep to object to the form of session being held on 12/24, for no vote to be held. There are plenty of GOP reps who didn't even want the amount passed by Congress, who will object. This means no $2,000 amendment will pass the House and the Senate will not have to take the vote McConnell is loathe to take, that the POTUS thought would happen. In the end, this bill is going to pass even it it takes overriding a veto to do it. Congress can't go home for the year having not passed a relief and spending bill to keep the government open during a pandemic. Then again, I don't see how it helps the POTUS if he refuses to sign a bill to give Americans some relief instead of none, when he will be overridden anyway.

So, once again, the POTUS exercises spectacularly terrible judgment. He thinks he is doing something to help himself, but in the end is just screwing himself over. He thought he could checkmate the Senate with $2,000 checks, believing the House would pass it and then force the Senate to vote on it.  But as usual, his ignorance about not knowing how things work, in this case, the House rules, is going to make it all blow up in his face. He is either forced to sign the bill when he sees his gambit failed, or he gets a veto overridden, both make him a weak loser.

For a preview, watch what happens on the NDAA today. The POTUS threatened to veto it if Section 230 wasn't repealed. Now, McConnell and Schumer have an agreement on a veto override on that bill if it is vetoed today. At the same time, the House has scheduled a special session on Dec. 28 to override any possible veto. My guess is the POTUS won't do anything and the bill will become law without his signature today, but we will see.

[Farm93]

I'd love to know who these people are with fully paid homes and no debt who make $75k. Presumably they don't live anywhere near the Bay Area, LA, NYC metro, DC metro, Portland, or Seattle.

I am sure you know you just named 6 of the most blue cities/regions in the USA>

There are loads of people in the USA that own their home and make less than 75K.  Lots of places in the USA the home values are less than $150K, so the types I noted are not hard to find in....Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Ohio, Kentucky Indiana, and many purple places too.

Same for the adult kids living at home.   Those types may spend the money on a car or whatever, but if they are living at home they could save the money and try to continue to build enough to eventually rent a place.   However if given the $2000, without safe job prospects, the family likely would encourage that child to stay at home.

These types of people exist even if they don't exist in the SF Bay Area.

The state's with large urban areas that are logically more vulnerable to a contagious pandemic will get relief in 2021.   The players in DC know this so the game right now is a very short term game.   For some reason DJT is not exactly a logical player, but I guess it works for him as a large number of his most passionate followers have ditched many things that were long held GOP positions.

[Farm93]

I'd love to know who these people are with fully paid homes and no debt who make $75k. Presumably they don't live anywhere near the Bay Area, LA, NYC metro, DC metro, Portland, or Seattle.

I am sure you know you just named 6 of the most blue cities/regions in the USA>

There are loads of people in the USA that own their home and make less than 75K.  Lots of places in the USA the home values are less than $150K, so the types I noted are not hard to find in....Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Ohio, Kentucky Indiana, and many purple places too.

Same for the adult kids living at home.   Those types may spend the money on a car or whatever, but if they are living at home they could save the money and try to continue to build enough to eventually rent a place.   However if given the $2000, without safe job prospects, the family likely would encourage that child to stay at home.

These types of people exist even if they don't exist in the SF Bay Area.

The state's with large urban areas that are logically more vulnerable to a contagious pandemic will get relief in 2021.   The players in DC know this so the game right now is a very short term game.   For some reason DJT is not exactly a logical player, but I guess it works for him as a large number of his most passionate followers have ditched many things that were long held GOP positions.

[chrisk]

There are plenty of senior couples all over the country, even the Bay Area, who do not have mortgages and make less than $230k.

[chrisk]

There are plenty of senior couples all over the country, even the Bay Area, who do not have mortgages and make less than $230k.

[OutsiderFan]

Update/correction:

In my previous post, I said the $2,000 payment bill won't pass the House because unanimous consent will be objected to by at least one House Republican. Actually, if unanimous consent doesn't work, then it goes to roll call vote. So it will pass the House. However, there is no guarantee, in fact, I believe no chance McConnell brings it up for vote in Senate.

His caucus fought for months against higher payments. And one even blocked the $1,200 R Sen. Josh Hawley suggested already. I see McConnell taking Klobuchar's position and the only option being veto override or nothing, and nothing simply isn't an option for Congress right now.

[OutsiderFan]

Update/correction:

In my previous post, I said the $2,000 payment bill won't pass the House because unanimous consent will be objected to by at least one House Republican. Actually, if unanimous consent doesn't work, then it goes to roll call vote. So it will pass the House. However, there is no guarantee, in fact, I believe no chance McConnell brings it up for vote in Senate.

His caucus fought for months against higher payments. And one even blocked the $1,200 R Sen. Josh Hawley suggested already. I see McConnell taking Klobuchar's position and the only option being veto override or nothing, and nothing simply isn't an option for Congress right now.