BearChemist said:

---

Funny that GB4L never come back to this thread.

---

Just wait until he gets a few more drinks in him.

LMK5 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Dems continue to block stimulus. From CNN (not Fox):Dems block stimulus

---

Dems were sold down the river during the last stimulus in 2008 and 2009 when wall street bailouts did not get to main street. It's not going to happen again, dude.

If industry bailouts are so important, make it a separate bill so that it does not hold working people hostage in the meantime. It takes a special kind of A**hole (yes I'm talking about you Witch McConnell) to do this to America so that you can act like the other party is the problem.

The guy needs tons of therapy to heal whatever childhood trauma he had.

---

Why do you say the bailouts didn't hit Main Street? Weren't unemployment benefits extended for a year or even more? Is keeping the banks, the auto companies, the airlines, and the many hundreds of thousands of Main Street workers employed (and their pensions and 401(k)s intact) not bailing out Main Street?

Would it be better to let the companies die and instead send a 30k check to every "Main Streeter" as defined by God-knows-who? After that is spent, what to do next? Seems to me it's much better to preserve one's livelihood so they can live to fight another day. It's the teach him to fish rather than give him a fish line of thinking.

---

You don't get it. The bill was vetted by those that studied it. There were too many loopholes that would allow the companies to use the bailout money for things like stock buybacks. That happened before with the airline industry. Some of us and some of those in congress have the ability to understand the details. That is why it is not so popular.

AunBear89 said:

---

So, I'd love to see you and the rest of the RWNJ crowd defend the corporate welfare package approved by Senate. Toothless limitations on how corporations spend their gifts from Uncle Donnie's slush fund. Look for huge stock buybacks , executive bonuses, big dividends, and very little trickle down to the working stiff. Joe Lunchpail can expect layoffs.

---

The Senate voted for the bill 96-0. What do you know that all those Democrats don't?

2008

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

I mean this not to absolve the Democrats in any way. We need the stimulus. Passing a trillion in spending in a couple of days is not the way to do it, but it is the only option. Both parties need to compromise. There is going to be stuff in the bill for both sides that they would not normally vote for but the choice is that or nothing and nothing is not a choice. Honestly, I congratulate them for working together for once. There is a lot in there that I know Democrats don't want, and I'm not going to blame them for that. Same holds true for Republicans.

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

I mean this not to absolve the Democrats in any way. We need the stimulus. Passing a trillion in spending in a couple of days is not the way to do it, but it is the only option. Both parties need to compromise. There is going to be stuff in the bill for both sides that they would not normally vote for but the choice is that or nothing and nothing is not a choice. Honestly, I congratulate them for working together for once. There is a lot in there that I know Democrats don't want, and I'm not going to blame them for that. Same holds true for Republicans.

---

Correct. Republicans currently control the Senate and the White House. They don't completely control the Senate, as they don't have a 60-vote majority, but still they have a majority. Under these circumstances there's no way Democrats can just get everything they want.

Heck, even with full Democratic control you still wouldn't get everything the progressives want, because some Democrats are more conservative than others. Representative democracy requires compromises, fancy that.

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

Democrats do stupid things, too, like authorize the war in Iraq.

---

The thing is most people supported authorization, so was it stupid at the time? It's an easy decision now.

I'll be honest because I am probably the last guy that got on the support train after vehement opposition, and I flipped back to vehement opposition very quickly. The Bush administration sent out their most trusted guy, Colin Powell, to make the case. I listened to his whole speech. My conclusion was that if half of it was true, action was warranted. And at some point you have to believe your government won't blatantly lie about something as big as getting support for military action. And I didn't think Colin Powell as an individual would do that.

Within days it was clear to me that he blatantly lied. But bottom line the administration completely fabricated evidence to lay out the case. Lots of it. It is hard to blame anybody in Congress for voting based on evidence that the government claims it has that turns out to be flat out untrue.

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

Democrats do stupid things, too, like authorize the war in Iraq.

---

The thing is most people supported authorization, so was it stupid at the time? It's an easy decision now.

---

I thought it was stupid at the time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If they had nothing to do with 9/11 why invade them?

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

Democrats do stupid things, too, like authorize the war in Iraq.

---

The thing is most people supported authorization, so was it stupid at the time? It's an easy decision now.

---

I thought it was stupid at the time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If they had nothing to do with 9/11 why invade them?

---

The justification was never 9/11. It was that they were developing a weapons of mass destruction program against their international treaty and that they were approaching having viable weapons. Colin Powell laid out the case that they were doing so and that action was required before they went further. They threw every report of evidence out there to demonstrate it. Until people from the intelligence service started coming out and saying "wait a minute, I was the one responsible for investigating that claim and it was false".

9/11 was certainly underlying America's hypersensitivity to security and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, and idiots who didn't understand the issues claimed 9/11 for justification, but 9/11 was not the presented justification for invasion.

To be clear, I supported it for like a week based on Powell's presentation.

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

2008

---

The Dems had the majority in the Senate in 2008. They passed that stimulus. They voted unanimously for the Coronavirus stimulus now. You're in opposition to every Democrat Senator.

---

Democrats do stupid things, too, like authorize the war in Iraq.

---

The thing is most people supported authorization, so was it stupid at the time? It's an easy decision now.

---

I thought it was stupid at the time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If they had nothing to do with 9/11 why invade them?

---

Because Sadam had plotted to kill George H. W. in 1993. "W" was looking for a pretext to settle that score.

bearister said:

---

---

That's a good woman right there. Being in the public eye she knew she had to primp hereself enough to look a lot more f***able. These are the type of angels you marry. Not feminazis who lament having to put makeup on to appease the evil patriarchy and ends up becoming a cow.

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The thing is most people supported authorization, so was it stupid at the time? It's an easy decision now.

---

I thought it was stupid at the time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If they had nothing to do with 9/11 why invade them?

---

The justification was never 9/11. It was that they were developing a weapons of mass destruction program against their international treaty and that they were approaching having viable weapons. Colin Powell laid out the case that they were doing so and that action was required before they went further. They threw every report of evidence out there to demonstrate it. Until people from the intelligence service started coming out and saying "wait a minute, I was the one responsible for investigating that claim and it was false".

9/11 was certainly underlying America's hypersensitivity to security and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, and idiots who didn't understand the issues claimed 9/11 for justification, but 9/11 was not the presented justification for invasion.

To be clear, I supported it for like a week based on Powell's presentation.

---

Implicitly, it was 9/11. The narrative was that if Saddam developed WMDs then he could give them to terrorists like bin Ladin to use against the US. He also claimed Iraq was harboring al Qaeda within its borders. Of course, so was Pakistan but I guess that was fine.

It's okay that you got that one wrong, but the support among the American public was not as strong as it was among our representatives.

sycasey said:

---

BearChemist said:

---

Funny that GB4L never come back to this thread.

---

Just wait until he gets a few more drinks in him.

---

Ding ding ding. Could use some stronger drinks though.

golden sloth said:

---

Do you really think Jared Kushner was the most qualified person to broker a peace deal in the middle east?

---

By definition there's only one person who fits that bill.

I agree it's blatant nepotism. I just think it's not rare.

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Do you really think Jared Kushner was the most qualified person to broker a peace deal in the middle east?

---

By definition there's only one person who fits that bill.

I agree it's blatant nepotism. I just think it's not rare.

---

When is the last time as President engaged in it before The Donald?

dimitrig said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Do you really think Jared Kushner was the most qualified person to broker a peace deal in the middle east?

---

By definition there's only one person who fits that bill.

I agree it's blatant nepotism. I just think it's not rare.

---

When is the last time as President engaged in it before The Donald?

---

That hired somebody unqualified? Probably all of them. Family? I'm guessing he's the first

bearlyamazing said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Yeah, sure, your sarcastic title about Democrats lacking compassion for the working man was perfectly civil.

Give me a break.

---

Evidently everything was a "go" until Pelosi came back from her vacation. The article is from CNN.

---

Here's what Pelosi came back from vacation with and tried to cram in the bill:

Quote:

---

1. Corporate pay statistics by race and race statistics for all corporate boards at companies receiving assistance

2. Bailing out all current debt of postal service

3. Required early voting

4. Required same day voter registration

5. 10k bailout for student loans

6. For companies accepting assistance, 1/3 of board members must be chosen by workers

7. Provisions on official time for union collective bargaining

8. Full offset of airline emissions by 2025

9. Greenhouse gas statistics for individual flights

10. Retirement plans for community newspaper employees

11. $15 minimum wage at companies receiving assistance

12. Permanent paid leave at companies receiving assistance

---

As liberals, many of you probably like these ideas but they have no business being crammed into this desperately needed aid bill. It's pure, bull*&%* shameless politics, trying to take advantage of a crisis to help them gain further political strength.

---

Here is the evidence that barelyamazing eats breitbart for breakfast. Copy and paste.

And now, two months later, they haven't made any serious effort to address people's need for income during the pandemic. Vote every Congressman and Senator out.

Time to move to Australia.

Professor Ben Ginsberg said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Yeah, sure, your sarcastic title about Democrats lacking compassion for the working man was perfectly civil.

Give me a break.

---

Turns out it wasn't sarcastic at all. Democrats literally don't care about the working man. They've had two months to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

---

They can't even muster up the guts to propose an income tax cut for middle class wage earners LOL.

BearNIt said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Professor Ben Ginsberg said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Yeah, sure, your sarcastic title about Democrats lacking compassion for the working man was perfectly civil.

Give me a break.

---

Turns out it wasn't sarcastic at all. Democrats literally don't care about the working man. They've had two months to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

---

They can't even muster up the guts to propose an income tax cut for middle class wage earners LOL.

---

Didn't we already have a middle-class income tax cut a gift from Republicans? How did that turn out? I hear corporations loved it, the rest of us not so much.

---

Democrats always advocate raising taxes for the rich. Fair enough. But for some reason they never advocate lowering taxes for the middle class. Something to think about.

LMK5 said:

---

Democrats always advocate raising taxes for the rich. Fair enough. But for some reason they never advocate lowering taxes for the middle class. Something to think about.

---

The House has voted repeatedly to repeal the $10K cap on SALT. Guess who won't permit that? Only tax cuts on corporations, capital gains, and billionaires are allowed!

LMK5 said:

---

BearNIt said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Professor Ben Ginsberg said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Yeah, sure, your sarcastic title about Democrats lacking compassion for the working man was perfectly civil.

Give me a break.

---

Turns out it wasn't sarcastic at all. Democrats literally don't care about the working man. They've had two months to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

---

They can't even muster up the guts to propose an income tax cut for middle class wage earners LOL.

---

Didn't we already have a middle-class income tax cut a gift from Republicans? How did that turn out? I hear corporations loved it, the rest of us not so much.

---

Democrats always advocate raising taxes for the rich. Fair enough. But for some reason they never advocate lowering taxes for the middle class. Something to think about.

---

republican always want to cut the taxes for the rich on the backs of the middle class and the poor. republican want capitalism for the poor but socialism for the rich!

Professor Ben Ginsberg said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Yeah, sure, your sarcastic title about Democrats lacking compassion for the working man was perfectly civil.

Give me a break.

---

Turns out it wasn't sarcastic at all. Democrats literally don't care about the working man. They've had two months to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

---

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/04/09/plan-save-capital-and-let-people-die

Professor David Romer said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Why are you a liar?

They are objecting to the $500 billion unregulated corporate slush fund. Why can't cons pass a bill to help the working class without filling it with corporate pork for their oligarch masters?

Oh yeah -IOIYAR!

---

Can't you have a single discussion without getting the claws out? Why are you so thin-skinned?

---

Do you need a safe space?

---

Bring out Lucas Lee, I need to talk with him.