Trump says Americans need more than $600. Republicans say no, we can't afford it. Looks like the GOP did not become a populist party after all. Now what?
Republicans Gonna Republican
Posts
Total:
146
-->
@thett3
"Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 -- Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let's do it!"
Lol boss move by Nancy.
The issue here isn't that Nancy Pelosi agreed to Trump's proposal, it is that she agreed to HALF of the proposal and created a situation that she knew the Republicans would vote no on. You cannot both increase the amount everyone gets from $600 to $2000 and NOT cut out a bunch of the bloat/pork in the Omnibus Spending Bill, doing so would cause a massive economic disaster. Trump said to cut the pork and raise it to $2000 for everyone, Pelosi goes "Let's not cut anything and raise it to $2000 for everyone" and when it gets rejected they all go "Oh look, the Republicans are the bad guys!"
To cut out part of the context is to play partisan games when this is a serious issue that can impact the lives of so many people, and that is disgusting.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Trump says he has a problem with the spending included in the omnibus portion of the legislation... but most of this funding was included due to his own administration's requests according to Senate Republicans like Roy Blunt. For instance I'm sure Trump is fine with $500 million going to the Israeli military and wouldn't consider that "pork" whereas some progressives might disagree.
Plus it's just not true that Republicans would support more money for Americans IF ONLY there wasn't pork spending. Some have expressed their opposition to larger direct payments saying they do not support any stimulus checks at all. They have argued that these stimulus checks are not targeted enough and will go to many Americans that are not struggling financially. "It's a really foolish, eggheaded, left-wing, socialist idea to pass out free money to people" said Rand Paul.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The issue here isn't that Nancy Pelosi agreed to Trump's proposal, it is that she agreed to HALF of the proposal and created a situation that she knew the Republicans would vote no on. You cannot both increase the amount everyone gets from $600 to $2000 and NOT cut out a bunch of the bloat/pork in the Omnibus Spending Bill, doing so would cause a massive economic disaster. Trump said to cut the pork and raise it to $2000 for everyone, Pelosi goes "Let's not cut anything and raise it to $2000 for everyone" and when it gets rejected they all go "Oh look, the Republicans are the bad guys!"To cut out part of the context is to play partisan games when this is a serious issue that can impact the lives of so many people, and that is disgusting.
You forget that in his 2011 SotU speechObama promised to veto any bill with earmarks.
“Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks in it, I will veto it,” the president said.“The American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects,” Obama continued.
On Mar 11th of that year, Pelosi issued a new set of rules banning pork. While there were still some loopholes, Democrats brought pork spending down below 1990 levels and 2011 and 2013 saw $0 in pork spending- the only two years that's ever been true.
Trump, on the other hand, came into office demanding a return to the bad old days
"Our system lends itself to not getting things done, and I hear so much about earmarks — the old earmark system — how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks. But of course, they had other problems with earmarks. But maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of earmarks. Because this system (laughter) This system — (laughter) — but you should do it, and I’m there with you, because this system really lends itself to not getting along. It lends itself to hostility and anger, and they hate the Republicans. And they hate the Democrats. And in the old days of earmarks, you can say what you want about certain Presidents and others, where they all talk about they went out to dinner at night and they all got along, and they passed bills. That was an earmark system, and maybe we should think about it."
Today's bill sets a fourth year of record increase in pork spending since Obama and Pelosi banned the practice.
Since FY 1991, CAGW has identified 111,417 earmarks costing $375.7 billion, of which $246.9 billion (66%) is credited to Republicans.
You also forget that Trump is the most prolific liar in history. If Trump wanted folks to get $2000 without pork, he could have supported the House bill in May. Instead, Trump maintained a bored disinterest in the COVID relief bill and the payout particularly until the day McConnell called for Trump to accept the election results. Now Trump has thrown in his support for $2000 almost exclusively as a personal "fuck you" to McConnell.
Let's not mistake Trump for some politician worried about blowing out the budget. The 266 golf days as predident that Trump enjoyed by May 25 of this year are estimated to have cost taxpayers $141 million- some percentage of which is actually the Trump Organization billing us for the cost of Trump playing at his own resorts.
23 days left is really too late into Trump's presidential term to suddenly discover fiscal responsibility. Don't be suckered.
Trump signed the stimulus bill, and said he sent a "strong message" that makes clear to Congress the wasteful items need to be removed. To be clear, signing the bill sends a strong message that everything in the bill is now law, including the wasteful items. He sure showed them 💪
-->
@Danielle
Shouldn’t u be happy the Bill was signed lol
I've said from the start that Trump doesn't allign with a party and will do what he wants. Now he goes after the GOP. He's on a war path of exposing corruption in both parties. I will still stay a Santa believer, the superior American party
-->
@ILikePie5
Why do you think it would make me happy?
-->
@Danielle
Why do you think it would make me happy?
Aren’t u a fan of the Romney Republicans?
-->
@ILikePie5
Only to the extent they're better than Trump, but Romney Republicans are against the stimulus. That's my point lol.
-->
@Danielle
Lol boss move by Nancy.
Looks like the GOP did not become a populist party after all.
Populism is a dead term signifying nothing.
There are only Collectivists on the left and right, and individualists on the left and right.
-->
@Vader
@ILikePie5
thett said Trump was like chemotherapy, as in he was toxic but necessary to fix the GOP. I said that we don't know the GOP would maintain a populist style of governing and would likely revert to their anti-regulation, anti-spending rhetoric (i.e. disavowing the poor and working class in favor of capitalist interests). Romney and other Republicans being against the stimulus indicate that's true.
I wasn't sure what to expect because I assume Trump will still have a great deal of political influence even after he leaves office. I predict he will start a media conglomerate or at least maintain a very big presence in the media, and therefore his political support would still be influential. But maybe not. Looks like the GOP is going back to their "we have to prioritize a balanced budget" position sooner than later.
I don't think there are individualists on the left. There are socialists and social democrats, i.e. people who favor high taxes and big social programs + safety nets under a capitalist framework (the "European model").
-->
@Danielle
thett said Trump was like chemotherapy, as in he was toxic but necessary to fix the GOP.
I'd agree with this statement.
I said that we don't know the GOP would maintain a populist style of governing and would likely revert to their anti-regulation, anti-spending rhetoric (i.e. disavowing the poor and working class in favor of capitalist interests). Romney and other Republicans being against the stimulus indicate that's true.
Looks like so. I really think more spending at this moment is needed, but I heard some of the things they proposed in the bill was to relocate money into funding new museums in DC(from what I heard. I stop following politics since the election). If that is the case, this is reckless spending in times of crisis. Anti spending is sometimes beneficial when we need to control something.
I also think de-regulation was the key factor into the COVID vaccine being distributed. The deregulation on pharmaceuticals and the pressure given allowed them to work tireless to find a vaccine to the virus. If government were to regulate this to more of an extent, it would most likely be delayed. Ultimately with de-regulation, it's very philosophical
I wasn't sure what to expect because I assume Trump will still have a great deal of political influence even after he leaves office. I predict he will start a media conglomerate or at least maintain a very big presence in the media, and therefore his political support would still be influential. But maybe not. Looks like the GOP is going back to their "we have to prioritize a balanced budget" position sooner than later.
I'm not sure. Knowing Trump's nature, he probably will be a large presence in politics still.
-->
@Danielle
Only to the extent they're better than Trump, but Romney Republicans are against the stimulus. That's my point lol.
I disagree with Romney Republicans. I think fiscal policy does work. Wouldn’t be necessary if Democrats in their respective lockdown states let the people do what they themselves were doing.
I still don’t know where you fall on the political aisle lol. What are you socially and fiscally? Liberal or conservative?
On a side note, if AOC primaried Schumer in the NY Senate Primary would you vote for her?
-->
@Danielle
I don't think there are individualists on the left.
Sure there are. Why do you think Biden won in the primaries over the regressive woke collective statists?
under a capitalist framework
Because Leftist individualists who voted for traditional Biden recognize the merits of traditional private property rights in America.
They are the reason why the House lost many woke seats.
I'm almost as happy Biden won as when Trump won since it's a signal that America is never going to become postmodern collectivists, regardless of the pervasive and incompetent anti-meritocracy indoctrination of the public education system.
-->
@Danielle
I don't think there are individualists on the left. There are socialists and social democrats, i.e. people who favor high taxes and big social programs + safety nets under a capitalist framework (the "European model").
Fuck Europe
-->
@ILikePie5
Fuck Europe.
More people migrate from Europe to America than vice versa. Obviously, Eurotrash are doing something wrong.
-->
@Greyparrot
More people migrate from Europe to America than vice versa. Obviously, Eurotrash are doing something wrong.
500 years later and Europeans are still moving here. We must be the worst country ever
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm almost as happy Biden won as when Trump won since it's a signal that America is never going to become postmodern collectivists, regardless of the pervasive and incompetent anti-meritocracy indoctrination of the crony public education system.
RIP BLM populism.
-->
@Greyparrot
Individualism is prioritizing the desires of the individual over a collective group, and opposing interference by society or government institutions to interfere with an individual's goals. That doesn't describe any Democrat.
Biden won the primary because many Dems, especially off the coast, are not socialist as I keep pointing out. But they're not individualists either. If they are they wouldn't have a problem with individuals owning AR-15s, would they.
-->
@Danielle
But they're not individualists either.
They don't have a problem owning a Honda Civic. And it kills more people than guns do.
-->
@Greyparrot
Its almost like a Honda Civic has other uses than to kill things..... hmm..... its almost as if AR-15s were specifically designed to kill things more effectively...... its almost like.. whenever people die because of Honda Civic it isn't intentional by either party, and whenever you kill with a gun.. it is! I don't know though, you're argument is suuuuper compelling
-->
@Theweakeredge
.00992366412% of all American guns were used to kill people last year in America.
And there are more guns in America than Cars.
It's almost as if guns had a purpose other than killing people...
-->
@Greyparrot
Uuhhuh..... I'm curious where you got that number, but the fact remains, guns were literally designed to kill things, whether that be people or animals. The whole "sport" aspect was not a thing devised until way later on (you know, when the gun exploding wasn't such a big thing)
Also the whole: Total guns vs total cars is a bs argument why? Because guns are not only typically less expensive than cars, but you much more reason to want to have more than one, whereas having more than one car in america is typically not a thing, therefore we should look at the total gun owners versus total car owners to actually have a fair comparison.
"thirty-two percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household. Adults living in gun households include those with a gun in their home or anywhere on their property."
"We found that 91.3% of households most recently reported having access to at least one vehicle."
What? An almost three times likely hood to have a car than a gun? What a surprise!! Said no one ever. Also, let's compare the total USE of both, that means, how many times do you actually USE a gun a day, and how many of those users encapsulate that total! So, whenever people have a car, that's at the very least twice a day if at least one person goes to work, with waaay more oppurtunities to use it randomly. Whereas gun use is waaay less than that, let's take a look, shall we?
"While the precise frequency necessary to do that may be a subject of some debate, consensus is something like once to twice per month. It's not so often that the average person can't get out and do it, but it isn't so infrequent that any skill acquired by doing so will diminish."
What??? So, that means, for every month, the minimum for gun use versus vehicle use is something like - 2:60, its almost like... if you do something more often, they're more chances for accidents to happen? Its also almost like you took statistics out of context?
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm curious where you got that number.
As an educator, I am interested in hearing your guesses as to how you would go about getting that number.
-->
@Greyparrot
Um... how do I think a lot of people who don't source their statistics get their numbers? Either randomly making one up they think is correct, or using a number they saw on a site once, something along those lines.
More pressingly, you don't seem to have a response to my reasoning, any reason for that?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Uuhhuh..... I'm curious where you got that number, but the fact remains, guns were literally designed to kill things, whether that be people or animals.
Gun's are use to kill bad people. Gun's are used to protect people. Criminals who misuse guns do not and should not take away my rights to protect myself.