Will the senate pass the $2000.00 covid relief amount?

[EnigmaO01]

Will the republican dominated senate pass the $2000.00 Covid relief amount? On one hand McConnell the republican senate majority leader is against it but at the same time the republican president is for it. Will the senate go along with what he wants or instead defy the president?

 

[Mycroft]

Will the republican dominated senate pass the $2000.00 Covid relief amount? On one hand McConnell the republican senate majority leader is against it but at the same time the republican president is for it. Will the senate go along with what he wants or instead defy the president?

They don't care about Trump...but they do care about their Republican rank and file.

We'll have to wait and see whether they decide their jobs are more important than their donor and lobbyist money.

 

[MSgt]

Will the republican dominated senate pass the $2000.00 Covid relief amount? On one hand McConnell the republican senate majority leader is against it but at the same time the republican president is for it. Will the senate go along with what he wants or instead defy the president?

I don't see how it won't. Republicans have to look to their political futures.

They have already failed America by creating a bankrupt economic environment. By significantly reducing government revenue through nonsensical tax-cuts in 2017, and significantly increasing government spending in 2018, the GOP has forced the Treasury to issue ever more bonds to foreign governments just to keep up. Then, in 2020, our government began issuing free welfare and unemployment checks to America, while feeding ever more tax-dollars to corporations though another bail-out. So much borrowing and selling off of America to feed citizens that were screwed over in 2017.

But, Americans are really stupid. They prove to only care about "tax-cuts" and their own personal bank accounts. Talk of national debt is largely only shallow. Then when disaster strikes, such as what happened throughout 2020, these very same Americans want the government to shake the money tree and conjure up money that it no longer has. But it is too late for the GOP to actually care about national debt. Republicans have to play their game out until more responsible leaders can begin addressing the national economic disaster and start creating a healthier economic environment. Otherwise, these Republicans in the Senate will have to contend with the political fallout of stupid Americans, who "hate socialism," but demand more and more money now.

 

[Antiwar]

I doubt it.

I think:

A. Their political power of rejecting versus approving is their primary concern. I believe they'll do what they think is best for them politically. It's a political equation.

B. They don't have genuine empathy for the "undeserving."

Therefore, I think it all depends on part A.

 

[Antiwar]

Why would Republican senators care about "defying" the lame duck president? Trump is done. The Republicans are going to have to find other vehicles for their political power.

* Trump stole the keys to the Republican Party.

 

[MSgt]

They don't care about Trump...but they do care about their Republican rank and file.

We'll have to wait and see whether they decide their jobs are more important than their donor and lobbyist money.

What does one have to do with the other? Donor money will always be a priority, especially within the GOP. But borrowing more money from foreign governments for the average American citizen doesn't impact political placation to donors and lobbyists, unless they strip that money from them. But the history shows that they will most probably not do that. If they do, it will be insignificant and with a future condition in order to maintain donation loyalty. Fat-cat donators really don't care about the issues. They only care about a Party that will feed them.

An obvious example here would be Bill Clinton. He reigned in spending, cut taxes more appropriately, and balanced the budget. But, while the military itself was hurting, bloated Defense contracts continued and even increased. Thus, his reducing military spending actually hurt the military, not the Defense corporations that also offered political donations (and provided jobs for Senators in individual states). One can see this plainly when these corporations continued to receive billions to produce weapon systems that the military didn't need and would never use, while the military deployed its armor-less troops to combat zones with duct tape on their NBC suits in 2003.

The point, no matter where they get the money, is that "donor money will always be a priority."

 

[EnigmaO01]

On poster on another forum says McConnell will stall (not bring it to the floor) until after the Georgia election which we all know he is quite good at.

 

[Mycroft]

What does one have to do with the other? Donor money will always be a priority, especially within the GOP. But borrowing more money from foreign governments for the average American citizen doesn't impact political placation to donors and lobbyists, unless they strip that money from them. But the history shows that they will most probably not do that. If they do, it will be insignificant and with a future condition in order to maintain donation loyalty. Fat-cat donators really don't care about the issues. They only care about a Party that will feed them.

An obvious example here would be Bill Clinton. He reigned in spending, cut taxes more appropriately, and balanced the budget. But, while the military itself was hurting, bloated Defense contracts continued and even increased. Thus, his reducing military spending actually hurt the military, not the Defense corporations that also offered political donations (and provided jobs for Senators in individual states). One can see this plainly when these corporations continued to receive billions to produce weapon systems that the military didn't need and would never use, while the military deployed its armor-less troops to combat zones with duct tape on their NBC suits in 2003.

The point, no matter where they get the money, is that "donor money will always be a priority."

No Congressmen care about deficit spending. They only care about themselves.

 

[MSgt]

No Congressmen care about deficit spending. They only care about themselves.

Obviously, I would agree with this because I'm a realist and a pessimist.

But I think that this is more of a cliché than a truism, but their partisan stupidity leads them to celebrate hypocrisy on any given issue. Just look at the economic/political mood when it came to Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama:

- Republicans went after Bush because he recognized that Reaganomics was leading the country to a bad place. He had to deal with the rising debt, while keeping to his promise of "no new taxes." This is why he raised existing taxes. But even this was not acceptable as Republicans threw their votes to Ross Perot, handing an unexpected Clinton the Presidency. Without Perot and the tax issue, Bush would have won re-election.

- Republicans constantly fought Clinton while he worked to balance the budget at a prime time during the dot-com boom. In the meantime, Democrats supported and fought against his enthusiastic pandering to so-called "free-market" Republicans, which opened the door to the Great Recession.

- Democrats fought against Bush, not so much when it came to having to fund two wars (one of which they didn't want), but the unnecessary tax-cuts he simultaneously pushed. In the meantime, Democrats were sure to voice for continued and even more social spending while Republicans pushed ever more money to the bottomless pit known as the "War on Terror." And then...when the grossly negligent and irresponsible banks shit their pants in 2007, the GOP led an approving DNC into a handy-dandy bail-out, while the GOP blamed Democrats and the DNC blamed Republicans.

- Despite that recent GOP-led bailout to mismanaged banks, Republicans were sure to gripe about Obama expanding that into the wrecked automotive industry. For the next seven years, the GOP was sure to oppose virtually everything from Democrats, to include even tax-cuts, as a means to create a false platform. Were Obama a Republican, they would not have opposed any tax-cuts. However, that political opposition included plenty of fiscal responsibility because they also opposed efforts to increase spending (outside of Defense).

And if we strip out all details and look only at where debt came from, we can see that Bush had his "War on Terror." Obama inherited this and then injected his Universal Health Care. Trump inherited both and offered nothing to explain an extra $9 trillion. It would be nice if that could have been about the American infrastructure he promised in 2016. But the only think that explains it is the 2017 "trickle-down" scam.

I think plenty Republicans and Democrats care, but most like being able to scapegoat a seated President or the "group" as an excuse not to make waves, while focusing generally on only their tiny local place of responsibility in the country. If you dare make waves you are either a loud-mouthed "leftist" or a "rino," leading most to play a partisan game, which always tends to forsake their duties to country.

 

[HIP56948]

Not with Captain Mitch at the helm. He doesn't do Help-the-poor-and-the-lower-middle-class.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Only if Mitch is forced into it by political considerations.

He couldn't give a rat's ass about the tens of millions of Americans who are really hurting from the pandemic.