The partisan $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan

Welcome to one party rule.

Why do you believe the damn gop lost all three branches of our government in only the last two years under Trump's abysmal leadership? Huh?

I give much of the credit to our biased media.

I owe it to the gop being out of touch with voters and to Trump's abysmal leadership regarding everything but especially Covid-19. The gop is now bleeding members since the MAGA assault on Congress. Bad losers are repellant to people and Trump and the gop are the worst losers in history...

I owe it to the gop being out of touch with voters

If the voters really want what they've been getting in the past few weeks, the rest of us will have to retreat to our own monastery of the mind.

You said that. 

Why do you believe the damn gop lost all three branches of our government

How did the GOP lose the SCOTUS? Constitutionally, SCOTUS (Judicial) is one of the "three branches of our government". The other two are Executive and Legislative.

Finally. I've been waiting for someone to correct these people. Was funny to read though. like watching the Eveready bunny,

What I stated in comment 1.1.6 used to be taught in 7th and 8th grade Civics classes. 

• $130 billion to help schools reopen

What did public school districts do with the previous billions they were given? 

"I think democrats may have underestimated Joe Manchin and others."

... and I think Joe Manchin has underestimated James Justice.

"Sen. Joe Manchin has taken aim at fellow Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris over the administration's approach to pushing its Covid-19 relief plan.

The West Virginia moderate, a key swing vote in an evenly divided Senate, blasted Harris' appearance on a local TV station after she spoke about how the proposed relief is a "big issue" to his constituents.

“I saw [the interview], I couldn’t believe it. No one called me,” Manchin   said Friday to WSAZ , the West Virginia station where Harris gave   an interview Thursday.   “We’re going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward, I think we need to do. But we need to work together. That’s not a way of working together.”


politico

thehill

The governor is far more popular than the senator.

Really?  It's too bad the Governor can't participate in "reconciliation."

[Deleted]

Meh, 'Eleanor and Hick' beckons.

Let's not make it personal. If you can counter anything in that article, your more than welcome to post it.

That being said the House is meeting today to set a budget for fiscal year 2021.

The budget for fiscal year 2021 was passed in Dec. 2020. 

Big promises by the Dems. I'll believe it when I see it in my checking account! I don't trust anything Pelosi and her henchman Schumer come up with.

In only two years the nation will be mobilized to voting the dems out. It's too bad we had to subject the nation to all of this mayhem and madness in the meantime.

I posted earlier about the swinging of the political pendulum. It will only go so far in one direction before reversing itself. I mid terms will be that time.

Outside of trump republicans did pretty well on November 3rd. Are you suggesting republicans will do poorly in the midterms ?

By the time the mid terms roll around the many of the fools that voted for Biden will want nothing more than to remove the radical democrats.

Yep.

So you're calling over 81 million people fools?  

Is it now up to 81?

Gee Tess, a lot of them did vote for "normalcy.' It looks like they bought a dictatorship.

[ DELETED ]

I think we can only conclude that Joe Biden is exactly what he always appeared to be - a confused easily manipulated proxy for the far left & special interests.

"CNN) — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that he thinks there are enough Democratic votes to   pass a massive Covid-19 relief package   through a process known as reconciliation as the country grapples with the economic fallout of the pandemic.

“I believe that we do,” the incoming chairman of the   Senate Budget Committee   said when asked during an interview with ABC whether he thought there are enough Democratic votes.

“All of us will have differences of opinions, this is a 1.9 trillion dollar bill, I have differences and concerns about this bill, but at the end of the day we are going to support the President of the United States,” Sanders added.

Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has said that Democrats will use the move to pass the package by 51 votes in the Senate, rather than 60, if Republicans don’t move the legislation.

channel3000

Why would anyone be surprised that democrats plan to go forward sooner rather than later with covid relief, with or without republicans?  Joe Manchin told an interview yesterday that President Biden reminded him that in 2009 and 2010 the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leaders negotiated with republicans for months in order to get some bi partisan support for the Affordable Care Act. After months of these negotiations not a single Republican voted for the ACA.  Biden told Manchin we are not going to go through the same thing again. 

Why would anyone be surprised that democrats plan to go forward sooner rather than later with covid relief, with or without republicans? 

I suppose because before the election democrats preferred to let America suffer:

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admitted during a press conference on Friday it was Democrats' decision to withhold crucially needed aid for Americans suffering from the effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

"I’m going to tell you something — don’t characterize what we did before as a mistake, as a preface to your question if you want an answer. That was not a mistake, it was a decision, and it’s taken us to a place where we can do the right thing without other, shall we say, considerations in the legislation that we don’t want. Now, that is it. Now the fact is, I'm very proud of where we are," Pelosi said."

townhall



Joe Manchin told an interview yesterday that President Biden reminded him that in 2009 and 2010 the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leaders negotiated with republicans for months in order to get some bi partisan support for the Affordable Care Act. After months of these negotiations not a single Republican voted for the ACA.  Biden told Manchin we are not going to go through the same thing again. 

That's like Jefferson Davis saying we tried to work with Republicans to pass slavery throughout America, but not a single Republican would sign on!

The ACA like slavery is anathema to one side. Covid relief is favored by both sides. It is simply a matter of what else is in the package.

That's like Jefferson Davis saying we tried to work with Republicans to pass slavery throughout America, but not a single Republican would sign on!

lol. 

Of course not; they would have to do a search and find out all the extra crap that Pelosi and the House Democrats were demanding that had nothing to do with Covid 19 relief.

I think we can only conclude that Joe Biden is exactly what he always appeared to be - a confused easily manipulated proxy for the far left & special interests.

That statement merely illustrates a limited thought process. 

Oh BTFW, in the outline you posted, WHAT specifically is 'far left & special interests'? 

Oh and YES Vic, I know, I persist in asking you questions though I receive no answers. 

Is this a non-lady ?

I'm sure her fellow service men didn't mind the boots.

This is not directed to Pat:

This whole thread got way too personal with the comments. I did you all a favor and cleaned it up. Next time tickets will be handed out.

The Dem dummies need to STFU and just do it.

Don't expect any help from the Republicans for this illegitimate president

for this illegitimate president

How is he "illegitimate" again? You keep saying this but like every other Trump supporter making the same claim fail to provide even a shred of evidence of your claim.

How is he "illegitimate" again? You keep saying this but like every other nut job Trump supporter fail to provide even a shred of evidence of your claim.

Kinda reminiscent of the last four years isn't it?

Kinda reminiscent of the last four years isn't it?

Not at all. Your weak attempt at what-about-ism isn't a defense.

Your weak attempt at what-about-ism isn't a defense.

Nor is it arcuate.

Nor is it arcuate

One would hope not.................

en.wikipedia

So it was totally ok when trump gave 600 billionaires 1.7 trillion in tax cuts, but if we want to give people that actually need the help in a 1.9T relief package, republicans complain? 

Never forget that the vast majority of the GOP no longer supports the middle class, and hasn't for decades. 

Without a line item itemization, based on past government priorities, I have every reason to believe this 1.9 trillion is probably another gimme to Wall Street.   

What real value did US citizens receive out of the trillions spent on the last bill?  Where is the accounting for who really benefited in 2020?  We know Wall Street has been partying.  What about Main Street?  Main Street is evidently living on welfare, food stamps, minimum wage and the $1400 bailout last year and $600 bailout to date this year.  

How can anyone support another 1.9 trillion dollars that will most likely boost Wall Street (for the umpteenth time) instead of Main Street?  

The $2.3 trillion CARES Act, the Donald Trump-led rescue package signed into law on March 27th, is a radical rethink of American capitalism. It retains all the cruelties of the free market for those who live and work in the real world, but turns the paper economy into a state protectorate, surrounded by a kind of Trumpian Money Wall that is designed to keep the investor class safe from fear of loss.

This financial economy is a fantasy casino, where the winnings are real but free chips cover the losses. For a rarefied segment of society, failure is being written out of the capitalist bargain.

This is a fresh take on a long-developing dynamic. Dating to the late Eighties, when then-Fed-chief Alan Greenspan slashed interest rates after the 1987 stock-market crash, there’s been an understanding that the government would be there to help Wall Street back on its feet in hard times.

That belief was so strong it had a name: the “Greenspan put.” Bloomberg’s Tim Duy defines the term as “the implied promise that central bankers led by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan would bail out market participants who indulged in risky behavior.”

The Fed stepped in to flood Wall Street with cash (these are called “liquidity injections”) after a series of messes in the Clinton and Bush years, from the Asian-currency debacle to the collapse of the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund in the late Nineties to a deflation panic in 2002.

The Fed, beginning in late 2008, added a new crisis-response tool called quantitative easing (QE), a fancy academic name for printing trillions of dollars and using it to buy everything from mortgages to government debt. This was with the ostensible aim of increasing “the availability of credit” for things like home purchases, but also to “foster improved conditions in financial markets more generally.”

The dubious underlying logic was that rescuing the economy and rescuing the financial markets were the same thing. To save people, we had to save the economy in which they operate, which meant saving the high-risk investments of Wall Streeters, as much as they might suck.

What’s happening in the COVID-19 crisis is the next step: a financial bubble where the Fed isn’t the cleanup mechanism, but the source of the mania itself. While the real economy is seeing record disruptions, Wall Street has seen prolonged rallies of “rational exuberance” over the Fed’s decision to usher in “QE infinity” and essentially ban losing in finance capitalism.

Though this is a Trump bill — El Pompadour is so determined that the CARES Act be remembered as his work, he fought to get his signature on relief checks — it passed unanimously, by voice vote in the House, and 96-0 in the Senate.

Talk to Democrats on the Hill and they will tell you this is a bailout to be cheered and supported, nothing like the 2008 rescue. This time is different, the argument goes: Three-quarters of the money goes to real people.

This is true, if one squints and uses a narrow definition of “money.” The $2.3 trillion imagines $560 billion for “individuals” (including $300 billion in cash payments, much by way of the famed $1,200 “Trump” checks), plus $377 billion for small businesses, as well as $339 billion for state and local governments, and $100 billion for hospitals and other health care providers, plus some aid for students and children.

Technically, “only” about $500 billion of the congressionally passed rescue package goes to “big business.” Moreover, the big-business aid ostensibly comes with a range of draconian-sounding conditions barring greedy hijinks, meaning no layoffs, no stock buybacks, no big bonuses, etc., if companies want the handout.

The loophole comes via $454 billion created as part of that big-business package. This “emergency fund” will be dumped into a “special-purpose vehicle” used to backstop further lending by the Federal Reserve.

That $454 billion is designed to grow by a factor of 10 or more. “We can lever up to $4 trillion,” said Steve Mnuchin, playing the “free-spending Goldman Sachs-trained Treasury secretary” role that apparently is a prerequisite for financial-disaster narratives in modern America.

Taibbi: The COVID-19 Bailout Gave Wall Street a No-Lose Casino - Rolling Stone

I like Matt Taibbi. As the years go by though he has gone farther and farther left to the point where he now regularly attacks Democrats. I dont think that is the way to success in a two party system. Success for the working class has to be achieved through the Democratic Party, not by attacking it. 

Success for the working class has to be achieved through the Democratic Party, not by attacking it. 

Why can't the Democratic Party  be held accountable for propping up Wall Street at the expense of Main Street?

Why can't the Democratic Party  be held accountable for propping up Wall Street at the expense of Main Street?

I'm fine with holding politicians accountable as long as it applies to BOTH sides. We just lived through four years of Republicans refusing to accept any responsibility for anything. Who on the right held Republicans feet to the fire when they doubled deficit spending and shoved through a nearly $3 trillion tax cut that went mostly to the wealthy, Wall Street and massive corporations? Republicans added nearly $8 trillion to our national debt in just 4 years, only $1 trillion less than Obama added over 8 years and that was starting out in the middle of a great recession with one of the worst financial crisis in American history. Trump took over when we were doing great and were already experiencing all time record highs on Wall Street and a booming economy yet still managed to add nearly $8 trillion to our national debt.

“No, I don't take responsibility at all,” - DJT

"The buck stops with everybody" - DJT

“We inherited a broken system.” - DJT

"People thought what I said was totally appropriate,” - DJT

So certainly we should hold politicians accountable, but it cannot be all one sided, we cannot turn a blind eye when its Republicans but then foam at the mouth screaming in rage when it's a Democrat as has been seen time after time as the pendulum of power swings back and forth between the two parties.

You keep forgetting that unless you have a 60 vote majority in the Senate you must compromise on budgets. There was a ton of progressive pork in the Trump budgets and it was a Trump priority to rebuild the US Military that Obama left in decline.

There was a ton of progressive pork in the Trump budgets

Just another attempt to turn a blind eye to Republicans responsibility. Trying to claim the $8 trillion of debt Trump added was all Democrats or was just to "rebuild the US military" is beyond dishonest. The military budget was, even under Obama, the fattest expense we pay for, it was not underfunded, even its leaders were saying cuts needed to be made to certain superfluous or outdated sectors that Republican war hawks wouldn't let go of because it was massive pork going to their State economies. The Pentagon wanted to terminate the Global Hawk which would save $2.5 billion over five years; the C-27J, at a savings of $400 million; M1 Abrams updates, saving hundreds of millions of dollars; and cutting roughly 5,000 positions from the Air National Guard and reducing that agency's budget about $300 million. Republicans fought tooth and nail to save them simply because it meant jobs in their States. Trying to claim the US military was somehow weak or "in decline" under Obama is just pure partisan bullshit.

I'm not saying Democrats don't have their own pork projects, they do because that's what gets them re-elected, delivering fat pork to their constituents and donors, just like Republicans do. As I said, both parties need to be held to account. Just screaming about one side while ignoring your own party that is doing the exact same thing is dishonest and hypocritical.

it was a Trump priority to rebuild the US Military

If rebuilding the military was Trump's budget priority, he FAILED miserably. 

Oh and if the military was Trump's priority, WHY did he steal money appropriated to the military to build his wall? 

If rebuilding the military was Trump's budget priority, he FAILED miserably. 

He did?

Let me enlighten you:

Increased funding for readiness.   On the eve of Trump’s election, the Government Accountability Office reported “persistently low readiness levels” in the joint force, which it attributed to high operating tempo, end-strength reductions, under-funding of training activities, and the departure of seasoned weapons maintainers. Military aircraft accidents increased 40% between 2013 and 2017, signaling a deterioration in pilot skills. Military leaders warned only a fraction of the force was ready to fight effectively on short notice.

Against that backdrop, the Trump Pentagon launched a multiphase process to rebuild the military. In 2017, it would increase spending on readiness. In 2018 it would sustain funding for readiness—training, maintenance, etc.—while filling “holes” in the military posture such as inadequate stocks of precision munitions. In 2019 it would begin making down payments on increased lethality to cope with the challenges posed by Russia and China, and in 2020 it would go full-bore on buying a new generation of weapons. Trump’s team saw it would take years to return to a high state of readiness, and so that’s where its plan began.

Investment in core warfighting systems.   When President Trump took office, the U.S. military was suffering from decades of under-investment in new technology. The Air Force’s fleet of bombers, fighters and tankers was the oldest it had ever been. The Army’s helicopters and armored vehicles consisted largely of programs begun during the Reagan years (or earlier). Some warfighting systems had grown so decrepit that the military services were proposing their retirement despite a lack of newer weapons with which to replace them.

The Trump team greatly increased funding for development and procurement of new weapons. Outlays for R&D increased over 50% between 2016 and 2020, while outlays for the procurement of weapons rose 35%. Much of this money was devoted to fielding a new generation of warfighting systems, including a more survivable bomber, longer-range rotorcraft and unmanned systems. But funding was also provided to accelerate upgrades to signature warfighting systems such as the Army’s Abrams tank and the Navy’s Virginia-class attack submarines.

Modernization of nuclear forces.   Recapitalization of the nation’s aging nuclear arsenal was the first major military initiative Trump cited when he announced he intended to seek the presidency. Deterring nuclear attacks by sustaining a diverse and survivable retaliatory force has long been the foundation of the U.S. defense posture, but by the time Trump decided to run the entire strategic arsenal had grown old, including its command and control network and its industrial complex. Yet the Obama Administration had repeatedly delayed or deferred investment in new nuclear capabilities.

Following release of a nuclear posture review, the Trump Administration affirmed plans to modernize all three legs of the strategic arsenal—sea-based missiles, land-based missiles and bombers—while making major upgrades to the command network and revitalizing industrial facilities. Unlike President Obama, President Trump has never expressed ambivalence about the need for nuclear weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons that can be carried on F-35 fighters and other weapons to match the shorter-range devices Russia deploys in Europe.

Bolstering resilience in space.   In the years since the Cold War ended, U.S. military forces have become heavily dependent on satellites for missile warning, secure communications, intelligence and navigation. For instance, a typical Army brigade contains many hundreds of systems dependent on signals from the Global Positioning System to function effectively. The same is true of smart bombs used by the Air Force and Navy. Seeing how important orbital systems have become to the joint force, Russia and China are developing diverse means for destroying or degrading key space systems in wartime.

The Trump Administration has launched a major effort to increase the resilience of U.S. space assets, which includes making orbital capabilities more survivable, protecting ground systems, and rendering downlinks/uplinks harder to jam or intercept. Much of the new money is going to secret projects such as sophisticated sensor arrays, but the organizational manifestations of increased emphasis on space are easy to see: a sixth branch of the military called the Space Force, a unified command, a dedicated Space Development Agency, and other bureaucratic constructs. President Trump has done more to elevate the priority of national security space activities than any other chief executive.

Pressing allies to do their part.   President Trump has not been shy about telling allies they must do more to support collective security. That goes particularly for the European members of NATO, many of whom have stopped thinking rigorously about the military threat posed by Russia. For instance, Germany—one of the world’s biggest economies—spends less in a year on defense than Washington does in a month. The ability of NATO forces to deter or defeat Russian aggression is undermined by this lack of commitment.

Trump has correctly stated that the U.S. gets less from its alliances than overseas partners do even though it pays much more to keep those alliances viable. Some have said this makes him a neo-isolationist. However, the extensive funds provided by the administration for efforts such as the European Deterrence Initiative demonstrate that Trump’s main goal isn’t to withdraw from overseas, but to fashion a collective security posture that assures victory if war occurs.

The above five efforts are just the beginning of what the Trump defense team has done to bolster America’s military since taking office. From hypersonic weapons to multi-domain warfare to soldier lethality, Trump has done more to rebuild U.S. warfighting capabilities than any president since Reagan. It is hard to imagine any of the Democrats currently seeking their party’s presidential nomination pursuing a military agenda that is similarly ambitious.

forbes

Oh and if the military was Trump's priority, WHY did he steal money appropriated to the military to build his wall? 

Well, you see Dulay, our southern border is part of our national security. Building the wall became a political really point for both sides. The Trump hating progressives wanted him to fail and denied funding, so the President did what he had to. That's what a leader does Dulay.

You keep forgetting that unless you have a 60 vote majority in the Senate you must compromise on budgets.

For someone who hung his hat on reconciliation in one of his other seeds, you seem to be forgetting the Senates use of reconciliation to pass budgets. No 60 vote majority needed. 

Yes he did. 

According to an  index  of the military’s strength by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the military currently receives a grade of "marginal."

"The active component of the U.S. military is two-thirds the size it should be, operates equipment that is older than should be the case, and is burdened by readiness levels that are problematic," the report   concluded .

"The current U.S. military force is likely capable of meeting the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities," it said. "It would be very hard-pressed to do more."

politifact

Well, you see Dulay, our southern border is part of our national security. 

We were discussing the fucking MILITARY budget Vic, NOT the DHS budget. Try to keep up. 

Building the wall became a political really point for both sides.

The wall was one of Trump's first big lies, the purpose of which was to placate his xenophobic base. 

The Trump hating progressives wanted him to fail and denied funding, so the President did what he had to. That's what a leader does Dulay.

Actually Vic, what LEADERS do is build consensus and bring the American people along with them. Leaders don't steal funding from the military to fulfill a vanity project. 

Well, you see Vic, perhaps he shouldn't have come at it from a purely racist perspective and treated it more as a vanity project than anything else. Maybe he should, well maybe not him since he cannot form coherent sentences, maybe someone in his admin should have tried to sell it as a national security issue alongside real immigration reform. Instead dip shit more or less went with "keep the brown people out because the most extreme parts of my base like it." 

You aren't gonna get any Dems onboard when you try to argue it that way. 

You aren't gonna get any Dems onboard when you try to argue it that way. 

Nobody ever did. Democrats (like Obama) used to believe that the cheap labor flowing over the southern border was hurting American minorities. As border states like Arizona & New Mexico began to turn purple/blue, democrats abandoned their constituency and went full tilt on open borders.

Democrats (like Obama) used to believe that the cheap labor flowing over the southern border was hurting American minorities. As border states like Arizona & New Mexico began to turn purple/blue, democrats abandoned their constituency and went full tilt on open borders.

Wow you DO like to sling BS Vic. 

Facts prove you wrong. 

Here is a little overview of Obama's 2017 DHS Budget. Those that review it may notice that there is a crap load of funding for border security. 

I get what you are saying and I definitely agree with it, but the simple fact of the matter is corporate America is going to get theirs, one way or another due simply to the Citizens United ruling. The unfortunate fact is a lot of Americans cannot wait for Congress to go through and iron out every single tiny detail to make sure that every dollar is ideally allocated. If that is what we are waiting for them we may as well just shut down as a nation because our government will never be able to act. 

I have really just accepted that the wealthy (myself included) are always going to be taken care of by the government, but we should try to assist as many others as possible while we are at it. 

but we should try to assist as many others as possible while we are at it. 

In European history, when royalty overtaxed their wealthy landowners, there was a revolt.  So I certainly understand why the "wealthy" are being taken care of by today's government to the detriment of the majority of US citizens.  There is truly nothing new under the sun.

The wealthy certainly never became wealthy by being compassionate toward others.  And it is not compassion that makes the wealthy throw a few crumbs to the peasants.  It is to keep the peasants fighting over the crumbs using various forms of emotional manipulation in the forms of religion,  propaganda and inane conspiracy theories.

As a former Christian, I know how easy it is to manipulate the minds of people who were indoctrinated to believe myths were the foundations to build one's life upon.  Religion seems to be losing its power because impoverished people are fed up with their god rewarding everyone but them.

If the US is going to survive as a nation, we need a far less corrupt system than has been in place since at least the 1980s to date.  The Savings and Loan bailout, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and repeal of various laws that I am not even aware of have all contributed to the ever growing income inequality and poverty of life in the US today.

We are only 3 weeks into the Biden administration and I think there is little doubt that Joe Biden had much interest in unity or bipartisanship.

Good. It seems the GOP is up to their usual bullshit and I am actually extremely surprised that it doesn't look like Dems are going to fall for it this time. It actually looks like Biden and them Dems (for the most part) are going to tell the GOP to pound sand if they try the same shit they did during the Obama admin. I am glad that Biden sat down with those members of the Senate to negotiate, and then promptly told them thanks but no thanks when offered less than 1/3 of what he was looking for.  If you are looking for a compromise you don't offer 1/3 of what the other party is looking for, that only sends the message that you are not actually serious and are just wasting their time.