No to stimulus 5. Paying people to not work and to bail out bad local governments and unions is wrong

[bodecea]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

So, you don't want the money?

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.

1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.

2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.

So,

Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people

Social Security - Exactly the same thing

Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...

It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.

Again, no idea what "those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers" means. What welfare checks are you referring to?

And that doesn't change that social security is a welfare program, it's just tit for tat

What president took money from Social Security?
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalance.com

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In fiscal year 2023, the federal government is estimated to spend $6.3 trillion, amounting to 24.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $6.3 trillion, over $4.8 trillion is...

www.cbpp.org

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.

1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.

2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.

So,

Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people

Social Security - Exactly the same thing

Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...

It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.

Again, no idea what "those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers" means. What welfare checks are you referring to?

And that doesn't change that social security is a welfare program, it's just tit for tat

No it is not tit for tat on SS and it is not a welfare program but legislators have used it for a hell of a lot other than retirees and their spouses.

Social Security History

And;

Social Security History

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes.

There is no trust fund. Social Security money is spent as it comes in. Ironically your own quote at the end while spinning it agrees with that. Writing down every week what you spent on groceries doesn't give you a grocery trust fund. You have to actually save money to do that. No actual money is saved. The Treasury just writes IOU notes to itself, that isn't money.

And you never explained what you are referring to with your endless use of the term "corporate welfare." Writing off your expenses is how we tax corporations since we tax them on their PROFIT. Profit = revenue - expenses

Here is one such industry w/mega corps and there are more...

Inside The Pharmaceutical Lobby's Campaign For More ...
www.forbes.com › sites › theapothecary › 2019/07/19
Jul 19, 2019 - Pharmaceutical companies, in a furious lobbying effort, are trying to blow up a ... that taxpayers spend tens of billions on drug industry subsidies.
Pharmaceutical corporations need to stop free-riding on ...
thehill.com › opinion › healthcare › 376574-pharmace...
Mar 3, 2018 - Pharmaceutical companies have perpetuated a myth that high prices are ... public university research, grants, subsidies, and other incentives.

Why the United States has the highest drug prices in the world ...
www.vox.com › prescription-drug-prices-explained
May 10, 2018 - ... pharmaceutical companies and haggle over an appropriate price. ... high drug prices help subsidize the rest of the world's drug research.

What You Need To Know About Lucrative Drug Subsidies ...
khn.org › morning-breakout › what-you-need-to-know...
Nov 8, 2017 - President Trump blasted the pharmaceutical industry for “getting away with murder” with steep drug prices during the campaign and since, but ...

Opinion | Stop Subsidizing Big Pharma - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com › 2015/01/06 › stop-subsidizing-big...
Jan 5, 2015 - There is nothing to stop pharmaceutical companies from creating their own philanthropies, funding research with tax-exempt dollars and then ...

Explain the specific corporate subsidy you are referring to. These links are on different topics. I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to.

Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. Don't just say here are links, figure out what you mean

It says right on the links subsidizing Big Pharma. Why are you being so obtuse about it all?

So "Big Pharma" is your example of corporate subsidies? That doesn't even make sense.

Look man, I'm not going to read a bunch of links and guess what you are referring to. Make your argument and SUPPORT it with links. I'm glad to discuss this with you, but you have to make the case, not just say read this

Why don't you tell us how you now support giving money for people not to work. Now that trump told you that you are for it.

You changed the meaning of what I meant by paying people to not work. Read the OP, ass hat

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

So, you don't want the money?

What money?

 

[Brain357]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

If you want to see the economy die you'll hang on to this stupidity. We live in a poorly run country and it's being poorly run by a republican president. Repeating the opinion of a fool makes you just as foolish. The government made businesses shut down because of a deadly pandemic. We are forced to do this because this emergency has been mishandled. The stupid notion of people getting paid more not to work when you cannot safely work has got to go.

And paying people more to not work than to work and handouts to failed local and State governments that acted irresponsibility doesn't fix anything.

I said I'm open to a JOBS bill. But Nancy's insane $3.5T Christmas tree actually hurts jobs

Wow has this guy changed his tune. Doesn't fix anything right?

 

[berg80]

Obamacare still drove up the cost of group plans

And why was that? Because the coverage was more comprehensive, like covering preventative procedures such as colonoscopies for free.

Employer Premiums and the ACA - FactCheck.org

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed that “because of Obamacare, premiums on everybody have gone up ... whether you're in an employer-based system or not." Employer premiums have been affected somewhat, but they've been growing at historically low rates for several years.

www.factcheck.org

 

[Brain357]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

You do know that many republicans do not support the payroll tax cut including Mnuchin right? It’s not honest to only point at Nancy about that one. And it’s not popular because it is a slow and indirect method of stimulus

I don't think I said or cared whether all Republicans agree with it or not.

And it was an example. My point was that if there is any further spending, it should be to create jobs, not to stifle the economy. That is an example of a tax cut that would invigorate the economy. It puts money in people's hands for working instead of not working. And it's a benefit to cash strapped employers to lower the cost of hiring.

Also, note I pointed to Nancy as rejecting that for the negotiations. Other Republicans didn't do that

Yes you pointed at Nancies rejection and didn’t mention that many republicans including Trumps Sec of Treasury have expressed opposition to the idea. I find that relevant.

I’d say that the Dem plan was too fat in many areas but it should have been negotiated 2 months ago.Ignoring it till now just to come up with a 11th hour bill that doesn't even have consensus amoungst Republicans is almost as embassing as the healthcare debacle. It just further highlights the incompetence of our congressional leaders and the constipation that partisan politics results in.

My OP is based on that:

I generally/may support spending/tax cuts that provide jobs.

I oppose all spending that doesn't.

You aren't contradicting that even though you're stuck on this

Here he is again. I oppose all spending that doesn't he says. haha Until trump tells you to support free money to not work.

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

If you want to see the economy die you'll hang on to this stupidity. We live in a poorly run country and it's being poorly run by a republican president. Repeating the opinion of a fool makes you just as foolish. The government made businesses shut down because of a deadly pandemic. We are forced to do this because this emergency has been mishandled. The stupid notion of people getting paid more not to work when you cannot safely work has got to go.

And paying people more to not work than to work and handouts to failed local and State governments that acted irresponsibility doesn't fix anything.

I said I'm open to a JOBS bill. But Nancy's insane $3.5T Christmas tree actually hurts jobs

Wow has this guy changed his tune. Doesn't fix anything right?

Nag, nag, nag. It's all you have, huh?

 

[kaz]

Obamacare still drove up the cost of group plans

And why was that? Because the coverage was more comprehensive, like covering preventative procedures such as colonoscopies for free.

Employer Premiums and the ACA - FactCheck.org

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed that “because of Obamacare, premiums on everybody have gone up ... whether you're in an employer-based system or not." Employer premiums have been affected somewhat, but they've been growing at historically low rates for several years.

www.factcheck.org

I said a lot more than that, you blew off the rest.

And everyone doesn't need a much more comprehensive plan. I have a high deductible plan myself and did when Obamacare was enacted. And we were a SMALL BUSINESS. All the tax increases, price increases and regulation were unsustainable.

Obama knew that, it was the plan. To get small businesses to drop coverage. It worked. We dropped coverage in droves. I wasn't a medical provider, I couldn't spend my day figuring out all the shit I had to do to be complaint and then pay all that extra money

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

You do know that many republicans do not support the payroll tax cut including Mnuchin right? It’s not honest to only point at Nancy about that one. And it’s not popular because it is a slow and indirect method of stimulus

I don't think I said or cared whether all Republicans agree with it or not.

And it was an example. My point was that if there is any further spending, it should be to create jobs, not to stifle the economy. That is an example of a tax cut that would invigorate the economy. It puts money in people's hands for working instead of not working. And it's a benefit to cash strapped employers to lower the cost of hiring.

Also, note I pointed to Nancy as rejecting that for the negotiations. Other Republicans didn't do that

Yes you pointed at Nancies rejection and didn’t mention that many republicans including Trumps Sec of Treasury have expressed opposition to the idea. I find that relevant.

I’d say that the Dem plan was too fat in many areas but it should have been negotiated 2 months ago.Ignoring it till now just to come up with a 11th hour bill that doesn't even have consensus amoungst Republicans is almost as embassing as the healthcare debacle. It just further highlights the incompetence of our congressional leaders and the constipation that partisan politics results in.

My OP is based on that:

I generally/may support spending/tax cuts that provide jobs.

I oppose all spending that doesn't.

You aren't contradicting that even though you're stuck on this

Here he is again. I oppose all spending that doesn't he says. haha Until trump tells you to support free money to not work.

If you have something to say of content, say it. But the nagging is getting tired

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I bet it happens. And while you are blaming dems, repubs control the presidency, senate, and Supreme Court. It wouldn’t happen if repubs didn’t want it to.

The OP says he is a Libertarian. The people who like to see people starve.

The only people that think that are people that like the govt to wipe their ass for them.

People are starving in the streets what do you do? Let the free market decide. Isn’t that what libertarian say?

You do what NJ did and issue professional licenses to thousands of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That should help feed some of those starving Americans.

 

[Brain357]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

If you want to see the economy die you'll hang on to this stupidity. We live in a poorly run country and it's being poorly run by a republican president. Repeating the opinion of a fool makes you just as foolish. The government made businesses shut down because of a deadly pandemic. We are forced to do this because this emergency has been mishandled. The stupid notion of people getting paid more not to work when you cannot safely work has got to go.

And paying people more to not work than to work and handouts to failed local and State governments that acted irresponsibility doesn't fix anything.

I said I'm open to a JOBS bill. But Nancy's insane $3.5T Christmas tree actually hurts jobs

Wow has this guy changed his tune. Doesn't fix anything right?

Nag, nag, nag. It's all you have, huh?

Where do libertarians promote giving away free money? You are a joke.

 

[Brain357]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

You do know that many republicans do not support the payroll tax cut including Mnuchin right? It’s not honest to only point at Nancy about that one. And it’s not popular because it is a slow and indirect method of stimulus

I don't think I said or cared whether all Republicans agree with it or not.

And it was an example. My point was that if there is any further spending, it should be to create jobs, not to stifle the economy. That is an example of a tax cut that would invigorate the economy. It puts money in people's hands for working instead of not working. And it's a benefit to cash strapped employers to lower the cost of hiring.

Also, note I pointed to Nancy as rejecting that for the negotiations. Other Republicans didn't do that

Yes you pointed at Nancies rejection and didn’t mention that many republicans including Trumps Sec of Treasury have expressed opposition to the idea. I find that relevant.

I’d say that the Dem plan was too fat in many areas but it should have been negotiated 2 months ago.Ignoring it till now just to come up with a 11th hour bill that doesn't even have consensus amoungst Republicans is almost as embassing as the healthcare debacle. It just further highlights the incompetence of our congressional leaders and the constipation that partisan politics results in.

My OP is based on that:

I generally/may support spending/tax cuts that provide jobs.

I oppose all spending that doesn't.

You aren't contradicting that even though you're stuck on this

Here he is again. I oppose all spending that doesn't he says. haha Until trump tells you to support free money to not work.

If you have something to say of content, say it. But the nagging is getting tired

You denied that you were against more cash payments to the unworking. I proved you wrong again.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, that's what they said about you. Bitter much?

Wouldn't know, but man, that employee must have broken your heart when he walked on you.. . I've seen gay stalkers with less obsession.

Joe at Subway: Damn it, I want to pay $1 LESS for the sub and $1 more for the chips!

I've already pointed out why that analogy doesn't work. You need to look into the individual market for health care...

 

[JoeB131]

Look dude, we were a small business with less than 50 employees. Obamacare was DESIGNED to make it complicated and costly for small businesses to continue insurance. It worked. I couldn't hire someone just to manage a far more complicated and expensive group insurance program. We weren't big enough.

There are companies that handle that sort of thing. I mean, I know you think that this lie about the ACA (which actually provided millions with insurance) fools the rubes, but it doesn't fool me.

So now you think I was YOUR vendor? Freebasing this morning?

Naw, but you sound like most of them... half-ass operation where they couldn't find or keep good people... because anyone worth it got a real job with real insurance.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, that's what they said about you. Bitter much?

Wouldn't know, but man, that employee must have broken your heart when he walked on you.. . I've seen gay stalkers with less obsession

Who were you stalking? You crack me up.

Joe: That you respond to me makes you a stalker, I'm saying that in a post I'm responding to you and I don't get what I just said....

Joe at Subway: Damn it, I want to pay $1 LESS for the sub and $1 more for the chips!

I've already pointed out why that analogy doesn't work. You need to look into the individual market for health care...

And I already explained that to you. Obamacare removed the deductibility of those individual contributions.

I continued to give employees money for healthcare. I know you don't get that because you're stupid and all. Just before Obamacare they were non-taxable to the employees and Obamacare made them taxable. And Obamacare made group policies unaffordable for small businesses.

Obama fucked the employees

 

[kaz]

Look dude, we were a small business with less than 50 employees. Obamacare was DESIGNED to make it complicated and costly for small businesses to continue insurance. It worked. I couldn't hire someone just to manage a far more complicated and expensive group insurance program. We weren't big enough.

There are companies that handle that sort of thing. I mean, I know you think that this lie about the ACA (which actually provided millions with insurance) fools the rubes, but it doesn't fool me

I already addressed that. Yes, but you have to PAY THEM to do that. The policies were way more expensive AND the regulations were so much higher

So now you think I was YOUR vendor? Freebasing this morning?

Naw, but you sound like most of them... half-ass operation where they couldn't find or keep good people... because anyone worth it got a real job with real insurance.

The mindless chant of the drone. You still think benefits are freebies that your company pays for because of your dearth of knowledge about business

 

[JoeB131]

I continued to give employees money for healthcare. I know you don't get that because you're stupid and all. Just before Obamacare they were non-taxable to the employees and Obamacare made them taxable. And Obamacare made group policies unaffordable for small businesses.

Guy, again, the shitty business owners found ways to make it work. The crappy business owners found new ways to screw the worker bees and then blame the black guy.

I already addressed that. Yes, but you have to PAY THEM to do that. The policies were way more expensive AND the regulations were so much higher

You mean you couldn't buy crap insurance that didn't cover anything... You know, the "If you lose an arm we help you look for it" policy.

The mindless chant of the drone. You still think benefits are freebies that your company pays for because of your dearth of knowledge about business

Hey, guy, I've worked for REAL Corporations... you seem to be happy on your little dungheap working out of a store front...

 

[sealybobo]

I just remember a time when the gap between the rich and poor wasn’t so wid3 and the middle class was booming.

Specifically, how does the gap between the rich and poor affect you personally? How much has come out of your pocket because Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have accumulated a quarter of a trillion dollars in our lifetime?

As you know, the middle class was booming until Communist China unleashed COVID-19 on the world. What makes you believe President Trump can't do it again?

Me? I don’t know. I’m paid pretty good. Most Americans make less than I do.

Ill give you an example of how the rich are hurting us as a middle class.

Example 1. My sister in law teacher started at $50k and when she got her masters shot up to $85k.

Today a young teacher in America after her masters will make $50-$60k.

Its a new normal for the poorer middle class. Have to make cuts now that ge and companies like them pay zero taxes.

Young auto workers don’t make what they used to. Blue collar manufacturing jobs aren’t paying what they did before they sent those jobs overseas. They used to pay more.

But you are right. This doesn’t affect me.

Blue collar small businessmen are competing with illegals. They are losing billions of dollars.

But also we have illegal employers hiring illegals instead of Americans.

Again, none of this hurts me personally.

 

[Markle]

I just remember a time when the gap between the rich and poor wasn’t so wid3 and the middle class was booming.

Specifically, how does the gap between the rich and poor affect you personally? How much has come out of your pocket because Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have accumulated a quarter of a trillion dollars in our lifetime?

As you know, the middle class was booming until Communist China unleashed COVID-19 on the world. What makes you believe President Trump can't do it again?

Me? I don’t know. I’m paid pretty good. Most Americans make less than I do.

Ill give you an example of how the rich are hurting us as a middle class.

Example 1. My sister in law teacher started at $50k and when she got her masters shot up to $85k.

Today a young teacher in America after her masters will make $50-$60k.

Its a new normal for the poorer middle class. Have to make cuts now that ge and companies like them pay zero taxes.

Young auto workers don’t make what they used to. Blue collar manufacturing jobs aren’t paying what they did before they sent those jobs overseas. They used to pay more.

But you are right. This doesn’t affect me.

Blue collar small businessmen are competing with illegals. They are losing billions of dollars.

But also we have illegal employers hiring illegals instead of Americans.

Again, none of this hurts me personally.

Thank you.

With all those jobs paying less than previously, according to you, how then did the pay for low and middle-income workers increase the most they have in decades under President Trump.

What Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates earned in our lifetime, close to $250 BILLION did not affect you in any way. So how does that affect the wealth gap between the rich and poor? You just said it didn't affect you in any way.

What was your point again?

 

[sealybobo]

I just remember a time when the gap between the rich and poor wasn’t so wid3 and the middle class was booming.

Specifically, how does the gap between the rich and poor affect you personally? How much has come out of your pocket because Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have accumulated a quarter of a trillion dollars in our lifetime?

As you know, the middle class was booming until Communist China unleashed COVID-19 on the world. What makes you believe President Trump can't do it again?

Me? I don’t know. I’m paid pretty good. Most Americans make less than I do.

Ill give you an example of how the rich are hurting us as a middle class.

Example 1. My sister in law teacher started at $50k and when she got her masters shot up to $85k.

Today a young teacher in America after her masters will make $50-$60k.

Its a new normal for the poorer middle class. Have to make cuts now that ge and companies like them pay zero taxes.

Young auto workers don’t make what they used to. Blue collar manufacturing jobs aren’t paying what they did before they sent those jobs overseas. They used to pay more.

But you are right. This doesn’t affect me.

Blue collar small businessmen are competing with illegals. They are losing billions of dollars.

But also we have illegal employers hiring illegals instead of Americans.

Again, none of this hurts me personally.

Thank you.

With all those jobs paying less than previously, according to you, how then did the pay for low and middle-income workers increase the most they have in decades under President Trump.

What Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates earned in our lifetime, close to $250 BILLION did not affect you in any way. So how does that affect the wealth gap between the rich and poor? You just said it didn't affect you in any way.

What was your point again?

Actually, when millionaires become billionaires doesn’t that mean a million dollars isn’t what it used to be?

Forget Bezos. What about all the manufacturing plants across America who’s owners are hiring illegals in order to make higher profits? That’s not hurting middle class Americans? And making the rich richer?

Or when the ceo gives all the white collar Hugh raises but the blue collar don’t share in the profits?

Or the guys like Romney who sent jobs overseas and got rich ******* over American workers with that Bain capital?

This doesn’t hurt me because my company and every other company still values good salesmen. But even we’ve taken a hit.

That bs about people getting big raises under trump is bullshit. Didn’t they pass a minimum wage increase before he took office? You giving him credit for that?

And I’m sorry but I just don’t see all my friends got raises because of trumps great economy. Unemployment was already low on Obama’s watch and salaries were already on the rise.

Trump only had 2.3% growth in 2019. In 2015 trump and you republicans said that number was unacceptable. You didnt care about the stock market instead you pointed to the debt, low interest from the feds and you didnt believe the unemployment numbers.

Are you dumb or a liar? Do you believe the shit you say?