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

[JoeB131]

Because he destroyed the healthcare industry.

Really? People stopped getting sick?

Looks to me like the number of Health Care jobs went up under Obama.

In fact, they are only going down now with TRUMP PLAGUE crushing the ability of health care to do their jobs.

 

[initforme]

This is America...we help our people out. Send the $$$ keep social security and Medicare strong. When those two are gone the nation tumbles down.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

He’s a trumper more than anything.

We should give those LP's some credit. After all, they managed to garner 4.4M votes in 2016 with Gary Johnson. An all time high for the party.

That is why Clinton lost in 2016. When the two major parties lose more than 5% of the vote to third parties, it is not good for the incumbent party and it indicates America is not happy with the two major parties. We will see this in the next election and I also believe 2024. Americans are tired of the BS and the brave are actually looking for solutions. The lemmings will continue to vote D or R and expect a different result.

How bad did you have it under Clinton and Obama? Was the nation starving for jobs ? Did all our allies laugh at us ?? Now we have a real unqualified piece of garbage in our wh Do you really think you could EVER call Biden that??

John What alt left universe ?? You don't believe like so many others do that Putin helped trump get elected and the POS is trying again? How tf can anyone want 4 more years of this lying POS Trump?

That shit has all been debunked and normal informed thinking Americans know it.

Your post are not worthy of a response.

Run along lil' troll.

Debunked ? BULLSHIT Even Republicans admitted it .... you run along traitor and get your head out of trumps ass It's unseemly

yes it has been debunked you uneducated shithead. Several times. Try keeping up with current events. Or better yet, keep you head firmly ensconced in your rectum. Run along little liar.

Lantern You fn moron you AH which of these links is wrong??
About 38,800,000 results (0.54 seconds)







Search Results
Web results
Senate Intel report confirms Russia aimed to help Trump in 2016
www.politico.com › news › 2020/04/21 › senate-intel-r...

Apr 21, 2020 - Tuesday's bipartisan report, from a panel chaired by North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, undercuts Trump's years of efforts to portray ...

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ...
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Russian_interference_in_the_...

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of ... Finally, several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign ... Clinton's campaign, and by the fall of 2016 to directly helping Trump's campaign, because Putin thought Trumpwould ease economic sanctions.
‎Background and Russian ... · ‎Cyberattack on Democrats

Senate Intel Committee backs finding that Russia helped ...
www.usatoday.com › news › politics › 2020/04/21 › se...

Apr 21, 2020 - Trump has long-sought to undermine the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's interference campaign and has moved to shake-up ...

Opinion | Even Republicans on the Intelligence Committee ...
www.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2020/04/21 › e...

Apr 21, 2020 - Even Republicans on the Intelligence Committee admit that Putin helped Trump get elected. Russian President Vladimir Putin with President ...

People also ask

I lost my job during the Obama administration and so did thousands of others in Healthcare.

GIN I'm sorry to hear that BUT did you know under Obama's presidency a record was set with 75 straight months of 6 digit employment gains Don't know how or why you lost your job but plenty of folks got jobs

Obama had far fewer job gains than both the Clinton and Reagan administration. And per CNN money ...

“Almost all of the job gains under President Obama have been in so-called service jobs, such as those in Silicon Valley and consulting. Others are the low-end jobs, toiling in stores and restaurants.“

How good were the 10.9 million jobs under Obama?

America has gained 10.9 million new jobs since President Obama took office. CNNMoney breaks down what kinds of jobs have been created and lost.

money.cnn.com

 

[wamose]

Giving the unemployed an extra $600 and bailing out states irresponsible pension funds are anti country and anti worker. If my state ran up an irresponsible debt, I don't want them to unfairly tax people in responsible states to bail me out. That's fucking bullshit. The people who overspent in debtor states are totally responsible for the problems they caused. Maybe this will finally make us look at the teachers unions and other government unions that are bankrupting almost every city and state in this country. No competition, no union.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

He’s a trumper more than anything.

The worst insult you know. He's a ... {room hushes} ... Trumper ...

LOL. Grow up, tyke

It’s pretty bad. And any trumper sure can’t be a libertarian.

I am. Well I'm registered as libertarian anyway but think we should abolish and make illegal all political parties as the destructive forces they are.

 

[skews13]

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

I don’t know what you scofflaws are going to do when every tax cut since Reagan goes away, and programs like Social security are expanded, and we adopt a national health care system.

Do you plan on starting your own country someplace else?

 

[kaz]

So when government forces shut downs and they give money to citizens to survive, that's fine with you.

But when they force businesses to shut down and give them money to survive, that's welfare.

Depends what business. I have no problem with the payments to small businesses. Big Corporations that made obscene profits over the last 10 years while working people have scraped by, I'm less sympathetic.

The reason why these big corporations are in such trouble is that they borrowed to the nines to buy back their own stock and acquired other companies. Most people think a major driver of this current recession is not just Covid (TRUMP PLAGUE), but the Big Corporations borrowing and speculating as much as they did.

You're just proving again you're a card carrying Communist.

They didn't fail, government forced them to close. You're a flaming hypocrite and a Marxist

No, man, a lot of these Corporations squandered the good times, and now they are coming back hat in hand after they laid a lot of people off.

More money for working folks, not a fucking penny to a corporation that isn't doing something to directly fight TRUMP PLAGUE.

More useless Marxist rhetoric. Blah, blah, you hate business, blah, blah

 

[kaz]

Are you clear?

Yes.

1. You somehow think I should read and follow all of your threads and views, which I don't.
2. Had you simply added the one word "more", your OP title would have been clear, honest, and there would be no confusion as to the direction of your thread. Thread titles are supposed to have sufficient clues about the actual expected direction of the discussion.

It DOES say "more."

THE FIRST LINE OF THE OP SAID: " What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. "

You and I are usually on the same side. Going by the thread title without reading the OP is L-A-M-E.

Let it go, you did a boner. We all do. Just man up and say oops

 

[kaz]

I suppose if you have a bad memory and don't remember all the threads we've both posted in where I've repeatedly said my issue is paying people more money to not work than to work and if you didn't read any of this thread but the title, then that's a rational argument.

Except nobody is getting "More money"

That's a lie and you know it. There has been endless discussion from Republicans that we can't pay people more to not work than work and that businesses are having a hard time getting their employees back. You'd have to not follow politics or the coronavirus AT ALL to not know you just told a flagrant lie.

If $600 a week is more than you were making in benefits and salary, then you weren't making that much to start with

Yes, and that's the people we're dealing with. People who didn't study, didn't get good grades and aren't trying hard enough. They are the ones who will not go back when you pay them more to not go back. They weren't trying very hard to start with

Here's the other part of the equation. If your job is open again, and you boss calls you back and you refuse to go, then they can challenge your right to keep getting benefits.

Yes. Depends on the State for the exact details. But most businesses right now aren't challenging workers because making them come back for less money now sours your relationship with them to come back later when government pulls its head out of its ass and stops paying people more to not work than work

 

[eddiew]

Giving the unemployed an extra $600 and bailing out states irresponsible pension funds are anti country and anti worker. If my state ran up an irresponsible debt, I don't want them to unfairly tax people in responsible states to bail me out. That's fucking bullshit. The people who overspent in debtor states are totally responsible for the problems they caused. Maybe this will finally make us look at the teachers unions and other government unions that are bankrupting almost every city and state in this country. No competition, no union.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't blue states PAY out more in taxes than they get from Gov't and red pay out less than they get??

 

[kaz]

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.

He’s a trumper more than anything.

The worst insult you know. He's a ... {room hushes} ... Trumper ...

LOL. Grow up, tyke

It’s pretty bad. And any trumper sure can’t be a libertarian.

I am. Well I'm registered as libertarian anyway but think we should abolish and make illegal all political parties as the destructive forces they are.

Brainless357 is playing the game that you can't vote for Trump unless you endorse his personality and agree with all his policies, but you can vote for Biden just because you don't like Trump.

He has his head shoved up his ass.

Trump is not a libertarian. I voted for one Republican in the last seven elections under the reasoning that the parties are the same. But the left has gone so bat shit crazy that they are no longer the same. I'm finally voting for the lesser evil

 

[toobfreak]

Are you clear?

Yes.

1. You somehow think I should read and follow all of your threads and views, which I don't.
2. Had you simply added the one word "more", your OP title would have been clear, honest, and there would be no confusion as to the direction of your thread. Thread titles are supposed to have sufficient clues about the actual expected direction of the discussion.

It DOES say "more."

THE FIRST LINE OF THE OP SAID: " What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. "

You and I are usually on the same side. Going by the thread title without reading the OP is L-A-M-E.

Let it go, you did a boner. We all do. Just man up and say oops

I guess I have to SPELL IT OUT THREE TIMES. it DOESN'T say "more" in the ONE PLACE it should.

Your thread says paying people TO NOT WORK ~ ~ ~ IS WRONG, means QUITE a different thing from saying "paying people MORE while not working is wrong."

Rule Violation. See

 

[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.

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

I don’t know what you scofflaws are going to do when every tax cut since Reagan goes away, and programs like Social security are expanded, and we adopt a national health care system.

Do you plan on starting your own country someplace else?

Right because no one has ever lived in oppression. I have no choice, you know that. Pull your head out of your ass and stop being a dick

 

[kaz]

Are you clear?

Yes.

1. You somehow think I should read and follow all of your threads and views, which I don't.
2. Had you simply added the one word "more", your OP title would have been clear, honest, and there would be no confusion as to the direction of your thread. Thread titles are supposed to have sufficient clues about the actual expected direction of the discussion.

It DOES say "more."

THE FIRST LINE OF THE OP SAID: " What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. "

You and I are usually on the same side. Going by the thread title without reading the OP is L-A-M-E.

Let it go, you did a boner. We all do. Just man up and say oops

I guess I have to SPELL IT OUT THREE TIMES. it DOESN'T say "more" in the ONE PLACE it should.

View attachment 372206

Your thread says paying people TO NOT WORK ~ ~ ~ IS WRONG, means QUITE a different thing from saying "paying people MORE while not working is wrong."

Rule Violation. See

View attachment 372207

Right. The thread title says that and the FIRST LINE IN THE OP says "more."

Shove it up your ass. You're being a dick to someone on your side for no purpose just because you aren't man enough to admit you didn't read the OP and only went by the thread title.

You can't put the whole OP in the thread title you stupid pussy. You can only put a blurb.

I clearly clarified what I meant by paying people to not work in the First Sentence of the OP

 

[JoeB131]

More useless Marxist rhetoric. Blah, blah, you hate business, blah, blah

I'm not seeing any good reason to bail out businesses that made bad decisions when they have plenty of money. Cut back on your CEO Perks, then come back to me about bailouts..

That's a lie and you know it. There has been endless discussion from Republicans that we can't pay people more to not work than work and that businesses are having a hard time getting their employees back. You'd have to not follow politics or the coronavirus AT ALL to not know you just told a flagrant lie.

Yes, the Republicans LOVE to screw the working class... it's like their thing. But businesses aren't having a hard time getting workers back... Most people would LOVE to get back to work right now.

Yes, and that's the people we're dealing with. People who didn't study, didn't get good grades and aren't trying hard enough. They are the ones who will not go back when you pay them more to not go back. They weren't trying very hard to start with

Again, if you were such a shitty employer that your employees don't want to come back, that's kind of on you. Didn't you brag once you didn't give your employees health coverage...

"Hey, I want you to come back to work for no health coverage and risk getting sick and getting your families sick for minimum wage!"

Go Fuck Yourself is the proper response there.

Yes. Depends on the State for the exact details. But most businesses right now aren't challenging workers because making them come back for less money now sours your relationship with them to come back later when government pulls its head out of its ass and stops paying people more to not work than work

Yeah, like there's businesses out there that wouldn't screw the wage slaves in a heartbeat when given the chance.

 

[kaz]

Are you clear?

Yes.

1. You somehow think I should read and follow all of your threads and views, which I don't.
2. Had you simply added the one word "more", your OP title would have been clear, honest, and there would be no confusion as to the direction of your thread. Thread titles are supposed to have sufficient clues about the actual expected direction of the discussion.

It DOES say "more."

THE FIRST LINE OF THE OP SAID: " What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. "

You and I are usually on the same side. Going by the thread title without reading the OP is L-A-M-E.

Let it go, you did a boner. We all do. Just man up and say oops

I guess I have to SPELL IT OUT THREE TIMES. it DOESN'T say "more" in the ONE PLACE it should.

View attachment 372206

Your thread says paying people TO NOT WORK ~ ~ ~ IS WRONG, means QUITE a different thing from saying "paying people MORE while not working is wrong."

Rule Violation. See

View attachment 372207

What are you even after? Obviously yet again we don't disagree. As I said in the first sentence of the OP I object to paying people more to not work than work.

You asked, I answered, I showed you my OP actually agreed with you.

So now you're all hot and bothered because the title didn't include the word "more" in it.

OK, so what do you want? Money? A brownie? An execution? What exactly would make you happy over a thread that you AGREE WITH but you're angry that I didn't put the word you want in the title, just the OP?

 

[kaz]

More useless Marxist rhetoric. Blah, blah, you hate business, blah, blah

I'm not seeing any good reason to bail out businesses that made bad decisions when they have plenty of money. Cut back on your CEO Perks, then come back to me about bailouts..

That's a lie and you know it. There has been endless discussion from Republicans that we can't pay people more to not work than work and that businesses are having a hard time getting their employees back. You'd have to not follow politics or the coronavirus AT ALL to not know you just told a flagrant lie.

Yes, the Republicans LOVE to screw the working class... it's like their thing. But businesses aren't having a hard time getting workers back... Most people would LOVE to get back to work right now.

Yes, and that's the people we're dealing with. People who didn't study, didn't get good grades and aren't trying hard enough. They are the ones who will not go back when you pay them more to not go back. They weren't trying very hard to start with

Again, if you were such a shitty employer that your employees don't want to come back, that's kind of on you. Didn't you brag once you didn't give your employees health coverage...

"Hey, I want you to come back to work for no health coverage and risk getting sick and getting your families sick for minimum wage!"

Go Fuck Yourself is the proper response there.

Yes. Depends on the State for the exact details. But most businesses right now aren't challenging workers because making them come back for less money now sours your relationship with them to come back later when government pulls its head out of its ass and stops paying people more to not work than work

Yeah, like there's businesses out there that wouldn't screw the wage slaves in a heartbeat when given the chance.

I didn't "give" my employees anything, Comrade. I paid them market wages for working for me. Benefits are not freebies, they are part of your pay.

I remember you never understood that. It's your bad attitude towards your employer and your job that got you fired

 

[toobfreak]

Shove it up your ass.

Your head is in my way.

You're being a dick

Not at all. Just clearly, repeatedly and succinctly pointed out that your badly worded title is misleading and confusing as to your intent and you are just too stubborn to admit it and like too many here, try to pass the buck onto the READER to read the OP's mind what they intended.

 

[kaz]

Shove it up your ass.

Your head is in my way.

You're being a dick

Not at all. Just clearly, repeatedly and succinctly pointed out that your badly worded title is misleading and confusing as to your intent and you are just too stubborn to admit it and like too many here, try to pass the buck onto the READER to read the OP's mind what they intended.

Like all threads, you have to read the OP

 

[wamose]

Giving the unemployed an extra $600 and bailing out states irresponsible pension funds are anti country and anti worker. If my state ran up an irresponsible debt, I don't want them to unfairly tax people in responsible states to bail me out. That's fucking bullshit. The people who overspent in debtor states are totally responsible for the problems they caused. Maybe this will finally make us look at the teachers unions and other government unions that are bankrupting almost every city and state in this country. No competition, no union.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't blue states PAY out more in taxes than they get from Gov't and red pay out less than they get??

Paying too much in taxes pisses people off. Most Blue states charge far more for taxes. Blue states have developed a cast system where the rich elitists totally dominate the workers. Biden, or any other Democrat, will dramatically raise taxes and destroy jobs. That's a fact. In the meantime, teachers who refuse to work will still get paid by the taxpayer for doing next to nothing. Teachers and other government unions suck. They shouldn't exist.