Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 23, 2020

Democrats blocked a coronavirus package on Sunday that would provide economic relief to businesses and Americans suffering from the impact of the coronavirus outbreak.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

After congressional Republicans and Democrats were in the final stages of negotiating a long-term coronavirus package deal with the White House, Pelosi announced that House Democrats will move forward with their own bill.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said in a statement on Sunday:

"How pathetic. Tonight's vote was not even on passing a bipartisan plan, it was merely to begin debating it. The American people are hurting, the clock is ticking, but Senate Democrats would rather cave to Speaker Pelosi's eleventh-hour demands. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should worry more about getting relief to their constituents and less about the House Speaker's partisan wish list. This cannot go another day."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If you love gallows humor and catastrophe tourism like I do, you'll love whistling past this grave-yard of an article.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-23 11:42 AM | Reply

Based on our experience with health care reform, I can say with certainty that in 30 years there will be a relief package for the MIC (Mortuary Industrial Complex) which by then will control America and the rest of the world.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-23 11:58 AM | Reply

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Thanks, Nancy!

Remember, this is who will be president if the November elections don't take place.

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#3 ... Thanks, Nancy! ...

I agree.

Thank-you to Spkr Pelosi and the Democrats for preventing the Republicans from using this crisis as an excuse for yet another transfer of money to the wealthy.

The $500 million ear-marked for Sec Mnuchin needs to have limits on what it can be used for.

Otherwise he may just give it to the corporations, who will use it for stock buybacks and not to help the workers.

Don't you think the Democrats are right in wanting to help the workers who are suffering from this crisis?


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-03-23 12:08 PM | Reply

"#4 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2020-03-23 12:08 PM "

You didn't' read the article, did you? Here's another to cut your teeth on lest someone shrieks, "Breitbart!"

thehill.com

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 12:13 PM | Reply

Businesses which used the huge, wind-fall tax cuts to do stock buy backs, rather than "create jobs" should be taking advantage of their assets and collateralizing them for near 0% loans.

Relief must be provided for the folks who have no income. Any business which does accept Federal dollars should cap Executive Pay to the same $174,000 per year that Senators receive for their salaries.

Any Federal dollars provided to publicly traded companies must be given stock in the name of the USA exchange for the relief.

To do any thing else is Corporate Socialism, and will likely ruin the motivation to get off of corporate welfare.

Because, "Corporations are people, my friends", and they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

If you disagree, convince me I'm wrong.

#6 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-03-23 12:14 PM | Reply

Nancy should not enable a half trillion GOP crony fund. Better to have no socialism than socialism for GOP cronies.
Also no bailouts to businesses in excess of the taxes they paid and make their returns public first.

#7 | Posted by bored at 2020-03-23 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 | Posted by LampLighter

The vote was on whether to open debate. It was 47-47 on party lines, Dems saying no because they got their marching orders. And I have no doubt repubs will do the same to the new Dem bill. This thing was bi-partisan until Pelosi stepped in, but I'm then I'm pretty sure she's a MIC asset at this point.

There will be no relief package, evar (Period)

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-23 12:22 PM | Reply

#7 | Posted by bored

It was a bi-partisan bill. Read the article. Read The Hill article. Oh wait, it's you.

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-23 12:23 PM | Reply

"Also no bailouts to businesses in excess of the taxes they paid and make their returns public first.

#7 | POSTED BY BORED "

Funny how proggies were generally in agreement with Obama when he wanted money for the financial houses to save the economy. They said it was necessary,

What a difference one little letter makes.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 12:26 PM | Reply

@#5 ... you didn't' read the article, did you ...

I did read the article, and now I've read both.

I still do not see anything that runs counter to what I said about the objection to the unlimited $500 million to be given out at Sec Mnuchin's whim without any oversight.


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-03-23 12:31 PM | Reply

@#10 ... he wanted money for the financial houses to save the economy. ...

Because that was a financial crisis, not a health crisis.

As an aside: what I didn't like about the 2008 financial crisis was that there was little, if any, follow-up criminal proceedings against the banks and the bank managers. While I wasn't on this site at the time, I was quite vocal about that aspect.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-03-23 12:34 PM | Reply

Proggies,what the eff' is that? You mean progressives I guess. They are not monolithic any more than right wing bigots are. Some feel one way, some another,you know, individuals,people just like,you who happen to disagree about economic matters and such. Why the derisive rhetoric goatman? Makes you look small and schitty,are you? My guess is yes.

#13 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-03-23 01:00 PM | Reply

"Proggies,what the eff' is that? You mean progressives I guess. They are not monolithic any more than right wing bigots are. Some feel one way, some another,you know, individuals,people just like,you who happen to disagree about economic matters and such. Why the derisive rhetoric goatman? Makes you look small and schitty,are you? My guess is yes.

#13 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER "

You completely missed the point of the article (don't feel badly, apparently someone else did too). There was a solid bipartisan bill that would have passed the Senate had Nancy not insisted on very partisan changes. Of course the rest of the dems fell in line like the sheep they are. Also, why the hell did the Senate dems allow themselves to be influenced by her? She's not a Senator.

Read the article, as well as the linked one in comments.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 01:04 PM | Reply

"Because that was a financial crisis, not a health crisis.
#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER "

Are you not aware that this health crisis has caused a severe economic crisis due to lack of commerce? How could you not know this?

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 01:06 PM | Reply

@#15 ... Are you not aware that this health crisis has caused a severe economic crisis due to lack of commerce ...

I am quite aware of that.

However, the cause of the severe economic crisis is external to the financial industry this time around.

This time around it is an economic crisis caused by a health crisis.

In 2008 it was a economic crisis caused by a financial industry crisis.

Each time we should attack the root cause. Now we attack the health crisis first and take care of the economic fallout.

In 2008 we attacked the financial industry crisis and took care of the economic fallout.

There is a clear and distinct difference between the finance industry and the economy.

Over simplified --- The Democrats are trying to take care of the economy and, subsequently, the workers. The Republicans want to take care of the corporations, and subsequently, the wealthy.



#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-03-23 01:13 PM | Reply

"However, the cause of the severe economic crisis is external to the financial industry this time around."

What difference does it make the genesis of the crisis? It is an economic crisis. It's odd you would think it's OK do dump money into an economic crisis if financial institutions are involved, bur not OK if they're not.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like another verse to the tired old "Orange Man Bad, Black Man Good" song.

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 01:17 PM | Reply

#16 | Posted by LampLighter

"I am the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks" - Obama to the bankers.

Look, nothing will be done. You can kiss health care reform good-bye the same way. There is too much money at stake. We lost the Republic when we went off public election funding.

#18 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-23 01:19 PM | Reply

I also found a good on-line deal on wheat berries. They can be softened in ale and honey for a nice and healthy addition to home made bread, or partially sprouted and worked in with the bread dough for a nice nutty flavor and soft crunch.

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 01:21 PM | Reply

#19 -- oops. Wrong thread. Sorry

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2020-03-23 01:21 PM | Reply

@#17 ... What difference does it make the genesis of the crisis? It is an economic crisis. ...

Yup, it is an economic crisis.

So you solve that economic crisis.

But you do not solve it in the same way you would solve a financial industry crisis.

Two different types of crises.

... It's odd you would think it's OK do dump money into an economic crisis if financial institutions are involved, bur not OK if they're not. ...

That is a misinterpretation of what I am saying.

It is OK to dump money into solving the economic crisis now and and in 2008.

It is not OK to dump unrestricted money into the corporations now because they are not the cause of the economic crisis. It the money "dumped" into the corporations had limits on it so that it would not be used, e.g., for stock buybacks that benefit mainly the wealthy, then I would take a softer position for helping the corporations. For example, doing something similar to what the UK did, i.e., guarantee 80% of the workers' pay for the next three months. That type of money given to corporations would be OK by me.

But a dump of money to the corporations without any restrictions on how it can be used, well that's non-starter for me. The corporations will just do what they did for the Trump Tax cut, i.e., promise to invest in the company, but instead buy back stock.

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-03-23 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why the derisive rhetoric goatman? Makes you look small and schitty,are you? My guess is yes.

#13 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

You must be new here. It is all he does. He leads the league in 'plonks' and probably in site suspensions too. Including a 'permanant' banishment.

Go figure, huh?

#22 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2020-03-23 01:45 PM | Reply

Because Dems will not pass a 500bn unaccountable slush fund?

#23 | Posted by fresno500 at 2020-03-23 08:13 PM | Reply

Because Dems will not pass a 500bn unaccountable slush fund?

#23 | POSTED BY FRESNO500

I'm fine with a rewrite of the Senate bill. The numbers being bandied about are huge and it needs to be done right. While I generally oppose stimulus bills I think in this case it might be necessary given how many people are going to be temporarily out of work - bridge the gap until this thing blows over and normal economic activity can resume.

The House bill is a cynical piece of work. What in the heck do airline emissions have to do with CV relief?

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-03-23 08:18 PM | Reply

The Senate should have removed the airline emissions bit and passed the dem bill.

#25 | Posted by bored at 2020-03-23 08:31 PM | Reply

Why are GOP willing to sacrifice Americans to give half a trillion to their donors.

#26 | Posted by bored at 2020-03-23 08:32 PM | Reply

The Senate should have removed the airline emissions bit and passed the dem bill.

#25 | POSTED BY BORED

The airline thing wasn't the only thing unrelated to CV relief in the House bill.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-03-23 08:34 PM | Reply

"Why are GOP willing to sacrifice Americans to give half a trillion to their donors."

What do you mean, why?
You know why.

THE SPICE MUST FLOW

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-03-23 09:25 PM | Reply

There will be no relief package, evar (Period)

#8 | POSTED BY Derp Derp

Wrong

And its not the bailout demz rejected.. it was the $500 billion slush fund with no oversight... and trying to bum rush that part into law was a joke.

#29 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2020-03-25 08:28 AM | Reply

#29 | Posted by 503jc69

You idiot, learn to read.

#30 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-03-25 11:38 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort