Mrs Pelosi announces she plans to load the NEXT COVID 19 bill with dem pork

Based on the so called bill she put forth on Monday the quoted language is obvious LIES. @Kwek00

@jackjjackson So you don't have problems with these points then?

Do you have like excerpt of the bill she put forth from monday? Because I honestly can't find it.

https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Families%20First%20summary.pdf


@Kwek00

@jackjjackson
Politico: additional funding for state and local governments to address the rapidly spreading virus;

Doesn't the Bill cover several aspects of this in:
Division B title 1 section 102 (page 2)
Division B title 3 section 302 (page 3)
Division E section 105 (page 6)


Politico: expanding the pool of people who qualify for family and medical leave;

Doesn't the Bill cover several aspects of this in
Division D (page 4-5)
Division F (page 8 )


Politico: more federal dollars for food aid;

Doesn't the Bill cover several aspects of this in:
Division A title 1 and 2 (page 1-2)
Division B title 1 and 2 (page 2-3)


Politico: stronger worker protections for first responders;

EDIT: This isn't in the bill, just made a mistake copy pasting


Politico: funding to offset coronavirus treatment costs; and stabilizing pensions.

Doesn't the Bill cover several aspects of this in:
Division G (page 7-8)

Then there are provisions about

Voting
climate
Abortion

Even Cortez’s former chief of staff and campaign manager says that’s ridiculous
@Kwek00

@jackjjackson So you agree then that according to the bill? The things said in politico aren't an obvious lie?


well, voting and abortion ... I don't know what she has to say about that or how that has annything to do with a healthcare crisis. So unless there is a really good argument for that in this setting, then those issues should adressed in diffrent bills that have nothing to do with Corona.


When it comes to climate... that's an entire other issue. We have in Belgium an economical pretty neoliberal think tank. I use "pretty" because these people grew up in Belgium and therefore have other cultural accents then libertarians in the US. But they are all for free markets and smaller governement, but they have other ideas on certain details that differ from most neoliberal thinking in anglosaxon countries. Annyway, these people are advocating for a bill that saves the supply-side of the economy from going belly up. But they are also critical towards what you can call opportunistic leeches or older economies that would get the axe during a crisis annyway (zombie-industry). Because in a crisis, the old is suposed to die off in what they like to call "the correction". These people hammer a lot that highly poluting industry during an upcomming recession should either adapt to a more enviormental regulations or not get tax payers money because they don't see a long future for them annyway.

So we remain in agreement.

Voting
climate
Abortion

(in the house bill I gave you the link to have zero to do with CV)

The current bill contains $25M to the Kennedy Center to mollify Mrs Pelosi.

Nothing other than things dealing directly with CV should be any any future CV relief bills. Big business , airlines, etc should get only loans and only with employee protections. Otherwise money goes for medical and food and shelter help for real citizens m


@Kwek00

@jackjjackson I don't know what they are saying about "voting" , If it's about propsponing the elections because of crisis? Then maybe there is something to say for that. If it's about changing how voting works in the US... then it has nothing to do with corona and we are in full agreement on that part.

I don't see how abortion has annything to do with this. Unless it's about the fear that abortions can't take place during this crisis for understaffed personal or something? Because you can't really prospone annyone that wants to have an abortion, since there are rules for when it can and can't be done. At least last time I checked. If it has annything to do with changing abortion laws, then we are in full agreement that they don't belong in a bill for corona.

My climate responds is in the section above.


Are you sure you gave me the correct link? Because I can't relate it to the issues you have about: abortion, voting, climate. Neither do I find annything about the Kennedy center or why that money should be used.

@jackjjackson Since we both seem to agree that new enviormental rules shouldn't be imposed under the Corona disguise... what do you think of active laws that are no longer enforced when it comes to health-security in favor of production?

https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-epa-stops-enforcing-environmental-protection-rules-2020-3?international=true&r=US

Is this part of what should be under the corona umbrella?

I’d so that is something that the November should resolve. @Kwek00

@jackjjackson In other words, this is also not something you think that should be done under the Corona umbrella then?

Nope. Big issue that should be part of a presidential election discussion. Especially since the non enforcement was the result of executive order. @Kwek00

Why is it so hard for the jackasses in DC to make CV 19 legislation about CV 19 only?@Kwek00

@jackjjackson Well, that was my question too you, even if it's done by executive order.

And in the link you gave me, there was nothing said about: abortion, climate or voting.
I'm still figuring out, if that is the bill that was layed down on monday, how that is an absolute lie if you read your original post.

Perhaps it was the wrong link. I saw the bill Mrs Pelosi introduced last Monday online I’m\ sure you can find it. Sorry for the non intentional inconvenience. @Kwek00

@jackjjackson You mean this 1400 page long monstrosity:

https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/COVIDSUPP3_xml.pdf

I don't know what you mean by "voting"... but "abortion" isn't in there. From what I can find, it doesn't really seem that she is changing annything the voting system either.

I do agree with the climate-change rhetoric, it's not what I'm talking about in my comment above either.

You haven't answered me if it was okay for the president (as someone from washington) to make an executive order under the corona umbrella, that undermines the laws already excisting for envioremental and health protection. Because, if you don't seem it nescessary, then I think we can conclude that we are talking about the same thing except that one uses his presidential privelege and the other functions inside the ruleset of congress.

I think executive orders should cover a single subject only. Coming them is at the very least confusing. That being said I don’t think it’s as bad as congress collectively passing bills containing many things on different subjects. In Congress there is horse trading that is never good for US (you and me) in the long run. @Kwek00

Based on the date I think that is the right bill. Rather than muddle through all that again, I skimmed it last week, I’m going to continue to accept the compilations of summaries I’ve seen. For example Cortez’s former campaign manager and chief of stuff complained and condemned all the extra stuff in the bill. Based on his politics I’m will to accept that as true. @Kwek00

@jackjjackson You didn't answer the question tough. Do you think that it's smart to set aside the federal agency that looks into enviroremental and healthrisks because of an executive order, because of the "coronavirus". Even it's don't by executive order, I don't really see anny reason to place this under the corona umbrella what so ever. If we agree on that, then I think we can also agree that both parties are squeezing in stuff that shouldn't be adressed during this particulair emergency.

Bills sometimes contain more issues, because they are compromises between parties. This particulair bill that I showed you seems more like an action from a single party. But it's not really that bizar to squeeze in stuff you want and mix in with stuff they want to make certain things more acceptable. At the end of the day, our democratic systems in the west still relies on consensus. I however don't like squeezing in other ideas with bills that should tackle a single urgent emergency. However, during a regular political term, these things are quite normal, and I don't see a problem with it since it get's voted on by congress and the senate. That means that the representatives of the people can agree or disagree and the public can pass judgement if they did well or not during elections.


That's all verry nice, but your supspicions don't live up to anny evidence provided in this particulair matter so far. You talked about "voting" and "abortion" , and I can't find it in the document I shared with you or the document you gave me. If it's not there, and we can't find it's there, then we have to conclude that the dead horse ain't dead yet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/489050-pelosi-previews-house-coronavirus-stimulus-to-come-later-monday


@Kwek00

Re your EPA comments it was thr EPA itself that did it so you’re mixing apples and oranges.


It wasn’t en executive order. https://www.businessinsider.nl/coronavirus-epa-stops-enforcing-environmental-protection-rules-2020-3?international=true&r=US

That is the link you provided that is clear it was the EPA itself taking the action not the president by executive order as you suggested. Yes people do read links used to supposedly support claims=s 😳.

Congress has a 10% approval rating because the crap thrown into legitimate bills by both sides. I’d be in favor of requiring that bills cover one subject and one subject only.

@Kwek00

@jackjjackson I didn't suggest annything about an executive order... you brought it up Jack. You can just reread your own comments on that one.


I just went along with it, because it doesn't matter to me. EPA is under direct command of the executive branch. If EPA decides to stop doing something, that means the executive branch is okay with it. I don't really care how the executive branch makes that known to the world, it's still part of their domain and how they do things.

And that article of the hill doesn't disagree with annything I said, or attacks annything we are talking about that we haven't already agreed to agree on.

Right we agree that these things in Prlosi’s proposal were ridiculous:



One thought regarding temporary actions of the EPA is that social distancing is enhanced and the spread or CV 19 slowed. Interestingly worldwide CNN says pollution levels have lowered dramatically in just a few weeks. That’s a positive.

@Kwek00

@jackjjackson JJJr I said:


When you quote that article:

"gives grants to states to protect November's elections by expanding early voting and creating a universal mail-in-ballot system"

Apperently she wants a vote in november. I'm not sure about you, but if the crisis isn't solved in november, then someone will have to come up with answer to organise it without threatening public health? Or prospone it. I personally would be in favor of prosponing it, but that's my personal choice as a person (not even as a civilian of the US). And that personal choice isn't an objective "right" or "wrong" choice, it's just a subjective opinion that I have and I would defend. Just like it's in the right of anny other person to defend their opinion. If Pelosi can make a good case for her proposal then I don't see why she shouldn't put it up for a vote. Since it's directly linked to the corona-emergency AND it doesn't fundamentally change how voting works in the US. It's just a way to organise the original process during an emergency situation.

"The package also includes a host of liberal provisions that have little chance of making it into the final package, including tax credits to promote green energy and mandatory emissions reductions for the airlines set to receive federal help."

This is in direct agreement with what the economists say from the itinera institute in Belgium. That when you start loaning people money to survive a crisis, you need to make sure that these industries you are aiding have a long term life expectancy. A lot of economists believe that denieing that human beings have anny effect on the climate at all is totally ludicrous. But in certain countries like the US, this denial keeps excisting. This is therefore a political discussion you can have, but the idea that you just have to support anny industry just because it's there without asking annything in return... is madness. Because some of these industries will be saved by governement money, and will go belly up because they are outdated later on. At that moment, you are nationalising debt, because the compagnies you save that aren't substainable in the future will not be able to pay back their loans.

This is totally diffrent then changing active regulations or laws. It's just a quid pro quo for getting loan. Something that is really not that abnormal in these kinds of situations. If you go look up what happened in 2008, there were also demands for banks if you want to get a loan from the governement.




How is social distancing enhanced by flat out stopping the working of EPA all together? You have a moment in time where rules won't be enforced by the federal governement, meaning that all kinds of bad practises can be done because no one is enforcing the law? This is a choice by the executive branch under the umbrella of the corona-emergency, how can you as a citizen be okay with that?

It's nice that CNN says that pollution levels went down, but that has nothing to do with EPA what so ever. There is no relation there, because if there was, then maybe we can just scratch all laws that are concerned about the health of workers and the enviorment concerning compagnies, because apperently not enforcing those rules will make everything better. But I think we are both smart enough that it doesn't work like that.