Senate approves historic $2 trillion stimulus deal amid growing coronavirus fears

[Ponietz]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) The Senate on Wednesday approved a historic, $2 trillion stimulus package to provide a jolt to an economy reeling from the coronavirus pandemic, capping days of intense negotiations that produced one of the most expensive and far-reaching measures Congress has ever considered.

The legislation represents the largest emergency aid package in US history and the most significant legislative action taken to address the rapidly intensifying coronavirus crisis, which is overwhelming hospitals and grinding much of the economy to a halt.

It will next go to the House for a vote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced Wednesday evening ahead of Senate passage that the House will convene at 9 a.m. on Friday to consider the relief package. The plan is to pass the bill by voice vote.
President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign the measure.

The White House and Senate leaders struck a major deal early Wednesday morning on the package. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell formally announced the agreement on the Senate floor, describing it as "a wartime level of investment for our nation."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/politics/stimulus-senate-action-coronavirus/index.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Vote was 96-0.

[sweetloukillbot]

2. Scott, Graham, Sasse, Paul?

Any reports on the non-voters?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. The ones in isolation?

[yaesu]

4. I doubt very much if the IRS is up to such a task after they have been drained by the tRump admin

as far as getting checks out plus many off the grid, homeless, jobless won't see a penny do to going by tax filings. So, its just another YUGE corporate bailout with a little trickling down to the working class.

[keithbvadu2]

5. Instead of corporate bailout, just refund the taxes they have paid.

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2020, 03:42 AM - Edit history (1)

Instead of corporate bailout, just refund the taxes they have paid.

[scarletwoman]

6. Excellent idea! I'm all for it! (nt)

[turbinetree]

7. We are not worthy in any sense with this senate legislation, we get diddly squawk and a "MEANS TEST"

we are only worthy of getting a one time $1200 dollars and $600 dollars per week in unemployment benefits for extended 13 weeks, we get the let them eat cake mentality and no relief from mortgage payments, renters payments, student loan debt, credit card or car payments interest and we have to meet a "MEAN TEST"................., while on the other side of the cake there is over $500 billion in tax relief for corporations and vulture capitalists overseeing the doling out........................

Out of the 900 pages in this legislation this is what is being said:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/heres-how-the-coronavirus-relief-stimulus-checks-to-citizens-will-actually-work/

[Steve.in.AZ]

8. Sure, let's give Steve Mnuchin

control of potentially $4.5 trillion dollars to give to big corporations. Remember, these are the same corporations that promised -- they pinky-swore -- in 2017 that if they received a massive tax cut they'd give most of it to their employees. Reputable economists scoffed, and sure enough, in 2018, the corps used the windfall for stock buybacks. Exactly as we'd known they would.

Who could possibly have predicted that after they used all their cash on hand for stock buybacks to boost shareholder value, now they would be cash-poor when a crisis arises? Who could possibly have known?

Not one more penny in corporate bailouts. Put the money into taxpayers' hands in the form of moratoriums on rent, mortgage, tax, and utility payments. Sort out the rest later.

The usual suspects are using this crisis to continue their program of taking money from you and me and giving it to the 1%. It has to be stopped.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[ehrnst]

9. Why do you think that Sanders and Warren both voted yes for it?

[Steve.in.AZ]

10. Maybe because they feared the political consequences of voting no?

Here's what Bernie said yesterday:

In my view, it would be an outrage to prevent working-class Americans to receive the emergency unemployment assistance included in this legislation. Unless these Republican Senators drop their objections, I am prepared to put a hold on this bill until stronger conditions are imposed on the $500 billion corporate welfare fund to make sure that any corporation receiving financial assistance under this legislation does not lay off workers, cut wages or benefits, ship jobs overseas, or pay workers poverty wages.

I have to suppose he felt that the changes agreed to before the vote were either (a) sufficient or (b) the best they were going to get, given the Republican majority. I suspect (b). Given all that, it becomes mighty difficult to vote no without being seen as opposing help for beleaguered families.

And here's what Warren said:

I won’t block vital aid but tomorrow we get back up and continue the fight. And I make you this promise: I will spend every waking moment watching the Trump Administration and do everything I can to hold it accountable for how it spends this $450 billion taxpayer fund.

But the price of action during a health crisis shouldn’t be a $450 billion Trump Administration fund that could be used to boost favored corporations. I fought for more oversight & restrictions on this fund. We got some limits, but they are short of what’s needed.

Her statement clearly indicates (b).

Apparently they both feel that standing on principle would be unwise at this point. I respect that opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

[ehrnst]

11. Why would Warren fear the political consequences of voting no?

[Steve.in.AZ]

12. Perception...

I don't know. As I said in the previous post when I quoted her, there are other possibilities and calculations. She said straight out that she wasn't happy with the bill and yet voted for it anyway. My point is that it could have been overhauled much more comprehensively rather than basically tweaking the Republican framework.

I don't know why they felt they had to rush it through without pausing to look at better alternatives. I just know it all feels rushed and wrong.

Why do you think Sanders and Warren voted yes?

[ehrnst]

13. "it could have been overhauled much more comprehensively rather than basically tweaking

the Republican framework."

So why do you assume that Sanders just "rushed it through without pausing to look at better alternatives?"

Why do you think Sanders and Warren voted yes?

Because there were no actual alternatives, and people need actual help now rather than purity tests. I was disappointed to hear that Sanders did not bother to vote on the first draft when he actually could have.

Why do you assume that there were actual better alternatives? Have you served in the Senate?

Why do you have such a low opinion of Sanders and Warren (and any other Democrats who voted for the bill) to assume that they refused better alternatives for the public that were available?

Can you also specify what those alternatives were?

[Steve.in.AZ]

14. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Sorry, but I'm not going to continue. nt

[ehrnst]

15. Can't answer the questions? That's sad.

I simply clarified the actual implications of your statements.

If you don't have the ability to back them up, why are you on a Democratic Party discussion board?

You say the bill "feels" rushed and wrong... but you can't - or won't - say why. That doesn't bode well for a politician, does it?