Congressional Stimulus Talks Stall... - Page 2 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Republicans don’t have the power to say its 1 trillion or nothing. McSally, Gardener etc are desperate to pass something even if it’s more than 2 trillion. Trump also is too weak politically and in general, to walk away from anything over 1T.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 09:51 PM

#27

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

Thing is, I bet the few Republicans who support this would go to 1.5T, which would be compromise.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:12 PM

#28

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

You think they going to get a deal at or above $2T? If I still gambled, I'd lay 3-1 against.

Hahahahaha. What an incredible goalpost shift.

"They should cave to the $1T offer because they are somewhat unlikely to get $2T or more."

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:25 PM

#29

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Hahahahaha. What an incredible goalpost shift.

"They should cave to the $1T offer because they are somewhat unlikely to get $2T or more."

I'm trying to understand your logic here. If I have lukewarm support with a a faction at $1T, what makes me think I can get a deal at $2T, which requires support from that group to get done?

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:31 PM

#30

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

I'm trying to understand your logic here. If I have lukewarm support with a a faction at $1T, what makes me think I can get a deal at $2T, which requires support from that group to get done?

No Dems support $1T, and as such, it does not represent a compromise. Not even a sufficient coalition of Republicans support $1T. There may be a handful of Republicans desperate enough to make a deal prior to the election that they end up supporting the $2T plan with minor concessions. Dems should let them sweat, not concede. It sounds like you think the Republican's preferred position is no bill, when that is plainly untrue. For some of them it is, but many want a deal.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:41 PM

#31

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

IHIV: "Why can't the Dems see that the bipartisan solution is just to give the GOP everything they want for nothing in return? Why are they being so partisan?"

Fast forward and despite a bunch of whining, turns out this post is exactly correct and it's apparently all Dems' fault for not agreeing to the $1T offer

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:49 PM

#32

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

No Dems support $1T, and as such, it does not represent a compromise.

Right, Democrats are not backing off any of their proposals, only the length.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Not even a sufficient coalition of Republicans support $1T. There may be a handful of Republicans desperate enough to make a deal prior to the election that they end up supporting the $2T plan with minor concessions. Dems should let them sweat, not concede. It sounds like you think the Republican's preferred position is no bill, when that is plainly untrue. For some of them it is, but many want a deal.

Yeah, a true partisan. "Let them sweat" with the hopes some get "desperate", meanwhile people could be getting $400 a week for unemployment and another check for $1200, and schools getting a cash infusion to help them reopen, but instead have nothing while Pelosi plays hardball trying to get student loans forgiven.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:51 PM

#33

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Right, Democrats are not backing off any of their proposals, only the length.

Yeah, a true partisan. "Let them sweat" with the hopes some get "desperate", meanwhile people could be getting $400 a week for unemployment and another check for $1200.

You literally just stated earlier how the dems have come down from their starting position by a trillion dollars.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:54 PM

#34

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Fast forward and despite a bunch of whining, turns out this post is exactly correct and it's apparently all Dems' fault for not agreeing to the $1T offer

It's Pelosi who did not want to peace meal this thing, and opposes a short-term extension of benefits.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 10:57 PM

#35

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

You literally just stated earlier how the dems have come down from their starting position by a trillion dollars.

What's your point? There is no deal at $2T, either. It's pretty much a take it or leave it with additional sweeteners added (increase in Unemployment benefit) And House Dem's left it.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:06 PM

#36

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

What's your point? There is no deal at $2T, either. It's pretty much a take it or leave it with additional sweeteners added (increase in Unemployment benefit) And House Dem's left it.

Which Republicans didn't leave it?

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:07 PM

#37

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

Have you ever gone car shopping and the salesman gave you a bottom line offer and you said no thanks and started to walk out?

Sometimes they let you walk out, but mostly they will start talking real fast. What Dem's are doing here is walking out of the shop. My bet is the R's cave eventually.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:09 PM

#38

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

It's Pelosi who did not want to peace meal this thing, and opposes a short-term extension of benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

What's your point? There is no deal at $2T, either. It's pretty much a take it or leave it with additional sweeteners added (increase in Unemployment benefit) And House Dem's left it.

Why is your default position that any deal that doesn't happen is Dems' fault?

You have two conflicting positions you've advanced ITT:
- People need help and should get it, and also,
- Dems should agree to the R's benefit-reducing plans.

Why is the R's plan by default the correct one, with the Dems at fault for not agreeing to it? (I mean, besides the obvious fact that you're a partisan who agrees with them?) Like, why is it automatically correct for Dems to say "you're right, wise Republicans, we should lower people's unemployment benefits in the middle of a national crisis"?

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:12 PM

#39

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

Because it's unpopular, or something. The Dems should not be doing popular things, like helping out with student loans, even when students are out of work during the pandemic and getting rekt by loans.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:13 PM

#40

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by EADGBE

Maybe. I don't think you grasp just how big $1T is, and how much good it can do. The balk from House Dems is based on wanting to include a huge amount for city governments. The differences they have with Republicans in regards to what people get are negligible. The stimulus check, unemployment, eviction moratorium are all pretty close to an agreement.

I don't think the R's are going to cave on a bailout of city governments.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:14 PM

#41

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

No, Republicans support suspending interest, etc. The issue is Pelosi wants to forgive debt, i.e. something that should be argued separate from an aide package.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:16 PM

#42

ecriture d'adulte

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 5,920

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Thing is, I bet the few Republicans who support this would go to 1.5T, which would be compromise.

Normally it would be up to the president to hammer our this compromise bill with Mcconnell and Pelosi but Trump is too incompetent. Makes sense to just wait for Trump to cave like with the shutdown.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:18 PM

#43

EADGBE

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 15,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Maybe. I don't think you grasp just how big $1T is, and how much good it can do. The balk from House Dems is based on wanting to include a huge amount for city governments. The differences they have with regards to what people get are negligible. The stimulus check, unemployment, eviction moratorium are all pretty close to an agreement.

I don't think the R's are going to cave on a bailout of city governments.

Yes, $1T is preferable to $0, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But $2T is also vastly preferable to $1T, if that extra $1T means tens (hundreds?) of thousands of municipal employees don't get the axe. Even if you are right, the $1T will still be there a month from now; take it or leave it does not necessarily imply an exploding offer.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:20 PM

#44

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

The idea there is a correct answer is stupid. I know people will get a $1200 check, and $400 for UI (on top of the state benefit), and all the other stuff both R's and D's agree on (student loan interest, eviction stuff). Those are tangible and good benefits that could be going to Americans.

That's not nothing, it's actually quite good, and way better than anything anyone got during the mortgage crisis, and the D's are holding out and preventing people from getting that. The issue is, $1T legitimately helps people.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:21 PM

#45

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

Amazing

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:22 PM

#46

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by EADGBE

By the same token, if the $1T is not enough, congress can always do another bill in the future (presumably with Biden installed as POTUS, and maybe even a D controlled Senate). I'm not buying the argument they have to hold out for the top dollar.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:36 PM

#47

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

If a trillion is not enough, then by your own admission, additional relief won't come until at least February. Surely you agree that if relief is desperately needed, waiting a week or two is better than waiting 6 months or more?

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:36 PM

#48

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

$3T helps people even more. Why should Dems come down instead of Rs go up? Not too long ago the R offer was something like $400 a month. Should Dems have caved and signed on to that? Why or why not?

Your argument here is just "I agree with the red team". It's as simple as that.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:41 PM

#49

itshotinvegas

banned

Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 7,899

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

I've explained it. You lose an already tepid voting bloc. There are already significant amount of no votes from Republicans at $1T. Once again, this is why the negotiation is occurring with House Democrats and not Senate Republicans. If you can't coax Republicans into a $1T bill, you are not going to coax them into a $2T bill. There are only a few Republicans who support a $1T bill, and that number gets smaller and smaller the higher it goes.

Quote

08-07-2020 , 11:43 PM

#50

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by itshotinvegas

I've explained it. You lose an already tepid voting bloc. There are already significant amount of no votes from Republicans at $1T. Once again, this is why this negotiation is occurring with House Democrats and not Senate Republicans.

Why is there no blame for Senate Rs being immovable and unreasonable?

Quote

Page 2 of 48

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 48

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22

Last