If Pelosi brings the bill up for a vote using an accelerated process that requires two-thirds in the affirmative to pass, there is a good chance it will not pass.
Is this the only option or is there an alternative process that will not take much time but will only require a majority vote? Is Pelosi giving this bill the best chance of passing as well as passing quickly?
Are tRump, McConnell, and their Re-RatF*uck-lican buds gonna go for the $2.000 checks, I kinda doubt it.
It is simply beyond belief that a legislative body in what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world cannot pass a relief bill during a worldwide pandemic which would help its struggling citizens during a time of need. In countries which have universal health care, for example, conservative politicians know better to tamper with a system which has proven quite effective in helping their people. Now one would logically think that providing massive aid during a catastrophe to the working class and the poor would be a given and which would be something which our leaders would rally round because they understand that passing a bill which gives its citizens at least a $2,000 check would be something that they would eagerly want to do. And yet, shockingly, there is no sign that this legislation will easily pass in both the House and the Senate. And what will be just as surprising is that many people will end up voting for those same politicians next election who thought that giving financial relief to their constituents was somehow a bad idea.
America’s leaders such as Barack Obama love to boast how the United States is “exceptional.” Yes, it would certainly appear that the United States is quite exceptional in doing the wrong thing time and time again, as seen when they continually commit unwarranted acts of war, are unwilling to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, refuse to join with other countries in order to deal with climate change, etc.
So now they have to go back and try to negotiate again to get some REAL help to people and we all stress out and cross fingers that 2/3 of the pugs will go along?
Screw them all with a cactus.
The GOP just spent 7 months delaying and diluting widespread relief while making sure corporate welfare stayed at the top of their priority list. Why would they deviate from that path now ?
They don’t have time for the normal committee process. Republicans aren’t going to give her unanimous consent. So, Democrats are going to move the bill under “suspension” rules, which is when 2/3 members present agree to waive the rules to bring a bill forward. No amendments are allowed, it will be a “clean” bill. This is done all the time and shouldn’t be an issue with bills that have majority support. Given Republicans theoretically support the president’s proposal, it shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Otherwise, the bill has to go through the Rules committee and normal debate and amendment procedures, barring adoption of a “special” rule resolution by the committee that waives procedures. That rule itself would be debated on the floor, and the Committee isn’t scheduled to meet until after the new Congress is seated, January 3rd.
If the republicans in the Senate try to block this bill it may cost them in Georgia. If the $2k payment is passed then this was Trump’s best move yet. He not only made his own party look stingy but he also gave the Ds no other option but to get on board w/Trump. Of course, no stimulus Pelosi, “Biden won,” looks the fool now.
Yahoo: Pelosi says she supports a smaller coronavirus stimulus now because Biden won the election
Republicans have no incentive whatsoever to give any stimulus at all to American citizens.
They’ve already gotten everything they wanted. Done deal. Game over.
I’d like to start a weekly poker game with any 5 democratic reps… I could retire in a week.
…and at the end of the day the only thing americans hate more than a heartless. greedy, thieving, scumbag (republicans), is a lying, ineffectual cuck (democrats).
Thank you for the additional details.
Do you know if the CARES Act was passed this way OR did it go through the normal process? It passed with a lot of haste for good reason, but without much care to make sure the money was well spent - the money helped many in need, but the bill was rife with opportunities for exploitation and corruption as we are finding out.
The AOC-Tlaib bill is obviously much less complicated, dealing with one provision.
Catch that part where Dump wants the 'Puds to re-re-re-investigate the election?
$2000 bribe to be KING Loser.
Wake me when the elite (either party) starts talking seriously about $2000/ month. Anything else is just BS, manipulative, political theater
Yes, bring it up under a roll-call vote (this isn’t a “tax” vote so it doesn’t require 2/3 majority to pass) it only needs a simple majority to pass, and a record of every members vote will immediately be available to the voters.
EDIT Strike that, since this is a revision of an existing piece of legislation (because Trump signed the bill that has already passed both congressional houses) it will need 2/3 majority to pass, but as the original bill was signed with strong majorities in both House and Senate, and the President has pushed for $2k payments, there is reason to be hopeful that it should pass the House, and will have to see about the Senate.
The CARES Act passed via unanimous consent, a voice vote.* The original incarnation of the bill was not about Covid 19 and was sent to the Senate in 2019. The Senate took that bill, stripped it, and created a new bill. The House agreed to the Senate amendments by resolution (HR 748) via unanimous consent.
The bigger issue with the CARES Act, in my opinion, is how the Trump administration managed it. The Treasury took a loose regulatory disposition towards elements of the bill. That said, some progressives have made means testing kind of a bad thing lately, so it is interesting to see a different take when profitable companies get financial support. Arguably, tighter means tests could have limited Treasury’s flexibility and prevented some of the more controversial things that occurred.
“Democratic Socialism” = A one time flat payment of $2k and not even a vote on MFA.
Again, thank you for the additional information. A strange process for passage of legislation with both huge $$ amount and consequence. I guess a quick way to get something done?
So if I understand you correctly, the bill kind of originated in the Senate, with it taking up something that had already passed the House. But almost everything of consequence (and financially) was related to Covid relief. I wonder what was left from the original bill, as much of what was ultimately passed was only necessary due to Covid. What am I missing here? And I understand the Dems in the House added much of the money that went to regular people (e.g., enhanced unemployment bennies).
As for how the Trump admin administered the trillions allocated, every member of Congress knew who would get priority and where much of the money would go.
It’s not a simple matter of whether or not to means test. There are situations where means testing makes sense and situations where it does not. But putting in some provisions to prioritize or restrict access to stimulus/relief funds (not means testing) would have made sense to eliminate the possibility of some really blatant tax-payer rip offs. Money going to prop up fossil fuel companies who were already in trouble financially before covid (e.g., fracked gas companies) is a case in point.
“No Democrats will object,” said Schumer. “Will Senate Republicans?”
Shame on you Chuck for asking that question when you already know the answer!
Congress did actually put in oversight provisions. If you recall, the president issued a signing statement saying he would ignore some and work around others. The bill actually funded an IG to monitor expenditures by Treasury and an oversight board, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, to monitor implementation of the bill.
Also, the bill did tie some money to certain criteria. For example, one criteria for PPP loan forgiveness was retention of workers. Loans could be forgiven on the basis that businesses retained and showed their payroll receipts. Otherwise, businesses would not qualify for the forgiveness program and would have to start paying the loans back after a 10 month period.
Southwest Airlines lined up for enough dollars to payroll for one year, oh dear.
It is billions, my minions.
Cup of soup to citizens?
If congress was syncronized swimming, they would all have drowned 18 months ago.
Only thing Drumpf must get is, "gone."