(04-24-2020 12:59 PM)mrbig Wrote: (04-23-2020 02:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-23-2020 12:10 AM)mrbig Wrote: Worth remembering that the House Democrats wanted to include $500 billion for small business relief in the phase 3 stimulus while the Senate bill only included $300 billion. The compromise bill that became law included $350 billion (or $367 billion, I saw different amounts in different articles). I'm not advocating for the phase 3 house bill, just pointing this out. Why didn't Mitch or the White House push to include more back in March?
One guess would be because of Nancy's demands of everything under the sun at that time. (student loan forgiveness, requirements relating to minorities on boards, airline carbon emissions, increased union bargaining power). That was discussed here at that time.
I don't think it makes sense that Mitch didn't add more SBA money to the Senate or the compromise bill because of the extraneous things included in Speaker Pelosi's bill. I also don't think it makes sense that Donald or Mick wouldn't negotiate for more SBA money because of Speaker Pelosi's inclusion of those other items. If Mitch, Mick, or Donald had wanted more, they could easily have included up to the $500 billion Speaker Pelosi pushed for. They didn't, so they negotiated a lower compromise then the full amount pushed for by the House. And if they had gone with Speaker Pelosi's request for the SBA, the SBA wouldn't have run out of money as quickly and the heartache/heartbreak would have been prevented. But keep blaming her exclusively all you want if it makes you feel better. We all need to vent sometimes.
You overlook that the singular person with the power to pull the House out of recess was one person. Who steadfastly refused to do so for 21 days.
You also steadfastly overlook that even the initial CARE act was fairly 'goodies free' -- that is until Queen Nancy deemed that bringing the members back was off the table after stomping the beejesus (does that term make me anti-science?) out of the intra-party Senate agreements in order to preen in front of her smorgasborg Clyburn-esque bill.
So yes, one 'exclusive' person wielded the power to even convene -- and she used that 'exclusive' power in order to promote a bill laden with wet-dream liberal agenda items that had zero to do with the subject matter.
Not 'venting' as you note -- stating facts above. Given that the person who has that exclusive set of powers, and wields or refuses to use that exclusive power in an amazingly and explicitly agenda driven manner, am am pretty comfortable about noting those actions and inactions and explicit demands in a fairly exclusive manner.
Had the Speaker position been one of not of exclusive powers, but one of consensus and committee, your comment above might have some bearing. But the facts of how the position works, and how Stretch exercised them, and what Stretch demanded as a quid pro quo to exercise them in a timely manner kind of cuts directly against your complaint of my target.
Come back to me with some facts on how Nancy does not have these exclusive powers, or did not use those exclusive powers, or did not try (twice) to elevate a fairly naked bill into an agenda-driven goodie bag, your complaint about me horrendously venting exclusively on Stretch might be valid.
But, I see nothing above but a surfical scolding complaint that 'if it makes me feel better'. Please do tell us *where* the heck Nancy in any way, shape, or form did not fight a naked bill, let alone a naked bill that everyone knew was necessary, let alone in order to fill her progressive agenda pinata full up. When you do that your 'scold' to me above might have some validity. Strangely I dont see that in your offering.
Or, for that matter in the alternative, can you please denote any purely agenda-based proposals put forward by McConnell in the bills? If you can laser us in to the restrictions on abortions, any across the board tax breaks, the pro-gun rights sections of the bills, for example, I would say your scold would be on point. Again, I cant discern any of the hidden easter eggs, that is, like the ones Pelosi embedded into her demands to move forward against relatively clean, very targeted bills.
Maybe you think the 500 billion loaded with a metric ton of agenda-driven items is called for --- I dont. The 500 billion (or the added 150 billion) was clearly tied to all the agenda based **** she mixed into her stew. It is like you dont even see that extra stuff in there, or her use of her exclusive powers in her unique position.
In short, the bare bones 300 million wouldnt do it for her at first -- she delayed and insisted on her agenda easter eggs. Killed *that* portion by 12 days. In the next round, again a clean bill was a no go for her, and again she poleaxed the process for another 20-ish days to ostensibly get another passle of her agenda-based easter eggs baked in.
I'll be honest, I forgot what it means since I looked it up a few months ago and don't feel like looking it up right now. But your vocabulary is impressive.
I'm sure if she looked super old and wrinkly that you would totally have nothing bad to say about her looks. From Kamala the Slut to Stephanie the Hut to mocking the speaker of the house's plastic surgery, you and 69/70/75 seem to have some issues. Bravo to OO and the conservatives who haven't demeaned women in these ways for non-substantive reasons.
![[Image: clorox-chewables.jpg]](https://thefunnybeaver.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/clorox-chewables.jpg)