(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 05:18 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 04:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-06-2021 09:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I mean... the huge difference is that Biden was complimenting Indian-Americans and Trump was doing the opposite.

You just articulated very clearly EXACTLY what I was speaking about.

You are repeating something that is absolutely not true.

Trump was NOT insulting Mexican AMERICANS. That is absolutely not true. That is precisely my point and you just admitted the disconnect in the comparison.

He was insulting people who WERE NOT Americans, who were not even necessarily MEXICAN nationals or even Hispanic. He was insulting people who were BREAKING OUR LAWS to come to this country, to ILLEGALLY take jobs, who create an almost permanent under-class AND encourage a criminal or abusive employment element against them (that often spreads to others) because they live in the shadows and away from the protection of our laws. Trump didn't say it very well, like Biden didn't... but while certainly there are racists who simply don't like Mexicans, the OVERWHELMING majority of those who supported his comments and laws. NOT ONE law was passed or proposed that targeted Mexican AMERICANS.

EVen as far as illegal immigration goes, Its like the left is saying they're okay with people breaking in to a closed store because the products in the store are better than what they have at home. YOu would likely argue that they face starvation, danger etc etc at home, and that MAY or may not be true. If its True, then that should submit their plight to the authorities, be vetted, registered and PROTECTED by our laws.. and not targets of internal AND external predators.... and just as important, NOW THE US CAN PRESSURE THEIR HOME NATIONS WITH FACTS AND PEOPLE and not merely statistical analysis and anecdotes. We would have actual CASE FILES to take to (say) Mexico and say... We believe the Police Chief in THIS city named 'whatever his name is' is exploiting people in his town. Here is our witness. FIX IT, and then that person can decide if they want to return home to a now safe location, or if they want to stay here.

BUT... Instead the left wants to mis-represent Trump's position, and call anyone who supports his position a racist, and create division and conflict, often ARMED conflict and the APPEARANCE of racial division (which only ENCOURAGES actual racists) when NO SUCH RACIAL DIVISION EXISTS.

There are LOTS of Democrats or those who would vote Democrat but didn't who do not support people entering this country illegally. LOTS of them. LOts of them are immigrants/people of 'other' races. There are lots of HIspanic Americans who do NOT support illegal immigration.

There are thread pages and pages long on this forum where the left has repeatedly ignored the word 'illegal' when talking about 'immigrants'. Those are NOT the same people.

Bravo. Very well said and totally on point.

My Hispanic cousins who worked in law enforcement, including the Border Patrol, would agree. None of them support ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Much of what the left says about immigration, legal and illegal, is based on racist stereotypes.

And interestingly, I think the left is reflexively in favor of increased immigration (legal and illegal) because they (racistly) assume anyone "brown" will vote Democrat in perpetuity no matter what. But they are ignoring the canary in the coal mine: Trump -- a man who could not have been less adept at courting the Hispanic vote -- *gained* 8 to 9 points among Hispanics in 2020, and also gained significantly with African-Americans and Asian Americans while allegedly being virulently racist toward all 3 groups. Are they asking themselves how that could possibly have happened? They should be.

And the answer (to my mind) is not because of anything Trump did/said, but because minorities -- and by extension immigrants -- are also more religious and more conservative than the increasingly white, urban, college-educated (and increasingly detached, insufferable, hectoring, and joyless) Democratic Party appreciates. The data is screaming that there is a limit to the amount of leftist nonsense previously solidly-Democratic minority voters will tolerate, and the Democrats have blown past that stop sign. They should be very afraid of what a minimally competent Republican Party could achieve, which I for one am looking forward to finding out.

What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

Do you honestly believe in the opposite, that conservatives are reflexively in opposition to immigration for the same reason?

(03-07-2021 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 05:18 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 04:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You just articulated very clearly EXACTLY what I was speaking about.

You are repeating something that is absolutely not true.

Trump was NOT insulting Mexican AMERICANS. That is absolutely not true. That is precisely my point and you just admitted the disconnect in the comparison.

He was insulting people who WERE NOT Americans, who were not even necessarily MEXICAN nationals or even Hispanic. He was insulting people who were BREAKING OUR LAWS to come to this country, to ILLEGALLY take jobs, who create an almost permanent under-class AND encourage a criminal or abusive employment element against them (that often spreads to others) because they live in the shadows and away from the protection of our laws. Trump didn't say it very well, like Biden didn't... but while certainly there are racists who simply don't like Mexicans, the OVERWHELMING majority of those who supported his comments and laws. NOT ONE law was passed or proposed that targeted Mexican AMERICANS.

EVen as far as illegal immigration goes, Its like the left is saying they're okay with people breaking in to a closed store because the products in the store are better than what they have at home. YOu would likely argue that they face starvation, danger etc etc at home, and that MAY or may not be true. If its True, then that should submit their plight to the authorities, be vetted, registered and PROTECTED by our laws.. and not targets of internal AND external predators.... and just as important, NOW THE US CAN PRESSURE THEIR HOME NATIONS WITH FACTS AND PEOPLE and not merely statistical analysis and anecdotes. We would have actual CASE FILES to take to (say) Mexico and say... We believe the Police Chief in THIS city named 'whatever his name is' is exploiting people in his town. Here is our witness. FIX IT, and then that person can decide if they want to return home to a now safe location, or if they want to stay here.

BUT... Instead the left wants to mis-represent Trump's position, and call anyone who supports his position a racist, and create division and conflict, often ARMED conflict and the APPEARANCE of racial division (which only ENCOURAGES actual racists) when NO SUCH RACIAL DIVISION EXISTS.

There are LOTS of Democrats or those who would vote Democrat but didn't who do not support people entering this country illegally. LOTS of them. LOts of them are immigrants/people of 'other' races. There are lots of HIspanic Americans who do NOT support illegal immigration.

There are thread pages and pages long on this forum where the left has repeatedly ignored the word 'illegal' when talking about 'immigrants'. Those are NOT the same people.

Bravo. Very well said and totally on point.

My Hispanic cousins who worked in law enforcement, including the Border Patrol, would agree. None of them support ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Much of what the left says about immigration, legal and illegal, is based on racist stereotypes.

And interestingly, I think the left is reflexively in favor of increased immigration (legal and illegal) because they (racistly) assume anyone "brown" will vote Democrat in perpetuity no matter what. But they are ignoring the canary in the coal mine: Trump -- a man who could not have been less adept at courting the Hispanic vote -- *gained* 8 to 9 points among Hispanics in 2020, and also gained significantly with African-Americans and Asian Americans while allegedly being virulently racist toward all 3 groups. Are they asking themselves how that could possibly have happened? They should be.

And the answer (to my mind) is not because of anything Trump did/said, but because minorities -- and by extension immigrants -- are also more religious and more conservative than the increasingly white, urban, college-educated (and increasingly detached, insufferable, hectoring, and joyless) Democratic Party appreciates. The data is screaming that there is a limit to the amount of leftist nonsense previously solidly-Democratic minority voters will tolerate, and the Democrats have blown past that stop sign. They should be very afraid of what a minimally competent Republican Party could achieve, which I for one am looking forward to finding out.

What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

Do you honestly believe in the opposite, that conservatives are reflexively in opposition to immigration for the same reason?

Your stereotypes are showing.

But, for discussion's sake, maybe you could start by telling me WHY Democrats/liberals/the left believe that immigrating to the US should be easier? Why do YOU think immigrating to the US should be easy or easier?

(03-07-2021 09:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 09:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 05:18 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 04:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Bravo. Very well said and totally on point.

My Hispanic cousins who worked in law enforcement, including the Border Patrol, would agree. None of them support ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Much of what the left says about immigration, legal and illegal, is based on racist stereotypes.

And interestingly, I think the left is reflexively in favor of increased immigration (legal and illegal) because they (racistly) assume anyone "brown" will vote Democrat in perpetuity no matter what. But they are ignoring the canary in the coal mine: Trump -- a man who could not have been less adept at courting the Hispanic vote -- *gained* 8 to 9 points among Hispanics in 2020, and also gained significantly with African-Americans and Asian Americans while allegedly being virulently racist toward all 3 groups. Are they asking themselves how that could possibly have happened? They should be.

And the answer (to my mind) is not because of anything Trump did/said, but because minorities -- and by extension immigrants -- are also more religious and more conservative than the increasingly white, urban, college-educated (and increasingly detached, insufferable, hectoring, and joyless) Democratic Party appreciates. The data is screaming that there is a limit to the amount of leftist nonsense previously solidly-Democratic minority voters will tolerate, and the Democrats have blown past that stop sign. They should be very afraid of what a minimally competent Republican Party could achieve, which I for one am looking forward to finding out.

What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

Do you honestly believe in the opposite, that conservatives are reflexively in opposition to immigration for the same reason?

Your stereotypes are showing.

But, for discussion's sake, maybe you could start by telling me WHY Democrats/liberals/the left believe that immigrating to the US should be easier? Why do YOU think immigrating to the US should be easy or easier?

My biases are showing? What about the person that said the only reason I support an easier immigration pathway is for voters?

I've explained my views on immigration many times - it's obviously not stuck so I've got no desire to try and waste my time again. In short, it boils down to the shining beacon on the hill and my general opinion that making certain things easier brings activities out of the dark and into the light (see: drug decriminalization).

(03-08-2021 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  $1.9 trillion is costing each American citizen $5757 on average.

$1.9 trillion is costing each person who pays Federal income tax over $13,000 per actual taxpaying taxpayer on average.

But sure, celebrate $1400 checks.

Gotta love the progressive tour de force there.

(03-09-2021 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  as 'huge' as the $1400 per person number seems, consider that this total only makes up about 25% of the overall bill.

(03-09-2021 10:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  as 'huge' as the $1400 per person number seems, consider that this total only makes up about 25% of the overall bill.

I thought the up to15 weeks of paid leave for Federal workers who have kids who arent going to school was pretty eye-opening.

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

(03-09-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

From your link:

"The bungled 9% figure may have been a misunderstanding of the money tied to direct COVID-19 intervention.

About 8.5% of the $1.9 trillion, at most, goes to direct containment measures such as vaccines and testing. The total is somewhere between $100 billion and $160 billion, depending on whether one includes items like $10 billion in medical supplies and $24 billion in child care for essential workers, as the White House does in arriving at the larger figure."

How does this make my comment about depending on definitions "total bunk"?

Sheesh. try to be fair...

(03-09-2021 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

From your link:

"The bungled 9% figure may have been a misunderstanding of the money tied to direct COVID-19 intervention.

About 8.5% of the $1.9 trillion, at most, goes to direct containment measures such as vaccines and testing. The total is somewhere between $100 billion and $160 billion, depending on whether one includes items like $10 billion in medical supplies and $24 billion in child care for essential workers, as the White House does in arriving at the larger figure."

How does this make my comment about depending on definitions "total bunk"?

Sheesh. try to be fair...

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

(03-09-2021 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

From your link:

"The bungled 9% figure may have been a misunderstanding of the money tied to direct COVID-19 intervention.

About 8.5% of the $1.9 trillion, at most, goes to direct containment measures such as vaccines and testing. The total is somewhere between $100 billion and $160 billion, depending on whether one includes items like $10 billion in medical supplies and $24 billion in child care for essential workers, as the White House does in arriving at the larger figure."

How does this make my comment about depending on definitions "total bunk"?

Sheesh. try to be fair...

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

Im sure all the money for blue state pension bailout is also somehow COVID-related. Funny thing is, Senator Bill Haggerty (R-Tenn.) said: “Just to show you how bad this bill is, there’s more money in this to bail out union pension funds than all the money combined for vaccine distribution and testing,”.


The simple fact, regardless of the specific %, is that a staggering amount of this **** bill is *not* COVID related, except with a massive stretch of a definition. But, progressives gotta be progressives -- 15 weeks paid leave, bailout of state pensions, blahbitty blah blah blah.

I mean, these shittards tried to make a 15 dollar minimum wage 'COVID related'......

(03-09-2021 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

I hope I attributed this correctly.

It is absolutely true that many Democrats (as well as many Republicans) support the idea that America is the land of opportunity and a place that should welcome more immigrants.

I am one of them... but I am a pragmatist.

We don't have many highly educated/high earners crossing our southern border illegally... nor do we have them living 'in the shadows' for long. They much more often come here with skills and education and overstay their visa. They work below their capabilities, but well above the unskilled 'day laborer' making $5-8/hr. A skilled illegal carpenter can easily make $20/hr. They integrate well into the communities and often eventually use their children or spouse's citizenship to make a better life for themselves.

The uneducated/unskilled illegal alien is therefore a massive expense to education, a massive criminal risk (as a criminal OR especially a victim), potentially a drag to some community standards and with some regularity (especially if they are older) VERY limited potential for upward mobility within the payroll structure, which depresses wages for everyone else near the bottom of the pay scale.

I'm perfectly okay with helping these people; not all are but I am... for me, the problem is that we don't know who they are or what they need. We get called racists if we do something like suggest that its better to teach them 'educational English' first as opposed to teaching them in their native languages... or that we place them in 'skill' rather than 'age' appropriate settings. Separate IS inherently unequal... but the whole purpose of 'separate' in this sense is to fill the gap. We would/should do the same if someone were home schooled and wanted to go to public schools. We should test that person in English and place them in 'skill level' appropriate classes.

People can disagree with my thoughts above, but those thoughts aren't based on race or racism. They are based on leveling (as much as possible) the playing field in order for everyone to progress as opposed to simply lowering the bar for everyone. Kids who don't go to k-3 are almost always going to be behind those who do... but by 5th or 6th grade, the differences could be immaterial.... and one bilingual teacher can teach 20 students, but it might take a bilingual math teacher and a bilingual english teacher and a bilingual science teacher etc etc etc to teach those same 20 students 'each' class.

It's also true though that some Republicans don't want those foreigners here... some are as much against the white ones as any other race... AND it is true that some Democrats (especially those who work in party strategy) mostly care about the political leanings of that group.

Said differently, The people who vote straight ticket regardless of issues/people likely care more about party than people. Those who consider issues/people, even if they almost always end up voting in one direction are more likely to be 'mixed' on the issue.

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

The 1400 are 25% of the bill. They aren't 100% necessarily Covid related. For people out of work or facing price increases as a result of COVID, they are... but not every family earning <150k is experiencing that.

Is all of the 519byn for schools covid related? I'm betting there are some debatable (at best) portions of that number.

I'm not really arguing whether it is 5 or 9%... I'm saying that it depends on how you define 'covid related'. Even the $1400 per person and the extension of unemployment benefits isn't necessarily 100% Covid related. SOME people were unemployed before COVID hit.

(03-09-2021 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

I hope I attributed this correctly.

It is absolutely true that many Democrats (as well as many Republicans) support the idea that America is the land of opportunity and a place that should welcome more immigrants.

I am one of them... but I am a pragmatist.

We don't have many highly educated/high earners crossing our southern border illegally... nor do we have them living 'in the shadows' for long. They much more often come here with skills and education and overstay their visa. They work below their capabilities, but well above the unskilled 'day laborer' making $5-8/hr. A skilled illegal carpenter can easily make $20/hr. They integrate well into the communities and often eventually use their children or spouse's citizenship to make a better life for themselves.

The uneducated/unskilled illegal alien is therefore a massive expense to education, a massive criminal risk (as a criminal OR especially a victim), potentially a drag to some community standards and with some regularity (especially if they are older) VERY limited potential for upward mobility within the payroll structure, which depresses wages for everyone else near the bottom of the pay scale.

I'm perfectly okay with helping these people; not all are but I am... for me, the problem is that we don't know who they are or what they need. We get called racists if we do something like suggest that its better to teach them 'educational English' first as opposed to teaching them in their native languages... or that we place them in 'skill' rather than 'age' appropriate settings. Separate IS inherently unequal... but the whole purpose of 'separate' in this sense is to fill the gap. We would/should do the same if someone were home schooled and wanted to go to public schools. We should test that person in English and place them in 'skill level' appropriate classes.

People can disagree with my thoughts above, but those thoughts aren't based on race or racism. They are based on leveling (as much as possible) the playing field in order for everyone to progress as opposed to simply lowering the bar for everyone. Kids who don't go to k-3 are almost always going to be behind those who do... but by 5th or 6th grade, the differences could be immaterial.... and one bilingual teacher can teach 20 students, but it might take a bilingual math teacher and a bilingual english teacher and a bilingual science teacher etc etc etc to teach those same 20 students 'each' class.

It's also true though that some Republicans don't want those foreigners here... some are as much against the white ones as any other race... AND it is true that some Democrats (especially those who work in party strategy) mostly care about the political leanings of that group.

Said differently, The people who vote straight ticket regardless of issues/people likely care more about party than people. Those who consider issues/people, even if they almost always end up voting in one direction are more likely to be 'mixed' on the issue.

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-relief-bill-is-mostly-a-expensive-bundle-of-politically-motivated-giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

The 1400 are 25% of the bill. They aren't 100% necessarily Covid related. For people out of work or facing price increases as a result of COVID, they are... but not every family earning <150k is experiencing that.

Is all of the 519byn for schools covid related? I'm betting there are some debatable (at best) portions of that number.

I'm not really arguing whether it is 5 or 9%... I'm saying that it depends on how you define 'covid related'. Even the $1400 per person and the extension of unemployment benefits isn't necessarily 100% Covid related. SOME people were unemployed before COVID hit.

To the last, while you may not be saying that, two other posters did argue specific percentages.

Go ahead and debate the merits of the bill, whether it was too big, too small, not focused on X, Y, or Z. But don't make disingenuous arguments about how related to COVID-19 the bill is, when you need to make some hair splittingly silly (or illogical) distinctions to make the narrative work. The two previous posters did just that.

(03-09-2021 01:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/02/fact-check-breaking-down-spending-covid-19-relief-bill/6887487002/

From your link:

"The bungled 9% figure may have been a misunderstanding of the money tied to direct COVID-19 intervention.

About 8.5% of the $1.9 trillion, at most, goes to direct containment measures such as vaccines and testing. The total is somewhere between $100 billion and $160 billion, depending on whether one includes items like $10 billion in medical supplies and $24 billion in child care for essential workers, as the White House does in arriving at the larger figure."

How does this make my comment about depending on definitions "total bunk"?

Sheesh. try to be fair...

"only 9% of the bill was Covid related"

Are you arguing the $1,400 checks are not "COVID related"?

Im sure all the money for blue state pension bailout is also somehow COVID-related. Funny thing is, Senator Bill Haggerty (R-Tenn.) said: “Just to show you how bad this bill is, there’s more money in this to bail out union pension funds than all the money combined for vaccine distribution and testing,”.


The simple fact, regardless of the specific %, is that a staggering amount of this **** bill is *not* COVID related, except with a massive stretch of a definition. But, progressives gotta be progressives -- 15 weeks paid leave, bailout of state pensions, blahbitty blah blah blah.

I mean, these shittards tried to make a 15 dollar minimum wage 'COVID related'......

The whole point of the bill isn't to solely fund distribution and vaccines - we're doing a good job of that.

It's to offer RELIEF from the impacts of COVID-19. It's called the COVID-19 Relief Bill, after all. Not the COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution and Testing Bill.

Yes, the $15 minimum wage was NOT related to COVID-19 relief. And I bet there are other items not related to COVID-19 relief.

But it's clearly disingenuous to argue that only 5% of the bill is related to COVID-19 relief. That would mean that you have to argue that the $1,400 relief checks aren't related to COVID-19 relief. Or that all of the state aid isn't, and so on.