(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-...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/fact...887487002/

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.