(03-09-2021 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(03-09-2021 02:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 02:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So we have at least 600 - 700 billion of the COVID relief thingy as set asides for teacher's unions and state pension fund bailouts. Without even looking we have put into play at least over 1/3 of the bill as crapola detritus fairly unrelated to COVID.

I guess the CTC is fully COVID related as well. That is only 150-200 billion. So right now without really even scratching the main portions of the bill there are 850 billion to 900 billion in very questionable big ticket allocations with hardly much more than tenuous ties to COVID overall. 45%+ of the bill -- without much effort.

But lad gets mad when 9% or 5% is brought forth. I mean, well, hell, lets just completely ignore the 45% that is right there glaringly in the forefront as obviously 'piss poor'.

Great, not 9%, not 5%. But lad, we have implicated 45% of the bill *right off the fing bat* --- Hmmm, I guess that is no cause for concern.

Glad its not 9%. Still, even without trying or digging there is close to a trillion right then and there that is specious in a tie to COVID. But, how fing *dare* someone say 9%...... <slow clap>

What a gracious way to say you were wrong.

I'd prefer you answer the 45%. As opposed digging for those '9% is specious truffles' that are so horrible.

Are you good with 45% right off the bat?

You explicitly term '9%' as 'piss-poor', so where does the magic 'piss-poor' and 'non-piss-poor' line appear in lad world? Obviously somewhere between 45% and 91%..... how about 68.1%? (just north of the average....) or is that just 'sweat-poor'?

I repeat, "Go ahead and debate the merits of the bill, whether it was too big, too small, not focused on X, Y, or Z."

That didnt answer the question there lad. Where is the line between 'piss poor' and something not 'piss poor'? Your repetition of your comment is a non-answer. Funny that.

It's like pornography - you know it when you see it. By the way, "piss poor" were your words, not mine. So please stop trying to attribute that to me and imply I said it.

Arguing that only 9% of the bill was COVID related (as OO did) and then following it up by saying you had seen 5% (when the article specifically said that the 5% was specifically related to public health funding) seems to me, to be a pretty piss poor (now I am using this word) evaluation of how much funding is related to COVID-19.

This back and forth has run its course - my position is pretty clear. Describing the relief bill as only being 9% or 5% related to COVID-19 is a disingenuous description of the relief package. Criticize its makeup all you want, but it's clearly more than 9% related to COVID-19.