GOP blocks House Democrats' attempt to pass $2,000 stimulus checks

I always agree with voting against incumbents. But I don't control how people vote.

 

I think two things would help. Single term limits to elected offices and a line item veto. The first would reduce the motivation for pork and the second would act as a deterrent.

 

Who are "we?" People who vote for whom their friends and family tell them to vote or vote for the best looking candidate or the candidate with the prettiest speeches? Those are the "we?"

 

If people can be elected over and over then that isn't a limit. Why should I have to tell you that?

 

Well your post explains it pretty well The only part missing is paying twice a persons normal wage in UE compensation to not work. Come on tell me you wouldn't take more money to stay home then half that amount and go to work

 

So we failed 4 years ago and voted in a monster and we have failed along the way.

 

Nope. That's not the point. The point is that WE the People decide if a Rep, Senator or (gasp!) President stays or goes. In other words, the election results decide if a person is "term-limited" or not. Why should I have to tell that to you? Do discernment much?

That being said, were a term-limits law to be enacted, I would not necessarily be against it.

 

Why is that? You said we already have term limits.

 

Not sure what you're saying about "characteristics of socialism." I don't see Democrats or Republicans talking about collectivizing production, but there is plenty of money being made by rich folks and special interests.

 

"We" fail every time there is an election. We don't hold the cretins to account. There have been no monsters in the white house. That is silly talk.

 

That's about it.

 

He means government social spending. For some reason the political world has decided to call it socialism.

 

Any lie will do when the motivation is "more for me" even if it leaves a lot of folks without food on the table or a place to live.

 

It is the left that called it socialism. The right was just too partisan to see through it. It is way beyond an appropriate role for federal government to subsidize incomes for the public in my opinion. I agree with those that disapprove of social spending at the federal level.

 

Average tenure of house leaders is over 20 years. Those type of term limits don't work because people are to pragmatic to party line.

 

Matter of perspective. Anything that attempts to subvert the Constitution and lies constantly is indeed a monster.

I do agree with you that we fail to hold our elected officials to account regardless of which political party.

 

So you are saying that Obama was a monster as he didn't attempt, but actually did subvert the constitution.

 

You do realize that your statement is hypocritical? You are against dir3ect payments, but you want to know where your money is. Would be asking where your money is if the Democrats had been against it, and the Republicans have been for it? You are indicating that $2000 is enough to fuel your outrage, but $600 is not. It seems to take a lot to fuel your outrage. By the way, your math seems to be faulty. Unless your are not divorced and are claiming that you have 8 children of course. The $2000 stimulus proposed by the President and most Democrats entitles you to $500, not $2000, per child dependents. So, it would take 8 children to reach the $8000 that you are claiming. .

Me and my wife are on a fixed income. Yet, we are getting killed by rising prices, and additional costs of having needed grocery items. By ordering to have our groceries delivered it is costing a delivery fee and a tip for the driver. This has been going on for nearly a year. Because of limited storage space, and a constant problem of requested items being cut from the order, we are having to order about once a week. I have used the option to use the monthly set cost of delivery fee from Walmart and Food Lion, but that is still is an extreme rise is our budget. This month I had to actually go to two foodbanks to allow us to get through the month. So, either the $600 or $2000 would be appreciated.

You might be interested to know my prediction in all this. I believe that if the $600 payment is the end result of the DNC and GOP efforts, then the DNC will probably push for, and there is a good chance they will, get another Stimulus bill that would get an additional $2000 after Biden takes office. That is assuming that Biden takes Biden's actions tp heart instead of Obama's. If the GOP retains the Senate majority. Biden will be forced to negotiate with the GOP. There will be things during his 4 year term that the GOP would want. Biden could leverage those items against the $2000 payments that the GOP wants. That would increase what your family would get in stimulus payments over the next few months. So, (as the old saying goes) you are pushing to cutting off your nose in spite of your face.

 

I would. The stimulus should be for US Citizens only. If Pakistan wants to study Gender, they should pay for it themselves. If the study is designed to get Pakistan to change their policies as it stands on the subject of women and transgenders, then the expense is completely wasteful. The Pakistanis will not change it's policies, which is based on the Islamic faith, based on anything the US does.

 

IOW

 

,

Americans are far more likely to get the $2000.00 checks if the GOP loses the Senate.

 

I don't like either. Blindly throwing money (that we don't have) in the past has generally been a Dem strategy. The loans specifically directed to keep employees employed through the crisis makes sense. Going trillions more in debt is a terrible idea when the economy was recovering nicely before the next wave of government shutdowns hit.

 

Thanks for correcting me. I did mean social programs. I have been watching far too many GOP rallies where the term socialism is applied to government spending on citizens.

 

I am amazed by the DNC supporters being blindly against the Bush handing out Stimulus payments to offset the money lost by the Housing Bubble, but are blindly in favor of handing out $2000 payments vise $600.

I am a Trump supporter, but I find the whole thing hypocritical. It was President Trump that suggested the $600 payment vice $2000, but then delayed the signing of the current stimulus payment because of the payments being so low. At the same time, the DNC was against the Bush stimulus package that included $600 stimulus checks. For the record, the DNC position was based on the fact the Stimulus checks were not an effective way to boost the economy. Yet, now they claim that $600 payments are not enough. As I said, hypocrisy by both parties.

 

The stimulus package in 2008 was passed by bi-partisan support of 80% of both parties. I don't recall democrats saying $600 wasn't enough, only that they were disappointed that UE benefits weren't expanded.