And THE shining example that nothing is too high nor too far when it comes to politicking a crisis.
And as such, can and will be staunchly defended by people willing to excuse anyone as long as it comes from their “SIDE”
Okay. Choose one or two of the things you think are most egregious, post links to nonpartisan news sources, and let’s talk. No Gish Gallops.
Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where facilitating vote-by-mail has no relationship to curtailing the spread of contagion.
That’s the problem with these kinds of discussions on the SDMB. Packing the bill with all kinds of liberal wish list items is just horse-trading when done by Democrats, but politicizing the crisis when done by the GOP. Because the SDMB would like to see limits on CEO pay whether COVID-19 is a thing or not - if they can get it thru now, great, if not, they can scream about how the GOP is playing politics with people’s LIVES!!! $400 billion for corporations is horrible, keeping the Kennedy art center open is a laudable commitment to fighting unemployment.
IOKIADDI.
Regards,
Shodan
I have no problem with limits on CEO pay - it’s relevant since the relief money ought to go to low-level employees, not high-ranking executives; spreads the relief better around that way.
But the parts about airlines limiting carbon emissions isn’t going to help the economy, if anything, it’ll hamper it.
You’re right if we accept the view of, ‘All these things being equal’. But they’re not. So you’re wrong.
So post about that, and people will discuss it. You started with the voting stuff, so people pointed out how it’s obviously relevant. Don’t put “and some other things besides” and then say the real bad stuff is what you meant by the “besides” in the OP.
Are you serious? $400 billion dollars is not equivalent to $35 million dollars.
$400 billion dollars to unnamed companies for unnamed purposes overseen by nobody except the Secretary of the Treasury is not equivalent to $35 million for a specific foundation for a specific purpose.
The only things I find remotely questionable about the House Democrats bill (which is, obviously, not even real legislation since there is literally no way they could even vote on it) is the climate stuff. Which is a laudable goal but clearly a non-starter with this administration.
It’s pretty clear that the whole point of releasing the bill was (a) keep the left happy that their causes were being pursued (and would continue to be pursued after the 2020 elections) and (b) encourage/force the Senate GOP to add tighter oversight and restrictions on the corporate loan guarantees (restrictions like not using them for stock buybacks and dividends, which were supposed to be in the bill but got removed based on what I’m reading).
Executive pay limits were in the initial GOP bill, so casting it as a Democratic addition is misleading as hell (cite: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/19/coronavirus-bailout-senate-gop-bill-caps-executive-salaries-at-425000.html)
Please look up and tell us what color the sky is on the planet where funding performing arts HAS a relationship with curtailing the spread of contagion.
Isn’t that the same argument that was used by the automobile industry when asked to comply with new CAFE standards? Correct me if I’m wrong, but lower carbon emissions requirements were part of the 2009 auto industry bailout package and they accepted it and appear to have done quite well.
The arts disproportionately suffer from quarantine conditions because the arts support themselves by people viewing them.
They deserve a bail-out as much as the other industries.
Do you disagree?
It’s a “Coronavirus Stimulus Package” bill. Primarily it is meant to support the economic impact of the pandemic on those most economically affected. Travel, leisure, arts are among the industries most heavily hit. Having realized this, I assume you don’t have continued objections to museum and theater staff, for example, receiving financial aid.
Requires states to mail all eligible citizens an absentee ballot and forbids states from requesting identification or requiring witnesses/notarization for absentee ballots (only signatures may be used).
Yes, this does have a relation to the spread of the disease, since you dont have to go to a voting center and help spread Covid to vote.
And if you need to get a witness or notary, that’s one more person you are in contact with.
However, Coronavirus Pandemic: Senate GOP Aid Bill Doesn't Help American Workers - Business Insider
And, of course, in Senate Republicans’ bill, big corporations get a huge tax cut. They would pay far less tax on their foreign entities. Making them bring cash home from abroad was one of the selling points of the 2017 GOP tax law. Corporate lobbyists have been working against it ever since. Now, in the middle of a crisis, they got it.
What does that have to do with virus relief?
You’re missing my point, which is that in the eyes of the SDMB these things are not equal.
Pushing for all kinds of things that have little or nothing to do with fighting COVID-19 is perfectly fine. Except when the other side does it, and then it is playing politics with lives and horrible and so on. But when the Democrats do it, it’s OK, because they are good things and should be passed no matter if the coronavirus is spreading or not.
You are correct - the SDMB does not accept the view that politicking is equally bad when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it. But that’s the point. You can’t say “don’t play politics with people’s lives” and then play politics with people’s lives.
Actually, you can on the SDMB, but in a morally consistent world, you couldn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
In your morally consistent point of view, which specific Democratic provisions in this bill do you view as having little or nothing to do with prevention of COVID-19?
Were I him, I would refuse to tell you, because if I did, you might disagree with me, which just goes to show that I’m right. Also usual suspects.
I’m feeling uncharacteristically agreeable, so my request stands.
How does increased paperwork about diversity prevent the spread of coronavirus?
Regards,
Shodan
Because we need the best people fighting the virus. If companies are discriminating based upon race, we don’t have the best people to fight the virus. Requiring more companies to be diverse means that we have the best people in place to better fight the virus. 
Not in any way that I can see. Strike it. See? Agreeable.
We’re good with funding including the Kennedy Center for the Arts tho, right?