3 ms·
No because they aren't corporate or bank bailouts. My notes (from early November) indicate that the bills are about 1/3 healthcare spending, 1/3 state and loca
by javert 6y ago
No because they aren't corporate or bank bailouts.
My notes (from early November) indicate that the bills are about 1/3 healthcare spending, 1/3 state and local government spending (i.e. "bailouts" of those governments), and 1/3 unemployment benefits. Not sure how accurate or up to date those notes are.
I would presume that corporate or bank bailouts would be separate bills that don't exist right now.
I could be wrong about any of this but my point is, what you think is obvious, isn't, so maybe we should be nice to one another.
> You could even lobby your Congressperson to improve that aspects and remove flexibility from the executive.
Why say something like that? I mean, you know it isn't true, and so does everybody else. Unless you think I, personally, am a huge bank? I'm genuinely curious why you think saying something like this helps. I mean, do you actually think a Congressman gives a shit about what a normal person says? They don't. For every 1 of me, there would be 1,000 demented idiots writing to them (who they also don't care about).
- matthewdgreen 6y agoWhat you're suggesting is that Congress could potentially pass new bills. And my point, going up to the top of the thread, is that Congress -- and not the Biden administration -- would be the one making this decision. You can get a flavor of what they might do by looking at their past decisions. What you're doing instead is hypothesizing without evidence that they'll do something that they have demonstrably not opted to do -- and also implying cynically that the partisan makeup and/or public pressure on Congress will not change the outcome. This despite the fact that we have months of Congressional action from both parties to examine, and none of it bears out your predictions.