6 ms·

It’s the pandemic that is tripping the scale and Congress refusing to do anything.

by sjg007 6y ago

RangerScience 6y ago
> Congress refusing to do anything. Senate. House has passed stimulus packages. IMO further delineation is deserved, but contentious, so I'll leave it at that.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Before the election the roles were reversed; it's not as black and white as you're letting on. https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-says-she-backs-smaller-stimulus-because-biden-won-rejecting-higher-offer-was-not-mistake-1552451 https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-says-she-backs-smaller-stimu...
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    The House passed the HEROES Act in mid May. The GOP Senate sat on it (and did nothing else either) for the past 7 months. Oh, except for a hearing pushing hydroxychloroquine in November, months after multiple studies had shown it ineffective, and a hearing promoting an anti-vaxer just last week. And I guess a bunch of hearings a few months ago wherein various GOP senators heaped ignorant abuse on public health officials. If your favorite small business goes under, if your local hospital collapses, if your town goes bankrupt, etc., the institutional GOP and its donors are to blame. We can all keep our fingers crossed for Georgia Senate runoffs, and for some real leadership come January.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      This is false. The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango. It was politically driven: Democrats were afraid of giving Trump a win. Perhaps it was good politics, since it seems to have worked. From Newsweek: "Despite a refusal for roughly the past six months to advance a smaller aid package that she deemed 'half a loaf,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now willing to support a bipartisan stimulus bill worth less than half her previous demand thanks to, in part, Joe Biden's victory.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango. It didn't pass it, unlike the House and HEROES. The Senate could have acted on the passed House bill. The House had no bill from the Senate to take up, since the Senate bill died in (Republican-led) committee. The House is the only one on the dance floor. And Nancy Pelosi may have opposed the Republican position in negotiations, but Nancy Pelosi has no control on what the Senate passes.
        nostromo 6y ago
        Passing a bill you know is dead on arrival is pointless. It's virtue signaling, which is what the house did. Suddenly, after the election, Pelosi is fine passing the same amount she opposed before the election as only half what was necessary. This isn't some right-wing talking point -- Bernie Sanders has sad as much. This was a political game. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-bernie-sanders-blame-democrats-for-stalling-covid-relief/ar-BB1bOL24 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-berni...
        jacobolus 6y ago
        If the GOP had been able to even get their own caucus to agree on a bill, they would have brought it to a vote. But they couldn’t. Putting even the milquetoast HEALS act up for a vote would have put some of their members in a conflicted spot trying to both appear to care about the crisis while still appeasing hard-liner donors/supporters. If the Senate had brought the HEROES Act as passed by the House to the floor, it might well have passed. But McConnell & friends didn’t want to see a relief bill passed, so they were satisfied to leave it off the agenda altogether.
        nostromo 6y ago
        If you think HEALS was milquetoast at $1.1T, you must be pretty upset that Pelosi has now agreed to pass a bill at $0.9T... after months of demanding no less than $3.0T. Gee, I wonder what happened in November for her to change her mind... I'll stop responding now; it's pretty clear a number of folks on HN think that only one party can play political games and this has gotten trite.
FnControlOption 6y ago
It’s scary that civil unrest might be exactly what the Republican party wants.
- RIMR 6y ago
  They've been pretty direct about that these past couple of weeks.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense. Perhaps because the GOP literally called[0] for that? Just a crazy thought. [0] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if-followers-willing-to-give-their-life-to-stop-the-steal https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if...
- e40 6y ago
  This is exactly what worries me. Unrest is used to energize their base and do crazier and crazier things.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  What a nonsensical comment.
defterGoose 6y ago
That's a comforting line of reasoning, albeit a fantastic one. It's much closer to a straw/camel's back situation in my estimation.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Oh I agree with you. This all started in the 1970s with union busting etc... the average American earnings should be 50% higher today than they are.
just-juan-post 6y ago
I'm still shocked that people beleive this. Well I'm not - It has been a reinforced Democratic talking point for months now. Why should the federal government bail out state governments when the federal government had nothing to do with the state's actions? The state governors could choose to end lifestyle restrictions at any moment but choose not to. Why should the federal government pay for the choices of states and counties?
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  The state governors could choose to end lifestyle restrictions at any moment but choose not to. This is a gross misrepresentation that proves you have no interest in serious comment on this matter.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    Nah man that's just how I see it. How do you see it? Do you think it's impossible to remove the restrictions now? Let me hear your side.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Care will be rationed even more than it is now. More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. There will be a lot of death. So basically death, death and more death. This will disproportionally impact the poor and poor essential workers. And then everything will shutdown anyway because nobody will go out. We might get 1-2 months maybe 3 months.
      - just-juan-post 6y ago
        > Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. The problem is that the public has been hearing this for almost 9 months now and with the exception of a hospital or two it hasn't happened. You can only cry wolf so many times. > I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. Besides a few one off stories could you please provide HN readers with some links? > And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. They already are and do you know why? Because hospitals stopped doing "unessential" procedures for months and continue to do so. > Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Could you please share an article or three with HN readers where a single hospital has run out of PPE in the USA? > More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. If Covid is so powerful then why haven't tens of thousands of nurses and doctors died? They are exposed to do multiple times per day. Look forward to your reply!

It’s the pandemic that is tripping the scale and Congress refusing to do anything.

by sjg007 6y ago

It’s the pandemic that is tripping the scale and Congress refusing to do anything.

> Congress refusing to do anything. Senate. House has passed stimulus packages. IMO further delineation is deserved, but contentious, so I'll leave it at that.

nostromo 6y ago
Before the election the roles were reversed; it's not as black and white as you're letting on. https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-says-she-backs-smaller-stimulus-because-biden-won-rejecting-higher-offer-was-not-mistake-1552451 https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-says-she-backs-smaller-stimu...
- jacobolus 6y ago
  The House passed the HEROES Act in mid May. The GOP Senate sat on it (and did nothing else either) for the past 7 months. Oh, except for a hearing pushing hydroxychloroquine in November, months after multiple studies had shown it ineffective, and a hearing promoting an anti-vaxer just last week. And I guess a bunch of hearings a few months ago wherein various GOP senators heaped ignorant abuse on public health officials. If your favorite small business goes under, if your local hospital collapses, if your town goes bankrupt, etc., the institutional GOP and its donors are to blame. We can all keep our fingers crossed for Georgia Senate runoffs, and for some real leadership come January.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    This is false. The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango. It was politically driven: Democrats were afraid of giving Trump a win. Perhaps it was good politics, since it seems to have worked. From Newsweek: "Despite a refusal for roughly the past six months to advance a smaller aid package that she deemed 'half a loaf,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now willing to support a bipartisan stimulus bill worth less than half her previous demand thanks to, in part, Joe Biden's victory.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The Senate introduced the similarly stupidly named HEALS act. It takes two to tango. It didn't pass it, unlike the House and HEROES. The Senate could have acted on the passed House bill. The House had no bill from the Senate to take up, since the Senate bill died in (Republican-led) committee. The House is the only one on the dance floor. And Nancy Pelosi may have opposed the Republican position in negotiations, but Nancy Pelosi has no control on what the Senate passes.
      - nostromo 6y ago
        Passing a bill you know is dead on arrival is pointless. It's virtue signaling, which is what the house did. Suddenly, after the election, Pelosi is fine passing the same amount she opposed before the election as only half what was necessary. This isn't some right-wing talking point -- Bernie Sanders has sad as much. This was a political game. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-bernie-sanders-blame-democrats-for-stalling-covid-relief/ar-BB1bOL24 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-did-berni...
        jacobolus 6y ago
        If the GOP had been able to even get their own caucus to agree on a bill, they would have brought it to a vote. But they couldn’t. Putting even the milquetoast HEALS act up for a vote would have put some of their members in a conflicted spot trying to both appear to care about the crisis while still appeasing hard-liner donors/supporters. If the Senate had brought the HEROES Act as passed by the House to the floor, it might well have passed. But McConnell & friends didn’t want to see a relief bill passed, so they were satisfied to leave it off the agenda altogether.
        nostromo 6y ago
        If you think HEALS was milquetoast at $1.1T, you must be pretty upset that Pelosi has now agreed to pass a bill at $0.9T... after months of demanding no less than $3.0T. Gee, I wonder what happened in November for her to change her mind... I'll stop responding now; it's pretty clear a number of folks on HN think that only one party can play political games and this has gotten trite.

FnControlOption 6y ago

It’s scary that civil unrest might be exactly what the Republican party wants.

RIMR 6y ago
They've been pretty direct about that these past couple of weeks.
lightgreen 6y ago
I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I’m not sure how you attributed it to GOP. It makes zero sense. Perhaps because the GOP literally called[0] for that? Just a crazy thought. [0] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if-followers-willing-to-give-their-life-to-stop-the-steal https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if...
e40 6y ago
This is exactly what worries me. Unrest is used to energize their base and do crazier and crazier things.
mythrwy 6y ago
What a nonsensical comment.

defterGoose 6y ago

That's a comforting line of reasoning, albeit a fantastic one. It's much closer to a straw/camel's back situation in my estimation.

sjg007 6y ago
Oh I agree with you. This all started in the 1970s with union busting etc... the average American earnings should be 50% higher today than they are.

just-juan-post 6y ago

I'm still shocked that people beleive this. Well I'm not - It has been a reinforced Democratic talking point for months now. Why should the federal government bail out state governments when the federal government had nothing to do with the state's actions? The state governors could choose to end lifestyle restrictions at any moment but choose not to. Why should the federal government pay for the choices of states and counties?

matthewmacleod 6y ago
The state governors could choose to end lifestyle restrictions at any moment but choose not to. This is a gross misrepresentation that proves you have no interest in serious comment on this matter.
- just-juan-post 6y ago
  Nah man that's just how I see it. How do you see it? Do you think it's impossible to remove the restrictions now? Let me hear your side.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Care will be rationed even more than it is now. More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. There will be a lot of death. So basically death, death and more death. This will disproportionally impact the poor and poor essential workers. And then everything will shutdown anyway because nobody will go out. We might get 1-2 months maybe 3 months.
    - just-juan-post 6y ago
      > Well if we open up with no restrictions a lot of people will get very sick very quickly. This will overwhelm hospitals. The problem is that the public has been hearing this for almost 9 months now and with the exception of a hospital or two it hasn't happened. You can only cry wolf so many times. > I mean we are almost at a complete ICU collapse right now already. Besides a few one off stories could you please provide HN readers with some links? > And a lot of people will die, not just of covid but of other treatable diseases. They already are and do you know why? Because hospitals stopped doing "unessential" procedures for months and continue to do so. > Not to mention we will run out of PPE and medical supplies. Could you please share an article or three with HN readers where a single hospital has run out of PPE in the USA? > More doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists will get sick and die. If Covid is so powerful then why haven't tens of thousands of nurses and doctors died? They are exposed to do multiple times per day. Look forward to your reply!