Coronavirus

GOP Unveils $500 Billion 'Skinny' Stimulus That's Dead on Arrival

Democrats are proposing $3 trillion.

|

On Tuesday, Senate Republicans introduced a $500 billion COVID-19 stimulus bill, pared back from their $1 trillion proposal which they introduced in July. The new bill nixes another payout of stimulus checks but includes unemployment benefits, loans for small businesses, and funding for education and the post office.

It stands no chance of passing the House, with Democrats advocating for the fatter $3 trillion Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act. The GOP bill is "only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a 'check the box' vote to maintain the appearance that they're not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn't want to spend a nickel to help people," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) in a statement.

But $500 billion is quite a bit more than a nickel. The bill, somewhat ironically deemed a "skinny" stimulus, would provide $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits through the week of December 27, down from the $600 a week that lapsed in July. That would be in addition to state sums, as well as the $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits that President Donald Trump issued via an August executive order, though those exclude the lowest-wage workers and are expected to be more short-lived.

The bill allots $258 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program meant to help small businesses hit hard by government-mandated closures and social distancing requirements. Business owners may apply for a loan worth 2.5 times their payroll costs—not to exceed $2 million—so long as they employ fewer than 300 people and can show their revenues have decreased by at least 35 percent in the first or second quarter of this year.

The bill also forgives a $10 billion loan owed by the U.S. Postal Service. Pelosi, meanwhile, has pushed for a $25 billion post office aid package.

"If anyone doubts [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell's true intent is anything but political, just look at the bill," Pelosi and Schumer said in their statement. "This proposal is laden with poison pills Republicans know Democrats would never support."

That's likely a reference to the $105 billion the GOP bill carves out for education. Though the majority of that would go toward schools that opt for in-person learning, some of those funds would finance scholarships supporting school choice—something high-profile Democrats now almost uniformly oppose. 

The Democrats' proposal would re-up the $600 a week in federal unemployment benefits through the end of March 2021. Freelancers and self-employed people who are ineligible for traditional unemployment programs but were given special exceptions at the start of the pandemic would receive the sum through January. The bill would issue another round of stimulus checks at a maximum of $1,200 a person and $6,000 a family, with those payments scaled down for individuals who earn more than $75,000 a year and for couples who pull in more than $150,000. Individuals with yearly salaries of $99,000 and above (and childless couples whose earnings top $198,000) would be ineligible. Families who make below $270,000 may still be able to collect benefits, with those funds tiered based on the number of children in the household. For example, a couple that makes $200,000 a year and has three children would receive a $3,500 stimulus payment.

Also missing from the GOP bill, and core to the Democrats' legislation, is funding for state and local governments to compensate for dwindling tax revenues. The HEROES Act currently stipulates that a collective $875 billion go toward that cause—$375 billion more than the Republican bill in total.

NEXT: “I’ll Take Hacking Tesla for One Million Dollars, Alex”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Stimulus That’s Dead on Arrival”

    Now that’s a proposal I can get behind!

    1. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

      1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $95 however I see the way it works now.UTg I experience masses frenedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……

        =================► CashApp

    2. I have to admit I thought the same thing. If there’s true gridlock, then maybe neither side will get a “stimulus” package through – and maybe the debt growth won’t be quite as bad as we feared.

      1. Sometimes, through sheer incompetence, Congress manages to do the right thing.

      2. So don’t go whining when the economy keeps tanking.

        1. ?

          The economy has been steadily improving for over five months according to market indexes, and unemployment numbers have been improving for over four months.

          Assuming that the economy does tank though, I won’t whine. My wife and kids and I live well below our means, we have an emergency savings account to cover six months expenses, we don’t owe any money on anything except our mortgage (which is very modest), and we have very stable jobs with alternate avenues for income. We take that personal responsibility thing very seriously both in the immediate sense, and when planning for the future.

          1. If I had known this would become an opportunity to boast about ourselves, I would have mentioned my sick abs.

            1. Hey you got me beat there. I’m not overweight, but not in the same shape I was in high school either.

              Congrats on the killer bod, man.

              1. Plus, it’s priced right.

              2. “Congrats on the killer bod, man”

                It’s not actually his, he’s just been treating it like it was ever since he lured the young man into his basement.

        2. Are you under some delusion that printing money creates assets, resources or goods? Or maybe you think the economy has nothing to do with goods and services? Either way; your just kidding yourself.

      3. The federal “debt” is not debt in the usual sense. The federal government does not borrow. The “debt” is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts at the Federal Reserve. The federal government does not touch these deposits, and the accounts at maturity are paid off instantly by returning the balances w/interest to the account owners. No tax dollars are involved-the Fed simply credits the account holder. No burden on future generations.

        1. And yet the *value* of everything goes down by inflation. No matter what manipulation tactic is used – the government can’t print human value it can ONLY STEAL the value people have already earned.

          I find it ironic that the party who insists minimum wage is never enough is the exact same party that supports wage theft by inflation/taxation.

          Here’s a clue – stealing everything doesn’t leave enough *value* for anyone no matter how many paper’s of print are dumped out.

  2. Then don’t pass anything and force the governors to re-open their states if they haven’t already. The economy created over a million jobs in August and unemployment is down to 8%. There is no need for another stimulus. There is only a need for state governments to end the tyranny of the lockdowns. Do that and the economy will return to where it was before the pandemic by next spring at the latest.

    1. force the governors to re-open their states

      So much federalism.

      1. Yeah so much federalism. IF they don’t want to open their states, then the feds don’t have to give them any money. Federalism goes both ways you fucking mendacious half wit.

        1. Oh so we’re backing off from the “force governors to reopen states” position then. Good for you. You are capable of learning after all.

          1. I am not backing off of anything. Refusing to give them money is forcing them to do it. Again, you are a fucking mendacious half wit. You are utterly incapable of making an honest argument or portraying anyone else’s argument in anything but a completely dishonest fashion.

            1. Refusing to give them money is forcing them to do it.

              No it’s not.

              Is it too humiliating for you to admit that you misspoke about wanting to force governors to reopen their states? It’s okay, John. Everyone makes mistakes. You’re only human after all.

              1. The Autistic perseveration over one particular meaning of the word ‘force’ suits you well.

                Run with it.

                1. Well I’m pretty sure John is not referring to the physics concept of force.

                2. If I refuse to give you $10, what precisely have I forced you to do?

                  1. Well, Jeff. If it’s you that is denied the $10 then it means you have to find a different dick to suck.

                    1. Sorry I don’t suck dick. There are plenty around here who do though. Particularly if it’s orange and tiny.

                    2. “If I refuse to give you $10, ”

                      unless you engage/do not engage in a behavior. While you have obligations that require you to engage/not engage in that behavior.

                      Changes the calculus significantly. Makes your attempted corollary look completely dishonest.

                  2. You have forced me to spend my own ten dollars.

                    Duh.

                    1. You chose to spend your own ten dollars. You could have chose otherwise. Me not giving you $10 did not force you to spend anything.

                  3. We’re talking a measurable chunk of the nation’s money supply, here. It’s almost impossible that this wouldn’t be inflationary, diluting the value of everyone’s money. That makes it a bit different from your $10 example. (Plus, the portion that isn’t being created from thin air is being taxed from the citizens of those same states that are being “given” the money.)

                    When the states are getting their money from the feds in exchange for laws, that breaks federalism. The courts will even declare it unconstitutional when the amounts get so high that it becomes coercive in their eyes.

              2. “Refusing to give them money is forcing them to do it.

                No it’s not.”

                Then why is the national drinking age 21?

                1. To protect the dozens of jobs in the fake ID industry.

                2. Conversely, why isn’t the national speed limit 55mph?

                  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t

                  1. Hmm? The speed limit is a case of it working. 55 MPH remained the national speed limit right up until the Feds modified it in 1987 (upping to 65 in certain areas), and that held until the new Republican majority in 1995 eliminated the limit.

                    1. It was the speed limit on paper only though. Several states reduced the fines for speeding over 55 but below the old limit to 5 dollars, and several more didn’t count any tickets for less than 15mph over the limit as license points. It was ultimately eliminated due to widespread noncompliance and non-enforcement.

                  2. Yeah you sort of made the point that it works. Because it was 55 and the highway funds were why.

            2. No John, you said “force”, and refusing to give them money is not force. You are mighty quick to back track, and mighty quick with the mendacious halfwit insults. Way to go. Yay John.

              Fuckwit.

              1. That is what John does when he loses an argument. He just resorts to pure insult. It is his tell.

                1. Argue with the dictionary fuckboy.

                  1. Jeff hates that bloody dictionary.
                    Words should mean whatever he wants them to mean, when he needs them to mean it.

                2. Hey look, cytotoxic is replying to himself to try to bolster his case that withholding money from someone in order to coerce certain behavior out of them is not actually “force”.

                  Tune in next week when cytotoxic flies into a histrionic bitch fit because Trump is threatening the states with funding cuts and forcing them to bow to his whims without even the slightest hint of irony, then denies he ever said this.

              2. force1
                /fôrs/
                Learn to pronounce
                See definitions in:
                All
                Physics
                Meteorology
                Police
                Military
                Baseball
                Horticulture
                noun
                1.
                strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
                “he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion”
                Similar:
                strength
                power
                energy
                might
                potency
                vigor
                muscle
                stamina
                effort
                exertion
                impact
                pressure
                weight
                impetus
                punch
                Opposite:
                weakness
                2.
                coercion or compulsion especially with the use or threat of violence.

                You are definitionally wrong.

                1. Try another definition

                  Connotative:
                  (of a word or expression) signifying or suggestive of an associative or secondary meaning in addition to the primary meaning:

                  Withholding gubmint money is understood political force that any intellectually honest person would concede which discounts you on 2 counts.

                  1. Are you replying to me? Because I am saying it is force.

                2. Okay then. If I refuse to give you $10, what have I forced you to do? Be specific.

                  1. Half of the equation.

                    This is par for the course with you.

                    Why not just discuss the actual situation?

                    Oh right because you know you’re wrong.

                    1. In other words, NOTHING. Refusing to give you money is not forcing you to do anything. It’s not coercion, it’s not compulsion, it’s nothing.

                      You cannot stand it that I’m right.

                    2. Right now the government is refusing to send you a check for eleventy zillion dollars. Man they must really be forcing the shit out of you, aren’t they?

                    3. Still only half of the equation.

                      This is par for the course with you.

                      Why not just discuss the actual situation?

                      Oh right because you know you’re wrong.

                    4. “If I refuse to give you $10, ”

                      unless you engage/do not engage in a behavior. While you have obligations that require you to engage/not engage in that behavior.

                      You’re ignoring that on purpose.

                      Changes the calculus significantly. Makes your attempted corollary look completely dishonest.

                    5. Right, and now you’re just going to repeat the same old shit, trolling me and trying to provoke a reaction out of me for the sake of your amusement because you don’t actually give a shit about any of the issues discussed herein.

                      Go fuck yourself and go away, troll.

                    6. “If I refuse to give you $10, ”

                      unless you engage/do not engage in a behavior. While you have obligations that require you to engage/not engage in that behavior.

                      Except that wasn’t John’s claim. He wrote:

                      Then don’t pass anything and force the governors to re-open their states if they haven’t already.

                      Get it? Don’t pass anything. Not “refuse to give money unless you do my bidding”.

                    7. IF they don’t want to open their states, then the feds don’t have to give them any money.

                      Jeff leaves off the “if” of the “if-then” and thinks he has a point.

                    8. It was explicitly John’s claim.

                      John
                      September.9.2020 at 12:32 pm
                      Yeah so much federalism. IF they don’t want to open their states, then the feds don’t have to give them any money.

                      IF I want YOUR 10 bucks THEN I must do X

                      You know you’re wrong. It’s why you keep lying.

                    9. “If I refuse to give you $10, ”

                      unless you engage/do not engage in a behavior. While you have obligations that require you to engage/not engage in that behavior.

                      Except that wasn’t John’s claim. He wrote:

                      “John
                      September.9.2020 at 12:32 pm
                      Yeah so much federalism. IF they don’t want to open their states, then the feds don’t have to give them any money.”

                      That’s what John wrote.

                    10. Well Jeff?

                    11. John is arguing for the federal government to not do ANYTHING. NOT to dangle money in front of states with the hope that they do the federal government’s bidding (as in the case with the highway speed limit). He is proposing a LACK of action. “Don’t pass anything”. Did you not read that part? If the federal government did absolutely nothing, then the federal government would not be forcing any state to do anything. How can a *lack* of an action be coercion? Now I am entirely done with this conversation. Go ahead and troll and lie and shit up the rest of this thread with your insane ramblings because that is what you are going to do in any event.

                    12. chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.9.2020 at 3:39 pm
                      John is arguing

                      Thank you but I don’t need you to interpret anything for me.

                      You left out half of the claim. Until you acknowedlge that you’re just spinning.

                      Now I am entirely done with this conversation.

                      To be fair, it was done when you got caught lying, troll.

                    13. Run along little loser you know you were wrong and lost.

                    14. Jeff doesn’t believe paternalism is a form of force nor control. I’ve had this argument with him. He isn’t intelligent.

                      He doesn’t understand that many state budgets are dependent on federal dollars and will modify behaviors to keep that gravy train flowing. He isn’t even against this form of coercion, but watching him deny here it exists is hilarious.

                      He’s simply always dishonest.

                    15. Jeff doesn’t believe paternalism is a form of force nor control.

                      Ask him about the Hyde Amendment.

              3. Weird it looks like force to all kf the dictionaries I can find.

                Definition of force (Entry 1 of 2)
                1a(1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power
                the forces of nature
                the motivating force in her life
                (2)capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale
                a Force 10 hurricane
                b: moral or mental strength
                I was impressed by the force of his character.
                c: capacity to persuade or convince
                the force of the argument
                2a: military strength
                b(1): a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose
                a force of 20,000 soldiers
                (2)forces plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation)
                c: a body of persons or things available for a particular end
                a labor force
                the missile force
                d: an individual or group having the power of effective action
                join forces to prevent violence
                a force in politics
                eoften capitalized : POLICE FORCE —usually used with the
                After his military service, he joined the force.
                3: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

          2. Jeffy, you are one stupid bitch. Just go back to moderating your NAMBLA chat board.

          3. Somehow I understood what John meant. Words sometimes have common meanings besides the absolutely literal ones.

            1. They also have literal dictionary defintions that make John 100% correct.

              1. Yeah, what a stupid argument. John’s meaning was perfectly clear.

      2. Fuck you. It’s time to end the pan(dem)ic. If states won’t honor the constitution, force them. This is just as egregious as non-compliance with integration.

        1. What is the constitutional violation here that you think should be remedied by federal force?

          1. sigh… You are a sad, strange, little man. And you have my pity.

            1. It’s probably best for you that you don’t try to make a rational, principled case in favor of your position. It’s plainly obvious that you’re just emoting and spouting off anyway.

              1. Or, it could be that I have making the exact same case for the last 6 months, but you are just too fucking stupid to understand it.

                I said in March this was bullshit and have been 100% consistent since then, even during the times when Trump backpedaled, because I don’t give a shit what he or his government lackeys say. The science was in with that first cruise ship. COVID is not a mortal danger to anyone who isn’t at risk to every other virus on the planet. It is not even an existential threat on the level of influenza. It doesn’t kill children or breeders, dumbfuck. Just your fat ass and my aging mother, who I love, but whose life is not worth more than her, my own, and my children’s freedom.

                Get the hell out of my way! If you fear the virus, you stay inside, you wear a mask, you work from home. That is the correct libertarian platform.

                1. Don’t feed the troll.

                  1. I know that he’ll never take the bridge, but sometimes I can’t resist the urge to chase him back under when he crawls out into the light.

                2. Did you get all that emoting out of your system? Well good for you then.

                  Now maybe you can answer the question of what you think is the constitutional violation here that you think should be remedied by federal force?

                  1. Executive orders based on lies, bad science and fear can’t possibly be constitutionally enforced. This is not an existential threat, which is the only reason for suspension of the natural rights of free association and travel. Smallpox, diphtheria, even influenza have been existential threats in the past which warranted quarantine, but COVID is not.

                    You can cower in fear all you want, but you can’t make COVID an existential threat.

                    1. Oh, and fuck you, fatty.

                    2. Executive orders based on lies, bad science and fear can’t possibly be constitutionally enforced.

                      Why not? An action is constitutional only if it is permitted by the constitution. It doesn’t have to be a *good* action.

                    3. Government action. You forgot to say government action, fatty. The constitution limits the government, see, not the people.

                    4. The adjective “government” is sorta implied when assessing the constitutionality of actions.

                      Now would you care to explain why government actions can’t be constitutional if they are based on “bad science”?

                    5. Now would you care to explain why government actions can’t be constitutional if they are based on “bad science”?

                      I am done with you, Jeffy. When you you refuse to acknowledge that lies are unconstitutional, there is no hope in ever changing your position. Better to just take you out back and shoot you in the fucking head.

                3. And how brave of you to be deciding for everyone who should live and who should die. That is such a heroic burden for you to carry.

                  1. “Did you get all that emoting out of your system? Well good for you then”

                    1. Oh look it’s Tulpa. Should have known.

                    2. I’m Tulpa because you’re a troll?

                      Does that ever work troll?

                  2. If things were done the way I suggest, everyone would get to decide for themselves. WTF do you not understand about that?

                    My mom can stay in her apartment. Or come live with me. Or go to the store and give COVID to your mom. Whatevs.

                    1. Except viruses don’t have free will, and individuals don’t always have the luxury of refraining from engaging in society in order to avoid spreading disease. That is one reason why there is a concept of public health in the first place.

                      If you fear the virus, you stay inside, you wear a mask, you work from home. That is the correct libertarian platform.

                      And what happens when your dumb ass transmits the virus to everyone around you because you don’t give a shit about anyone except yourself? Too bad so sad? “It’s just a bad flu” so just shrug off the strokes, heart disease, lung scarring, and brain damage that might occur?

                      Individuals DON’T always have the opportunity to avoid plague carriers, particularly if the carriers themselves don’t know that they are sick. It’s not just a matter of choice. If it was then diseases would be much easier to deal with. Of course most people wouldn’t choose to cause harm to other people! But if you are sick and you and I come into contact long enough, despite the best of our individual intentions, you cannot help but make me sick. At some point it should be treated as a violation of the NAP.

                    2. Jeff… this is why you’re so ignorant.

                      You will never ever be safe from viruses in your life. They will exist. Stop trying to control other people because you can’t put down a cookie. Your personal choices have raised your risk of death to a disease. Because of your choices, you’re asking others to sacrifice their choices. You’re selfish.

                    3. Individuals DON’T always have the opportunity to avoid plague carriers

                      This is a lie. A lie wrapped in a fallacy.

                      COVID is not plague, transmitted between homes by rats and fleas. I can’t transmit it to you if you don’t come out. Stay in your house and you will not catch it. Being out in public where you can catch it is your choice, not mine. You need to shut the fuck up and quit lying. The rest of us, who are not scared shitless will go about our lives and happily forget you exist in your dungeon of fear.

                      Lying about public health issues is most definitely a violation of the NAP.

                    4. Why should the burden be entirely on me to avoid catching a disease? Shouldn’t you adopt some type of burden on yourself to avoid spreading a disease?

                      I’m not talking about some government-enforced burden per se, simply as a statement of general morality.

                      If you’re going to adopt a position of “I can do what I want and fuck you for trying to tell me what to do, it’s your fault if you get sick”, why shouldn’t that same position work both ways? “I can do what I want too, stop trying to tell ME what to do, and if you spread a disease to me against my wishes, it’s YOUR FAULT for being an irresponsible dickhead in public.” See how that works?

                      The self-entitled self-absorbed mentality works both ways you know.

                      Being out in public where you can catch it is your choice, not mine.

                      Do you realize what a classist statement this is? It’s as if you glibly assume everyone has the free choice to work from home and have everything delivered to them without being in contact with anyone else. *Somebody* has to work those “essential worker” retail-type jobs where they have no choice but to interact with the public as a part of their jobs. Is it their fault too for showing up to work and getting sick by having self-entitled customers sneeze in their faces?

                      You want to stick up for your own rights. I get it. At what point will you start sticking up for the rights of everyone?

                    5. At what point will you start sticking up for the rights of everyone?

                      Never, you sniveling little cockroach. That is the heart of socialism. That system caused more death and misery than any other in the history of humanity over the last 150 years.

                      Capitalism is everyone sticking up for their own rights, and it has created more wealth than every other system in the history of humanity combined over the last 150 years.

                      I get it that you don’t want to acknowledge these facts and wallow in your ignorance. You call me irresponsible and a classist when I have gone to work every day since March and endured the ridiculous edicts to ensure my business is not shut down by the nanny-staters. Yet I have not gotten sick, despite being exposed multiple times, and have not infected anyone else. You know nothing about freedom, nothing about capitalism, and nothing about hard work.

                      Now fuck off and hide in your basement.

                    6. Wait, you think socialism is when you stick up for the rights of your neighbor? That’s not socialism, that is the heart of libertarianism. To defend liberty for its own sake, and not merely as a means to some end. If you are free but your neighbor is oppressed, then the libertarian thing to do is to use your freedom to advocate for your neighbor’s liberation. Not to say “screw you I’ve got mine, work it out yourself, you miserable wretch”.

                      And once again, Dishonest Chuck, you have completely ignored the bulk of my argument. Why does the self-absorbed self-entitled argument only flow one direction?

                    7. Dishonest Chuck

                      Now you are going to copy Trump? HAHAHAHAHA

                      you have completely ignored the bulk of my argument. Why does the self-absorbed self-entitled argument only flow one direction?

                      That is not an argument, it is a fallacy.

                    8. And just to be clear…

                      Wait, you think socialism is when you stick up for the rights of your neighbor? That’s not socialism, that is the heart of libertarianism. To defend liberty for its own sake, and not merely as a means to some end.

                      I am happy to support my neighbor when it is to the mutual benefit of us both. To ‘stick up for his rights’ without his consent would be a violation of the NAP, and not libertarian at all.

                      Stalin ‘stuck up for the rights’ of the proletariat. The kulaks paid for that support with their lives. Protesters stood up for the rights of minorities in Kenosha. Many business owners are now out of business. History has shown that socialism starts with ‘sticking up for collective rights’ and ends with death and destruction at the hands of the collective to ensure equal outcomes.

                      I know there are few who think Jeffy is in any way a libertarian, but this is definitive proof.

                  3. He isn’t deciding anything dummy. He’s trying to make you understand that life is full of risks. You are responsible for your own risks. Sorry you live in fear and in donuts.

                    1. So the NAP no longer applies because “suck it up, life is risky.”

                      Of course the real reason is you lick Donald Trump’s taint at every possible opportunity.

                      How embarrassing for you about the interview tapes that just got released. He played you for the idiot cuck you are.

                    2. You are responsible for your own risks.

                      Which entitles you to act like a self-absorbed self-entitled brat without any concern for anyone around you, right? “Yeah I don’t take even the slightest precautions against transmitting disease. Oh, you got sick? Well that’s YOUR FAULT dummy! Now watch while I loudly and forcefully sneeze on everyone!” Maybe you ought to be exercising your liberty *responsibly*. By demonstrating to the world that you think getting a haircut is more important than whether or not grandma dies, you are giving liberty a bad name. When ordinary people see individuals abuse drugs and ruin their own lives and the lives of others around them, it tends to make people want to support MORE restrictions on drugs, not less. Same deal here. When ordinary people see individuals like yourself intentionally not give a shit about spreading disease in the midst of a pandemic and then blaming people who do get sick for THEIR “poor choices” it only creates support for MORE authoritarian responses to pandemics, not less. What do you think will happen the next time there is some pandemic? Do you think we will have these optional, unenforced mask “mandates” like we have now for the most part? Or do you think it will be closer to China’s approach?

                    3. Now watch while I loudly and forcefully sneeze on everyone!

                      Argumentum ad absurdum.

                      individuals like yourself intentionally not give a shit about spreading disease in the midst of a pandemic

                      Argumentum ad absurdum. Do you ever write anything that isn’t fallacious?

                      Do you think we will have these optional, unenforced mask “mandates” like we have now for the most part? Or do you think it will be closer to China’s approach?

                      Are you shitting me? This is exactly the question you are pathetically begging. Fuck off and die gasping for breath, useful idiot.

                    4. the NAP doesn’t mean everything stops interacting with each other halfwits.

                      The NAP means you don’t tell me what the fuck to do because you chose to be obese and increase your own risks.

                      What you’re asking for is to shut down all vehicle travel for everyone because some people drive drunk. That’s what you’re asking for.

                      Life has risk. Everyone you drive. Everytime you go in the sun. You can die because someone on floor 5 knocks something off their balcony.

                      Grow the fuck up you pathetic children.

                    5. Oh look at Dishonest Chuck here who deceptively edited my argument in order to focus on the two or three phrases that triggered him.

                      Do you think that when ordinary people look at the behavior of people like you, who take the self-absorbed self-entitled position of maximum liberty for yourself and blaming everyone else for getting sick, that it will make them MORE receptive, or LESS receptive, towards a more libertarian approach to things? Hmm?

                    6. What you’re asking for is

                      Jesse, you are incapable of accurately and honestly representing my position, because you are a bigoted Team Red troll.

                    7. Dishonest Chuck here who deceptively edited my argument

                      Bullshit. You don’t have an argument, which is what I pointed out. It is all fallacy based on some boogerman who runs around sneezing on people.

                      The fact that you still write in fallacy despite being called out for it over and over and over demonstrates who is really being dishonest here. You have never once addressed my core argument which is that COVID is not an existential threat that justifies suspension of natural rights

                      So fuck off and hide you disingenuous coward.

                4. What about the gazillions of people who don’t have that choice to make? Do you get to cough all over waiters and nurses and teachers because… something something freedom?

                  I tried to tell you the NAP was fatally flawed, and here you are ready to jettison the moment it becomes even a little bit not in your own personal immediate interest.

                  Libertarian is code for sociopath.

                  1. No, the NAP is not “fatally flawed”, it just must be recognized that it comes with some assumptions that ought to be recognized.

                    1. Well, let’s say it takes some careful thought to apply it when there’s a contagious illness in the mix.

                    2. Yes, that much is true.

                  2. What about the gazillions of people who don’t have that choice to make?

                    Who is taking away who’s choice? CHOOSE TO STAY IN YOUR FUCKING HOUSE AND YOU CANNOT GET COVID. I will go play outside and laugh at the pale trolls.

                  3. You’re shutting people down who aren’t sick you ignorant fuck.

                    All you and Jeff do is fucking lie in a childish and fallacious way.

                    Both your parents turned you into ignorant pieces of shit.

                    1. The specific problem with the covid disease is that it’s transmissible without symptoms.

                      The world is not a nail, and libertarianism isn’t a hammer.

              2. “It’s probably best for you that you don’t try to make a rational, principled case in favor of your position”

                Something you’ve never done, you lying sophist weasel.

          2. The lockdowns violate nearly all of the bill of rights.

    2. Right on. If the governors want to keep destroying their economies, let them deal with the fallout. There never should have been any stimulus in the first place. The economy doesn’t need stimulating, it needs the boot off its neck. It was insane in April and it’s even more insane now.

      1. Here, here. And what Chuck said, just above.

        Let people get back to work.

  3. Taxpayers really should not be footing the bill to subsidize Trump’s reelection campaign, i mean riot tourists

    1. Watch out, a planeload of Antifa thugs are headed for suburban housewives near you!

      1. We get it, you rarely leave your mom’s basement and are morbidly obese. So you are actually in danger from the coof and fear it more than the rioters.

        Stay inside, eat your cookies and STFU.

        1. Careful, the planeload of Antifa thugs might be headed your way as well! There are so many planeloads of Antifa thugs, it’s hard to keep them all straight.

          Did you check under your bed? Might be Antifa hiding there!

          1. Nah, that’s where the shotgun is located. They won’t get up the stairs.

            1. Well we can agree on one thing. The imaginary planeload of Antifa thugs will never make it up the stairs of your house, because they don’t exist in the first place.

              1. I have a feeling your fat ass wouldn’t make it up the stairs either, does that mean you don’t exist?

                1. Oh look at you, full of insults and emotion and threats, but devoid of reasoning. In other words a perfect right-winger.

                  1. “Did you get all that emoting out of your system? Well good for you then”

                  2. If you had a cogent argument or anything other than ‘I’m afwaid, and you won’t pwomise to stay inside so I can play in the park’, I might give you some respect. As it is, I will treat you like a troll, because that is all I see you doing in this thread.

                    The fact you think I am remotely right wing only demonstrates how un-libertarian you are.

            2. Poor location for a firearm.
              Dust, hard to get to in a hurry.
              keep it in your hands.

              1. If your shotgun is in danger of not working because of dust you need a better shotgun.

              2. Thank you for the advice. The shotgun is trigger locked and in a bag. The pistol safe is for ‘in a hurry’.

          2. If those fags show up at my place I have the capacity to put them down. Maybe you should pop by Pedo Jeffy.

    2. You think taxpayers are paying for this? Oh no. No no nonono… This money is just being printed.

      1. You think money is being printed? Some tool at the Fed just types some zeros and hits “enter.”

        1. Wow what a wonderful circumstance, how did we get so lucky? We can pay for a major national emergency and worry about paying it back later, or not! Literally all we have to do is survive as a country, and if we don’t, we won’t have to pay it back anyway.

          Somehow you guys see this as a problem.

          1. Wow, all we have to do is survive? Tell me Tony. How are we doing on that front? What percentage of America has died of with the ‘Rona so far?

            1. Not enough to be a problem when a Republican is president, enough to be a historic calamity if the president were a Democrat instead.

  4. Why should the Federal government give a single flying fuck about dwindling state tax revenue? That’s what the state level politicians are for.

    That tax revenue would return to normal in short order if being productive were made legal again.

    1. This ^^
      The hostage residents of locked done states need to rise up & regain control over their state governments! And quit moving to Florida! We don’t want your fucked up ideas here!

      1. Florida has enough of its own fucked up ideas.

      2. Why would any one move to Florida? Gross.

        1. Florida is a great place to spend half the year and declare as your official residence for tax purposes.

    2. i agree. do the state governments not have taxing and bonding authority?

      calling for a federal bailout is tantamount to admitting the money is being created from nothing.

  5. Perspective is everything. Even a paltry $500 billion is over $1500 tax dollars that must be recovered for every man, woman, and child in the country. Most of us won’t ever see a penny of the stimulus, why would we want this?

    The Republican senators are idiots. Even this is just more money funneled to protesters who have no intention of going back to work until they are cut off.

    1. Even a paltry $500 billion is over $1500 tax dollars that must be recovered for every man, woman, and child in the country.

      Actually, it’s more like $3,000 per capita recovered from future generations of taxpayers, if you include interest.

      Did you get a stimulus check the first time around?

      1. Of course I did, I pay taxes. I didn’t want or need that check either.

      2. No. I didn’t.

      3. Nope.

      4. Not all of us are fry cooks. So no.

  6. A $Trillion here, a $Trillion there. Pretty soon we’ll be talkin’ real money.

  7. So if Democrats take the presidency, the house and the senate, what will we be criticizing then?

    1. Awful Democratic policies?

      1. How awful will a $3 trillion stimulus bill be in comparison to a $500 billion one? Or are we not doing scales of awful any more?

          1. Orangemanbad isn’t just a policy, it’s a way of life.

        1. There’s plenty of awful to go around.

          1. Mark Zuckerberg
            September.9.2020 at 2:49 pm
            Republicans: Let’s spend 500 billion dollars
            Democrats: Let’s spend 3 trillion dollars
            Reason: BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD! TRUMP’S DEFICITS!

            1. Stubbed Toes hurt
              Cancer hurts
              STUBBED TOES ARE EQUAL TO CANCER

              1. Is there a consequence to another couple trillion dollars of spending that is worse than hundreds of thousands of dead people and a depression economy?

                1. Well, you read CTSP above. Dead grandmas are a small price to pay for haircuts.

                  1. I like it when they speak for their own family members who just want to get on with dying for the greater good. I can feel the libertarian all over me.

                    1. It would be funny to see my mom punch you in the face. She is the one that read Atlas Shrugged to me as a bedtime story. She was born in January of ’45 so, technically, she isn’t a boomer.

                    2. I would love it if you and Pedo Jeffy could get on with dying. You’re both subhuman garbage.

                  2. Dead grandmas? My grandma survived her bout with Covid, actually, despite being 90.

                    My uncle, on the other hand, had a doctor’s appointment in March, which was canceled due to the pandemic. He finally managed to get another appointment in June, was diagnosed with a very aggressive cancer, and died in July. I have to wonder if things would have gone differently if my state hadn’t shut everything down.

    2. We will be criticizing nothing.
      We will be in the labor camps turning windmills by hand at night.
      (Except for Nancy’s new hair stylist)

  8. The new bill nixes another payout of stimulus checks but includes unemployment benefits, loans for small businesses, and funding for education and the post office.

    What?!
    Nothing for me?!
    Vote it down!

  9. So Republicans are worried about fiscal discipline? Is that why they don’t want to pass any stimulus? I’ve got an idea, just cut the military budget by 90% then the CIA, NSA and all other alphabet agencies budgets by the same amount. Then just allocate all that money for stimulus.

    1. Oh, look at Strap-on Sally. So adorable and innocent. You actually think that cutting spending can pay for this. That boat sailed last year. We’re officially in 100+% spending mode now. You could slash the entire federal budget to zerozero and the government would still be running a deficit just based on this stimulus alone. In fact, we would need an entire extra TWO UNITED STATES OF AMERICAS doing nothing but producing tax revenue to turn a surplus again.

      But never to worry peasant. Inflation won’t happen. The Top Men have it under control. :^)

    2. How about cut defence by 80%, get the fed out of the insurance industry (good bye Medicare and medicaid), admit social security was a ponzi scam and get out of that, the cut the bloated regulatory agencies and let people decide what’s best for themselves, and determine the most valuable way to server one another. Then with the money saved don’t reallocate, but give it back to the tax payers, you know the people who’s money it is

      1. Not ultimately disagreeing with you but defense spending is just a massive jobs program and pension plan disguised as a military. You’d crash the global economy if you cut it by 80%.
        Ditto for Medicare, Medicaid and the Post Office.

    3. How about no stimulus, and make social security and medicare needs based only. If you wanted to go after the big spenders here.

      Because if you’re not willing to cut welfare and bullshit social programs back to just needs based, you’re not willing to balance the budget or cut spending at all.

      1. But, but you know BLM! Needs based!? How will we account for reparations?

      2. If you made SS and Medicare needs based only, you’d run into constitutional arguments as they weren’t passed as a pure tax bill. Most of the early decisions on those programs were based on the fact that everyone got something out of it if they paid into it.

    4. “Strap-on Sally”

      Hi buttplug!

      1. He’s a sick, kiddie raping piece of shit. Isn’t he?

    5. How about we keep the military, and defund and abolish every program and department not called for by the Constitution?

      1. Interesting exercise:
        I took the current list of cabinet level departments, and the US Constitution, and did a cross match.
        Lots of holes. Lots.

      2. I think that would require losing the army unless there is a war going on.

        1. Good thing we’re always at war then.

          1. Is that how they manage to get around the standing army prohibition?

            1. I believe they accomplish that with the long standing and well respected Fuck You That’s Why doctrine.

    6. I support reducing the military’s budget by getting it out of foreign conflicts, but don’t pretend that this is the 60’s when it was still the dominate budget item. In 2018 (latest year with final numbers) the US spent $631B on defense (15.4% of total spending, 3.1% GDP). The averages going back to given years shows it has been decreasing as both a percent of spending and of GDP:
      AVERAGE FROM 2018 BACK TO
      2010 – 17.4% 3.7%
      2000 – 18.1% 3.7%
      1990 – 18.4% 3.7%
      1980 – 20.4% 4.2%
      1970 – 22.2% 4.5%
      1960 – 26.3% 5.2%
      1950 – 30.9% 5.9%

  10. fuck you *cut* spending.

  11. The GOP bill is “only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) in a statement.

    Meanwhile Chuck and Nancy are being held hostage by their extreme left wing.

  12. “This proposal is laden with poison pills Republicans know Democrats would never support.”

    435 poison pills, I hope.

  13. I read the headline and tagline and thought I had gone back in time 6 weeks

  14. Just for the record, it’s a $300 billion bill because it reuses money that was authorized but not spent in the last emergency bill, and a nice chunk of that $300 billion is tax credits that parents can use to offset homeschooling costs, which is especially important in places where the teachers’ unions have shut down the schools. Letting parents write off the cost of homeschooling has been a libertarian goal since Milton Friedman at least. This is something we should be doing with or without the coronavirus and regardless of whether the American Federation of Teachers is shutting down the schools.

    “This emaciated bill is only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a joint statement Tuesday.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-roll-out-skinny-stimulus-bill-as-talks-with-democrats-remain-stalled-11599599646?

    Pelosi and Schumer are telling the truth here, and that should be the lead in the story. This bill won’t even pass the Senate–because so many Republicans refuse to pass any new stimulus bill. The only purpose of this bill is to give vulnerable Republicans some cover so they can claim to have voted for stimulus.

    In other words, the Republicans (with Donald Trump’s help) absolutely destroyed the Democrats $3.5 trillion stimulus bill (with $1 trillion to bail out state pension funds, etc.)–letting this crisis go to waste. And they replaced that monstrosity of a stimulus bill with absolutely nothing.

    We small state libertarians should be high-fiving each other and thanking the Republicans for their behavior on this. I don’t know what more we could have reasonably hoped that the Republicans in the Senate and Donald Trump would do. The most libertarian outcome was for them to do nothing–and that’s what they’re doing.

    1. Interesting analysis.

    2. Can i get a retroactive break for all the years I homeschooled my kids while paying for absolutely worthless government indoctrination centers down the street?

      rhetorical. Obviously not.

      1. At least your kids enjoyed the benefit of not being subjected to worthless government indoctrination centers down the street.

    3. I knew Ken would find a way to spin a proposal of even more Republican spending into some pro-GOP gaslighting.

      1. There’s no spin, there.

        That’s Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer laying it out like it is.

        “This emaciated bill is only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a joint statement Tuesday.”

        —-Ibidem

        If there’s any spin there at all, it’s that they say, “[the Republicans] don’t want to spend a nickle to help people”, where I say that they prefer to spend nothing rather than to pass the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion stimulus.

        I’m glad they want to spend nothing, and libertarians everywhere should be glad to see the Republicans accused of that, too. That’s what we want the Republicans to do–spend nothing instead of $3.5 trillion in stimulus.

        Are you just telling us about your feelings, again?! You seem to have hard time with facts–because they’re not feelings. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer issuing a joint statement to condemn the Republicans for not wanting to spend a nickle may be a better endorsement of legitimate libertarian credentials than being nominated by the Libertarian Party. We can only hope that the LP candidate will enjoy such a denunciation.

        1. “You seem to have hard time with facts–because they’re not feelings.”

          Oh my god Ben Shapiro much?

          I know you think that using a national crisis as an excuse to give public money to favored interests. You wouldn’t be a Republican if that weren’t the case!

          But please tell me you’re not one of those assholes.

          1. I know you think that using a national crisis as an excuse to give public money to favored interests.

            What?

            1. …is the point of government.

              It’s what Republicans do instead of fix things!

              1. But the Democrats trying to give a trillion dollars in stimulus funds to D run states isn’t giving public money to favored interests?

                Come on man. At least try for some minimal logic here.

                1. Does he really not understand that the Republicans are denying spending?

                  With Tony too, it’s all about emoting. There’s no thinking go on. He’s just lashing out because of his feelings.

                2. Trump is the one who is selectively screwing over states that didn’t vote for him, in like a spectacularly open and callous way. Democrats want to fix the depression economy. That’s what stimulus is for. How many lives do Republicans have to ruin before you people stop defending them?

                  1. Why should federal taxpayers who don’t live in California, Illinois, or New York, be forced to compensate those states for the results of their lockdown orders, not to mention their outrageous pension benefits–a problem that predated the coronavirus by a long shot?

                    And try not to tell us how you feel again, Tony. Give us a rational argument. I dare you. I’m betting you couldn’t post a rational argument on a dare.

                    1. The same reason California and New York have to subsidize welfare for poor red states. We’re in this together. Trump doesn’t think so, but I like to believe that it’s still true, if only for the sake of efficiency. Viruses don’t have political parties. As a matter of political acumen, I almost respect the vile repugnant Republican ratfucking that has convinced so many of you that viruses do indeed have a political party. My god have they turned your brains to soup.

                    2. The same reason California and New York have to subsidize welfare for poor red states.

                      Keep lying, Fat Tony. The only reason the sparse midwestern states net positive federal funds is because they have to support the infrastructure that carries water and power to California and New York, as well as the trains and interstates that bring all the resources to the blue port cities to be sold. Take that away and they pay more per capita.

                      Yet you lie and lie and lie and lie…

                    3. States don’t pay taxes, Tony. Individual taxpayers pay taxes. The people of Arkansas, South Dakota, and Utah pay federal income taxes at the exact same federal income tax rate as individual taxpayers in California and New York. There isn’t anything about being in California or New York that makes any individual pay federal income taxes at a higher rate than people in other states.

                      Meanwhile individual taxpayers in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Utah didn’t get to vote for the governors that imposed the lockdowns in California and New York.

                      Individual taxpayers in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Utah didn’t get to vote for the states representatives in Albany and Sacramento that approved those outrageous unfunded pension obligations.

                      The taxpayers of Arkansas, South Dakota, and Utah voted for governors that didn’t impose lockdowns and representatives to their state capitols that didn’t approve outrageous unfunded pension obligations. There is no good reason why they should be forced to bailout states they aren’t even allowed to vote in.

                      There is no rational basis for what you said. You’re just regurgitating stupid shit you’ve heard other people say–and emoting. It’s pathetic.

                    4. “Why should federal taxpayers who don’t live in California, Illinois, or New York, be forced to compensate those states…”

                      It’s your framing dude. Your whole post is about pitting states against each other.

                      And yes it’s adorable how you think having emotions is a bad thing. I don’t know how old you are, but isn’t it about time to outgrow the goth phase?

                    5. “It’s your framing dude. Your whole post is about pitting states against each other.”

                      My whole post is opposed to federal taxpayers bailing out any state.

                    6. No it’s about mindlessly parroting the ethics of Trump, which is a very bad place to get ethics.

                      I have never seen a more pathetic display of blame avoidance in my life. And you support it. Just because of that (R).

    4. “I don’t know what more we could have reasonably hoped that the Republicans in the Senate and Donald Trump would do.”

      Hundreds of thousands of dead, Ken.

      But it sure is great that Betsy DeVos got some more of my money.

      1. That’s fair. I think we all know that if Hillary had won, she’d have managed to fend off the disease entirely, using only the power of Heart.

        1. She’d have done a lot better, being a competent person, and you guys would all be singing the opposite tune you are now. “Why didn’t she lock down in February!!” You know it, I know it. It’s all so tiresome.

          1. Nah, I’m actually remarkably consistent in hating government intervention.

      2. Hundreds of thousands of dead

        It would have to be at least 2 to be plural.

        You lie and lie and lie and lie…

  15. If I remember correctly, the Senate was originally offering a $1.3b bill weren’t they? And the House turned that down as not being enough. Perhaps the GOP is learning a thing or two about negotiating. The Democrats method of negotiating is to take what they can get now and come back for more later and “more” is never enough. Instead of falling into that trap, the GOP is simply negotiating by offering less.

    1. The Democrats in the House passed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.

      The Republicans in the Senate looked like they might pass it, too, because they were afraid to face the voters without reauthorizing an extension of unemployment benefits through election day and because the Democrats refused to consider any bill the Republicans offered to extend unemployment benefits alone. It was a take it or leave it deal the Democrats gave them, and if the Republicans in the Senate refused to pass the $3.5 trillion stimulus, the Democrats were planning to hammer them for letting unemployment benefits expire for tens of millions of American voters.

      President Trump stepped in and extended unemployment benefits by executive order and dared the Democrats to sue him for it. He would have hammered them for it at the polls if they sued him for extending unemployment benefits for tens of millions of American voters.

      Once the heat was off on extending unemployment benefits, McConnell tried to sell his own party on a $1 trillion bill. The Republicans refused to even bring it up for a vote. Then McConnell came back with a $500 skinny bill. Then the unemployment rate improved rather dramatically in August, and he couldn’t get the Republicans to pass that tiny amount either. Finally, he’s now getting them to consider a bill that would theoretically spend another $300 billion, with the understanding that the bill has no chance of passing the House and probably won’t pass the Senate either. He just wants to let Republicans in tight races say they voted for a stimulus bill–so don’t blame me!

      In short, President Trump pulled the rug out from under the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion stimulus bill, and the Republicans so far have offered them a compromise of zero instead–and as far as anyone can tell at this point, zero is exactly what we’re going to get in further stimulus a) unless the Democrats break down and decide to send us all another $1,200 to help get themselves reelected or b) until after the next election when Biden is President and the Senate is run by the Democrats.

      If Trump is reelected, the stimulus is dead.

      1. So why is McConnell trying so hard to do the Democrat’s job? Just the usual swamp creature double-dealing or making sure nobody mistakes him for a Trump supporter?

        1. Well, it turns out that libertarians aren’t the only people who vote.

          Maintaining his job as the Senate Majority leader depends on the Republicans maintaining control of the Senate, and maintaining control of the Senate requires Republicans to win in states where they’re vulnerable.

          Here’s one example of a seat he’d like to keep in Maine.

          https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/maine-turned-on-susan-collins.html

          In the House, sometimes Republicans win in districts that voted for Hillary. Sometimes Democrats win in districts that voted for Trump. You were already aware that swing voting Democrats are allowed to vote in Senate elections, too, right?

          1. Your commitment to defending the Republican party in the face of overwhelming evidence of their total ideological and moral failure is impressive, but is there something they do that you actually value? Is it the tax cuts for people richer than you, the selling out the country to foreign interests, or do you just want Christianity to be the law of the land? What is the point of all this?

            1. “This emaciated bill is only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said in a joint statement Tuesday.”

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-roll-out-skinny-stimulus-bill-as-talks-with-democrats-remain-stalled-11599599646

              They’re accusing the Republicans of acting like libertarians–certainly the way libertarians want them to act.

              Are you or are you not arguing with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?

              Are you not smart enough to understand that?

              1. Libertarians value legislation that serves to protect the asses of politicians while doing no good for their constituents? Looks like there’s plenty of moral failure to dish up around here.

                While you’re composing your paeans to the freedom-loving incorruptible definitely not child fucking Republicans, maybe take a minute to think about why it’s better for the country to pinch pennies during a national crisis than to try to fix the crisis. Not even a household behaves that way.

                And you’re not even a fiscal ideologue. You’re a Republican apologist. They spend more money and explode deficits more than Democrats, period. And get a hell of a lot less bang for their buck. So again, what is it you think you are swallowing when they jizz?

                1. Why would you respond this way to . . . anything?

                  It’s a hissy fit.

                  Do you even know what the topic is?

                  How embarrassing for you!

                  1. The topic is Nancy and Chuck correctly characterizing libertarians as morally vacant extremists.

                    But you’re not a libertarian, you’re a Republican bootlicker. You’d defend them if they took a trillion dollars and set it on fire as an offering to Satan.

                    1. You’d defend them if they took a trillion dollars and set it on fire as an offering to Satan.

                      You do realize that paper money is representative of human endeavor, right? Burning it would have zero effect. You could simply reprint it.

                      Maybe you don’t. That would explain quite a bit. It would also explain why you think offering insurance money to burned out businesses is not a horrible loss for the entire country. Good, Christ! It explains everything.

                      Tony doesn’t understand that money comes from labor!

                    2. Ken would still defend it. At length.

  16. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h…NFc someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me, so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…
    strive it, you……………CLICK HERE.

  17. 500 billion vs 3 trillion, this time, 4 trillion more in ~2 months.

    Left wing appeal to libertarians: “they both suck”.

    1. Hey, willingly place your head on this guillotine so I can chop it off or I’ll blow you up with a drone strike. I guess you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil!

  18. I sure wish the unemployment office hadn’t told me I didn’t qualify for unemployment at all, and I had been getting that $600 a week since last March. I’d feel bad about taking it, but at least I wouldn’t be going homeless in 4 days.

    Alternatively, letting people get fucking jobs would also work. Though it’s a bit late for me.

    1. So sorry to hear about your situation.

      1. Thanks. Things are pretty grim right now. Not even sure what to do.

        1. Well, OK, “pack”, apparently.

        2. Hope you get back on your feet soon.

          If you’re not opposed to relocating, fall harvest will be starting up soon in Kansas. Grain elevators are always looking for operators around this time, especially the bigger terminals. I cut my teeth in the grain business; it’s hard, dirty, exhausting work, but I loved it. If you get on with one of the big agribusiness companies, they offer decent pay and great benefits. Upward mobility is good also.

          1. Thanks.

            That’s… not a terrible idea. I’m not opposed to relocating, although “Kansas” is not a place I’d normally think about picking, heh. 😀

            Shit, maybe I should start clicking on the spambot links…

            1. Ha, working at online home to earned 150k per annum doesn’t sound too bad.

              1. I just saw one claiming $90 / hr, which would be $180k. That’d put me in a pretty high bracket in NM.

            2. I have a friend who got sick of retail and became an HVAC apprentice in his late 30s. Tradesmen make bank if you like to work. I knew drywall carpenters in Portland making $80k+ and electricians making over $100k. Apprentices start at 50% and work up to Journeyman wages over 4 years. The trades are still going strong here in Austin. Not sure about elsewhere, but with money so cheap at the moment, continued building is a good bet.

              1. *nod*

                I’ve got quite a few employable skills. Actually, as far as relocating goes, I’ve been contemplating SLC. It gets rather colder than I generally care for in the winters, but there are a number of really cool things happening there. Various firearms and custom automotive manufacturers. And I’m both a welder and a machinist, in addition to being a computer jock.

                Or I’ve got a CDL, so I could do that, but man the hours suck on long haul stuff. Then again, if I was living in a truck, I wouldn’t be homeless, per se…

      2. No you aren’t. You want everyone to stay home and the economy to suffer because you’re afraid you’ll die. Your choice to force others to reduce risk to your life put him in this situation. You don’t care at all about his situation because your preferences caused it.

        1. Fuck you Jesse. Are you quite done putting words into my mouth?

          You are a tiresome brat. I’ve told you over and over again what I actually stand for but all you care about is projecting your tired little caricature onto me and then raging against it like the good little Team Red weasel that you are. Maybe show a little bit of common decency for a change and stop the dehumanization rhetoric for just a moment and maybe realize that the person you are communicating with is an actual person, not some lame stereotype in your head.

          1. Youve argued two things in this thread. No money should be spent by the threads and nobody should leave their house.

            You took away both avenues he has.

            Sorry you are too fucking dumb to realize this. These are your arguments fatty. Literally in this thread.

            1. Youve argued two things in this thread. No money should be spent by the threads and nobody should leave their house.

              Literally not a single person in this entire discussion has argued in favor of that position. Not me, not Tony, not anyone.

              You are too simple-minded to actually argue against living human beings. You are only capable of beating up caricatures and strawmen. I am quite certain that the strawman chemjeff in your head is some radical socialist progressive cowering in fear while eating donuts and yelling at the neighbors “Stay inside! I’m afraid!” And congratulations you have totally destroyed Strawman Chemjeff. Good job! Maybe some day you will eventually graduate to arguing successfully against living human beings.

              And you are a piece of human trash for trying to turn a sincere statement of condolences into some political battlefield.

          2. By the way… common decency would be helping the economy to reopen so he can get a job as he wants to. You are the one withlut any fucking decency because you’re afraid.

            Hope you fucking realize how pathetically selfish you are due to your fear.

  19. I have made $16498 in one month by telecommuting.
    At the point when I lost my office employment multi month prior,
    I was disturbed and an ineffective go after a quest for new employment
    I was secured this online position. what’s more, presently I am ready
    to win thousands from home. Everyone can carry out this responsibility
    EARN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

  20. Democrats: “We have to spend another $3 trillion we don’t have to solve the pandemic.”

    Democrats: Trump’s deficit spending is ruining the country.”

    And they don’t even see the disconnect.

  21. Republicans: Let’s spend 500 billion dollars
    Democrats: Let’s spend 3 trillion dollars
    Reason: BOTH SIDES ARE JUST AS BAD! TRUMP’S DEFICITS!

  22. Liberals and respectable conservatives that support massive 3rd world immigration and forced integration/assimilation for every White country and only White countries say that they are “anti-racist” but their actions will lead to a world with no White children i.e White Genocide. Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-White.

    1. Merely being outbred is getting off easy compared to what we did to them, if you think about it.

  23. “only intended to help vulnerable Republican senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people,” The “CARES Act” borrowed and spent $2 trillion that we don’t have and it was supported by both parties. Clearly, Pelosi is old and has lost her memory on top of being a shameless, lying demagogue and ideologue.

    Nancy Pelosi is a vile, evil human being. The world will be a better place when she is gone.

  24. Nancy Pelosi is not going to enjoy the eternity she will spend in hell. Her soul is empty and her tongue is foul.

  25. “It’s just a bad flu.”

    My god the level of idiocy in these parts. Do you know the president is lying to you and you take it like eager power bottoms, or are you actually dumber than he is?

    1. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhUtGIQWAAAXIRm?format=jpg

      Well, OK. It’s been a lot worse than the flu. Mostly due to two states run entirely by Democrats.

      1. That is certainly a correlation. Both states have New in the name too. Maybe that’s why they had the worst outbreaks. The fact that it’s the most densely populated part of the country and had the earliest outbreak is certainly less important than you sucking Republican cock like a methed out slave boy.

        1. And on the flip side, here in New Mexico, we’ve done far, far better.

          Also, meth? How passe. I’m more of a ket guy, myself. And the only cock I’ve ever sucked is my ex-girlfriend’s, and she’s so not a Republican. In fact, the idea of calling her one is making me giggle a whole lot. I’m half tempted to text her that for the lulz.

          1. Maybe your girlfriend’s cock can explain to you that blaming Cuomo and China for a problem is not the same as having a plan to fix the problem.

            1. I sincerely doubt that an inanimate hunk of silicone is going to explain much. I never take that much ket.

              But sure thing, darlin’. It’s all Trump’s fault that Cuomo concentrated Covid cases in places with the people at the highest risk. You’ve convinced me.

              1. You seem to be under the impression that my game is to defend Cuomo. I actually just want the problem fixed so I don’t have to worry about losing my job. Cuomo has little to nothing to do with that right now. China, even less. Trump can lie and deflect blame all by himself. It’s one thing he can actually accomplish in a day’s work. Why help?

                1. So, there’s actually two pieces of data that can be gleaned from that chart I posted. The first one is the really obvious one, that the vast majority of deaths occurred in just two states. The second is on the far right end of the chart. The part where it shows current weekly deaths / million people as nearly zero. There’s very little reason your job should still be at risk at this point due to the disease itself.

                  1. We can only hope that corporations are as utterly unconcerned about the well-being of their employees as critics of libertarianism would have us believe.

                    1. We can only hope that you are either incapacitated or too young to vote; idiocy like this is the reason for the electoral college.

                2. You defended them with your 4:47 post so you could blame trump instead sweetie.

                  1. What about Trump’s handling of this issue do you find exemplary?

                    Bonus points for including today’s news in your calculations.

                    1. Pretty much far better than, oh Newsom or Cuomo.

        2. They also put sick people in nursing homes which is apparently the largest correlating factor for death rates from Covid. Facts are pesky like that Tony.

      2. Tony was still hoping for the 2 million dead. But since he was wrong he will say the people who were a lot closer are idiots.

        It is amazing to watch.

        1. Tony was still hoping for the 2 million dead.

          Of course Jesse. We know that the Strawman Tony’s in your mind were hoping and praying that the body count would be huge, so that Trump would get all the blame.

          1. You.
            Are.
            Still.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.

      3. “Well, OK. It’s been a lot worse than the flu…”

        I’m waiting for the data separating those who died ‘with CO19’ from those who died ‘from CO19’.

        1. I think you’re likely to end up waiting a long time. I can’t see that anyone really has any significant incentive to separate those numbers out. Would be nice to see, though.

          Saw an article the other day: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8605885/Lockdown-killed-two-people-three-died-coronavirus.html

          “Lockdown ‘killed two people for every three that died of coronavirus’: 16,000 people in the UK died in five weeks as hospitals shut down to deal with COVID while 25,000 died from the virus”

          1. Some are doing so:
            “Colorado now breaking down deaths due to COVID-19 versus people who died with COVID-19”
            […]
            “…According to Friday’s data, 878 people died in Colorado due to COVID-19, while a total of 1,150 people – including the 878 – have died and had COVID-19…”
            https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coronavirus/colorado-now-breaking-down-deaths-due-to-covid-19-versus-people-who-died-with-covid-19

            That’s ‘only’ a 24% delta, and we have yet to be enlightened as to that delta in CA and NY (where, separately) Cuomo used nursing homes as dumps for those infected.

    2. “…Do you know the president is lying to you and you take it like eager power bottoms, or are you actually dumber than he is?”

      This from a lefty shit who supported O-care; nuff said.

  26. Somebody in the DC Swamp missed a zero. That should have been $5 trillion. Those guys never could count. 30 million have died in the US from the fake Covid pandemic. You can’t argue with the numbers. I hard it on the TV…Truth Verified!

  27. Gordon, as i have stated elsewhere, i don’t understand why so many are still enamoured with modern football, perhaps you are to young to remember paying on the gate, terraces, an atmosphere that in some cases had the hairs on the back of your neck up, tinged with a bit of menace! Players who were paid well but still had roots in the community and clubs that while not perfect by any stretch still felt “owned” by the community HERE►ReadMore.

  28. Turd will be here in the morning to tell us how Trump ran up the deficit and the debt AGAIN!

  29. Did you hear Trump tried to ‘downplay’ the possible effects of the wu-flu? From what I heard (wife’s got TV on in other room) he was trying to avoid panic, and given the results from the (D) states that DID panic, it looks, in hindsight, like a good move.
    Now you might thereby claim that Obo’s “you can keep your doctor” is equivalent, I’m going to call your bullshit right now:
    Trump was not ‘misleading’ the population in the hopes of passing some bill requiring a huge increase in the size of government and its spending; he was using the ‘bully puppet’ to avoid what Newsom and Cuomo did with disastrous results.

  30. The Republican Senate majority are proposing spending $500,000,000,000.00 dollars which is $500,000,000,000.00 dollars too much.

    The Democrat Congress majority are proposing spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 dollars which is $3,000,000,000,000.00 dollars too much.

    The simple fact is that we are out on money.

  31. I’m not some old codger blind to the deficiencies of the game .READ MORE

  32. That would set the blacks against Indians.READ MORE

Please to post comments