The real reason the next pandemic rescue package is stalled

[Zorro]

Is this any way to handle a crisis?

That’s the reasonable question to ask as you watch Congress in a stalemate over the next economic rescue package. And although it’s a mistake to attribute the problem to “Congress” as an entity (as if blame should be apportioned equally to both parties regardless of the facts), there is an institutional problem at work here.

It’s divided government, something pundits often describe as a healthy guarantor of moderate policy outcomes and something voters say they like as a check on either party growing too powerful. But right now, wouldn’t it be better if one party were in charge and could just solve the problem — or at least do its best?

“Only if it’s my party,” you might say. Fair enough. But right now, we’re seeing how the need to compromise can slow things to a crawl when rapid, decisive action is what’s necessary.

Let’s be clear: The main holdup is that the White House and congressional Republicans can’t agree on what they’re seeking. They know they don’t want to be as generous as Democrats do, but beyond that, they seem all over the map. For their part, House Democrats passed their rescue bill back in May.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/04/real-reason-next-pandemic-rescue-package-is-stalled/

[kurtcagle]

1. The GOP want corporate immunity

If Trump wasn't trailing in the polls, he'd be blocking any aid at this point. The GOP also expect their press minions to continue to blame the Dems in the House for being intransigent, despite the fact that the House has in fact been on top of this from the beginning. iT's a serious miscalculation on their part, but corporate money buys pro-business political ads.

[Newest Reality]

2. What's the game plan?

What's the game plan for the Republicans here?

Wall St. and corporations seem to be doing pretty well with the rather generous, private socialism that props them up for now. Welfare is fine, it just depends on who gets it as they demonstrate.

That bailout seemed to be a no brainer and so much money flowed with little oversight that it was a grifter Xmas for some and a few people really gamed that giveaway to the max as we have read.

Now, OUR economy, you know, we the consumers, is in big trouble--on the verge of catastrophic collapse. I would think that that alone would be an incentive to keep commerce flowing, at least, once upon a time. The producers produce things and services, the providers provide them and the consumers consume them, right?

Why even frame this as only about giving free money to us with all this silly jazz about work incentives and "dignity", (gosh knows that they don't have any left) of work when it should be, unless they have decoupled it all from us, a simple, matter of fact that the larger part of stimulus checks and extra UI income will go right back into said economy?

No matter how you slice it, most people who receive the help won't be investing, building portfolios, wasting the money, or anything other than merely surviving this storm. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries of elite socialism would be able to move products and services. Right? It would help to forestall all the potentially negative outcomes of a potential depression and, with automation coming full speed, we are going to have to address this issue anyway.

Really, this makes no sense unless something is seriously wrong with our view of how it should work. What has changed? Are we just going to bypass the people and continue to give corporations and big business in general more free money so they don't have to worry about sales and such?

[stillcool]

3. The Republicans like to have hostages when bargaining..

the closer to death the better.

[Thekaspervote]

4. Dotard wants 400 mil in the bill to remodel the west wing.. just one of the reasons