Quote (Black XistenZ @ Mar 23 2020 04:08pm)
No one would mind it if the Democrats were negotiating in good faith, and insisted on reasonable provisions directly related to the coronavirus crisis. For example, they could insist that the planned direct cash payments (see my previous post) are less steeply tiered, and that they shall apply to all households (without a qualifying threshold income of $2500).
But when they want items from their policy wishlist which are not related at all to the crisis at hand, like diversity quotas for boards, handouts to unions and abortion providers, limits on deportations or fossil emission reductions, you cannot possibly argue that their priority is immediate relief for affected Americans.
As far as I can tell, the democrats
were negotiating in good faith in the senate and the 5 days of talks produced the senate bill with all sorts of conditions and compromises directly related to the coronavirus. It was those negotiations that clarified the amount of money per person, amount per child, how many rounds of payments. They added in clauses to make sure it didn't phase in with rich people getting more than poor ones, and made sure it phased out from $75-99k income. And they added the conditions to the corporate bailout to say a $425k executive pay cap, no stock buybacks and must keep payroll intact.
We have to remember that this entire bill was an overtly socialist proposal to begin with, we had Andrew Yang saluting what was basically a month or two in universal basic income. The republicans were outflanking the democrats on the
left. In anything but an extreme crisis, this bill was unthinkable. And they added in reasonable concessions to democrats on top of all that, stuff that really wasn't dealbreakers and had a lot of good sense behind it.
But then Nancy Pelosi showed up on capitol hill, axed the entire process and produced this ideological wishlist garbage that can serve no purpose but obstructionism.