Coronavirus

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
User avatar
Indy
Posts: 13333
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Indy » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:46 pm

And it is interesting that the WSJ editorial board doesn't see money for vaccinations or restaurants hit hard by COVID as good for economic stimulus, but they loved giving billionaires and CEOs even more in tax breaks. Hmm. Curious what their net worth is on that board.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by In2ition » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:04 pm

That's a good question, but I imagine it's not anywhere close to or under $250K.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 12604
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Mori Chu » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:29 am

Indy wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:59 pm
This doesn't seem good at all. What kind of pork is in this bill? Can we just get something that's just for the people, instead of whoever's special interests and some type of payment or kickback? I'm not even putting blame on any particular side, it's done by both and it's ridiculous, imo.
We can't, because the only way to avoid a GOP senator from filibustering the bill is to do it through Reconciliation. That means it has to be the entire spending bill, not just a one-off to help people. So it has all the pork in it that every congressman and senator has fought for in their state or from there lobbyists or for their own self-interest. It is awful. But it is also the sausage making process needed to get any spending bill to pass into a law.
This is the truth of it. The GOP completely obstructs any attempt at Democratic legislation. It is impossible to work with them or achieve compromise; they vote 100% against any Dem bill no matter its content. So every single legislative act taken by a Dem-led Congress must be jammed into the year's budgets and spending bills and passed via reconciliation. This is the sad state of the Senate today. It's stupid and it isn't the way our government should work.

I think the Dems should reform the filibuster so that this wouldn't be needed. The mistake is that they keep talking about "abolishing" the filibuster, which sounds scary. They should just "reform" it -- limit it to in-person speeches with no breaks, not remote delays -- and that'd solve 99% of the problems with it.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by In2ition » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:43 am

Mori Chu wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:29 am
Indy wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:44 pm
In2ition wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:59 pm
This doesn't seem good at all. What kind of pork is in this bill? Can we just get something that's just for the people, instead of whoever's special interests and some type of payment or kickback? I'm not even putting blame on any particular side, it's done by both and it's ridiculous, imo.
We can't, because the only way to avoid a GOP senator from filibustering the bill is to do it through Reconciliation. That means it has to be the entire spending bill, not just a one-off to help people. So it has all the pork in it that every congressman and senator has fought for in their state or from there lobbyists or for their own self-interest. It is awful. But it is also the sausage making process needed to get any spending bill to pass into a law.
This is the truth of it. The GOP completely obstructs any attempt at Democratic legislation. It is impossible to work with them or achieve compromise; they vote 100% against any Dem bill no matter its content. So every single legislative act taken by a Dem-led Congress must be jammed into the year's budgets and spending bills and passed via reconciliation. This is the sad state of the Senate today. It's stupid and it isn't the way our government should work.

I think the Dems should reform the filibuster so that this wouldn't be needed. The mistake is that they keep talking about "abolishing" the filibuster, which sounds scary. They should just "reform" it -- limit it to in-person speeches with no breaks, not remote delays -- and that'd solve 99% of the problems with it.
So when they originally suggested a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, you think they budgeted for most of this to be the yrs spending budget and they were looking for less than $900 billion for the stimulus all along? You might be on to something. We need to start looking into all the pork in the bill and figure out what it's for and if it's really needed. The stimulus checks could have been $3000 per, if the Reps weren't involved.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by In2ition » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:48 pm



Federal judge rules eviction moratorium is unconstitutional
By Konstantin Toropin and Paul LeBlanc, CNN

Updated 12:38 AM ET, Fri February 26, 2021
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics ... index.html

(CNN)A federal judge in Texas on Thursday ruled that the federal moratorium on evictions is unconstitutional, according to court documents.

US District Judge John Barker, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump to the court in the Eastern District of Texas, stopped short of issuing a preliminary injunction, but said he expected the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to respect his ruling and withdraw the moratorium.
"The federal government cannot say that it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium. It did not do so during the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic. Nor did it invoke such a power during the exigencies of the Great Depression. The federal government has not claimed such a power at any point during our Nation's history until last year," Barker wrote.
Although the Covid-19 pandemic persists, he said, "so does the Constitution."

The ruling punctuates a legal effort that began when a group of Texas landlords and property owners sued the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services in October over the Eviction Moratorium Order that was issued by the Trump administration in September.
The order, citing the fact that "COVID-19 presents a historic threat to public health," put a temporary halt on residential evictions.

But the property owners argued in their lawsuit that the federal government didn't have the power to stop evictions. Barker sided with that argument, writing in his ruling that Congress also lacked the authority to grant the CDC the power to halt evictions nationwide, and noted that the moratorium threatened to encroach on landlords' rights under state law.
The plaintiffs were represented by two conservative legal groups, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Southeastern Legal Foundation, which hailed the decision as a win.
"The CDC attempted to use COVID-19 as an opportunity to grab power and the court rightfully corrected this egregious overreach," Robert Henneke, one of the lawyers in the case and general counsel for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said in a statement.
The Department of Justice declined to comment when reached by CNN. It is not clear if the agency plans to appeal the case.
Initially, the CDC order was set to expire at the end of December, but it was extended through January by a provision in the second stimulus package. One of President Joe Biden's first acts in office was to seek to extend the moratorium again, until the end of March.
The order is invoked when a tenant gives their landlord a signed declaration asserting that they meet specific requirements -- including that they earn less than $100,000 a year, have experienced a significant loss of income and have made their best effort to find rental assistance and pay their rent.
Under the order, rent is not canceled or forgiven and landlords can evict tenants after the moratorium ends if they are not able to pay the back rent.
In some jurisdictions, existing tenant protections might be greater than what is offered in the CDC's moratorium.
An estimated 10 million renters were behind on their rent and at risk of eviction in the middle of January, according to a Census Bureau survey. And an estimated 16 million renters had little to no confidence they could pay their rent in February.
This story has been updated with additional information Thursday.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 13333
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Indy » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:54 pm

Curious if he owns any rental properties...

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7575
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus

Post by In2ition » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm

Indy wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:54 pm
Curious if he owns any rental properties...
That's a very fair question, and if so, he should have recused himself. I think this ruling gets moved to a higher court, no?
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 13333
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus

Post by Indy » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:59 pm

In2ition wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:56 pm
Indy wrote:
Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:54 pm
Curious if he owns any rental properties...
That's a very fair question, and if so, he should have recused himself. I think this ruling gets moved to a higher court, no?
You can find other articles online that point out flaws in his legal arguments, including him saying that if you are paying rent for a property, you are not participating in "economic activity," which SCOTUS has ruled the fed government can much around with.

I assume it will be appealed and go to the next level.

Post Reply