All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

I know that conditions vary between UK and US..but all the people I know in UK who have stayed in jobs throughout the pandemic have actually been financially better off than iusual.

That’s been for a mix of reasons...working from home saves travel costs,etc, and there has been less to spend money on. Once (if?) vaccinations allow a return to normal life there is going to be a lot of money spent anyhow.

I actually think there is a strong case for concentrating help on people that have lost jobs. Are conditions really that different in US?

To put it simply...

The only politicians that I've heard talking about who shouldn't get money are the ones that I don't really trust to start with.

It's not like "The Good Guys..." have said -

"Fine. Let's Make It A '$50,000 a year single...'/'$100,000 a year couple...' Cutoff Point. That Said, We're Gonna Need To Increase What They Get To Three Grand Because They Actually Are The Folks Who Legitimately Need The Help..."

Pretty sure I know why I haven't heard them say that.

[Jeremi]

Oh, they want a robust justice system. As long as it minds its manners and confines itself to "those other people."

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1...197046278?s=19

20-year-old Emanuel Jackson, a participant in the Capitol riot, has been denied bail despite others being released.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

With an impending eviction crisis, I'd think using it to pay rent or a mortgage is kind of the point.
What many who don't need the money are likely to do is just put it in the bank or an IRA. If they don't do that, they'll give it to charity.

People should realize that all these stimulus packages had almost no limits on how much businesses could take out. Putting a limit at all on one of the smallest costs of the stimulus that effects the most people isn’t really altruistic. Especially if Donald Trump and a Mitch McConnell led Senate can campaign on the fact that they gave people money that Biden and Democrats wouldn’t. Going to be a bad look. Especially in a state like Georgia that just flipped blue largely over just this issue. But have fun with making that argument to voters

[worstblogever]

I would be phased out of stimmy cash with the new parameters, compared to the old ones, in my household.

I ain't mad. I don't need it. That's the point. Get it to the people who need it.

This isn't a tough concept to grab.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of Brian Greene, a member of the Utah House of Representatives serving District 57 who decided to ask in a committee meeting of the Utah state legislature why the law should always be that sex with an unconscious person should be rape. He even cited an example where he felt there should be an exception to this rule… if it’s your spouse. After the incident, Greene tried claiming he was taken out of context, showing he didn't understand how context works. We’ll add that Greene also voted to block the Medicaid expansion in Utah, voted to allow businesses to still be able to fire employees just for being gay or transgendered, voted after Sandy Hook to legalize concealed carry of firearms without a permit, and in one of the more specific pieces of legislation he’s submitted, was pushing to make sure that someone has to be fully clothed or covered with a sheet between themselves and a masseuse’s hands, only giving a massage therapist a green light to touch someone’s exposed hands, feet, or ears. In 2017, Greene voted against a bill that would require licensed lobbyists in the Utah state legislature to have to go through the Herculean labor of having to go through simple sexual harassment training, because, and we quote:
[QUOTE] "I think it's pretty clear what's appropriate and what isn't. I hate to get into the false sense of security that we can somehow educate people on what appropriate behavior is and inappropriate behavior is." To reiterate, the guy who had to ask if it’s rape if the person is unconscious, and doesn’t think you can rape your spouse now would like us to believe that he knows what’s clear and appropriate behavior for a lobbyist, and would like to do nothing to stop a toxic environment of harassment. We at least don’t have to continue to ask the voters in his district, “WHY DO YOU KEEP VOTING FOR THIS ****ING IDIOT?” anymore, because mercifully, Brian Greene did not run for re-election in 2018, and is now out of office.

On this date in 2020, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, profiled David Byrd, a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives who held office from 2014-2020, His voting record aligns himself with the craziest legislation in Tennessee from the past few years as well, including anti-LGBTQ votes like trying to allow adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to same sex couples, co-sponsoring fetal heart beat legislation, co-sponsoring the bill to have Tennessee build a “monument to the unborn”, trying to strip funding to the University of Tennessee’s diversity office, and of course, trying to establish the Bible as the state book. The guy’s not exactly playing with a full deck, but then again, we’re not profiling him because of his legislative record. Honestly, it’s kind of amazing that he’s still in office in 2020, given how his 2018 election season went. Because, in March of 2018, three women who were basketball players who played for Byrd when he was a girl’s basketball coach three decades earlier came forward to accuse him of sexually assaulting them, and of other improper behavior when they were as young as 15. And… we shouldn’t need to explain what’s wrong with that. Byrd denies it happened, but there’s a recording of a phone call he had with one of his accusers where he seems to acknowledge something happened, and his best defense is to say “he’s a Christian” and he can’t recall details from 30 years ago. His main defender in the state legislature is former Tennessee Speaker of the House Glen Casada, who has his own scandals to deal with. Because the GOP didn’t run a primary challenger against him in 2018, and his district is conservative enough that an accused pedophile can win by 55 points against a Democrat. At least the good news that we can end this profile with is that as of August 2019, David Byrd announced he would not be seeking re-election in 2020. The fact that this vile piece of garbage who preyed on girls and the Tennessee GOP are allowing him to serve in office for three full years after the allegations, however, is very telling about the state of current Republican politics. As he is now out of office, we’ll retire his profile and take a look at another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 962-45, since this was established in July 2014.

[worstblogever]

Kerry Roberts

Welcome to what is the 962nd profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be profiling Tennessee State Senator Kerry Roberts,who has represented District 25 of that body since 2011. Through the past seven years on this blog, we have acknowledged that the Tennessee state legislator is positively loaded with kooks, loons, and crooked snakes, so it makes it hard for one person to be as extreme enough to stand out. Roberts has managed to find a way the past few years.

Sure, his voting record has a lot of red flags, including co-sponsoring fetal heart beat legislation, co-sponsoring the bill to have Tennessee build a “monument to the unborn”, including anti-LGBTQ votes like trying to allow adoption agencies to refuse to allow same sex couples to adopt children, voting to put guns in schools and college campuses, trying to strip funding to the University of Tennessee’s diversity office, and of course, trying to establish the Bible as the state book.

Here’s where the plot thickens… Roberts hosts his own right-wing talk-radio show, where he tends to say the quiet parts out loud. Back in September of 2019, he was discussing a recent legislative hearing on abortion, and mused that he supports getting rid of higher education because he argues it would cut off the "liberal breeding ground." Now, if calling for the shutdown of public colleges and universities isn’t literally advocating for ignorance and stupidity and a good stopping point, he continued on to lie and say that a woman's belief in her own bodily autonomy was a "product of higher education" and if the country got rid of higher education would "save America."

This, of course, led to a lot of criticism, because, for lack of a better term, holy s***, that’s nuts. Upon this push back against his comments, Kerry Roberts pulled the classic move of Republican fascists these days who when they go too far, claiming they’re "joking" and didn’t really mean they wanted to do all the horrible things they just said they wished to do.

Our other reason for focusing on Roberts? Oh, just that he sponsored legislation to stop the removal of Confederate monuments in June of 2020. And by that, we mean he wanted to keep a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the KKK, in the state capitol. This as Confederate monuments were being removed all over the country during protests over the death of George Floyd. But you see, Kerry Roberts needed an object in his legislature to pass by to remind him of white supremacy, as one does. (What an ***hole.)

Kerry Roberts will be up for re-election in 2022, and there’s a good chance he might seek retirement, given how he was hospitalized in October of 2020 with an aneurysm. Should he choose to call it a career, the Volunteer state would also be better off.

[worstblogever]

It doesn't help your argument to say things that are untrue, and to criticize people who are correct.

So then you are no longer pretending you aren't continuing to make posts that defend white nationalists like Kyle Rittenhouse, and it's a clear pattern of yours?

Ok then.

[PwrdOn]

I know that conditions vary between UK and US..but all the people I know in UK who have stayed in jobs throughout the pandemic have actually been financially better off than iusual.

That’s been for a mix of reasons...working from home saves travel costs,etc, and there has been less to spend money on. Once (if?) vaccinations allow a return to normal life there is going to be a lot of money spent anyhow.

I actually think there is a strong case for concentrating help on people that have lost jobs. Are conditions really that different in US?

That ship sailed a long time ago, back when we decided that the priority was to be reopening the economy as quickly as possible rather than providing relief to people while maintaining the lockdown. A one time payment is not going to do much besides kick the can down the road until the economy picks up again, and given the disastrous rollout of the vaccine that could be a while away yet. There's no reason to start pearl clutching about the deficit and start watering down the stimulus package now, get as much money circulating in the economy as possible, there's no point in a stimulus bill that gives poor people just enough money to stay alive but remain poor.

[JackDaw]

That ship sailed a long time ago, back when we decided that the priority was to be reopening the economy as quickly as possible rather than providing relief to people while maintaining the lockdown. A one time payment is not going to do much besides kick the can down the road until the economy picks up again, and given the disastrous rollout of the vaccine that could be a while away yet. There's no reason to start pearl clutching about the deficit and start watering down the stimulus package now, get as much money circulating in the economy as possible, there's no point in a stimulus bill that gives poor people just enough money to stay alive but remain poor.

The thing about giving the money to people that actually need it is that the money actually gets spent. Businesses get the money, the money flows through the system and gets spent again. It’s the so called “multiplier effect” and stimulates the economy more than giving it to people with less need.

I don’t see why the ambition should be to give people in dire straits just “enough to keep them alive”..we should help people in real need a bit more than that.

In general I have never understood the double standards in use of public money. We do things exactly the wrong way round. We are profoundly mean to people who need money, but fantastically generous to already rich people by way of business grants, farm subsidies, etc. And the pay packets of our politicians are unfailingly generous.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I would be phased out of stimmy cash with the new parameters, compared to the old ones, in my household.

I ain't mad. I don't need it. That's the point. Get it to the people who need it.

This isn't a tough concept to grab.

Same here. I can live without the check while others less fortunate than me need that money more.

====================

Riot Aftermath: Still-Shaken Lawmakers, Troops Still Stand Guard

A month ago, the U.S. Capitol was taken over by Trump supporters. Five people died. A look back and the fallout since. Meanwhile......

**********

Reps. Louie Gohmert, Andrew Clyde Hit With $5,000 Fines For Dodging Metal Detectors

The GOP lawmakers were the first to be fined for refusing to cooperate with the new security policy, put in place after last month’s deadly Capitol insurrection.

**********

Delay Second Doses? A Guide To The Latest COVID-19 Vaccine Debate

The idea is still controversial, but it’s now getting more attention from scientists in the U.S.

**********

150 Constitutional Experts Say Trump Impeachment Defense Is Way Off Base

Trump’s attorneys are missing the point, they write: Did Trump violate his oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

**********

Trump Pal Roger Stone Caught Hanging With Oath Keepers Before Capitol Attack

Video obtained by ABC News shows the Donald Trump confidant flanked by members of the far-right militia the morning of the insurrection.

**********

Wyoming GOP Censures Rep. Liz Cheney Over Impeachment Vote

The censure document accused Cheney of voting to impeach even though the U.S. House didn’t offer Trump “formal hearing or due process.”

[CaptainEurope]

The stimulus check isn't just for immediate relief, it's supposed to actually stimulate consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. If you restrict them to only the poorest people, then most of it will just go to either rent or paying off debt, which will be helpful in the short term but doesn't really do much to aid the economic recovery. In order to do that, you need to send money to people who aren't in immediate financial distress, and therefore will actually be willing to spend it on stuff, which keeps businesses afloat and creates jobs and all that good stuff.

That's... trickle down. You're describing trickle down economy.

[Mister Mets]

The stimulus check isn't just for immediate relief, it's supposed to actually stimulate consumer spending and help get the economy back on track. If you restrict them to only the poorest people, then most of it will just go to either rent or paying off debt, which will be helpful in the short term but doesn't really do much to aid the economic recovery. In order to do that, you need to send money to people who aren't in immediate financial distress, and therefore will actually be willing to spend it on stuff, which keeps businesses afloat and creates jobs and all that good stuff.

The poorest people would be more likely to spend money, just because they need more stuff.

Anyone well-off would be more likely to invest.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned in these discussions is where people are living. A family earning $300K in, say, Nebraska, may not have the same expenses as a family earning $300K but living in a major city like NYC or San Francisco.

It would be difficult to come up with a policy solution here to distinguish between people who live somewhere expensive because they need to for professional money, and people who make the decision to spend a lot of money on rent.

Yep. Perhaps if they weren't giving money out to people that don't actually need it, they could afford to get subsequent stimulus checks out sooner to those that do. Unfortunately, politicians need to win Elections and this would piss off a bunch of voters who just want the extra cash but don't actually need it.

The main argument for sending everyone stimulus checks is that any bureaucracy is going to slow the process down.

It's faster to send it to everybody than it is to verify income levels.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I would be phased out of stimmy cash with the new parameters, compared to the old ones, in my household.

I ain't mad. I don't need it. That's the point. Get it to the people who need it.

This isn't a tough concept to grab.

Let's do some math. Let's say every single American in the country qualified for the stimulus check. It would account for 24% of the funds in that package. That's based on a ridiculous notion that that everyone would qualify for this. It's really closer to 53% of the country would clear the 75k (which fyi if you live in any major city, where most of the counrty lives, that's hardly anything). So really what we are a talking about is 12% of a $1.9 trillion dollar spending packaging. Maybe you don't need it, but some people in major parts of the country actually do, and some desperately.

Quibbling over something that isn't even close to a major piece of the bill is not saving money. It's really just arguing pennies while major businesses get some unchecked spending (like the last bill). So it isn't even tangibly changing that much of the spending in comparison to the whole, but it's really just saying "1/3rd of the people that got checks under Trump will not under Biden".


So on a practical application standpoint it's missing the forest for the trees. On a political front, it's dumb. There's no way to sell this as a positive. You got a majority based off a runoff election in GA where this was the top issue. 2 years from now do Democrats really want to have to answer to anybody making between 50k-75k why they got 2 checks that totalled $1800 under Trump but nothing under Biden. That's basically. In the most of the country, that's basically the lionshare of the middle class that's getting excluded.

Good luck. Good luck combating that messaging in GA when Warnock is up. Good luck not losing the house in a very dangerous 2022 election. Have fun with that.

Personally, I wouldn't qualify for it regardless of where they land on the limit. However, I would much rather a bunch of people who made 70k get it and not need it if it meant people who need it making 55k-65k also get it. And as someone who usually supports the Democratic Party, they just got a mandate specifically around getting this stimulus check out. Means testing is where bills like this go to become unpopular and it's not saving any money anyways in comparison to the bill, which is still a massive handout to institutions that aren't having much oversite and already got the majority of the last two bills.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Let's do some math. Let's say every single American in the country qualified for the stimulus check. It would account for 24% of the funds in that package. That's based on a ridiculous notion that that everyone would qualify for this. It's really closer to 53% of the country would clear the 75k (which fyi if you live in any major city, where most of the counrty lives, that's hardly anything). So really what we are a talking about is 12% of a $1.9 trillion dollar spending packaging. Maybe you don't need it, but some people in major parts of the country actually do, and some desperately.

Quibbling over something that isn't even close to a major piece of the bill is not saving money. It's really just arguing pennies while major businesses get some unchecked spending (like the last bill). So it isn't even tangibly changing that much of the spending in comparison to the whole, but it's really just saying "1/3rd of the people that got checks under Trump will not under Biden".


So on a practical application standpoint it's missing the forest for the trees. On a political front, it's dumb. There's no way to sell this as a positive. You got a majority based off a runoff election in GA where this was the top issue. 2 years from now do Democrats really want to have to answer to anybody making between 50k-75k why they got 2 checks that totalled $1800 under Trump but nothing under Biden. That's basically. In the most of the country, that's basically the lionshare of the middle class that's getting excluded.

Good luck. Good luck combating that messaging in GA when Warnock is up. Good luck not losing the house in a very dangerous 2022 election. Have fun with that.

A lot can happen in 2 years and Americans have short memories.

[Mister Mets]

So then you are no longer pretending you aren't continuing to make posts that defend white nationalists like Kyle Rittenhouse, and it's a clear pattern of yours?

Ok then.

I wasn't defending Rittenhouse. It was a general comment about how bail works.

I am disturbed by the idea that it matters more what side you're on in a particular argument, rather than the truth. It allows for a nasty rhetorical trick of intentionally saying something untrue about a disgusting group or individual, and then calling out someone who responds with the facts as being in favor of that.

As I noted in part of the post you chose not to quote, one of the arguments for Trump and his sycophants was that it didn't matter that what they say is untrue, but that they're on the right side. You seem to be embracing that approach. This is a pernicious attitude that poisons political discussion, where pointing out the truth can be seen as a negative, which prevents people from getting to a shared understanding of the facts.

It's important to have an understanding of the facts to advocate for the best policies. It's not great for the bail reform movement if progressives are saying things that are incorrect online, while advocating for stricter penalties.