What is wrong with Pelosi? She derailed the aid package for the people effected by this disease by adding this stuff?

They do not belong in the bill. 

Oversight is fine. Money for hospitals fine.  

But that has nothing to do with most of the stuff she is trying to stick in there.  The part telling states how they will conduct elections is particularly upsetting. 

I do not know what Boeing needs but it at least is relevant to the purpose of the bill. 

I agree send a clean bill. 

So, you think that adding provisions to give billions of dollars to big companies that have been buying back their stock without any strings attached for reimbursing the taxpayers is a good idea?  You must fail to realize that the Republicans have often stuck pork barrel items into "must pass" bills and shoved it down out throats.  

No one is complaining about putting in restrictions on stock buy backs or other misuse of the money. That is not what my question is complaining about.

Most of that stuff has nothing to do with the virus. 

Why should we taxpayers give free money to big corporations?  

Why should we give it to anyone?   
We are planning to give it to help businesses keep people working. To me the money should only be allowed to go to things like workers payroll/rent/materials...to keep workers working.

Exactly, so why are you upset that the Democrats won't sign a bill that gives it to businesses?

I am upset at the bull**** they are trying to attach to it.  Something is going to be signed. That is a given. And people who suddenly cannot work need help. 

People are told they cannot even be open. My entire state has 130 cases as of yesterday.....and businesses are forced closed. 

It's always bull*** no matter which party presents the bill.  It's meant to help the little guy, not give free money to the big boys who spend it buying back their stock.  Your entire state may have 130 cases, but if one of those people goes out in a crowd, that person can infect dozens more and on and on.  How do you think it got to be so bad in NY and CA?

Yes and I do not want BS in any of the bills.
The bills are meant to help those who need it to keep jobs going.   There will be regulations that forbid the wrong usage of the money....that was agreed to before Pelosi showed up and decided to get throw the BS in the mix. 
We know who is at risk. Those people should stay home....if they want to.  If I were older or had medical risks....I would want to stay home.

I have bills to pay. I need to work. We do not shut down over anything else.  People die every year from the flu etc. 

Try reading up on the number of younger people who are now coming down with the virus.  Your needing to pay your bills is no different than anyone else, but your paying your bills doesn't supersede my right not to get sick with something that could kill me.  Clearly, you don't know who should stay home because of the number of people out the who ARE sick and getting others sick in the process.  

Again. People in high risk should take precautions in a state where it is not an epidemic.  
In other places, yes it needs locked down. 
I know I am not the only one who needs to pay their bills.  But when a state only has 130 cases it makes no sense to treat it the same as a state with thousands of cases. 

I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse.  Without containment, the virus doubles or triples in three days.  If you don't have symptoms, you can still have the virus.  Then, thinking you're OK, you go out and inadvertently infect two+ others.  Then they go out and infect more people.  I don't think I can explain it any more simply than that, so if you don't get it now, I'm done.

SpunkySenior, I hate the fact that Pelosi can't set a few restraints, especially a reduction in the privileges given to the richest and most powerful.
It goes against the grain of everything I believe in.

Have a look at this site:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56
It takes 29 minutes to read, but is worth the time.
It uses the peer reviewed research of the world's top epidemiologists, and is extremely well reasoned.
It shows why and how a policy of going hard and fast on containing the spread of the virus is so important,
and why doing little or acting late will cause exponentially more deaths.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives can try to influence the Senate, but with the Republicans holding the Senate, the Democrats are hamstrung - and they know it.
The most they can do is play politics to show their constituents that they're trying their hardest.

Right now, far more lives are at stake than the public realise.
The experts know it but the politicians are refusing to listen because they're worried about the economy.

What they don't realise is that this disease has yet to wreak far more devastating effects.
It is not true that only the old are vulnerable, only that they are more vulnerable.
The health system will be overwhelmed with not enough equipment to save those who need oxygen and intensive care. Doctors will have to abandon the elderly to save the younger and more able (triage).
In the meantime, millions will be sick, staying at home to nurse the sick, or will lose their jobs because companies can't afford to keep their workers on when no one is buying their services or goods.

In the meantime, overheated markets will deflate, loans will be called in, and lenders have been practising a game of Emperor's New Clothes for decades by lending money they don't have; there is a domino effect about to come crashing down.
It is highly likely that the recession will turn into a Great Depression.

There is no question in my mind that Trump is not taking the right approach.
I would prefer to see him (and all heads of state) practice the Hammer and the Dance strategy with this virus.
But in this instance,
doing anything at all is better than doing nothing.


This post was edited by inky at March 24, 2020 9:27 PM MDT

I'm not sure why you're trying to explain this to me, I understand how quickly it spreads.  It's my2cents that doesn't seem to understand.  

Pelosi IS trying to curb giving money to those who need it least.  That's why the Democrats haven't gone along with the GOP version of the bill.  You seem to think my position is the opposite.  I believe I'm a fairly articulate person, yet you've completely misunderstood what I've said.  

I agree 100%. 

Thanks for the pick, my2cents.

I realise that I'm being very cheeky offering my opinions on US politics when I don't even live there.
Yet I follow with great interest because what happens there has strong flow on effects here.

Australia is much more closely aligned with the USA than most of its citizens realise.
It started just after WWII with the signing of the ANZUS treaty, but it has grown into something much larger.
We host six of the USA's defence bases:
Pine Gap Observatory which coordinates one third of the US's satellite intelligence,
a naval communications centre at Exmouth in WA, Robertson Barracks in Darwin, NT,
the "Australian" Defence Satellite Station near Geralton, WA,
the Stirling Naval Base near Perth, WA -
and a seventh naval port is currently under construction near Darwin.

The USA is an important trading partner.
It has a strong influence on our economics, arts and culture.
About 50-70% of our television programs are made in the USA,
including one 24 US news broadcasting channel (CNN).
All but three of our major newspapers are owned by US citizens or corporations.
Many of our brightest brains attend top US universities (from Harvard & Philadelphia to UCLA & Stanford - of differing political orientations). 

For the last seven years, we've had a right-wing government in office. Our Liberal Party is the equivalent of the British Tories (Conservatives). It contains a mix of about 50/50 middling or mildly-right representatives and strongly right. The National Party is much further right, extremely conservative; it represents rural areas and farmers. Neither party could ever get a majority here. So they do their best to work as a Coalition - at best a very uncomfortable relationship with constant internal battles.
One thing they all do is look to America for responses to all things economic - including their approaches to fiscal de-regulation, breaking up the power of the unions (now almost complete), privatisation of public services, a reduction of the social safety net, and refusal to act effectively to deal with Australia's contribution climate change.
The result has been:
our education standard dropping from 2nd top to 2nd from the bottom of OECD countries,
an increase in crime, drug addiction, psychiatric issues related to stress and trauma and prison populations,
the poor getting poorer and more plentiful, including a massive increase in homelessness,
the middle classes shrinking and becoming less affluent,
and the few rich becoming very much richer.
(Gina Rinehart, a mining magnate, has become the richest woman in the world.)
I rue these changes.

And led by a marketing guru who is a complete idiot. Nothing to offer but three-word slogans without substance. A ditherer who wouldn't wake up if a dunny fell on him.