Covid-19 Relief Bill Finally Agreed On

There will be new stimulus checks coming. Under the new bill announced today,

Negotiators have decided to provide stimulus checks worth $600 per person. The size of that benefit would be reduced for people who earned more than $75,000 the preceding year, similar to the last round of stimulus checks, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of private deliberations. The stimulus checks would provide $600 per person, including adults and children, meaning a family of four would receive $2,400 up to a certain income.

Congress would also extend unemployment benefits of up to $300 per week, which could start as early as Dec. 27.

There will also be extensions on the period for states to give out CARES Act money. And a one month extension of the ban on evictions.

< William Barr's "I'll Go Now" Letter to Trump | When NYC Vaccinated 5 Million People In Two Weeks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As long as Cheeto does not veto it (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2020 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    Who knows.  

    At the last possible moment they do something right.  After exhausting every other possibility.

    I cringe when I hear "this is a good sign for the future".

    God help us if this is as good as it gets.  I don't really blame the democrats but if they were the ones doing the obstruction the republicans would be killing them.

    If democrats could "message" 1/10 as well we would be killing them for systematic obstruction and corruption.  Instead we throw rocks at each other.  

    The stopped clock (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2020 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called the deal with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over the COVID-19 stimulus complete crap on the Senate floor Sunday.

    Most Republicans didn't support any stimulus bills, but ultimately McConnell agreed that the only way Republicans had a chance at winning the Georgia Senate elections they would have to give voters the money they've needed for the past seven months of debate. Democrats passed the HEROES Act in May 2020 and they have been working on a deal with the White House. McConnell never attended any negotiations over the summer and fall. It has been only after the election he agreed to a bill.

    "But I have to say, the level of supports that I understand will be offered to working people are hardly adequate, and we should not pretend otherwise, Mr. President," he said.

    Whatever else you can say about this guy he was working with Sanders to get more stimulus.


    They're trying (none / 0) (#5)
    by smott on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    To hang onto GA

    Yep (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    Looting Loeffler and Chicken Perdue need every bit of help they can get. This money is not going to get to anybody by voting time though. Probably the most helpful aspect of this is the eviction restriction.

    I think GA depends (none / 0) (#14)
    by smott on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    Almost completely on Trump. If he tells people to not vote because he's pissed at Mitch or (more likely) he doesn't want down ballots to win where he lost, I think it could happen for Dems.

    The right shares your opinion (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    this Pat Robertson thing is evidence of this

    They are worried.  Pat is ridiculous but I think this is important.  


    FWIW (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    A new SurveyUSA poll in Goergia finds Jon Ossoff (D) leading Sen. David Perdue (R) in their U.S. Senate runoff, 51% to 46%.

    In the other Senate runoff, Raphael Warnock (D) leads Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R), 52% to 45%

    From the pollster: "Georgia is a hot mess and no opinion pollster could possibly say what will happen when votes are counted in 2 weeks... Any outcome is possible, including victories for the 2 Republican incumbent US Senators. But: the polling data at this hour does not support that, and heading into Christmas week, Democratic challengers Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock appear to be benefiting -- at least momentarily -- from a GOP cacophony."

    Actually (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    I am not seeing Trump making much of a difference. He asked people to vote for him in 2020 and it didn't work. I am seeing the fact that COVID relief has been held up by Mitch as a major issue here. It is not your usual runoff where D's are not engaged and Republicans are.

    The main thing Trump is doing is making it hard for Loeffler and Perdue to run on "divided government".


    Yeah, about that... (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    in an unbelievably unhinged rant on Twitter

    Trump seems to suggest he won't sign the bill.  Really.  Man of the people stuff.

    He goes on and on (and on) about all the other stuff in the "covid bill" not related to covid.   Appearing to not understand it was passed in a much larger funding package.

    Maybe he can be convinced to sign it but republicans all over the country, democrats too but especially his republican enablers, must be banging their heads on a wall.


    Nancy is down with it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi
    Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 -- Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let's do it!

    I think he also (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    wanted more help for restaurants which they desperately need. Pelosi and the Dems should loudly get onboard being willing to bring these two changes to the floor for unanimous consent and let the Republicans shoot it down if they dare. Either way, even if they just get the current deal, it would be a win.

    They were already planning (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 08:50:53 PM EST
    To over ride a veto of the defense bill

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced early Tuesday morning that the Senate will return to Washington on Dec. 29 to respond to a potential veto from President Trump of a mammoth defense bill.

    But probably not enough support to over ride this.  Two would be great as an exit FU.


    AXIOS (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    Axios: "The surprise announcement could delay desperately needed aid for millions of Americans if Trump decides not to sign the package as it stands. It also risks a government shutdown."



    Worth noting (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 07:33:27 PM EST
    That apart from the grinding desperation this would bring to the country it's likely the 2 GA republican senate candidates, who have basically been running on the passage of this bill, might feel the grind most severely.

    Which probably means this was performance and won't happen but I would not bet on that.  Trump is untethered.


    Mitch (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 08:57:33 PM EST
    In a private call with Senate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R) and David Perdue (R) were "getting hammered" for Congress's failure to deliver more pandemic aid to struggling Americans - particularly the direct payments -- and that enacting the measure could help them, the New York Times reports.

    Since this the republicans have been campaigning on how great the 600 bucks was.  While the two democrats have been saying it's not close to enough.

    Look who agrees with the Dems


    I have not heard (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Loeffler or Perdue running on this bill. FWIW I haven't heard them running on basically any issues other than Warnock and Ossoff are "scary radicals". Yesterday I got a flyer on guns. They've totally given up on "gonna take your guns" to now "it's going to cost you to keep your guns".

    Perdue (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    Either that (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    ad has been pulled or is not running in my area.

    McConnell's obstruction has finally blown up in his face. The people who need the money are screaming that 600 bucks wont buy a month's worth of groceries for a family of 4. And these people have been out of work for months. The Trumpers are not happy with this and are saying that anybody that voted for it needs to be gotten rid of. So basically Ted Cruz and a few others did the right thing in their mind by voting against it.

    What a mess.


    I'll use my check to buy a yacht. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 12:19:27 AM EST

    That had been a requirement in an earlier (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 09:03:51 AM EST
    Republican draft, but it was compromised. You can do any kind of power boat you want now, as long as it has a Tr*mp flag on it.

    Maybe not a yacht (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    But it is my understanding that you can now write off your 3 martini business lunch. That is so much more important than feeding hungry people, don't you know.

    You can only (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    write off half of the lunch but still I know what you meant.

    You were only able to (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    write off 50% of a business lunch prior to this new legislation. Under this legislation they will now be able to write off 100% of a business lunch.

    As reported by the Washington Post, this tweak of the tax code will allow corporations to deduct 100% of their business meals, instead of the 50% they've been able to claim since the 1980s.


    The three martini (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    lunch deduction was Trump's baby.   Since Trump does not drink, inquiring minds wonder why.  With Trump a good bet is to go for the venal---more revenue for Trump hotel restaurants.

    I think you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    Definitely to increase revenue at his hotels and golf courses. If you ever bought a drink at a hotel, you definitely know that they are some of the highest priced drinks in town. Also, meals in most hotels are so, so overpriced.

    From July's 2018 (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 06:27:58 PM EST
    Thanks for that information. I guess I would have learned about it sooner or later but anyway sooner is better. Thanks.

    Here you go! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 03:15:26 AM EST
    1.4 billion dollars new funding for the (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    border wall.

    No way can anyone spend (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 21, 2020 at 08:07:27 PM EST
    that much money in 28 days.

    Who says the are going to spend it. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jmacWA on Tue Dec 22, 2020 at 03:57:08 AM EST
    Pocket it on the way out the door seems like a real possibility to me.

    Trump just vetoed the defense bill (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    He won't say if he is going to veto the omnibus.  There is fear he will.  Republicans are on a conference call NOW.

    He's headed for Tara Lago at 4.

    The Pocket Veto (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:31:06 PM EST
    Pretty insidious

    4. Trump can pocket-veto the bill
    This is the more passive way Trump could reject the spending/virus-relief legislation, and it wouldn't give Congress a chance to fight back.
    The president has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to decide whether to sign or veto legislation. If he does nothing at the end of those 10 days, normally the bill becomes law. Unless Congress goes out of session. Lawmakers can easily keep Congress in an informal session to prevent this. But this Congress also officially ends on Jan. 3. Depending on when Trump officially receives the legislation, he could hold on to it until Jan. 3, do nothing and wait until a new Congress starts, making the old Congress's legislation dead. (Fox News's Chad Pergram has a detailed Twitter thread on how this works if you want to get into the weeds.)
    So Trump has a chance to deny Congress the opportunity to come back and override his veto with a scenario that doesn't even require him to veto it.



    We might get (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    Bigger checks after all.

    A Complete Clusterf--- (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    Trump leaves Washington in limbo
    No one in the White House or on Capitol Hill appears to know what Trump's plan is -- or even if there is one.

    I think often it looks more chaotic than it actually is.  Someone usually has a good idea what going to happen.    Not here I think.


    The pocket-veto trap is of Congress's (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    own making, for diddling around and not making their deal until there were less than ten countable days left before January 3. M-F'ers all.

    I think that was (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    a strategic choice.  Thinking there would be no time to change it.

    Or read it.


    I wonder if he is going (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    to come back from Mar A Lago. He certainly couldn't care about passing any legislation and his screeching about election fraud can be done from PB as well as DC.

    If he doesn't come back, perhaps the Bidens (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    can then get a jump on the disinfecting and deep-cleaning that the White House needs before they can move in.

    A man of principle. Better that the U.S. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    have no defense budget at all than that we suffer the indignity of no longer having military bases named for racists and traitors.

    Pretty much (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    the synopsis of this nonsense.

    And, (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 05:40:20 PM EST
    Trump must hate the bill's ban on anonymous shell companies as an anti-money laundering measure.  Permits tracing.

    I doubt if he knows what that even means (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    The other reason he vetoed the defense bill is because he wanted to be able to sue the internet because it's mean to him.

    They were expecting the defense veto.  No one was expecting The Spanish Inquisition that has arrived.  I would love to hear the conversations about what to do.  This is a disaster for republicans.  Democrats can look eager and generous.  They just look hapless and impotent.


    Section 230 (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    And, (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 23, 2020 at 05:42:06 PM EST
    He is getting attention.