US Presidency

Billwest said:
Ok, clearly Biden and the democrats changed their tune somewhere along the line, and then tried to say this was the plan all along, i.e. they lied. I'd be interested as to the real reason why they did this. There usually are reasons for policy changes. The problem is, this kind of show is more interested in moral outrage and viewing figures to actually investigate.

macroth said:Let's back up a little.

Who actually blocked the $2,000 checks? Mitch McConnell and the Republicans. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-led-senate-again-blocks-2000-s...

What is the most reasonable interpretation of what Biden said? "Vote for the Democrat candidates because then we'll control the Senate and you'll get the $2,000 that could already have been approved (ie the $600 that were approved plus an additional $1,400)" or "Vote for the Democrat candidates and we'll send you $2,000 on top of the $600 that were approved when $2,000 was on the table"?

Under Trump and/or a Republican-controlled Senate, there wouldn't even be a new COVID relief bill on the table less than a month after the last one was passed.

I'd also like to see a source on executive orders being used to make lump-sum payments that aren't based in legislation or established Federal programs. I'm pretty sure it's not within the President's powers. Executive orders are for policy (how to enforce the law) and for managing Federal agencies. They typicaly have financial implications, but a President can't just say "send $2,000 to everyone". Either way, it seems absurd to claim on one hand that Democrats blocked Trump's $2,000 payments, but on the other hand Biden could just sign a paper and get it done.

macroth said:Let's back up a little.

Who actually blocked the $2,000 checks? Mitch McConnell and the Republicans. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-led-senate-again-blocks-2000-s...

What is the most reasonable interpretation of what Biden said? "Vote for the Democrat candidates because then we'll control the Senate and you'll get the $2,000 that could already have been approved (ie the $600 that were approved plus an additional $1,400)" or "Vote for the Democrat candidates and we'll send you $2,000 on top of the $600 that were approved when $2,000 was on the table"?

Under Trump and/or a Republican-controlled Senate, there wouldn't even be a new COVID relief bill on the table less than a month after the last one was passed.

I'd also like to see a source on executive orders being used to make lump-sum payments that aren't based in legislation or established Federal programs. I'm pretty sure it's not within the President's powers. Executive orders are for policy (how to enforce the law) and for managing Federal agencies. They typicaly have financial implications, but a President can't just say "send $2,000 to everyone". Either way, it seems absurd to claim on one hand that Democrats blocked Trump's $2,000 payments, but on the other hand Biden could just sign a paper and get it done.

macroth said:Let's back up a little.

Who actually blocked the $2,000 checks? Mitch McConnell and the Republicans. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-led-senate-again-blocks-2000-s...

What is the most reasonable interpretation of what Biden said? "Vote for the Democrat candidates because then we'll control the Senate and you'll get the $2,000 that could already have been approved (ie the $600 that were approved plus an additional $1,400)" or "Vote for the Democrat candidates and we'll send you $2,000 on top of the $600 that were approved when $2,000 was on the table"?

Under Trump and/or a Republican-controlled Senate, there wouldn't even be a new COVID relief bill on the table less than a month after the last one was passed.

I'd also like to see a source on executive orders being used to make lump-sum payments that aren't based in legislation or established Federal programs. I'm pretty sure it's not within the President's powers. Executive orders are for policy (how to enforce the law) and for managing Federal agencies. They typicaly have financial implications, but a President can't just say "send $2,000 to everyone". Either way, it seems absurd to claim on one hand that Democrats blocked Trump's $2,000 payments, but on the other hand Biden could just sign a paper and get it done.

EDCLARKE said:
I'd also add that article is from January first and Bidens speech promising the cheques would go out immediately was january 4th , so he cant really blame it on McConnell.

EDCLARKE said:
I'd also add that article is from January first and Bidens speech promising the cheques would go out immediately was january 4th , so he cant really blame it on McConnell.
Just so we're clear i'm not arguing that the Republicans would be any better as they clearly wouldn't be .

Rick said:
While I'm in sympathy with a lot of what you've said in this thread and elsewhere, and agree that the Democrats have few virtues other than not being the Republicans, if he said it on January 4th the campaign was over.

macroth said:
McConnell was Senate majority leader until January 20th. Of course he can be blamed for blocking a vote on $2000 payments when it was proposed in late December. By Jan 4th, people were beginning to receive their 600$ payments. If not for McConnell, it would have been $2,000.
Again, after weeks where the amount of $2000 was at the heart of the negociations that ended in a $600 payment, it seems strange to me that voters thought they were going to get an ADDITIONAL $2000 rather than the $2000 that they could/should have received in the first place.
But if the issue is that Biden said "$2,000 immediately" on January 4th and that people didn't get $2,000 in their pocket on January 5th, then sure, shame on him.
The stimulus package is ready to go, but Biden is "reaching across the aisle" and willing to negotiate details with the Republicans. I don't think he should bother, however he also campaigned on that principle.

EDCLARKE said:"By electing Jon and the reverend, you can make an immediate difference to your own lives, the lives of the people all across this country... because their election will put an end to the block in Washington on that $2,000 stimulus check. That money that would go out the door immediately to help people who are in real trouble."

That's the exact wording of Biden's January 4th speech just for clarity , begs the question why he said it if it's all down to Mcconnell blocking it

macroth said:
Not sure what you mean by blockING it. He blocked it, in December. It's not like there's checks waiting to be sent and McConnell is currently the one who can pull the trigger.
There was a stimulus bill approved by congress and signed into law by Trump, providing for 600$ payments.
Biden and the Democrats want to pass a new covid relief bill, with, among other things, the missing 1400. The bill needs to pass the Senate. With the two Georgian senators, they can now do that. Without them, McConnell would still be majority leader, and most likely block it again.
As of Jan 20, the Dems have 50 senators plus Harris, Schumer is majority leader, and they can pass their bills.
There's a reason neither Trump nor Biden took the executive order route. It's not within their powers, it would get shot down in court as unconstitutional and people would have to pay back the money.

I said:
I predict a slap on the wrist for robinhood and total war against r/wallstreetbets.
they are currently trying to work out how to gaslight the public into believing that rigging the game for wall street hedge funds against reddit day traders is protecting the working class.

Before calling the meeting, Yellen sought and received permission from Treasury ethics lawyers to do so and ensure that she was in compliance with her ethics agreement. Reuters reported here on Monday that such an ethics waiver might be necessary because of more than $700,000 in speaking fees Yellen was paid by Citadel LLC, a hedge fund that has been at the center of the GameStop trading saga.

Citadel, whose trading arm profits from processing trades on the Robinhood commission-free trading app favored by many retail investors, had provided a $2.75 billion lifeline to Melvin Capital, a hedge fund that had suffered major losses in the GameStop short-squeeze.

SEC Hunts for Fraud in Social-Media Posts Hyping GameStop

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators are combing social media and message board posts for signs that fraud played a role in dizzying stock swings for GameStop Corp., AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. and other companies, according to people familiar with the matter.

The scrutiny is being done in tandem with a review of trading data to assess whether such posts were part of a manipulative effort to drive up share prices, said the people, who requested anonymity because the review isn’t public. The regulator is specifically on the hunt for misinformation meant to improperly tilt the market, the people said.

The prevailing narrative is that Wall Street short-sellers were caught flatfooted over the past two weeks as retail traders banded together via Reddit message boards and bought up stocks that hedge funds were betting against. But some market participants, including famed short-seller Carson Block, have started to speculate that the short squeezes that drove GameStop, AMC and other stocks to exorbitant heights might have also involved professional investors who either took advantage of the Reddit-fueled frenzy or helped hype it.