The [US Economy] thread--still NOT the COVID-19/US Politics thread

15557596061

Posts

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It makes sense to have the stimulus check be taxable if there's the expectation that by next year things will be back to normal (including the economy). I doubt that.

    I said that wrong I think

    I mean say I get $2,000 back on taxes for year 2020. Will I only get $800 now because they're fronting me $1200?

    No. The $1,200 will count as taxable income. Next year (2021) when you file taxes for 2020 if you were to receive $2,000 back on taxes you would receive something <$2,000 but not $1,200 less. Say you're in the bracket where you don't owe anything (<$13,000 or so) and that $1,200 is added you'd probably still not owe anything, and if you did it would be miniscule. Running through my tax liability I would've owed an additional $20 bucks or so on the additional income, so my tax return would've been $20 less.

    thank you, that's what I was hoping!

    an extra $1,200 won't affect my taxes at all considering my income =p

    zepherin
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    Nope.

    Kayne Red RobeKarozMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusmonikerGennenalyse RuebenCauldStabbity StyleQuidTynnanLord_AsmodeusHappylilElfToxSmrtnikIncenjucarMoridin88938thDoeLucedesElldrenemp123
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    DoodmannCaptain InertiashrykeMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusAiouamonikerKetBraCouscousMunkus BeaverBlackDragon480MillZonugalthatassemblyguyHeirVeagleMatevHacksawGennenalyse RuebenMorganVStabbity StyleAistanEmperorSethQuidHakkekageNartwakDavid WalgasKnight_FencingsaxOrcakimeKayne Red RobeTynnanLord_AsmodeusDuke 2.0ToxJohnny ChopsockySanguinius666264SmrtnikRingoMrVyngaardSkeithIncenjucarMoridin88938thDoeNarbusJaysonFourElldrenDee Kaeemp123Carpy
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited March 26
    Also it’s coming from a magic money tree that grows magic money boxes

    Which is a good thing, btw

    Captain Inertia on
    monikerBlackDragon480AresProphetOrcaToxMoridin889JaysonFour
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    OghulkMorganVMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusAresProphetSmrtnikIncenjucar
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    Yup. It's basically become the admiralty flag of taxation.

    Speak with confidence as if an authority, and maybe use some technical jargon, in the hopes that someone won't call you out on the obvious bullshit of your stance.

    Martini_PhilosopherFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusAresProphetBlackDragon480
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    Yeah the actual original point of double taxation is pretty sound and also kinda proven out (just like at how high corporate debt is for example) but other concepts of double taxation are really pointless

    raoADVy.png
    enc0reBlackDragon480Smrtnik
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    edited March 26
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    tyrannus on
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Thanks for the answer. I have lots more questions but that would be way off topic.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    The one bit of "double taxation" which I take qualms with is the one which was implemented by Republicans in 2018, where we're taxed on dollars we're paying in taxes to states (since there's a SALT cap). That is pretty bullshit.

    38thDoea5ehren
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Making it taxable is suitably insane.

    Nah. Making it taxable is perfectly reasonable. Its taxable in 2020 so if you end up not effected the govt claws some back. If you are significantly effected then there isnt much of a tax if any. Its a direct cash flow so its still stimulus. Making it taxable is built in means testing

    wbBv3fj.png
    Gnome-InterruptusOghulkjmcdonaldBlackDragon480Munkus BeaverMarty81Moridin889QuidElldren
  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    tyrannus wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    I thought it was the fact that corporations are taxed on profits which they then distribute to shareholders as dividends which are also taxed.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    I thought it was the fact that corporations are taxed on profits which they then distribute to shareholders as dividends which are also taxed.

    That’s what republicans have twisted it into.

    Every time government backed currency changes hands ideally it should be taxed. The government obviously doesn’t want to chase it up to that level but....

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    TuminFencingsaxpainfulPleasance
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    I thought it was the fact that corporations are taxed on profits which they then distribute to shareholders as dividends which are also taxed.

    Which in my opinion is a bullshit definition, because that money is not double taxed. It is being taxed once for each transaction. You have one transaction, customer->company that is taxed, and another transaction, company->shareholder that is taxed. Do we call it double taxation when I have to pay tax buying bread when that money has already been taxed as my income?

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    monikerAresProphetGnome-InterruptusscherbchenL Ron HowardSmrtnikMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889Giggles_FunsworthQuidDavid WalgasDoctorArchFencingsaxElldrenemp123
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered User regular
    edited March 26
    Cauld wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    I thought it was the fact that corporations are taxed on profits which they then distribute to shareholders as dividends which are also taxed.

    Let me clarify. My "I think" is superfluous. It's a specifically targeted definition that was resolved awhile ago here:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/243

    26 U.S. Code 243(a)(3) with the affiliated group definition here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1504 which you can read if you'd like to take a nap

    To me, this and cases where I'm working in Germany but live in the US, where Germany taxes me 100% and US taxes me 100%, are the only real double taxation events

    the rest is just business as usual

    tyrannus on
    CauldmonikerAresProphetthatassemblyguyFencingsax
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    That's the trick anti-tax ideologues try to pull. There's no such thing as "taxed money" there are only taxed transactions.

    They tried branding capital gains taxes as this - as with all conservative policy, they started with an end "we don't want to pay this" and made up the means "let's make it sound unfair" - which didn't really stick. But that was the beginning of the push to cut capital gains taxes.

    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    Gnome-InterruptusthatassemblyguyMartini_PhilosopherMoridin889Giggles_FunsworthVeagleDavid WalgasFencingsaxJaysonFourElldren
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited March 26
    I’d like to tax money too

    But I guess that’s not necessary if you can tax transactions appropriately

    Captain Inertia on
    AresProphet
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Hakkekage wrote: »
    SIG could still be appointed so all is not yet lost folks

    IN PLACE OF A DARK LORD YOU SHALL HAVE A QUEEN
    1da16bd68321f5ae7c8681fb49826c94efbf5121.jpg


    I mean uh yeah I'll totally be fair

    *looks at current list of dark lords*

    Eh, ok yeah I think we're all probably willing to give it a shot.

    SleepCaptain Inertiasilence1186Commander ZoomGennenalyse RuebenKraintschussmonikerMorganVthatassemblyguyHacksawForarL Ron HowardAresProphetNobeardToxCantideSanguinius666264boogedyboochrisnlRingoMild ConfusionGiantGeek2020XaquinPolaritieMillMvrckBullheadOrcaHakkekageEriktheVikingGamerbrynhrtmnMrVyngaardMartini_PhilosopherTetraNitroCubaneHedgethornSkeithkimeArithon32Moridin889GONG-00BlackDragon480Giggles_FunsworthMunkus Beaver38thDoeNightslyrQuidVishNubHeirAegisCouscouskijunshiHefflingLowHitPointsFoolOnTheHillKetBramRahmaniEinzelFencingsaxJaysonFourLucedesKayne Red RobeElldrenemp123
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    I’d like to tax money too

    But I guess that’s not necessary if you can tax transactions appropriately

    It's really hard to tax wealth. Which doesn't mean we can't. And we should! But it presents many challenges.

    For one: documentation. Transactions require at least two parties, it's in the interests of both parties to keep accurate records of these transactions, it's fairly easy for tax agencies to figure out if someone got a whole bunch of money or stuff but somehow didn't conduct enough transactions to account for it.

    And then there's valuation. Transactions have an agreed value upon which stuff is exchanged for money. You don't need any extra work to figure out the taxes owed. But after the transaction one party has money and the other has stuff. Come tax time, well, how do you value the stuff? Has it depreciated? Has it gained unrealized value? Was its value at the time of transaction lower by virtue of it being taxable? What incentives do people have to own stuff versus money in order to minimize taxes?

    The easiest way to handle a wealth tax is just go after the low hanging fruit, then. Investment accounts where having an accurately reported value is critical to the operation, and the assets are all (more or less) liquid. Real estate with exemptions for primary residences (for ease/ progressive structure) and rentals (you'll collect on transactions instead). Limit it to the wealthiest -because that's where the money is and the marginal cost of wealth tax collection is lower.

    I bring this up because the difficulty in compliance with wealth taxes, and the supposed perverse incentives that they can create, are what get raised as bad faith reasons not to even try. It's doable but only if you're up front about what the policy is intended to achieve: raise marginal revenue on the backs of, for the first time in decades, the most well off rather than the least.

    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    Property tax is a permanent, ongoing tax on a single asset with no transactions.

    Plenty of double taxation if you look for it. Nothing wrong with multiply taxing a single asset (wealth taxes in general).

    DoodmannAresProphetmonikerMorganVthatassemblyguyRingoCauldHeirKetBra
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    For most of the last 20 years, if you hear a politician talking about "double taxation" they generally mean "taxing corporations or rich people at all."

    PreacherAresProphetCommander ZoommonikerthatassemblyguyHacksawL Ron HowardToxMayabirdMild ConfusionOrcaHakkekagebrynhrtmnMartini_PhilosopherAistanMoridin889Giggles_FunsworthMunkus Beaver38thDoeNightslyrQuidDavid WalgasHefflingDuke 2.0KetBraEinzelKayne Red RobeElldrenemp123
  • AresProphetAresProphet I see a darkness in my fate I'll drive my car without the brakesRegistered User regular
    edited March 26
    Tumin wrote: »
    Property tax is a permanent, ongoing tax on a single asset with no transactions.

    Plenty of double taxation if you look for it. Nothing wrong with multiply taxing a single asset (wealth taxes in general).

    That's due to federalism. States can tax as they see fit. The Federal government can too, they give SALT exemptions but don't strictly have to. As of right now it's perfectly legal for the Federal government to ignore SALT on whatever level they like.

    The state model of property taxation is one way to implement it, but without either significant exemptions or regional differences it's sort of hard to implement nationally.

    There's nothing stopping us from having a national sales tax or property tax other than conservative ideology.

    AresProphet on
    oh, gimme some time
    show me the foothold from which I can climb
    yeah, when I feel low
    you show me a signpost for where I should go
    HakkekageBlackDragon480Fencingsax
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Cauld wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    So this relief check money comes from the Gov, meaning it is coming from taxes collected. To tax it again would mean it's being double taxed. Isn't that illegal or something?

    ...no.

    "Double taxation" is a made-up GOP thing from the 90s.

    It's original meaning about bad incentives created by the differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is sound. But the term has been twisted beyond recognition.

    The differential tax treatment of debt versus equity finance is because you can deduct interest and thus makes financing through debt a bit more tax advantaged. Double taxation I think refers to dividends made from a C-Corp subsidiary , owned 100% by the parent corporation, being rolled back into income on the parent and taxed again at the parent C-Corp level.

    I thought it was the fact that corporations are taxed on profits which they then distribute to shareholders as dividends which are also taxed.

    Correct. That is the original definition. The problem isn't that "double taxation" per se, but that debt finance is only taxed once since interest payments are deducted from profits. This has created an incentive for company to use too much leverage and too little equity.

    Either both interest and dividend payments should be taxed at the corporate level, or neither.

    All the discussions about government taxing "transactions" versus "money" versus "wealth", comparisons to property taxes, etc all miss the point completely.

    Dark Raven X
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    Dow plunging again

    *shakes Magic 8 Ball* Is record-breaking market volatility for weeks a sign of a healthy economy?

    *shakes Magic Ethics 8 Ball* How much market volatility is enough market volatility to make it a moral obligation to go forth and commerce to appease the great market god?

    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    Captain InertiaKid PresentableHappylilElfHeirFencingsaxJaysonFourGiggles_Funsworth
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    come back later

    Gnome-InterruptusHakkekageNightslyrCaptain InertiaZonugalMatevL Ron HowardTicaldfjamKid PresentableHappylilElfTNTrooperMild ConfusionKetBraCommander ZoomEinzelJebus314FencingsaxJaysonFourBurnageLucedesAresProphetHacksawKrieghundGennenalyse RuebenNobeardSkeith
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    HakkekageBlackDragon480
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I suddenly want a magic 8 ball that just has ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ on one of its sides

    XaquinNightslyrHakkekageOghulkSleepZonugalSealL Ron HowardHappylilElfTNTrooperMild ConfusionKetBramRahmanithatassemblyguyFencingsaxAresProphetHacksawGennenalyse RuebenNobeardSkeithGiggles_Funsworth
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    Rough considering the Senate is gone till 4/20 if im not mistaken.

  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    Rough considering the Senate is gone till 4/20 if im not mistaken.

    If so, that's what you get before making sure the ink is try on some of the most important legislation certainly in the last decade... If not longer.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    Pelosi knows how to count. Unlike her predecessors.

    Martini_PhilosopherjmcdonaldFencingsaxGnome-InterruptusJaysonFour
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    Rough considering the Senate is gone till 4/20 if im not mistaken.

    If so, that's what you get before making sure the ink is try on some of the most important legislation certainly in the last decade... If not longer.

    The Senate doesn't want any changes to the bill they made. The entire point of them LEAVING THEIR POST IN THE MIDDLE OF A NATIONAL TRAGEDY was to force the house's hand, and make then take the Senate bill. If the house doesn't pass it they, mostly Democrats, will be forced to carry the blame for no one getting any help.

    JragghenTuminL Ron HowardMartini_PhilosopherSoggybiscuitOghulkBlackDragon480Lord_AsmodeusshrykeMoridin889thatassemblyguyFencingsaxNobeardGiggles_Funsworth
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    The house is meeting today to vote on the bill. There is some grumblings from progressives about boosting parts of the bill related to sick leave and oversight. The market is likely reacting to the idea that there may have to be a second vote in the Senate before this is all done and said.

    Rough considering the Senate is gone till 4/20 if im not mistaken.

    If so, that's what you get before making sure the ink is try on some of the most important legislation certainly in the last decade... If not longer.

    Thats the goal

    JragghenGnome-Interruptus
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Didn't the House also go home awhile ago, and are coming back, which is why they couldn't hold the vote before Friday?

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    It's going to pass. The only question is how much of a fuss the hardliners on each side of the House make before getting to the vote.

  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    Didn't the House also go home awhile ago, and are coming back, which is why they couldn't hold the vote before Friday?

    As far as I'm aware the only reason the house would've had to come back was if democrats didn't want to immediately vote yes on the bill.

    raoADVy.png
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Didn't the House also go home awhile ago, and are coming back, which is why they couldn't hold the vote before Friday?

    As far as I'm aware the only reason the house would've had to come back was if democrats didn't want to immediately vote yes on the bill.

    All it took was one person to object to force everyone back. And a few Republicans said they were doing that.

    03x29di.png
    HakkekageElldren
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Didn't the House also go home awhile ago, and are coming back, which is why they couldn't hold the vote before Friday?

    As far as I'm aware the only reason the house would've had to come back was if democrats didn't want to immediately vote yes on the bill.

    All it took was one person to object to force everyone back. And a few Republicans said they were doing that.

    Clearly I don't know house rules well, but I thought even if Republicans did that it still would be fine because Dems could pass it?

    raoADVy.png
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »

    The Senate doesn't want any changes to the bill they made. The entire point of them LEAVING THEIR POST IN THE MIDDLE OF A NATIONAL TRAGEDY was to force the house's hand, and make then take the Senate bill. If the house doesn't pass it they, mostly Democrats, will be forced to carry the blame for no one getting any help.

    I'm not actually disagreeing with this sentiment, though I'm a LOT less convinced that the Dems will eat the blame for this, especially since they are still in session. It would be pretty simple framing too. "We wanted to get this out, but then realized that this bill would not actually help Americans because of X, we needed to get that fixed". Something as simple as "We wanted to make sure the checks would go out this month" or something, even if it's crap. While the Dems have been good at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, they are also the ones who "won" the shutdown.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Javen wrote: »
    Didn't the House also go home awhile ago, and are coming back, which is why they couldn't hold the vote before Friday?

    As far as I'm aware the only reason the house would've had to come back was if democrats didn't want to immediately vote yes on the bill.

    All it took was one person to object to force everyone back. And a few Republicans said they were doing that.

    Clearly I don't know house rules well, but I thought even if Republicans did that it still would be fine because Dems could pass it?

    This is from memory so I may have some details wrong. There's three orders of passing. Unanimous consent is "no one raises an objection." Pelosi can pass a bill by herself if she has that. She doesn't.

    Next tier is voice vote. Yays/Nays. Bill can pass with that, but everyone needs to be there. Pelosi will say the yays have it, any Congressperson can object, at which point someone will object and we get a proper roll call.

    HakkekagemonikershrykeMoridin889MazzyxMartini_PhilosopherToxFencingsaxElldrenemp123
Sign In or Register to comment.