[Steve_American]

Because hypocrite doesn't seem to sting much, I propose that we find much stronger words to use in our accusations, instead.

To begin with I suggest "dishonorable, liar".

An example is the recent swing by the Repuds in Congress from spending with the CARES Act (like a drunken sailor, 80% of which went the the 1%) and giving away money (like a foolish moron) with tax cuts for the rich (that have not trickled down much, if any, over the last 40 years) to their new talk about the national debt and deficits.

Another, was the spectacle of the recent jamming through of a new USSC Justice just weeks before the election after the Repuds claimed that they had to wait until after the next election when a Justice died a few more months before that election than the number of weeks before the election in the recent case. In this case the Chairman of the Judiciary Comm. had promised his voters and the nation, that he would not hold hearings if a SC Justice died in the last year of a Trump Admin., and then did exactly that.

The makes him and all Repuds into dishonorable, liars.

Do you have any even stronger suggestions?

[Wolvenbear]

Well, part of it is that politics is essentially a team sport. "My guys" vs "your guys". And just like no one finds it hypocritical for a sports fan to cheer for a bad call that gives his guys the game, most political followers have the same feelings for their team. For most people, they either win or they lose, and the means to that end are irrelevant. Whether you call it hypocrisy or lying probably doesn't matter, so long as they won, they don't care.

That said, it also doesn't help when the accusations are false. It makes it hard to take criticism seriously when it is thrown around willy nilly. Let us take both of your examples:

1) The Cares Act
The CARES Act, like all major spending legislation, was the result of bipartisan haggling. Distasteful as it may be, politicians must often concede things to the other side of the aisle to get what they want in the legislation. Ironically, the bipartisan haggling reduced the amount spent on individuals and increased the big business share. Nevertheless, it is grossly incorrect to say that 80% went to the rich, as 75% went to individuals and small businesses. The individual payments exempt the top 10%.

Considering that the coronavirus responses put millions out of work due to government action, and threatened widespread homelessness, there is nothing hypocritical in using government to fix a problem that it created.

2) Justice Barrett
While it is a common talking point to say that Republicans claimed they were unable to vote on Merrick Garland, no such thing was ever said. McConnell noted that there had only been one instance where a departing President successfully nominated a justice with Congress held by the other party. Refusing to vote on a lame duck appointee (which Trump was not at that point) from the OTHER party, who didn't reflect their values, is not the same as refusing to vote on someone you find to be a qualified candidate.

While I personally believe a simple no vote would've sufficied, there is no requirement to vote a candidate in. Since a no vote was perfectly acceptable, no vote at all is equally acceptable as it accomplishes the same result.

While I grant your overall point, your two examples are less than stellar.

[Steve_American]

Well, part of it is that politics is essentially a team sport. "My guys" vs "your guys". And just like no one finds it hypocritical for a sports fan to cheer for a bad call that gives his guys the game, most political followers have the same feelings for their team. For most people, they either win or they lose, and the means to that end are irrelevant. Whether you call it hypocrisy or lying probably doesn't matter, so long as they won, they don't care.

That said, it also doesn't help when the accusations are false. It makes it hard to take criticism seriously when it is thrown around willy nilly. Let us take both of your examples:

1) The Cares Act
The CARES Act, like all major spending legislation, was the result of bipartisan haggling. Distasteful as it may be, politicians must often concede things to the other side of the aisle to get what they want in the legislation. Ironically, the bipartisan haggling reduced the amount spent on individuals and increased the big business share. Nevertheless, it is grossly incorrect to say that 80% went to the rich, as 75% went to individuals and small businesses. The individual payments exempt the top 10%.

Considering that the coronavirus responses put millions out of work due to government action, and threatened widespread homelessness, there is nothing hypocritical in using government to fix a problem that it created.

2) Justice Barrett
While it is a common talking point to say that Republicans claimed they were unable to vote on Merrick Garland, no such thing was ever said. McConnell noted that there had only been one instance where a departing President successfully nominated a justice with Congress held by the other party. Refusing to vote on a lame duck appointee (which Trump was not at that point) from the OTHER party, who didn't reflect their values, is not the same as refusing to vote on someone you find to be a qualified candidate.

While I personally believe a simple no vote would've sufficied, there is no requirement to vote a candidate in. Since a no vote was perfectly acceptable, no vote at all is equally acceptable as it accomplishes the same result.

While I grant your overall point, your two examples are less than stellar.

Well, you and I just disagree on the facts.
IMHO, the CARES Act did give over 60% of the money actually spent to the undeserving rich and the comps. they own. The program to help the small business still has over $300B left unspent/un-loaned-out according to a recent report. And, much of what was loaned out went to big corps., not to small businesses.

And Sen. Lindsey Graham did promise that no hearings for a USS Justice would be held by the Senate Judiciary Comm. (that he chairs) in the last year of a Trump Admin. And told the media 2 different times to remember or to hold the tape. And then he held hearings after the voting had already started.
. . . I bet you didn't know the Patron Saint of the Repub. Party refused to put forward a nominee for USSC Justice late in the last year of his 1st term. Who, you ask? Pres. Abraham Lincoln in 1864. He thought the winner of the coming election should do that.

[Wolvenbear]

Well, you and I just disagree on the facts.
IMHO, the CARES Act did give over 60% of the money actually spent to the undeserving rich and the comps. they own. The program to help the small business still has over $300B left unspent/un-loaned-out according to a recent report. And, much of what was loaned out went to big corps., not to small businesses.

And Sen. Lindsey Graham did promise that no hearings for a USS Justice would be held by the Senate Judiciary Comm. (that he chairs) in the last year of a Trump Admin. And told the media 2 different times to remember or to hold the tape. And then he held hearings after the voting had already started.
. . . I bet you didn't know the Patron Saint of the Repub. Party refused to put forward a nominee for USSC Justice late in the last year of his 1st term. Who, you ask? Pres. Abraham Lincoln in 1864. He thought the winner of the coming election should do that.

Well, where the money went is a matter of fact, not opinion....nevertheless, let's take that accusation at face value.

That the money was not spent as intended (primarily due to the executive branch somehow deciding that it could, in essence, rewrite the act) doesn't mean that this is what Congress intended or wrote. You are calling Congressional Republicans hypocrites for something that was done by unelected administrators. That's bad arguing on it's own. That Congress is less than happy with the failure to spend funds (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11512) shows this is not a failing of Congress.

Nevertheless, that is the smallest part of the bill. The unemployment benefits were all paid, and they all went to the lower classes. The state and local funding was almost all divvied out. The individual payments were almost all made, none of which went to the rich. So the claim that 60% of it went to the rich is still untrue.

As for Lindsey Graham, he doesn't have the authority to block the vote on his own. So, too, one person's flip flop is a far cry your original point, and it doesn't mean all Republicans are hypocrites, because that was not the party's position as a whole. And your story about Lincoln deferring a nominee to give the voters a say in the Court is also incorrect. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 943183002/

Again, not that it matters, because Lincoln's political manuevering is hardly something every politician thereafter need follow.

[Steve_American]

I looked at the linked article and it didn't effect my claim at all.

As for the CARES Act, you failed to provide any numbers to contradict my estimates. Yes. I didn't check the numbers ether. I did do a calculation and came up with $192B spent on the $600 up tick. This is a far cry from the $2T or $3T that IIRC was given to the corps. owned by the 1%. Even if the $192B became $999B somehow that is still 33% of $1T + $2T = $3T and/or 25% of $1T + $3T = $4T.

As for the Repuds in Congress wanting Trump to spend the money faster, I call bullshit. I have not head one peep out of them about that over the last 5 or 6 months. If they wanted it spent they didn't try very hard to make Trump spend it. IMHO, it is far more likely that the Repuds in Congress didn't care at all.
.

[Wolvenbear]

"Trouble me not with your facts..." So, you make up numbers out of whole cloth, and then call others hypocrites? Kinda ballsy. I mean, you made the original claim, it's up to you to prove your case. Which you can't...because no source out there says that big corporations got more than 500 billion, less than a quarter of the bill.

Considering the entire bill is 2T, and that the funds that weren't spent were the one's primarily going to the rich, you really don't have a point.

But hey, you haven't heard of congress demanding answers from the Treasury, so the official Congressional reports you were just shown, with Republicans names on them, didn't happen.

I think you need to seriously look in the mirror before casting stones at other people's integrity.

[Steve_American]

People please see my recent reply in the other thread where I admitted that my sources had lumped in the Fed.'s loans to the CARES Act. Oops.
There my extremely rough figures came up with 25% to the people and local govs. and 75% (mostly loans) going the the corps.

As for Congress, it was not about any Repub Senator. It was a report by the Congressional Research Office (CRO), dated Sept. 30, 2020. Boy. The Repubs in the Congress really waited a long time to have the CRO look at the problem. This looks like evidence that they didn't care. Also of the $500B appropriated, apparently only $18B had been spent. I used the figure $425Bbit it seems like it is $482B.

[Wolvenbear]

So you said 4 trillion (out of a 2 trillion bill) went to rich people. You were shown it was 500 billion, most of which hasn't been spent. You said Republicans wrote the bill that way, and were shown a bipartisan congressional report saying that the Treasury was deliberately misinterpreting the bill, and that Congressmen from both sides have complained.

Yet you still claim you got nothing wrong. Simply stunning.

[Steve_American]

So you said 4 trillion (out of a 2 trillion bill) went to rich people. You were shown it was 500 billion, most of which hasn't been spent. You said Republicans wrote the bill that way, and were shown a bipartisan congressional report saying that the Treasury was deliberately misinterpreting the bill, and that Congressmen from both sides have complained.

Yet you still claim you got nothing wrong. Simply stunning.

Your reading comprehension sucks.
I said that I got it wrong. That my sources had added the CARES Act and the Fed. Res. Bank numbers together.
I showed you the correct numbers with 3 sources in my post. The new numbers showed that only about 25% of the authorized amount was to go or went to the people and local govs.

And now you say that I "claim you [that is 'I'] got nothing wrong". Simply stunning, back at you..

[Wolvenbear]

I read your source, it says no such thing.

And while you have admitted to conflating numbers, you are still standing by your original points. "Sorry I made a typo....which exaggerated by case by a power of 3...but the fact that I used wrong numbers doesn't change my claim." That's a pretty trivial admission.

Of the 1.6 trillion spent, almost 600B has been disbursed through the Small Business Administration, none of which went to rich people. 500B went directly to poor and middle class families. Those two agencies alone, considering nothing else, account for nearly 1.1T of the 1.6T spent, more than 2/3rds of all money. https://www.usaspending.gov/disaster/covid-19 Your "less than 25%" claim is blatantly false.

And, of course, you still refuse to admit that mismanagement by the Treasury, which is whom everyone blames, is not the fault of the original authors of the bill.

So where did you admit to being wrong on something that mattered again?

[Steve_American]

I read your source, it says no such thing.

And while you have admitted to conflating numbers, you are still standing by your original points. "Sorry I made a typo....which exaggerated by case by a power of 3...but the fact that I used wrong numbers doesn't change my claim." That's a pretty trivial admission.

Of the 1.6 trillion spent, almost 600B has been disbursed through the Small Business Administration, none of which went to rich people. 500B went directly to poor and middle class families. Those two agencies alone, considering nothing else, account for nearly 1.1T of the 1.6T spent, more than 2/3rds of all money. https://www.usaspending.gov/disaster/covid-19 Your "less than 25%" claim is blatantly false.

And, of course, you still refuse to admit that mismanagement by the Treasury, which is whom everyone blames, is not the fault of the original authors of the bill.

So where did you admit to being wrong on something that mattered again?

You still are harping on my error about the CARES Act. You are ignoring all the Trillions that the Fed. Res. is pushing into corps owned by the 1%.

You and I will never agree, that much is obvious. You are at least better than my little brother who refuses to see the suffering all around him.

As long as we are nit picking, I call BS on the "everyone" I highlighted. I don't agree as I said and I'm not alone. And I'd like some credit for blaming the House Dems as well as Senate Repuds for not shouting all summer long.

[Wolvenbear]

You and I will never agree because you're wrong.

When a person continues to claim that 4 trillion of a 2 trillion bill goes to the rich, despite being shown repeatedly they are wrong...there is no reason to "find common ground". Everything you've said has been disproven, and yet you continue to insist you're right. "Republicans wrote the bill this way." Here's how the bill is written. "I don't care about that!" "95% of the stimulus went to the rich." Less than 25% of the stimulus was set aside for the rich and almost none of that was spent. "I don't care about that!" "Republicans don't care about the funds being mismanaged." Here's a link where Republicans demanded the Treasury spend the money as intended. Even liberals admit that this wasn't how the bill was written. "I don't care about that!"

Whatever bud. It's not just about the error,it's about your pattern of dishonesty.

[Steve_American]

Like I said, we will never agree.
I retracted my claim that it was just the CARES Act, but you refuse to acknowledge that.
Now, I'm claiming it was the CARES Act plus the lending by the Fed. Res.
It seems to me like you are using fake news, and it seems to you like I'm using fake news.
.

[Wolvenbear]

Like I said, we will never agree.
I retracted my claim that it was just the CARES Act, but you refuse to acknowledge that.
Now, I'm claiming it was the CARES Act plus the lending by the Fed. Res.
It seems to me like you are using fake news, and it seems to you like I'm using fake news.
.

I mean, you admitted your source was wrong, but then bizarrely claimed that didn't affect your point. I showed you with liberal sources that you were wrong, but you stubbornly insist nothing matters.

If "fake news" means literally every source out there, then there's no point in debating you further. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and the fact that NPR, CNN, and MSNBC contradict you doesn't matter.

Certain things are not debatable. The Cares act was written to give more than 75% of funds to those who aren't the top 25%. The actual spending had gone primarily to the lower classes. But except for the facts, you insist you have sooper scekrt knowlage of the truth. Whatever bud.

[Rancid]

The term that should be used is really going to be a case by case thing.

If we're talking about the president, then he should be described as a domestic terrorist.

[Steve_American]

A new report that most of the PPP went to BIG Business. I know he blames this on Trump. I hold all of Congress equally accountable because they didn't shout long and loud about this.

.

[Wolvenbear]

A new report that most of the PPP went to BIG Business. I know he blames this on Trump. I hold all of Congress equally accountable because they didn't shout long and loud about this.

.

I hold the secretary of the Treasury responsible.

Nevertheless, 200B out of 2 Trillion is still not "most of the money spent". It is, as always noted, less than 25%. So, once more, taking your numbers at face value, you are still wrong. What a surprise.

Moreover, it is worth noting that there is a bit of fudging in the conflation of arguments here. At no point does anyone show that the businesses in question are not small businesses as defined by law. They only show that the portion of loans is unequal. That 1% of loans (approximately 50,000 of the 5 million granted) account for 25% of the funds spent (125B , amounting to loans of 2.5 million apiece ) does not mean a single dime went to "big business". Indeed, such numbers would be inconsequential for WalMart, Target, Auto Zone, etc. If we divide that number by 50,000, which is below the average income in america https://dqydj.com/average-income-by-sta ... t%20people, we have a business with 50 people, which is small by any rational definition.

Figures may not lie, but liars can definitely use figures.

I also find it funny how your original point that the bill was written to give money to the rich, now being plainly disproven, and your fall back, that Congress didn't care, which is also wrong, you shift the goalposts yet again to complain that Congress isn't crying enough about how the funds are spent. As if that claim even matters.