House and Senate overwhelmingly pass atrocious relief bill. Trump slams it and says he'll veto.

[Agema]

I don't think it's a prediction of the future when the major cities on the coasts are mostly losing population right now.

And what about other cities?

Some cities will shrink because the industries they relied on contract, and people move out to new places: consider the old industrial cities of the midwest, Ohio, etc. But the overall picture may be very different, and overall, however, the US population is increasingly (sub-)urban:

Size of urban and rural population of the U.S. 2020 | Statista

This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2020.

www.statista.com

1. Demographic and economic trends in urban, suburban and rural communities

Three key demographic forces have reshaped the overall U.S. population in recent years: growing racial and ethnic diversity, increasing immigration and

www.pewsocialtrends.org

And as far as enjoying the fruits of the city, I know people who rent in Philadelphia while doing remote work, so that's certainly a personal choice people have made.

Yes. Often because they want fancy coffees, boutique shops, to easily get to gigs, clubs, meet new people, transport infratstructure etc. There's a whole life of excitement, convenience, feeling like you're in the centre of things in cities that there isn't out in the sticks. Frequently it's because they moved there early on for the opportunities and now it's home, with their friends and maybe families that they don't want to uproot. So lots of people who value that will pay for it, even if they have options to live elsewhere cheaper.

 

[tstorm823]

All I'm saying is your "It's one house Michael, what could it cost, $10?" is insane as you seem to be under the weird impression that people can just go buy a house whenever they want because "it cost" less than renting (even though, you know, it doesn't).

Good thing that's just a caricature of my position, then, built by people who take offense if anyone suggests the world isn't rigged to make everyone except the super rich die alone in the streets without a dollar to their name.

Yes. Often because they want fancy coffees, boutique shops, to easily get to gigs, clubs, meet new people, transport infratstructure etc. There's a whole life of excitement, convenience, feeling like you're in the centre of things in cities that there isn't out in the sticks. Frequently it's because they moved there early on for the opportunities and now it's home, with their friends and maybe families that they don't want to uproot. So lots of people who value that will pay for it, even if they have options to live elsewhere cheaper.

Bingo.

 

[Trunkage]

Good thing that's just a caricature of my position, then, built by people who take offense if anyone suggests the world isn't rigged to make everyone except the super rich die alone in the streets without a dollar to their name.

You don't believe in lobbyists? Or PACs?

 

[tstorm823]

You don't believe in lobbyists? Or PACs?

I don't believe lobbies and PACs are dedicating their efforts to keeping you from owning a house.

 

[Samtemdo8]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...s-move-pass-2-000-coronavirus-checks-n1252483

McConnell blocks Senate Democrats' move to pass $2,000 coronavirus checks

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There are 2 kinds of people here.



EDIT: And don't let it be said that Democrats are your friends

 

[Worgen]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...s-move-pass-2-000-coronavirus-checks-n1252483

McConnell blocks Senate Democrats' move to pass $2,000 coronavirus checks

Sounds like hes planning on his own 2k stimulus that will include provisions for getting rid of section 230. So thats fucken weird.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't believe lobbies and PACs are dedicating their efforts to keeping you from owning a house.

No they’re not specifically.

They ARE dedicated to changing laws to benefit solely those that fund them over everyone else....which has a range of unintended consequences like making owning a house harder.

 

[tippy2k2]

There are 2 kinds of people here.



EDIT: And don't let it be said that Democrats are your friends

Shocking, the democrats took one look, said "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" and...that's it.

But sure, Democrats and Republicans are totally not the same. One pushes for bullshit and the other one just enables it! See, not the same!!!

 

[Silvanus]

EDIT: And don't let it be said that Democrats are your friends

Shocking, the democrats took one look, said "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" and...that's it.

Just so I fully understand the objection-- is your contention that Senate Democrats should obstruct the stimulus bill in order to force Senate Republicans to pass the $2000 cash increase? I have to clarify these things, because it's pretty alien to how we do things over this side of the pond.

I can see pros and cons to the Dems doing so. If they did so, and Senate Republicans just continued to refuse, then people don't get anything-- not even $600-- and Republicans get a new attack line about it being Dems' fault they didn't get it.

 

[Trunkage]

Sounds like hes planning on his own 2k stimulus that will include provisions for getting rid of section 230. So thats fucken weird.

That what been holding everything up for months. 230

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Just so I fully understand the objection-- is your contention that Senate Democrats should obstruct the stimulus bill in order to force Senate Republicans to pass the $2000 cash increase? I have to clarify these things, because it's pretty alien to how we do things over this side of the pond.

I can see pros and cons to the Dems doing so. If they did so, and Senate Republicans just continued to refuse, then people don't get anything-- not even $600-- and Republicans get a new attack line about it being Dems' fault they didn't get it.

What Sanders is obstructing is the defense spending bill. And what Democrat senator Dick Durbin is objecting to is trading $2000 to Americans in a crisis for renaming military bases. The stimulus is passed and signed, but with a caveat that the money won't go out until certain aspects of it are looked at.

 

[tippy2k2]

Just so I fully understand the objection-- is your contention that Senate Democrats should obstruct the stimulus bill in order to force Senate Republicans to pass the $2000 cash increase? I have to clarify these things, because it's pretty alien to how we do things over this side of the pond.

I can see pros and cons to the Dems doing so. If they did so, and Senate Republicans just continued to refuse, then people don't get anything-- not even $600-- and Republicans get a new attack line about it being Dems' fault they didn't get it.

It wasn't even the stimulus bill they would be obstructing, it's the defense bill. We gotta make sure we have a fuck ton of money to bomb foreigners but not to help Americans.

 

[Worgen]

That what been holding everything up for months. 230

That lousy 230, getting in the way. This is a new thing for the turtle as far as I know, at least wanting it included in something like this and hes probably just doing it since he knows dems will probably view it as a deal killer and then he can blame them for not working for the american peoples best interests.

 

[Silvanus]

What Sanders is obstructing is the defense spending bill. And what Democrat senator Dick Durbin is objecting to is trading $2000 to Americans in a crisis for renaming military bases. The stimulus is passed and signed, but with a caveat that the money won't go out until certain aspects of it are looked at.

It wasn't even the stimulus bill they would be obstructing, it's the defense bill. We gotta make sure we have a fuck ton of money to bomb foreigners but not to help Americans.

Ahhh, yeah, I had it mixed up then. Fuck Senator Durbin. This doesn't prevent Sanders forcing a vote, though, correct? Only one Senator has to object.

 

[tippy2k2]

Ahhh, yeah, I had it mixed up then. Fuck Senator Durbin. This doesn't prevent Sanders forcing a vote, though, correct? Only one Senator has to object.

Honestly I'm not sure. I was under the impression that yes, one man can say "Fuck All Ya" and grind it all to a halt but at least the clip Crimson posted with the Minority Leader makes me think that they can basically overrule Bernie. It seems like the answer to that depends on who you read so I don't want to assume one way or the other.

 

[Fieldy409]

It's all pathetic the numbers I hear. Everyone in Australia got 700 dollars, then they doubled the dole so every fortnight they were giving unemployed people an extra $500 on jobseeker, (now it's 250 I think) and jobkeeper was basically giving 1500 to employers and telling them to keep people on the books as employees even without work. Compared to that the American effort seems pathetic and they're the richest nation on earth....

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ahhh, yeah, I had it mixed up then. Fuck Senator Durbin. This doesn't prevent Sanders forcing a vote, though, correct? Only one Senator has to object.

I'm fairly certain Bernie can filibuster, and Durbin is just being an asshat and hoping to paint Bernie as an anti-American commie sympathizer for daring to hold up money for war.

EDIT: It will mean he and Markey will probably be alone in filibustering though

 

[Agema]

It wasn't even the stimulus bill they would be obstructing, it's the defense bill. We gotta make sure we have a fuck ton of money to bomb foreigners but not to help Americans.

Yeah, but history tells us that not paying the most tooled-up guys in the country has traditionally had extremely severe negative consequences.

 

[tippy2k2]

Yeah, but history tells us that not paying the most tooled-up guys in the country has traditionally had extremely severe negative consequences.

Fuck, go for it. A Military Dictatorship can't be much worse than what we're currently dealing with