Stimulus & Bailout Watch Thread
- Thread starter wire28
- Start date
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
I Really Mean It
Veteran
Not to dismiss the needs of those whose low wage service jobs were lost in this pandemic, because they absolutely do deserve urgent attention, but many of those 20 million had good paying jobs and own homes whose mortgages they can no longer meet. A lot of contractors here in Boston can’t work because of the shutdown, freelancers in a number of high paying industries. If they don’t pass a stimulus before the 26th, it will devastate the economy. That isn’t debatable.Starting to think in a country of 328 million they see that 20 million unemployed as the bottom of the barrel rejects of society and dont give A shyt
Might have a functional and strong democratic party if more were like him.. not going to happen though
Exlurkernegro
Judge me by my heart not my hairline
With more money
fukk am supposed to with $600. I can't even buy Tesla with that.
The stock?
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
You got management at Tyson Foods outchea betting on which of their employees get covid and you seriously have people in here asking why a corporate liability shield is a bad idea? 
Corporations don't need any more fukking protections. They already don't care if you live or die on the job right now. Imagine the kind of fukked up shyt they'd do when they don't even have to pretend to.
No. A corporate liability shield is unacceptable, and any dem even entertaining the thought is only doing so because they have those same corporations in their back pocket.
Corporations don't need any more fukking protections. They already don't care if you live or die on the job right now. Imagine the kind of fukked up shyt they'd do when they don't even have to pretend to.
No. A corporate liability shield is unacceptable, and any dem even entertaining the thought is only doing so because they have those same corporations in their back pocket.
the cac mamba
Veteran
no, nobody asked "whether it was a bad idea". did you want to actually address the question? here it is againYou got management at Tyson Foods outchea betting on which of their employees get covid and you seriously have people in here asking why a corporate liability shield is a bad idea?
someone explain to me the aversion for liability protection; we're 8 months into this thingpeople have been working in grocery stores this entire time
if there are lawsuits to be had, then why the fukk arent they already filed? and if they havent been filed already, then why is it even an issue going forward?
you act like liability protection is gonna take away this ability to sue...that hasnt come to fruition these past 8 months, when businesses havent had protection this whole time?
what difference does it make at this point?
not a single word of this post implied that liability protection is a bad idea
I Really Mean It
Veteran
If the fight over corporate liability sees 12 million people spend the next few months of winter facing starvation and homelessness, it isn’t a fight worth having. That is why many Democrats are now relenting. You’re telling 12 million people whose only lifeline expires in 2 weeks to take one for the team, because of an opposition to corporate liability based on an assumption that there will be a spate of lawsuits filed by employees.You got management at Tyson Foods outchea betting on which of their employees get covid and you seriously have people in here asking why a corporate liability shield is a bad idea?
Corporations don't need any more fukking protections. They already don't care if you live or die on the job right now. Imagine the kind of fukked up shyt they'd do when they don't even have to pretend to.
No. A corporate liability shield is unacceptable, and any dem even entertaining the thought is only doing so because they have those same corporations in their back pocket.
AquaCityBoy
Veteran
You asked why there was an 'aversion' to a corporate liability shield. Since 'aversion' means 'strong dislike for, ' it would naturally follow that if someone had an 'aversion' to it, they'd think it was a bad idea to have it.
Maybe you meant to say 'a version' and forgot to use the space bar or something?
You’re telling 12 million people whose only lifeline expires in 2 weeks to take one for the team, because of an opposition to corporate liability based on an assumption that there will be a spate of lawsuits filed by employees.
No, that's what you're saying by telling these people they need to go out and potentially catch covid for a job that doesn't care if they get sick, all so you can continue to abuse unemployment to buy Jordans.
I Really Mean It
Veteran
No, that's what you're saying by telling these people they need to go out and potentially catch covid for a job that doesn't care if they get sick, all so you can continue to abuse unemployment to buy Jordans.
So, if no stimulus is passed because Democrats refuse to budge on corporate liability, 12 million people lose their unemployment right on the cusp of winter and the people who’re able to sue employers have jobs to go to.
That’s acceptable to you.
DJ Paul's Arm
Veteran
KillbertArenas
Superstar
So, if no stimulus is passed because Democrats refuse to budge on corporate liability, 12 million people lose their unemployment right on the cusp of winter and the people who’re able to sue employers have jobs to go to.
That’s acceptable to you.
The larger question is..
Why are the Republicans refusing to budge on corporate lilability?
the cac mamba
Veteran
but they dont have liability protection right now
what lawsuits are gonna be filed in the future, if people arent even filing them 8 months into the pandemic on ANY kind of wide scale?
you want to hold out on stimulus so that people can maybe file phantom lawsuits in the future?
the cac mamba
Veteran
so you cant provide any examples of lawsuits that are being filed currently, that adding liability protection in the future will take away. duly notedYou asked why there was an 'aversion' to a corporate liability shield. Since 'aversion' means 'strong dislike for, ' it would naturally follow that if someone had an 'aversion' to it, they'd think it was a bad idea to have it.
Maybe you meant to say 'a version' and forgot to use the space bar or something?
No, that's what you're saying by telling these people they need to go out and potentially catch covid for a job that doesn't care if they get sick, all so you can continue to abuse unemployment to buy Jordans.