Can you help me deflate this republican talking point with my son?

[garybeck]

My son is getting sucked into the Ben Shapiro world and it isn't pretty.

I could use a little help?

Here is the latest:

"The Republicans had a stimulus/relief bill and the Democrats held it up and asked for changes and one of the only changes they demanded was to keep Trump's workers (implication, regular folks like me and you who happen to work for one of Trump's companies) from getting any money."

I have read a few articles about this and have found some serious errors:

1) The changes that the Dems put in would not prevent any workers from getting stimulus checks. The checks come directly from the government, not from the employer, so it doesn't make a difference whether or not Trump's business gets any money.

2) The changes that the Dems put in apply not just to Trump but also the higher levels of his administration and also **all members of congress**

3) This is not really anything new. The Emollients clause/law prevents Trump and others from making money from legislation he signs into law already and for obvious reasons. It was not put in there just to spite Trump. The Dems only put that in there as an extra precaution because he has been breaking that rule from day 1.

4) That was not the only thing that the Dems demanded be put in there. Others include:
--independent oversight (which trump removed after it was signed into law)

Can you help verify these four things are correct and if you have anything to add please do.

and can comeone please put a cork in Ben Shapiro's mouth? what a freaking jerk. I seriously think he is purposely put there to suck in young people

[Walleye]

1. trump is such a tightwad, he would never pass the money on to his workere

As higher wages or benefits. Probably would use it to pay down his loans from Putin. Best argument is that trump is a crook and a con man.

[treestar]

2. Dotard signed the legislation

and cannot legally do anything but enforce it, so he can't just change the oversight. There might be some lawsuits.

Would the workers get the checks directly from the government? Is that part aimed more at companies getting bailouts and saying Dotard's companies are not eligible (along with the others who are not supposed to profit from legislation they voted on)?

[garybeck]

3. i'm not sure you understand the question

the republican talking point is that the things that the Dems put in there will prevent regular workers who happen to work for Trump's companies from receiving stimulus money.

i don't think that is true. because the checks come directly from the government, workers will get the money. the *company* won't get money and the people who own the company won't get money.

I just can't really find verification of that.

[treestar]

5. Thats what I thought I was saying

If Dotard's company's employees can't go to work, they are like anyone else that can't go to work because of the quarantine and they get the help. So making them out to be victims of vicious Democrats is another right-wing lying talking point.

[AJT]

4. The bill does not prevent employees from receiving the $1200

relief check. It does prevent trump BUSINESSES from receiving the seperate bailout money.

[treestar]

6. This

So the right-wingers are lying again.

[garybeck]

8. yes, that is my understanding too

WTF they are such f-ing liars

[Igel]

7. No, he's wrong.

Last week the Senate had a $250 billion proposed increase to the CARES Act, specifically the small-business loans that keep employees on the payroll.

The House leadership responded with a demand for additional spending--local/state government money, I think hospital money. They rejected the quick "change a number" bill and said they'd stay out of town unless the additional money was added. If I recall correctly, the total bill would have come to something like $500 billion, not $250 billion.

The (R) side is that the (D) are holding workers hostage for other things that can be passed later, since the additional money would require additional language--not just amending legislation by saying "strike out '$350 billion' and replace it with '$600 billion'"--and that additional language would require negotiation, limits, guidance, regulation, and would hold things up.

The (D) side is that the (R) refused to consider really important aid to government and front-line healthcare workers that can't wait one more day, and it's the (R) holding up the $250 billion additional funds by refusing to add the other $200 billion or whatever the amount is.

What's in bold is what your son got wrong. Small mistake, large consequence.

I'll probably piss off people by putting it this way.

[Atticus]

13. You certainly did not piss me off. As I understand things, that was a concise and accurate

account of what's going on. Thanks.

[HarlanPepper]

9. You're a great dad

Mine would have told me to pipe down or he’s cutting off my college funds.

[Karadeniz]

10. Your statements are what I've heard. DU has posted many interesting articles. A recent one

Dissected the total relief money, people v. business. Instead of $1200, we could afford $6000. Another post revealed that the airline pilots union, before this mess, had written to all airlines stating that their practice of using all profits for stock buy backs was a set up for financial problems in the future since they weren't putting anything into a rainy day fund.

Your son really needs to read some of the Trump expose books...there are tons of them! David Cay Johnson wrote one before the election. Someone's just put one out with a title something like The ToddlerMan in the White House. The one I'd like to read just came out. The author used Trump's 3500 lawsuits to draw conclusions about Trump's character. He's doing what he's always done...bribery (Ukraine) but importantly his love of pointless, bully lawsuits against people who can't afford trials...Trump's now falling back on this old standby by having the RNC sue some small t.v.station because it aired a dem ad showing Trump using the word hoax...!!!! Trump can't win that, but the point is to scare media from airing dem ads.

You may have to lead your son thru a history lesson in the modern immoral history of the GOP. Nixon treason. Reagan and Bush 1, saved by Bill Barr from a criminal suit over Iran Contra. Bush 2, suspected computer vote tampering and the fake riot in Florida that got SCOTUS involved. Trump was guilty of his impeachment charges, saved by an equally corrupt GOP. Why would your son want to defend this group?

[garybeck]

12. thanks. this is my plan

i'm going to start by taking a step back and making a broad outline of the differences between the republican party and the democratic party such as

Democrats: protect the environment
Republicans: remove protections

Democrats: Global warming is real
Republicans: Global warming is a hoax

Democrats: help the poor
Republicans: cut programs that help the poor

Democrats: more progressive tax structure
Republicans: less progressive, or flat tax

Democrats: Marriage equality and LBGTQ rights
Republicans: Fought against marriage equality every step of the way

Democrats: Balance budget, less deficit spending
Republicans: have had much more deficit spending over the last 40 years

Democrats: more money to schools and higher education
Republicans: cut school funding

Democrats: more equitable health care system
Republicans: every man for himself

Democrats: Making it easier to vote
Republicans: Making it more difficult to vote, especially in minority areas

lots more I will come up with. i'm sure he will argue some of these points but i'm sure I will be able to cite examples, voting history etc.

[Hoyt]

11. There is a provision in Stimulus Bill that trump AND OTHER elected leaders and key

Cabinet officials can’t receive loans for businesses where they have a significant ownership. But, it’s not just trump and it doesn’t impact the $1200 to people, expanded unemployment, etc.

Democrats did push for that. So, I guess there is a little “truth” in your son’s “beliefs,” but not total truth (as most issues in politics).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/489427-stimulus-bill-to-prohibit-trump-family-lawmakers-from-benefiting-from-loan%3famp

[Mariana]

14. If your son makes assertions like this

then it's on him to support them. Ask him to prove it.

[stillcool]

15. ugh...so nasty out there on the internets..

but I found you some stuff

From Politico..

Democrats delayed stimulus bill to tighten ban on Trump family profiting
Democrats have tried to prevent Trump from receiving taxpayer money at his businesses for three years. This week, they finally scored a small victory.
By ANITA KUMAR
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/26/democrats-delayed-stimulus-bill-ban-on-trump-family-profiting-150282
The Senate was about to approve the largest recovery bill in U.S. history on Wednesday night when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer hit pause, realizing something was missing — revised language designed to bar President Donald Trump from getting money for his own businesses.

Democrats and Republicans had already agreed to a rewritten clause, but the update had somehow not made it into the final printed legislation, according to two people familiar with the situation.
For two hours, Schumer and fellow Democrats held up the bill — written to boost a faltering economy amid the coronavirus outbreak — while the stricter language was inserted. The Senate passed the $2 trillion package just before midnight.

The change was meant to close a loophole in the original clause that barred loans to businesses that were at least 20 percent owned by presidents or their children, spouses and in-laws. The updated language extended the ban to businesses in which several family members collectively have a 20 percent stake, even if each person's individual stake is below the 20 percent threshold.

For Democrats, it was a small victory after three years of fruitless efforts to block Trump from linking his private business interests with America’s highest public office.

this is an article from the NYTimes, pertinent I'm sure, but I forget what it is..
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/politics/stimulus-package-for-coronavirus.html


Then there's this from Newsweek

WHY DID DEMOCRATS BLOCK THE CORONAVIRUS STIMULUS BILL?
BY RAMSEY TOUCHBERRY ON 3/23/20 AT 11:33 AM EDT

https://www.newsweek.com/why-did-democrats-block-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-1493767

Democrats accused Republican lawmakers of rushing to pass legislation that is a "highly partisan bill" with a "corporate bailout" without proper restrictions or oversight, including the ability for Treasury to delay the release of the names of the businesses that receive money and how much they receive.
They called the $500 billion set aside for such corporations a "slush fund" due to the lack of stipulations and transparency.
Democrats also said the package lacks enough funding for medical needs.
Student loans are one of the sticking points. Democrats would like to see portions of it canceled for students. Several members have floated forgiving $10,000. Meanwhile, Republicans want interest and payments to simply be temporarily postponed. President Donald Trump last week suspended payments for 60 days without accruing interest.
Schumer said the refusal by Senate Republicans to include Democrats from both chambers in the first stages of negotiations has further delayed all sides from coming to an agreement.

...and from NPR there's links to the separate bills.

READ: House Democrats Offer Their Own 3rd Coronavirus Response Bill
March 23, 20202:10 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/23/820155258/read-house-democrats-release-3rd-coronavirus-response-bill
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/818721616/read-senate-republicans-latest-coronavirus-relief-bill