Remember as a kid playing the visual game in a kid’s magazine, perhaps some adults still do if, when sitting in the dentist office all there is to read are outdated magazines still celebrating the recent moon landing with all the crosswords filled in and have only that kid’s magazine that seems emblematic of dentists, where there are two seemingly identical pictures in which the goal is to find the specified number of differences?
It was only after careful observation and concentration that the differences were found. Sometimes it was as easy as seeing one of six ducks is missing in one picture, or tough like when the New Bedford Whaling Museum does it on its Facebook page using old 19th to early 20th century photos where the most obscure thing in one photo is missing in the other.
A thinking person will take the time to examine both pictures, while the unthinking person will look at the two pictures and declare, without true examination, that both pictures care identical and that is that.
Same goes with this lazy, blanket assertion that in politics both sides play the people and are doing so by taking the same actions.
A thinking, not lazy person will look at the basis of the opposing factions to see if their actions are truly the same, or if they are getting to the finish line by different paths, one that benefits all of us or those that benefit a few select people, the politicians among them.
Travelling from Boston to Oklahoma by car, I have taken the major interstate highways, but also, having the time, taking minor two-lane highways through the hinterland in the states between the two places. Regardless which route I took, I ended in the same place, and while there were routes that I would recommend others making the same journey should take, and those I would not wish on anyone.
The routes cannot be judged as equal since, while they all ended up in the same place, what was encountered along the way makes some routes less desirable if not better to avoid.
Whenever there is a discussion of Climate change on the airwaves both sides of the discussion acknowledge that there are those in the scientific field who accept that something must be done while the other side holds it is not that bad and should be ignored.
Yes, there are two sides, and from the usual one-on-one discussion it would appear that those who accept and those who deny are of equal number.
This is deceptive as 97% of actual scientists support the need to address climate change, leaving only 3% either denying it outright, or expressing some reservation about specifics. A petition a few years ago claimed it had over 300,000 signatures of scientists attesting that climate change is a hoax, , but there was no methodology to verify signatures and anyone who had taken science in college, regardless of the field, could sign it.
To have an honest discussion, any panel should have three people representing climate change deniers, and 97 scientists from the other side.
Or one denier with over 90 supporters.
One-on-one is extremely misleading and only gives false impression that both sides of the issue have equal numbers.
If four out of five doctors recommend a product, any discussion of it should illustrate the lopsided nature of support or rejection of the product.
In neither case are the sides equal.
In these present days of despair, as the president is willing to abandon a stimulus package that would help U.S. citizens and small businesses during the pandemic while favoring one religion over others by undoing Roe v Wade and Obergfell v Virginia so the religious beliefs of that religion on Choice and Same Sex Marriage can be forced on all citizens.
Although people may be correct in believing we are being played by politicians, many, if not most who make that complaint do so as if the playing by both sides is equal.
This is simply laziness.
We should educate ourselves as to the details that make up the playing.
Why is it important to rush a Supreme Court nomination to the bench, and hold off any direct help to the American people unless we are willing to buy it with our votes?
Why is a stimulus package passed in the Democrat run House in May sitting on Republican senate leader Mitch McConnel’s desk for five months?
Why was it necessary for the House to pass a second similar bill at the beginning of this month followed by Mitch McConnel calling a Senate recess until after the elections and without considering the House bill?
How is attempting to get the most help to the people and real small businesses, and resisting a package that contains insufficient financial support, the same thing as McConnell’s just letting a passed bill sit untouched?
Yes, there are those for and against a stimulus bill, but their reasons are not equal.
While all cities pay taxes with some paying more into the federal coffers than they will get back while with others it is the opposite as they profit off the taxes of others, how is the hold-up on a stimulus package because it denies those ATM cities any stimulus help equal to holding up the package because, rather than help American citizens and real small businesses, the GOP wants to make sure that Saudi Arabia gets munitions as part of a stimulus package.
The playing is not equal.
How is any stimulus discussion put on hold because if we want it we must pay for it with our votes, and if we don’t deliver, we get nothing until after January 21, 2021, the same as fighting to get something done while, instead, using COVID as an excuse, the senate takes a vacation until after the elections while still meeting over the internet to appoint a Supreme Court justice to move the Court to a far right leaning, religiously controlled one?
How is a middle school kid picking on another kid a form of bullying equal to a gang of middle schoolers beating that same kid up?
Adults know there are degrees to things. Murder even has distinctions and do not all murders get the same punishment.
Although a stimulus package is on hold, the reasons Anxiety, stress, depression, injury, physical incompetence and much see for more cialis online more can be the reason behind this disorder. Testosterone vaccinations for cheap 25mg viagra men are extremely accepted with bodybuilders and they have been successfully utilizing them to put on muscular tissues. Using the right remedies you are able to enhance blood stream in the vessels of the heart. * During beginning generic cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/category/videos/page/8/ studies the medicine was found to have a significant reaction: people started to report an exceptional contrast in their capacity to attain and keep up an erection. Every man can use Sildamax to relieve erectile problems but sildenafil delivery has its own place. are not equal. One side has delivered a bill to the senate, and by procedure must let the Senate do its job. The House cannot direct the Senate as Congress is Bi-cameral.
After calling off any stimulus discussion, Trump later tweeted,
“If I am sent a Stand Alone Bill for Stimulus Checks ($1,200), they will go out to our great people IMMEDIATELY. I am ready to sign right now. Are you listening Nancy?”
Trump’s plan is to get people to assume Pelosi is holding things up when she already has delivered two fuller packages, and to put the GOP’s playing solely on Pelosi ignores that regardless what she does, it all relies on McConnell doing something in the Senate which he already could have.
In the meantime, as Trump wanders the halls of the White House like a one-man super spreader, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were already getting closer on a deal on a stimulus check that would mean more money than the first stimulus payment.
The bones of contention are that the House stimulus bill, passed in may, called for an extension of the additional unemployment money through January 2021.
Republicans see the $600 a week stipend as too high and a disincentive for unemployed persons to get back to work, even though, as with many GOP claims, like voter fraud, there is no evidence of this, and, perhaps, not getting a job right now is not by the worker’s choice, but the effect of COVID on businesses. In the Senate-proposed HEALS Act, that amount is reduced to $200.
The HEROES Act allows for approximately $500 billion in funding for state and local governments dealing with massive budget deficits because of the pandemic, and would be split up over two years. Obviously highly populated states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida would get large portions of the funds. The hope is that this could help cities and towns that are flying through their planned budgets because of an unplanned pandemic is creating a loss in local sales tax income since people are not spending money because of closures and loss of personal income that allows spending and sales tax.
Republicans oppose the idea of using federal dollars as a budgetary stopgap for states with their main reason for the opposition being that a significant amount of this funding would go to “blue” states, the ones whose taxes support many of the Red states. They want a stimulus package dependent on party loyalty not on being part of the country.
Since the purpose of the individual payments was to get spendable money into the hands of those who will spend it on local businesses boosting the economy, there was also a section in the Pelosi bill that dealt with undocumented workers with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number which has them paying taxes without getting anything from it like social security and annual income tax refunds. They pay into the tax system without any personal benefit, and they can only continue to do that if they keep their jobs, or by get some money if their workplaces close down. They’ve paid into the coffers and during this time they need help. It would be a nice way to thank them for giving the rest of us their money in the good times.
The Republican bill just cuts them off requiring that even though they pay the same taxes as documented or citizen workers, only those who have a Social Security number can get help. A catch-22 for these workers is that they cannot get stimulus money without a number even as money is taken out of their paychecks, but they can’t get a Social Security card to benefit from the deductions because of their status.
Trump, meanwhile wants a stimulus package that rejects both the House bill and the Senate’s planned bill, as he signed executive orders that would reinstate enhanced unemployment benefits at $400 extra per week and deferring payroll taxes for tens of millions of workers for the final four months of the year.
The result of halting payroll taxes might seem good in the moment, but it would result in a four month’s loss of Social Security contributions meaning less money for Americans when they retire if the system is not purposely bankrupted first.
Both Democrats and Republicans reject his idea, so Trump complicated things, and, thereby, caused an unnecessary and unneeded point of contention.
It is important to realize that a deferral is not the same thing as a tax reduction, tax forgiveness, or free money. It means that that money will have to be paid back at a later time, money that could have been collecting interest if it had gone into the Social Security coffers on schedule.
You have to pay it back.
When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced the Senate’s stimulus bill he insisted that a liability shield was needed to protect businesses from frivolous pandemic-related lawsuits through October 2024. Death caused by having had to report to an unhealthy workplace is seen as frivolous. If a person had to choose between losing unemployment because their old job opened up, or reporting to a questionable work environment there really is no choice no really a choice to choose between work, believes the return to work was the reason they came down with the virus, or even died from it, if they attempt to sue the employer, the worker would have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct in order to win, effectively making it difficult for such a case reaching court. Business over workers who can always be replaced.
In spite of Trump’s calling off stimulus talk on Tuesday, Steven Mnuchin spoke with Nancy Pelosi the next morning to discuss a standalone bill for around $25 billion in relief for airlines. Pelosi had to inform him that on the previous Friday the bill he was advocating had been blocked by Republicans.
After the Democrats passed a $2.2 trillion stimulus bill last week that included money for state and local governments, education and child care, a second $1,200 stimulus check, and an extra $600 of unemployment benefits through January, Trump called it a
“$2.4 Trillion Dollars to bailout poorly run, high crime, Democrat States, money that is in no way related to COVID-19.”
So, yeah, both parties are holding up a stimulus package, but it is important to examine the basis of their actions.
They are not equal.
While one party wants a package that benefits local municipalities and American workers and refuse to abandon that, the other wants to protect businesses by removing responsibility for endangering workers, making stimulus payments dependent on political affiliation and loyalty to Trump, not the United States, while giving the least possible to the American worker and family and much to corporations.
Pick one.
One is not like the other.
With our needing it