Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:I love that nearly every news outlet I visit today has some variation on “GOP plan would cut unemployment benefits to $200.”

Are some of the variations accurate?

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:I love that nearly every news outlet I visit today has some variation on “GOP plan would cut unemployment benefits to $200.”

Are some of the variations accurate?

How is that inaccurate ? Not being snarky, haven’t read past the headlines

I guess I don't know what's going on at every state level. But the GOP isn't cutting "unemployment benefits" at all here in NYC. In fact, NYC has extended unemployment benefits (Traditional UI) for another 59 weeks.

The thing the GOP and Dems are arguing about is whether or not to extent the FPUC (Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation; the additional $600). They want to lower that to $200 instead of $600.

So the GOP plan would cut UI to $200 but not benefits.

A little confused by how you guys are framing it. The UI benefit in your state is what it is. The Feds have nothing to do with it. The $600/week was an added supplement paid by the feds and added to every eligible claim nationwide, and may or may not be lowered to $200/week (or some other number).

Rob wrote:A little confused by how you guys are framing it. The UI benefit in your state is what it is. The Feds have nothing to do with it. The $600/week was an added supplement paid by the feds and added to every eligible claim nationwide, and may or may not be lowered to $200/week (or some other number).

Yes.

I edited my initial post because I used "UI" instead of "FPUC," which was an unintentional mistake on my part. I was distracted. Sorry for the confusion.

back to the election thread:

i support headlines that make the GOP look like assholes for cutting the federal supplement to $200

these are the types of headlines we need to make sure voters know that Trump does not give af about them and they should vote for Biden so he can massage their sweet, sweet shoulders

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE SHOULDERS?!!

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:I have full confidence that Trump's people can find ways to spend all of that money on campaign services that just happen to be provide by family, friends, and acolytes.

96583UP wrote:there won't be money left over

they will write themselves and their family members all checks for 'consulting services rendered' and leave the campaign with tons of unpaid bills, just like his casinos

Yes, and this will sustain the children through the looming legal fights to come.

Zach Everson's Twitter has loads of examples that this i happening. David Fahrenthold is covering this also.

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:I have full confidence that Trump's people can find ways to spend all of that money on campaign services that just happen to be provide by family, friends, and acolytes.

96583UP wrote:there won't be money left over

they will write themselves and their family members all checks for 'consulting services rendered' and leave the campaign with tons of unpaid bills, just like his casinos

Yes, and this will sustain the children through the looming legal fights to come.

McParadigm wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

4/5 wrote:I have full confidence that Trump's people can find ways to spend all of that money on campaign services that just happen to be provide by family, friends, and acolytes.

96583UP wrote:there won't be money left over

they will write themselves and their family members all checks for 'consulting services rendered' and leave the campaign with tons of unpaid bills, just like his casinos

Yes, and this will sustain the children through the looming legal fights to come.

Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

durdencommatyler wrote:Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

Not posting it for that. Merely following up on a conversation from the last page where chud suggested they were sucking up cash so they could keep it after losing the election, and wease asked about the viability of keeping unspent contributions. Since both of these stories relate directly to that conversation, I figured they were worth sharing.

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

Not posting it for that. Merely following up on a conversation from the last page where chud suggested they were sucking up cash so they could keep it after losing the election, and wease asked about the viability of keeping unspent contributions. Since both of these stories relate directly to that conversation, I figured they were worth sharing.

Oh, 100% worth sharing. I'm glad you did. It's a valuable/important conversation and these are good contributions. I was just venting out loud. It was more of a plea into the void aimed at Congress and DOJ than a verb-ism directed at you.

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

Not posting it for that. Merely following up on a conversation from the last page where chud suggested they were sucking up cash so they could keep it after losing the election, and wease asked about the viability of keeping unspent contributions. Since both of these stories relate directly to that conversation, I figured they were worth sharing.

Oh, 100% worth sharing. I'm glad you did. It's a valuable/important conversation and these are good contributions. I was just venting out loud. It was more of a plea into the void aimed at Congress and DOJ than a verb-ism directed at you.

Those are tweets. Barr just testified that he doesn't read tweets.

elliseamos wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

Not posting it for that. Merely following up on a conversation from the last page where chud suggested they were sucking up cash so they could keep it after losing the election, and wease asked about the viability of keeping unspent contributions. Since both of these stories relate directly to that conversation, I figured they were worth sharing.

Oh, 100% worth sharing. I'm glad you did. It's a valuable/important conversation and these are good contributions. I was just venting out loud. It was more of a plea into the void aimed at Congress and DOJ than a verb-ism directed at you.

Those are tweets. Barr just testified that he doesn't read tweets.

Not even the ones in the Mueller Report, apparently.

durdencommatyler wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Add one more to the list. But what difference does it make if there's no action taken?

Not posting it for that. Merely following up on a conversation from the last page where chud suggested they were sucking up cash so they could keep it after losing the election, and wease asked about the viability of keeping unspent contributions. Since both of these stories relate directly to that conversation, I figured they were worth sharing.

Oh, 100% worth sharing. I'm glad you did. It's a valuable/important conversation and these are good contributions. I was just venting out loud. It was more of a plea into the void aimed at Congress and DOJ than a verb-ism directed at you.

Those are tweets. Barr just testified that he doesn't read tweets.

Not even the ones in the Mueller Report, apparently.

I laughed while watching that (it was among the only 20 minutes I watched). At that moment I was thinking:

Didn't Barr announce Berman's resignation thru twitter?