More or less scum than the Dems who blocked months ago? A lot of poor ppls bills didn't get paid in that time. This could have been a third round of stimulus checks up for debate if Dems had acted then. I bet that $ would have even helped families through the holidays. Or maybe the Dem scrooges forgot about the most needy.

@Flowerwall You don't know what you're talking about.

"The measure DID NOT include a second round of $1,200 stimulus checks for individual Americans, even though that’s something the White House supports. It also excluded any new money for cities and states, a top Democratic priority as municipal governments face the prospect of mass layoffs because of plunging tax revenue. And it contained some conservative priorities that Democrats dismissed as unacceptable “poison pills,” including liability protections for businesses and a tax credit aimed at helping students attend private schools."

@JeffMurray Don't forget Trump himself had to get further unemployment to ppl when workable solution was not reached originally.

He proposed stand alone legislation for second stimulus which included unemployment. That was the oppurtunity to get things done for those worst off. Instead ppl have been left without the aid all this time. Why Dems?

@Flowerwall Because the Republicans weren't interested in helping people they were interested in helping corporations/donors/private schools, just like they always are. Why? Because they're fucking scum.

@JeffMurray Sure Dems want more tax money in government hands over poor/unemployed ppl's hands. I got it. Feed those gov funds, but not ppl's pockets.

@Flowerwall The bill put up for a vote DIDN'T CONTAIN MONEY FOR INDIVIDUALS. What the fuck is so hard to understand? Voting for that pile of shit that almost 100% of Republicans voted for wouldn't be helping people it would have hurt them. Why? Because Republicans are scummy fucking assholes.

@JeffMurray Nothing is hard to understand. Dems didn't get it done.

The other part you probably refuse to understand is that despite Sen Johnson's NEGOCIATIONS which are a normal part of this process, the media is putting extra effort in to make it like he himself personally ruined it all because he's been questioning the status quo with the recent committe hearings on election issues. Let's be clear.

@Flowerwall Wrong again. The Dem controlled House passed a bill that the Rep controller Senate wouldn't vote on. Instead they voted on their own bullshit propaganda bill.
"Why a Senate vote on stimulus bill has failed, again - Vox" [vox.com]

And just like the last time Congress tried to pass a bill that had money for people instead of protections for businesses, this one failed for the same reason. Republicans don't want to help people because they are all fucking scum.

@JeffMurray "Dems didn't get it done." Not wrong. But I'm done repeating things you are not understanding

@Flowerwall Dem controlled House passed their bill. They were done. Republicans didn't vote to pass the bill that would actually help people because they are disgusting scum puddles of Santorum.com

@JeffMurray Irregardless if what you state I know I feel a very deep mistrust of Dem leadership at this time and on more than just this issue. Until some new people bringing in fresh, realistic and helpful plans step into leadership roles I don't believe in their ideas.

@Flowerwall
You can distrust the Dems all you want, it doesn't change facts. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. And I agree there are people I'd rather have in charge, but I'll take Biden and his ilk a million times over before I'd support a racist rapist like Trump.

Also, "irregardless" isn't a word. You can just use 'regardless' or 'irrespective'. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.

@Flowerwall Most of the Covid-19 relief has been blocked by republicans and Mitch McConnel in particular has blocked most of it.

@snytiger6, @JeffMurray Well if Trump said standalone legislation for stimulus payments to individuals and the extended unemployment and Dems really wanted to get things done for this group, the neediest, they would have created the standaline legislation months ago and then it would have ALL been on the Republicans to pass through. THEN we could blame Reps. Now we can't blame Rep, only Dems for that initail lack of committment to those hardest hit. Fortunately new legislation is passing today and it addresses individuals in need. But ppl had to wait. Some ppl really struggled through that and the timing was awful.

And also just read this "Though another round of direct payments was not part of the original bipartisan draft, pressure from lawmakers including Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Republican Sen. Josh Hawley reportedly tipped the scales for their inclusion." So we must give credit to those that truly looked out for the ppl!

@JeffMurray And regardless of your feelings on irregardless, please read this "Merriam-Webster defines irregardless as "nonstandard" but meaning the same as "regardless." "Many people find irregardless to be a nonsensical word, as the ir- prefix usually functions to indicate negation; however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier," the dictionary writes. Jul 7, 2020" So don't let a word bother you.

@Flowerwall
Your claim that the Dems are solely at fault for not taking the initiative to move forward with direct payments is a tacit admission that the Republicans don't care about the well-being of the citizens. Why? Because they are fucking scum.

The reason the dictionary puts "nonstandard" entries in is so that when people say things that aren't words other people can look them up to see what the fuck they're talking about.

@JeffMurray Well you say this " a tacit admission that the Republicans don't care about the well-being of the citizens. " When I just quoted an article from msm (so you know THAT means Dem slant) stating Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders were the ones pushing to have the direct payments added. So, not true. Instead of thinking of it as a tacit implication of Reps think of it as Dems blatant disregard for our most needy at Thansgiving and Xmas, and I do not know the exact statistics but believe those disproprtionately suffering most are minorities. So yes a blatant disregard and loss of oppurtunity for so many minorities and needy. I feel quite livid about it. In fact I will further quote the article, "The aid, including the unemployment benefits and stimulus checks, could take weeks to reach the people who desperately need it. It’s also too little, too late for many who have foregone typical holiday celebrations that they cannot afford this year." I honestly feel this issue alone should be proof there is something not right wirh elecrions. Why would Americans vote in favor of party who shows such disregard for those in need?

With regard to "irregardless", yes, basically you need to use the dictionary to get up to speed. No problem. Language does change, you know, and it's no use being bothered by small details as it almost sounds like you are feeling that way.

@Flowerwall No, you putting all the blame on the Dems means you assume it's their responsibility. The fact that you can say that so blithly goes to show that the Dems have been the party concerned with caring for the citizens, just like if someone said, "the party that cares about corporations" everyone would assume they meant the Republicans. That, alone, gives me reason to say they are scum.

Yes language evolves, but it's supposed to be new words for new things (like the word 'internet' was) or new uses for words (like 'gay' meant happy then homosexual). Adding in definitions for 'irregardless' or 'literally' (to mean the exact opposite of literally) is a necessary evil because people are stupid.

@JeffMurray "have been"' at times, yes, not in this specific time back during the previous negotiations. The only good point is the current progress made now. Still, thinking of this past time is frustrating and a real disappointment.

" a necessary evil because people are stupid." Oh c'mon. Lighten up a little. Let it go. Be merry. It's the Christmas season. Maybe you'll get a dictionary for xmas and can continue your supreme study of words.

@Flowerwall I'm sorry, I want my words to mean something. Language is one of the most amazing advancements in evolutionary history, and it's a shame to treat it so carelessly. The stupidity of people misusing 'literally' has rendered it a useless word. The few times I use it anymore, I have to spend extra time explaining that I wasn't misusing it and that I actually meant literally. How dumb is that?

@JeffMurray I do understand the need for clear meaning and it is important. Irregardless seems a harmless word. Others, yes, I understand, point them out. I had to look up literal again because now I'm getting confused. When people say it in speech, it'a meant more as "exactly"? Or what is the best word to describe it in use in speech?

@Flowerwall Figuratively. They use it to mean figuratively e.g. "I scared him so bad he figuratively pissed his pants." It's a completely different sentence if you use literally there.
Carelessness begets carelessness. Help protect language.