***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

Most debt collectors don't have direct access to bank accounts to withdraw these funds either. Without a court levy.

And this is the issue. The fact that you support this practice of taking this money at a time people need it most says everything about you as a ****** human being.

Debt collectors are literally going out and getting garnishments now (garnishments that weren't in place previously) because there have been no federal protections on them like other government payments. Trump is not stopping them, so he is denying those individuals access to those funds to pay things like rent.

And now your solution is to tell those people to **** off and go back to work and risk health and safety.

 

[dwalk31]

He clearly stated it has affected him and his family.



@Methodical Management can we get this troll out of here now?

It directly affecting his family does not change that it is easy to wait for Congress when it doesn't impact someone directly.

I stated that his opinion came from a place of not having to choose between leaving home to earn, or risking his health by leaving home to earn.

That was the discussion. And many people do not have the luxury of making that choice.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Your solution for people struggling is that Congress acts swiftly. I respect that position.

Since it is not happening how you would like, I am saying that people are having to make tough choices in spite of congress.

I'm sorry that your family is facing these issues. It is good that you are able to spend thousands to help your family. Many do not have that luxury.

If you couldn't, would you leave home to work and provide for your family members if Congress didn't pass your suggestions?

That is the tough choice that I am talking about that you aren't having to make. I don't have to make them either. But others are having to make these decisions. And while it is easy for me to say I'm going to stay at home and ride it out, I understand it isn't as easy for many others.

And states slowly re-opening and allowing people to earn helps many faced with these difficult decisions.

So after years of being broke, and struggling through school, I get a job and save as much money as possible for some security which I never really had. And now have the "luxury" of spending my savings to keep my family afloat. And am forming my opinion from a place of privileged. Man go f yourself with this condescending nonsense.

I want to give people a way to have economic security and be safe. All you care about is peddling a right wing talking point.

Like I posted before, I have respiratory issues especially when I get the flu. I am not risking going outside for any reason because it might mean my death. I think my mother and sister would rather move in with my aunt that have to bury me.

So no, I am not going outside until it is safe. Not because I have the privilege to do so, but because I am trying to stay alive.

You keep trying to assume **** about my life to call me privileged to undercut my argument. But please the hell shut up, and sit all the way down with this nonsense.

You can't argue against the economics so you want to play the morals game.

Miss me with the buffoonery.

 

[dwalk31]

And this is the issue. The fact that you support this practice of taking this money at a time people need it most says everything about you as a piece of **** human that you are.

Aren't the stimulus checks to help people with their bills?

Debt that you owe to your bank falls into that category. The banks can choose to waive those fees if they want. But that isn't Trump taking the stimulus checks.

 

[junglejim]

Aren't the stimulus checks to help people with their bills?

Debt that you owe to your bank falls into that category. The banks can choose to waive those fees if they want. But that isn't Trump taking the stimulus checks.

Jesus christ, its not debt owed to banks. I don't know how many times I need to ******* state this. Its random debt that has been turned over to debt collectors that sleezebags have used the opportunity to garnish wages because they know the payments are coming. That is Trump failing to protect the payments so people cant use them for bills. Call it whatever you want, but it tells me everything that I need to know about you.

It could be debts that someone owed from years ago that haven't been properly contested. For instance, I had a debt from DirectTv turned over to debt collectors before over a bill that I previously paid. These debt collectors who were sold the debt by say a DirectTV are using the fact that they know payments are coming to take peoples money and there is nothing they can do about it because there have been no federal protections put on the payments.

Many states have had to step in and stop EXTERNAL debt collectors from continuing this practice so people can pay their god damn rent.

"Blocking debt collectors from grabbing that money has a simple fix, according to the attorneys general. Treasury could designate the stimulus checks as exempt from garnishments, including redefining the stimulus checks as “benefit payments” that would be off-limits to debt collectors. "

 

[dwalk31]

So after years of being broke, and struggling through school, I get a job and save as much money as possible for some security which I never really had. And now have the "luxury" of spending my savings to keep my family afloat. Man go f yourself with this condescending ****ery.

Like I posted before, I have respiratory issues especially when I get the flu. I am not risking going outside for any reason because it might mean my death. I think my mother and sister would rather move in with my aunt that have to bury me.

So no, I am not going outside.

You keep trying to assume **** about my life to throw jabs and call me privileged. But please the hell shut up, and sit all the way down with this nonsense.

You can't argue against the economics so you want to play the morals game.

Miss me with the buffoonery.

Okay RustyShackleford , you don't have any luxuries or privileges that other Americans lack during this difficult time.

I do.

As a result, I try not to just think about myself personally and understand that many people have to make difficult decisions like choosing to go into work and risk their health to pay their bills vs. staying at home.

The governors that are re-opening their states are allowing people to make these difficult decisions.

 

[dwalk31]

Jesus christ, its not debt owed to banks. I don't know how many times I need to ****ing state this. Its random debt that has been turned over to debt collectors that sleezebags have used the opportunity to garnish wages because they know the payments are coming. That is Trump failing to protect the payments so people cant use them for bills. Call it whatever you want, but it tells me everything that I need to know about you.

It could be debts that someone owed from years ago that haven't been properly contested. For instance, I had a debt from DirectTv turned over to debt collectors before over a bill that I previously paid. These debt collectors who were sold the debt by say a DirectTV are using the fact that they know payments are coming to take peoples money and there is nothing they can do about it because there have been no federal protections put on the payments.

Many states have had to step in and stop EXTERNAL debt collectors from continuing this practice so people can pay their god damn rent.

Which states have had to do this? Because I am unaware of this being the case. And that doesn't have anything to do with Trump.

I think you are conflating issues.

 

[junglejim]

Which states have had to do this? Because I am unaware of this being the case. And that doesn't have anything to do with Trump.

I think you are conflating issues.

Oregon
Illinois
Washington
California

off the top of my head. A report came out a couple weeks ago that 25 state AGs have asked the Treasury department to exempt these payments from garnishment.

This isn't conflating anything. This is a very real issue that Trump and the Treasury could easily stop to help people pay bills so they dont have to risk health but have chosen not to. In this case their inaction has had direct consequences in terms of these payments never hitting people's pockets.

Millions could see their coronavirus stimulus checks taken by debt collectors

Millions could see their stimulus checks taken by creditors in the coming weeks.

abcnews.go.com

Private debt collectors can seize stimulus checks. Some states are trying to stop them.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown joined the leaders of Illinois and Washington in prohibiting stimulus checks from seizure by debt collectors.

www.vox.com

So how did you put it before. I guess since YOU don't have the issue then its not a problem?

 

[Cashflow]

The Best Everything!

 

[dwalk31]

Oregon
Illinois
Washington
California

off the top of my head. A report came out a couple weeks ago that 25 state AGs have asked the Treasury department to exempt these payments from garnishment.

This isn't conflating anything. This is a very real issue that Trump and the Treasury could easily stop to help people pay bills so they dont have to risk health but have chosen not to. In this case their inaction has had direct consequences in terms of these payments never hitting people's pockets.

Millions could see their coronavirus stimulus checks taken by debt collectors

Millions could see their stimulus checks taken by creditors in the coming weeks.

abcnews.go.com

Private debt collectors can seize stimulus checks. Some states are trying to stop them.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown joined the leaders of Illinois and Washington in prohibiting stimulus checks from seizure by debt collectors.

www.vox.com

So how did you put it before. I guess since YOU don't have the issue then its not a problem?

The article you posted said it was a legislative oversight. Again, that isn't Trump denying people stimulus checks.

Further it even mentions that some banks have decided not to take the money for negative balances. And governors are suspending garnishments.

Garnishment is a process. And a statement that Trump is denying people their stimulus checks is factually inaccurate.

I would love if banks and debt collectors didn't try to collect debts during this difficult time. No argument from me on that.

 

[IATT]

The article you posted said it was a legislative oversight. Again, that isn't Trump denying people stimulus checks.

Further it even mentions that some banks have decided not to take the money for negative balances. And governors are suspending garnishments.

Garnishment is a process. And a statement that Trump is denying people their stimulus checks is factually inaccurate.

I would love if banks and debt collectors didn't try to collect debts during this difficult time. No argument from me on that.

 

[junglejim]

The article you posted said it was a legislative oversight. Again, that isn't Trump denying people stimulus checks.

Further it even mentions that some banks have decided not to take the money for negative balances. And governors are suspending garnishments.

The article posted has also said that senators, AGs, house representatives have all contacted the Treasury department asking them to provide protections:

"Lawmakers have been fighting to stop the practice as well. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he called Mnuchin on April 1 to urge him to use his authority to exempt the payments from private debt collectors. Brown followed up with letters from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-WA) as well as a bipartisan effort with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) also wrote a letter to the Treasury Friday, asking Mnuchin to provide a remedy timeline for the issue by April 24. "

They have ignored the requests. Again, this is something that could EASILY be fixed by Trump and the Treasury and as you alluded to, was one of the many errors in the drafting of the bill, but they have instead opted to ignore the many requests.

Further it even mentions that some banks have decided not to take the money for negative balances. And governors are suspending garnishments.

Obviously SOME banks and states that have chosen not to are NOT the problem.

I would love if banks and debt collectors didn't try to collect debts during this difficult time. No argument from me on that.

Yeah you don't really give a **** about these people, that is pretty obvious. You can save the crocodile tears and just send your thoughts and prayers like all the other republicans. Maybe you will care more when this virus inevitably spreads because of this and eventually affects someone you love and care about.

 

[IATT]

Wut?

they really want people to die

 

[junglejim]

Wut?

they really want people to die

This is just giving people the option to work so they can protect our bank accounts and dwalk31 's rental income stream. Obviously people should be forced to go back to work and into society if they don't feel comfortable going out.

 

[dwalk31]

The article posted has also said that senators, AGs, house representatives have all contacted the Treasury department asking them to provide protections:

"Lawmakers have been fighting to stop the practice as well. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says he called Mnuchin on April 1 to urge him to use his authority to exempt the payments from private debt collectors. Brown followed up with letters from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Ron Wyden (D-WA) as well as a bipartisan effort with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) also wrote a letter to the Treasury Friday, asking Mnuchin to provide a remedy timeline for the issue by April 24. "

They have ignored the requests. Again, this is something that could EASILY be fixed by Trump and the Treasury and as you alluded to, was one of the many errors in the drafting of the bill, but they have instead opted to ignore the many requests.



Obviously SOME banks and state that have chosen not to are NOT the problem.



Yeah you don't really give a **** about these people, that is pretty obvious. You can save the crocodile tearsand just send your thoughts and prayers like all the other republicans. Maybe you will care more when this virus inevitably spreads because of this and eventually affects someone you love and care about.

The senators and members of the house, who literally could have added this provision to the bill, are now contacting the Treasury department and that equates to Trump denying people their stimulus checks?

No.

I think you have a legitimate grievance with the banks and debt collectors. But it seems misplaced directed at Trump.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Wut?

they really want people to die

Da party of States Rights doe

 

[IATT]

This is just giving people the option to work so they can protect our bank accounts and dwalk31 's rental income stream. Obviously people should be forced to go back to work and into society if they don't feel comfortable going out.

 

[junglejim]

The senators and members of the house, who literally could have added this provision to the bill, are now contacting the Treasury department and that equates to Trump denying people their stimulus checks?

No.

I think you have a legitimate grievance with the banks and debt collectors. But it seems misplaced directed at Trump.

Yes, they are contacting the ******* Treasury department because of a drafting error and congress being on recess to help speed up the process to help these people out but Treasury has opted not to. The alternative is to reconvene congress, write a bill or amendment, and pass it in both the house and senate which will take substantially more time and by then will be too late.

So no, my grievance is directed where it should be. It's directed at a poorly written bill rushed through the senate (many of the problems I pointed out when the bill was first released) and a Treasury department who refuses to act as well. Blame does not need to be mutually exclusive. It can be the fault of two parties at once. In this case I place the blame on congress and Trump's administration. Both of which could have acted but have not. This is yet again another instance of you derailing a thread based on semantics.......

 

[Belgium]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ernors-with-strict-virus-limits?sref=ixxiOWGT
Barr Threatens Legal Action Against Governors Over Lockdowns
The Justice Department will consider taking legal action against governors who continue to impose stringent rules for dealing with the coronavirus that infringe on constitutional rights even after the crisis subsides in their states, Attorney General William Barr said.

Blunt means to deal with the pandemic, such as stay-at-home orders and directives shutting down businesses, are justified up to a point, Barr said in an interview Tuesday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” Eventually, though, states should move to more targeted measures, Barr said. He cited the approach laid out by President Donald Trump.

“We have to give businesses more freedom to operate in a way that’s reasonably safe,” Barr said. “To the extent that governors don’t and impinge on either civil rights or on the national commerce -- our common market that we have here -- then we’ll have to address that.”

Barr’s comments come as the Trump administration and states are struggling -- and at times fighting with each other -- over the best strategy to deal with the crisis. Trump has stoked tensions with some Democratic governors who are dealing with protests against stringent social-distancing rules, even as his administration backs guidelines that call for states to open up gradually.

One way the Justice Department might act against state or local officials is by joining lawsuits brought by citizens or businesses over restrictions, Barr said. He acknowledged that state governments are at “a sensitive stage,” as they try to balance health and safety against pressure to reopen.But he said that “as lawsuits develop, as specific cases emerge in the states, we’ll take a look at them.”

“We’re looking carefully at a number of these rules that are being put into place,” Barr said. “And if we think one goes too far, we initially try to jawbone the governors into rolling them back or adjusting them. And if they’re not and people bring lawsuits, we file statement of interest and side with the plaintiffs.”

 

[dwalk31]

Yes, they are contacting the ****ing Treasury department because of a drafting error and congress being on recess to help speed up the process to help these people out but Treasury has opted not to. The alternative is to reconvene congress, write a bill or amendment, and pass it in both the house and senate which will take substantially more time and by then will be too late.

So no, my grievance is directed where it should be. It's directed at a poorly written bill rushed through the senate (many of the problems I pointed out when the bill was first released) and a Treasury department who refuses to act as well. Blame does not need to be mutually exclusive. It can be the fault of two parties at once. In this case I place the blame on congress and Trump's administration. Both of which could have acted but have not. This is yet again another instance of you derailing a thread based on semantics.......

If I proclaimed "Nancy Pelosi is denying people their stimulus checks," because of the error in drafting the bill, people in this thread would surely (and rightfully) call me on it.

Yet when I call someone on stating that "Trump is denying people their stimulus checks," based on an error in drafting the bill, it is derailing the thread with semantics.

It is what it is. I won't quibble.

 

[junglejim]

If I proclaimed "Nancy Pelosi is denying people their stimulus checks," because of the error in drafting the bill, people in this thread would surely (and rightfully) call me on it.

Yet when I call someone on stating that "Trump is denying people their stimulus checks," based on an error in drafting the bill, it is derailing the thread with semantics.

It is what it is. I won't quibble.

You literally do this on a daily basis.

You have certainly been quick to blame Bernie and Biden for current issues with our criminal justice system so I wouldn't really see this in a different light. This certainly wouldn't be the first time that you have made such an argument. God knows that you have certainly never given Trump sole credit from certain bills passed by congress.

But hey, at least trump is now talking about bailing out the oil industry instead of some of the people who have to choose between risking their lives to work or being able to stay safely at home and pay their bills. Thank god for bailing out one of the least capital intensive industries in the nation because some billionaires are going broke.

Trump wants to provide emergency aid for energy companies as a historic sell-off sends prices to record lows

Trump had previously promised the federal government would help revive an embattled oil and gas sector struggling with low prices.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[AEA18]

Da party of States Rights doe

Pro Life
States Rights
Family Values

 

[cosmiccoffee9]

I disagree with this this man´s most infamous Decision in the strongest possible terms, but none can deny that he understood the full weight of his office and so I have now gained a new respect for his perspective.

 

[IATT]

If I proclaimed "Nancy Pelosi is denying people their stimulus checks," because of the error in drafting the bill, people in this thread would surely (and rightfully) call me on it.

Yet when I call someone on stating that "Trump is denying people their stimulus checks," based on an error in drafting the bill, it is derailing the thread with semantics.

It is what it is. I won't quibble.

 

[getback]