John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Presented without comment: the eight senators who v**ed against the c****av***s relief package on Wednesday.

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Jim Inhofe (R-OK); James Lankford (R-OK); Mike Lee (R-UT); Rand Paul (R-KY); Ben Sasse (R-NE); Tim Scott (R-SC), and Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Also presented without comment: Sasse and Inhofe will run for re-e******n this fall.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

I dont have the words to describe just how abhorrent Blackburn is. Tennessee has had God-awful reps in the past, but she is in a league by herself. Not one of these 'representatives' represent anyone but themselves.

EyeSawYou

Why not include the reason they v**ed against this bill?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

I understand the Pork Barrel was over packed.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Why don't you enlighten everyone instead of posing a rather rhetorical question to which you clearly have the answer already?

EyeSawYou

Actually, you posted on this without giving an explanation as to why they v**ed this bill down. So why not include it?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I don't have the answer, and it is not important enough for me to chase it down. I thought since you posed the question in a manner that says you clearly know the answer -- and that the answer to that question will change the interpretation of the original post -- you might help your fellow hoggers by not asking them to chase fluff in the wind.

So, do us the favour and tell us the reason... please... pretty please... on my knees now and begging.

OlinBost Loc: Marietta, Ga.

It would be nice to know their reasoning. Can you provide a reliable source?

Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb

The Founding Fathers, in a moment of abject stupidity, failed to require all bills to address one item only with no provision for pork add-ons. There have been various reports about all the BS added to these bills thanks primarily to our l*****t we're going to force social engineering on you members. They should v**e against bills as such. This BS post is meant to denigrate them for doing their job properly. More l*****t BS.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Yep it was full of a******n pork. Remember, a******n is not another form of fast food....

Tex-s

I'll comment. While I do believe that the government should be called to provide for relief when it is governmental mandate and intervention that has caused the financial drain to average v**ers, I don't believe that any action should be authorized beyond a single allocation. (Nothing is more eternal than a temporary tax or program.) If another action is needed later, pass another bill later.

Additionally, the whole 'flatten the curve' initiative is not designed to lower the sum total of infections, but only to delay them in hopes that hospitals can acquire more testing kits, ventilators, etc, in hopes we have fewer losses of life.

Disclaimer: I don't have a detailed report of the dollar values I'm about to illustrate, only estimates I've read/heard in news.

I know it's not common to assess the life/cost ratio in public, but I am sad to say that this action, to me, sure seems to skew to the wrong ratio. We are looking at multiple trillions in lost economic activity (globally) each month, followed by untold trillions more in governmental spending to supposedly relieve financial strains. So, globally, even with best estimates being achieved, 50 trillion lost/spent to prevent the loss of 5 million lives is at a cost of 10 million per life.

I know not one person who would reduce the future wealth of their family by 10 million even to save his OWN life, so I'm left to wonder if this whole episode is playing out far more according to emotion than to math, too much with an eye on today and next week, and not enough of an eye on next year or 5 years on. In much the same way I've felt about aggressive chemotherapy, I'm forced to wonder if the cure is more punitive than the disease.

I imagine the best idea would have been to make arrangements to house those over 'X' age and those with heart disease, lung disease, or other targeted conditions in 'safe houses' while allowing the greatest percentage of young and/or healthy people to live relatively normal lives, and keeping industry and economy at healthier levels. The loss of life would be comparable, the economic cost FAR less, the actual cost in dollars less, and the duration of the event shorter.

Angmo

Evil Leftie Dems really went Insane with it.

Reading it, proves evil leftie Dems have no integrity.

cwp3420

We know what you’re on your knees for, frimmy.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I am glad you caught on to that one. I made it easy for you on purpose.

But snide remarks aside, I still have not seen a response.

EyeSawYou

Yaaaa, well his comment was a little over the top even for me.