My statement is that the Biden administration doesn't get to appropriate funds, Congress does. And if we're looking for an oracle to tell us precisely how the coming Congress will appropriate those funds, we have two example bills right in front of us that we can look at to tell us in detail what the priorities of a Democratically-controlled and Republican-controlled Congress will probably look like.

> My statement is that the Biden administration doesn't get to appropriate funds, Congress does.

Bailouts of the 2008 variety involve the Treasury department, so the Biden administration would be a big part of any future bailouts of that ilk.

If your point is that Biden can't act unilaterally, and Congress is part of it, sure. I mean, is that your point? What is your point? Being nasty to people?

> two example bills right in front of us that we can look at to tell us in detail what...

I don't think anybody was arguing with you about that. But maybe I just can't follow the thread of the argument anymore.

Both parties were behind the 2008 bailouts. Both parties screw people. Both parties would most likely support more bailouts, and/or other corrupt things. We don't need the two stimulus bills to confirm or deny either of those facts. I don't see how they are relevant.

> We don't need the two stimulus bills to confirm or deny either of those facts. I don't see how they are relevant.

There is a specific pair of bills available on the Internet. You can read them and determine how much scope they leave the Biden administration to implement bailouts that you disagree with. You could even lobby your Congressperson to improve that aspects and remove flexibility from the executive. Doesn't that seem extremely relevant?

No because they aren't corporate or bank bailouts.

My notes (from early November) indicate that the bills are about 1/3 healthcare spending, 1/3 state and local government spending (i.e. "bailouts" of those governments), and 1/3 unemployment benefits. Not sure how accurate or up to date those notes are.

I would presume that corporate or bank bailouts would be separate bills that don't exist right now.

I could be wrong about any of this but my point is, what you think is obvious, isn't, so maybe we should be nice to one another.

> You could even lobby your Congressperson to improve that aspects and remove flexibility from the executive.

Why say something like that? I mean, you know it isn't true, and so does everybody else. Unless you think I, personally, am a huge bank? I'm genuinely curious why you think saying something like this helps. I mean, do you actually think a Congressman gives a shit about what a normal person says? They don't. For every 1 of me, there would be 1,000 demented idiots writing to them (who they also don't care about).

What you're suggesting is that Congress could potentially pass new bills. And my point, going up to the top of the thread, is that Congress -- and not the Biden administration -- would be the one making this decision. You can get a flavor of what they might do by looking at their past decisions.

What you're doing instead is hypothesizing without evidence that they'll do something that they have demonstrably not opted to do -- and also implying cynically that the partisan makeup and/or public pressure on Congress will not change the outcome. This despite the fact that we have months of Congressional action from both parties to examine, and none of it bears out your predictions.