>> Democratic senator Mark Warner, has decided to go on MSNBC and attack progressive lawmakers over
what he believes is their lack of negotiating skills. And he's completely minimize their role
in negotiating a relief package for the American people.
Let's hear what he has to say, and then I'll give you the reality.
>> If you're asking me to I think that this bill was well negotiated,
I don't. There should have been a lot more money
in it than there currently is. >> It's really quite shameful
that we find ourselves negotiating a deal with such a small amount of money.
>> You were very involved of to the core center of the negotiations, how do you respond to that?
>> I say, these are folks who never negotiated
any deal. I think it's ever been successful. I mean we're dealing with a senate that is still
unfortunately controlled by the Republicans. We still have Donald Trump as president,
and controlling two thirds in a sense of the federal government, the executive in the senate.
And the alternative would have been to have people
get kicked off of unemployment, get kicked out of apartments, not the kind of food assistance
that's needed. The Republican deal was sitting at $500 billion. And frankly, they're not even been
any conversations between leadership. >> I have a lot to say in response.
And by the way, we haven't even gotten to the worst part of his appearance on MSNBC yet,
but I wanted to open it up to the floor. How did you guys
react to his statements there? >> Yeah, I just think this is
not about deal making as much it's about actually getting people help.
What do people need right now? That should be the bar by which these lawmakers are put,
you can't just think we made a deal. That means it's good, because we made a deal with them. No,
what did you actually get? Did you actually help people? Are you fighting for people?
If you look at the Mark Warner and who backs him, you're looking at Wall Street, real estate,
insurance companies. That's who he cares about. He doesn't care about the average person.
So, when we're looking at lawmakers that actually fight for people like Bernie Sanders, like Ilhan
Omar. The reason why they're unhappy with this is because this does not actually help people.
That's the standard they hold themselves to, unlike Mark Warner who Simply looks for deal
making purposes. And for no other reason except for the way it looks in the media,
as opposed to does it actually help people? >> I guess for the first part of this, imagine
Lindsey Graham, another senator, Republican senator goes on TV, goes on Fox News.
I know this was CNN, goes on Fox News,
looks in the camera and says you know what, regressive started $2.2 trillion.
That's where their starting point was. Ours was much lower. But you know what? People
like Josh Holley who want this $1,200 payment, they've never negotiated thing in their life.
He's just a young senator. I'm not sure what his problem is. But these progressive started
in one place, and we just have we're gonna work across party lines if we don't go to the left,
where progressives are. Are they ever gonna say that? Are we ever gonna see it on television,
cuz we see it all the time the other way around.
Mark Warner can go on and say these people
like Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders who are obviously and well established progressive
voices, that they've never done anything in their lives. They will not negotiate.
What are you gonna start talking about people you're negotiating with in their bed
tactics in negotiations, and whether they have don't have the people's best interests at heart?
No, it's just really easy. Just say, well our opponents who want nothing for the people we
represent, we have to go their direction. So if you're going in the direction of people who
are against their constituents, what does that make you? Against your constituents.
>> Yeah, no. I mean, you guys are both making really great points.
And I wanna just comment on what David has made a point to repeat on the show today,
and I'm grateful that you are cuz it's such a great point. You know, we keep
discussing this like measly amount of money that Americans might get as like a one time check.
We're not having conversations about unemployment benefits, kicking in retroactively.
We're not having a discussion about real substantive financial aid in regard to
people who haven't been paying their rent, right? And luckily, most people haven't been
evicted because of this moratorium, but once that moratorium is lifted, Americans owe back rent.
And recently, there was a study to see what the average American who owes back rent is
gonna owe once this moratorium is lifted, and that figure is $5,400. That is a lot
of money. That's a one lump sum, that Americans are gonna be expected to pay
once the moratorium is lifted, and most Americans don't have that money.
They don't have that money. So, there is no discussion about how to help
them retroactively at all. And Mark Warner is sitting there and giving us a list of excuses,
like a list of excuses. And the reason why I'm saying that it's a list of excuses because,
he's pretending like Donald Trump right now is serving as some sort of obstacle, right.
He mentioned Donald Trump, but Donald Trump recently and we have a video on this. I
had a conversation with Brian Kilmeade. This was just this past weekend,
where he's urging congressional lawmakers to do more,
to do more, that these one time checks need to happen and they need to be robust.
So let's take a quick look at that video. >> What about an A package for
the American people. >> It's moving along.
>> What could you do to get the 900 billion out. >> I want to do it, I'm pushing it very hard.
And to be honest with you, if the Democrats really wanted to do the deal, they do the deal.
They should do it right now. I want to see checks going for more money than they're talking about,
going to people. >> Okay, so there's
Donald Trump on the record just this past weekend, demanding one time checks,
direct checks to Americans more than what's currently being offered which is $600.
He's mentioned $2,000, so use that video to your damaged democrats if you genuinely want to
increase that one time check to Americans. And then he mentions Mitch McConnell and
Republicans in Congress. Mitch McConnell just this week had a call with GOP lawmakers,
where he said, the fact that the relief package doesn't have one time checks included,
it's hurting the two Republicans in the Senate run off races in Georgia.
So we need to include checks. Good, that means Democrats have leverage.
So use that leverage, but Mark Warner doesn't wanna use that leverage.
And I think the real question here is why, why don't you want to use that leverage,
and why are you attacking progressives who have been demanding more.
>> This also shows you that, voters lean progressive when Republican lawmakers
are afraid that they're not giving people money, and that's hurting them. It shows
you that their own voters wants these checks, their own voters agree with Bernie Sanders,
their own voters agree with Ilhan Omar. They want these these checks, they need this help.
So it shows you that Democrats have even more of a reason to fight, cuz the people are on their
side. But of course, ultimately, people like Mark Warner, they know that they're not on the side of
the people, that they're on the side of these massive corporations. Their debate is limited
by what Democrats and Republicans are talking about in Congress, which is ultimately
a very small, I mean amount of disagreement there when it comes to economic policy, especially.
So, they're never gonna challenge that, because to them that's normal. It's normal to fight over
scraps as opposed to actually fighting for people. >> There was one small clip,
I'm not sure if you have this with Mark Warner. >> Yeah, yeah I do, I wanna get to that next.
So the worst part in my opinion of what Mark Warner had to say about progressives,
is contained in this next clip. Let's take a quick look at that.
>> Where I differ with some of these so called progressives, they were willing to take away
money or accept taking money away from the unemployed, to give out in stimulus checks
with Donald Trump's name on it, to some folks who frankly have not suffered any economic harm.
I think that is misguided, and I don't think it's candidly very progressive when
we should be targeting this assistance. To whether it's individuals, or businesses,
or childcare centers, those folks most in need. >> So JR, why don't you take it away, what are
your thoughts on that? >> My God, okay.
So there was a line in there, I'm not sure, it was obvious to me, but I'm not sure if everyone picks
up on these types of things. He mentioned, okay, I know you guys get to the unemployment versus
stimulus checks, cuz that was number two to me, I'll let you take that one.
But first when he goes, they want to take away unemployment so they can pass this
check with Donald Trump's name on it. That's an indication to me. I'm not a politician,
but I listen to them a lot. He's concerned about how it's gonna look good for Donald Trump.
To have these checks that get passed out with his name on. Remember the first time
around he was sent out letters, he said from your great President Donald Trump
with his stupid signature on it. And he said, you guys before we send out the,
remember the checks got delayed because you want to make sure his name was printed on the bottom.
Remember all that. That's what Mark Warner is worried about right now, because this lame duck
president just lost the election 57 times, is now worried about having his name on a check that's
meant to go out to people that need it. Are you concerned about the politics of this Mark Warner?
Cuz that's what it sounds like. It sounds like you don't want his name attached to the checks. By
the way, if Trump does attach his name to checks, it's egregious, it's annoying, it's self-serving.
But you know what he's self-serving? His way right back out of DC, cuz he lost.
Why are we still concerned? There's a reason why he's called the lame duck president.
>> Right. >> And people make
fun of lame duck presidents. Because you have no power left. Whatever you're saying, we can
stop talking about right now. Because you're leaving soon. Why are we still concerned about,
following behind Donald Trump who lost, for doing things that Donald Trump will do?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah no,
you make such a good point. And by the way, Tina and our members section you can become
a member by going to TYT.com/slash join makes a really good point. Mark Warner
is one of the wealthiest people in Congress, he's worth $90 million. And so, this is something that,
by the way, more than half the majority of our lawmakers are millionaires.
They're incredibly wealthy. And I think that that's relevant because,
do we really have representation for workers in our government,
right? People who actually understand what it's like to be an ordinary American,
where your wages have been stagnant since the 1970s. And if you're disconnected from that
reality, then you don't understand the weight of the negotiations that you're engaged in right now.