• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
To poke at a positive thing that the Biden Administration just did -

Biden administration allows LGBTQ seniors to get Social Security benefits equally
The Biden administration dropped appeals filed by the Trump administration to stop some LGBTQ elders from getting Social Security survivor benefits.

Also of some potential relevance -

The religious right is crowing they won the Virginia governor’s race by sowing fear of trans people

But most of all, Youngkin made schools the main theme of his campaign. It wasn’t just Critical Race Theory, which Youngkin pledged to remove from schools, even though it’s not taught in any public schools. Youngkin also ran his campaign on the backs of transgender students, unsurprising for a man who called trans girls “biological males.”

Youngkin explicitly appealed to the right wing and the transphobia that it has displayed in school board battles. It’s not by chance that some of the most vicious attacks on trans students have come in Virginia, particularly at the Loudon County school board. Youngkin seized upon these attacks as his ticket to the governor’s mansion.

Youngkin dressed the issue up as a matter of parental control. Youngkin was really appealing to the same base instincts that led to vicious verbal attacks on trans students at school board meetings over federal requirements that transgender students be treated equally and with respect.

Now evangelical leaders are crowing that their smear attacks and appeals to racism and transphobia worked so well. While many in the media blame President Joe Biden’s low approval rating and lack of movement of Democratic priority legislation, the religious right knows bigotry was what won the race.

“Christian conservatives committed to handing control of education back to parents cruised to victory in a full sweep for the first time in over 10 years,” My Faith Votes CEO Jason Yates told supporters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To poke at a positive thing that the Biden Administration just did -

Biden administration allows LGBTQ seniors to get Social Security benefits equally
The Biden administration dropped appeals filed by the Trump administration to stop some LGBTQ elders from getting Social Security survivor benefits.

Also of some potential relevance -

The religious right is crowing they won the Virginia governor’s race by sowing fear of trans people
Click to expand...

I think schools, as a general issue, is probalby something that was important in the race, but I really have my doubts that the CRT/trans moral panic was the key driver. Maybe it helped boost turnout among the fanatical right who have permanent brain worms from consuming too much right wing media.

Schools are de-facto childcare for people, and having this necessary service cut during covid was a huge strain on working families who received paltry relief from the government and likely had to reduce their income to care for their children during working hours. The continued threat of covid and school closure is probably an issue that resonated with people for very practical reasons.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think schools, as a general issue, is probalby something that was important in the race, but I really have my doubts that the CRT/trans moral panic was the key driver... Schools are de-facto childcare for people, and having this necessary service cut during covid was a huge strain on working families who received paltry relief from the government
Click to expand...
It is starting to look like, even though the virus is what saved Biden from an otherwise nearly sure loss, it's not something the Democrats can keep running on anymore, at least not without coming up with something new to say about it; people don't feel the same about it now as they did a year ago. I'd add it to all the "culture war" stuff as topics they should not mention because the public just isn't with them. (Also, apparently the dominant focus of McAuliffe's campaign wasn't about school but wasn't about those things either; it was about trying to tie his opponent to Trump. He was right to think a Trump connection is usually bad for a Republican candidate, but wrong to think that would be all he needed; it makes a difference, but not enough of one by itself.)

But running on issues of what a government actually does that affects people's lives can still win because most people are still with the left on those. Although a couple of Republican gubernatorial wins (against corporate Democrats, not lefties) from this week are getting all the attention, progressive Democrats did win a list of city council & state legislative positions, as well as defeating corporatists to get three new progressive big-city mayors in Boston, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. And progressive issue referendums won too, including a $15/hour minimum wage in Tuscon (in AZ, one Senator from which had done a little dance while denying people the same thing on the Federal level).
 
Last edited:
And a couple of bits of good news on the Big Bad Blunder:

1. Apparently Jayapal was overstepping her bounds when she claimed that the Progressive-In-Name-Only Caucus was ready to cave in & do Pelosi's bidding; otherwise we would probably have heard more from them saying so by now and probably even had a vote by now. So there must be enough of them who aren't going along with what Jayapal said (yet).

2. Apparently "paid family leave" is somehow back in now. Maybe somebody realized that passing a bill with nothing in it at all that would actually affect anybody's lives would be political suicide for years to come? (I haven't even looked into exactly how it would work; it sounds like it would give time off to people with a family, which means I wouldn't get it myself, and I don't believe they deserve it more than I do, but any step toward more time off in this country is an improvement on general principle, and something voters might actually feel the next time they're voting.) This might allow progressives who were about to cave in anyway a way to claim there was something worth voting for in the end; just think of it as a "paid family leave" bill instead of a "200 separate things that do nothing and 1 that does even though so much more was promised at first" bill. A single-issue bill isn't much but it's better than not passing anything useful at all (and it's far far far far better than passing a bunch of nothing and then trying to campaign about how great & wonderful it isn't, like Pelosi was trying to push them into).
 
Delvo said:
2. Apparently "paid family leave" is somehow back in now. Maybe somebody realized that passing a bill with nothing in it at all that would actually affect anybody's lives would be political suicide for years to come? (I haven't even looked into exactly how it would work; it sounds like it would give time off to people with a family, which means I wouldn't get it myself, and I don't believe they deserve it more than I do, but any step toward more time off in this country is an improvement on general principle, and something voters might actually feel the next time they're voting.) This might allow progressives who were about to cave in anyway a way to claim there was something worth voting for in the end; just think of it as a "paid family leave" bill instead of a "200 separate things that do nothing and 1 that does even though so much more was promised at first" bill. A single-issue bill isn't much but it's better than not passing anything useful at all (and it's far far far far better than passing a bunch of nothing and then trying to campaign about how great & wonderful it isn't, like Pelosi was trying to push them into).
Click to expand...

Paid family leave is back and objectively worse thanks to the cult of means testing. It's very likely to exclude the poorest workers, the people who need it the most:

House Democrats released a new version of their Build Back Better (BBB) reconciliation legislation late yesterday afternoon. The new bill brings back a modified version of the paid leave proposal that was cut out of the bill they released just a few days ago.

The biggest change in the new paid leave proposal, which is the only change that journalists seem to have picked up on, is that the benefit now runs for 4 weeks instead of 12 weeks. But there is a smaller, more insidious change as well: the new eligibility rules now explicitly exclude the lowest earners in the workforce.
Click to expand...

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2021/11/04/new-dem-paid-leave-plan-eliminates-eligibility-for-the-lowest-earners/
 
A strange set of new developments today...

I caught a glimpse of a headline about Jayapal "threatening" that the Progressive-In-Name-Only Caucus would vote "No" now in response to some new change Pelosi was talking about, but didn't get the chance to read the rest.

And now I see that apparently a new version of Ye Olde bipartisan corporate give-away bill (AKA "infrastructure" bill) got rushed out to HoR members early today or late yesterday, with who-knows what sudden new changes in it because none of this was talked about ahead of time and it's 2000 pages. (This news came with video of the House floor while they were actually really voting on something, but that turned out to be a motion to adjourn, so whatever this bill has now become isn't getting voted on yet now.)

On the latter point, some right-winger on Fox News and the Fox News hosts he's talking to seem pretty upset about it, so maybe it's overall more good news than bad news. But he's only mentioned one specific issue so far (amnesty for illegal immigrants), so that gives no clue what else is different now. On the other hand, since this is a Pelosi stunt, my presumption if the righties weren't so upset would be that it's bad news. Either way, since this version is now different from the one the Senate already passed, passage in the HoR would only mean it goes back to the Senate again.

It will probably take days, even a week or two, for everybody on both sides to sort through whatever this all is now.
 
I would not call them Progressive-In-Name-Only, but they don't have it in them to publicly chew out Manchin and Sinema, a possible "nuclear option" in the progressive playbook. But calling out the donors of someone ostensibly a member of your party may not end well for you if it backfires.
 
The content of the bill is irrelevant when you’re talking about whether or not Fox News pundits will be upset about it. They will always be upset about everything
 
Venom said:
I would not call them Progressive-In-Name-Only, but they don't have it in them to publicly chew out Manchin and Sinema, a possible "nuclear option" in the progressive playbook. But calling out the donors of someone ostensibly a member of your party may not end well for you if it backfires.
Click to expand...

Its the 50/50 Senate. They have to have Manchin's vote to do anything, even if he is the biggest weasel in the entire legislative branch. Yeah, they can torch him in the press, but then what? They still need his vote. Manchin can be kicking puppies into a live volcano, but the math is the math.

Manchin needs the Progressive caucus to do anything as well, but all he really wants to do is strut around on TV and maybe look out for his friends in the fossil fuel biz. He can pretty much get that without doing anything.
 
Random said:
Its the 50/50 Senate. They have to have Manchin's vote to do anything, even if he is the biggest weasel in the entire legislative branch. Yeah, they can torch him in the press, but then what? They still need his vote. Manchin can be kicking puppies into a live volcano, but the math is the math.

Manchin needs the Progressive caucus to do anything as well, but all he really wants to do is strut around on TV and maybe look out for his friends in the fossil fuel biz. He can pretty much get that without doing anything.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Yes.

I'm a liberal. Very much a progressive. I agree with most of what the progressives are pushing for. While at the same time I'm a realist. The math is the math. What annoys me about my fellow progressives is realism and smart narratives is not their strong suit.
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup:

Yes.

I'm a liberal. Very much a progressive. I agree with most of what the progressives are pushing for. While at the same time I'm a realist. The math is the math. What annoys me about my fellow progressives is realism and smart narratives is not their strong suit.
Click to expand...
I think those progressives understand, and the rest of the Democrats are beginning to realize, that someone who attempts to do significant things and fails is more electable than someone who gives in for insignificant gains. Look at the Republicans, they actively try to burn the country down and despite being constantly stymied (so far) they're still winning elections because they actively try to do something. What if the Democrats actively demanded better things instead of lying back and taking whatever the math said was possible at the time?

We're told over and over that getting more Democrat butts in seats is the real solution to Manchin. That means votes. Having only meagre gains and excuses to show for the complete D control of the government is not going to motivate voters. Manchin's watered down bill is not going to affect their lives in any measurable way no matter how you insist it's better than nothing. Convincing those voters that their reps will fight for them and not crater the next time a fellow party member disagrees is how you get them in the polling booth.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
What if the Democrats actively demanded better things instead of lying
back and taking whatever the math said was possible at the time?

Convincing those voters that their reps will fight for them and not crater
the next time a fellow party member disagrees is how you get them
in the polling booth.
Click to expand...


An impossibility.

They would cease existing as Democrats.

Urban and suburban voters comprise a mix of voters with various agendas
and only candidates who can compromise between these various groups can
win election. Even the progressives wind look like moderate centrists to me.

Naturally when they get into congress they will follow their instincts and find
compromise between the party on the left and the party on the right. Given
that we do not have any party on the left in rural areas around the country
counterbalancing the right. Only one possibility exists.


P. S. I wonder, did the BBB bill actually contain provisions to pay for it.

Or is the dreadful December debt deadline still on?
 
Infrastructure bill has passed the House.

Even it appears reduced?

$555b, I had only seen it referred to as $1t until now.

We'll see what happens now that progressives held up their end of an increasingly byzantine bargain.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Infrastructure bill has passed the House.

Even it appears reduced?

$555b, I had only seen it referred to as $1t until now.
.....
Click to expand...


What passed was substantially reduced from what was initially proposed. But it's still $1.2 trillion.
WASHINGTON – After months of political wrangling, the House late Friday night passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill to modernize highways, rebuild water lines and provide billions for electric vehicle charging stations, the largest transportation spending package in U.S. history.
Click to expand...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...es-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/8580227002/
 
Odd... enough progressives voted against it that the Democrats wouldn't have been able to pass it alone, but it passed because some Republicans voted for it... after other Republicans had gone on rants about how bad it had suddenly become...
 
It also should be pointed out since it changed, we have either another round through the Senate or a conference committee followed by votes to "adopt the conference report" in both chambers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom