Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[theprestige]

Four months isn't a lot of time to push things through Congress. Looks like they took the opportunity to make sure Obamacare got passed. And that in itself was a huge - and hugely contentious - effort.

Presidents aren't god-kings. They aren't usually able to make sweeping changes just because they happen to have a "friendly" legislature. And even a nominally friendly legislature doesn't just throw its votes slavishly at the president's feet any time he wants to change something.

 

[Aridas]

Weird... calling the previous post a lie, but then adding a quote which affirms that it was accurate....

Cheers, I was just about to point that very thing out.

It's not for nothing "post-truth" was OED's word of the year in 2016.

Ehh. I'd point out that both of you missed something important, then. The Atheist, you stated "years." The refutation was fairly specifically towards the years part, which, to add a little other context, is an old and misleading Obama/Democrat-bashing talking point that boils down to - "They had SO MUCH TIME to fix everything, so blame the Democrats for not fixing everything." They really didn't have much time at all, and the Republicans were being extremely dishonest and obstructionist for reasons that generally had nothing to do with principle or actually trying to help the US, so rightfully, the blame should not be on the Democrats anywhere close to as much as that claim would suggest.

Four months isn't a lot of time to push things through Congress. Looks like they took the opportunity to make sure Obamacare got passed. And that in itself was a huge - and hugely contentious - effort.

Contentious? Primarily because Republicans were being dishonest obstructionists and working hard to propagandize their dishonest justifications, despite Democrats bending over backwards to include Republicans throughout and get some greatly needed and overdue improvements to our health care situation done via bipartisan compromise. We all saw how that turned out and how the House/Senate Republicans showed how dishonest their complaints were.

Presidents aren't god-kings. They aren't usually able to make sweeping changes just because they happen to have a "friendly" legislature. And even a nominally friendly legislature doesn't just throw its votes slavishly at the president's feet any time he wants to change something.

I think that we're in full agreement here, though.

 

[bruto]

I'm inclined to agree with the prestige on the "contentious" issue too, since the reason for it and the unreasonableness of many do not make it less so. A fight is a fight even if your opponent is a flaming *******.

 

[Delvo]

With those numbers, it wasn't a fight. The Democrats could get, and did get, exactly what they chose: a Republican bill. There was nothing the Republicans could do to stop them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

instead of focusing on Manchin, Democrats should out and hound Republicans who vote against policies that would greatly benefit their constituents ( and often campaign on supporting the bill, afterwards).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Weird... calling the previous post a lie, but then adding a quote which affirms that it was accurate....

Who did that? Certainly not me.

 

[theprestige]

Contentious? Primarily because Republicans were being dishonest obstructionists and working hard to propagandize their dishonest justifications, despite Democrats bending over backwards to include Republicans throughout and get some greatly needed and overdue improvements to our health care situation done via bipartisan compromise. We all saw how that turned out and how the House/Senate Republicans showed how dishonest their complaints were.

The moral of this story is that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand of fiat presidential policy that our antipodean cousins and others imagine it to be.

The truth is that senators aren't loyal to the idealized version of their party that a vocal minority of activists and pundits insist is the highest possible virtue and should be the sole standard of policy nationwide. They're loyal to the voters of their state, and whatever ideas of party and virtue and policy their own constituents hold.

It doesn't really matter how many choir-members in California Biden can "convince" with a sermon from the bully pulpit. If Biden wants the Senator from West Virginia to back his play, he needs to convince West Virginians. Which he apparently can't. So he'll have to make do without that vote. Which he apparently can't. Conclusion: He needs to stop pushing for over-ambitious policies when he doesn't have the votes, and stop blaming people who don't owe him anything for his own inability to realize his ambitions.

 

[acbytesla]

The moral of this story is that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand of fiat presidential policy that our antipodean cousins and others imagine it to be.

The truth is that senators aren't loyal to the idealized version of their party that a vocal minority of activists and pundits insist is the highest possible virtue and should be the sole standard of policy nationwide. They're loyal to the voters of their state, and whatever ideas of party and virtue and policy their own constituents hold.

It doesn't really matter how many choir-members in California Biden can "convince" with a sermon from the bully pulpit. If Biden wants the Senator from West Virginia to back his play, he needs to convince West Virginians. Which he apparently can't. So he'll have to make do without that vote. Which he apparently can't. Conclusion: He needs to stop pushing for over-ambitious policies when he doesn't have the votes, and stop blaming people who don't owe him anything for his own inability to realize his ambitions.

Bull. They're loyal to contributors and they barely give a damn where they come from.

 

[Aridas]

The moral of this story is that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand of fiat presidential policy that our antipodean cousins and others imagine it to be.

Not just the antipodean cousins, of course, but yes. I think that I'll also add that I've encountered a few Brit conservatives, to poke at a more specific example, that had a very difficult time understanding the different dynamics of having a strongly entrenched and incentivized two party system from what they were used to, as well as being very happy to bash Democrats for, for example, not just giving Trump and the Republicans the Wall they wanted in return for single-payer healthcare. Clearly, they didn't understand either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party as well as they thought, to be kind.

The truth is that senators aren't loyal to the idealized version of their party that a vocal minority of activists and pundits insist is the highest possible virtue and should be the sole standard of policy nationwide. They're loyal to the voters of their state, and whatever ideas of party and virtue and policy their own constituents hold.

This is partially true, at least, and more true when that's altered a bit to trying to present an image of such. That's taking into account that "virtue," of course, is a somewhat nebulous concept where, for example, "sticking to one's currently claimed principles" can potentially be substituted for actually having principles and supporting policy that their constituents would actually want.

 

[Aridas]

Bull. They're loyal to contributors and they barely give a damn where they come from.

Standard disclaimer - not all politicians, or more specifically, not all to the same extents. Corporate capture, for example, is a very real issue that need to be addressed, with an added note that the GOP has been captured to a much, much greater extent than the Democratic Party, though the Democratic Party is not even remotely free from such influence.

 

[acbytesla]

Standard disclaimer - not all politicians, or more specifically, not all to the same extents. Corporate capture, for example, is a very real issue that need to be addressed, with an added note that the GOP has been captured to a much, much greater extent than the Democratic Party, though the Democratic Party is not even remotely free from such influence.

I agree. Some of them do have principles. But politicians and judges made bribery and various forms of corruption legal. We have Senators, Congress people, Supreme Court justices using private jets, beach houses and hunting lodges of the super wealthy. They trade stocks on insider information.

Until we reverse the erosion of ethics that money has caused, we are in trouble.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "All politicians suck" thing is what got us Trump. A lot of the Trump Trolls constantly fall back on "Yeah but all politicians suck" as their excuse for cheering that psychopath on.

 

[acbytesla]

The "All politicians suck" thing is what got us Trump. A lot of the Trump Trolls constantly fall back on "Yeah but all politicians suck" as their excuse for cheering that psychopath on.

I don't think all politicians suck or anything close to that. I think the rules of the system sucks.

 

[theprestige]

Bull. They're loyal to contributors and they barely give a damn where they come from.

Potato, potato. It's amazing that laymen like ourselves can see it so clearly, but our pundit and political classes are shocked - shocked! - Every. Single. Time. The scorpion stings them mid-river.

Anyway, the point is - again - that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand some people apparently imagine it to be.

 

[acbytesla]

Potato, potato. It's amazing that laymen like ourselves can see it so clearly, but our pundit and political classes are shocked - shocked! - Every. Single. Time. The scorpion stings them mid-river.

Anyway, the point is - again - that having the bare minimum of nominally friendly votes isn't the magic wand some people apparently imagine it to be.

They can see it. But they benefit from it. There will always be some corruption in the system. That's almost unavoidable. But it is beyond absurd now.

And I agree. Having a 1 vote majority is very little to count on. It allows 1 person to screw things up. I'd say the GOP learned that when they tried to kill the ACA with McCain. But he alone didn't stop them. Murkowski and Collins voted with the Dems.

 

[theprestige]

They can see it. But they benefit from it. There will always be some corruption in the system. That's almost unavoidable. But it is beyond absurd now.

And I agree. Having a 1 vote majority is very little to count on. It allows 1 person to screw things up. I'd say the GOP learned that when they tried to kill the ACA with McCain. But he alone didn't stop them. Murkowski and Collins voted with the Dems.

"Screw things up."

I'm inclined to believe that a multi-trillion-dollar spending package, crafted by the same cabal of corrupt ignoramuses and their lobbyist paymasters that Manchin belongs to, is more likely to screw things up, than Manchin is to screw things up by not voting for it for whatever corrupt and ignorant reason he thinks he has.

 

[Aridas]

"Screw things up."

I'm inclined to believe that a multi-trillion-dollar spending package, crafted by the same cabal of corrupt ignoramuses and their lobbyist paymasters that Manchin belongs to, is more likely to screw things up, than Manchin is to screw things up by not voting for it for whatever corrupt and ignorant reason he thinks he has.

On that note, the difference in overt corruption in usage between the Democratic Party led recovery funds under Obama and the Republican Party led recovery funds under Trump is pretty telling. Virtually none versus absurdly much. Under Democrats, oversight and effective use of funds seems to be valued overwhelmingly more than when Republicans are in charge - even after Manchin and those similar to him are taken into account.

 

[acbytesla]

"Screw things up."

I'm inclined to believe that a multi-trillion-dollar spending package, crafted by the same cabal of corrupt ignoramuses and their lobbyist paymasters that Manchin belongs to, is more likely to screw things up, than Manchin is to screw things up by not voting for it for whatever corrupt and ignorant reason he thinks he has.

We should continue to ignore the crumbling infrastructure? We should end the ETC?
That tunnel into Manhattan needs to be replaced.
That Bridge in Kentucky needs to be built.
The I-5 Columbia River bridge is sorely needed.
These are just a few projects that have been neglected. We have needed to repair and or replaced a thousand bridges. Our electrical system requires modernization. America's multi-modal transportation system had set us apart from the world. But that day is long past.

The Republicans have done absolutely nothing to make this bill better. They have only opposed anything that might be seen as a win for Biden.

The Republicans opposed anything Obama wanted to do for infrastructure for the same reason. Hell, Trump ran on being the infrastructure President in 2016 and didn't do a damn thing. And it wasn't because he couldn't find Democrats who would partner with him.

What are we waiting for? The time to do something about this problem was twenty years ago.

 

[dirtywick]

I think if anything COVID has shown just how weak our infrastructure is on several levels. We've had supply chain and raw materials breakdowns in all industries at all levels, from manufacturers to consumers, for over a year now. It's not working well.

 

[Aridas]

I think if anything COVID has shown just how weak our infrastructure is on several levels. We've had supply chain and raw materials breakdowns in all industries at all levels, from manufacturers to consumers, for over a year now. It's not working well.

I'm not so sure that infrastructure had as much to do with that as capitalism and the worship of capitalism. There certainly is much to be said about the advantages of just in time delivery and running smoothly and efficiently with little wasted time and space and thus maximizing profits. There is national interest in redundancy in multiple ways, but it's only rarely going to be the cheapest and probably not the most profitable. Is the government/are the taxpayers willing to pay for more stability? Potentially, but not when capitalist ideology trumps all.