Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[wareyin]

Statements that are press releases do wind up in the news, yes. Arguing that it's standard, yes.

No, you are arguing against Sanders's statement. Such as:

It would speak a progressive split from the party into existence. Which is always the drawback to scapegoating those you need to win elections..

Some would rather lose elections to the fascism taking over the Republican Party so long as they get to scapegoat the mainstream Democratic party. Which Sanders at least appears to have finally realized, to the benefit of the of the country. If only his more ... enthusiastic supporters could learn the same thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The 14th Amendment is a big one with multiple sections. Section 4 reads:


It was added because after the civil war, the north and south had both borrowed a lot of money. The Union states did not want to pay for the Confederate states share of the war, and were also worried that the Confederate states would try to play weird political game regarding paying for the Unions share. (Crazy, I know)

Regardless, our modern Debt Ceiling is clearly unconstitutional.It was created by accident during World War One as a way to make borrowing money easier for the Congress, by setting up a single source of debt spending, rather than having to authorize each instance of debt spending individually. As the national debt grew and expanded, Congress saw no particular need to get rid of it, as it provided politicians on both sides of the aisle a regular opportunity to pontificate about the debt (rather than actually fix the debt).

It was only in the modern era that people realized that the debt ceiling could be used as a source of extortion. But the Constitution is clear. Congress may get to decide what to put on the national credit card, but the 14th Amendment says we must pay the credit card bill.

Biden has no obligation to play the GOPs game with the debt ceiling.

I should have read the whole thing.

So why do we hear nothing about this in the debt ceiling debates? As many times as the ceiling has been held up by the GOP recently, one would think they'd be challenged in court.

It would seem this is separate from the Congressional role of controlling the purse strings. Once spending has been approved it obviously includes completing the transaction.

 

[Delvo]

The corporate Democrats' constant attacks on their own voter base are beyond scapegoating. At least with scapegoating, there's a real thing that happened to scapegoat somebody for. But this mantra about the evil left destroying everything by rebelling against their rightful corporate masters isn't even a thing that happens. They're lying about even having something to scapegoat the left for.

 

[Random]

I should have read the whole thing.

So why do we hear nothing about this in the debt ceiling debates? As many times as the ceiling has been held up by the GOP recently, one would think they'd be challenged in court.

It would seem this is separate from the Congressional role of controlling the purse strings. Once spending has been approved it obviously includes completing the transaction.

Its a bunch of different things. A lot of politicians on both sides have used the Debt Ceiling increase to make speeches about irresponsible spending. Pointing out that the Debt Ceiling is unconstitutional now will get their past speeches on the subject on the air within a day.

Obama, in a moment of idiocy, wanted to use the Debt Ceiling in 2011 to create a situation that required a "Grand Bargain" or Social Security cuts in exchange for tax hikes on the rich. While the GOP liked the idea of using the Debt Ceiling to force Social Security cuts, they balked at the idea of tax hikes.

We also haven't actually hit the Debt Ceiling yet, so no one has had to run to the Courts to keep/stop the money flowing.

It also isn't that we hear nothing about it. There are fairly regular articles about it, and a bunch of trillion-dollar coin stories. But the media loves its political drama, and pointing out that the whole thing is idiotic doesn't get a whole lot of attention.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So why do we hear nothing about this in the debt ceiling debates? As many times as the ceiling has been held up by the GOP recently, one would think they'd be challenged in court.

Because it's such an obvious bluff that no one wants to dignify it with a response. It's just the GOP finding an excuse to feign outrage for a few news cycles, they'll never be crazy enough to pull the trigger, it would be political suicide, so it's a waste of time even contemplating what the next steps should be. Just like they'd never overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

[acbytesla]

As a Democrat, I get mad at my own party for forgetting how to sell.

As important as global warming is, the middle and lower classes can't afford to prioritize addressing global warming when they are concerned about the cost of filling up their tanks and heating their homes.

They need to stop talking about global warming and start talking about making life more affordable for everybody. And that cannot be done if we leave it up to the fossil fuel companies. Moving to cleaner alternative fuels not only can save the world it can and will make the cost of everything cheaper. If the Fossil fuel companies have their way, they will forever be able to gouge consumers. Don't leave it in their hands. Be proactive in making it cheaper in the future.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

start talking about making life more affordable for everybody.
...
Be proactive in making it cheaper in the future.

But that's socialism!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it's such an obvious bluff that no one wants to dignify it with a response. It's just the GOP finding an excuse to feign outrage for a few news cycles, they'll never be crazy enough to pull the trigger, it would be political suicide, so it's a waste of time even contemplating what the next steps should be. Just like they'd never overturn Roe v. Wade.

I do remember the year the GOP went to far with it resulting in shutting down quite a few government functions and offices. That was the year it backfired on the GOP who were sure the Democrats would get the blame.

McConnell remembers but the more recent MAGA GOPers apparently do not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a Democrat, I get mad at my own party for forgetting how to sell.

As important as global warming is, the middle and lower classes can't afford to prioritize addressing global warming when they are concerned about the cost of filling up their tanks and heating their homes.

They need to stop talking about global warming and start talking about making life more affordable for everybody. And that cannot be done if we leave it up to the fossil fuel companies. Moving to cleaner alternative fuels not only can save the world it can and will make the cost of everything cheaper. If the Fossil fuel companies have their way, they will forever be able to gouge consumers. Don't leave it in their hands. Be proactive in making it cheaper in the future.

They could also expose Exon for funding their own scientists and producing propaganda pieces denying global warming but they don't. Could be incompetence or like Manchin, the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry as the GOP.

 

[acbytesla]

But that's socialism!

Yes it is. In a way.

But I would argue that monopolies and trusts are not free market capitalism either.

 

[wareyin]

As a Democrat, I get mad at my own party for forgetting how to sell.

As important as global warming is, the middle and lower classes can't afford to prioritize addressing global warming when they are concerned about the cost of filling up their tanks and heating their homes.

They need to stop talking about global warming and start talking about making life more affordable for everybody. And that cannot be done if we leave it up to the fossil fuel companies. Moving to cleaner alternative fuels not only can save the world it can and will make the cost of everything cheaper. If the Fossil fuel companies have their way, they will forever be able to gouge consumers. Don't leave it in their hands. Be proactive in making it cheaper in the future.

As a sales pitch, this seems aimed squarely at the rich over the middle and lower classes, though. Middle and lower class buyers can't afford electric cars. Nor are they the ones running out to buy whatever furnace/home heating system you're thinking of. Sure, the owner of an ICE car or a propane/natural gas furnace is paying more over the long term. But the initial buy in is beyond their reach.

 

[acbytesla]

As a sales pitch, this seems aimed squarely at the rich over the middle and lower classes, though. Middle and lower class buyers can't afford electric cars. Nor are they the ones running out to buy whatever furnace/home heating system you're thinking of. Sure, the owner of an ICE car or a propane/natural gas furnace is paying more over the long term. But the initial buy in is beyond their reach.

They can't afford electric cars "yet". But electric cars are cheaper than ever and should get significantly cheaper as the development of batteries improve and as market penetration improves.

Just as solar energy was once unaffordable. In 1975 a watt of solar energy cost $115. Today it's about 75 cents. The same thing is happening with EVs.

The wealthy are always going to be able to afford new technologies sooner than the general public. They are the early adopters. This may seem unfair to some but if we ever want EVs to be affordable for the general public this phase of their product cycle is required.

 

[bruto]

I keep wondering the same think SG mentions above: why do so few people cite the Constitution here? It seems at least that someone ought to point out that the so-called compromise put forth by Kevin McCarthy is not that at all. He's basically saying if you don't do what I want I'll violate the Constitution.

I suppose that's typical Republican strategy these days: propose something outrageously terrible and then accuse others of failure to compromise when they balk at being only a little bit terrible. But I wish people would yell a little louder sometimes.

 

[Aridas]

As a sales pitch, this seems aimed squarely at the rich over the middle and lower classes, though. Middle and lower class buyers can't afford electric cars. Nor are they the ones running out to buy whatever furnace/home heating system you're thinking of. Sure, the owner of an ICE car or a propane/natural gas furnace is paying more over the long term. But the initial buy in is beyond their reach.

There's also the broader supply and demand issue here, though. Reducing demand is part of the reducing prices equation. Lower demand for gas means that that part of gas prices goes down, in short.

 

[Suddenly]

They could also expose Exon for funding their own scientists and producing propaganda pieces denying global warming but they don't. Could be incompetence or like Manchin, the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry as the GOP.

Part that and part that a lot of voters don't much care about existential threats when they can't pay their bills.

The Democrats should be out there selling renewable energy with promises that it will make electricity free. Which is a moderate exaggeration but that's how sales work.

 

[acbytesla]

There's also the broader supply and demand issue here, though. Reducing demand is part of the reducing prices equation. Lower demand for gas means that that part of gas prices goes down, in short.

Exactly. The point is to disrupt the energy markets. Stop playing the game where the oil companies win and the public loses. This is another reason why people should drive less if they can. I remember very well the oil crisis and skyrocketing gas prices of the late 70s.

People bought more fuel efficient automobiles reducing demand causing the oil companies to reduce prices. Gas prices went down, the public stopped caring about fuel costs and went out and bought gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.

If we want cheaper products and fuel we have to increase the supply side of the equation and/or decrease the demand side.

 

[acbytesla]

Part that and part that a lot of voters don't much care about existential threats when they can't pay their bills.

The Democrats should be out there selling renewable energy with promises that it will make electricity free. Which is a moderate exaggeration but that's how sales work.

Cheaper. Other than your exaggeration I agree entirely.

The fossil fuel companies are terrified about alternative fuels as they pose a serious existential threat to their business. My neighbor, a redneck conservative if there ever was one use to bad mouth solar energy and electric cars. Now he has gone entirely off grid and drives a Tesla. He still has a truck and an SUV but he rarely drives them because he charges the Tesla for free.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Part that and part that a lot of voters don't much care about existential threats when they can't pay their bills.

The Democrats should be out there selling renewable energy with promises that it will make electricity free. Which is a moderate exaggeration but that's how sales work.

No reason the Democratic Party can't do both. Sadly they do neither. I've been complaining since I've been posting on this board, I don't get it why they are so incompetent at marketing.

 

[wareyin]

How, exactly, should the Democrats be selling electric cars and renewable energy, though? They've for sure been pushing the idea that we need to move to them, but other than Biden and Stacey Abrams hawking used Nissan Leafs how much more can they do?

Fossil fuels are the current standard. Republicans don't have to sell anyone on them, all they have to do is stand in the way of change. Sure, the emptyG's and Montana Rep Parties are going to grandstand about how gas guzzlers are the American Way, but the Dems are already saying the alternative about BEVs and renewable energy.

Any tax incentive for electric cars (or bicycles) is going to run up against the same "oh, the US government can't afford to give away money" or "how dare you use government money to fund private businesses", and never mind the hypocrisy about us already doing that for the oil companies.

 

[acbytesla]

No reason the Democratic Party can't do both. Sadly they do neither. I've been complaining since I've been posting on this board, I don't get it why they are so incompetent at marketing.

I agree entirely. Selling the existential threat of global warming might work with a college educated 30 year olds. But it fails miserably with blue collar workers who are just trying to make ends meet. Instead of arguing middle America kitchen table economics, the Dems fall into the trap of arguing cultural crap. (Not that the cultural crap isn't important) But it isn't of prime importance to the middle class who feels they are being squeezed out of the American dream.