The Biden Presidency

[wareyin]

There's a thread over in Non-US Politics with some examples of how other countries have handled that sort of thing:


Do countries other than the USA do "stimulus checks"?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=349467

There's discussion of in this other thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=349467

It's hard to generalize. Some of these countries really didn't have to do anything novel at all because pre-existing social safety net programs were adequate to provide for the population that got laid off. Some responded through cash payments. Some expanded unemployment payments enough that people who lost their jobs were still receiving nearly the same salary.

There's no single solution, but it's pretty clear that the United States hasn't done enough and that many people are falling behind on their bills and accruing insurmountable debt that will very much hinder their ability to bounce back once things return to normal.

I had that thread in mind when I asked, thanks. I think it's clear that other countries have given more money per month to the citizens who needed it than the US has given our citizens who need it. I just wondered if there was evidence that other countries had also given more to each citizen than we had.

I've heard that the moratorium on eviction has been extended again, to March iirc. I don't see how that helps people in the long run who are behind and have no hope of catching up, but other than the government just paying everyone's back rent/mortgage payments, I don't know how we could help them at this stage.

 

[gnome]

I had that thread in mind when I asked, thanks. I think it's clear that other countries have given more money per month to the citizens who needed it than the US has given our citizens who need it. I just wondered if there was evidence that other countries had also given more to each citizen than we had.

I've heard that the moratorium on eviction has been extended again, to March iirc. I don't see how that helps people in the long run who are behind and have no hope of catching up, but other than the government just paying everyone's back rent/mortgage payments, I don't know how we could help them at this stage.

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords. Of course, landlords won't do that, so shuffling it is. (cue LFMAO soundtrack "ev'ry day I'm shufflin")

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That one worries me the most currently. With the increased prices in real estate, foreclosures will most likely represent a smaller problem since people have equity in their homes. The bigger problem becomes, they enter a market with higher house prices, so the obvious solution is to rent. Not every area will have issues but there is an influx of renters into a market where rental properties are taking their profit by selling, remaining properties are increasing pricing and competition will weed out those that were most harmed during this time.

We could do a whole thread on it.

Here in the midwest, we are swamped with coastal owners charging coastal prices and using sleazy "managent" firms so they can be entirely absentee.

Estimates are 40% of renters will be unable to maintain their leases. When that hits, it is expected those coastal investors will flee, leaving distressed properties that can't be easily flipped (housing from 1900-1950, basically) and actual home owners with plummeting values.

Here where I live, we expect "midtown" to enter about a 20-year blight cycle.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords. Of course, landlords won't do that, so shuffling it is.

That may be true, but there's no reason to believe individual landlords will realize this or will act with any wisdom. Eviction is the standard tool used for nonpayment of rent, and seems very likely that's what is going to happen, even if it's a pointless exercise.

 

[wareyin]

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords. Of course, landlords won't do that, so shuffling it is. (cue LFMAO soundtrack "ev'ry day I'm shufflin")

While that may be sensible in theory, those landlords are dependant on that money to pay their own bills. Maybe a few could just eat the loss, but i doubt the majority could.

 

[Horatius]

While that may be sensible in theory, those landlords are dependant on that money to pay their own bills. Maybe a few could just eat the loss, but i doubt the majority could.

I think the point is, they're going to eat the loss either way - why not eat it in a manner that avoids upturning the lives of an untold number of people?

This of course assumes that the US government won't do anything to actually help renters or landlords, of course, which seems like a safe bet.

 

[wareyin]

I think the point is, they're going to eat the loss either way - why not eat it in a manner that avoids upturning the lives of an untold number of people?

This of course assumes that the US government won't do anything to actually help renters or landlords, of course, which seems like a safe bet.

If the landlords eat the loss they can't afford, lose the property to foreclosure, and the tenants get evicted anyway, we're still upturning the lives of an untold number of people.

My previous landlord (before the crisis) had to take out a loan to replace a dead air conditioner, and we actually had to spot the money for other repairs for a few days at various times. I know she doesn't have enough in the bank to cover a big loss.

 

[Minoosh]

As for negotiation, the Dems have the slimmest of majorites. If one Senator breaks ranks they can't pass a single bill, which gives Manchin outsize power. When you have to appease even your own members to get anything done, you can't expect to be able to ram everything you want through to law.

If there were bipartisan agreement I'd feel better about any COVID-19 cash payments. I don't like straight party line votes because I consider them to be less stable than bills passed with bipartisan buy-in. In 2010 the Senate composition was 58-40 with 2 independents. The Senate vote for the ACA was 60-39.

Stimulus passed the Senate 60-38. In the House there was no GOP support.

There's an argument that the Dems did exactly the right thing in ramming these through, and maybe they did, but it put a big bull's-eye on Obama and all Democrats. In 2012 the Dems lost the House and its Senate margin was significantly reduced. This resulted in 8 YEARS when Dems could not get *any* of their agenda through. I realize that was largely because McConnell was a butthead but he did maintain party discipline.

You can't just go by what voters say they want unless that's reflected in who they elect to the Senate and the House.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Good would be $1,400, perfect is $2,000 at the very least. There could be more buy-in for COVID-19 relief because who wants to vote against that?

But the GOP might hold out for more aid to businesses if the bill is to win any cross-aisle support. True, the Dems don't really need the GOP right now but at some point in the near future they might. The margins are just to thin to ram things through. IMO.

 

[Minoosh]

I wonder if means-testing could be retrofitted - get the money out now, but structure it so that high-income earners might see a slight tax bump for tax year 2021. There could be a line-item that asks taxpayers about COVID payments. Low- and middle-income people would not be taxed on this income, but higher-income households would be taxed for a portion of that income.

 

[Bob001]

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords. Of course, landlords won't do that, so shuffling it is. (cue LFMAO soundtrack "ev'ry day I'm shufflin")

Forgiving back rent might make sense IF the tenant gets a job or some other help and is at least able to pay his current rent. But if a tenant is falling behind month after month with no end in sight, the landlord will become increasingly desperate. He may as well evict and hope to find another tenant who can pay.

The real issue is that in these unique circumstances, people who are unemployed through no fault of their own should be getting expanded help without interruption. That $600 weekly boost to unemployment benefits should never have stopped.

 

[gnome]

Forgiving back rent might make sense IF the tenant gets a job or some other help and is at least able to pay his current rent. But if a tenant is falling behind month after month with no end in sight, the landlord will become increasingly desperate. He may as well evict and hope to find another tenant who can pay.

The real issue is that in these unique circumstances, people who are unemployed through no fault of their own should be getting expanded help without interruption. That $600 weekly boost to unemployment benefits should never have stopped.

Yes indeed--I mark it as a sensible choice if the person is able to pay the current rent, just not the back rent.

 

[gnome]

If the landlords eat the loss they can't afford, lose the property to foreclosure, and the tenants get evicted anyway, we're still upturning the lives of an untold number of people.

Does that change if they evict the tenants first? My suggestion doesn't solve the landlords' problems, no. It's just in lieu of a solution that won't do any better for them. If the current tenant can pay front rent, they're in just as good a position as having a new tenant that can pay front rent, and then they didn't have to find a new tenant and the tenant didn't have to move.

 

[wareyin]

Does that change if they evict the tenants first? My suggestion doesn't solve the landlords' problems, no. It's just in lieu of a solution that won't do any better for them. If the current tenant can pay front rent, they're in just as good a position as having a new tenant that can pay front rent.

New tenants have to pay rent plus security deposit. Security deposit is often equivalent to 1-2 months rent.

 

[rdwight]

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords. Of course, landlords won't do that, so shuffling it is. (cue LFMAO soundtrack "ev'ry day I'm shufflin")

I guess in theory that would make sense, but from experience in my area, there is zero reason to do that. Rental houses/condos/apartments in my area have rent up near 20% a year over the past two years. That means that just keeping their current tenants at their agreed rent from before the pandemic, that they already can't/couldn't pay, would be losing them serious money. There are no shortage of qualified renters here. When evictions happen, there will be a flood of inventory but it will just stabilize prices.

Plenty of individual experiences that will be outliers, but I doubt the shuffle will look like or turn out to be a bad choice for most.

 

[Segnosaur]

It would be sensible for landlords to simply forgive the back rent in favor of retaining the tenants. Otherwise there's just going to be a Great Shuffling where everyone gets evicted and moves into each other's rental homes, which is a lot of fuss and money spent for the very same financial outcome for the landlords.

Whether it is a good idea to forgive rent or expect payment probably depends on the particular circumstances of a tenant.

Some tenants may have been problematic before covid (such as disturbing the neighbors, or late rental payments) and as such the landlord would be better off without them.

Some tenants may actually have the money to cover the back rent, but were still used covid to skip out of rental payments... so the landlord could still get some money from the tenant if he demands it.

Its possible that some of the "great shuffling" that you predict will also involve some "downward shuffling"... people realizing they can't afford a 3 bedroom apartment so they move into a 1/2 bedroom for example. This might give landlords a more stable situation in the future, if the tenant finds their new dwelling to be more affordable on their current income.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems to be possible inter-party conflict brewing over the matter of student debt forgiveness.

Biden explicitly rejected the notion of forgiving 50k when asked at the most recent town hall, instead preferring 10k.

More progressive members of the party are calling for more aggressive student debt relief. Warren seems to be a leading voice and is explicitly calling on Biden to use his authority to forgive 50k in student debt.

 

[acbytesla]

If there were bipartisan agreement I'd feel better about any COVID-19 cash payments. I don't like straight party line votes because I consider them to be less stable than bills passed with bipartisan buy-in. In 2010 the Senate composition was 58-40 with 2 independents. The Senate vote for the ACA was 60-39.

Stimulus passed the Senate 60-38. In the House there was no GOP support.

There's an argument that the Dems did exactly the right thing in ramming these through, and maybe they did, but it put a big bull's-eye on Obama and all Democrats. In 2012 the Dems lost the House and its Senate margin was significantly reduced. This resulted in 8 YEARS when Dems could not get *any* of their agenda through. I realize that was largely because McConnell was a butthead but he did maintain party discipline.

You can't just go by what voters say they want unless that's reflected in who they elect to the Senate and the House.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Good would be $1,400, perfect is $2,000 at the very least. There could be more buy-in for COVID-19 relief because who wants to vote against that?

But the GOP might hold out for more aid to businesses if the bill is to win any cross-aisle support. True, the Dems don't really need the GOP right now but at some point in the near future they might. The margins are just to thin to ram things through. IMO.

There was much more aid to businesses in the previous COVID bills and little help to States and cities. Much of aid to businesses was abused. Now is the time to get help to those who really need it.

 

[gnome]

Help me out with that--I am sympathetic to student debt forgiveness of some kind and might support it, but why does Biden have executive authority to provide it? I would expect that to take a legislative action.

 

[Bob001]

Help me out with that--I am sympathetic to student debt forgiveness of some kind and might support it, but why does Biden have executive authority to provide it? I would expect that to take a legislative action.

That's apparently a subject of debate:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe Biden will ask the Department of Justice to review his legal authority to cancel student loan debt, the White House said on Wednesday, adding the president does not favor $50,000 in student loan relief without limitation.

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-ask-doj-review-authority-185832554.html

I would imagine that as the federal student loan program is operated by the Department of Education, the White House can change the rules, just as it suspended payments, interest and collections at the beginning of the covid crisis. On the other hand, I would imagine an executive order would be contested in court. It would probably be smarter to get a bill passed.

 

[Segnosaur]

Help me out with that--I am sympathetic to student debt forgiveness of some kind and might support it, but why does Biden have executive authority to provide it? I would expect that to take a legislative action.

As another poster suggested, he may or may not have authority to do so as part of his executive powers.

But, even if legislation is necessary, he does have veto power. So he'd have to be on-board with whatever bill was passed to provide loan forgiveness. It would be best to get his approval before they start putting together a bill.