The Biden Presidency

[acbytesla]

I just watched about half the Biden town hall. I know that others have said this, but I feel I have to say it too. The difference between Trump and him is day and night. I knew it would be. But still, it's great to see it confirmed. Biden was humble and gracious. A trait I haven't seen in a President for 4 years.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

On the business side I was thinking of small-time landlords or the like - not handouts to big businesses that are doing just fine. I'm spitballing, trying to see what it would take to avoid 51-50 votes. Maybe grants to public health departments? They have those in red states. In fact red states might need more help than others. Of course there are very few policy details involved with just giving a lump sum to each taxpayer, so that would be a much simpler bill to pass. And this time around the GOP doesn't control the mechanics of what comes to a floor vote and what doesn't.

 

[Horatius]

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

But that's going to be a problem itself, because if a whole lot of people are being evicted for not being able to meet their monthly rent, where are they going to get 2+ months worth of rent to get a new place?

If someone other than the renters with no jobs and no money doesn't do something, the US is going to end up with a whole lot more homeless people, a whole lot more empty houses and apartments, and a whole lot of landlords losing their properties anyways because no one can afford them.

This problem exists, and "evicting people" as the primary "solution" puts the burden for solving it on the people least able to solve it.

 

[Bob001]

But that's going to be a problem itself, because if a whole lot of people are being evicted for not being able to meet their monthly rent, where are they going to get 2+ months worth of rent to get a new place?
.....

The question is what's the local economy like? The landlord doesn't care how many people are unemployed. He just needs to know if he can find another tenant for his vacant apartment. In most of the country he probably can.

And people in trouble aren't necessarily homeless. They're moving in with family and friends or doubling up with roommates. Miserable, but not the end of the world.

As I said, the real solution is enhanced continuing unemployment benefits.

 

[acbytesla]

On the business side I was thinking of small-time landlords or the like - not handouts to big businesses that are doing just fine. I'm spitballing, trying to see what it would take to avoid 51-50 votes. Maybe grants to public health departments? They have those in red states. In fact red states might need more help than others. Of course there are very few policy details involved with just giving a lump sum to each taxpayer, so that would be a much simpler bill to pass. And this time around the GOP doesn't control the mechanics of what comes to a floor vote and what doesn't.

I really don't care if they are 51-50 votes. Sure it would be great to get some GOP support. But what it comes down to is helping people. One party is trying to help people and one party doesn't care.

In fact it might be better they are 50-51 votes. It shows a stark difference between the parties.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I really don't care if they are 51-50 votes. Sure it would be great to get some GOP support. But what it comes down to is helping people. One party is trying to help people and one party doesn't care.

In fact it might be better they are 50-51 votes. It shows a stark difference between the parties.

I hope they don't give a **** about GOP support. Biden was there during the Obama years, catering to these ghouls never earned him any good will or cooperation.

51 votes, ram it down their throats and don't apologize. Prove to the voting population that they can govern and do a good job. The time for hand-wringing about bipartisanship is over.

 

[acbytesla]

I hope they don't give a **** about GOP support. Biden was there during the Obama years, catering to these ghouls never earned him any good will or cooperation.

51 votes, ram it down their throats and don't apologize. Prove to the voting population that they can govern and do a good job. The time for hand-wringing about bipartisanship is over.

I don't mind them trying to get bipartisanship support. I just don't want that to stop them in their tracks. I want them to reach out and say we can do this together and share credit or we'll do it without you.

I watched GOP Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson today say he had a very productive call with Biden. He supports COVID relief but he thinks it should be smaller. That tells me he knows that fighting relief is a loser for Republicans. It's more than OK to go it alone on relief.

This is the beauty of having a Christian white male Democratic President at this moment. Hard to have a racist backlash against a whiter than white guy like Biden.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The psychoanalysis in here is getting really weird. Biden-defenders spend pages defending him over this not-fired-fired guy... and then ponder the mystery of why a Biden critic would spend the same pages criticizing over something so insignificant and obviously not worth it.

Er, no. The 'Biden defenders' questioned whether it was 'worth it' from the start.

https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1360263195479392265

“I’m not joking when I say this: If you ever work with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I will fire you on the spot. No ifs, ands or buts.”

-Joe Biden to staff on Jan. 20

This abusive staffer has not been fired.

Well, the prohibition was about abuse of colleagues. The press has always been fair game.

But at least he's been suspended for a week.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...reporter-pursuing-a-story-on-his-relationship

I suspect that's just the beginning. Dating a reporter who's covering the administration is likely a separate infraction.

The claim that Biden broke a promise was debunked in the very next post. That should have been the end of it right there, but no... the originator of the claim had to spend pages harping on about it.

But your recollection of events is no surprise considering you previously said this:-

Overall, the pattern with Biden so far is that he's doing fine on issues that look primarily aimed at boosting his own reputation with minimal immediate effect on Americans' lives (international relations, environmental policies, just generally acting like a grown-up and hiring grown-ups) but, on things that would improve Americans' lives (and thus bring in more votes next time), he (along with a lot of other Democrats) is still set just as solidly against us as he always has been before and kept telling us he still is throughout his campaign.

One thing is clear, the 'us' you are talking about does not refer to the majority of people in this discussion or in America. Most of us are not expecting Biden to be 'solidly against us as he has always been', nor have we seen any evidence that he is. Granted we are not going out of our way to find it, but why should we? We are not blind partisans so sure that Biden will screw us that we have to seize on any little claimed failing as proof - even those that are immediately shown to be bogus.

This is a skeptics forum. We don't take claims for granted no matter who they are about. If we seem to be 'defending Biden' it's probably because we are skeptical of meritless attacks against him, especially when coming from people who have decided that everything he does is either 'to boost his own reputation' or will be 'set solidly against us'. And while you continue doing it we will continue to question the significance of your criticism.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Er, no. The 'Biden defenders' questioned whether it was 'worth it' from the start.





The claim that Biden broke a promise was debunked in the very next post. That should have been the end of it right there, but no... the originator of the claim had to spend pages harping on about it.

But your recollection of events is no surprise considering you previously said this:-



One thing is clear, the 'us' you are talking about does not refer to the majority of people in this discussion or in America. Most of us are not expecting Biden to be 'solidly against us as he has always been', nor have we seen any evidence that he is. Granted we are not going out of our way to find it, but why should we? We are not blind partisans so sure that Biden will screw us that we have to seize on any little claimed failing as proof - even those that are immediately shown to be bogus.

This is a skeptics forum. We don't take claims for granted no matter who they are about. If we seem to be 'defending Biden' it's probably because we are skeptical of meritless attacks against him, especially when coming from people who have decided that everything he does is either 'to boost his own reputation' or will be 'set solidly against us'. And while you continue doing it we will continue to question the significance of your criticism.

Secretary Psaki already made a statement to the effect that Ducklo's conduct was not in compliance with the standards set by Biden's promise.

"Well actually they aren't colleagues" isn't the slam-dunk defense of open sexual harassment you think it is.

I'm happy to let the matter lie. The jerkoff got fired. It took bad press coverage to make it happen, but that's not really unusual. In a utopia it wouldn't be necessary, but in the real world we acknowledge the value of an adversarial press that keeps people honest, assuming they have any interest in at least appearing to have ethics. The fact that this dude was fired, even with the delay, is a good sign.

 

[dirtywick]

I don't mind them trying to get bipartisanship support. I just don't want that to stop them in their tracks. I want them to reach out and say we can do this together and share credit or we'll do it without you.

I watched GOP Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson today say he had a very productive call with Biden. He supports COVID relief but he thinks it should be smaller. That tells me he knows that fighting relief is a loser for Republicans. It's more than OK to go it alone on relief.

This is the beauty of having a Christian white male Democratic President at this moment. Hard to have a racist backlash against a whiter than white guy like Biden.

Not only that, he's catholic. If anyone doubts his convictions he can start chanting and whipping himself in the back, let them try and top that.

 

[acbytesla]

Not only that, he's catholic. If anyone doubts his convictions he can start chanting and whipping himself in the back, let them try and top that.

One of the things that worried me when Obama was elected was a racist backlash in America. I saw it fomenting not long after Obama was elected. This was why I wanted a white Anglo Saxon this election. This is totally unfair but there is an unfortunate reality to this.

 

[Minoosh]

I hope they don't give a **** about GOP support. Biden was there during the Obama years, catering to these ghouls never earned him any good will or cooperation.

51 votes, ram it down their throats and don't apologize. Prove to the voting population that they can govern and do a good job. The time for hand-wringing about bipartisanship is over.

Well in that case, why not $5,000? I know that would be all right with you, but at that point some Dems would end up squeaking.

Would it be OK to pass single-payer UHC with 51 votes? I wouldn't like to see that, because no matter what Americans say on surveys, I think it would cost the Dems both houses in 2022.

Covid relief is different I know, time is of the essence and it's a popular cause to begin with. So yes, ram it through or maybe Republicans will support it anyway. But I'm not just handwringing about bipartisanship. I think it's better for the country. I can't stand rhetoric about healing but I would like to see some actual healing, if that's possible (I'm not sure it is).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well in that case, why not $5,000? I know that would be all right with you, but at that point some Dems would end up squeaking.

Would it be OK to pass single-payer UHC with 51 votes? I wouldn't like to see that, because no matter what Americans say on surveys, I think it would cost the Dems both houses in 2022.

Covid relief is different I know, time is of the essence and it's a popular cause to begin with. So yes, ram it through or maybe Republicans will support it anyway. But I'm not just handwringing about bipartisanship. I think it's better for the country. I can't stand rhetoric about healing but I would like to see some actual healing, if that's possible (I'm not sure it is).

Universal health care would probably be something worth spending political capital on.

Just look back to the ACA debate for the "value" of bipartisanship. Obama negotiated heavily with the Republicans and included their suggestions in the final bill. All but one voted against it anyway.

The Democrats can water down their bills to appeal to conservatives and they're still not going to get any buy in. May as well ignore them.

McConnell has show, repeatedly, that extending the olive branch only results in getting spit in the face. It's time to stop trying to please these people.

 

[acbytesla]

Well in that case, why not $5,000? I know that would be all right with you, but at that point some Dems would end up squeaking.

Would it be OK to pass single-payer UHC with 51 votes? I wouldn't like to see that, because no matter what Americans say on surveys, I think it would cost the Dems both houses in 2022.
Covid relief is different I know, time is of the essence and it's a popular cause to begin with. So yes, ram it through or maybe Republicans will support it anyway. But I'm not just handwringing about bipartisanship. I think it's better for the country. I can't stand rhetoric about healing but I would like to see some actual healing, if that's possible (I'm not sure it is).

And I think it would insure victory. But I want the Dems to do something else. Make Puerto Rico a State and change Congressional apportionment.

 

[Minoosh]

And I think it would insure victory. But I want the Dems to do something else. Make Puerto Rico a State and change Congressional apportionment.

The problem with UHC is that in the short term it would be very disruptive. IMO it would have to be phased in. Re: Puerto Rico: Per Axios

Between the lines: Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz) told NBC News last year that if Puerto Rico gained statehood, Republicans would "never get the Senate back again."

Doesn't that worry you ?

 

[dirtywick]

Well in that case, why not $5,000? I know that would be all right with you, but at that point some Dems would end up squeaking.

Would it be OK to pass single-payer UHC with 51 votes? I wouldn't like to see that, because no matter what Americans say on surveys, I think it would cost the Dems both houses in 2022.

Covid relief is different I know, time is of the essence and it's a popular cause to begin with. So yes, ram it through or maybe Republicans will support it anyway. But I'm not just handwringing about bipartisanship. I think it's better for the country. I can't stand rhetoric about healing but I would like to see some actual healing, if that's possible (I'm not sure it is).

If they dropped gun control and mashed through DC and Puerto Rico I think 2024 healthcare reform would be on the table.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem with UHC is that in the short term it would be very disruptive. IMO it would have to be phased in. Re: Puerto Rico: Per Axios

Between the lines: Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz) told NBC News last year that if Puerto Rico gained statehood, Republicans would "never get the Senate back again."

Doesn't that worry you ?

No such thing as never. But it would make it difficult for Republicans peddling their do nothing policies and blatant racism to win.

I want a new apportionment scheme even more. The present act allows for gerrymandering and has a horrible bias toward rural states. This was NOT intended by the original Constitution.

 

[Delvo]

the originator of the claim had to spend pages harping on about it.

All by himself/herself. Nobody else was interacting with him/her.

 

[SezMe]

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.

One approach is obvious: the property owners takes some - or all - of the hit in the form of forgoing all the missed payments. They will, in turn, say that they have to make their mortgage payments, which is completely fair. So then the banks will have to forgo all the missed payments, which they won't voluntarily do. That's where the feds step in. The fed notes that Uncle Sam bailed them out in the last economic crisis so now it's the banks turn to take a hit on their profits to help the country. The fed also adds, as an aside, that it's a nice bank you have there, it'd be a shame if we had to take it over.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Why "slight"? Biden has already stated that he wants to rescind that tax cuts the rich got under T**** which will be more than slight already. But they get to keep the gains in the interim. All the statistics I've seen show that the wealthy have made out like gangbusters during the COVID pandemic. I see no reason not to tax those gains VERY heavily to help out the rest of us.