The Biden Presidency

[SezMe]

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).

I think you're missing the "bi" part of bipartisanship. Remember Moscow Mitch saying their #1 goal was to make Obama on one-term president? Remember when Moscow Mitch wouldn't even let a hearing happen for Garland?

That same person still is GOP leader in the Senate and, with T**** gone, he is now the leader of the whole GOP. And, worst of all, he's still the same obstructionist. I'd be more sympathetic to your desire for across-the-aisle cooperation if the other side would show some honest interest.

 

[SezMe]

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 Doesn't that worry you ?

Why should Dem policy depend on some Republican whining about a future possibility. What she misses is that the GOP could win the Senate if they got off the Crazy Train and adopted policies that appealed to a majority of the country.

IOW, the problem with the MNcSallys of the world is that their trying to blame their problems on someone else where, instead, a good look in the mirror is the solution.,

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Its pretty obvious to me that some members of this forum are holding Biden to standards that they never, ever held Trump to.

 

[Aridas]

Is there any news piece from the GA election period that lays this out explicitly?

Just to be clear - I was assuming that the GA election period was what you were thinking about in my previous answers.

The two GA senate candidates were running on $2000 checks pretty explicitly, and this was after the $600 relief checks had already gone out.

And, given the surrounding situation, I was *always* under the firm impression that $2000 was referring back to the previous effort, which meant that there was $1400 left to raise it to that. I will admit, however, that I don't live in Georgia and wasn't even trying to pay attention to everything that the campaigns were saying. Naturally, I have no objection to making it an actual separate thing and directly making it $2000 or more.

It seems to me there was a failure of clear political messaging here. I don't think bad faith Berniebro deadenders like myself are the only people out there who were under the impression that the $2000 promise didn't mean an additional $1400, but actually $2000.

FWIW, I don't think that I, at least, ever suggested that you were alone. But then... if I recall correctly, I first saw a story about GA Warnock/Ossoff voters who were very disappointed that they hadn't gotten the $2000 yet - while McConnell was still officially Senate Majority Leader. My reaction to that, which is unlikely to surprise you, was to effectively roll my eyes and move on. There are a lot of unreasonable expectations born of varying levels of ignorance across the population, regardless.

Edit 2: If the people pushing for tighter means testing have their way, many people that received the $600 "down payment" will not be eligible for the remaining $1400. That strikes me as extremely politically foolish.

And it fairly certainly would be quite politically foolish. Even so...

Relief really should be more targetted, half as many people should get twice as much money, but it would be political suicide. What was campaigned on and the people who expectes it are now the LEAST that can go out without severe pushback. Reason will have no part in peoples reaction to change on that point.

Honestly, I think that more targeted relief, in general, would be better as well. The first issue, though, is the difficulties in actually targeting it, at present. Probably better to focus on less direct aid, instead, at this point, like supporting more food banks and getting homelessness solutions prepared.

 

[Aridas]

Just as a bit of an update on voting rights - in something that should likely be of no surprise to most of those who frequent this thread, Republicans across the US are attacking voting rights hard, especially in the swingier states. To poke at Georgia, for example, it looks like they introduced 9 anti voting bills in one day alone. To go a bit further with the reasoning there -

“I will not let them end this [legislative] session without changing some of these laws,” Alice O’Lenick, the GOP chair of the board of elections in Gwinnett County in suburban Atlanta, which Biden carried by 18 points, said last month. “They don’t have to change all of them, but they’ve got to change the major parts of them so that we at least have a shot at winning.”

O’Lenick’s statement shows how the GOP’s true goal isn’t enhancing election integrity but rather curtailing Democratic turnout to keep the state from turning bluer, especially with a rematch between Republican Governor Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams likely in 2022. “This unhinged set of voter suppression legislation,” tweeted Fair Fight Action, a voting rights groups founded by Abrams, “appears intended to appease conspiracy theorists like those who stormed the Capitol last month.”

And yeah, also unsurprisingly, Raffensperger seems rather supportive of such. I think that I found it rather sad that he got as much praise as he did pretty much for not taking criminal actions to directly undermine his own professional credibility while under close national scrutiny, either way.

For a little bit of a larger picture, I'll poke at the Brennan Center.

In a backlash to historic voter turnout in the 2020 general election, and grounded in a rash of baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities, legislators have introduced well over four times the number of bills to restrict voting access as compared to roughly this time last year. Thirty-three states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 165 restrictive bills this year (as compared to 35 such bills in fifteen states on February 3, 2020).

On the other hand, though -

Of course, other state lawmakers are seizing on an energized electorate and persistent interest in democracy reform (which is likewise reflected in Congress). To date, thirty-seven states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 541 bills to expand voting access (dwarfing the 188 expansive bills that were filed in twenty-nine states as of February 3, 2020). Notably 125 such bills were introduced in New York and New Jersey.

 

[Minoosh]

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.

I don't mind higher taxes on the rich. But unless my math is badly mistaken, if Jeff Bezos gave all his wealth - say, $150 billion, it would only be enough to give each man, woman and child in the U.S. less than $500 each. And that's if he donated all of it. Taxing the rich more is fair, but how far would that revenue go spread across the rest of the population?

I'm thinking that if Dems wants to rescind Trump tax cuts to the rich they also might want to keep the middle-class tax relief that is due to expire. So some of the taxes on the rich would be offset by tax breaks for low- and middle-income voters. If anyone has a link I'd like to read about it. There's a ton of stuff I don't know and maybe the answer is already out there.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Orb lady makes a good point:

If they’re not going to do $2k a month and they’re not going to do student loan debt cancellation and they’re not going to do an immediate $15 minimum wage hike, how do Democrats expect to get enough people to vote for them in ‘22? We’re on a disastrous path here...

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1362266348055908353

The first 2 years of the Biden administration is a ticking clock. There has to be priority given to policies that improve material conditions for working people immediately, or the Democrats risk losing losing voters to apathy.

 

[Delvo]

Its pretty obvious to me that some members of this forum are holding Biden to standards that they never, ever held Trump to.

Are you the person who responded to my criticisms of "Iron Man 3" by accusing me of hypocrisy for having supposedly approved of similar flaws in some other franchise/character I'd never even heard of?

...and then, upon having the fact that I hadn't done that pointed out, brilliantly retorted with "whatever, your words are right here", because of how utterly "obvious" it supposedly was that I'd supposedly written stuff I'd never written about that other franchise/character?

 

[acbytesla]

Why should Dem policy depend on some Republican whining about a future possibility. What she misses is that the GOP could win the Senate if they got off the Crazy Train and adopted policies that appealed to a majority of the country.
IOW, the problem with the MNcSallys of the world is that their trying to blame their problems on someone else where, instead, a good look in the mirror is the solution.
Yep.

The GOP has tied their power to 3 things. Money, deception and racism/tribalism.

They appeal to the super wealthy to fund their disinformation campaign. They purchased nationwide radio and TV networks to get out their false narratives. They spread their racism and fear. They depend on the culture wars to maintain power. They can and do get away with helping the wealthy over everyone else by blaming everyone else.

The problem for them has always been time. In general people have grown to be less racist. The country is more diverse. The demographics have been tilting against them. This is kind of a last desperate grasp at retaining power. The GOP cannot retain power without voter suppression and gerrymandering.

And the scared white folk are terrified about it.

 

[wareyin]

Are you the person who responded to my criticisms of "Iron Man 3" by accusing me of hypocrisy for having supposedly approved of similar flaws in some other franchise/character I'd never even heard of?

...and then, upon having the fact that I hadn't done that pointed out, brilliantly retorted with "whatever, your words are right here", because of how utterly "obvious" it supposedly was that I'd supposedly written stuff I'd never written about that other franchise/character?

This would be a great retort if you'd never heard of Trump. Shame you're on record saying we should vote for him over Biden.

 

[CapelDodger]

That same person still is GOP leader in the Senate and, with T**** gone, he is now the leader of the whole GOP. And, worst of all, he's still the same obstructionist. I'd be more sympathetic to your desire for across-the-aisle cooperation if the other side would show some honest interest.

I'd like to see some GOP Senators giving the finger to Trump and McConnell, and openly offer compromises to the Democrats. This would presumably come from amongst the convictors, since the rest are totally consumed by internal party affairs.

 

[gnome]

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.

I'll take "things that aren't gonna happen" for $400

 

[SezMe]

Oh, no doubt I wrote that post while strolling around fantasyland.

 

[Firestone]

As if the day couldn't get any worse for Ted Cruz, let's note that today the US rejoins the Paris climate accord, just 107 days after it left.

US makes official return to Paris climate pact (The Guardian)

 

[Horatius]

As if the day couldn't get any worse for Ted Cruz, let's note that today the US rejoins the Paris climate accord, just 107 days after it left.

US makes official return to Paris climate pact (The Guardian)

It's official: the US is a cat.

 

[Suddenly]

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.

This assumes that Biden isn't one of the ghouls.

A well mannered more competent less racist ghoul who for political reasons has to play lip service to progressive ideas, but he's still going to side with business interests and wring his hands about assistance maybe falling into the hands of people who aren't desperate for it as an excuse to avoid progressive goals.

Lets see: 50K student loan forgiveness? He objects because it might help people who went to Yale and because early childhood ed is more important. Which is standard nonsense when any sort of real assistance comes up. Suggest it will help rich people (as if they have loans in the first place) and that the money will come from the mouths of children even when assuming the federal budget is an overall static number there are way other areas that could be cut.

So, yeah, it was critical to get Trump out of office, but this guy has always sucked and will always suck. When they run into trouble in the midterms they will blame progressives as usual.

 

[Delvo]

TRUMPCHUD!!! TRUMPCHUD!!!

 

[Bob001]

.....
Lets see: 50K student loan forgiveness? He objects because it might help people who went to Yale and because early childhood ed is more important. Which is standard nonsense when any sort of real assistance comes up. Suggest it will help rich people (as if they have loans in the first place) and that the money will come from the mouths of children even when assuming the federal budget is an overall static number there are way other areas that could be cut.
....

Wait a minute. In s society with as many and varied needs as ours, in the middle of a pandemic, when did 50K for college loans become some kind of progressive benchmark? A higher minimum wage, better health care, more money for the unemployed, voting rights protections, immigration reform, tax reform and more are much more important and will have much more social impact. Proposals to make college more affordable, including free community college and cheap or free undergrad, are also on the list.

But 50K for college loans is a just a giveaway. For starters, if people borrowed big bucks to attend private schools when they could have easily have paid for state schools, that's a choice of a luxury good, not a necessity. When people borrow big bucks to go to law school or get MBAs, they are buying tickets to prosperous, prestigious careers. Why should they be subsidized by taxpayers who maybe didn't even go to college? Some kids worked their way through school to avoid loans. Why don't they get 50K? Some prosperous families took out low-cost, low-interest college loans so they could keep their savings and investments and get better returns. Why should they get another benefit?

And then you have the broader issue that the easy availability of college loans has allowed college costs to rise much faster than inflation for decades. To some degree they have freed colleges from ordinary market forces.

There's an argument to be made for loan forgiveness in exchange for, say, public service work or tying repayments to income. But just wiping out college loans is one of Sen. Warren's worst pandering ideas. There's no reason for anybody else to swallow it.

And here's an argument that a 10K break would help the poorest students, and 50K would only help the wealthiest.

"Borrowers who have the lowest student debts are the ones who struggle the most," explains Adam Looney, an economist at the University of Utah.

More than a third of borrowers owe less than $10,000 in federal student debt, according to federal data.
.....
And research shows that more than a third of student debt is owed by the top 20% of income holders in the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/18/9683...giveness-hinges-on-2-numbers-10-000-vs-50-000

 

[Dr. Keith]

Who makes up the crazy wing of the Dem party?

The moderates.

But I don't think they make it up out of whole cloth, they are just susceptible to conservative lies about both-sides-are-bad.

 

[acbytesla]

This assumes that Biden isn't one of the ghouls.

A well mannered more competent less racist ghoul who for political reasons has to play lip service to progressive ideas, but he's still going to side with business interests and wring his hands about assistance maybe falling into the hands of people who aren't desperate for it as an excuse to avoid progressive goals.

Lets see: 50K student loan forgiveness? He objects because it might help people who went to Yale and because early childhood ed is more important. Which is standard nonsense when any sort of real assistance comes up. Suggest it will help rich people (as if they have loans in the first place) and that the money will come from the mouths of children even when assuming the federal budget is an overall static number there are way other areas that could be cut.

So, yeah, it was critical to get Trump out of office, but this guy has always sucked and will always suck. When they run into trouble in the midterms they will blame progressives as usual.

Rich people play the system to squeeze every dollar they can. So they too take out student loans. I'm not in favor of total loan forgiveness either. Yes, there are other areas that could be cut. So what? There are also numerous areas of need as well.