The Biden Presidency

[wareyin]

i'm struggling to come to a different understanding on what was meant to be communicated here.

From the transcript:



https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/georgia-runoff-election-democrat-rally-transcript-joe-biden-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff

Interesting that Business Insider chose to snip that bit off.

Is it your contention that in a rally that happened after he was elected, and which was not nationally televised, Biden misled the nation as to what would happen if he became President?

Come off it, we both know he was making the point that when Republicans were in control they wouldn't send out more than $600 and had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. And so, electing Democrats would be the only way to get that $600 up to the $2000.

 

[Dr. Keith]

i'm struggling to come to a different understanding on what was meant to be communicated here.

From the transcript:



https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/georgia-runoff-election-democrat-rally-transcript-joe-biden-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff

Do you think he was lying or do you think he was just wrong?

Does the difference matter to you? To others?


I think he was just wrong and that difference does matter to me, but it may not matter much to others. I'm not getting a check, which I'm very happy about, but I really wish others would get theirs soon. The sooner the better and the closer to $2000 the better.

That it wasn't an immediate $2000 is a disappointment, but not a tragic failure of the Biden administration in my eyes. As I said, though, my perspective is rather from the outside.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you think he was lying or do you think he was just wrong?

Does the difference matter to you? To others?


I think he was just wrong and that difference does matter to me, but it may not matter much to others. I'm not getting a check, which I'm very happy about, but I really wish others would get theirs soon. The sooner the better and the closer to $2000 the better.

That it wasn't an immediate $2000 is a disappointment, but not a tragic failure of the Biden administration in my eyes. As I said, though, my perspective is rather from the outside.

I don't think anyone with the political savvy and experience of Biden can have honestly believed that any relief check would be "immediate". The chances of Republican cooperation were so remote they may as well be zero. Including the relief check as part of larger covid relief legislation guarantees that the adoption will be delayed. Allowing swift relief to become the general expectation was setting themselves up for minor failure.

I also don't think it's a huge scandal, but I think it's still going to be a matter of disappointment, especially for desperate people who had good reason to believe the fruits of political victory would be coming more swiftly.

Honestly, I don't really think the intentions of the Democratic party matter much at all. Results matter, intentions don't, especially when it comes to matters of intense financial need during an emergency.

ETA: The current handling of the $2000 stimulus only makes me pessimistic for the future of any economic recovery from covid. The $2000 direct payment is truly only a drop in the bucket compared to the massive financial damage wrought by the pandemic. It should be the opening salvo of monthly payments or other more vigorous relief, but I suspect it will be a one-off that signals nothing other than fulfilling a campaign promise.

It's my deep fear that the lack of meaningful relief is going to be responsible for huge swaths of people becoming trapped into a cycle of poverty.

 

[Craig4]

Agreed this is true. The price of oil only increased 15% during Biden's first month in office.

Please tell the group about the impact of the weather on oil production. Next perhaps impress us with your vast knowledge of pending dispute between Saudi Arabia and Russia on production quotas. Next explain what policies Biden has put in place that impact production or demand since coming into office.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh I've posted articles that we are close to Herd Immunity or already in it. The pandemic could be over, but the politicians want to keep it alive and keep all the sheep in fear and jabbed.

What happened to working on one's HEALTH??????

No, you are nowhere near herd immunity. Less than 10% of the US population have had Covid 19 so far. It takes about 70% to achieve herd immunity. And so far, is has cost you 500,000 deaths. Also new mutations of the virus are spreading, so the pandemic is FAR from over. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hans

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes I have. I'll add a video link for you to hear the same. Further, it's rather presumptuous to claim you can know what someone has or has not heard. Or were you planning an attempt at the million dollar psychic power challenge?
I think that has been cancelled though.

One doesn't need ESP to know that you don't listen to Biden's speeches or press-conferences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4_2ynjacFI

You've heard a mendaciously edited youtube video telling you what Biden's said and sucked it up, just as I thought. You people aren't complicated, but you are balls-achingly predictable.

For or against? I'd like to know.

He's not intent on banning it, however many times Trump lies that he is. He's not going to subsidise it either. He's not for or against it in principle. He does recognise that it's not going to be around for much longer, as do thinking people generally. The future is not going to run on fossil fuels.

 

[CapelDodger]

Agreed this is true. The price of oil only increased 15% during Biden's first month in office.

What do you see as the connection?

 

[CapelDodger]

i'm struggling to come to a different understanding on what was meant to be communicated here.

From the transcript:

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcript...anscript-joe-biden-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff

Asking as a foreigner, had the $600 been passed at that point?

 

[acbytesla]

He's not intent on banning it, however many times Trump lies that he is. He's not going to subsidise it either. He's not for or against it in principle. He does recognise that it's not going to be around for much longer, as do thinking people generally. The future is not going to run on fossil fuels.

What does this mean to you? I assure you that fossil fuels is going to power the world for a decades at a minimum. I'm as big a believer in moving to alternative fuels as quickly as possible, but it isn't going to happen overnight.

Here's a sober reminder of that. US December 2020 sales, Tesla is 13th in Mfr unit sales with only Volvo and Jaguar/Land Rover selling fewer vehicles.

Tesla 24,675

GM 296,938
Ford 207,951
Toyota 205,349
FCA (Chrysler) 192,553
Honda 136,467
Hyundai Kia Auto Group 123,152

The demand for energy is growing steadily. And alternative sources like solar are extremely attractive, but we're a long way away from replacing fossil fuels.

 

[SezMe]

Lauren Boebert tweets

@laurenboebert
The lids are back on! Don’t you miss having a President who worked tirelessly?

Quote Tweet
Kelly O'Donnell
@KellyO
White House has called a “lid” for this Sunday so no expected events or public activities by the president.

What's this "lid" she speaks of?

 

[SezMe]

Really starting to question the wisdom of campaigning on "$2000 immediately" when it's turning out to be neither $2000 or immediate.

Serious political junkies do not take campaign promises to the bank....although they are secure in a wishing well.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What's this "lid" she speaks of?

It's an expression used to mean that press can plan to take the day off because the white house will not be doing any public events or releasing any big news.

Barring some breaking news type event like an emergency or other unplanned event, the press can expect not to have coverage at the white house.

 

[SezMe]

ETA: The current handling of the $2000 stimulus only makes me pessimistic for the future of any economic recovery from covid. The $2000 direct payment is truly only a drop in the bucket compared to the massive financial damage wrought by the pandemic. It should be the opening salvo of monthly payments or other more vigorous relief, but I suspect it will be a one-off that signals nothing other than fulfilling a campaign promise.

How do you propose paying for those more generous benefits?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How do you propose paying for those more generous benefits?

Taxes are one way, debt is another. Reducing spending on other non-essential bloat is also an option. I dont really know enough to really have a strong preference on that, but it's pretty clear that the US has plenty of wealth, it's just that spending on the poor is not a priority.

Other countries generally pay for their more expansive social spending through higher taxes on the wealthier classes. That seems like an obvious first step.

 

[Delvo]

I know Biden has said he wants taxes on the rich to be higher, but has he said how much higher? My first guess would be that he probably only plans to undo the most recent cut, but what's needed is to undo a few decades of cut after cut after cut after cut after cut.

Other than that, the main source of money we could use to fund everything that's not military would be by shifting money that would otherwise go to the military into anything else instead. Just the annual increase in military spending alone, without even actually reducing the military budget, would still often be more than enough to fund one major "but how will you pay for it" program like free college & student debt cancellation. With any serious level of actual cut to the military budget, we could turn ourselves into the next Swedemark within a year and still be running a surplus. Even a more moderate cut (like 50%) could still accomplish most of the same goals, just less dramatically, while still leaving us with the world's biggest military budget by a substantial margin, easily more than is really needed by a country surrounded by oceans, an ally, and a not-exactly-ally-but-no-threat-either.

Of course, shifting money from the military to somewhere else would require Congress, most of whom have a substantial part of their real salaries paid by military contractors thanks to the not-at-all-Roman-sounding legality of bribery. They not only never vote for a real decrease or even a decrease in the rate of increase, but tend to vote for more military money than they're even asked for.

But some good shifts wouldn't even need the money to leave the DoD. For example, The Corps Of Engineers has worked on civilian infrastructure projects before and could do so again. Of course, shifting more money from other parts of the military to the CoE would probably still require Congress (because the military budget issued by Congress is not a single number but a list of separate amounts for separate projects), but it wouldn't face as much of an obstacle as taking it out of the DoD entirely.

 

[Segnosaur]

He does recognise that it's not going to be around for much longer, as do thinking people generally. The future is not going to run on fossil fuels.

What does this mean to you? I assure you that fossil fuels is going to power the world for a decades at a minimum. I'm as big a believer in moving to alternative fuels as quickly as possible, but it isn't going to happen overnight.

Here's a sober reminder of that. US December 2020 sales, Tesla is 13th in Mfr unit sales with only Volvo and Jaguar/Land Rover selling fewer vehicles.

Minor point...

I am not denying that fossil fuels will be a major source of energy for years/decades to come.

That said, I'm not sure if looking at Tesla's market share is the best evidence of that, for a couple of reasons:
- Tesla's smaller market share is in part due to its inability to produce enough cars to fulfil demand. (If they were able to build cars faster, they would probably sell more, and their market share would increase)
- Tesla produces electric only, while its major competitors often sell both gas-powered and electric cars (both pure electric and plug-in hybrid).
- Tesla's product line is limited to cars. There are some people who have legitimate needs for other styles of vehicles (such as workmen needing pick-up trucks), and Tesla's cybertruck won't be available until late 2021 at the earliest.

A better measure would be to look at market share for all electric vehicles. In 2020, in Canada, market share for electric vehicles from all manufacturers was around the 4 or 5% range from all manufacturers. Still a small fraction of the market, but a little more encouraging than looking at the 13th place of Tesla.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Lauren Boebert tweets

@laurenboebert
The lids are back on! Don’t you miss having a President who worked tirelessly?
Quote Tweet
Kelly O'Donnell
@KellyO
White House has called a “lid” for this Sunday so no expected events or public activities by the president.

Obama? Yup, miss him a lot.

 

[acbytesla]

Minor point...
I am not denying that fossil fuels will be a major source of energy for years/decades to come.

That said, I'm not sure if looking at Tesla's market share is the best evidence of that, for a couple of reasons:
- Tesla's smaller market share is in part due to its inability to produce enough cars to fulfil demand. (If they were able to build cars faster, they would probably sell more, and their market share would increase)
- Tesla produces electric only, while its major competitors often sell both gas-powered and electric cars (both pure electric and plug-in hybrid).
- Tesla's product line is limited to cars. There are some people who have legitimate needs for other styles of vehicles (such as workmen needing pick-up trucks), and Tesla's cybertruck won't be available until late 2021 at the earliest.

A better measure would be to look at market share for all electric vehicles. In 2020, in Canada, market share for electric vehicles from all manufacturers was around the 4 or 5% range from all manufacturers. Still a small fraction of the market, but a little more encouraging than looking at the 13th place of Tesla.

I'd hardly say it is a minor point. I'm very hopeful however. But I understand how long it takes to roll out products like this. Toyota and GM appear to be the first real competitors to Tesla and they are still 5 years away from getting 5 percent of their vehicle sales being electric.

I'm really not trying to be a wet blanket on this, I just believe we need to temper our expectations.

At best the percentage of EVs sold in the US was one half of 1 percent. Around 362 thousand vehicles. 53% were Teslas. In comparison Volkswagen alone sold 349 thousand vehicles about 4 tenths of one percent were EVs of one sort.

Yes Tesla is limited by its production, but it also limited by other factors such as their high cost. As long as battery cost remains high EV sales will remain small. But it does appear that inroads are being made at that issue. EVs have a lot of issues preventing their adoption. Solving any of which will lead to major increases in sales.

 

[KDLarsen]

She can't be serious. No POTUS in history kept a lighter schedule than Trump.

She isn't, it's just another attack on President Biden.

Had he worked instead, she would have tweeted about how he was working through the lord's day of rest, and how he wasn't a real christian, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Aridas]

She isn't, it's just another attack on President Biden.

Had he worked instead, she would have tweeted about how he was working through the lord's day of rest, and how he wasn't a real christian, etc. etc. etc.

Pretty much how they work... and why a bunch of Republicans find it so easy to believe that Democrats were just doing the same thing to Trump. It's how *they* play the game so obviously it's just how the game is played. Nevermind that a heck of a lot of Democrats would rather puke than play the game that way because of the larger picture.