The Biden Presidency - 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's look at the articles. Again in no way Biden should be blamed for everything but he does share blame.

Fiscal policy is in the domain of Biden & Congress. Monetary policy is more Fed. Per earlier post, I do believe Presidents/administration try to influence monetary policy (e.g. the Fed) regardless of partisanship or not. Considering Yellen's past and closeness to the Fed, I don't see how they've not tried coordinating.

Did the $1.9T plan that passed add to inflation? Could the excess demand that was generated because people had more money have been lessened. Something was necessary but could it have been smaller and more targeted and broken up into smaller pieces?

The Ukraine war happened on his watch. Could he have done something to have stopped it. A line in the sand where US would get involved by significant military weapons and not boots on the ground (e.g. the transfer of Mig fighter jets and like).

Yellen believing the inflation was transitory. Could she have raised the red flag earlier and maybe Fed would have raised interest rates earlier and quicker? I guess its debatable if a recession is better than inflation but my guess is recession is better than "sustained" inflation (which is what it looks like right now).

There is no doubt the pandemic caused chaos and contributed to some inflation. The supply and things clogged at US ports was something I read about a while ago. Could Biden have done more to ease supply line constraints? Could Biden have done more to get more people vaccinated? (On this point, I say yes. Back to my older postings, when I see more ED commercials than campaign to get vaccinated and here's why, something is wrong. And keep in mind a large number of the unvaccinated are minorities and not just white Trumpers).

Oil prices. Could he being doing more e.g. stop being a bitch for SA?

And a bonus thought not mentioned directly in the articles ...

The high demand for workers right now even with near/full employment. Yup, open up the flood gates for highly qualified workers (and guest worker programs) assuming security considerations are accounted for. Anything significant on the legal & illegal immigration front from Biden since being elected? Other than proposal making/giving a path to citizenship for 11M illegals (who are already in the country), basically crickets. There is obviously a political price he'll have to pay. Easy to say but maybe he should have spent his political capital on holistic immigration reform vs the second failed (or was it third) rescue plan.

Here's a question for you. In current day, with 20-20 hindsight, a perfect crystal ball - do you believe that Biden would have done anything differently last year re: inflation?

There are things he could have done, including the Saudi Arabia thing you mention. But the rest of this seems like you are calling for a command economy, something we just don't have.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think people see this differently than what is the reality. We already produce enough oil that we meet our own consumption. The problem is we export a large amount of oil because the global price. We need the OPEC to sell more oil so prices drop, not to provide us oil. The US is never going to provide enough oil for our own consumption AND for the rest of the world. So in essence, we are not dependent on OPEC for oil. We are dependent on them to keep oil prices down.

Another problem is, the price of oil can't go down too far or else American oil producers lose money. Get down to 50 a barrel and lower and we won't be self sufficient because it will no longer be profitable to produce much of our oil.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Another problem is, the price of oil can't go down too far or else American oil producers lose money. Get down to 50 a barrel and lower and we won't be self sufficient because it will no longer be profitable to produce much of our oil.

A reminder that when the Saudis and Russians had a spat, oil prices cratered because the Saudis overproduced oil. Trump stepped in and told them to cut back on supply because the price for oil was becoming too cheap.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN22C1V4

Now you can make the case that Biden should be doing the same thing but in reverse.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think people see this differently than what is the reality. We already produce enough oil that we meet our own consumption. The problem is we export a large amount of oil because the global price. We need the OPEC to sell more oil so prices drop, not to provide us oil. The US is never going to provide enough oil for our own consumption AND for the rest of the world. So in essence, we are not dependent on OPEC for oil. We are dependent on them to keep oil prices down.

Even though US is a net exporter we don’t make enough of the heavy crude that we need, hence our frenemies in the ME.

It’ll be nice when Musk is a trillionaire and we are dependent on rare earth materials vs oil

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To me, making a better case is to show them the need and create trust. So its the same.

It's not the same. You're drastically underestimating the number of people who don't believe what the government tells them because it is the government who said it. It's about the source for them, not the quality of the argument. They believe there's a track record, and in many cases there is, of them being lied to by their leaders. There is no short-term way for the government to create trust. Decades at a minimum of honorable statesmanship would be required before you could even think about cracking through that wall. When you see representatives with integrity being pushed out of office, it creates the opposite effect. That's where we are.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let me amend to say Biden should have pushed western allies to take the lead in pressure and threats, and reassure them that US will be right behind if needed.

Look at how world opinion shifted on Russia, and when. The bottom line is nobody in Europe wanted to take any significant action until after the invasion. The whole thing of leadership is you have to be there well ahead of time. What Biden said ahead of time was stronger than what the EU was willing to say at that point, and of course it's easier for him to say it when they have much more skin in the game economically. It's just as possible, and I think likelier, that pushing harder at that stage would have alienated them.

I still would have liked to see it, but if we are the ones pushing than we are the ones leading. Not leading ourselves means accepting whatever they decided to do even if it's not what we want.

Originally Posted by Edward64

On foreign students, lets assume we divide that 1.075 by 4 (years) and we are talking about approx 250K of workers every year. I don't know what the true incremental number is but the effort to get a green card to work is significant deterrence for many US companies. Definitely increase guest workers and temp work permits too. But yes, there will be a political price to pay ... but that's what the GOP were worried about also when it was their turn.

Get rid of backlog, make it easier for foreign students to live and work here permanently, increase guest worker program for those jobs citizens don’t want and publicize the new era of immigration. There will be a significant uptick in applications because, we know, regardless of all the problems we have, the US is by far the place people want to immigrate to. (And for those that complain and cant see how fortunate they are to live here legally, feel free to leave for the Nordics and give your slot to others less fortunate)

Things like getting rid of backlog can't be done at the snap of a finger. You need to build up infrastructure for that, hire more beauracrats and train them, etc. Again, this takes years. These types of changes are ones you make as part of a long-term policy or strategy. They aren't band-aids and can't be applied as such.

The bottom line to me is that there's too much of treating the President like they are Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If there's a situation where the president isn't using the immigration apparatus properly or federal lands are being mismanaged or things of that nature, or they appoint incompetent unqualified people to the Fed, those things would all be their fault. I don't see any of that happening here. There's a lot I don't like about Powell but he's very qualified and was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Another problem is, the price of oil can't go down too far or else American oil producers lose money. Get down to 50 a barrel and lower and we won't be self sufficient because it will no longer be profitable to produce much of our oil.

And not just U.S. oil producers. Our entire transportation industry is predicated on low fuel prices. When prices rise, all those costs get passed on as much as they can into the supply chain.

I mean, most of American infrastructure that underpins the U.S. economy only really makes sense if you look at it through the lens of "refined petroleum is cheap". This, of course, makes perfect sense since most of it was developed during a multi-decade run of low oil prices.

Forget what we could have done in response to the high prices 15 years ago, how about the high prices 50 years ago? Imagine if we had committed to more efficiency and research into renewables then? But noooooooo....

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Even though US is a net exporter we don’t make enough of the heavy crude that we need, hence our frenemies in the ME.

It’ll be nice when Musk is a trillionaire and we are dependent on rare earth materials vs oil

Canada makes of the bulk of those exports. SA barely makes up 8%. Heck, we bought more from Russia than SA. Again, we are way more dependent on the global price were OPEC makes a huge difference than we are on actual oil imports from those countries.

[PilotMan]

Let's be clear...the current leadership will take the blame if anything changes. It doesn't matter if it was his fault or not. Because that particular group will bitch about nothing getting done to fix any problem, but the second anything at all is done, they simply hate on it and call it a failure.

It's not like he suggested injecting light or bleach into the body, or you know, did something positive like stare directly into a solar eclipse without eye protection. None of those things douchebag did may have actually hurt anyone, but you know, stuff like failing to protect all citizens of the country by making conscious choices to create violent situations and then stoke that fire, or you know, inciting a riot to directly attack the Capitol for the sole purpose of staying in power. They got people killed, but those are the sorts of things that are meant to be swept aside as a simple misunderstanding, or an overreaction.

Extremism is a huge threat to the country. Unless it can be brought to heel it will destroy the country we grew up with. While there are extremists on both sides, and both are giant pains in the ass, it's the group to the right that is the actual, real and existential threat.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Extremism is a huge threat to the country. Unless it can be brought to heel it will destroy the country we grew up with. While there are extremists on both sides, and both are giant pains in the ass, it's the group to the right that is the actual, real and existential threat.

With gerrymandering getting the supreme court seal of approval I'm not sure there's a path to mitigating it. We're going to continue to get extremist candidates that will stoke extremist ideas.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

While there are extremists on both sides

There is no analog to Gosar, Boebert, & Greene likewise serving at the national level for Democrats, in either policy, temperament, or willingness to parrot truly vile conspiracy theories.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

in essence, we are not dependent on OPEC for oil. We are dependent on them to keep oil prices down.

Just wanted to say I completely agree with you on this, which is a big part of why climate change, the future of energy, etc. are everyone's problem. These types of disruptions affect the world.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There is no analog to Gosar, Boebert, & Greene likewise serving at the national level for Democrats, in either policy, temperament, or willingness to parrot truly vile conspiracy theories.

Extremists on the left in this country are just moderates around the world.

[GrantDawg]

Is Boris Johnson getting voted out by his own party today? If he is, who is his replacement? Hopefully not someone worse.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Extremists on the left in this country are just moderates around the world.

One of the biggest problems with American politics is that conservatives won. But it is an ideology based on the myth of conservatives being oppressed.

So they had nowhere to go but further and further to the right just to try and get people to keep objecting to them.

[PilotMan]

The extreme left in this country are violent anarchists. They do not have any representation within government. Even Communists don't really exist here, nor a National Socialist party. The next step right are Democratic Socialists who are more akin to Swedish lawmakers than scary extremists.

The new far right has more in common with the ayatollah and government of Iran than traditional democracy.

The Taliban have a Secretary of Virtue and Vice. That sounds exactly like something Desantis would love to have.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The extreme left in this country are violent anarchists. They do not have any representation within government. Even Communists don't really exist here, nor a National Socialist party

That is the difference. It isn't that we don't have far left folks in this country. It is that they are completely shut out of government. They are fringe, and both parties reject them.

[molson]

I remember when I use to have an ongoing debate on here about whether Dems should root for and embolden the far right because they'd marginalize the Republican party and be easier to beat in elections.

[bhlloy]

Hell I remember the glee when Trump was a candidate, then the nominee, even when he was elected and with every dumb thing he did. Death of the Republican Party was a common refrain on this board and elsewhere.

Maybe it always was, but especially in the social media age politics is nothing more than my team vs yours. The more your team is losing and my team is doing things that piss your team off, the better we are.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Hell I remember the glee when Trump was a candidate, then the nominee, even when he was elected and with every dumb thing he did. Death of the Republican Party was a common refrain on this board and elsewhere.

Maybe it always was, but especially in the social media age politics is nothing more than my team vs yours. The more your team is losing and my team is doing things that piss your team off, the better we are.

I think a lot of people, myself included, underestimated the desire a significant number of people in this country have to see others suffer. That's really what's driving the GOP right now. They want those they see as the enemy, and the enemy is anyone that isn't in 100% agreement with them, suffer.

[Ksyrup]

Read an interesting article this morning that the crux of the gas price issue is not oil prices, but refining capacity. Given the amount of time and money it takes to reopen a refinery since COVID, they've been slow to come back.

My first thought - prices continue to climb and we think it's bad now, what happens if a tropical system or two through Texas or Louisiana takes a few refineries offline for a couple weeks?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Read an interesting article this morning that the crux of the gas price issue is not oil prices, but refining capacity. Given the amount of time and money it takes to reopen a refinery since COVID, they've been slow to come back.

My first thought - prices continue to climb and er think it's bad now, what happens if a tropical system or two through Texas or Louisiana takes a few refineries offline for a couple weeks?

They will blame Biden and say he should have nuked the hurricane..

[albionmoonlight]

People just think of gas differently in this country.

I've seen a couple people posting along the lines of "Thanks to Biden's gas prices, my husband is now bicycling to work!"

And my thought is, well, yeah. You are responding to the increasing price of a commodity by consuming less of it. That's how things work. The price of beef goes up, you buy more chicken. The price of chicken goes up, you buy more beef.

But people just don't think that way about gas. They consider it a human right for gas to be < $2.00/gal. and anything more than that is an affront to existence.

That's a huge problem for Biden b/c this isn't a problem that he can solve.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I saw some interviews on the NBC nightly news and people were saying things like, "I don't usually bother with politics but I'm starting to pay attention because gas prices are ridiculous."

It's very consistent with the way most people act on gas prices though.The thing that's nuts is people will drive across town to save like 5 cents a gallon, which is maybe a dollars worth of savings for most vehicles, yet not think twice about all the perishable food they throw out weekly that costs multiples of what they go out of their way to save on gas.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

People just think of gas differently in this country.

I've seen a couple people posting along the lines of "Thanks to Biden's gas prices, my husband is now bicycling to work!"

And my thought is, well, yeah. You are responding to the increasing price of a commodity by consuming less of it. That's how things work. The price of beef goes up, you buy more chicken. The price of chicken goes up, you buy more beef.

But people just don't think that way about gas. They consider it a human right for gas to be < $2.00/gal. and anything more than that is an affront to existence.

That's a huge problem for Biden b/c this isn't a problem that he can solve.

I think you can use this for most things that require change. Which was part of my point earlier. Take health insurance. Anything that might make it better, might also change how we think about how it works, or how we adjust how we pay for it. I think the answer you can give with gas is simply to say, that's how capitalism works. It's supply and demand, just the way you like it, isn't it?

It feels a bit callous to say. I get that the people who most affected are the ones living paycheck to paycheck, and there's more and more people in the country doing that, but shouldn't capitalism fix that? Lead to innovation and new development? Job change, higher wages? Ultimately, things will change, and I think that process scares people, because it leads to the unknown and nobody likes the unknown. It goes against our need to have any legitimate control over our lives.

[flere-imsaho]

Why would capitalism fix that? A central tenet of capitalism is the market pricing of wage labor. Yes, capitalism can create innovation and with it higher-paying jobs, but that doesn't necessarily trickle-down to labor mobility (people moving en masse from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs) or any across-the-board rise of wages.

The other way capitalism might enrich people living paycheck to paycheck would be through their ownership of stock (e.g. "means of production") but most people who live paycheck to paycheck don't own stock.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why would capitalism fix that? A central tenet of capitalism is the market pricing of wage labor. Yes, capitalism can create innovation and with it higher-paying jobs, but that doesn't necessarily trickle-down to labor mobility (people moving en masse from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs) or any across-the-board rise of wages.

The other way capitalism might enrich people living paycheck to paycheck would be through their ownership of stock (e.g. "means of production") but most people who live paycheck to paycheck don't own stock.

Simply that it's pricing based on supply and demand. Total free market capitalists don't want high gas prices. They don't want to deal with what the results of supply and demand actually mean. They want cheap gas, whatever it takes to achieve that. So pointing out that with higher prices, they are actually getting what they want. Prices rise with lower supply and strong demand. Isn't that what they want? That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry if it was unclear.

[Atocep]

Capitalism should, in theory, see wage rise as business compete for the best workers. In our version of capitalism most companies would rather hire whoever will accept their shit wages and quality is often ignored.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

People just think of gas differently in this country.

Agree 100% with your post.

[flere-imsaho]

@PilotMan - OK, that makes sense. I slightly misinterpreted your original post.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Read an interesting article this morning that the crux of the gas price issue is not oil prices, but refining capacity. Given the amount of time and money it takes to reopen a refinery since COVID, they've been slow to come back.

My first thought - prices continue to climb and we think it's bad now, what happens if a tropical system or two through Texas or Louisiana takes a few refineries offline for a couple weeks?

Refining has always been the issue. Even at full capacity, we can't refine all the oil we have available on this continent. It's why the idea of Keystone XL fixing our energy problems was comical. The pipeline was meant to send oil to the gulf so it could be exported to other countries.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not the same. You're drastically underestimating the number of people who don't believe what the government tells them because it is the government who said it. It's about the source for them, not the quality of the argument. They believe there's a track record, and in many cases there is, of them being lied to by their leaders. There is no short-term way for the government to create trust. Decades at a minimum of honorable statesmanship would be required before you could even think about cracking through that wall. When you see representatives with integrity being pushed out of office, it creates the opposite effect. That's where we are.

Regardless of who is doing the talking, the goal is the same. Build trust, confidence and show the need.

You point out the holdouts don't trust the government. How about get someone they trust to reach out to them. You've got alot of blacks & hispanics that are not yet vaccinated. Asians lead the way, hispanics and whites are within 2 points, and blacks are significantly below.

I'm going to guess their distrust of the government is different from why Trumper's distrust the government. Find the levers to pull to gain trust. I'll repeat, when I see more ED commercials and ads (in 2021 and early 2022) than "lets get with the program and here's why", it tells me the US government really isn't that competent and/or serious and/or has given up.

See fig 2 Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

Look at how world opinion shifted on Russia, and when. The bottom line is nobody in Europe wanted to take any significant action until after the invasion. The whole thing of leadership is you have to be there well ahead of time. What Biden said ahead of time was stronger than what the EU was willing to say at that point, and of course it's easier for him to say it when they have much more skin in the game economically. It's just as possible, and I think likelier, that pushing harder at that stage would have alienated them.

This is fair. My contention is the US should not be leading the way in European conflicts but should be supporting. Although Trump started the friction on "do more", European countries in NATO were not there yet.

However, it does seem they are much further along now with the Russian aggression. So for next time, Biden should let them lead with the big stick (or carrot).

Things like getting rid of backlog can't be done at the snap of a finger. You need to build up infrastructure for that, hire more beauracrats and train them, etc. Again, this takes years. These types of changes are ones you make as part of a long-term policy or strategy. They aren't band-aids and can't be applied as such.

FWIW, I've worked in Fortune 500 companies implementing sophisticated systems and redesigning processes. All this brings change and therefore the need for change management to show those impacted why this is good for them overall (e.g. per our other discussion, get vaccinated and here's why).

I'm sharing this with you because I do believe these backlogs can be done in < 12 months if there is a will, support from higher ups, and of course financial backing. Bring in a hands-on consulting firm (not McKinsey and such which does high level analysis), spend a month to do the analysis on where the hold up is, another month to figure out how to remove many of those blockers (or come up with temporary measures) with higher up support, and then do what needs to be done.

This includes outsourcing 80% of the work to companies that can better scale up (and are more motivated) and leave the 20% of real decision making to key INS officials. I'm pretty darn sure if there is enough money involved, plenty of hands on consulting firms that are used to doing some of the most difficult process fixes (e.g. initial Obamacare rollout etc.) will get it done. It won't be perfect but better something new now than do the same old thing.

The real question is - regardless of your belief that it cannot be done, if it can be done in < 12 months (and evidence of relief even more sooner) do you believe this can move the needle? I do.

I don't see any of that happening here. There's a lot I don't like about Powell but he's very qualified and was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support.

I had no problems with with Yellen or Powell as I thought that pair had all the experience and knowledge to take care of the economy. However, using the prior caveat 20-20 hindsight, it's obvious they miscalculated.

You answered you didn't know if Biden would have changed things even with 20-20 hindsight. I'm pretty sure Yellen would have tried to change things (through action or inaction or words) with 20-20 hindsight.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

People just think of gas differently in this country.

I've seen a couple people posting along the lines of "Thanks to Biden's gas prices, my husband is now bicycling to work!"

And my thought is, well, yeah. You are responding to the increasing price of a commodity by consuming less of it. That's how things work. The price of beef goes up, you buy more chicken. The price of chicken goes up, you buy more beef.

But people just don't think that way about gas. They consider it a human right for gas to be < $2.00/gal. and anything more than that is an affront to existence.

That's a huge problem for Biden b/c this isn't a problem that he can solve.

TBH I don't think people are thinking it's a human right for < $2. I think the problem is they think there is a group of people/countries/companies that are purposely manipulating oil prices and Biden should be protecting them from this.

But yeah, US gas prices are relatively cheap compared to ROW. If this helps push the adoption of EVs even quicker, I'm all for it even though there will be serious pain for many along the way.

[Edward64]

I guess this means the Defund the Police won't be supported by the citizens of SF and LA? Abolishing the police has always been a weird goal of BLM, better to re-train and have more accountability.

Voters in two of the most liberal cities in America sent a clear message to the Democratic Party on Tuesday: they want their leaders to refocus on the most basic functions of government by ensuring their safety, protecting their quality of life and restoring order.

For months now, voters in San Francisco and Los Angeles have voiced their concerns that daily life in their cities appears to be spiraling out of control. Residents in San Francisco have been contending with a rise in burglaries and car thefts, as well an alarming spate of hate crimes directed against Asian Americans. Los Angeles residents have witnessed a sharp increase in violent crime, while city leaders have been grappling with a homelessness crisis that has led to the proliferation of tents and trash across parks, sidewalks and public spaces, while exposing an untreated mental health emergency on their streets.

On Tuesday, San Francisco voters registered their disquiet by recalling District Attorney Chesa Boudin amid concern that he was advancing progressive policies as a national criminal justice reform advocate at the cost of their safety. It was a move that signaled just how far the political pendulum has swung since the 2020 election cycle when many Democratic voters cited police accountability and criminal justice overhauls among their top concerns -- a debate that reached a crescendo following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

On the same night, voters in the overwhelmingly progressive city of Los Angeles signaled their unease with Democrats' handling of crime and homelessness by elevating billionaire shopping mall magnate Rick Caruso, a former Republican who became a Democrat earlier this year, into a runoff race to replace term-limited Mayor Eric Garcetti.

[BYU 14]

Anyone who ever advanced abolishing police is a fucking idiot and using the phrasing of defund is equally ignorant. (Yes I know what it means, but present it correctly)

I am 100% on board with purging departments of the bad elements, and channeling more resources to increased training (mediation tactics, non-lethal restraint techniques, I.E Jiu Jitsu, etc) and providing more (and mandatory) behavioral health support for officers. In addition, there should be mandatory down time periods where officers are taken off the streets for periods of time, similar to how soldiers are cycled in and out of combat zones.

I have posted about it in other threads, it is one of the hardest jobs in this country and resources should be channeled to helping officers perform it better, because the overwhelming majority care about their job and want to do it well.

[Kodos]

Yep. Using the word "defund" just gave Republicans an easy scare tactic to motivate their base. "Reform" would have been much better.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yep. Using the word "defund" just gave Republicans an easy scare tactic to motivate their base. "Reform" would have been much better.

100%

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yep. Using the word "defund" just gave Republicans an easy scare tactic to motivate their base. "Reform" would have been much better.

Except many liberals really did want to defund the police, not simply reform it.

Many still support getting rid of the police.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Twitter accounts desperate for attention claim they support getting rid of the police.

Fixed that for you.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Except many liberals really did want to defund the police, not simply reform it.

Many still support getting rid of the police.

Examples?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Examples?

About the only elected official that I can think of that called for ending the police was Rashida Tlaib, but she quickly backed away from the statement. No one is really going to get any traction on ending the police force, it is just used as a right-wing talking point.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sharing this with you because I do believe these backlogs can be done in < 12 months if there is a will, support from higher ups, and of course financial backing. Bring in a hands-on consulting firm (not McKinsey and such which does high level analysis), spend a month to do the analysis on where the hold up is, another month to figure out how to remove many of those blockers (or come up with temporary measures) with higher up support, and then do what needs to be done.

I will stand corrected if you can give me an example of one single major government agency or program that has seen this scale of change occur in a 12-month period within the last 50 years. Government is not a business.

The basic issue here IMO is that government is that politics is the art of the possible. It doesn't matter what would be good in a vacuum if it's not something that could be passed and enacted within the relevant timeframe. To me it's just self-evident looking at the political reality around what has happened with the infrastructure bills and Build Back Better and then try to imagine some idealized version of immigration form getting passed and put in on a warp-speed timeframe.

I think an increase in immigration could change the situation some, again over a longer timeframe, but to get the right mix of people that way government would have to predict ahead of time what industries are going to need people and in what amounts, and be competent and flexible enough to adjust in that way. That's a recipe for disaster, it's not the kind of thing governments are good at. You can definitely put Biden's priorities in what kind of bills to try to put forward and not focusing on immigration in that 5-10% impact I mentioned before, but cycling back to the original point here I think it would be quite a ridiculous thing to base a vote for someone else on. After all there's no other candidate out there pushing for it, so it's something everyone else would be equally wrong on. There just wasn't anyone on the national stage calling for this, and there's a reason for that, so if Biden was wrong here so was pretty much everyone else.

In terms of the PR campaign, I understand what you are saying and I think it is a fair point. I just don't think there's anything at all that can be done to reach certain segments of the population. There are elements where there are no 'right levers' to find and push. You can't control everyone. I also think to the extent that there's a fear of going back to work or whatever at this point, it's a fear totally divorced from reality. I think it we could snap our fingers right now and make everyone vaccinated it would not make much difference. I also think there are going to be holdouts to pretty much anything. Advertising doesn't make everyone buy something no matter how good or cheap the product is.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Examples?

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yep. Using the word "defund" just gave Republicans an easy scare tactic to motivate their base. "Reform" would have been much better.

My wife and I talked about this, again, just the other day. Reform would've been better. She brought up a good point, though. How much of the Defund the Police noise was from activists and how much was from the media, counter activists, and any other group that wanted to speak against the agenda of reform?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

It is behind a paywall, but you're gonna have to do better than one opinion piece when throwing around the words "many liberals" Or define many. 70 million people voted for Biden. 1% of 1% of those is 70K people. I consider that a lot but in the scheme of things it isn't.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I will stand corrected if you can give me an example of one single major government agency or program that has seen this scale of change occur in a 12-month period within the last 50 years. Government is not a business.

I don't know of any government agency or program that will fit your criteria. The best I can think of is the mess that was the Obamacare enrollment screwup. Government brought in Accenture to fix it. $90M+ and 1 year later, all done.

But that is the point. I've caveated my discussions in an earlier quote. Government cannot reform itself well, it needs to bring in outside parties.

I'm sharing this with you because I do believe these backlogs can be done in < 12 months if there is a will, support from higher ups, and of course financial backing. Bring in a hands-on consulting firm (not McKinsey and such which does high level analysis), spend a month to do the analysis on where the hold up is, another month to figure out how to remove many of those blockers (or come up with temporary measures) with higher up support, and then do what needs to be done.

This includes outsourcing 80% of the work to companies that can better scale up (and are more motivated) and leave the 20% of real decision making to key INS officials. I'm pretty darn sure if there is enough money involved, plenty of hands on consulting firms that are used to doing some of the most difficult process fixes (e.g. initial Obamacare rollout etc.) will get it done. It won't be perfect but better something new now than do the same old thing.

I think an increase in immigration could change the situation some, again over a longer timeframe, but to get the right mix of people that way government would have to predict ahead of time what industries are going to need people and in what amounts, and be competent and flexible enough to adjust in that way. That's a recipe for disaster, it's not the kind of thing governments are good at.

I agree government is not good at this. We need private sector to help.

After all there's no other candidate out there pushing for it, so it's something everyone else would be equally wrong on. There just wasn't anyone on the national stage calling for this, and there's a reason for that, so if Biden was wrong here so was pretty much everyone else.

I don't disagree, there does not seem to be political will on either side to do a holistic immigration reform. Other for Dreamers, I've not seen much from Biden or Kamala.

In terms of the PR campaign, I understand what you are saying and I think it is a fair point. I just don't think there's anything at all that can be done to reach certain segments of the population. There are elements where there are no 'right levers' to find and push. You can't control everyone. I also think to the extent that there's a fear of going back to work or whatever at this point, it's a fear totally divorced from reality. I think it we could snap our fingers right now and make everyone vaccinated it would not make much difference. I also think there are going to be holdouts to pretty much anything. Advertising doesn't make everyone buy something no matter how good or cheap the product is.

The time to do this was right after vaccinations became available. So this is on Trump and also Biden. But I expected Biden to have done better in change management.

It is true that advertising doesn't make everyone buy something no matter how good or cheap the product is. But advertising does work. Change management is more than advertising, it's more communicating your message on what is happening, why its happening, why you benefit etc. through whatever means including ads.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It is behind a paywall, but you're gonna have to do better than one opinion piece when throwing around the words "many liberals" Or define many. 70 million people voted for Biden. 1% of 1% of those is 70K people. I consider that a lot but in the scheme of things it isn't.

The poll below is not on 100% defund the police but decrease the police funding. I think the % are big enough to say there was a good amount of support for decrease.

Americans’ support for more police spending in their area is growing | Pew Research Center

[Atocep]

Most people I've seen calling for cuts to police spending want to see less money spent on equipping our police like the military so we get mental health experts on scenes and expand other types of policing than what we're doing now. So, in short, more money on things that have been proven to be effective and less on escalation.

[Lathum]

That chart really means nothing. Spending less isn't the same as abolishing, and I couldn't find number of respondents. Sample size matters. Not to mention it shouldn't come as a surprise it is higher with blacks and asians, they police haven't exactly been an ally to them.

[Atocep]

I guess to summarize my feelings, it doesn't make sense to me that the same people are sent to respond to domestic violence, armed robberies, traffic violations, evictions, school shootings, and trespassing.

Less spend less on current policing, narrow their scope, and get people less likely to escalate situations that don't require escalation for other things.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I have posted about it in other threads, it is one of the hardest jobs in this country and resources should be channeled to helping officers perform it better, because the overwhelming majority care about their job and want to do it well.

No, it really isn't. It's a high-paying job that requires no skill and has next to no accountability. Resources have been channeled into law enforcement for decades with little to nothing to show for it.