The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You see, that all sounds terrible. But what if I tell you the other side is forgiving $10,000 in student loans to only a select subset of college students? Makes the GOP look better doesn't ?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

FTFY

But to answer your question, no it really doesn't make the GOP look better

[flere-imsaho]

You make a compelling point.

Edit: This was in response to Grantdawg. It was a lot funnier when it was going to be right after his post....

[JPhillips]

Literally, all the GOP has to do is say inflation and gas prices from now until November, but they just can't help but go full-fascist.

The election is starting to look a lot like previous ones where the GOP pisses away the structural advantages due to lousy Senate candidates. I don't see how the GOP can't retake the House, but the Senate is looking more and more likely to stay with Dems. In PA, NV, and GA, so far, the GOP has bad candidates.

[JPhillips]

dola

Looks like Israel is going to dissolve the Knesset and go to elections yet again.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Literally, all the GOP has to do is say inflation and gas prices from now until November, but they just can't help but go full-fascist.

The election is starting to look a lot like previous ones where the GOP pisses away the structural advantages due to lousy Senate candidates. I don't see how the GOP can't retake the House, but the Senate is looking more and more likely to stay with Dems. In PA, NV, and GA, so far, the GOP has bad candidates.

I was thinking along the same lines and bought 843 shares of Dems keeping Senate on PredictIt a couple weeks ago. The price was .24 and has only increased to .25 so far.

Dems need to win 4 of these seats to keep the Senate: AZ, GA, NH, NC, NV, PA, WI. I think .25 is crazy low given the current state of those races.

[flere-imsaho]

The only one of those I feel is pretty safe for Democrats is NH, especially with both Sununu & Ayotte choosing not to run on the GOP side.

For the rest, it's pretty much the same story: the Democratic candidates are all good, and most of the GOP opponents have some pretty serious issues that once upon a time would have turned off the "middle" and also a good number of GOP voters. If Trump's base turns out for them, however, and/or if Democratic voter participation is depressed (whether due to voter suppression or general malaise) it's easy to see the GOP running the table on the rest of those states.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The only one of those I feel is pretty safe for Democrats is NH, especially with both Sununu & Ayotte choosing not to run on the GOP side.

For the rest, it's pretty much the same story: the Democratic candidates are all good, and most of the GOP opponents have some pretty serious issues that once upon a time would have turned off the "middle" and also a good number of GOP voters. If Trump's base turns out for them, however, and/or if Democratic voter participation is depressed (whether due to voter suppression or general malaise) it's easy to see the GOP running the table on the rest of those states.

I could see that happening, but I don't think there's a greater than 75% chance the GOP wins 4 of those races.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I could see that happening, but I don't think there's a greater than 75% chance the GOP wins 4 of those races.

And then the GOP will kill the filibuster and pass everything they've dreamed of while dems sit around wondering what happened.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The only one of those I feel is pretty safe for Democrats is NH, especially with both Sununu & Ayotte choosing not to run on the GOP side.

For the rest, it's pretty much the same story: the Democratic candidates are all good, and most of the GOP opponents have some pretty serious issues that once upon a time would have turned off the "middle" and also a good number of GOP voters. If Trump's base turns out for them, however, and/or if Democratic voter participation is depressed (whether due to voter suppression or general malaise) it's easy to see the GOP running the table on the rest of those states.

If they only need to win 4, I don't really know why the odds are so low. Like you said, NH is likely going to end up Democrat.

Fetterman will win Pennsylvania. Oz is such a bad candidate and there is a reason so many Republicans were quietly irate at Trump's endorsement of him.

Kelly is quite popular and scandal-free in Arizona. Polls show him up double-digits on all the Republican challengers. That will tighten, but I'd be surprised if he lost.

Then you need one more. Ron Johnson is very unpopular in Wisconsin. Although by November, that state may have eliminated every voting booth in Milwaukee. Warnock probably has a 50/50 shot in Georgia. And I'd say the Dems have at least a 50/50 shot in Nevada.

A lot can change and there is of course the possibility of Dems just sitting home because the party doesn't do anything.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A lot can change and there is of course the possibility of Dems just sitting home because the party doesn't do anything.

I don't think it is just that. The youth vote maybe, but the youth vote is a fickle to begin with. There are plenty of Democrats that are unhappy about inflation and will stay home because they don't feel either party is helping them.

[Lathum]

We no longer have a separation of church and state. The constitution is dead.

[larrymcg421]

"But a State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."

What kind of bullshit, moronic statement is this? No members of the community were excluded by Maine's law. They were only excluded if they chose to send their kids to specific schools. There were many Christians and people of all faiths who received tuition assistance to go to many schools in compliance with Maine's law.

[GrantDawg]

That ruling is a tough one for me. There is much I don't like about it. It really does open the door for religious extremist to further isolate children, and shovel dangerous doctrine into their skulls on the government dime. Not just Christian extremist, but other religions as well.

On the other hand, many of these voucher programs further leave poor children behind. Most of the time if there were a private school a poor child could attend in their neighborhood, it was going to be religious affiliated. This will at least make such programs more available to some kids.

This has always been a tough needle to thread.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

We no longer have a separation of church and state. The constitution is dead

it is on it's last legs to be sure, but the modern misconception of separation of church in state is among the major contributors to killing it.

[RainMaker]

Looking forward to funding the local Scientologist school that pops up in the neighborhood. Although I get the feeling these rulings will only be enforced for certain religions.

[miked]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That ruling is a tough one for me. There is much I don't like about it. It really does open the door for religious extremist to further isolate children, and shovel dangerous doctrine into their skulls on the government dime. Not just Christian extremist, but other religions as well.

On the other hand, many of these voucher programs further leave poor children behind. Most of the time if there were a private school a poor child could attend in their neighborhood, it was going to be religious affiliated. This will at least make such programs more available to some kids.

This has always been a tough needle to thread.

They don't want poor kids getting vouchers, they want the rich kids in the neighborhood to use the vouchers to go there over the public schools. I live in Dekalb County, the schools are hit or miss. If you think St. Pious, IHM, St. Thomas Moore want the kids from Buford Highway, you are nuts. They want the rich parents from Decatur and the likes using their public vouchers to go there. That's the thing about vouchers, it's never been about access for underrepresented or poor areas, it's about the people that already go there wanting tax credits for not using the county system.

[RainMaker]

It's corporate welfare for private business.

[miked]

Apparently we do not give the organizations that hide/support pedophiles enough.

[JPhillips]

If I'm an extremist or cult leader it sounds like these rural areas in Maine would be a perfect place to settle down and make the state pay for the "education" of the children.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by miked

Apparently we do not give the organizations that hide/support pedophiles enough.

You’d thin QAnon would be all over this!

[GrantDawg]

Miked, my understanding is in places like the New York and Boston there are many more parochial schools that do cater to poorer areas that will benefit greatly from this. But even in Georgia, almost all private schools have a religious connection. Not just the elite schools, either. I know of several smaller private schools in my county that would exand if they had more public funding. Our church as a matter of fact had private school for awhile. It went under because they couldn't afford to run on what people were able to pay. I imagine lots of churches and synagogues will dive into the school business if they can get public funds.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I don't get why Biden would propose this when he knows the Dem leadership is not supportive?

Regardless, the tax holiday does seem too little to really make a difference. Don't think there is an immediate solution unless its asking our frenemies (and Venezuela) to pump more heavy crude.

Biden doesn't seem to have a strategy other than to punt and say it's the Feds job to fight inflation.

Biden announces a likely doomed gas tax holiday - POLITICO

President Joe Biden on Wednesday called for suspending the federal gasoline tax, in his latest bid to curb rising fuel prices, though it stands almost no chance of passage in Congress.

Biden asked lawmakers to pass a three-month pause on the federal 18-cent-per-gallon levy, casting the proposal as a temporary measure that would provide relief to Americans without harming the road-building projects the tax traditionally funds.

The president also urged individual states to suspend their own gas taxes during that period, or seek ways to offer similar discounts from high prices at the pump. It’s a reflection of the intensifying political pressure on a White House combating near-record levels of inflation.

“A federal gas tax suspension alone won’t fix the problem we face,” a senior administration official told reporters Tuesday night. “But it will provide families a little breathing room.”

Biden’s gas tax holiday, however, has already been met with skepticism from senior Democrats in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have questioned whether the policy will lead to savings at the pump, rather than excess profits for gas companies. Democrats chose not to include it in their own bill aimed at lowering gas prices last month.

[flere-imsaho]

The Maine case is a clusterfuck from start to finish.

I grew up in Maine and my family still lives there. I am very familiar with the state. There are plenty of secondary schools littered throughout the state. Very, very few kids (even those living on actual islands, like my Dad did, growing up in the 40s & 50s) are all that far away from a secondary school. Sure, in extreme cases you maybe have to drive an hour (at most), or take a ferry like my Dad did, but that's the choice you make for living very much in the middle of nowhere, and the religious schools cited in the petition are certainly not any closer.

In this particular case, I looked up where the two petitioners actually live. The first set, the Carsons, live in Glenburn, which is a suburb of Bangor, the third largest "city" in the state (only 30,000 people, to give you a sense of scale). Bangor has both a well-regarded public high school and a well-regarded non-denominational private school that takes kids funded by the state through the school choice program which is at the center of this case. There are also another 5 decent high schools within a 30 minute drive of Glenburn.

The second set, the Nelsons, live in Palermo, which is halfway between, though a little offset, from both Augusta (the state capital) and Waterville, a town of decent size. Both have decent high schools. In fact, 6 public high schools are within a 30-40 minute drive from Palermo.


Let no one think this is a case of genuine hardship. Because Maine is such a rural state, including communities that live on islands, the state long ago developed a system of schools* throughout the state and then later supplemented that with the school choice program which provides funds for kids from the many small towns (think less than 5000 people) for which running a high school is too costly. These people are choosing, nay expecting, the hard-earned tax dollars of their fellow citizens to be used to send their kids to private, sectarian schools.



*including outposts of the University of Maine system that explicitly serve rural parts of the state, of which 3 are within a 30 minute drive from both petitioners.


A few other points:

1. I've read elsewhere that the case probably never should have been heard as there's no actual hardship being experienced by the petitioners and generally hardship is a requirement for standing.

2. It's worth pointing out that the current Maine program allows for public funds to be used at private institutions that are run by religious organizations, as long as religious teaching (e.g. proselytization) is not part of the curriculum.

As anyone who has worked with local school districts knows, there are well-funded, right-wing organizations working to gut public schools to get voucher programs/charter schools approved and then redirect public funding to those, often sectarian, institutions. This ruling puts another tool in their arsenal. Given the background of some of the Justices, Alito & Barrett in particular, it's very hard to not see the connection.


IMO, Maine had a system that provided a crucial benefit for truly remote (and always poor) families while making a good faith effort to keep a separation of church & state. This sectarian-motivated ruling destroys that.

[whomario]

Hasn't worked in Germany, tried pretty much the same thing. Of course the companies claim that it is working and prices would be even higher without it but even if that's true: Good luck getting people to 'buy' that distinction towards it working or not. Fact is that after it was announced prices hiked, then fell from those inflated highs (think shops hiking prices just before a special sale) for a day or three after coming into effect and then rising again to above where they were before it came into effect.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden doesn't seem to have a strategy other than to punt and say it's the Feds job to fight inflation.

It is worldwide inflation caused by pandemic-caused supply chain issues and pandemic-caused pent-up demand being unleashed on an economy with pandemic-caused supply restraints.

The President can't fix it any more than he can fly. Personally, I'm happy that the President is acknowledging the role that Congress and an independent Fed play in our separation-of-powers based republic.

It isn't the comforting lie of "I alone can fix it." But after four years of Trump, I'm tired of all the comforting lies.

[Atocep]

Yeah I don't understand how world wide inflation and rising gas prices are an issue the president can fix. He can't force China to stop shutting down, he can't force trucking companies to pay better, he can't force companies to put securing redundancies in supply lines over profits, ect.

Inflation followed by a recession was pretty much a given when shutdowns were combined with pumping money into the economy to get us through those shutdowns. Now we act stunned that it's happening.

[HerRealName]

I agree with Edward. We should nationalize all fossil fuel industries.

[stevew]

Halting federal gas tax seems like a horrible idea. Somehow I feel like both the stations and the wholesalers will just claw back most of that as profit. I dunno what the solution is, but that’s not it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Yeah I don't understand how world wide inflation and rising gas prices are an issue the president can fix. He can't force China to stop shutting down, he can't force trucking companies to pay better, he can't force companies to put securing redundancies in supply lines over profits, ect.

Inflation followed by a recession was pretty much a given when shutdowns were combined with pumping money into the economy to get us through those shutdowns. Now we act stunned that it's happening.

Don't think anyone is saying Biden can fix inflation immediately. I am saying that Biden can help reduce the impact of inflation if he is willing to pay the political price. Similar to my discussion with Brian, I do not believe that Biden could/can not lessen the impacts (and reduce the odds) on inflation.

On inflation and recession being a given, the best minds then (Powell, Yellen) said transitory inflation and I honestly don't remember reading much about recession back in first 3Q of 2021.

Assuming you agree that stimulus money had helped fuel inflation (or in general, there is too much money around) why do student loan forgiveness now (vs pause). An estimate is $370B. And for that matter, is it time to remove the pause.

Also the Trump tariffs on China (and think Canada also). Should he get rid of those?

Backlog in western ports to offload goods. Can Biden step in and help the union and management do better (e.g. work 24/7)?

Can Biden swallow his pride and re-engage SA (and Venezuela) and give them what they want (whatever that is) to increase heavy crude production?

There's probably other ideas out there that Biden can do if he is willing to pay the price.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I agree with Edward. We should nationalize all fossil fuel industries.

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Yeah I don't understand how world wide inflation and rising gas prices are an issue the president can fix. He can't force China to stop shutting down, he can't force trucking companies to pay better, he can't force companies to put securing redundancies in supply lines over profits, ect.

Inflation followed by a recession was pretty much a given when shutdowns were combined with pumping money into the economy to get us through those shutdowns. Now we act stunned that it's happening.

still shocked that none of this goes back to trump dumping a trillion dollar stimulus on top of an economy that was on the upswing.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Halting federal gas tax seems like a horrible idea. Somehow I feel like both the stations and the wholesalers will just claw back most of that as profit. I dunno what the solution is, but that’s not it.

Yep, it's dumb to even consider. It's like "here's some pocket change to help you buy a hamburger for your family to share" level of usefulness.

[Edward64]

Good to know talks between Schumer & Manchin are continuing. Article doesn't provide an estimate on total $ but I'm sure it won't be near the $1.75T. Deficit reduction requirement is interesting, hope they can come up with a good compromise.

Back burner no more: Dems set Manchin talks on party-line bill to simmer - POLITICO

The talks could all fall apart, of course, just as they did in December when Manchin rejected a $1.75 trillion, White House-blessed plan. Any bill advanced this summer would be much slimmer than that one, focusing on lowering drug costs, reducing the deficit, raising taxes on the wealthy and boosting energy sources both clean and domestic.

It’s not everything Democrats want, and they may have to take Manchin’s terms in the heat of the midterm campaign season or face another rejection from the mercurial centrist. But with its work deep into the calendar, the party is putting a new spin on an old saying: Build Back Better Late Than Never.
:
There are signs, however, that talks are getting more specific: Manchin and Schumer are going line by line over what a possible deal would look like, building a potential agreement from the ground up rather than rehashing disagreements from last year, according to Democrats familiar with the matter.
:
Manchin was the first Democratic senator to warn about potentially rising inflation and was widely dismissed by his colleagues last year when he raised those concerns. With inflation now at its highest rate in 40 years, any conversation about spending more money will be a difficult sell with him, and he wants deficit reduction in the package, a person close to him said.

And also ...

Polls show Biden’s approval rating is around 40 percent, endangering Democrats’ slim Senate majority. But according to a May survey by Hart Research Associates obtained by POLITICO, passing Manchin’s vision would offer a jolt come election time to four Democratic senators in New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, where voters would be more likely to support the incumbents if such a bill passes.
:
“The poll showed that a focused bill would be popular and would help Democratic incumbents who are running for reelection.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

still shocked that none of this goes back to trump dumping a trillion dollar stimulus on top of an economy that was on the upswing.

Could have a lot to do with the Fed adding almost $5T to their balance sheet since 2020, too.

Federal Reserve Board - Recent balance sheet trends

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Printing money excessively is just about the best way to cause inflation.

[JPhillips]

Sure looks like SCOTUS has opened the door to eliminating any and all gun control laws.

[JPhillips]

And they severely limited Miranda rights.

[larrymcg421]

If Hillary won, the court would've ended up with a 5-4 liberal majority. It would've been the first clear left leaning majority since the Warren Court era. That wasn't enough of an incentive for the selfish left wingers who voted Stein or stayed home. They did more damage to left wing causes than any right winger or "sellout centrist" could ever hope to achieve.

[PilotMan]

Bingo.

Short sighted, egotistical, immature, without a true grasp of what was at stake.

On the dems for not making that the true point of the entire election. Leadership completely missed the boat.

[JPhillips]

I've missed this idea running through conservative legal circles, but it seems that the SCOTUS conservatives are pretty clearly adopting the idea that any law without historical precedence in the U.S. is potentially unconstitutional. They really are working on moving the U.S. back to the pre-Civil War nation.

[Ksyrup]

I've been saying this for a while. Trump wanted to "make America great again" by taking us back to the 1950s and the extremist saw the opportunity and were like, "Fuck that, we're going back to the 1850s."

[GrantDawg]

Well at least the ruling did make clear that it is not ruling out background checks, or gun safety course requirements that some states have. They make clear that the gun owner must be "law abiding" which I guess is where any future gun restrictions are going to pivot. It does call into question whether red-lining or the fix in the girlfriend loop-hole will be able to stand. I also wonder about an assault-rifle ban.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've missed this idea running through conservative legal circles, but it seems that the SCOTUS conservatives are pretty clearly adopting the idea that any law without historical precedence in the U.S. is potentially unconstitutional. They really are working on moving the U.S. back to the pre-Civil War nation.

Trying to find any legal rationale in their decisions seems pointless. They contradict themselves in the same ruling.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues.

I think he made a good point. You're insinuating Biden has some power to force private business to change their pricing. If there is something you believe Biden should do, lets hear it. Otherwise, he has as much control over gas prices as he does over the cost of an iPhone.

People want capitalism and then mad when markets do things they don't like.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think he made a good point. You're insinuating Biden has some power to force private business to change their pricing. If there is something you believe Biden should do, lets hear it. Otherwise, he has as much control over gas prices as he does over the cost of an iPhone.

People want capitalism and then mad when markets do things they don't like.

Can you quote me where you think I said or insinuated we should nationalize all fossil fuel industries?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Can you quote me where you think I said or insinuated we should nationalize all fossil fuel industries?

Nationalizing the industry is really the only way to control what the price is. How does Biden force a company to lower their prices when he has no control?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nationalizing the industry is really the only way to control what the price is. How does Biden force a company to lower their prices when he has no control?

Let’s not go off on a tangent. Let’s discuss specifically what I was accused of saying ‘nationalizing all fossil fuel industries’. Quote me on where I said or insinuated this.

I’ll be glad to discuss other things I have said. But let’s settle this one first?

[RainMaker]

You didn't say that. His comment was in jest because you were insinuating Biden somehow had control over what gas prices are.

[Edward64]

Okay, got that out of the way.

I said Biden can lessen the impact of inflation if he is willing to pay the political price and listed some options including talking to our frenemies. If this is what makes you think I believe Biden had control over gas prices, we’ll agree to disagree.

If there was some other quote, please let me know

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trying to find any legal rationale in their decisions seems pointless. They contradict themselves in the same ruling.

Sure, but after the last few SCOTUS decisions, it's pretty clear the idea that laws have to have been around for decades or centuries is going to be used as a reason to invalidate all sorts of things.