The Biden Presidency - 2020

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One of the downsides to a tech program is that if you want to change careers or if advances in technology eliminate your job you may not have anything to fall back on. A good college education will give you transferable skills.

Absolutely the possibility. Yet, many skills are transferable to other fields. There is also a fact some kids are just not going to make it in college. Much of the student loan money owed are for unfinished degrees. Tech schools provide the opportunity to learn but are not as big a long term financial gamble.

[Lathum]

People need to utilize community college more to get a lot of the electives out of the way at a fraction of the cost. My niece is brilliant. Straight A student, band, etc...could have gotten in to just about any college, including Ivy League. Did her first 2 years at community college, then transferred all those credits to Rutgers. Will graduate with little debt and her degree will still say Rutgers.

[JPhillips]

That depends a lot on major, the motivtion of the student, and the culture at the 4 year institution. Coming in half way through, it can be hard to get the opportunities in research, arts, internships, etc. that the four year students are getting.

[Libra]

Originally Posted by Lathum

People need to utilize community college more to get a lot of the electives out of the way at a fraction of the cost.

Most of the school districts around me have programs for high-achieving high school students to attend community college in the afternoon during their junior and senior years. The best part is it's basically free for the high school students and it gives the students more options, it's easier to pick your college as a transfer student than it is as an incoming freshman.

[Edward64]

I like how Biden is doing public speeches and getting airtime.

President-elects typically stay quiet until they assume office, right?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This is a top down methodology like you'd get in a game like RimWorld where you can dictate the best outcome for the individual.

I'm not suggesting it get imposed from the top down. There are many ways to change society and that's usually the least effective one IMO. I'm suggesting we change the way we talk about college, about blue-collar work, etc. and stop pushing people towards college and the debt than ensues for whom it clearly isn't the best choice. We're still in a scenario where a lot of people don't even consider not going, it's just assumed they will whether it will benefit them or not, regardless of whether it fits with their career plans, aptitudes, etc.

When we talk about majors, we don't assume everyone should go into medicine or law - we try to find some sort of synthesis between their abilities, interests, etc. Same thing with where people go to college. But we aren't doing the same thing with whether people should go in the first place. There's this sense that valuing education means everyone should be aiming for a 4-year collegiate degree at minimum, which is just misplaced. The whole culture/atmosphere around the way we discuss working-class employment is often filled with disdain.

If we are really incapable, as seems to be being implied here, of distinguishing between 'the average college graduate will do better than the average person who isn't' and 'everyone should try to go to college' than we can pretty much just forget about making any sort of even slightly nuanced decision in our lives. If we can't do it on major decisions such as this, we might as well stop even trying to educate people because we certainly aren't expecting the apply critical thinking to even the big choices.

[Edward64]

Thank you, finally.

No idea if it helps me personally but no doubt it will help many in the US (but with the obligatory add to the deficit & debt).

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/20/repu...s-package.html

Senior lawmakers reached a compromise over the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending powers late Saturday night, overcoming a major hurdle that prevented Congress from completing a $900 billion coronavirus relief package earlier in the week, according to multiple sources.

A last-minute roadblock emerged on Friday as Democrats accused Republicans, namely Pennsylvania’s Sen. Pat Toomey, of attempting to encumber the incoming Biden administration by cutting off the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending abilities created by the CARES Act meant to protect the already battered economy.

“Now that Democrats have agreed to a version of Sen. Toomey’s important language, we can begin closing out the rest of the package to deliver much-needed relief to families, workers, and businesses,” a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told NBC News.

[albionmoonlight]

McConnell: I need a bill to pass to ensure that the GOP wins the Georgia runoffs. Dems, you have all of the leverage here. Also, I will not pass this bill that I need to pass much more than you need it to pass if you do not also agree to hamstring the Biden administration.

Dems: Where do we sign?

I am happy for the folks that need the money. But, man, the Dems are bad at this politics thing.

[sterlingice]

It's almost as if they're in on the con - just the less crappy side of the poop sandwich.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I think it helps to actually read what the compromise was (from the Washington Post article):

Late Saturday, Toomey and congressional leaders reached a compromise that effectively clears the way for a stimulus deal. The middle ground would prevent exact copies of the expiring lending programs, including those for local governments and medium-sized businesses, from being created without congressional approval. But the Fed will hold onto its broader power to create new programs through its emergency lending authority.

Exact copies of CARES act emergency lending leaves a ton of leeway.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

cool.

I guess I shouldn't tl;dr Congress.

[Edward64]

Been watching The Purge s1. Yup, I think we need a similar purge, 1 day a year for 12 hours. It'll take 3-4 years but people will get it out of their system and we'll get back to some sort of equilibrium in politics and society.

EDIT: darn, wrong thread

[RainMaker]

I would say the Dems are terrible at negotiating but I just think their goals are similar to Republicans.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Been watching The Purge s1. Yup, I think we need a similar purge, 1 day a year for 12 hours. It'll take 3-4 years but people will get it out of their system and we'll get back to some sort of equilibrium in politics and society.

EDIT: darn, wrong thread

Really fun series, the shows and movies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Really fun series, the shows and movies.

Started on s2, it looks pretty good so far. None of the time jumping (so far) in s1 which gave me headaches.

[Edward64]

So from the below link, adult dependent kids (e.g. college kids) are going to miss out on the $600 again.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/who-qualifies-for-a-second-stimulus-check-of-600-what-we-know-today/#:~:text=You're%20over%2024%2C%20you,or%20Social%20Security%20Disability%20Insurance.

As with the first stimulus check, children 17 and above, including college students who rely on their parents for support, and older adults, will not be eligible for the $600 dependent payout. This excludes roughly 13.5 million adult dependents from contributing to the household total, according to the People's Policy Project.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So from the below link, adult dependent kids (e.g. college kids) are going to miss out on the $600 again.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/who-qualifies-for-a-second-stimulus-check-of-600-what-we-know-today/#:~:text=You're%20over%2024%2C%20you,or%20Social%20Security%20Disability%20Insurance.

Why the F is 17 the cut off? That makes zero sense.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Why the F is 17 the cut off? That makes zero sense.

Good question, beats me.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So from the below link, adult dependent kids (e.g. college kids) are going to miss out on the $600 again.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/who-qualifies-for-a-second-stimulus-check-of-600-what-we-know-today/#:~:text=You're%20over%2024%2C%20you,or%20Social%20Security%20Disability%20Insurance.

This pisses me off more than you can imagine.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This pisses me off more than you can imagine.

I don't know. I can imagine quite a bit!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Why the F is 17 the cut off? That makes zero sense.

Sorry but we need another trillion dollars to buy up shitty mortgages so banks can buyback stock.

[PilotMan]

Two different letters to my congressman today. Sweet.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Two different letters to my congressman today. Sweet.

Have you ever heard back? besides a form letter response?

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

People need to utilize community college more to get a lot of the electives out of the way at a fraction of the cost. My niece is brilliant. Straight A student, band, etc...could have gotten in to just about any college, including Ivy League. Did her first 2 years at community college, then transferred all those credits to Rutgers. Will graduate with little debt and her degree will still say Rutgers.

I mean she's probably super goal-oriented and treats college as a get in and get out efficiently type of thing right? Most students attending 4-year state schools want the college life and be liberated from their parents. The debt sucks but so would living at home for another 2 years when all your college bound high school friends move out.

[RainMaker]

With so much waste by our government it is weird we want to nickel and dime secondary education. Who cares if an 18 year old doesn't know what they want to do with their life when they go to college? Who cares if it isn't a degree that will be used in their career? Why is education seen as such a negative for the population?

[Libra]

Some people see college graduates as pod people who can't think for themselves. Those people are incorrect but that sentiment is out there right now. The political and social things that happen on campus get a lot of play but those things have always happened on campus.

[Brian Swartz]

It's not that education is a negative. Nobody is saying everyone shouldn't go to HS. This issue is not about government spending IMO. My problem isn't primarily with the cost of them going to college. Society pays a bigger cost when there aren't enough people doing certain blue-collar jobs, the general disdain of said jobs contributes to counterproductive divisions in society (and goodness knows we already have enough of those without it), you don't need to go to college to educate yourself on a large number of things - I've certainly learned a lot more as an adult than I ever did in a 'traditional educational setting'. Having the expectation that almost everyone will go to college is simply fundamentally bad for society at a basic level.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Two different letters to my congressman today. Sweet.

Were the letters "F" and "U"?

SI

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Have you ever heard back? besides a form letter response?

After the last one about the stimulus I got a call from Massie's office, but they misunderstood why I was complaining and wanted me to know that he also disagreed with it and worried about how much stress the initial stimulus would have on the national debt.

:facepalm:

The rest are just, thank you for {whatever it was you said}, we work hard for everyone.

Followed by a bunch of history or programs that were implemented that that particular person had worked on, whether or not it was associated or not. It's pretty much total bullshit.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Were the letters "F" and "U"?

SI

Basically, one about the Postal Service and how it's a "Service" and how all of the issues we're seeing should have been anticipated and could have been planned for. You would think a logistics person would have understood that.

The second one about not closing the age loophole. Total fucking bullshit.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

After the last one about the stimulus I got a call from Massie's office, but they misunderstood why I was complaining and wanted me to know that he also disagreed with it and worried about how much stress the initial stimulus would have on the national debt.

:facepalm:

The rest are just, thank you for {whatever it was you said}, we work hard for everyone.

Followed by a bunch of history or programs that were implemented that that particular person had worked on, whether or not it was associated or not. It's pretty much total bullshit.

Your current approach doesn't seem to be effective.

Might have to give a nice contribution and show up at rallies.

[ISiddiqui]

There is an art to responding to letters where if they disagree with you, they (usually a lower level staffer) ignore what you are actually saying and respond with talking points.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Biden has yet to pick an AG. Common consensus is the top 2 are Garland and Jones.

Have no idea who is better but kinda like a former SCOTUS nominee getting it. It'll bring back some respectability. But he could get nominated again if a SCOTUS slot opens up. If I was Garland, having the career he has, I would pick SCOTUS over AG anyday.

If there are left leaning justices not feeling up to another 4 years, the time to ask for retirement is in the next 2 years.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There is an art to responding to letters where if they disagree with you, they (usually a lower level staffer) ignore what you are actually saying and respond with talking points.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

That's pretty much every letter or email I've received from a member of Congress

SI

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden has yet to pick an AG. Common consensus is the top 2 are Garland and Jones.

Have no idea who is better but kinda like a former SCOTUS nominee getting it. It'll bring back some respectability. But he could get nominated again if a SCOTUS slot opens up. If I was Garland, having the career he has, I would pick SCOTUS over AG anyday.

If there are left leaning justices not feeling up to another 4 years, the time to ask for retirement is in the next 2 years.

He is 68-years old. There is no way, at that age, that he is going to get nominated for a lifetime appointment. No one currently serving was older than 55 when they were appointed.

He was acceptable as a nominee when he was 4-years younger because Obama was replacing a conservative justice (Scalia) while trying to work with a GOP senate majority. Orrin Hatch had said there was "no question" Garland was qualified and would be confirmed right before he was nominated. If there had been a Dem majority, Obama would have nominated someone 10-15 years younger.

From what I have read, I think there is a good chance Garland stays put because his current seat on the DC Court of Appeals is too important to give up.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's not that education is a negative. Nobody is saying everyone shouldn't go to HS. This issue is not about government spending IMO. My problem isn't primarily with the cost of them going to college. Society pays a bigger cost when there aren't enough people doing certain blue-collar jobs, the general disdain of said jobs contributes to counterproductive divisions in society (and goodness knows we already have enough of those without it), you don't need to go to college to educate yourself on a large number of things - I've certainly learned a lot more as an adult than I ever did in a 'traditional educational setting'. Having the expectation that almost everyone will go to college is simply fundamentally bad for society at a basic level.

Why can't a blue-collar worker also have a college degree? I understand your point but the argument boils down to only dumb, uneducated people will take those jobs. So we need to make sure there are enough to fill those roles.

The issue is we treat education as a means to money. It should be that education is there to better oneself in general. Nothing wrong with a plumber who happens to know a lot about history. Or a factory worker who can read classical literature.

But I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that one party can't win with an educated populace. And the other party wants education to be a means to provide profits for their donors.

[RainMaker]

AG pick should be Jones if those are the options. Has a great civil rights track record and deserves a position for fighting a near impossible fight in Alabama.

Regardless of SCOTUS, appointing Garland would lose a federal judge that likely won't be allowed to be replaced.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your current approach doesn't seem to be effective.

Might have to give a nice contribution and show up at rallies.

I could also throw a flaming bag of shit into his office in town. That might get some attention. I'll staple my manifesto to it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden has yet to pick an AG. Common consensus is the top 2 are Garland and Jones.

Have no idea who is better but kinda like a former SCOTUS nominee getting it. It'll bring back some respectability. But he could get nominated again if a SCOTUS slot opens up. If I was Garland, having the career he has, I would pick SCOTUS over AG anyday.

If there are left leaning justices not feeling up to another 4 years, the time to ask for retirement is in the next 2 years.

If Ossoff and Warnock both win? Sure. If one or neither wins? You're already pretty much resigned to a repeat of the Garland playbook from McConnell, so stepping down would just hamstring whichever court.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If Ossoff and Warnock both win? Sure. If one or neither wins? You're already pretty much resigned to a repeat of the Garland playbook from McConnell, so stepping down would just hamstring whichever court.

I'm not sure how it would play out, but forcing McConnell etc to stand on an "we won't appoint ANY supreme court justice for 3 years" platform during mid-terms would be an escalation. It's still mid-terms with a D President in a polarized country, so they'd likely be fine, but that's different than saying we're in an election year let's wait.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure how it would play out, but forcing McConnell etc to stand on an "we won't appoint ANY supreme court justice for 3 years" platform during mid-terms would be an escalation. It's still mid-terms with a D President in a polarized country, so they'd likely be fine, but that's different than saying we're in an election year let's wait.

Yes, I agree with this. If a liberal justice wants to resign, don't do it in Year 3 or 4.

[GrantDawg]

You have too much faith in McConnell not being a total prick.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You have too much faith in McConnell not being a total prick.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Doing it at least by the summer before the mid-term puts it at least somewhat past McConnell to the will of the voters, especially if control of the Senate is in the balance.

(I have not looked at what Senate seats are up in 2022)

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why can't a blue-collar worker also have a college degree? I understand your point but the argument boils down to only dumb, uneducated people will take those jobs. So we need to make sure there are enough to fill those roles.

The issue is we treat education as a means to money. It should be that education is there to better oneself in general. Nothing wrong with a plumber who happens to know a lot about history. Or a factory worker who can read classical literature

You don't need to go to college to know about history or be able to read classical literature though or better oneself in similar ways. I think learning should be part of an integrated way of life in most cases, not something you set aside several years of your adult life for, with the exception by definition of careers that require that kind of training, academics, etc. Meanwhile a blue-collar worker going to college for a degree gives them a competitive disadvantage against other workers who went straight from high-school to the work force and have years of experience, relevant skills, networking, references, etc.

Uneducated does not mean dumb. I think that's a big disconnect here. You can be intelligent but have even more essential skills in another area. The highly intelligent probably should all go to college but that's a fairly small number of people.

[GrantDawg]

But then McConnell uses not allowing "Liberal judges" on the court as a winning electoral strategy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

"With the leadership of Mitch McConnell, Republicans in the Senate kept President Biden from putting the most radical liberal judge ever from getting on the the Supreme Court. Elect (insert Trumper meat-head here) to help keep the liberals from killing babies and taking your guns away."

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You don't need to go to college to know about history or be able to read classical literature though or better oneself in similar ways. I think learning should be part of an integrated way of life in most cases, not something you set aside several years of your adult life for, with the exception by definition of careers that require that kind of training, academics, etc. Meanwhile a blue-collar worker going to college for a degree gives them a competitive disadvantage against other workers who went straight from high-school to the work force and have years of experience, relevant skills, networking, references, etc.

Uneducated does not mean dumb. I think that's a big disconnect here. You can be intelligent but have even more essential skills in another area. The highly intelligent probably should all go to college but that's a fairly small number of people.

You don't need to attend elementary school to learn how to read or do simple math. Plenty of people in history have learned without formal education. So why have them either? Why the arbitrary cutoff?

It's still a choice whether someone wants to go or not. Maybe it creates a competitive disadvantage, but they would still be given the choice to expand their minds in a formal education setting. Everyone shouldn't have to map out their life at 18 years old like you seem to want. Nor should they have a decision to stop formal education due to financial uncertainty.

We know that more education leads to better health, less crime, and more self-reliance. It leads to more stable governments and less oppression in society. Why would we not want our populace to be more educated?

And while uneducated doesn't necessarily mean dumb, there is a correlation.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm not sure how it would play out, but forcing McConnell etc to stand on an "we won't appoint ANY supreme court justice for 3 years" platform during mid-terms would be an escalation. It's still mid-terms with a D President in a polarized country, so they'd likely be fine, but that's different than saying we're in an election year let's wait.

The electoral map still favors Republicans as long as land is given more power than people in our system.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You don't need to attend elementary school to learn how to read or do simple math. Plenty of people in history have learned without formal education. So why have them either? Why the arbitrary cutoff?

It's not arbitrary. In our society you become an adult for most purposes at 18. HS classes are relatively standardized with a lot of requirements that everyone needs to go through. College education is something primarily adults pursue, with a much wider range of specialized study paths, etc.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Everyone shouldn't have to map out their life at 18 years old like you seem to want.

Nope, that's not what I want at all. What I do want is for us to stop saying that college is the right path for all/most people. To advise HS graduates that going into the workforce right away is a viable path, that they can always go to college in a year or two if they decide they want to do that ... i.e. to stop the constant expectation that people are just going to go to college after HS because if you don't there's something wrong with you.

Going to college immediately is far more on the 'mapping your life out at 18' side of the reality, deciding where to attend, what majors and programs they offer, etc. To the extent that's a concern, it should move us away from immediate college not towards it.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nor should they have a decision to stop formal education due to financial uncertainty.

That's always going to be the case, the only question is when it is. Nobody is going to fund constant education as a way of life from adulthood to the grave, so at some point people have to go to something else. The only issue here is where do you draw that line.

[Edward64]

Didn't plan to watch it but caught the Biden speech today.

He started off by thanking the Nashville first responders, talked about upcoming challenges, thanked people for working with his team on the transition, took some digs at Trump admin etc.

It was refreshing to hear our President thank the first responders. He spoke well, and what and how he spoke reminded me of what a traditional President would say.

BTW, the speech writer is

US President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday named his long-time associate Indian-American Vinay Reddy as his speechwriter
:
Reddy serves as a speechwriter on the Biden-Harris Transition and was the Senior Advisor and Speechwriter for the Biden-Harris Campaign. He previously served as chief speechwriter to former Vice President Biden in the second term of the Obama-Biden White House, after which, he worked as Vice President of Strategic Communications at the National Basketball Association.