The Biden Presidency - 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't get you, Rainmaker. Not long ago you were adamant that Democrats who fought against Republicans in red states should get positions in Biden's Cabinet and DNC. You talked about Beto, Ossoff, even Harrison because they were willing to take on entrenched Republicans even though they lost.

Now you shit on the Democrats doing exactly what you said. It seems highly hypocritical.

For the organizing question, Harrison was chair of the SC Democratic Party for a number of years. He also was in the DNC and started the Every Zip code project which incentivized state Democratic Parties to invest in every part of their states and not just the urban areas.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Doug Jones won a race. Beto kept it close and helped push down ballot victories. Harrison got clobbered by the least popular Senator in the country despite having an enormous money advantage. I'm for rewarding people who take on tough races. An ambassadorship or some other position in the administration is fine.

But what are Harrison's qualifications? His career has mostly been as a lobbyist for banks and pharmaceutical companies and then raising money for the Democrats. Why would you put someone like that in charge of the DNC? Find someone who knows how to win.

[Edward64]

Didn't catch Biden's speech but did read his proposal.

Didn't see anything on how he would pay for it (and not sure his previous tax the rich over $400K will pay for $2T) so want to see where the money is coming from.

Also, enjoyed him ripping into current, pathetic coronavirus response. Has a president-elect ripped into a current president policies 1-2 weeks before inauguration? I don't remember, thought it was unusual, but won't be surprised if it happened all the time.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Didn't see anything on how he would pay for it (and not sure his previous tax the rich over $400K will pay for $2T) so want to see where the money is coming from.

Don't worry, Rainmaker says he's the most fiscally conservative president since Carter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Don't worry, Rainmaker says he's the most fiscally conservative president since Carter.

I doubt he will get the full $2T. It's a starting point for negotiations and I'm good with that.

Biden has also said there will be a second bill. Unknown how much that will cost but probably north of $1T also.

[bob]

Silly question. We haven’t paid for anything since before 2000.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Don't worry, Rainmaker says he's the most fiscally conservative president since Carter.

Who has had a more fiscally conservative record?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Also, enjoyed him ripping into current, pathetic coronavirus response. Has a president-elect ripped into a current president policies 1-2 weeks before inauguration? I don't remember, thought it was unusual, but won't be surprised if it happened all the time.

Um... isn't that pretty much every Presidential campaign and it starts literally years before Inauguration week?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bob

Silly question. We haven’t paid for anything since before 2000.

Have to keep dumping trillions into fighter jets that can't fly in the rain.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Um... isn't that pretty much every Presidential campaign and it starts literally years before Inauguration week?

SI

I was referring specifically to 1-2 weeks before inauguration, so after the race has been called. Don't most president-elects just wait during this transition period vs blasting predecessor?

I don't remember it happening and wondering if this was unusual.

[GrantDawg]

I think Biden is paying for it by the economy not completely tanking. I think it is well worth the price.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was referring specifically to 1-2 weeks before inauguration, so after the race has been called. Don't most president-elects just wait during this transition period vs blasting predecessor?

I don't remember it happening and wondering if this was unusual.

2008 is probably the closest situation. The Obama people were not bashing the Bush people b/c they were all working super closely together on the financial crisis.

In contrast, the Trump people were keeping the Biden people out of COVID meetings as recently as this weekend.

The Biden people weren't even told (let alone consulted) about the massive changes to the rollout plan announced last week.

So, yeah, it is unusual. Add another norm to the list that Trump and his people broke to the detriment of all of us.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think Biden is paying for it by the economy not completely tanking. I think it is well worth the price.

Yup.

Borrowing is ultra cheap right now. And we need to spend now to keep from losing many many trillions in output down the road.

The biggest problem with a 2T plan is that it isn't a 6T plan.

We should spend as much as the "1 million applying for unemployment benefits isn't a problem" crowd lets us spend and not a cent less.

[Edward64]

FWIW, 2.5+ months for a transition is just too damn long.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, 2.5+ months for a transition is just too damn long.

In a normal world, it makes a lot of sense to have a 3 month transition. It's not like we should expect a President to hit the ground running. Biden's an old hand because he's a long time Senator and former VP so he probably needs less lead time. But the previous four transitions included an "outsider" "businessman", a 3 year senator, and 2 former governors. Those are positions that require real time to adjust to the task of running the Presidency and its administration. And, in a normal world without a stupid, petulant manbaby as in the most powerful position, that time could be very well spent.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was referring specifically to 1-2 weeks before inauguration, so after the race has been called. Don't most president-elects just wait during this transition period vs blasting predecessor?

I don't remember it happening and wondering if this was unusual.

It seems like a really weird line and thing to worry about: "Hey, you guys just spent the last year bashing each other - but could you cool it for the last two weeks".

I mean, again, as above - you'd hope they'd be working together. But, I mean, when the outgoing President is not actually doing a transition with coordinating and sharing information and instead actively setting up traps like making stupid foreign policy decisions and dismantling environmental protections (oh, and fomenting insurrection) just because they know it's their last chance... I mean, what's left except to try and put public pressure on his predecessor to actually transition.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and this is probably optimistic of me, but the turn of this thread makes me hope for a time when our political arguments can be less about "how seriously should we take that white nationalist attempt to overthrow the election?" and more about "should we increase taxes or reduce benefits to keep Social Security solvent?"

I think that there's a lot of good-faith disagreement we can have about things that has just been lost as we've all had to deal with the Trump show for 4 years.

[bob]

People are already bashing Biden for "breaking a campaign promise" by pushing for additional $1400 checks instead of $2000 more. Sigh.

[JPhillips]

Yeah. Leave it to Dems to win an argument and then scream about how they really lost.

[albionmoonlight]

There's a joke in there about the new metal detectors and Dems shooting themselves in the foot, but I can't quite formulate it.

[ISiddiqui]

Biden literally said the $600 was a down payment... I can understand thinking the payment should be more, but say that instead of Biden isn't giving us the $2000 he said he would.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Biden re: masks, “time to grow up”. My thoughts exactly

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Biden literally said the $600 was a down payment... I can understand thinking the payment should be more, but say that instead of Biden isn't giving us the $2000 he said he would.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I did see a place where 2000 was said and it sounded like 2000 more...after that one of the democratic senators bitched about it "not being what they agreed to". And then this happened. I think the whole thing was a misunderstanding

But yeah get ready for 4 years of this type of bitching

[bob]

I’m pretty sure if they said fine, here’s another $2000 for a total of $2600, people would be bitching when they didn’t get a check for $2600.

[RainMaker]

They did promote it as vote for these Senate candidates and get a $2000 check. Doesn't say anything about $1400.

If we're counting previous stimulus checks, why isn't the new check for $200?

[rjolley]

I had a conversation about the $2000 and thought it might've gone this way:

1. We got a $600 stimulus.
2. Pelosi and Schumer were pushing for $2K after Trump said he wanted it to be that amount. If that would've passed, we would get an additional $1400.
3. Since that increase didn't pass, the chance for an increase is done.
4. This $2K is a new effort and would be an additional $2K with no relation to the $600 that could increase to $2K.

Sounds like a lot of people thought of it in that way. The actual plan may have been communicated somewhere, but with many people, like myself, doing a Cliff notes effort on a lot of news with everything going on, it's a detail that has been missed.

[sterlingice]

How many of these people are actually pissed about $2K checks and how many are just pissed to be pissed?

SI

[GrantDawg]

Almost all are pissed to be pissed. That is what politics is.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Yeah I'm sure no one is pissed because they were told to support candidates to get a $2000 check and then immediately backtracked when they won to $1400.

[JPhillips]

I give the Pelosi/Schumer wing a bunch of shit, but here the left is being just as bad. Take the fucking win. Brag about it. Beat the shit out of the GOP with it.

[Jas_lov]

I always thought they wanted $2,000 but only got $600 so another $1,400 would get them to what they wanted. The whole thing seems stupid.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They did promote it as vote for these Senate candidates and get a $2000 check. Doesn't say anything about $1400.

If we're counting previous stimulus checks, why isn't the new check for $200?

Pretty sure this predates the $600 that went out

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Pretty sure this predates the $600 that went out

Nope

We can pass $2000 relief checks for the people, but we have to win this Senate election.

— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) January 4, 2021

[rjolley]

FYI: My post wasn't meant as a complaint, but as a way that people can be confused.

Also, hard to say that someone shouldn't be upset about not getting more if that's what they thought they were getting. For some, that extra money makes the ends meet for another month or two. Politicians being upset about it, however, seems like more annoying "politicians being politicians" BS.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nope

We can pass $2000 relief checks for the people, but we have to win this Senate election.

— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) January 4, 2021

Well, on them for missing the memo then

[Brian Swartz]

I think it's hilarious that the whole thing essentially amounts to legal bribery 'vote for us and we'll give you access to the money tree', and then it's 'no no, we thought you were going to give us a bigger branch than that'. Without even getting into the whole thing where it's your children and grandchildren's money we're talking about.

** Yes, I agree with the need to more stimulus now, and borrowing to do it, just in case anybody has forgotten. But this is the most overt, unabashed vote-buying I've ever seen, and basically just makes want to get some

[GrantDawg]

Well crap. If I had known it was only $1,400 I would have voted for the racist inside traders that didn't want to give any stimulus checks.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tarcone]

At least they got rid of the 17 and under loop hole.

[molson]

It never crossed my mind that $2,600 was on the table.

This kind of reminds me of the Obama years somehow. These will be the big controversies when we have a human adult in the white house.

[RainMaker]

If it is to reach $2000, shouldn't the check be for $200?

[CrimsonFox]

Fprce = mass times acceleratoin and E=mc squared

so we'll accelarate the stimulus at the speed of light to get our check

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it's hilarious that the whole thing essentially amounts to legal bribery 'vote for us and we'll give you access to the money tree', and then it's 'no no, we thought you were going to give us a bigger branch than that'. Without even getting into the whole thing where it's your children and grandchildren's money we're talking about.

** Yes, I agree with the need to more stimulus now, and borrowing to do it, just in case anybody has forgotten. But this is the most overt, unabashed vote-buying I've ever seen, and basically just makes want to get some

If the Democrats knew how to message, they would call it a $400 billion tax rebate that goes directly to hard working Americans that earn less than $87,000 or married couples making less than $174,000. Or perhaps you just prefer your legal bribery/vote buying to come in the form of corporate, religious, and estate tax breaks because you are a multi-millionaire or billionaire or you get excited by the good old trickle down money that will make its way down to you?

[thesloppy]

[Edward64]

It's pretty clear to me that Biden did imply $2,000 after the $600 was passed so this means it should be $2,000 + $600. How he didn't know (or worse, care) how this would look to the more progressive aka socialist base is a bad sign. I remember hearing about the $2K and wondering if it was on top of the already $600 that was passed.

However, his plan also has $400 in unemployment that is +$100 more than the $300. So the unemployed will make up the difference (and more) in 6 weeks.

Regardless, an unfathomable stumble. At the very least, his team should have anticipated this dissent and communicated something up front.

[Lathum]

I never read it as $2600 but don’t follow it that close. Did anyone actually ever say an additional $2000?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it's hilarious that the whole thing essentially amounts to legal bribery 'vote for us and we'll give you access to the money tree', and then it's 'no no, we thought you were going to give us a bigger branch than that'. Without even getting into the whole thing where it's your children and grandchildren's money we're talking about.

** Yes, I agree with the need to more stimulus now, and borrowing to do it, just in case anybody has forgotten. But this is the most overt, unabashed vote-buying I've ever seen, and basically just makes want to get some

I can see why you say this and there is some truth but I call it maybe "50% fact".

My rationale is an additional stimulus has been discussed with Pelosi and Trump/Reps for a while. Back in Aug it was for $1,200. Some stuff about $2,000 in Sep. I'm thinking its even been longer than Aug but couldn't be bothered to scroll through all the old articles.

And I think most would say this was to help people and keep the economy afloat back then more than buying votes (although I am sure that was a secondary concern).

So yeah, it was to buy votes especially in GA for the Senate races for sure, but not so much for the broader Nov elections.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I never read it as $2600 but don’t follow it that close. Did anyone actually ever say an additional $2000?

I don't have WaPo subscription but here's a blurb.

www.washingtonpost.com › us-policy › 2021/01/08
Jan 8, 2021 — Biden has made new stimulus checks a central promise, specifically telling Georgia voters that they would be getting $2,000 payments if ... Democrats won those races, clinching a majority in the Senate and unified control of ...

[larrymcg421]

The Democrats seized on Trump's mention of $2000 checks and started campaigning on that. This was before the $600 was passed. Once the $600 was passed and signed into law, the Democrats didn't abruptly switch their messaging to say $1400, because that would've incredibly stupid politics in the middle of the campaign, and likely trusted that most sensible people would understand they were talking about the same $2000 all along, which would mean a $1400 increase.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't have WaPo subscription but here's a blurb.

but it doesn't say additional 2K, it says 2K. So $600 and $1400 equaling 2K. I honestly don't see how this can be read any other way

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

but it doesn't say additional 2K, it says 2K. So $600 and $1400 equaling 2K. I honestly don't see how this can be read any other way

Political operatives are very good at using peoples lack of paying attention to create something out of nothing. This one is really stupid considering they won and now we have to create a controversy to sully the win. AOC has came out and said she supports full $2k checks, and others could try and ask for that as well. Instead, some would rather paint a new President and two new Senators that are already in a tough situation as liars, because the last thing progressives seem to really want is to win.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Political operatives are very good at using peoples lack of paying attention to create something out of nothing. This one is really stupid considering they won and now we have to create a controversy to sully the win. AOC has came out and said she supports full $2k checks, and others could try and ask for that as well. Instead, some would rather paint a new President and two new Senators that are already in a tough situation as liars, because the last thing progressives seem to really want is to win.

But not win elections.