The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Edward64]

No doubt that Biden should not get involved and just stay focused on the coronavirus situation. Not much Biden can do to change the inevitable acquittal so why spend the political capital now when the Dems are doing it.

Week 3 and wheels are moving but still not happy with the seemingly slow pace of vaccinations. We are still in Phase 1a in GA.

Biden’s strategy for Trump’s impeachment: Sit back and STFU - POLITICO

It’s a remarkable bit of messaging discipline driven by a simple political calculation. Biden’s presidency rests on whether he can drive down Covid numbers, reopen the economy and get kids back in schools. He needs his Covid relief package to do that, not the banishment of his predecessor from future public office.

“[It] just makes no sense for Biden to weigh in on the impeachment,” said one source familiar with the White House’s thinking. “He’s already said that he thought [there] were grounds for impeachment but he has to stay focused on helping people in this crisis.”

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Schumer and Gillibrand launch new push to permanently restore NYS’s full salt deduction | WIVT - NewsChannel 34
I am no tax expert, but the suggestion is that the SALT tax cap hurts the poor and middle class way more than it helps the rich. It seems pretty crazy if it doesn't seeing that Trump imposed the cap and the rich praised it.

Trump imposed the cap because it most affected states likes New York and California.

Limiting the deduction does help the wealthy and we shouldn't be cutting taxes for the wealthy when our deficit is in the trillions. We should be talking about eliminating the deduction.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Schumer and Gillibrand launch new push to permanently restore NYS’s full salt deduction | WIVT - NewsChannel 34
I am no tax expert, but the suggestion is that the SALT tax cap hurts the poor and middle class way more than it helps the rich. It seems pretty crazy if it doesn't seeing that Trump imposed the cap and the rich praised it.

The cap is $10,000 which is not going to hurt the poor at all. Maybe some middle class get mixed in but it is mostly a handout for the wealthy.

[GrantDawg]

It looks more like a middle finger to Blue states. Rich people can easily change residency so they don't pay as much local taxes. Middle class in more expensive states don't have that ability.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

A lot of middle class residents in NY get hit with SALT. We pay @8K in property taxes alone and lots of homes we looked at were over 10k. It's no surprise that the two NY senators are trying to restore the deduction when it impacts so many frequent voters.

[evil homer]

i live in NYC, work in NJ. the wife and i make good money, but we are far from rich. putting one kid through college (state school) and another one right behind him. we always had a refund of about $4K in federal every year. the first year of trump's plan, i owed $400 federal. so having the SALT capped at $10K, cost me around $4500. i did get about $30 extra in my biweekly paychecks, so overall for the year the trump tax plan cost me about $3K. i have many friends and relatives in the same situation. we all work non executive corporate jobs. middle class (for NY) got killed by the SALT cap.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Biden’s strategy for Trump’s impeachment: Sit back and STFU - POLITICO "Biden’s presidency rests on whether he can drive down Covid numbers, reopen the economy and get kids back in schools. He needs his Covid relief package to do that, not the banishment of his predecessor from future public office."

Agreed Biden has nothing to gain by getting involved, just like I thought he played it perfectly by staying above the fray and letting Trump show he was increasingly deranged between the election & the inauguration, but no his Presidency and his potential 2024 re-election chances won't be defined by Covid. Covid will be mostly gone in the US by the end of 2021 (at least as a deadly threat - i.e. vaccines don't prevent the disease but prevent most hospitalizations), or I guess vaccines will have been a failure and we'll go back to semi-normal lives regardless because it's been too long. Either way by 2024 something else will be the issue the President is being judged on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by evil homer

i live in NYC, work in NJ. the wife and i make good money, but we are far from rich. putting one kid through college (state school) and another one right behind him. we always had a refund of about $4K in federal every year. the first year of trump's plan, i owed $400 federal. so having the SALT capped at $10K, cost me around $4500. i did get about $30 extra in my biweekly paychecks, so overall for the year the trump tax plan cost me about $3K. i have many friends and relatives in the same situation. we all work non executive corporate jobs. middle class (for NY) got killed by the SALT cap.

The median property tax paid in New York is $3800. The income tax in the state is between 4%-9%. You'd have to be in the six figure range before this impacts you. And even then you're still getting a $10k deduction.

For this to cost you $3000 a year, you'd have to be making almost $200k or living in a very pricey house.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A lot of middle class residents in NY get hit with SALT. We pay @8K in property taxes alone and lots of homes we looked at were over 10k. It's no surprise that the two NY senators are trying to restore the deduction when it impacts so many frequent voters.

Maybe the question should be why are you paying $8000 in property taxes and what are you getting for it?

[RainMaker]

And I'd be fine with moving it up to $15k or $20k. But removing it altogether is a handout to the rich.

[evil homer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The median property tax paid in New York is $3800. The income tax in the state is between 4%-9%. You'd have to be in the six figure range before this impacts you. And even then you're still getting a $10k deduction.

For this to cost you $3000 a year, you'd have to be making almost $200k or living in a very pricey house.

combined, we make around $200K. which puts us solidly middle class in NYC. we have a nice 1900 sq ft house, 2 cars since we both work, and putting kids through college. property taxes are $6500 (on a 41x100 lot). we have friends who are a school teacher/NYPD sergeant and they had the same issue we did. we're doing just fine, and i'm fine with them leaving it as is to target the help where it is needed more. just trying to point out that the SALT deduction helped a lot of people in NYC (and CA, NJ, etc) that are far from what would be considered rich.

[NobodyHere]

"solidly middle class" in NYC equals rich in the rest of the country. You are in the 89th income percentile.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, if $200k a year is middle-class, it's on the upper rings of it.

I'm in Illinois and got hit with it too, but it wasn't really that dramatic. Like I said, I'd be fine moving it up a bit but eliminating it altogether just gives massive deductions to people in $4 million homes.

[JPhillips]

I'd rather we get rid of most deductions and credits in order to get the marginal rate and the effective rate much closer than they currently are. My point wasn't that we need to restore SALT, just that it's no shock senators are responding to the desires of frequent voters.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

"solidly middle class" in NYC equals rich in the rest of the country. You are in the 89th income percentile.

That doesn’t account for cost of living so while $200k may make you a king elsewhere that’s not going very far in NYC, LA or the SF Bay Area as just a few examples.

[ISiddiqui]

Right, the average 2 bedroom apartment rent in NYC is $3,432 a month. That's not a typo

https://www.rentjungle.com/average-r...rk-rent-trends

Though in Queens the average 2 bdroom is around $2600, so that's nice.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[molson]

My first apartment was in Manhattan, for $800/month, in 1999. Though it wasn't really an apartment, it was an old hotel with one shared bathroom on each floor. And no air conditioning. And there were definitely cockroaches. Probably 100 square feet.

Great location though on the Upper West Side. My Google search about whether it still exists is returning conflicting results.

My mortgage payment in my 1,800 square foot house in Boise in 2021 is only about $150/month more than that.

[Edward64]

(Not sure where to put this because it's somewhat political so doesn't really belong in the Random thread but it's not specific to Trump either. So using Biden as default)

In an earlier post, I said I'm good with Trump being banned from social media but concerned about where the line is drawn for others, when does it impact the 1A. Trump had that (actually "the") special position where he could do/encourage really bad/stupid things and he had a history of repeatedly doing it.

But RFK Jr. doesn't fall near into the same level for me. Should he be banned because of his anti-vaccine and false coronavirus vaccine claims? And if yes, why not a bunch of other anti-vaxxers who have some level of following?

For these next "level" of folks (e.g. let's say 2-4 rungs below Trump), I think a good compromise is tagging them false or misleading.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/...ban/index.html

Instagram on Wednesday took down the account of controversial anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"We removed this account for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines," a spokesperson for Facebook, which owns Instagram, said in a statement.

Kennedy, the son of late former US Attorney General, US Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, has repeatedly spoken out against vaccines. He has lobbied Congress to give parents exemptions from state requirements that mandate they vaccinate their children. The lifelong Democrat downplays his anti-vaccine views, though, by saying that he is actually in favor of safe vaccines and noting that all of his children have been vaccinated.

Kennedy's Facebook page, with more than 300,000 followers, was still active at the time of publication. The company spokesperson said there were no plans to take down that page "at this time."

[Lathum]

These are private companies with terms of service that these people repeatedly violate. Why is it so hard for you?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

These are private companies with terms of service that these people repeatedly violate. Why is it so hard for you?

Sure I get that. My guess (and problem) is it's not consistently applied.

I did not find any specific details on why he was banned other than broad statement about false vaccination info or "notorious" anti-vaxxer. If that is the case, why aren't a bunch of others banned because of false vaccination info ... is it because he is a public figure? or the quantity of false vaccination info? or was it because he repeatedly ignored warnings from Instagram to stop?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure I get that. My guess (and problem) is it's not consistently applied.

Then they can be sued. It is not like RKFjr. or Trump doesn't have the means to fight it in court. I don't cry for them at all, and I wouldn't cry for a left-wing nut job that gets banned for pushing the rules. I find more problematic the number of people who have been banned that didn't have that number of following or the means to fight, but then I also don't think anyone has a "right" to have a social media account.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure I get that. My guess (and problem) is it's not consistently applied.

I did not find any specific details on why he was banned other than broad statement about false vaccination info or "notorious" anti-vaxxer. If that is the case, why aren't a bunch of others banned because of false vaccination info ... is it because he is a public figure? or the quantity of false vaccination info? or was it because he repeatedly ignored warnings from Instagram to stop?

This is the same as people saying "why is it only politicians on the right are getting covid?"

If people on the left were throwing out dangerous conspiracy theories and outright lies they would suffer the same consequences.

As for specific details I'm not sure what you are looking for, or why you think you are owed anything from a private company that can allow anyone they want on their platform and remove anyone they don't want. Lets not act like they didn't give people like Trump plenty of chances.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(Not sure where to put this because it's somewhat political so doesn't really belong in the Random thread but it's not specific to Trump either. So using Biden as default)

In an earlier post, I said I'm good with Trump being banned from social media but concerned about where the line is drawn for others, when does it impact the 1A. Trump had that (actually "the") special position where he could do/encourage really bad/stupid things and he had a history of repeatedly doing it.

But RFK Jr. doesn't fall near into the same level for me. Should he be banned because of his anti-vaccine and false coronavirus vaccine claims? And if yes, why not a bunch of other anti-vaxxers who have some level of following?

For these next "level" of folks (e.g. let's say 2-4 rungs below Trump), I think a good compromise is tagging them false or misleading.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/tech/...ban/index.html

Do we know if the accounts of other anti vaxxers have not been removed? I think we only know about RFK Jr because he is RFK Jr.

I think anyone who is in any way "controversial" on social media would love to know exactly where the line is between having their accounts suspended/removed and not.

[RainMaker]

It's capitalism. Nitpicking a terms of service means nothing. These are business decisions.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If people on the left were throwing out dangerous conspiracy theories and outright lies they would suffer the same consequences.

There are tons of social media creators who spew lies nonstop as part of their brand essentially without consequence. This will always be the case, since these platforms are far too big and far-reaching to police.

I agree with you and GrantDawg that people who do so deserve whatever comes to them, but it isn't and never will be applied equally. It really *cant* be.

Originally Posted by miamifan

I think anyone who is in any way "controversial" on social media would love to know exactly where the line is between having their accounts suspended/removed and not.

This is definitely a concern - and one that there's never any good answer to as mentioned above - but I'm more concerned about the customer/user end. It may well not be a good thing the level of information that the average person increasingly gets from social media, but it's a fact that isn't going away. I agree with sentiments voiced that nobody has a right to place on a platform etc., but that still leaves us with a situation where the gatekeepers of what is true, a lie, too controversial, whatever are making such decisions based on what makes for the best platform PR. That's a very bad situation for the good of society and inevitable leads to decisions that aren't about what's really dangerous, true, etc. but merely what's popular.

[GrantDawg]

If anything, I think most social media companies are too lenient on what they allow from big named members, and come down way too fast and hard on posters without large follower base. It is never going up completely fair, but they really should work on being better and more proactive in defining lines.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Dola: for instance. I follow several smaller "resistance" twitter accounts. Some of the responses they get are vile and nasty. Reporting those tweets usually does nothing. But if the "resistance" account then say calls Ann Coulter a nazi in a response, it gets banned (an actual thing that happened).


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

People got owned hard.

Pres. Biden said electing Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock to the Senate would mean ‘immediate’ $2,000 checks — but now it’s unclear who will get what and when. Here’s your update on the status of stimulus checks pic.twitter.com/gITtPKm54f

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 6, 2021

[Lathum]

Right. They totally should have reelected the republicans so McConnell could then spend the next 2 years obstructing everything Biden wants to do. That would have been so much better for America.

[BYU 14]

Still clinging to that take eh? It was never 2000 on top of 600

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Still clinging to that take eh? It was never 2000 on top of 600

Actually it is $0 right now.

[RainMaker]

I also wasn't talking about the amount. I was talking about how they promised stimulus checks out the door right away if they took the Senate. Everyone got played on that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually it is $0 right now.

You realize he has been in office 3 weeks and inherited a total shitshow?

How about we blame the prior administration?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You realize he has been in office 3 weeks and inherited a total shitshow?

How about we blame the prior administration?

Other administration got $1800 out.

Also it was their words that they would have checks out in a week. Dont make promises you can't keep. And don't let them off the hook on lies just because they are your party of choice.

[Lathum]

Other admin got 1800 out over 9 months. Is that really the hill you want to die on?

[RainMaker]

It beats $0.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It beats $0.

If it is $0 in 8 months get back to us.

[RainMaker]

Pretty sure the campaign message wasn't "hey we will pass stimulus checks in the next 8 months". Ossoff literally said a week.

[Brian Swartz]

Which was a moronic thing to say with a divided Senate. Promise something completely unrealistic, and what's going to happen? Meanwhile they are still working towards getting it done for most of the people who reasonably expected it. When they give up/stop trying short of the point of putting it to a final vote, that's the time to get upset.

I don't see that happening yet, or any reason to expect it.

[RainMaker]

If a couple banks were in trouble, they would have a bill passed by tomorrow afternoon to give them a trillion bucks.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If a couple banks were in trouble, they would have a bill passed by tomorrow afternoon to give them a trillion bucks.

It must hurt to be so cynical

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It must hurt to be so cynical

They passed $800 billion in TARP in like a week. AIG got $182 billion after a weekend of talks. The near trillion of dollars that were used to bailout financial institutions came together over an 8 day stretch.

And it's still going on. When repo rates quickly spiked last September, the Fed jumped in immediately and pumped half a trillion in to bail out Wall Street.

Is it cynical if it happens?

[Brian Swartz]

TARP took several months from inception to passage and the initial framing was voted down in the House. That's just how legislation works. The actions of the Fed are obviously different as, for better or worse, they have the power to just act or not as they see fit.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They passed $800 billion in TARP in like a week. AIG got $182 billion after a weekend of talks. The near trillion of dollars that were used to bailout financial institutions came together over an 8 day stretch.

And it's still going on. When repo rates quickly spiked last September, the Fed jumped in immediately and pumped half a trillion in to bail out Wall Street.

Is it cynical if it happens?

I mean if it's all about getting the money quickly sent out, they could've easily done that by making a deal to cut the amount and who gets it. Of course, then you'd accuse them of caving.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course a lot of this likely would have been done already if Congress didn't have to deal with Impeachment... But the howling of caving would be every greater.

Remember the Rescue Act is in reconciliation right now after initial bills have passed the Senate and House.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Are we still in the Trump administration?

https://apnews.com/article/tj-ducklo...652ce014923c8a

[BYU 14]

I can't remember a time before the last 4 years where the White House spin doctors brought so much negative focus on themselves. Of course the difference here is at least Ducklo was held somewhat accountable for his bullshit.

[albionmoonlight]

Own goal by the WH there.

They should have just fired the guy.

Or, if they aren't going to fire him, demote him to something where he's fetching coffee for the guys who fetch coffee for the other guys.

[Edward64]

Glad it'll be over soon. I agree that we should go through the process (even though it was pre-determined) just to get folks and evidence on the record. But I'm sure Biden will be glad to get this distraction out of the way.

I read somewhere there'll be movement on Immigration next week. I'm sure the stimulus will come back to the forefront also. Didn't pay any attention to Psaki/task force briefings so looking forward to them again.

What comes next: Democratic senators told CNN they've been informed that the Senate will reconvene at 10 a.m. ET tomorrow.

A final vote on Trump's conviction or acquittal will be around 3 p.m. ET. This is not locked in yet and can change, but that's the expectation at the moment. Conviction requires two-thirds of senators present to offer "guilty" votes. Normally, two-thirds is 67 senators, which would require 17 Republican votes.

[PilotMan]

Blows my mind that this entire endeavor has gotten to the point where the going phrase is "I'll be glad when it's over."

I mean, we only had 6 years of Bengazi nonstop. This clearly exceeds that by leaps and bounds. Yet, it's something that must be pushed aside for 'real work'. I really hope that there continue to be congressional investigations into the who was there, and who helped them prior to it. The same thing is going to happen. The people who did it get some smacks, maybe someone goes to jail, but the people at the top get away mostly free. In other words. See 2008/9/10 to see how this ends. Oh, and fuck all those in the Senate who are essentially declawing an entire branch of government for the foreseeable future.