The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

. Anecdotally, I know several Q'ers that claim they aren't Republicans. I doubt any of them have ever voted for a Decomcratic candidate in their entire lives.

The people I know along that line generally don't vote Democratic ... but they don't vote Republican either. They just don't vote, considering it a waste of time to invest in a corrupt system.

I'm familiar with the links you posted, but neither of them says anything on-point to what I was asking about; the % of independents who always vote Republican.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

if you don't think that the vast majority of that 28- 33% is not Fox News- Newsmax watching hard core right wingers, you are being purposely obtuse.

Ah yes, the old 'if you don't think what I do, you're not being serious/not arguing in good faith/etc. ' argument. I can't prove how many of them there are - I don't know - but as I mentioned in the previous post, there are a not-small number of people I know personally who would be lumped into that hard-core right-wing crowd by this approach but are actually aggressively apolitical.

As ever, there are more realities in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your expressed philosophy,

[miked]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You should just ignore me (or read my positions more clearly).

There are some parts I agree with, some I question.

You literally agreed with or made excuses for every part of the bill. You just said you want to bring back these "confused" people who (80% of republicans) who think our election system is fraudulent, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only way they fix the election is to make it hard for people who do not vote for them to vote. Multiple people in GA have said that the only reason they are passing the laws is that they can't win on voting as is.

You say it is easy for everyone to get an ID, I do not agree. Look at Alabama where they closed like 75% of the DMVs in the predominantly black communities. They have made it clear what they want to do and you think it is ok.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is not nebulous. This says that anyone can challenge any voters registration for any reason, and the voting boards are forced to go through each and every one to prove they are valid voter. Last election, the GOP partnered with a group to challenge 300,000 voters. Many election boards refused to do it because they didn't have a valid reason to challenge, and it would have took excessive man-hours to deal with the challenge, probably beyond the election date. This law allows someone to just file a challenge to every voter in Fulton county, and now the board is forced to prove every voter right to vote. That is idiotic.
Let's put this in a way that even the most right wing nut can understand. Let's give anyone a right to challenge your right to own a gun as many times as they like for any reason. Now, you cannot own your guns until your county runs enough checks to prove you have the right to own a gun. "But it is my constitutional right to own a gun?" Yes. And it is your constitutional right to vote.

This one is probably the one that bugs me the most out of this entire bit of legislation, and I think your example here is perfect.

I'd like to see at least an amendment that says something like, "Hey, but if you do challenge, you're on the financial hook for the man-hours it costs to do the audit for everyone who you incorrectly challenged."

I mean, I'm sure some rich dudes would bankroll it anyway...but dang it, there should be some penalty for wasting people's time. Call it a Karen Tax.

[Edward64]

[quote=miami_fan;3331470]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The issue is we have not explained why we need the additional requirements.

The voter is either eligible to vote or not. If you are concerned that the citizens of Georgia might not be who they say they are, take a photo of them when they register and send them a voter registration card with a picture on it. Having an account with Georgia Power should not be a determining factor for who can and who can not vote.

This is somewhat related but is not this item in the proposed GA law that I quote below? What is the issue of requesting an ID (assume photo) when requesting an absentee ballot?

Quote:
The law also adds an ID requirement to the process for requesting an absentee ballot, after previously only requiring voters to sign an application. It also narrows the time window during which ballots can be requested.

Here is the law.

I will let you judge which of these handing out food and water would fall under Georgia

I looked up what I was referring to. Handing out food/snacks within 150ft/25ft is arguably 2nd bullet and possible 1st bullet. Setup a water/snack stand 150ft away, let folks grab them on their way to the line.

Ga. Code § 21-2-414

150 ft. of the outer edge of the building where a polling place is established, or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line

● Campaign Materials/Signs/Banners/Literature
● Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion
● Circulating Petitions/Soliciting Signatures
● Polls/Exit Polls – Note: exit polls and opinion polls are prohibited within 25 ft. of the exit

Nope, it is a drop box like the one they have at the car dealership service departments.

Er, I don't know about you. But at my Toyota and Acura dealerships, and my friendly neighborhood mechanic, the drop boxes are secured inside a building. Don't know about the mechanic but pretty sure Toyota and Acura have camera monitors everywhere also.

I want to get back to this. I don't want to make any assumption so I will address what I think you said and will stand corrected if I am misinterpreting what you said.

Are you saying that it is more important to gain back the trust of the 38-42% even if it means suppressing the vote of others?

It is very important to gain back the trust of some of the 40%, so the first part is a yes. There will be some that will never be convinced but yeah, create a "change/communications program" and provide consistent messaging over the next 4 years on "this is how you know your vote was counted, this is how your vote was secured".

To your second part regarding suppression. You see it as suppression, and I can concede some of the GA proposed laws are suppression. But I don't see that all of it is suppression.

How is requiring an ID to get an absentee ballot is suppression?

How is not allowing a (presumably) partisan person from giving drinks/snacks a suppression?

How is asking that drop boxes be secured be suppression?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

You literally agreed with or made excuses for every part of the bill. You just said you want to bring back these "confused" people who (80% of republicans) who think our election system is fraudulent, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only way they fix the election is to make it hard for people who do not vote for them to vote. Multiple people in GA have said that the only reason they are passing the laws is that they can't win on voting as is.

You say it is easy for everyone to get an ID, I do not agree. Look at Alabama where they closed like 75% of the DMVs in the predominantly black communities. They have made it clear what they want to do and you think it is ok.

Please just ignore me like your other radical bros.

There's a reading comprehension problem here when you say "literally agreed with or made excuses for every part of the bill". Just go away and play in the other toxic thread.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'd like to see at least an amendment that says something like, "Hey, but if you do challenge, you're on the financial hook for the man-hours it costs to do the audit for everyone who you incorrectly challenged."

I mean, I'm sure some rich dudes would bankroll it anyway...but dang it, there should be some penalty for wasting people's time. Call it a Karen Tax.

I agree there should be some penalty here for frivolously challenging.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg View Post
It is not nebulous. This says that anyone can challenge any voters registration for any reason, and the voting boards are forced to go through each and every one to prove they are valid voter. Last election, the GOP partnered with a group to challenge 300,000 voters. Many election boards refused to do it because they didn't have a valid reason to challenge, and it would have took excessive man-hours to deal with the challenge, probably beyond the election date. This law allows someone to just file a challenge to every voter in Fulton county, and now the board is forced to prove every voter right to vote. That is idiotic.

Just to clarify. I understand what the CNN article said. What I consider nebulous is I don't understand how that would work and want details. Can someone challenge another 2 weeks before and what is the mechanism to resolve it. Can someone do a challenge the day of or 2 days after and hold up the certification process? I have not seen the details on how this would work.

Let's put this in a way that even the most right wing nut can understand. Let's give anyone a right to challenge your right to own a gun as many times as they like for any reason. Now, you cannot own your guns until your county runs enough checks to prove you have the right to own a gun. "But it is my constitutional right to own a gun?" Yes. And it is your constitutional right to vote.

I don't know if "as many times as they like for any reason" is part of the proposed bill. Or there isn't any recourse to this.

Someone says I'm a minority, don't speak English well and challenges my eligibility. I show my passport, present SSN to proper authorities, naturalization form, or whatever and I'm deemed eligible. It doesn't make sense that someone else can do the same challenge again in the same election period.

If the law says this is possible, essentially never ending challenges on the same thing, I agree its a pretty stupid law.

[JPhillips]

It's not stupid, it's a part of the plan. Before the runoff a GOP group tried to challenge almost 400k voters as ineligible, but a judge said no. This will make it possible to do things like that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Someone says I'm a minority, don't speak English well and challenges my eligibility. I show my passport, present SSN to proper authorities, naturalization form, or whatever and I'm deemed eligible. It doesn't make sense that someone else can do the same challenge again in the same election period.

I'd go one step beyond this and make it something like you can only be challenged once in your voting lifetime in your state. I mean, once the state has proven to its satisfaction that you're a legal voter, then it's just wasted effort to look at you again.

Also, I'd be a big fan of the idea that every voter you challenge should get notification of your name and legal address. Anonymous challenges are for pussies.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It is very important to gain back the trust of some of the 40%, so the first part is a yes. There will be some that will never be convinced but yeah, create a "change/communications program" and provide consistent messaging over the next 4 years on "this is how you know your vote was counted, this is how your vote was secured".

To your second part regarding suppression. You see it as suppression, and I can concede some of the GA proposed laws are suppression. But I don't see that all of it is suppression.

How is requiring an ID to get an absentee ballot is suppression?

How is not allowing a (presumably) partisan person from giving drinks/snacks a suppression?

How is asking that drop boxes be secured be suppression?

I think I have addressed each one of those questions.

I can't engage any more. I am a hard no on any suppression of registered
voters especially when it is not done due to any evidence of fraud but to calm the hurt feelings of fellow citizens who IMO don't see them as worthy of the right to vote.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I think I have addressed each one of those questions.

I can't engage any more. I am a hard no on any suppression of registered
voters especially when it is not done due to any evidence of fraud but to calm the hurt feelings of fellow citizens who IMO don't see them as worthy of the right to vote.

Okay. Thanks for the civil discussion.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just to clarify. I understand what the CNN article said. What I consider nebulous is I don't understand how that would work and want details. Can someone challenge another 2 weeks before and what is the mechanism to resolve it. Can someone do a challenge the day of or 2 days after and hold up the certification process? I have not seen the details on how this would work.



I don't know if "as many times as they like for any reason" is part of the proposed bill. Or there isn't any recourse to this.

Someone says I'm a minority, don't speak English well and challenges my eligibility. I show my passport, present SSN to proper authorities, naturalization form, or whatever and I'm deemed eligible. It doesn't make sense that someone else can do the same challenge again in the same election period.

If the law says this is possible, essentially never ending challenges on the same thing, I agree its a pretty stupid law.

The obvious goal is to gum up the works with a few hundred thousand challenges, and when that takes too long to resolve , the state legislature chooses the electors. This was literally what they just tried in 2020. Did you miss the news?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How is requiring an ID to get an absentee ballot is suppression?

How is not allowing a (presumably) partisan person from giving drinks/snacks a suppression?

I'll try to explain on these (I agree they are suppression, though not always intentionally). Others have said it pretty clearly earlier in the thread, including a post by ISiddiqui.

Some precincts have longer lines and/or other conditions which make it more difficult overall for people to get an ID. DMV office availability/convenience, fewer polling places per capita, etc. By not allowing people to be given food while in line, you increase the chances they won't wait. By requiring ID, you increase the number of people who will not comply/be able to comply. These precincts skew towards demographics more favorable to Democrat candidates, therefore it's pretty clear what the end result is if this occurs.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'll try to explain on these (I agree they are suppression, though not always intentionally). Others have said it pretty clearly earlier in the thread, including a post by ISiddiqui.

Some precincts have longer lines and/or other conditions which make it more difficult overall for people to get an ID. DMV office availability/convenience, fewer polling places per capita, etc. By not allowing people to be given food while in line, you increase the chances they won't wait. By requiring ID, you increase the number of people who will not comply/be able to comply. These precincts skew towards demographics more favorable to Democrat candidates, therefore it's pretty clear what the end result is if this occurs.

As always, good to have different points of view and perspective. Thanks for the civil discussion.

[Edward64]

I've read infrastructure plan is up next. Arguably Healthcare is more important but understand him wanting to do a more bi-partisan (hopefully) change like infrastructure first. Not a lot of details, but some highlights of the read.

Biden Infrastructure Plan To Test His Bipartisan Promises : NPR

"The Build Back Better bill is the legacy bill," said Bill Galston, former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House. "It's the bill that will define the meaning of the Biden presidency."

I like this presumption.

This is going to be an infrastructure bill that goes far beyond roads and bridges. It's designed to be a major investment in manufacturing and the technologies of the future, including 5G, a green electric grid, universal broadband Internet access, semiconductor production and carbon-free transportation.

Galston says it's a bill that could transform the country: "A country that has not invested in itself for a very long time. A country that is on the verge of losing its technological and economic superiority to the rising power at the other side of the Pacific."

That means China. Outcompeting Beijing is something that both parties agree on, and it's at the heart of Biden's sales pitch for the Build Back Better agenda.

If outcompeting China is a main driver, I'm all for it !! TBH, I thought it was primarily for roads and bridges, and those industries.

To pass Build Back Better, the White House is trying a different approach, inviting Republicans in on the ground floor to craft the legislation. There have already been bipartisan meetings at the White House and in the Senate.In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has instructed her Democratic committee chairs to work with their Republican counterparts to develop infrastructure legislation.

That would be kind of old-fashioned, but there's no one more enamored of old-fashioned bipartisan buy-in than Joe Biden. That was clear after one of those bipartisan infrastructure meetings at the White House last month.

"It's the best meeting I think we've had so far," the president said. "It was like the old days — people are actually on the same page," he added.

Looks like there is interest in bi-partianship. Understandable that the coronavirus stimulus was not. Really hope infrastructure gets more GOP support and breaks from the past.

White House aides are reportedly compiling a $3 trillion plan that would include a wide range of priorities, including social programs and tax changes, though press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday that nothing was decided

If this gives us everything (or near) like roads, bridges and the technology slant above, I'm all for spending $3T. I'd want it offset by revenue (as much as possible). Feel free to increase my taxes some because the pros definitely outweigh the con to my personal financials.

I'd toss in digital currency somewhere, and somehow supporting key allies to lessen their reliance on China.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The obvious goal is to gum up the works with a few hundred thousand challenges, and when that takes too long to resolve , the state legislature chooses the electors. This was literally what they just tried in 2020. Did you miss the news?

They've made it even easier than that. They gum up the works, say it's an emergency, take over the county election boards, and declare thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, whatever they need, votes ineligible.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Someone says I'm a minority, don't speak English well and challenges my eligibility. I show my passport, present SSN to proper authorities, naturalization form, or whatever and I'm deemed eligible. It doesn't make sense that someone else can do the same challenge again in the same election period.

No one should should ever have their vote challenged by the way they look, or how they speak. That is racial profiling pure and simple. Voting is a human right, and the most important right as an American. It should be hard to disenfranchise someone. The burden of proof must be on the person who is challenging the vote. Instead of having someone make a baseless claim to challenge a voter, and the force the voter to prove he can vote, it has to be the opposite. The person challenging should have to have hard evidence that the voter is not qualified. Anything less is needless voter suppression.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Ah yes, the old 'if you don't think what I do, you're not being serious/not arguing in good faith/etc. ' argument. I can't prove how many of them there are - I don't know - but as I mentioned in the previous post, there are a not-small number of people I know personally who would be lumped into that hard-core right-wing crowd by this approach but are actually aggressively apolitical.

As ever, there are more realities in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your expressed philosophy,

Ok, so let's put it clear. 33% of a fraction of people believe this, then maybe a smaller fraction of that 33% is maybe not just a hardcore right-winger. What is the point then? We should radically restructure our elections in ways to make it hard for the poor and for POC to make this very very tiny fraction of people happy, even though there is zero evidence of wide-spread fraud?

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assuming these are unsecured drop off boxes, what would happen if I decide to drive off with one, or damage the contents inside?

What is the harm of securing drop boxes? Because it inconveniences people to make the extra effort to go to a secured place over a 4-6 week period?

I rather try to build some trust back with the 38-47% of voters that have questions about our voting process.

Has this ever happen? Can you give me one example? There is no "harm" in securing drop box. They are already secured. They are locked, they are put in well lit areas, most places required cameras with 24-hour observation. That is secure. Having them in buildings that are only open a small window of the day defeat the reason to have a drop boxes, convenience. What is the harm in having secure boxes available around the clock as they are now?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They've made it even easier than that. They gum up the works, say it's an emergency, take over the county election boards, and declare thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, whatever they need, votes ineligible.

In the end, that it what this is all about. Watching online, all the Republicans are trying to make the focus of the arguments on voter ID, or about water bottle. Those are problematic, but are really more distractions to the core evil of what they got in this bill.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No one should should ever have their vote challenged by the way they look, or how they speak. That is racial profiling pure and simple. Voting is a human right, and the most important right as an American. It should be hard to disenfranchise someone. The burden of proof must be on the person who is challenging the vote. Instead of having someone make a baseless claim to challenge a voter, and the force the voter to prove he can vote, it has to be the opposite. The person challenging should have to have hard evidence that the voter is not qualified. Anything less is needless voter suppression.

I think you know that was an example to illustrate the ridiculousness of being challenged "as many times as they like". This I certainly think is stupid and because I've not read any details to this (other than CNN article) said it was nebulous. This is the last of the CNN paragraphs I quoted. I want to better understand how this works.

As far as challenging my eligibility. My example is a bad example, it should not happen. However, I believe it is absolutely okay to ask for federal/state sanctioned photo ids to vote *and* when requesting an absentee ballot of everyone (this is the first CNN paragraphs was referring to).

Has this ever happen? Can you give me one example? There is no "harm" in securing drop box. They are already secured. They are locked, they are put in well lit areas, most places required cameras with 24-hour observation. That is secure. Having them in buildings that are only open a small window of the day defeat the reason to have a drop boxes, convenience. What is the harm in having secure boxes available around the clock as they are now?

Nope, it hasn't happened that I know of. As far as rationale for securing drop boxes, I gave it above when discussing risk & mitigation in another response above.

Regarding the drop boxes are secured. My supposition in original statement was:

Same as #4, if the drop box places have the same "security/rigor", I'm good with it. If its more like a UPS drop box, it's gotta go.

I haven't used a drop box so cannot speak from personal experience. In googling, here are some pics. They look like UPS standalone drop offs and wouldn't fit my definition of secure. e.g. is the first one even secured to the ground like a mail box?

To be absolutely clear, no problem with drop boxes, just secure them inside a locked building with cameras everywhere. It's not a big deal to park the car, get out of a car, walk to the drop off slot (in the locked building), put it in, and walk back to the car ... just like a Redbox rental.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

In the end, that it what this is all about. Watching online, all the Republicans are trying to make the focus of the arguments on voter ID, or about water bottle. Those are problematic, but are really more distractions to the core evil of what they got in this bill.

Hey, and guess who fell for it (willingly or not - I don't know)

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To be absolutely clear, no problem with drop boxes, just secure them inside a locked building with cameras everywhere. It's not a big deal to park the car, get out of a car, walk to the drop off slot (in the locked building), put it in, and walk back to the car ... just like a Redbox rental.

Do you know whether there are cameras watching those boxes? How do you know the level of security there?

And the problem with being in a locked building have already pointed out. The point of the boxes are convenience. Locking them in a building with no access besides work hours is not convenient. If the building is open 24 hours, then fine.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Do you know whether there are cameras watching those boxes? How do you know the level of security there?

I don't know (and have said previously no personal experience). Just looking at the pics (and there is plenty of them).

And the problem with being in a locked building have already pointed out. The point of the boxes are continence. Locking them in a building with no access besides work hours is not convenient. If the building is open 24 hours, then fine.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. That is a key assumption that it is accessible 24x7. I can see why you and I were having a disagreement if you thought otherwise.

In a prior post, I was thinking about a drop box like dropping off my keys at Acura and Toyota car shops. They are accessible though a slot inside a building. Pretty sure they have video cameras on all the time.

[JPhillips]

There's no evidence of meaningful voter fraud. There's no reason to make changes that will suppress the vote in any way.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What is the point then? We should radically restructure our elections in ways to make it hard for the poor and for POC to make this very very tiny fraction of people happy, even though there is zero evidence of wide-spread fraud?

No, I don't think we should do that. I've been explicitly clear about that I think, both in this recent discussion and in others in the past. I don't think anyone in this thread frankly has been talking about radically restructuring elections either, as far as that goes.

I'm saying when it comes to confidence in the system, the problem is larger than the hard-core right-wingers. This has been a recurring issue at least since Trump was elected in '16 - the tendency to just dismiss his support as being people who are unhuman/racist/etc. and stop there without looking at the fact that if that's all it was, he never would have been elected or gotten more votes the next time around in losing than he did the first time. Looking at it as purely a 'right wing's gone off the deep end' (they have) without looking at how people who are not right-wingers - there's nowhere approaching the number of supporters Republicans have that are really that and much of what Trump did wasn't right-wing anyway - is sort of a handwavium dismissal of what is a much deeper issue than that. The fact that a lot people who didn't like Trump voted for him twice because the Hillary/Biden alternative was even worse, the deep disaffection with the system in general among the electorate, these are the issues that I'm driving at as opposed to blaming all these woes on the other side which is oversimplifying the problem.

[GrantDawg]

Then what does any of what you are talking about have with what we are currently discussing? We are discussing the current Georgia law that has a clear purpose to suppress and disenfranchise people. You?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

That's not what I've been primarily talking about during any of this. I responded to a post by Lathum, had a back-and-forth with HerRealName that was about a topic at most tangentially-related to the Georgia law; it's the same thing you and I were initially discussing at least. The question of who the people are who don't have confidence in the electoral process. It's certainly understandable that some wires will be crossed when multiple subjects are being discussed in the same thread, but I haven't said anything in this thread endorsing the Georgia law.

[Flasch186]

Remember they literally said through their dumbass mouthpiece that no reasonable person should've believed them when they claimed voter fraud. They literally are telling them to stop believing but 'don't' BUT the story gets buried because it isn't sexy.

That should've been the end of it and all the Q's should've been like "fuck, we've been larped." but they aren't because they've moved to OAN and deeper into the Waco house.

[Swaggs]

The part of this that really damages democracy is that, historically, one one party goes too far from the ideological mainstream, they end up losing and then tacking back towards the middle. Over the last 20 years or so, the Republicans have doubled down in getting further from the mainstream and then made it harder for the people who disagree with them to vote. The Democrats have their own large share of elected officials are far left from the mainstream, but will come back towards the middle with candidates. Even though they all get labeled as socialists anyway.

[miami_fan]

Just a bit of fun. 20 questions. Can you tell how a particular area voted in the last presidential election based on how the area looks? I got 15 out of 20.

If we dropped you into a random U.S. neighborhood, could you guess how people there voted in 2020 just by looking around? Take our quiz. https://t.co/aHcK2wH73k

— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 29, 2021

[JPhillips]

I'm having a hard time with Trumpers arguing that Trump saved the USA by developing the vaccine while simultaneously arguing that people shouldn't take the vaccine because it's too dangerous.

[Ksyrup]

Or unnecessary.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Just a bit of fun. 20 questions. Can you tell how a particular area voted in the last presidential election based on how the area looks? I got 15 out of 20.

I got the first 3 wrong so said frak it.

What's the secret?

[NobodyHere]

This should be better received than the mileage tax

Democrats look to impose capital gains tax at death

[Edward64]

More details of Biden's Infrastructure/Jobs plan.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/polit...ner/index.html

A roughly $2 trillion plan for improving the nation's infrastructure and shifting to greener energy over the next 8 years.
:
The President plans to pay for this part of his recovery package by raising corporate taxes -- a core campaign promise the administration says would raise more than $2 trillion over the next 15 years.

See next post on more details on how to pay for this plan.

1) Biden would spend $621 billion on roads, bridges, public transit, rail, ports, waterways, airports and electric vehicles in service of improving air quality, reducing congestion and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Sounds good to me. Actually seems kinda low to me.

2) Biden would provide $400 billion to bolster caregiving for aging and disabled Americans.

His plan would expand access to long-term care services under Medicaid, eliminating the wait list for hundreds of thousands of people. It would provide more opportunity for people to receive care at home through community-based services or from family members.

It would also improve the wages of home health workers, who now make approximately $12 an hour. One in six live in poverty, the administration says. It would put in place an infrastructure to give caregiving workers the opportunity to join a union.

The infrastructure plan has been renamed to the Jobs Plan. I would prefer putting this in a separate bill. I can see something like this killing bi-partisanship support. This is 2/3 of #1 which seems "off balance in scale" to me (but don't know all the details).

3) Biden wants to put $300 billion toward boosting manufacturing.
Under his plan, $50 billion of the money would be invested in semiconductor manufacturing and another $30 billion would go towards medical manufacturing to help shore up the nation's ability to respond to a future outbreak.

Some of the funds would be carved out for manufacturers that focus on clean energy, rural communities, and programs that give small businesses access to credit. About $20 billion would be used to create regional innovation hubs that would support community-led projects.

I'm assuming some of this will bring back higher tech jobs and less reliance on other countries.

4) The plan would invest $213 billion toward building, renovating and retrofitting more than two million homes and housing units.

Biden is calling on Congress to produce, preserve and retrofit more than a million affordable and energy efficient housing units. The plan would also build and rehabilitate more than 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income homebuyers.

Sounds good to me.

5) Biden is calling on Congress to invest $180 billion to advance US leadership in critical technologies, upgrade the US's research infrastructure and establish the US as a leader in climate science, innovation and research and development.

In a prior article, it talked about 5G so assume this is the bucket. All for it.

6) Biden's plan allocates $111 billion to rebuild the country's water infrastructure.

It would replace all of the nation's lead pipes and service lines in order to improve the health of American children and communities of color. The White House says replacing the pipes would reduce lead exposure in 400,000 schools and childcare facilities.

The proposal would upgrade the country's drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems, tackle new contaminants and support clean water infrastructure in rural parts of the country.

Sounds good to me.

7) Biden calls for $100 billion to build new public schools and upgrade existing buildings with better ventilation systems, updated technology labs, and improved school kitchens that can prepare more nutritious meals.

Another $12 billion would go to states to use towards infrastructure needs at community colleges.

The President is calling for an additional $25 billion to help upgrade child care facilities and increase the supply of child care in areas that need it the most. The plan also calls for expand a tax credit to encourage employers to build care facilities at places of work.

Sounds good to me. Hopefully some of this will go to teachers' salary.

8) Biden wants to invest $100 billion in order to give every American access to affordable, reliable and high-speed broadband.

The proposal would build a high-speed broadband infrastructure in order to reach 100% coverage across the nation. The plan would aim to promote transparency and competition among internet providers.

All for this. We are behind other countries in broadband access.

9) The President would allocate $100 billion to workforce development -- helping dislocated workers, assisting underserved groups and getting students on career paths before they graduate high school.

It would provide $40 billion to retrain dislocated workers in high-demand sectors, such as clean energy, manufacturing and caregiving.

It would invest $12 billion in programs to train the formerly incarcerated, create a new subsidized jobs program, eliminate sub-minimum wage provisions and support community violence prevention programs.

The proposal would also funnel $48 billion into apprenticeships, career pathway programs for middle and high school students and job training programs at community colleges.

Would prefer if they went in a separate bill. I definitely like the apprenticeship programs.

10) The plan would provide $18 billion to modernize the Veterans Affairs' hospitals, which are on average more than 40 years older than a private sector hospital, according to the White House.

It also calls for $10 billion to modernize federal buildings.

Sounds good to me.

[Edward64]

How Biden plans to pay for this.

1) Corporate tax hike: Biden would raise the corporate income tax rate to 28%, up from 21%. The rate had been as high as 35% before former President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans cut taxes in 2017.

28% seems reasonable as compared to other western countries but who knows when actually diving in the details of deductions etc.

2) Global minimum tax: The proposal would increase the minimum tax on US corporations to 21% and calculate it on a country-by-country basis to deter companies from sheltering profits in international tax havens.

I like the idea of reducing tax shelters.

3) Tax on book income: The President would levy a 15% minimum tax on the income the largest corporations report to investors, known as book income, as opposed to the income reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

No idea if this is equitable, but sounds good to me.

4) Corporate inversions: Biden would make it harder for US companies to acquire or merge with a foreign business to avoid paying US taxes by claiming to be a foreign company. And he wants to encourage other countries to adopt strong minimum taxes on corporations, including by denying certain deductions to foreign companies based in countries without such a tax.

I like this. Assume this also includes US companies doing a lot of business in the US but incorporating in other countries to reduce taxes

[Edward64]

Overall, there is more pros than cons in his $2T Jobs plan.

I sense there is some pork in there and much that does not relate to the original vision of an "Infrastructure Plan" (hence the rename to Jobs plan). I would prefer if he proposed the non-infrastructure stuff in another plan because I can see no/little bi-partisanship support. I do hope Biden can be negotiated "down" some to win some GOP votes which would help set the foundation for future bi-partisanship.

Also ...

Reading article below. It'll be $2T + another $2T coming up.

The White House said what is called The American Jobs Plan will include $2 trillion in spending over 10 years and will be fully paid for with $2 trillion in taxes over 15 years, including by hiking the corporate tax rate to 28%, increasing the global minimum tax on U.S. multinationals and establishing what is called a 15% minimum tax on book income. Published reports say the White House will lay out plans for roughly $2 trillion more in spending on education and healthcare in a month’s time.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The infrastructure plan has been renamed to the Jobs Plan. I would prefer putting this in a separate bill. I can see something like this killing bi-partisanship support. This is 2/3 of #1 which seems "off balance in scale" to me (but don't know all the details).

This may be a trap for conservatives to fight against. "Conservatives hate old people." I think considering the age group that the GOP receives it's largest support, an all out attack on the provision to help seniors would be close to suicide.

[NobodyHere]

Biden dog poops on White House floor - Fox News

[RainMaker]

The bill essentially eliminates offshore tax havens. If they get that passed, Biden is on his way to being an influential President. Way better than Obama.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Biden dog poops on White House floor - Fox News

I had to check to see if this was an actual story. And it was....then I laughed a bit. Then I read the comments..........

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The part of this that really damages democracy is that, historically, one one party goes too far from the ideological mainstream, they end up losing and then tacking back towards the middle. Over the last 20 years or so, the Republicans have doubled down in getting further from the mainstream and then made it harder for the people who disagree with them to vote. The Democrats have their own large share of elected officials are far left from the mainstream, but will come back towards the middle with candidates. Even though they all get labeled as socialists anyway.

Who on the left is far left of the mainstream?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Who on the left is far left of the mainstream?

That’s my bad. I got distracted mid-post and edited it into something that didn’t make sense. I meant to put that Democrats have their own share of the electorate that have far left views, but that the candidates usually come back to the middle for elections.

I do think the Dems have politicians with far left views on specific issues (completely eliminating immigration enforcement, jumping from our current system to Medicare for All, UBI, free college are some that would meet criteria for me).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

That’s my bad. I got distracted mid-post and edited it into something that didn’t make sense. I meant to put that Democrats have their own share of the electorate that have far left views, but that the candidates usually come back to the middle for elections.

I do think the Dems have politicians with far left views on specific issues (completely eliminating immigration enforcement, jumping from our current system to Medicare for All, UBI, free college are some that would meet criteria for me).

Medicare for All and free college (or affordable) are not far left views. They are moderate positions in the first world. We are the extremists when it comes to health care and education.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Medicare for All and free college (or affordable) are not far left views. They are moderate positions in the first world. We are the extremists when it comes to health care and education.

What would you consider leftist or liberal policy for healthcare and education?

[Brian Swartz]

I think it really all depends on your control group. I don't think viewing the 'first world' as the relevant entity makes sense since they are all politically subdivided at the present time. It's also interesting to me that people aren't particularly interested in comparing us to the rest of the first world when they want to talk about immigration etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it really all depends on your control group. I don't think viewing the 'first world' as the relevant entity makes sense since they are all politically subdivided at the present time. It's also interesting to me that people aren't particularly interested in comparing us to the rest of the first world when they want to talk about immigration etc.

People on the right in those countries support universal health care and cheap/free college. Like I said, our policy on those matters is extremist. We are a massive outlier from the rest if the world.

[JPhillips]

From John Boehner's new book:

“There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless asshole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Senator Ted Cruz.”

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From John Boehner's new book:

I guess that's the book I keep seeing online ads for where he's sitting in a chair with a glass of wine looking like he's trying to seduce me.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From John Boehner's new book:

I die a little every time I see him and realize that my state is responsible for inflicting him on the nation.

[cartman]

I'm still not entirely convinced there wasn't some kind of election screw up that got Cruz elected the first time to the Senate. In the first GOP Primary election, no one got >50% of the vote. David Dewhurst was the top vote getter, with 627,000 votes, and Ted was the runner up with 480,000 votes.

In the runoff a couple of months later, with no big news or bombshells for either candidate, Cruz got 631,000 votes and Dewhurst 480,000. Nearly an exact flip.