The Biden Presidency - 2020

[albionmoonlight]

I put this in the same box as I put marijuana legalization. Let people do it. Tobacco is harmful. Marijuana is harmful. Refined sugars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful.

Educate the pubic about the harms. Provide resources for folks who want to quit. Ban advertising targeted at kids.

And otherwise let people make their own choices.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I put this in the same box as I put marijuana legalization. Let people do it. Tobacco is harmful. Marijuana is harmful. Refined sugars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful.

Educate the pubic about the harms. Provide resources for folks who want to quit. Ban advertising targeted at kids.

And otherwise let people make their own choices.

Sin taxes are nice, too

SI

[JPhillips]

lol

�� SCOOP: Chris Christie is seriously considering running for president in 2024.

He's told friends he'd be the only person in the 2024 field with executive experience who has run a presidential race before — a clear shot at Gov. Ron DeSantis. https://t.co/CA9HdnP8KE

— Axios (@axios) April 21, 2021

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I put this in the same box as I put marijuana legalization. Let people do it. Tobacco is harmful. Marijuana is harmful. Refined sugars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful.

Educate the pubic about the harms. Provide resources for folks who want to quit. Ban advertising targeted at kids.

And otherwise let people make their own choices.

Same. Label what is in the product and let people make their own choices.

I'm also not a huge fan of sin taxes unless that product is costing taxpayers money (for instance alcohol).

[JPhillips]

The difference is that the levels of nicotine have been manipulated over decades and that information hasn't generally been made clear to purchasers.

[thesloppy]

There's like a hundred other obviously horrible additives that could/should be legislated out of cigarettes before you even start talking about nicotine levels.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I put this in the same box as I put marijuana legalization. Let people do it. Tobacco is harmful. Marijuana is harmful. Refined sugars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful.

Educate the pubic about the harms. Provide resources for folks who want to quit. Ban advertising targeted at kids.

And otherwise let people make their own choices.

i don't want them making more commercials saying that all these things are bad. That's a waste of money. Everyone knows they are bad.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

There's like a hundred other obviously horrible additives that could/should be legislated out of cigarettes before you even start talking about nicotine levels.

There's no choice but nicotine or nothing. given the manipulation of nicotine, I'm fine with lowering the levels.

[lungs]

I've gotten on these tobacco-free nicotine pouches. Zyn, Velo, there are a few brands out there.

What I can't seem to find the answer to is whether nicotine is inherently bad? If we can deliver nicotine in a way that doesn't destroy the body, isn't that a good thing? Yet I'm starting to see calls to ban these products. I just can't see why, though.

[tarcone]

Im embarrassed Josh Hawley represents me. And there is no way to recall a US Senator.

[Edward64]

I'm assuming that Biden is acknowledging the Armenian genocide because Turkey is more a frenemy right now than a true ally, and also for domestic support/votes.

Don't know all the ramifications other than Turkey getting PO'd and continue to move away. But that was going to happen anyway. This may leave the Kurds less protected in norther Iraq and Syria. I can see Turkey developing closer ties to Russia but won't ever be a proxy.

[Edward64]

Apparently the US has some sort of embargo of raw materials that India needs to create more vaccine. For now, the US is resistant to removing the embargo.

CNN articles don't have a lot of details about what the raw materials are, would it really make that much of a difference etc. or is this India pushing blame away from their incompetence etc.

But from what I've read, we have more than enough vaccines right now (maybe not for next round in 4Q though) and I don't see why we don't (1) remove the embargo and/or (2) give some excess vaccines away ... under the assumption we've signed contracts for another 700 million doses to be delivered in 4Q.

But then the question is why release it to India. Why not to other developing countries? From what I've read, India had it "under control" until they started going lax and this current state is the result.

I don't know what the right answer is but lean towards giving India what she needs (as much as we can).

[albionmoonlight]

It seems like we could give away all of our Astra Zeneca stockpile. It isn't approved here, and it does not seem like it is likely to be approved soon. And even if it were approved, I don't see people here taking it with three other established options on the table.

It would help other countries at zero cost to us.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm assuming that Biden is acknowledging the Armenian genocide because Turkey is more a frenemy right now than a true ally, and also for domestic support/votes.

I just assumed he was a System of a Down fan.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It seems like we could give away all of our Astra Zeneca stockpile. It isn't approved here, and it does not seem like it is likely to be approved soon. And even if it were approved, I don't see people here taking it with three other established options on the table.

It would help other countries at zero cost to us.

There's an "opportunity" cost somewhere (e.g. why not send it to Mexico or Canada instead).

But probably the right decision.

COVID news: India corronavirus surge; US assistance; six-foot rule

The U.S. will send desperately needed vaccine supplies and experts to India, overwhelmed by one of the worst coronavirus surges the world has seen, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told his counterpart in India on Sunday.

The U.S. will also consider sending millions of surplus AstraZeneca vaccines to India, Dr. Anthony Fauci told ABC's "This Week." AstraZeneca's vaccine has not yet won emergency use authorization in the U.S.

The offers come as the U.S. and other developed nations draw complaints for stockpiling vaccine while poorer nations struggle to obtain them. Britain has agreed to ship ventilators to India; the European Union is offering oxygen and other supplies.

Sullivan told Ajit Doval the U.S will make available raw materials to help India manufacture Covishield, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured in India, along with therapeutics, rapid diagnostic test kits, ventilators and personal protective equipment.

"Just as India sent assistance to the United States as our hospitals were strained early in the pandemic, the United States is determined to help India in its time of need," a statement from National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne said.

"The United States also is pursuing options to provide oxygen generation and related supplies on an urgent basis," the statement added. To help speed India's vaccine manufacturing, Sullivan said the U.S. Development Finance Corp. will back a "substantial expansion" for BioE, which makes the vaccine, to allow it to reach 1 billion doses by the end of 2022.

[Edward64]

Next up is the Family Recovery Plan. Cost wise is all over the place. I think I read it would cost at least $1T but this article estimates $1.5T, and a WaPo article said $1.8T.

(I'm losing track of what Trillion we are up to now. Something like $1.9T + Jobs/Infrastructure $2T + Family Recovery of $1.5T = $5.4T)

Lowering Medicare eligibility could potentially be part of this bill so that is one positive for me personally.

Biden’s ‘American Families Plan’ is coming. What’s in it? - MarketWatch

For now, the White House isn’t giving specifics. But details have started to leak out about what Biden is aiming to be the second part of his infrastructure plan. Here are some of the major elements of the families plan, based on media reports, analysts’ notes and officials’ statements.

Childcare: This area is expected to be one of the largest efforts in the plan, according to a Washington Post report. Funding could be roughly $225 billion for this priority, the Post said. A White House spokesman told the newspaper that the details of the package are still being finalized.

Universal prekindergarten: Biden campaigned on this pledge, aiming to provide instruction to all three- and four-year-olds. The Post report put the cost for universal instruction at $200 billion.

Paid family leave: Biden during the campaign said he wanted 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave — this could reportedly cost $225 billion.

Free community college: First lady Jill Biden said on Monday that her husband is “ready for big ideas and full action” concerning education, “so that all Americans can go to community college, have the support they need to finish and get good jobs.”

Cost of the plan — and paying for it: The overall plan would spend around $1.5 trillion and would likely be paid for by tax increases, said Sarah Bianchi of Evercore ISI in a note on Tuesday. Politico reported that the administration is still working out details, but proposals on the table include raising the top marginal tax rate back to 39.6% and taxing capital gains as ordinary income above a certain threshold. Biden has pledged not to raise taxes on those earning below $400,000 a year.

[Brian Swartz]

Some of these areas are good, others are not IMO, but the part that really grinds my gears is insulting my intelligence by calling these kinds of proposals 'infrastructure'.

[Butter]

I know, Biden that dick trying to improve regular Americans' lives, right?

[Kodos]

But what has he done for the super rich?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

I know, Biden that dick trying to improve regular Americans' lives, right?

I don't object to that part of it at all. People can have reasonable disagreements on the best way to do that, and as President it's absolutely appropriate for Biden to put forward whatever proposals he thinks best and advocate for them. At the same time, child care, family leave etc. are not infrastructure. They just aren't.

[JPhillips]

Wasn't the first bill officially called a jobs and infrastructure bill?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wasn't the first bill officially called a jobs and infrastructure bill?

American Jobs Plan:

FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan | The White House

This its not infrastructure stuff seems a bit like gaslighting tbh

[Swaggs]

I would consider thinking about infrastructure as the framework of an organization/community/society, rather than physical objects or utilities (these things are also obviously the more classic ideas of infrastructure).

I think with the way the pandemic altered the way we work in the United States, it is pretty fair to say that childcare is infrastructure. If healthcare workers, engineers, educators, etc. are not able to work or their hours are limited to the point that they are not able to provide necessary services because there is not adequate childcare for their families, that impacts the basic framework of businesses and services like hospitals and utility companies. If those services are not functioning well, that impacts businesses and communities quite a bit.

My wife and I work in healthcare and we both reduced our hours/availability because our pre-COVID, dependable childcare was either too erratic to depend on or (for periods of time) eliminated altogether. We both provide service to people in need, but if we didn’t have local family, one of us would have needed to shelf years of education, training, and experience to be home 100% of the time and our patients would be searching for new providers to help keep them functioning well enough to continue with their careers and families. Lack of affordable, safe childcare options is something most of us don’t think about unless/until it directly affects us and it has for a lot of parents during COVID. It is regularly a huge problem that disproportionately affects single/young mothers and often prevents them from moving out of poverty.

Thinking of things like roads, bridges, and utilities as infrastructure is fine and accurate, but may be shortsighted and limited if we are thinking about the future. Things like childcare, IT, and high speed internet are also very important to maintain and improve upon going forward if we want a skilled labor force that creates opportunities for everyone.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think with the way the pandemic altered the way we work in the United States, it is pretty fair to say that childcare is infrastructure. If healthcare workers, engineers, educators, etc. are not able to work or their hours are limited to the point that they are not able to provide necessary services because there is not adequate childcare for their families, that impacts the basic framework of businesses and services like hospitals and utility companies. If those services are not functioning well, that impacts businesses and communities quite a bit.

I get your point, but under that way of defining it anything can be infrastructure. Anything at all. It has no deeper meaning than 'this thing has value to us'. Every part of society impacts other parts, but that doesn't make child care infrastructure any more than migrants at the border are an invasion.

I think redefining words that way is very dangerous. In order for words to mean things, they have to not mean other things, or we end up with a language that we just make up as we go along. To Issidiqui's point, it's not remotely gaslighting. The foundations of communication matter.

[Butter]

In this case, they don't matter as much as you think they do.

Do you mean to tell me that if you supported higher funding for childcare, universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, and free community college, that you would vote against it if it were called "The Human Infrastructure Bill"?

If so, you're the worst kind of pedant. I mean, THE WORST

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I get your point, but under that way of defining it anything can be infrastructure. Anything at all. It has no deeper meaning than 'this thing has value to us'. Every part of society impacts other parts, but that doesn't make child care infrastructure any more than migrants at the border are an invasion.

I think redefining words that way is very dangerous. In order for words to mean things, they have to not mean other things, or we end up with a language that we just make up as we go along. To Issidiqui's point, it's not remotely gaslighting. The foundations of communication matter.

I get where you are coming from with the strict definition. You have always been pretty considerate with thoughts and words on here, so I mean no harm, but it seems like a matter of semantics to define infrastructure as only tangible/physical infrastructure. Services and systems that are considered soft infrastructure are still infrastructure and, specifically, if they are being defined in the bill as such, I do not think it is misleading or insulting anyone's intelligence to call both hard and soft infrastructure proposal as 'infrastructure.'

[GrantDawg]

I got your hard infrastructure bill right here.

Really, I got nothing.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

Do you mean to tell me that if you supported higher funding for childcare, universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, and free community college, that you would vote against it if it were called "The Human Infrastructure Bill"?

Of course not. Those are two completely different issues. I wouldn't vote for or against a bill based on its name unless the name itself was something way beyond the pale in terms of being highly offensive or whatever.

[Flasch186]

Citizens United

[JPhillips]

Fuck these two.

A secret video obtained by The New Yorker and @teamtrace shows the N.R.A. chief Wayne LaPierre and his wife hunting elephants. His wife, Susan, kills an elephant, cuts off its tail, and holds it in the air. “Victory!” she shouts. https://t.co/A6SLRA69wW

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) April 27, 2021

[BYU 14]

Trophy hunters are the most fucked up, low hanging, pieces of shit in the world in my book. Fuck all of them!

[albionmoonlight]

Joe Biden is, by pretty much any measure, pushing a much less centrist agenda than President Obama did.

But polls continue to show voters consider him more moderate than they considered Obama.

Basically, people who want their party to push an agenda should elect radicals who look moderate instead of moderates who look radical.

[JPhillips]

And white. They should definitely pick white candidates. Probably white men.

[Ksyrup]

I think that's also shaped by perception and the amount of time that has elapsed since Obama. A black president is still a radical thing in and of itself for a lot of people. And 4 years of Trump feels more like 15-20 years since Obama was president. It's hard to believe he was president in 2016, really.

[Brian Swartz]

Politicians are often defined by an impression of them that sometimes bears little relationship to the reality. It's the same reason why our first impressions of people on meeting them is often not accurate.

[Ksyrup]

With Obama, the healthcare thing is probably the overriding "radical" thing people remember. The GOP ran against Obamacare for a couple of election cycles. And then were more than fine when in 2020, Trump supporters somehow gave him credit for it. That still blows my mind.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Joe Biden is, by pretty much any measure, pushing a much less centrist agenda than President Obama did.

But polls continue to show voters consider him more moderate than they considered Obama.

Basically, people who want their party to push an agenda should elect radicals who look moderate instead of moderates who look radical.

I think there's a marketing and history component here. Biden's been around for a while now I think people have gotten used to him being a "moderate".

There's also the Democratic primaries. I mean, the radicals were the ones like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren right? Not Uncle Joe, he's the moderate choice.

Of course now that he's in office it seems there's a new trillion dollar piece of legislation being introduced every week.

[PilotMan]

He wouldn't have to if Congress was actually allowed to create a budget and spend money on anything besides entitlements and military.

It was really easy for trump and the r's to spend by subtraction. Don't bitch about the roads not being kept up and how incompetent the government is when you're actively sabotaging it to make money for your own private interests. That's so much easier to sell to the public, and does nothing to improve the situation. All it does is let someone else take credit for the easy shit, and ignore the ugly hard to do stuff.

[Brian Swartz]

Huh? Congress can make a budget anytime it wants. It has chosen not to for decades, but there's nothing stopping it from doing it anytime it chooses.

[PilotMan]

Brian you're the only guy who argues about shapes while nukes are falling.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think there's a marketing and history component here. Biden's been around for a while now I think people have gotten used to him being a "moderate".

There's also the Democratic primaries. I mean, the radicals were the ones like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren right? Not Uncle Joe, he's the moderate choice.

Of course now that he's in office it seems there's a new trillion dollar piece of legislation being introduced every week.

That’s just kind of what being a professional politician is though. He’s spent decades positioning himself exactly where he is, and now is the payoff. I think it was on one of the recent 538 podcasts when someone said, “Biden’s political superpower is everyone just assumes whatever position he’s taking on an issue is the most centrist position.”

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And white. They should definitely pick white candidates. Probably white men.

Yeah, that's the heart of it. It's like cross-sectional radicalism. Add a modifier if of color, if you have a funny name, if you're a woman, if you're not Christian. Biden doesn't get those modifiers (maybe the Catholic thing with some).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Brian you're the only guy who argues about shapes while nukes are falling.

I have no idea what this means.

[ISiddiqui]

To Issidiqui's point, it's not remotely gaslighting.

Of course it is. It's called the American Jobs Plan. It's always been a Jobs and Infrastructure plan. To quibble that things aren't infrastructure in the plan is just redefining what the plan is about.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

The point isn't that there are things in the bill that aren't infrastructure, as if everything in both of them has to be infrastructure or its a misnomer. The point is that very little of what is in either bill is actually infrastructure, so referring to them as infrastructure bills or infrastructure proposals or as constructions with more than a tenuous, tangential relationship to infrastructure is false.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course it is. It's called the American Jobs Plan. It's always been a Jobs and Infrastructure plan. To quibble that things aren't infrastructure in the plan is just redefining what the plan is about.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Well according to some Democrats everything is infrastructure, and there has been no pushback within the party.

Paid leave is infrastructure.
Child care is infrastructure.
Caregiving is infrastructure.

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) April 7, 2021

[Thomkal]

wow Tim Scott, African-American SC Republican says America is not a racist country in the Republican rebuttal

[sabotai]

The American Jobs Plan Gets Serious about Infrastructure and Climate Change | Center for Strategic and International Studies

If you take out the "Electric Vehicle Incentives", Transportation and Utilities make up 33% of the bill.

[Brian Swartz]

Right, and I'm fully in favor of a lot of those elements. Roads and bridges, power-related utilities, public transit, etc. are all very important infrastructure projects that I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to see even more investment in. To be fair, I overstated the case with regards to the first bill. My reaction was more aimed at the items in Edward's link, and I was wrong to extend that criticism to the degree that I did.

What NobodyHere posted about is more to the point I was aiming at, but there are still a number of items in the first bill labeled as infrastructure which just aren't. I'm with Biden on a lot of matters, and I would like to see the first bill pass. I'm just not going to acquiesce to looking at a pile of burlap and calling it gold, which is what statements like Gillibrand's amount to.

[ISiddiqui]

Well according to some Democrats everything is infrastructure, and there has been no pushback within the party.

Yeah, Democrats have been guilty of letting Republicans redefine the debate for ages and ages (you can see people complain about it all over this thread). I'm glad Biden doesn't seem to be falling into the same trap that Gillibrand did and is sticking to his guns that this is a Jobs and Infrastructure Bill as it has been since he proposed it (though Gillibrand may have course corrected after that tweet, who knows).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk