The Biden Presidency - 2020

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Those salaries are wrong. Police officers in Chicago make $75,000 after 18 months and that doesn't include overtime and benefits.

From 2016 numbers, the average salary was over $86k a year. Pensions are 75% of your salary and you only have to work 20 years to fully vest. The contribution is also 3% less than what you pay into Social Security while receiving 3-4 times the amount they receive monthly.

It's a really great-paying job with an incredible pension for unskilled people who can't be fired.

If you have a link to those numbers I'd appreciate it.

[RainMaker]

Chicago Payroll Packed With Six-Figure Salaries | Better Government Association

[NobodyHere]

Thanks

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Before this descends into oblivion... police base salaries are often spartan, but many officers log overtime in scheduled ways and end up drawing a good deal more in pure salary than their published base pay. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's so.

In 2018 the highest paid cop in Chicago was a detective that racked up over 200k in overtime.

[lungs]

Ron Kind (WI-3) is retiring. I always wanted him to run against Scott Walker or in 2016, Ron Johnson. He seemed to be happy enough wielding his seniority in the House.

The real threat is that this is a district Republicans could win and the Republican running at the moment is not just giving lip service to the insurrectionists, he was actually there on January 6th.

[Edward64]

High level on the $3.5T bill coming up next. Looking forward to more details.

According to a summary of the resolution, Democrats plan to invest in four major categories: families, climate, health care, and infrastructure and jobs. Among other provisions, the measure seeks to establish universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds and make community college tuition-free for two years. It calls for the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps, adds new dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare coverage and would make a "historic level" of investment in affordable housing. The resolution also aims to lower the cost of prescription drugs and provide "green cards to millions of immigrant workers and families."
:
:
The Senate Budget Committee says the investments of the reconciliation package will be fully offset by a combination of new tax revenues, health care savings and long-term economic growth. The instructions also list corporate and international tax revisions and Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement as options -- both of which Republicans shot down in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. A memorandum to Democratic senators sent Monday specifies that new taxes on families making less than $400,000 a year, small businesses and family farms would be prohibited.

[Edward64]

Sure sounds like Afghanistan is toast. Hope I'm wrong and the situation stablizes some so both parties can negotiate. But with all the Taliban wins/momentum right now, I can see everyone bailing and running for the hills (aka out of the country).

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/11/middl...ntl/index.html

In less than a week, the Taliban has overrun one-quarter of Afghanistan's provincial capitals in a huge swathe of territory across the north of the country. The security situation here is unravelling faster than almost anyone expected -- with the possible exception of the Taliban themselves.

Nine provincial capitals have now fallen to the insurgent group -- in several cases with minimal resistance from the Afghan security forces. The Taliban now control territory they were unable to subdue when they were in power between 1996 and 2001.

CNN saw a graphic example of how low morale is among some army units on a visit to the city of Ghazni, three hours from Kabul. A group of soldiers who had been under fire from Taliban snipers simply ran from their base, flagged down a passing car and left.

[Flasch186]

It’s amazing how stupid the counter arguments were when recently the analysts said the country would fall in 60 days

Then the government pentagon would say no no no we think that they can fight and win

And the naïveté of everyone to negotiate with the Taliban…

Smh

Failure on every administrations part

Now we have to somehow save generations of women… we won’t though and they’ll be killed en masse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Failure on every administrations part

This really does look like something that both parties can and should be equally ashamed of. We went in there with no real plan other than "Get 'Em!" and, apparently, never developed a plan beyond that.

I had naively assumed that we were spending our time and energy over the last two decades building up an Afghan state that could survive our leaving.

I am such a babe in the woods sometimes.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We went in there with no real plan other than "Get 'Em!" and, apparently, never developed a plan beyond that.

Nah, we had a plan - it just didn't work. I think there are some places where nation-building simply isn't going to succeed, because too much of the population wants to build something different. You can't force them to see the world your way.

[GrantDawg]

I agree with Brian. I think that nation building was doomed to fail. I don't think there was a way to "win".

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[albionmoonlight]

Good point, y'all. A lot of very well meaning people put a lot of time and energy--including those who sacrificed their lives--into trying to to the right thing there.

And for me to sit behind my keyboard and cavalierly throw out that we had no plan diminishes their hard work and sacrifice. Dick move by me.

I still think that there's a lot of criticism that can and should go to the top of the food chain. Multiple Congresses and Presidents presided over this who should have handled it better. But there were also a lot of civilian and military folks actually trying to get the work done who did everything they could.

[Brian Swartz]

I definitely agree with that. There's no question there were a lot of bad and politically-motivated decisions made along the way. In hindsight we would have been best getting out a *lot* earlier and cutting our losses, but second-guessing is an easy game.

[JPhillips]

I think most policy makers have known this was the most likely outcome for well over a decade. I think one of the reasons we went to Iraq is that it was seen as having a more stable outcome. (yeah, I know, but that's what Rumsfeld and Cheney thought.) Nobody wanted to be on duty when things wen to shit, though, so we just stayed year after year, spending a few lives and a good amount of money, but pretending to be close to a stable government.

We could police Afghanistan for decades and it would still falll apart whenever we left.

[Flasch186]

I'm an interventionist... Jewish and holocaust stuff brings me to that place in my politics and it saddens me when we know that a certain sector of the populace is going to be wiped out. I wish there was a way for the globe to do something to save the women and girls there.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Nah, we had a plan - it just didn't work. I think there are some places where nation-building simply isn't going to succeed, because too much of the population wants to build something different. You can't force them to see the world your way.

Yeah, the US can't even get their own country to see the world one way, let alone make another country across the world with completely different values do the same.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Nah, we had a plan - it just didn't work. I think there are some places where nation-building simply isn't going to succeed, because too much of the population wants to build something different. You can't force them to see the world your way.

What was the plan?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What was the plan?

You're meaning beyond sating our revenge instinct, enriching military contractors connected to Cheney/Rumsfeld, and stripping rare earth metals, right?

SI

[Vegas Vic]

Afghanistan is a lost cause, and always has been after we completed the initial mission of routing out the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps. The puppet government that we installed was never going to succeed, and it's painfully obvious that the 300,000 Afghan troops are mostly cowards who will surrender at the first sign of resistance. If these people aren't willing to fight for their own country, then there's nothing we can do about it. No country can impose their will or form of government on them. The Russians found that out over 40 years ago when they were eventually driven out by the Mujahideen (ironically with financial aid from the United States and Osama bin Laden).

Just another page in failed US-Middle East policy, where we've consistently made the wrong decisions throughout history.

[albionmoonlight]

Early read: based on the strong urban and weaker rural numbers I'm seeing, this is a *much* more favorable Census count than minority advocacy groups/Dems had feared.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) August 12, 2021

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Afghanistan is a lost cause, and always has been after we completed the initial mission of routing out the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps. The puppet government that we installed was never going to succeed, and it's painfully obvious that the 300,000 Afghan troops are mostly cowards who will surrender at the first sign of resistance. If these people aren't willing to fight for their own country, then there's nothing we can do about it. No country can impose their will or form of government on them. The Russians found that out over 40 years ago when they were eventually driven out by the Mujahideen (ironically with financial aid from the United States and Osama bin Laden).

Just another page in failed US-Middle East policy, where we've consistently made the wrong decisions throughout history.

https://www.cc.com/video/wlfew4/the-...in-afghanistan

I find myself often thinking back to this clip when thinking about our Afghanistan policy.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Afghanistan is a lost cause, and always has been after we completed the initial mission of routing out the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps. The puppet government that we installed was never going to succeed, and it's painfully obvious that the 300,000 Afghan troops are mostly cowards who will surrender at the first sign of resistance. If these people aren't willing to fight for their own country, then there's nothing we can do about it. No country can impose their will or form of government on them. The Russians found that out over 40 years ago when they were eventually driven out by the Mujahideen (ironically with financial aid from the United States and Osama bin Laden).

Just another page in failed US-Middle East policy, where we've consistently made the wrong decisions throughout history.

All very true.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yeah, the census numbers are quite surprising. White non-Hispanics are now almost 2 full points below 60% of the population. Georgia is basically a majority-minority state.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What was the plan?

You know the answer to this, don't you? The plan was to stabilize the country, help them form a democratic-ish government, train and equip their soldiers to take over the security situation, etc. For reasons discussed, it was a failure. That doesn't mean it wasn't a plan.

[JPhillips]

I've read a number of people looking through the data that are saying there is a pretty clear undercount of rural counties. All of those Trumpers sticking it to the government.

[Edward64]

And there goes Kandahar.

I can see this as continuous headache for Biden and major issue in the elections. Regardless of right or wrong for the US, can see regular atrocities (e.g. stoning for adultery) coming back to haunt Biden e.g. he didn't leave in the "right" way. An easy way for Taliban to influence the US elections if they choose to.

Obviously not fair to blame Biden solely. Trump had a major say here. But Biden is now holding the hot potato.

[Flasch186]

I doubt it'll be major... the USA hasn't cared (unfortunately) for about 10 years and likely won't now. There's bigger fish to fry (perhaps) in regards to the Pandemic, vax v unvax , USSR sowing discord within the mentally stunted of our country, economy, shut downs, etc. I think any Afghan political attacks would be blunted with images and video of Trump initiating the withdrawal.

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I give Biden zero blame here. What's the alternative, stay there indefinitely and tear up the agreement he inherited?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I'm an interventionist... Jewish and holocaust stuff brings me to that place in my politics and it saddens me when we know that a certain sector of the populace is going to be wiped out. I wish there was a way for the globe to do something to save the women and girls there.

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Afghanistan is a lost cause, and always has been after we completed the initial mission of routing out the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps. The puppet government that we installed was never going to succeed, and it's painfully obvious that the 300,000 Afghan troops are mostly cowards who will surrender at the first sign of resistance. If these people aren't willing to fight for their own country, then there's nothing we can do about it. No country can impose their will or form of government on them. The Russians found that out over 40 years ago when they were eventually driven out by the Mujahideen (ironically with financial aid from the United States and Osama bin Laden).

Just another page in failed US-Middle East policy, where we've consistently made the wrong decisions throughout history.

I mean, the correct answer was total obliteration of opposition, which is antithetical to what the US stands for internationally. Of course, it would have lead to calls that the US was exterminating people, and it would have had to be a be a complete wipeout. The stomach that it would have taken to pursue that course of action was completely untenable. That's really the only way that it would have been changed. Probably would have been cheaper in the long run though.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yep. I give Biden zero blame here. What's the alternative, stay there indefinitely and tear up the agreement he inherited?

It was a no win, Lindsey Graham already criticizing him for acting like he knows better than our military leaders, completely ignoring the fact that Trump actually said he knew better than them, what a fucking bootlicker.

And if Biden had kept troops there the it would have been "Trump promised to bring our troops home, but Biden wants to keep young Americans in harms way"

[bronconick]

How America Failed Afghanistan - The Atlanticublisher" content="https://www.facebook.com/TheAtlantic/"/>ublished_time" content="2021-08-12T19:44:46Z"/>

Skip to content

Site Navigation

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

It was a no win, Lindsey Graham already criticizing him for acting like he knows better than our military leaders, completely ignoring the fact that Trump actually said he knew better than them, what a fucking bootlicker.

And if Biden had kept troops there the it would have been "Trump promised to bring our troops home, but Biden wants to keep young Americans in harms way"

Biden has nothing to do with the debacle in Afghanistan, and bringing the troops home is the right thing to do.

The main concern moving forward is the possible resurgence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and this should not be a partisan issue. Right now, they do not have the capability to launch another attack against the United States, but that could change over time with cooperation from the Taliban.

Potential Al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan worries U.S. officials

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Biden has nothing to do with the debacle in Afghanistan, and bringing the troops home is the right thing to do.

The main concern moving forward is the possible resurgence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and this should not be a partisan issue. Right now, they do not have the capability to launch another attack against the United States, but that could change over time with cooperation from the Taliban.

Potential Al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan worries U.S. officials

How much resources do you really need to attack America? ISIS has proven you just need social media to connect with an angry dissatisfied American or two. And then those Americans go out and shoot up a night club or something.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How much resources do you really need to attack America? ISIS has proven you just need social media to connect with an angry dissatisfied American or two. And then those Americans go out and shoot up a night club or something.

Unfortunately, that always has been the case and will continue to be. I was referring to the ability to train for and plot another large-scale attack, resulting in a cataclysmic loss of human life.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I mean, the correct answer was total obliteration of opposition, which is antithetical to what the US stands for internationally. Of course, it would have lead to calls that the US was exterminating people, and it would have had to be a be a complete wipeout. The stomach that it would have taken to pursue that course of action was completely untenable. That's really the only way that it would have been changed. Probably would have been cheaper in the long run though.

That's what the Russian tried and it wasn't working even before we started arming the Muj.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Biden has nothing to do with the debacle in Afghanistan, and bringing the troops home is the right thing to do.

I agree it is right to bring the troops home. I do agree he does not own the vast majority of the blame. But based on what we are seeing right now, he does own some blame on how quickly it is collapsing. There can be legitimate second guessing on were there other options to pull us out without this (or less of a) debacle that is happening now and the future impact, implications etc.

The main concern moving forward is the possible resurgence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and this should not be a partisan issue. Right now, they do not have the capability to launch another attack against the United States, but that could change over time with cooperation from the Taliban.

I do agree this is a risk. They've got their own country and own pseudo caliphate now. Plenty of muslim extremists that will flock to their version of nirvana.


But yes, basically time to go.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I mean, the correct answer was total obliteration of opposition, which is antithetical to what the US stands for internationally. Of course, it would have lead to calls that the US was exterminating people, and it would have had to be a be a complete wipeout. The stomach that it would have taken to pursue that course of action was completely untenable. That's really the only way that it would have been changed. Probably would have been cheaper in the long run though.

I wonder how successfully installing a warlord/strongman would have been. Sure there would have been atrocities etc. but that's someone we could negotiate with because he would have been influenced by $ and power.

There were X big warlords back then. Maybe give them their own territory and call it a day. Who knows.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But based on what we are seeing right now, he does own some blame on how quickly it is collapsing.

Why? All he's done here is live up to the agreement negotiated by Trump. That's not on Biden. We've been training the Afghans for two decades to handle their own country, such as it is. If they aren't ready by now, they never will be. I don't see how *any* of it is Biden's fault. Going back on the agreed timetable that he walked into as President and didn't negotiate himself would have been even worse.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I wonder how successfully installing a warlord/strongman would have been. Sure there would have been atrocities etc. but that's someone we could negotiate with because he would have been influenced by $ and power.

There were X big warlords back then. Maybe give them their own territory and call it a day. Who knows.

That has worked in other areas, but it also has the possibility of blowing up in our face. Saddam Hussein was definitely our favorite pet warlord that kept Iraq stable through horrible means, but he was just fine until he invaded another ally in the region. I think if the Bush administration felt they could have worked with the Taliban to oust Al-Qaeda in 2001, they would have. I just don't think they would have been willing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Why? All he's done here is live up to the agreement negotiated by Trump. That's not on Biden. We've been training the Afghans for two decades to handle their own country, such as it is. If they aren't ready by now, they never will be.

Don't disagree. The Why we went in, the What happened (until our withdrawal) is not on Biden (or at least not significantly e.g. not sure what he did or not during Obama)

I don't see how *any* of it is Biden's fault. Going back on the agreed timetable that he walked into as President and didn't negotiate himself would have been even worse.

The How we withdrew (the execution of it) is what Biden shares some blame on.

[GrantDawg]

Heck, even more recently. Trump had an agreement on the table and was hoping to pull the trigger on a withdrawal deal but the Taliban couldn't stop breaking every agreement.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That has worked in other areas, but it also has the possibility of blowing up in our face. Saddam Hussein was definitely our favorite pet warlord that kept Iraq stable through horrible means, but he was just fine until he invaded another ally in the region. I think if the Bush administration felt they could have worked with the Taliban to oust Al-Qaeda in 2001, they would have. I just don't think they would have been willing.

I was thinking after Taliban/AQ fled to the hills. 1-2 years after that, maybe go with a strong man vs the pseudo western democracy we tried to nurture.

It's pretty obvious western democracy doesn't work near everywhere.

Not really advocating it. I do think we could have done a better job in the path we took. But interesting thought experiment.

Regardless, kudos to Biden for doing this where other's kicked the can down the road. We gave Afghanistan plenty of opportunities. It is the right thing for US to pull out, unfortunately it is not the best for Afghanistan.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The How we withdrew (the execution of it) is what Biden shares some blame on.

Wouldn't that be on the military?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I was thinking after Taliban/AQ fled to the hills. 1-2 years after that, maybe go with a strong man vs the pseudo western democracy we tried to nurture.

It's pretty obvious western democracy doesn't work near everywhere.

Not really advocating it. I do think we could have done a better job in the path we took. But interesting thought experiment.

Regardless, kudos to Biden for doing this where other's kicked the can down the road. We gave Afghanistan plenty of opportunities. It is the right thing for US to pull out, unfortunately it is not the best for Afghanistan.

Clearly the infrastructure isn't enough in the country to support itself. The taliban are grassroots, and the US lead government was top down. The populace is taking what they get (taliban) rather than what they might have with some pain (US led govt), but they might end up with a big fat zero if they do. So it's the bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush argument. Nation building is hard, and the Bush administration now gets to retroactively bear the brunt of it's failures to anticipate in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Twenty years is the right amount of time to make that determination.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Wouldn't that be on the military?

Yeah, unless Biden was Commander in Chief or something.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah, unless he Biden was Commander in Chief or something.

I'm sure he wrote the entire withdrawal plan and submitted it to the Generals for execution and they implemented all of it within 6 months (because you know, he wrote all of it within a couple weeks of taking office), because we know that he's the boss and he totally knows better than the rest of the entire Pentagon. {Didnt' the guy who actually signed off on it actually say he was?}

But yes, thanks for your eloquent statement of fact. It has truly brought the light responsibility to this clearly defined outcome.

Having said that, how many CEO's went to jail after the 2008 market collapse again? I mean, they were the CEO's after all.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm sure he wrote the entire withdrawal plan and submitted it to the Generals for execution and they implemented all of it within 6 months (because you know, he wrote all of it within a couple weeks of taking office), because we know that he's the boss and he totally knows better than the rest of the entire Pentagon. {Didnt' the guy who actually signed off on it actually say he was?}

But yes, thanks for your eloquent statement of fact. It has truly brought the light responsibility to this clearly defined outcome.

Hey, you said it was on the military. I was just pointing out that Biden oversees the military. I believe that as CinC Biden is ultimately responsible for how they perform. Although I will own I could've said it more diplomatically.

Having said that, how many CEO's went to jail after the 2008 market collapse again? I mean, they were the CEO's after all.

Not sure how this is relevant. Is anyone (except Trump-humpers) calling for Biden to go to jail?

[PilotMan]

I was pointing out how we don't completely accept that just because you're the guy at the top, when shit happens, and you're the boss, that you're actually held responsible for it, and how conveniently hypocritical that is.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That has worked in other areas, but it also has the possibility of blowing up in our face. Saddam Hussein was definitely our favorite pet warlord that kept Iraq stable through horrible means, but he was just fine until he invaded another ally in the region.

True. Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to visit Saddam in 1983. Back then, we had no problem selling him hundreds of millions worth of military equipment while he was using nerve gas to kill Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The How we withdrew (the execution of it) is what Biden shares some blame on.

Ok, I'll bite. What could Biden have done differently, execution-wise, between late January and now to make the outcome differently while still getting out in the agreed-upon timetable? The way I see it, any changes that could have been made would have been on the decades-long process of getting a government in place, training the military there, etc. that happened pre-Biden. In what way could we have gotten out these last several months to avoid this outcome?