The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Brian Swartz]

It should be self-evident that the political opinions of people in other countries aren't relevant to US elections. Am I mis-reading the room on that?

You're giving the electorate way too much credit in their ability to understand specifics. Elections are mostly about 'liberals think this, conservatives think that, how do I feel about which one is in power, ergo I'll vote X'. I.e. if there's generally rhetoric around defunding or CRT or what-have-you, it makes little difference which state officials supported it or whether McAullife did or ... The candidate and what they say does matter, but not nearly as much as the broader picture. I don't think they knew or cared about the Minneapolis referendum per se, it's just an example that it is the kind of thing that is being put on the ballot in some places and being talked about ... i.e. the distinction between what liberal twitter says and what elected democrats say is not particularly significant in a practical sense.

It'd be better if that wasn't the case, but the letter by the candidates name and the very general aroma of the political environment is the dominant factor in American politics. I don't know any other way to read the data we have in modern elections.

[RainMaker]

So are you saying a little-known referendum in Minneapolis that almost no major Democrats supported was a key issue in a Virginia race? I literally cannot find a single mention of it in relation to the race in the news unless I'm missing something.

I should add that McAuliffe is on the record as saying he is not for defunding the police. He isn't even for removing qualified immunity.

Again, I'm told the moderate Democrat losing a race in a blue state is good news for moderate Democrats. Just trying to figure out why.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

So are you saying a little-known referendum in Minneapolis that almost no major Democrats supported was a key issue in a Virginia race?

No. I don't think that's true.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I'm told the moderate Democrat losing a race in a blue state is good news for moderate Democrats. Just trying to figure out why.

Here's the way I see it. You're viewing it from the point of view that the candidate is really important, unless I misunderstand you. Others, and I think this is more likely but I don't have a big dog in the fight, think 'no, it wasn't really much about the candidate at all, only a small part is that and it's primarily a reflection on Biden and the national party'. If it's a referendum on Biden, the more Democrats lose by the more it's an indication of a reaction against what is happening by Democrats on a national stage and the more it strengthens moderates. Conversely, the more Democrats win by, i.e. if there was no rightward swing from the '20 results or a very small one, it would be seen as an endorsement of more progressive policies and would weaken moderates.

So, viewed that way, yes a moderate candidate can win and it can be a bad thing for moderates as a whole. As I said previously, it depends on what you think happened. Was this primarily about McAullife and Youngkin, or primarily about a larger picture?

[BYU 14]

A very favorable ruling by the Arizona Supreme court to eliminate the long accepted standard of stuffing partisan BS into budget bills, which deals a big blow to the batshit crazy wing of the GOP here.

Arizona State Supreme Court Ruling

In what is being described as a win for the legislative process, the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday (11/2) upheld a lower court ruling that found adding unrelated policy to the state budget was unconstitutional and in violation of specific provisions related to bill title and single subject rules. Otherwise known as “logrolling”, for years if not decades it has been standard practice to bunch policies together in the budget for purposes of garnering enough last minute support for passage. This political gamesmanship often results in various policies being added to a handful of “budget reconciliation” bills, which are bills originally intended to direct and inform spending. In total, reconciliation bills exist for eight specific policy areas that include health, K-12 education, higher education, criminal justice, environment, revenue, transportation and budget procedures.


This week’s state supreme court decision is centered around a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge previously siding with the Arizona School Boards Association and other education groups, ruling that specific policies included in four separate reconciliation bills are unconstitutional. The policies that were found to have violated the bill title requirement, which states that the subject of a bill “shall be expressed in the title”, were tucked into the K-12, higher education, and health bills. This included a ban on mask mandates in schools, prohibited teachers from using curriculum that presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex (otherwise known as critical race theory), banned university and college mask and vaccine mandates, and banned cities or towns from adopting vaccine passports. The “budget procedures” bill was found to have violated the single subject rule, noting that it contained multiple, unrelated subjects, including permitting rules for dog racing, voter registration rules, watermarks for ballots (a popular conspiracy theory amongst the election integrity crowd), COVID mitigation limits for local governments, and placing limits on the Governor’s authority to address a public health emergency.


All told, the state supreme court’s full opinion, which is forthcoming, will have serious, long-term impacts to what was once considered the standard course of business at the Arizona legislature. Ultimately, the policies that were found unconstitutional will not take effect, and in future years there will be an infusion of transparency into the budget and policy making process. But for those of us engaged regularly at the legislature, it just means the environment will likely become more toxic and divisive when bills that have otherwise failed w

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No. I don't think that's true.



Here's the way I see it. You're viewing it from the point of view that the candidate is really important, unless I misunderstand you. Others, and I think this is more likely but I don't have a big dog in the fight, think 'no, it wasn't really much about the candidate at all, only a small part is that and it's primarily a reflection on Biden and the national party'. If it's a referendum on Biden, the more Democrats lose by the more it's an indication of a reaction against what is happening by Democrats on a national stage and the more it strengthens moderates. Conversely, the more Democrats win by, i.e. if there was no rightward swing from the '20 results or a very small one, it would be seen as an endorsement of more progressive policies and would weaken moderates.

So, viewed that way, yes a moderate candidate can win and it can be a bad thing for moderates as a whole. As I said previously, it depends on what you think happened. Was this primarily about McAullife and Youngkin, or primarily about a larger picture?

Brian yes this is what I was meaning frankly-big picture and voters looking at it as a referendum on the Democratic party and where it is going or trying to. I am actually in favor of many of the progressive agenda items and agree many other places in the world already have them. But if we are not careful in the pursuit of them we will get Trump reelected. That to me would be far worse than not getting bad family leave right now. Manchin as I had warned a year ago is a real problem too.

[Edward64]

Must have missed some news but not sure how they can count on Manchin's vote.

Hope this happens. Biden needs a win.

Democrats needed wins. Democrats, in at least some form, needed to pass President Joe Biden's sweeping agenda. And House Democratic leaders are on the cusp of exactly that in a matter of hours.

But for real this time. At least that's what is scheduled. And that's what senior Democratic aides are confident can get done. And that's what the White House spent Thursday, from Biden on down, urgently trying set the conditions to accomplish.

In other words: After weeks of blown deadlines, intra-party warfare and intensive negotiations to unlock the most complex policy divides, for Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, now is the moment to close the deal.

[Edward64]

Yup, lets get a win on the bipartisanship infrastructure bill. Let each bill stand (or fall) on their own merits (or lack of willingness to compromise enough).

Yet to see if the moderates or progressives win in this game of chicken but Biden is definitely losing during this prolonged face-off.

House Dems throw new curveball: Infrastructure vote, wait on party-line megabill - POLITICO

After a multi-day whipping bonanza, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team dramatically altered course on Friday to satisfy a handful of recalcitrant moderates who refused to back President Joe Biden's $1.75 trillion social spending bill.

Instead, Democrats are set to again delay a vote on that party-line measure and turn their sights to just the $550 billion Senate-passed infrastructure bill — bending to the demands of their most vocal centrists in a last-ditch attempt to deliver at least one legislative win for Biden.

[GrantDawg]

Looks like they are about to pass the Infrastructure bill and the rules for the BBB bill. Might still be a couple of progressive holdouts, but will still pass.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No. I don't think that's true.

Here's the way I see it. You're viewing it from the point of view that the candidate is really important, unless I misunderstand you. Others, and I think this is more likely but I don't have a big dog in the fight, think 'no, it wasn't really much about the candidate at all, only a small part is that and it's primarily a reflection on Biden and the national party'. If it's a referendum on Biden, the more Democrats lose by the more it's an indication of a reaction against what is happening by Democrats on a national stage and the more it strengthens moderates. Conversely, the more Democrats win by, i.e. if there was no rightward swing from the '20 results or a very small one, it would be seen as an endorsement of more progressive policies and would weaken moderates.

So, viewed that way, yes a moderate candidate can win and it can be a bad thing for moderates as a whole. As I said previously, it depends on what you think happened. Was this primarily about McAullife and Youngkin, or primarily about a larger picture?

If the candidate doesn't matter, then why would it matter if they are moderate or progressive? Why would anyone benefit under this weird theory?

Just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics when we can just say that the original theory that losing is a sign of doing well was dumb.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

If the candidate doesn't matter, then why would it matter if they are moderate or progressive? Why would anyone benefit under this weird theory?

This weird theory is not mental gymnastics. The 538 blog spent quite a bit of time talking about now much the candidate vs. party identification actually matters, and they're merely among the best of a whole raft of professionals studying these issues who think it's a significant question. Methinks you're being overly dismissive.

[RainMaker]

I don't think the person matters much either. I'm responding to the person who said a loss for the moderate candidate is a win for moderate candidates.

[Edward64]

Congrats Biden & Pelosi. More to come as more details emerge from the cigar smoke filled, backroom bartering.

But wondering about this below. Can't believe this means Manchin and Sinema have signed off on the larger bill (but maybe they have) so this means that roadblock hasn't changed. Or maybe they have agreed, assuming the CBO scoring is what they expected.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/06/polit...ill/index.html

What ultimately worked was the intensive brokering of an agreement between warring wings of the party, ending a blockade by progressives in exchange for a commitment in writing from moderates to support the larger plan no later than the middle of this month. After dire election results Tuesday caused a flurry of recrimination among Democrats, Friday amounted to a dramatic turnabout of fortunes for a President desperately in need of a win.

Link of what's in the bill and how it's going to get paid. I like the Electric Vehicle Charging initiative. Hope this means a massive expansion and a boom for more electric vehicles. Also like Grid infrastructure resiliency, and Broadband affordability (but not sure what this really means).

Here's what's in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that the House is aiming to pass --- and how it's paid for - MarketWatch

[Ksyrup]

I think the CBO thing is intended to be an out for one or more people. I assume they expect it won't compare well with Biden's own projections.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think the CBO thing is intended to be an out for one or more people. I assume they expect it won't compare well with Biden's own projections.

According to the wording of the agreement, the bill will adjust based on the CBO scoring. Of course we will see.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the person matters much either. I'm responding to the person who said a loss for the moderate candidate is a win for moderate candidates.

Will stand by that too.

[Thomkal]

Glad Infrastructure Week is finally here!

[Edward64]

CBO estimates Infrastructure bill cost = $256B over 10 years. This seems like a reasonable investment for "hard" infrastructure stuff.

I assume the estimate for the other $1.9T (?) will be coming shortly.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/polit...ned/index.html

Congress passed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure package Friday, approving a signature part of President Joe Biden's economic agenda.

It will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years, touching everything from bridges and roads to the nation's broadband, water and energy systems. Experts say the money is sorely needed to ensure safe travel, as well as the efficient transport of goods and produce across the country. The nation's infrastructure system earned a C- score from the American Society of Civil Engineers earlier this year.

Democrats claim the bill pays for itself through a multitude of measures and without raising taxes. But the Congressional Budget Office brushed aside several of those pay-for provisions, ultimately finding the bill would add $256 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. It's significantly smaller than the $2.25 trillion proposal that Biden unveiled in March, known as the American Jobs Plan.

[RainMaker]

They could have paid for it and then some with the billionaire tax but didn't. Interesting since they were fine with a millionaire tax but billionaires donate way too much.

[PilotMan]

So just thinking out loud here for a bit. I saw a post about how people who were against a vax mandate were not necessarily anti-vax. They just didn't want someone telling them or anyone else that they must get it. Reason is individual choice is more important than collective safety. That is supposed to be the part about freedom or something like that and we should respect it.

But, I guess that means that we're alright with a certain group of people always dying from Covid every year then right? The people who want others to be able to choose whether or not to get vaccinated are banking on the fact that enough other people will get vaccinated and that will in turn, lower the overall infection rate to a point where not so many people are dying from it every day. That's ok then, that other people's choices are covering a segment of society that another group is unwilling to cover.

Second, by still allowing the virus to have hosts that it can freely and more effectively attack, it allows the virus to spread easier and really isn't ever eliminated from the population. Some people will just die every year as a result. The argument for that seems to be that people are always dying from something so why bother? That's the argument for it just being "the flu" or the government is inflating numbers artificially by counting every one who dies with covid as a covid death...thereby saying that people die all the time, and why bother checking on the whole covid thing.

if we're going to avoid mandates on this, why bother having mandates on any other vaccine? It's a legitimate question. Where and when do the rights of the individual become less important than the collective? We've gone decades to fight polio, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, small pox, etc.....why does the argument for avoiding the mandate for one, mean that we get to keep the mandates for the others?

In my opinion, it really doesn't. The end goal is still the same, to protect as large of a part of the population as possible from the spread and infection of an illness that has is quite communicable and deadly at the same time, given the ease of transmission. If people don't want masks, want freedom to travel the planet and get back to the way things were pre-pandemic, then they need to be able to accept the idea that means that covid spread is minimized as much as practical.

Places like airports and planes are going to be the very last places to get rid of mask mandates because they are places where people from all over the world cross paths. It makes it really easy to spread over large distances between infected people. I love how people want to look at covid through a very small lens of their own world, and simply refuse to look at it and the global impacts of local decisions. Maybe they do, but they just don't care. Which brings us back to individual choice versus collective security.

[albionmoonlight]

As a society, we have had no problem with the government being very very heavy handed in people's lives. We constantly support it.

But it's almost always been poorer folks and minorities.

The virus doesn't care about your bank account or your race. So the government's interventions have necessarily had to touch white people and middle-class and above incomes.

And therein lies the backlash. 250 years of "We have rights; they have responsibilities" crashing into the need for actual collective action.

It has not been pretty.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

But, I guess that means that we're alright with a certain group of people always dying from Covid every year then right? The people who want others to be able to choose whether or not to get vaccinated are banking on the fact that enough other people will get vaccinated and that will in turn, lower the overall infection rate to a point where not so many people are dying from it every day. That's ok then, that other people's choices are covering a segment of society that another group is unwilling to cover.

I was observing the other day to some of the guys in my church (because a bunch of the families are wanting to withdraw from public school and go the home school co-op direction -- but only partly as a response to vaccination mandates generally) that the religious objection to mandates (and increasingly, childhood vaccinations generally) is only going to fly until things like smallpox, mumps, and rubella become regular features of religious school life.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

But, I guess that means that we're alright with a certain group of people always dying from Covid every year then right? The people who want others to be able to choose whether or not to get vaccinated are banking on the fact that enough other people will get vaccinated and that will in turn, lower the overall infection rate to a point where not so many people are dying from it every day. That's ok then, that other people's choices are covering a segment of society that another group is unwilling to cover.

The thing about this is that I don't see this as being much of a reality anymore. It's been noted (accurately) that what we now have is a pandemic amost entirely of the unvaccinated. There are a very small amount of vaccinated getting ill and dying from it, almost all of them are unvaccinated, by choice, so it's sort of a Darwin Award type of concept. They're taking a risk, and some of them are paying for it.

There's also a level at which we accept a certain number of people dying for many reasons. We accept it with violent crime; we could implement measures akin to martial law, but we don't. We could mandate influenza vaccines and save tens of thousands of lives every year; we don't. I'm not at all comparing martial law to a vaccine mandate, but this is a line we have to walk on many issues in a modern society in terms of 'what level of intrusion is acceptable to prevent what level of deaths'.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

by still allowing the virus to have hosts that it can freely and more effectively attack, it allows the virus to spread easier and really isn't ever eliminated from the population. Some people will just die every year as a result.

A global solution would be required to eliminate it from the population. If we could snap our fingers tomorrow and eliminate all virus from the United States and vaccinate every person in the country, it will still return due to the prevalent global spread. This is one reason, along with the more fundamental basic equality aspect of it, that I advocate for distributing vaccines to other countries that need them before people in America get boosters. We really are all in this together from a global sense, whether we like it or not.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

why does the argument for avoiding the mandate for one, mean that we get to keep the mandates for the others?

A very legitimate question, as you say. One aspect that is much different IMO is the limited understanding we have of long-term impacts. Another is the need for boosters, which is different from polio, smallpox, etc. which are 'one-and-done' vaccines. Most people who are opposing the mandate though aren't making that argument, they're saying 'mandates are just wrong' which runs right into the point you've made. If we had a policy of mandating COVID vaccines for schools etc. it would be a direct corollary. But polio and other vaccines aren't mandated just for most jobs as is being (with absurd delays to January now) currently implemented. So from my POV I agree with you in large part, but in others it just isn't the same.

I think individual choice requires a moral population (see: sir Edmund Burke). This used to be a conservative position. Collective security will continue to win out in the long run barring a major societal shift, but there are some measures the public isn't ready for yet. But it's definitely where we're headed. Overall the vaccine mandates have strong public support. The opposition may be loud, but they're a relatively small minority.

[larrymcg421]

The problem with the Darwin concept is there actually are people with valid medical excuses to not get the vaccine. Mandates protect those people.

[Edward64]

Meat prices going up. Not good for Biden.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/busin...ion/index.html

Shoppers are already taking a hit at the grocery store. Soon, even their cheapest meat options will get more expensive.

Tyson Foods (TSN), Conagra (CAG) and Kraft Heinz (KHC) have notified their retail customers in recent weeks that they will raise prices in January for some frozen and refrigerated meats. Products that will see increases include Ball Park hot dogs and burgers, State Fair corn dogs, Jimmy Dean frozen breakfast, Hillshire Farm sausage and lunch meat, and Hebrew National and Oscar Mayer hot dogs, according to supplier letters to wholesale customers viewed by CNN Business.
:
Tyson sent a letter to at least two regional distributors last month in which it said that prices on Ball Park, Hillshire Farm, Jimmy Dean, State Fair and all deli meats will increase by a range of 5% to 10.2% beginning January 2 for "all retail customers." The distributors shared the letters with CNN Business on the condition of anonymity.

[PilotMan]

Wait....I thought capitalism was good?

pretty much my answer for any sort of supply and demand question.

[Flasch186]

Capitalism baby. Fixes all... if they raise prices and people don't buy them then they'll know that they reached the maximum price elasticity and have to adjust OR find out that they don't have a strong business model and innovate. Or.... they'll get bailed out and the GOP will take the money all the while screaming about communism!!!

[JPhillips]

The Ohio GOP Senate primary is a cesspool. Not only do you have Mandel and Vance, but now another candidate is running ads pointing out that Mandel is Jewish. When asked about it he said that people should know he's a Jew.

[Edward64]

Article didn't have details on what US was offering/proposing but yeah, we should definitely provide humanitarian help. We broke the proverbial china shop after a prolonged stay, and we should help pay for some of the broken china.

What's another $1B here and there in an upcoming $1.9T bill.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/11/polit...lks/index.html

Representatives from the United States, Russia, China, and Pakistan met on Thursday to discuss Afghanistan amid the deepening humanitarian crisis on the ground and months after the Taliban seized power.

The representatives of those four countries -- known as the extended troika -- also "met with senior Taliban representatives on the sidelines" of that meeting in Islamabad, according to a 15-point joint statement released by Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The meeting comes weeks after a similar discussion was held in Moscow, which was not attended by the United States. US Special Representative Tom West attended Thursday's extended troika talks.

The four nations "(w)elcomed the Taliban's continued commitment to allow for the safe passage of all who wish to travel to and from Afghanistan and encouraged rapid progress, with the onset of winter, on arrangements to establish airports countrywide that can accept commercial air traffic, which are essential to enable the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian assistance."

In the briefing with reporters, West, the US special representative, said that "the Taliban have delivered by and large on their commitment to us, to allow Afghans whom we owe a special commitment and American citizen and LPRs out of the country, over the past several weeks in particular."

[Edward64]

Yeah, link is to nypost but source is Bloomberg. I wouldn't put it beyond Putin to take more land in Ukraine. He got away with it once already.

But honestly, this is a European thing. We should support our European allies with intelligence, logistics, supplies etc. but let them take the lead with boots on the ground, airpower etc.

Unsure if they are or not, but haven't read any articles that say our European allies are sounding the klaxons over there (may be wrong). So either they don't think its a real threat, or don't care enough, or too scared to do anything.

US reportedly warns Europe of potential Ukraine invasion by Russia

The US is warning its European allies that Russia may be pondering a potential invasion of Ukraine as the Biden administration monitors a troop buildup on the frontier between the two nations, according to a new report.

Bloomberg, citing multiple people familiar with the situation, reported that American officials have briefed their European Union counterparts on their worries over the situation. The outlet added that the US assessments are based on information that has not yet been shared with European governments, which would have to happen before any decision on a “collective response” is made.

[JPhillips]

This is interesting. Too bad we've lowered legal immigration to a crawl over the past few years.

GOLDMAN: “Most of the 5.0mn persons who have exited the labor force since the start of the pandemic are over age 55 (3.4mn), largely reflecting early (1.5mn) and natural (1mn) retirements that likely won’t reverse.” pic.twitter.com/L1WaQ5wVkL

— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) November 12, 2021

[Ksyrup]

Gotta love the "want a job, have not searched" group. Reminds me of the Robin Harris bit about sitting home waiting for a job. Knock on the door - who is it? JOB.

So if I'm reading this right, the GOP has been bitching about people making too much money to sit home, but if you combine the "want a job, have not searched" and "don't want a job" groups (since to me, that's basically the same group), and combine age 16 through 54 (the target ages the GOP is basically blaming for sitting home), that only accounts for about 20% of the 5M. Meanwhile, older people in those categories account for about 70% of those sitting home and not trying to work. The remaining people are those who are apparently looking for work but haven't found something in the field they want, or maybe not at the income level they want, etc.

Now, I'm sure certain industries are disproportionately affected (food service, retail), but if these numbers are accurate, that sure blows a big hole in the narrative. But it also makes sense, because you can certainly see this in education and trucking. Older people are leaving those jobs rather than deal with the complications (increased risk, changes to the way the job has always been done, inconvenience of new precautions, etc.) that have come along with Covid.

[albionmoonlight]

The GOP line was that the $300/week or whatever it was was causing people not to work.

It turns out that it is much deeper than that. People were in shitty underpaid jobs that treated them worse than animals b/c that's just what you did. Then COVID changed things. And a decent number of people aren't going to go back to shitty underpaid jobs ever.

It was never about the extra $300. It was that they should have quit those jobs years ago, but it took COVID to make that plain.

[Ksyrup]

Sure, but by age, it's not the meat of the workforce who is coming to that conclusion, it's older folks. Which makes a ton of sense because I'm been trying to wrap my head around a 30-something with a 2-kid family who can really afford to sit home and pay for everything that's needed with $300 instead of a job. That never made sense.

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder how often that happens--retirement by circumstance.

Both my parents has a similar sort of retirement. My mom's company used to be 5 minutes from her house. And so she'd come home at lunch to take care of her sick mother. Then the company moved across town, and it didn't make sense for her to stay working there and have to hire a home health worker, and she was too old to look for a new job, so she retired.

My dad got really sick and had to take off work. And he just never went back. (He's better now. Just didn't make sense to go back to a very physically demanding job)

They both were in a position where they could have kept working for years, but they were also old enough to "retire." And for both of them, outside forces pushed them out.

That probably happens more often than we realize. We still have this vision of the "retirement party" at age 65. But that's probably pretty rare that that actually works out for people.

And COVID just made that happen for a lot of people all at the same time for the same reason.

[Ksyrup]

Totally agree. My daughter is seeing it first-hand as a soon-to-be graduating education major. They are hemorrhaging teachers and her odds of having a job starting in January are excellent because those positions are open and schools are duct-taping their way through the fall. We know of multiple teachers in our county who decided not to return this fall after the spring Distance teaching debacle and fear of it happening again, or getting Covid in the classroom.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Or.... they'll get bailed out and the GOP will take the money all the while screaming about communism!!!

It's this. Most of the supply-chain stuff is just poorly run companies crying they have to pay employees more. Looking for bailouts, tax cuts, or whatever other legislation to protect them from not making record profits.

[ISiddiqui]

Steve Bannon indicted after refusal to comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...eb7_story.html


Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Steve Bannon indicted after refusal to comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...eb7_story.html


Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

They say he's going to surrender voluntarily on Monday-I'll believe it when I see it, and I hope someone is watching his movements. Wonder if this will change Mark Meadows mind to hold out

[JPhillips]

He'll definitely appear on Monday. He wants to be a public martyr for the cause.

[NobodyHere]

So how long until a potential trial? What's the potential punishment?

And can Bannon be forced to talk about the Jan 6th riots before his trial? I can't imagine congress can subpoena him while he's awaiting trial for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

[JPhillips]

Susan McDougal sat in jail for 18 months during the Clinton years. I think, though I'm not sure, that if the GOP takes the House they could drop the case. Until January 2023, though, he could theoretically end up in jail.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So how long until a potential trial? What's the potential punishment?

And can Bannon be forced to talk about the Jan 6th riots before his trial? I can't imagine congress can subpoena him while he's awaiting trial for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

I think I read somewhere a minimum of 30 days for each charge (2) to a max of 1 year for each but not sure how accurate that is

[Edward64]

Article didn't say how much of the increase maybe attributed to the new drug but hard for me to believe it would be the significant contributor to the increase. But hey, I'm all for a new Alzheimers drug being covered.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/healt...ike/index.html

The federal government announced a large hike in Medicare premiums Friday night, blaming the pandemic but also what it called uncertainty over how much it may have to be forced to pay for a pricey and controversial new Alzheimer's drug.

The 14.5% increase in Part B premiums will take monthly payments for those in the lowest income bracket from $148.50 a month this year to $170.10 in 2022. Medicare Part B covers physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, medical equipment, and certain other medical and health services not covered by Medicare Part A, including medications given in doctors' offices.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services played down the spike, pointing out that most beneficiaries also collect Social Security benefits and will see a cost-of-living adjustment of 5.9% in their 2022 monthly payments, the agency said in a statement. That's the largest bump in 30 years.

[NobodyHere]

That's not going to be good Biden's approval rating.

[JPhillips]

Back when it was approved, here were stories on how much the new drug would add to Medicare Part and it was staggering. Best of all, it probably doesn't do anything, but the rules for Medicare handcuff them into accepting anything approved by the FDA.

[GrantDawg]

I read the bump was in the 30-50 dollar range, depending on other factors (for some it will be zero). That doesn't sound like much, but for retired people it is huge. It is basically completely taking away the cost of living increase they were getting in Social Security. It is ridiculous the administration didn't try to find a way to prevent this. Making the most reliable voters in this country angry just isn't good policy.

[JPhillips]

If Manchin and Sinema would agree to Medicare price negotiations this wouldn't be a problem. Until then, though, the law doesn't really let Biden do anything.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Manchin and Sinema would agree to Medicare price negotiations this wouldn't be a problem. Until then, though, the law doesn't really let Biden do anything.

Actually even the price negotiation bill wouldn't affect this, because it doesn't allow the negotiation for drugs until they are 9 years past approval. This fix just requires more money to be spent in Medicare to off-set the added expense. Or Universal Health which is the best option.

[sterlingice]

And for a seemingly useless or super-limited use drug

SI

[bob]

I saw somewhere that a full year's treatment of the new Alzheimers drug costs $56k per person. And yes, there is a lot of disagreement on whether it does anything.

From CNN:

"CMS said part of the increase for 2022 was because of uncertainty over how much the agency will end up paying to treat beneficiaries to be treated with Aduhelm, an Alzheimer's drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in June over the objections of its advisers. Some experts estimate it will cost $56,000 a year. Medicare is deciding whether to pay for it now on a case-by-case basis."