Continuation The Biden Presidency (3)

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Don't shoot the messenger, bro.

I'm sure he must have done something worse than write speeches for/support Rumsfeld and defend waterboarding, in order to earn the title of "loon". No matter, these Biden family dealings kind of reek, imo. Let's see what the GOP can do with it.

How do you not put defending torture in the "loon" category?

What upsets you and what you don't even bat an eye at reveals quite a bit.

President's son is successful in his professional life: reeks

Big chunk of President's family in administration: crickets

Being dubious of the opinions of those who excuse torture: feigned confusion

Knowing that there's no point trying to convince true believers to see reality: priceless

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Don't shoot the messenger, bro.

I'm sure he must have done something worse than write speeches for/support Rumsfeld and defend waterboarding, in order to earn the title of "loon". No matter, these Biden family dealings kind of reek, imo. Let's see what the GOP can do with it.

In other news -

Quote:

JUST IN: The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 siding with red states against the Clean Water Act. Roberts joined liberals in dissent, but the conservative majority did not even issue an opinion explaining why they ruled the way they did.

MORE: This 5-4 ruling brings back a Trump rule that undermines the Clean Water Act by limiting states’ ability to stop projects that could poison their water.

The conservative justices used the shadow docket to undo decades of precedent without even an opinion explaining why.

Thanks so much for cheering this wildly not conservative behavior on.

[Solitaire]

Quote:

The Wrong Way To Tax The Rich by Brian Riedl


Between Build Back Better and the new budget, Biden is proposing a staggering
$3.5 trillion in new taxes over the decade—the vast majority of which would finance
huge new spending.

I wouldn't call that a huge jump. It's only 350 billion per year.

Quote:

Long-term deficits are instead driven by federal spending projected to leap
from 21 to 32 percent of the economy over that period.

What's this? Surely you can't mean we're running four plus trillion dollar deficits.
You'd get a bust of inflation followed by a recession when capital gets depleted.

Quote:

Biden would raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, which at 32.3 percent
when including state taxes would restore America’s status as the highest
corporate tax rate in the OECD.

Meh.

Quote:

Yet Biden would also raise the capital gains rate as high as 43.4 percent
(including the surtax) for upper-income families. This is especially excessive
considering that capital gains taxes are assessed both on the inflationary
growth of an asset, and the “real” growth. An investment that grows from
$100 to $200 due to $50 in inflation and $50 in true appreciation would
still face a $43 tax, wiping out nearly all inflation-adjusted gains. Taxing
inflation is one reason the typical capital gains tax rate in Europe is 19.5 percent.

Well, adjust if for inflation. Having 360 billion more taxes over ten years for
the one percent will not hurt much. They can adjust the capital to labor ratio
from 70% to labor down to 65% and that'll cover the cost.

Quote:

That said, Washington faces a baseline budget deficit of $112 trillion over
the next 30 years that even a 100 percent tax rate on corporations and
upper-income families could not close. Any new taxes should pay for our
current commitments before recklessly making expensive additional promises.

Well, simply tax those bellow one million dollars per year income.
160 million taxpayers at $25,000 per year, ought to cover it nicely.

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by Solitaire

Well, adjust if for inflation. Having 360 billion more taxes over ten years for
the one percent will not hurt much. They can adjust the capital to labor ratio
from 70% to labor down to 65% and that'll cover the cost.

Property taxes on homes increases almost exclusively due to inflation.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That's kind of the point.

People are paying so little attention that they don't realize that the things they like and want done are often exactly what Biden has been trying to get done or even doing. Some think 'well if they were doing what I want, things would get fixed fast, therefore they must not even be attempting it', not understanding that the reasons some of that isn't done isn't Biden (I have some criticisms of him and some others I find reasonable even if I don't agree with them). More than that, they vastly over-estimate the effectiveness and speed of their ideas.

It doesn't help that the US is so self-absorbed they forget that other places and peoples have agency too, so it's all only the US President not working that is the problem.

It also doesn't help that political argument is so based around personalities that people give a reflexive answer when asked about a person, rather than about a policy without a name on it.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

Property taxes on homes increases almost exclusively due to inflation.

Not really. Inflation is a standard economic term based on a market basket of goods. U.S. inflation in 2021 was 7 percent; in 2020 it was 1.4 percent.

A lot of factors, often hyperlocal, cause property values to increase, often at a rate higher than inflation.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.co...flation-rates/

But so what? Property taxes are based on property values. Do you think they shouldn't be? Then you end with with Prop. 13, where your taxes are largely determined by how long you've owned the property.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Not really. Inflation is a standard economic term based on a market basket of goods. U.S. inflation in 2021 was 7 percent; in 2020 it was 1.4 percent.

A lot of factors, often hyperlocal, cause property values to increase, often at a rate higher than inflation.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.co...flation-rates/

But so what? Property taxes are based on property values. Do you think they shouldn't be? Then you end with with Prop. 13, where your taxes are largely determined by how long you've owned the property.

I'm all for Prop. 13 style laws. A senior citizen shouldn't lose their home because the house they could afford and bought to retire in suddenly sky-rockets in value along with the sky-rocketing property taxes.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I'm all for Prop. 13 style laws. A senior citizen shouldn't lose their home because the house they could afford and bought to retire in suddenly sky-rockets in value along with the sky-rocketing property taxes.

In doing some canvassing for a tenants' organizing non-profit, I found the most effective way to get a contact to take interest in what I was saying was to research the neighborhood and look at the last few high-dollar sales paid with cash and with the appraisal/inspection waved nearby and point out what that means. Get ready to be overrun with out-of-state absentee owners slapping a coat of slab-gray, off-white, or beige paint over aging housing stock, putting up those awful backsplashes with the little narrow horizontal tiles including the little transparent strips that have all the luster of frozen spit finished off with a caulking job that reminds you of a 5 year old frosting a grandparent's birthday cake. Now charge $1200/mo. for a "charming" craftsman bungalo with a yard the size of a postage stamp with a deteriorating foundation in a sleepy midwest cow-town with median household income of ~$56k.

Sorry, I kinda got going there...

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I'm all for Prop. 13 style laws. A senior citizen shouldn't lose their home because the house they could afford and bought to retire in suddenly sky-rockets in value along with the sky-rocketing property taxes.

I see it as more complicated than that. For one thing, why should people in basically identical houses with the same value pay wildly different tax rates based on how long they've lived there? Would you vary income taxes based on the age of the taxpayer? Prop. 13 law distorts the real estate market and reduces turnover. Maybe those people who bought a house 30 years ago would like to move, but they don't want to give up the tax break. You also have people, probably the majority, who borrow against the increased value of the house and benefit from their investment returns. No other state has anything like prop. 13, and they seem to function just fine.

One possible solution to the specific problem you describe would be to assess taxes at market value, but defer collection until the property is sold. The homeowner could choose not to pay while he lived there, but when he sold it or it was passed to his estate, the unpaid taxes would be collected off the top, with interest.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

In doing some canvassing for a tenants' organizing non-profit, I found the most effective way to get a contact to take interest in what I was saying was to research the neighborhood and look at the last few high-dollar sales paid with cash and with the appraisal/inspection waved nearby and point out what that means. Get ready to be overrun with out-of-state absentee owners slapping a coat of slab-gray, off-white, or beige paint over aging housing stock, putting up those awful backsplashes with the little narrow horizontal tiles including the little transparent strips that have all the luster of frozen spit finished off with a caulking job that reminds you of a 5 year old frosting a grandparent's birthday cake. Now charge $1200/mo. for a "charming" craftsman bungalo with a yard the size of a postage stamp with a deteriorating foundation in a sleepy midwest cow-town with median household income of ~$56k.

Sorry, I kinda got going there...

Actually, you're touching on a serious problem. Major investment groups are buying thousands of modestly prices homes across the country and renting them, making it harder for consumers to both buy and rent homes.
https://slate.com/business/2021/06/b...al-estate.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ket-investors/

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Actually, you're touching on a serious problem. Major investment groups are buying thousands of modestly prices homes across the country and renting them, making it harder for consumers to both buy and rent homes.

https://slate.com/business/2021/06/b...al-estate.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ket-investors/

I know this all too well. "Afforable" stock in my area went down to an average of 2.1 days on market. You can't possibly get inspected and appraised in that time. Not taking those steps is way risky. And without cash, nobody is going to underwrite a home sight unseen anyways.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I see it as more complicated than that. For one thing, why should people in basically identical houses with the same value pay wildly different tax rates based on how long they've lived there? Would you vary income taxes based on the age of the taxpayer? Prop. 13 law distorts the real estate market and reduces turnover. Maybe those people who bought a house 30 years ago would like to move, but they don't want to give up the tax break. You also have people, probably the majority, who borrow against the increased value of the house and benefit from their investment returns. No other state has anything like prop. 13, and they seem to function just fine.

One possible solution to the specific problem you describe would be to assess taxes at market value, but defer collection until the property is sold. The homeowner could choose not to pay while he lived there, but when he sold it or it was passed to his estate, the unpaid taxes would be collected off the top, with interest.

I agree that it's more complicated but I think my point is still valid. No senior should lose their home because they can no longer afford the huge increase in property taxes when their income is fixed. Your idea of delayed tax collection is certainly feasible. I would suggest a plan that they keep paying the tax at the rate it was when they either bought the house or at the time of retirement and then be able to defer the difference to when the property is sold.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Major investment groups are buying thousands of modestly prices homes across the country and renting them, making it harder for consumers to both buy and rent homes.

Wouldn’t that make it easier to rent? Seems like supply of rentals going up would drive rental prices down overall.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Wouldn’t that make it easier to rent? Seems like supply of rentals going up would drive rental prices down overall.

It doesn't affect just the Supply though, it also affects demand. Every house that is not available to buy means that potential homeowners are force to stay in the rental market a bit longer.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Wouldn’t that make it easier to rent? Seems like supply of rentals going up would drive rental prices down overall.

As one of the investors explains:

Quote:

And in case you were assuming that converting houses to rentals would flood the market and bring down rents, don’t get your hopes up: As Invitation Homes tells its investors, “We operate in markets with strong demand drivers, high barriers to entry, and high rent growth potential.”

https://slate.com/business/2021/06/b...al-estate.html

As fewer people are able to buy, more need to rent, increasing the demand for rentals. And investors are likely to buy the more desirable properties and increase the rents as much as they can, pushing up the average price across the market.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Random

It doesn't affect just the Supply though, it also affects demand. Every house that is not available to buy means that potential homeowners are force to stay in the rental market a bit longer.

Or a lot longer. Or forever. Not everybody can ever afford to buy a house.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I agree that it's more complicated but I think my point is still valid. No senior should lose their home because they can no longer afford the huge increase in property taxes when their income is fixed. Your idea of delayed tax collection is certainly feasible. I would suggest a plan that they keep paying the tax at the rate it was when they either bought the house or at the time of retirement and then be able to defer the difference to when the property is sold.

But why should someone be able to sit on a valuable asset just because he's retired? If you give a tax break to one group arbitrarily, everybody else -- including a lot of people who will never be able to afford to buy a house -- has to pay more one way or another. Prop. 13 has skewed the California economy in multiple ways, none of them good. No other state has anything like Prop. 13.

Quote:

Still, it’s hard for California to claim any sort of lasting victory on taxes or homeownership. Today, Californians remain among the most highly taxed people in the nation; low property taxes have been more than offset by increased income, sales and gas taxes. That might not be so bad if Proposition 13 was thereby rendered a wash. But it’s not. Its effects are deeply regressive taxation and distorted local economies and housing markets.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...604-story.html

Quote:

That amounts to a giant, rent-control-size subsidy to Californians who bought their homes a long time ago. (It’s particularly sweet for Californians with big, expensive houses. Tax relief from Prop 13 aligns almost perfectly with household income.) It’s one reason why the proportion of the state’s properties that change hands each year fell from 16 percent in 1977 to less than 6 in 2014. It’s a seller’s market.

More anecdotally, longtime homeowners are among the most stringent opponents of new housing. They’re the ones lining up behind L.A.’s Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.

Obviously, Prop 13 changed the way cities raise money. Property tax went from 90 percent of local revenue in the ‘70s to less than two-thirds today. What took its place? Hotel taxes, utility taxes, and new fees. Mostly, the highly regressive sales tax.

https://slate.com/business/2016/09/c...w-you-why.html

Retirees are not necessarily poor. In fact, on average, they are doing pretty well. And for someone who owns valuable property with limited income, a reverse mortgage is always a possibility. Protecting the owner from market forces just allows him to pass the property along to his heirs, which also has big tax advantages. Why should everyone else have to pay for that?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Bob001

But why should someone be able to sit on a valuable asset just because he's retired? If you give a tax break to one group arbitrarily, everybody else -- including a lot of people who will never be able to afford to buy a house -- has to pay more one way or another. Prop. 13 has skewed the California economy in multiple ways, none of them good. No other state has anything like Prop. 13.


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...604-story.html


https://slate.com/business/2016/09/c...w-you-why.html

Retirees are not necessarily poor. In fact, on average, they are doing pretty well. And for someone who owns valuable property with limited income, a reverse mortgage is always a possibility. Protecting the owner from market forces just allows him to pass the property along to his heirs, which also has big tax advantages. Why should everyone else have to pay for that?

Not to mention that tax sheltering property like this rewards the exact kind of NIMBYism that is partly responsible for the shortage of housing stock and the spiking costs. High property taxes are the only negative effect that people face for enacting policies that make it impossible to build. It's bad enough that people treat buying a home as buying a license to print money, we should not be rewarding this system by letting people not pay taxes on their gains.

Building more housing stock, and denser housing stock in existing neighborhoods, is a great way to keep prices and taxes under control.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Wouldn’t that make it easier to rent? Seems like supply of rentals going up would drive rental prices down overall.

Not if housing stock is limited. It allows the same people (and corporations etc.) who have made purchase unaffordable to raise their rents to nearly unaffordable, because there's no other place to live. Rental prices won't go down unless or until they have raised them so high that people move away, at which point it's probably too late and one is left with abandoned residences with huge artificial leverage that makes it more economical for an owner to take the inflated loss than to rent them cheaply.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

But why should someone be able to sit on a valuable asset just because he's retired? If you give a tax break to one group arbitrarily, everybody else -- including a lot of people who will never be able to afford to buy a house -- has to pay more one way or another. Prop. 13 has skewed the California economy in multiple ways, none of them good. No other state has anything like Prop. 13.


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...604-story.html


https://slate.com/business/2016/09/c...w-you-why.html

Retirees are not necessarily poor. In fact, on average, they are doing pretty well. And for someone who owns valuable property with limited income, a reverse mortgage is always a possibility. Protecting the owner from market forces just allows him to pass the property along to his heirs, which also has big tax advantages. Why should everyone else have to pay for that?

Like I said, if they continue to pay the tax at the rate I mentioned but can delay paying the increase until they house is sold (or even inherited), the state still gets its money.

I really don't want to get into a big discussion about this. It's just not that important to me.

[tyr_13]

Locally out of state LLCs have been buying houses at the County tax auction every year, renting them out, then failing to follow any of the requirements or upkeeping the properties in any way. After a few years of getting rents they abandon the property leaving the local city with the cost of tearing down the dangerous buildings. Because of the way the enforcement mechanisms work they can't actually make the out of state, hidden owner, LLC pay any fines or show up in court. The county, heavily Republican run on every level, refuses to do a thing about this including making bidders at the auction be linked to a real person. The county gets ALL the money from these auctions. The city, which switched to a gay Democrat as mayor a couple of years ago as this issue started, is stuck with ALL the costs. The Republicans, quite the villains, blame the Democrats for this issue caused by their actions and the regulations they wrote and are now blocking changing.

It's horrible.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Like I said, if they continue to pay the tax at the rate I mentioned but can delay paying the increase until they house is sold (or even inherited), the state still gets its money.

I really don't want to get into a big discussion about this. It's just not that important to me.

It's been done quite a bit already in other threads, and I don't think there will ever be a solution that suits all. Some will cuss that people can sit on an appreciating investment and not pay for it unless it's taxed according to the market and others will point out that it amounts to a penalty for stability and durability in which a market you do not control tells you whether you're worthy to keep your house. Somewhere in the middle is something that injures both sides a little and doesn't kill too many.

[Delvo]

Being a renter who plans to buy as soon as possible (presumably by summer/fall this year), I've been watching YouTube videos by realtors & mortgage specialists, mostly about advice and what to expect in the process, but the same people also often talk about whether the current situation is a bubble about to pop.

Some of the signs of it are there. The market constantly worsening for buyers and the buyers constantly getting more desperate and putting up with worse treatment is a repeat of what happened before previous housing market crashes, including the most memorable one.

But the fact that that's the way the trend has gone lately doesn't mean it's about to change or ever has to change. Japan has 100-year mortgages. China has down payments that take a couple of generations to save up, and that's just to start a 70-year lease from the government, not to really own. It definitely can get much worse than it has gotten here so far; if there's some limit at which a currently unknown law of the universe will block it from getting worse for buyers because it just can't get worse anymore, it's at least somewhere beyond the Japan/China level, which means we are free to keep cruising in that direction for a long time before we bounce off of it. And I notice that those who say there's got to be a crash coming don't give specific reasons/mechanisms for why that must be the case, just a vague sense of "this is really drastic, and drastic things don't persist; they always swing back".

Meanwhile, the ones who go into a bit more detail take the opposite view: as much as this runup looks like the last runup in some ways, it's also different in some crucial other ways.

1. Last time, a lot of it had to do with unqualified buyers taking mortgages they couldn't afford and then ending up not paying them. This time, lenders haven't been letting them do that, so the current crop of owners are not out of their league like those were, which means they're not heading for foreclosure.
2. Last time, the supply of houses was fine, or arguably excessive. This time, a lot of the price runup can be traced directly back to a shortage of that supply.
3. Even if supply does start increasing soon, it can't possibly happen so rapidly that it's really much of a shock to the system; there are too many buyers waiting in the wings who are currently priced out of the market but would be right back in as soon as the pressure starts to back off even marginally.
4. Even the very recent updates that some would point to as a sign that the bubble's about to pop (like lengthening time-on-market and increasing foreclosures) are actually small shifts that are only slowing down the rate at which things keep going in the same direction, not stopping the overall trend or reverse it. (And on the increase in foreclosures in particular, it's not coming from the fundamentals of the market; it's because a foreclosure moratorium ended so now we're getting the foreclosures that would have happened over the last year or two but were blocked.)

So it doesn't look to me as if it's really getting better in the foreseeable future, even for just a few years, which seems to be all that a major crash really gets us anyway. It just might get worse at a slower rate for a while.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Locally out of state LLCs have been buying houses at the County tax auction every year, renting them out, then failing to follow any of the requirements or upkeeping the properties in any way. After a few years of getting rents they abandon the property leaving the local city with the cost of tearing down the dangerous buildings. Because of the way the enforcement mechanisms work they can't actually make the out of state, hidden owner, LLC pay any fines or show up in court. The county, heavily Republican run on every level, refuses to do a thing about this including making bidders at the auction be linked to a real person. The county gets ALL the money from these auctions. The city, which switched to a gay Democrat as mayor a couple of years ago as this issue started, is stuck with ALL the costs. The Republicans, quite the villains, blame the Democrats for this issue caused by their actions and the regulations they wrote and are now blocking changing.

It's horrible.

SOP, really.

[Aridas]

We've got another horrible Biden scandal!!!!!!

Quote:

Not Fit To Serve: Joe Biden gets ice cream, the worst scandal in presidential history.

Oh, and another one! Biden's boring and isn't constantly schmoozing up with the elites/establishment!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Aridas

We've got another horrible Biden scandal!!!!!!



Oh, and another one! Biden's boring and isn't constantly schmoozing up with the elites/establishment!

OMG! ICE CREAM in the WINTER! Obvious sign of dementia. Next thing you know, he'll be eating hot soup in July! When will this madness end?

This was on Jimmy Kimmel recently. Good for some laughs:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Aridas

We've got another horrible Biden scandal!!!!!!



Oh, and another one! Biden's boring and isn't constantly schmoozing up with the elites/establishment!

Fox News histrionics aside, it's probably worth pointing out that Democrats repeatedly doing covert advertisements for "Jeni's Ice Cream" is a pretty gross example of the low level corruption that is common in our political system.

The owner is a bigtime backer of the Democratic party and is from Ohio, an important swing state, so throwing money her way by buying the ice cream as donor gifts or doing free advertisements like this probably doesn't hurt. Not even close to the biggest kinds of corruption in our politics, but still gross seeing how the sausage gets made.

Biden and other dems doing these photo-ops isn't meaningfully different than when right wingers hawk "MyPillow" and I find it all pretty gross. Politicians should not be doing product placement advertising for their wealthy donors.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Fox News histrionics aside, it's probably worth pointing out that Democrats repeatedly doing covert advertisements for "Jeni's Ice Cream" is a pretty gross example of the low level corruption that is common in our political system.

The owner is a bigtime backer of the Democratic party and is from Ohio, an important swing state, so throwing money her way by buying the ice cream as donor gifts or doing free advertisements like this probably doesn't hurt. Not even close to the biggest kinds of corruption in our politics, but still gross seeing how the sausage gets made.

Biden and other dems doing these photo-ops isn't meaningfully different than when right wingers hawk "MyPillow" and I find it all pretty gross. Politicians should not be doing product placement advertising for their wealthy donors.

Agreed.

[Tero]

It's a Wall Street Jrnl poll, so it does not have that much meaning. But the number of voters that don't like either could lead to some rather odd solutions by either party by the time 2024 comes around.

Quote:

President Biden and former President Trump are tied in a hypothetical match-up in 2024, according to a new Wall Street Journal poll released Friday.

The poll found that both Biden and Trump each would get 45 percent support from voters in a theoretical head-to-head in two years.

Both politicians appear to be dogged by high disapproval ratings.

Fifty-seven percent of voters said in the poll they have an unfavorable view of Biden, while 55 percent said they had an unfavorable view of Trump.

Almost 15 percent of voters have unfavorable views of both leaders. That group breaks for Biden by a 36 percent-24 percent margin. However, in a sign that difference is largely anti-Trump more than pro-Biden, those voters also say by a 42 percent-29 percent margin that they intend to vote for Republican congressional candidates later this year.

A rematch of the 2020 presidential race in 2024 is a distinct possibility.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-matchup-poll/

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Tero

It's a Wall Street Jrnl poll, so it does not have that much meaning. But the number of voters that don't like either could lead to some rather odd solutions by either party by the time 2024 comes around.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-matchup-poll/

I very much suspect "I'm not Trump" is a one-trick pony that won't be as exciting the second time around.

Biden ran on a fairly ambitious set of policy agendas, and thanks to stonewalling from "moderates" within his party allying with Republicans, accomplished very little of it. This will only get worse if the midterms result in complete loss of Senate control, which seems likely.

I'm very much looking forward to learning how these likely future losses are the left's fault.

[Tero]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I very much suspect "I'm not Trump" is a one-trick pony that won't be as exciting the second time around.

Biden ran on a fairly ambitious set of policy agendas, and thanks to stonewalling from "moderates" within his party allying with Republicans, accomplished very little of it. This will only get worse if the midterms result in complete loss of Senate control, which seems likely.

I'm very much looking forward to learning how these likely future losses are the left's fault.

No, what I meant, looking at those numbers, is that if Trump does not actually run, but merely supports the actual candidate, then Democrats are also likely to run someone other than Biden. This will give us a fresh start and finally move on from Trump.

If GOP runs Trump, dems will run Biden.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Tero

No, what I meant, looking at those numbers, is that if Trump does not actually run, but merely supports the actual candidate, then Democrats are also likely to run someone other than Biden. This will give us a fresh start and finally move on from Trump.

If GOP runs Trump, dems will run Biden.

I think you're wildly underestimating how much power entrenches itself. If Biden/Trump are still healthy enough to run, nobody will be able to stop them regardless what the polls say.

The idea that Trump or Biden will step aside for the greater good of their party's electoral chances is overlooking how much personal ambition drives these decisions.

[Tero]

I don't think it will go well for Trump, then. He simply does not have the long term concentration to carry out a campaign let alone be president. He did not like most of it in his first 4 years. Voters sitting on the fence will not go with him. A Biden with a Republican congress will work oit fine for them. The next president in 2028 election will be a somewhat Trump-like Republican.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I very much suspect "I'm not Trump" is a one-trick pony that won't be as exciting the second time around.

It wasn't working the first time either until it was rescued by a virus.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Biden ran on a fairly ambitious set of policy agendas, and thanks to stonewalling from "moderates" within his party allying with Republicans, accomplished very little of it.

Worse than failing, he hasn't even really tried. It was never anything he really wanted; it was just there to trick people into voting for him.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm very much looking forward to learning how these likely future losses are the left's fault.

And that, plus exactly the same kind of argument they used for Biden in the first place, will be why they tell us we need President Manchin next.

[dudalb]

Biden just called what what Russia is doing in Ukraine genocide. This is upping the rhetoric quite a bit.
Also, Pentagon is sending more weapons to the Ukraine including for the first time aircraft..attack helicopters and Bradely AFV.
Something is esclating the situation.

[jimbob]

Discussion about whether Russia is attempting genocide moved to this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=358173

Posted By:jimbob

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Biden just called what what Russia is doing in Ukraine genocide. This is upping the rhetoric quite a bit.
Also, Pentagon is sending more weapons to the Ukraine including for the first time aircraft..attack helicopters and Bradely AFV.
Something is esclating the situation.

This (merged) thread shows some of the reason why he's right

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=358173

[Aridas]

To poke at a couple things related to the inflation challenge facing Biden and the US -

All McConnell does is whine that we're not fixing GOP's economic mess fast enough

Quote:

Republicans continue to block legislation that would both help middle-class Americans pay for necessities and, according to 17 Nobel laureates, “ease longer-term inflationary pressures.”
Inflation is currently a global phenomenon, and the U.S. economy’s recovery under Biden has been faster than that of its competitors.

<snip>

NEW: Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) just shut down Mitch McConnell at a press conference: “There was $7 trillion in new debt and 2.6 million jobs lost during Trump. But when McConnell comes to this podium, all he does is complain that we’re not cleaning up their mess fast enough.”

And...

Texas GOP official calls Abbott's policy 'economy killing action' as protests over delays continue

Quote:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s stunt forcing commercial trucks to undergo unnecessary secondary inspections at ports of entry is turning into an economic and political disaster: a 60% drop in commercial traffic, continued protests by outraged Mexican truckers, and now condemnation from a fellow right-wing state official.

The Texas Tribune reports Texas Agriculture Commissioner and similarly terrible Republican Sid Miller labeled Abbott’s policy—which was launched in retaliation for the Biden administration’s just decision to end use of Stephen Miller’s white supremacist policy stomping on U.S. asylum law—“political theater.”

The report said the official told Abbott in a letter that his stunt “is not stopping illegal immigration,” but instead “stopping food from getting to grocery store shelves and in many cases causing food to rot in trucks—many of which are owned by Texas and other American companies.” Miller called Abbott’s stunt an “economy killing action.”

<snip>

But as when he was confronted about the human costs of his Operation Lone Star scheme, he’ll likely just complaint about the president. Oh wait—Caller Times reports an Abbott spokesperson was already doing that. Mark Miner “sought to pin the blame on Biden,” the report said.

"It's going to be very bad for the Texas economy. It's going to be very bad for the national economy," Abbott’s Democratic challenger for governor, Beto O’Rourke, told Caller Times. "When you see those trucks lined up miles deep all the way into Mexico, what you're seeing is inflation, what you're seeing is higher prices at the grocery store, and what you're seeing are more supply chain problems. We are calling on Greg Abbott to end this policy today."

[dudalb]

Biden talking about sending a high ranking...cabient level offiical to Kiev to meet with Zalinsky.
Don't talk about it;do it.
I am cncerned that the Biden adminsration seems to have the slows on Ukrainie too often.
This is no time for Business as Usual.

[Tero]

This thing will drag on. Back in the early two weeks, I thought Putin was going to get what he wants (Donbas etc.) and be done with it by now. But this is just going to slide into the North and South Korea thing, with also some fighting going on, for the remainder of Biden's term. And somehow, the Bush thing will not work here. Voters want "someone else," especially Trumpsters and independents. DeSantis?