The Biden Presidency

[kookbreaker]

The question is if the GOP can develop a new gimmick for 2022 like the Tea Party's open racism and sudden deficit concerns or the squalid "Contract with America".

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

The question is if the GOP can develop a new gimmick for 2022 like the Tea Party's open racism and sudden deficit concerns or the squalid "Contract with America".

They are working the racism card. I don't think A new Contract for America is going to work.

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

The question is if the GOP can develop a new gimmick for 2022 like the Tea Party's open racism and sudden deficit concerns or the squalid "Contract with America".

Why bother with new? They've re-used the "Sudden Deficit Concern®" gimmick for every Democratic presidency or congressional majority I can remember. Seems to keep working on the only voters they care about.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by GodMark2

Why bother with new? They've re-used the "Sudden Deficit Concern®" gimmick for every Democratic presidency or congressional majority I can remember. Seems to keep working on the only voters they care about.

If they're so concerned about the deficit, they could call for higher taxes on the rich or cuts in farm subsidies.

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If they're so concerned about the deficit, they could call for higher taxes on the rich or cuts in farm subsidies.

Oh, I see the problem. You're confusing Sudden Deficit Concern® for actual concern about the deficit.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As much as I'd like to see some gun control, I'd pass on reform of that right now. Bigger fish to fry.

I've been saying this for a very long time. I think there are some laws that might help (and a bunch that will do little). But they generate such a negative reaction that I've wished we might leave it alone for a while and get some other reforms taken care of while we have the solidarity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If they're so concerned about the deficit, they could call for higher taxes on the rich or cuts in farm subsidies.

They could even rescind the tax cuts ushered in during Trump's watch.

BTW, GW did the same thing, got all these tax cuts through claiming the government should give back all those extra taxes they collected which was false on two fronts: There was a huge deficit that the GOP legislators could have paid down, and of course Bush simply used the credit card to pay for the war instead of rescinding the tax cuts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

John Oliver covered the National Debt Sunday on his show. It was pretty informative.

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

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by GodMark2

Oh, I see the problem. You're confusing Sudden Deficit Concern® for actual concern about the deficit.

I'm not. I'm just offering the GOP a suggestion since they are voicing this concern.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They could even rescind the tax cuts ushered in during Trump's watch.

BTW, GW did the same thing, got all these tax cuts through claiming the government should give back all those extra taxes they collected which was false on two fronts: There was a huge deficit that the GOP legislators could have paid down, and of course Bush simply used the credit card to pay for the war instead of rescinding the tax cuts.

Clinton is the only President at least since before Hoover to create surpluses. He had the US on a path to eliminate the National Debt entirely. The GOP said "the hell with that!" and blew up the budget for tax cuts and the military.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is why I believe it is imperative to make DC and PR States ....

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Highly desirable; ain't gonna happen.

I was inclined to agree with Trebuchet because I thought the existing states had to approve the new state. Turns out that's not the case - it only takes a majority of both halves of congress (assuming the filibuster is dead). In that case, I do think it just might be possible.

The Dems ought to give it a try, for two reasons:

1. If it happens, it gives the Dems a far better position in the Senate; and
2. No matter what the outcome, it'll drive the GOP up the wall.

I suppose I should be a bit shamed by the last point because "pissing off the libtards" is so much of what the GOP does and I don't like it. However, I'll just admit that there's a vindictive, hypocritical side of me and let it be.

[kookbreaker]

There’s a few GQP gimmicks that might not sail these days. Hyper-panic over the deficit is one of them. It’s still got legs but it depends on people purely voting against their interests when Moscow Mitch declares it must be balanced on Medicare.

Other gimmicks I suspect won’t work will be the whole “job creators” they pulled when Obama wanted to tax the wealthy. The GQP will need to depend on Democratic disunity to break that one.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I was inclined to agree with Trebuchet because I thought the existing states had to approve the new state. Turns out that's not the case - it only takes a majority of both halves of congress (assuming the filibuster is dead). In that case, I do think it just might be possible.

The Dems ought to give it a try, for two reasons:

1. If it happens, it gives the Dems a far better position in the Senate; and
2. No matter what the outcome, it'll drive the GOP up the wall.

I suppose I should be a bit shamed by the last point because "pissing off the libtards" is so much of what the GOP does and I don't like it. However, I'll just admit that there's a vindictive, hypocritical side of me and let it be.

I don't care about driving the GOP up a wall. I just want to make democracy work and weaken the power of rural America. Force the GOP to sell their policies to all of America and not just racists and farmers.

[smartcooky]

Just on a slightly different tack, I have to say that I never thought I would enjoy watching White House press conferences so much until this year.

Whenever some dickwit reporter from Faux News, or One America Nutjobs or Newswanks tries to pull out a "gotcha" question, that Jen Psaki woman just dismantles their arguments and humiliates them in front of the press corps.

Truly awesome to watch!

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Just on a slightly different tack, I have to say that I never thought I would enjoy watching White House press conferences so much until this year.

Whenever some dickwit reporter from Faux News, or One America Nutjobs or Newswanks tries to pull out a "gotcha" question, that Jen Psaki woman just dismantles their arguments and humiliates them in front of the press corps.

Truly awesome to watch!

If you're a reporter for one of those three organizations, is humiliation even possible?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

If you're a reporter for one of those three organizations, is humiliation even possible?

I'd assume it was one of their major kinks.

[gnome]

Their viewers will say that they made Psaki squirm and cheer them on.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

If you're a reporter for one of those three organizations, is humiliation even possible?

I think there are precious few left in the News Division of Fox who are. Most actual journalists are leaving or trying to leave. Newsmax and OAN not so much.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm not. I'm just offering the GOP a suggestion since they are voicing this concern.

But they're not concerned about the concern they're voicing.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't care about driving the GOP up a wall. I just want to make democracy work and weaken the power of rural America. Force the GOP to sell their policies to all of America and not just racists and farmers.

That's an unfair characterization of Republican supporters, you forgot coal miners and of course that some of those racists are farmers and coal miners.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Lurch

But they're not concerned about the concern they're voicing.

Point taken.

[Captain_Swoop]

Reversing Trump, Biden Restores Aid to Palestinians
The move will once again make the United States a leading donor to the United Nations agency that assists about 5.7 million Palestinians in the Middle East.



The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would restore hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid to Palestinians, its strongest move yet to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s policy on the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The package, which gives at least $235 million in assistance to Palestinians, will go to humanitarian, economic, development and security efforts in the region, and is part of the administration’s attempt to rehabilitate U.S. relations with Palestinians, which effectively stopped when Mr. Trump was in office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/w...estinians.html

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

The package, which gives at least $235 million in assistance to Palestinians, will go to humanitarian, economic, development and security efforts in the region, .....

They forgot to mention "handling fees", "contingency reserves", "currency conversion fees" and the like so that when it gets down to Mohamed Doe it will effectively be $2.35 mil.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Just on a slightly different tack, I have to say that I never thought I would enjoy watching White House press conferences so much until this year.

Whenever some dickwit reporter from Faux News, or One America Nutjobs or Newswanks tries to pull out a "gotcha" question, that Jen Psaki woman just dismantles their arguments and humiliates them in front of the press corps.

Truly awesome to watch!

Any favorites? I don't watch TV, in general, but I've seen some praise a few times.

[Segnosaur]

I have seen a few articles making the same sort of claim as this one:

From: Politico
...By 1984, it was landslide territory for Ronald Reagan. The population was overwhelmingly white and thoroughly middle class, largely living in tract homes and driving their cars to industrial (jobs)...They were, by all appearances, Democrats. But they weren’t voting like it.....Greenberg coined a term for these voters—“Reagan Democrats”
...
Then something important happened: In leaning too hard into white identity politics...Trump accelerated the rise of a new voting bloc that is, in many ways, the mirror image of the Reagan Democrats. Call them the Biden Republicans...Greenberg sees the Biden Republicans as more affluent, highly educated and supportive of diversity. Historically, they identified with the Republican Party as their political home....They don’t consider themselves Democrats—at least not yet—but they are voting for them

Interesting idea. Hopefully there is some truth to it. After all, Reagan had a significant impact on politics, and even managed to string 3 consecutive terms in the white house (if you count Bush Sr., who might have benefited on good will towards Reagan.) It would be nice if Biden were able to have the same sort of impact.... building a coalition that will keep the Republicans from the white house until they can get their act together.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Just on a slightly different tack, I have to say that I never thought I would enjoy watching White House press conferences so much until this year.

Whenever some dickwit reporter from Faux News, or One America Nutjobs or Newswanks tries to pull out a "gotcha" question, that Jen Psaki woman just dismantles their arguments and humiliates them in front of the press corps.

Truly awesome to watch!

She is really good. I've been impressed.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

She is really good. I've been impressed.

Compared to the last bunch of WH press secretaries, all she had to do was be able to walk and chew gum at the same time to impress us. But, yes; she's very good.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Compared to the last bunch of WH press secretaries, all she had to do was be able to walk and chew gum at the same time to impress us. But, yes; she's very good.

In all fairness to them, trying to bring clarity to Trump and his intentions is futile.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Call them the Biden Republicans...Greenberg sees the Biden Republicans as more affluent, highly educated and supportive of diversity. Historically, they identified with the Republican Party as their political home....They don’t consider themselves Democrats—at least not yet—but they are voting for them

Interesting idea. Hopefully there is some truth to it. After all, Reagan had a significant impact on politics, and even managed to string 3 consecutive terms in the white house (if you count Bush Sr., who might have benefited on good will towards Reagan.) It would be nice if Biden were able to have the same sort of impact.... building a coalition that will keep the Republicans from the white house until they can get their act together.

I'm not surprised by that, this is pretty much what I've been here in Canada for the last decade at least. I used to vote PC in just about every election, but the collapse of that party federally and the rise of the new Conservative Party pretty much pushed me out.

I had some hopes that I could return to the PCs at least provincially in the last Ontario election, but then they went and made Doug Ford the party leader. And it wasn't even a close vote, either. It's as if the people running the PCs these days actively don't want my vote.

[bruto]

The governor of Vermont is a "Biden Republican," it seems. He made his opposition to T**** clear early on, but was noncommittal about how he'd vote, but I believe he said finally that he'd gone for Biden.

[Captain_Swoop]

Carter will take all your guns
Clinton will take all your guns
Clinton will take all your guns if he's reelected
Obama will take all your guns
Obama will take all your guns if he's reelected
Biden will take all your guns

[ahhell]

This thread reminds of this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-other/592324/

Quote:

It is deeply worrying that Americans now have so little understanding of their political adversaries. It is downright disturbing that the very institutions that ought to help us become better informed may actually be deepening our mutual incomprehension.

https://perceptiongap.us/

[SuburbanTurkey]

It's nice to know in these times of intense partisan division in this country, both Republicans and Democrats can agree that our massively bloated, budget chugging military could actually stand to be a bit bigger.

Quote:

BREAKING: Biden proposes a $753,000,000,000 Pentagon budget, a significant increase from last year's budget.

https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/s...42399730966530

We may not have universal health care, but nobody can evaporate some poor brown kid with a Raytheon missile quite like the good ole USofA. Rock, flag, and eagle, USA #1.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Quote:

BREAKING: Biden proposes a $753,000,000,000 Pentagon budget, a significant increase from last year's budget.

https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/s...42399730966530

While I agree that a good portion of the money spent on the military could be used elsewhere, their use of "significant increase" feels a little misleading. The dollar amount looks like a lot (because it is), but it's only a 4.4% increase over last year. Previous years were 5.1%, 7.3%, and 9.7% according to budget figures on Wikipedia.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's nice to know in these times of intense partisan division in this country, both Republicans and Democrats can agree that our massively bloated, budget chugging military could actually stand to be a bit bigger.

If it were me, I would have cut the budget by exactly how much Trump took when he declared the state of emergency to allow him to siphon off money for his border wall.

That, or ask for a big increase in military budgets now, but declare a new state of emergency (over something like global warming) in order to divert the money (to something like green energy projects).

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's nice to know in these times of intense partisan division in this country, both Republicans and Democrats can agree that our massively bloated, budget chugging military could actually stand to be a bit bigger.

Quote:

Quote:
BREAKING: Biden proposes a $753,000,000,000 Pentagon budget, a significant increase from last year's budget.

https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/s...42399730966530

We may not have universal health care, but nobody can evaporate some poor brown kid with a Raytheon missile quite like the good ole USofA. Rock, flag, and eagle, USA #1.

The proposed budget is $715 billion, not $753 billion. They should at least get the number they're outraged about right. Republicans, like McConnell, are having hissy fits over the low budget Biden has allocated to the military:

Quote:

“President Biden’s budget proposal cuts defense spending, sending a terrible signal not only to our adversaries in Beijing and Moscow, but also to our allies and partners,” McConnell said in a statement also signed by James Inhofe, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Richard Shelby. “Cutting America’s defense budget completely undermines Washington Democrats’ tough talk on China and calls into question the administration’s willingness to confront the Chinese Communist Party.”

Quote:

The $715 billion plan represents a 1.6 percent increase in spending from fiscal 2021 but would amount to a decrease of about 0.4 percent when inflation is factored in. Unlike past years, when overseas operations were funded through a different account, the $715 billion total includes all Defense Department spending.

Quote:

But an administration official said that “a large chunk” of the defense spending increase will go towards a scheduled pay raise for troops next year, as well as more money for “the civilians that support them.”

Under the federal formula used to calculate annual pay raises for service members, troops should expect to see a paycheck boost of about 2.7 percent starting next January. Each 1 percent of pay raises adds about $6 billion in new defense spending over five years.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...ouse-promises/

[Silly Green Monkey]

You know, that "adjusted for inflation" always gets used, and seems to make sense on the face of it, but when's the last time we really had inflation? Those numbers never ever seem to be adjusted down when we have deflation.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You know, that "adjusted for inflation" always gets used, and seems to make sense on the face of it, but when's the last time we really had inflation? Those numbers never ever seem to be adjusted down when we have deflation.

GDP inflation's been at 2% in recent years. Cost inflation for technical projects such as biomedical research is growing a little faster, currently at 2.5%. We've never had actual deflation since WW2. Downturns have been recessions, not depressions.

https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/gbiPriceIndexes.html

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You know, that "adjusted for inflation" always gets used, and seems to make sense on the face of it, but when's the last time we really had inflation? Those numbers never ever seem to be adjusted down when we have deflation.

Hmm? Isn't it just a matter of comparative currency worth at two points in time, with the note that overall, inflation has been happening to the dollar pretty consistently?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

You know, that "adjusted for inflation" always gets used, and seems to make sense on the face of it, but when's the last time we really had inflation?

Well, the inflation rate seems to be in the 1-2% range. (That's the overall inflation rate; the rate in different sectors of the economy might differ, but if we're talking about pay for military families, they are probably interested in a more general 'how much toilet paper and taco bell can I buy' approach to inflation, rather than individual economic sectors.

Is 1-2% low? Well, its much lower than the inflation rate in the 70s/80s, but it seems to be pretty consistent over the past few decades.

See: Trading Economics

Quote:

Those numbers never ever seem to be adjusted down when we have deflation.

Deflation seems to be pretty rare. According to the web site above, the only 2 cases of deflation in over a half century occurred:
- During the 2007/2008 recession (after which it eventually returned to normal, and even went up to almost 4% a few years later
- once very briefly round 2015, but that was less a case of 'deflation' and more a case of 'things aren't changing AT ALL')

So there's not much need to account for deflation when 1) it is very rare, and 2) doesn't really have any sort of long-term impact on the econonmy