The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Monkey Uncle on October 10, 2020, 09:24:09 AM
-
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden wins the presidential election, and the Democrats take a slim majority in the Senate and hold their majority in the House. Let's further assume that, consistent with historical precedent, the Democrats will be vulnerable to losing their Senate majority in the 2022 mid-terms. What should their priorities be? Here's what I think.
Highest priorities (require passage of legislation and therefore a Senate majority). Listed in no particular order, but numbered for the sake of convenience.
1. Structural reforms to stop the Republicans from using dirty tricks to hold onto and consolidate power, even though they represent a minority of Americans.
A. Eliminate the filibuster (necessary for passing any non-appropriation-related legislation).
B. Outlaw gerrymandering.
C. Neutralize the Electoral College. May not be possible to do this in a way that passes constitutional muster, but worth a try.
D. Impose term limits on Supreme Court justices and federal judges. (I think packing the Supreme Court is a bad idea that would create too much voter backlash.)
E. Mandate that the Senate take an up-or-down vote on all presidential nominees (judicial and executive branch) within 45 days of their nomination.
F. Legislatively overturn the Supreme Court decision that declared corporations to be people and money to be speech. Then pass campaign finance reform.
2. Fix health care. The current Biden plan to shore up the ACA is probably the most practical way. Regardless of the merits, I don't think a full-on government takeover has enough voter support.
3. Address climate change, with the goal of making the economy carbon-neutral no later than 2050. The current Biden plan is probably a good start.
4. Repeal the Bush/Trump tax cuts for the wealthy.
5. Fix Social Security and Medicare by taxing all earned income and reducing benefits for high earners.
6. Fill all vacancies in the federal judiciary promptly.
7. Fill all sub-cabinet level vacancies promptly. The 'deputy undersecretaries of whatever' are the ones who do the real work of steering the bureaucracy in the direction of the president's policies.
Important priorities, but not quite as urgent because they don't require a Senate majority
8. Re-join the Paris Climate Accord.
9. Attempt to salvage the Iran nuclear deal.
10. Un-do all of the Trump administration's bad regulatory actions, with particular emphasis on restoring all of the environmental regulations that they gutted.
That's what I've got off the top of my head. What did I miss?
-
Make the FDA more resistant to Presidential influence.
There's some DOJ restructuring that needs to be done. While it's an executive department, it gives too much power to the President.
-
Focus on climate by minimizing America's big carbon footprint and stimulating green technology. The rest of the world will be greatful.
Making a reasonable level of healthcare affordable for everyone.
Making a good efford to stop the violence that is building up in the US. Not sure what the best method is to stop this.
Stop dicrimination of the blacks by the police force (those officers that do this, but maybe it is ingrained in the system in general).
Forbid wapons in schools and universities.
Limit google/facebook/amazon and the likes in logging and storing so much data about every user in the world.
Indeed, limit the president's influence.
-
Make the FDA more resistant to Presidential influence.
There's some DOJ restructuring that needs to be done. While it's an executive department, it gives too much power to the President.
Yes, the Bill Barr DOJ is downright frightening.
-
And how could I forget - fixing the immigration policy mess. This would need to be done legislatively to be most effective and to minimize the amount of un-doing that the next Republican administration could do. And to have the support of the public, it would need to be something short of the open borders policy that some on the left advocate.
-
High level (in order of priority):
1. Restore democracy (many great ideas posted above).
2. Reform Supreme Court. This will mostly be driven by what is feasible. Jurisdiction stripping to eliminate the possibility of legislating from the bench (can the legislature eliminate the "originalist" bs without touching the "textual" legal philosophy?!!). Any other reform as it is feasible.
3. Immigration. Increase legal immigration to at least Canada levels (if not AUS) to meet economic needs and index immigration levels to economic needs as determined by data and with zero political inputs. At the same time, eliminate illegal immigration by streamlining e-verify and other measures that the non-xenophobic right-wing advocate. Basically, make it simple for a Mexican/Chinese/Indian teenager to immigrate legally, while increasing the penalty for trying to do so illegally - changing the cost benefit equation.
Everything else will follow from restoring democracy and demographic viability of the country.
-
He should appoint as many good people into advisory positions as he can, and then listen to whatever the hell they tell him to do.
-
Term limits for all elected officials.
An age limit for supreme court judges, 75ish.
Hold elected officials to the same insider trading regs as private business people.
Reduce federal spending or simply freeze the federal budget.
Extend Trumps tax cuts and take them further.
Donate his entire salary to a good cause.
Open up opportunity for more nuke power plants.
-
No pardons for the current gang in charge.
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
I agree that Puerto Rico should be offered statehood (if they want it). Three million US citizens live there, which is more than the populations of 17 existing states. It is the right thing to do.
I disagree with DC statehood, however. It is one medium-sized city (a little over 700k people). I think a better plan for DC is to shrink it to just the core of the city where all the government buildings, parks, and monuments are located. Then give the rest of it (where all the people live) back to Maryland. That way the citizens have some representation in the federal government.
-
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden wins the presidential election, and the Democrats take a slim majority in the Senate and hold their majority in the House. Let's further assume that, consistent with historical precedent, the Democrats will be vulnerable to losing their Senate majority in the 2022 mid-terms. What should their priorities be? Here's what I think.
Highest priorities (require passage of legislation and therefore a Senate majority). Listed in no particular order, but numbered for the sake of convenience.
1. Structural reforms to stop the Republicans from using dirty tricks to hold onto and consolidate power, even though they represent a minority of Americans.
A. Eliminate the filibuster (necessary for passing any non-appropriation-related legislation).
B. Outlaw gerrymandering.
C. Neutralize the Electoral College. May not be possible to do this in a way that passes constitutional muster, but worth a try.
D. Impose term limits on Supreme Court justices and federal judges. (I think packing the Supreme Court is a bad idea that would create too much voter backlash.)
E. Mandate that the Senate take an up-or-down vote on all presidential nominees (judicial and executive branch) within 45 days of their nomination.
F. Legislatively overturn the Supreme Court decision that declared corporations to be people and money to be speech. Then pass campaign finance reform.
2. Fix health care. The current Biden plan to shore up the ACA is probably the most practical way. Regardless of the merits, I don't think a full-on government takeover has enough voter support.
3. Address climate change, with the goal of making the economy carbon-neutral no later than 2050. The current Biden plan is probably a good start.
4. Repeal the Bush/Trump tax cuts for the wealthy.
5. Fix Social Security and Medicare by taxing all earned income and reducing benefits for high earners.
6. Fill all vacancies in the federal judiciary promptly.
7. Fill all sub-cabinet level vacancies promptly. The 'deputy undersecretaries of whatever' are the ones who do the real work of steering the bureaucracy in the direction of the president's policies.
Important priorities, but not quite as urgent because they don't require a Senate majority
8. Re-join the Paris Climate Accord.
9. Attempt to salvage the Iran nuclear deal.
10. Un-do all of the Trump administration's bad regulatory actions, with particular emphasis on restoring all of the environmental regulations that they gutted.
That's what I've got off the top of my head. What did I miss?
#1 Priority: Fully restore and extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States making changes to their voting laws and procedures that are designed to suppress votes should be something that the federal government investigates and prosecutes with vigor.
Looking at you Texas and Ohio (but they aren't the only ones)
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
I agree that Puerto Rico should be offered statehood (if they want it). Three million US citizens live there, which is more than the populations of 17 existing states. It is the right thing to do.
I disagree with DC statehood, however. It is one medium-sized city (a little over 700k people). I think a better plan for DC is to shrink it to just the core of the city where all the government buildings, parks, and monuments are located. Then give the rest of it (where all the people live) back to Maryland. That way the citizens have some representation in the federal government.
I'm not opposed to exploring any ideas for representation for the people that live in DC. But why does the land mass matter? It's people that are getting representation, not acreage. And DC is bigger than Wyoming and on par with Alaska.
And couldn't agree more on the voting rights act.
-
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Biden wins the presidential election, and the Democrats take a slim majority in the Senate and hold their majority in the House. Let's further assume that, consistent with historical precedent, the Democrats will be vulnerable to losing their Senate majority in the 2022 mid-terms. What should their priorities be? Here's what I think.
Highest priorities (require passage of legislation and therefore a Senate majority). Listed in no particular order, but numbered for the sake of convenience.
1. Structural reforms to stop the Republicans from using dirty tricks to hold onto and consolidate power, even though they represent a minority of Americans.
A. Eliminate the filibuster (necessary for passing any non-appropriation-related legislation).
B. Outlaw gerrymandering.
C. Neutralize the Electoral College. May not be possible to do this in a way that passes constitutional muster, but worth a try.
D. Impose term limits on Supreme Court justices and federal judges. (I think packing the Supreme Court is a bad idea that would create too much voter backlash.)
E. Mandate that the Senate take an up-or-down vote on all presidential nominees (judicial and executive branch) within 45 days of their nomination.
F. Legislatively overturn the Supreme Court decision that declared corporations to be people and money to be speech. Then pass campaign finance reform.
2. Fix health care. The current Biden plan to shore up the ACA is probably the most practical way. Regardless of the merits, I don't think a full-on government takeover has enough voter support.
3. Address climate change, with the goal of making the economy carbon-neutral no later than 2050. The current Biden plan is probably a good start.
4. Repeal the Bush/Trump tax cuts for the wealthy.
5. Fix Social Security and Medicare by taxing all earned income and reducing benefits for high earners.
6. Fill all vacancies in the federal judiciary promptly.
7. Fill all sub-cabinet level vacancies promptly. The 'deputy undersecretaries of whatever' are the ones who do the real work of steering the bureaucracy in the direction of the president's policies.
Important priorities, but not quite as urgent because they don't require a Senate majority
8. Re-join the Paris Climate Accord.
9. Attempt to salvage the Iran nuclear deal.
10. Un-do all of the Trump administration's bad regulatory actions, with particular emphasis on restoring all of the environmental regulations that they gutted.
That's what I've got off the top of my head. What did I miss?
#1 Priority: Fully restore and extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States making changes to their voting laws and procedures that are designed to suppress votes should be something that the federal government investigates and prosecutes with vigor.
Looking at you Texas and Ohio (but they aren't the only ones)
Yes, that's a good one.
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
I agree that Puerto Rico should be offered statehood (if they want it). Three million US citizens live there, which is more than the populations of 17 existing states. It is the right thing to do.
I disagree with DC statehood, however. It is one medium-sized city (a little over 700k people). I think a better plan for DC is to shrink it to just the core of the city where all the government buildings, parks, and monuments are located. Then give the rest of it (where all the people live) back to Maryland. That way the citizens have some representation in the federal government.
I'm not opposed to exploring any ideas for representation for the people that live in DC. But why does the land mass matter? It's people that are getting representation, not acreage. And DC is bigger than Wyoming and on par with Alaska.
And couldn't agree more on the voting rights act.
DC used to be part of Maryland. I think it makes more sense just to give it back, rather than creating yet another micro-population state that gets two Senators. It probably would also be viewed by the Republicans as less of a political middle finger. I'd like to see us resolve injustices without resorting to more political escalations.
If I were king for a day and could do anything I want, I'd demote Alaska back to territory status; combine Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho into one state; merge Utah into either Arizona or Colorado; combine the Dakotas; combine Kansas and Nebraska; combine Arkansas and Louisiana; merge West Virginia back into Virginia; combine Delaware with Maryland; combine Rhode Island and Connecticut; and combine Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine into one state. But that's just pure fantasy.
-
There's some talk about an infrastructure plan being implemented. It's long overdue and hopefully will be done in conjunction with addressing climate change.
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
I agree that Puerto Rico should be offered statehood (if they want it). Three million US citizens live there, which is more than the populations of 17 existing states. It is the right thing to do.
I disagree with DC statehood, however. It is one medium-sized city (a little over 700k people). I think a better plan for DC is to shrink it to just the core of the city where all the government buildings, parks, and monuments are located. Then give the rest of it (where all the people live) back to Maryland. That way the citizens have some representation in the federal government.
I'm not opposed to exploring any ideas for representation for the people that live in DC. But why does the land mass matter? It's people that are getting representation, not acreage. And DC is bigger than Wyoming and on par with Alaska.
And couldn't agree more on the voting rights act.
DC used to be part of Maryland. I think it makes more sense just to give it back, rather than creating yet another micro-population state that gets two Senators. It probably would also be viewed by the Republicans as less of a political middle finger. I'd like to see us resolve injustices without resorting to more political escalations.
If I were king for a day and could do anything I want, I'd demote Alaska back to territory status; combine Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho into one state; merge Utah into either Arizona or Colorado; combine the Dakotas; combine Kansas and Nebraska; combine Arkansas and Louisiana; merge West Virginia back into Virginia; combine Delaware with Maryland; combine Rhode Island and Connecticut; and combine Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine into one state. But that's just pure fantasy.
Shhhh, this type of logic will not be tolerated. What about splitting California? Does that make any sense in your kingdom? I don’t think so. I do like your general concept. If you are pretty similar to your neighbor merge together. Prob need a whole new thread for the naming nominations though.
-
I agree with OP generally and like the order - it needs to be structural stuff first, then substantive stuff.
I'd add open the doors to statehood for DC and Puerto Rico ASAP, just for moral reasons, not primarily because it could correct rural bias/partisan bias in the Senate. In fact, I think it's unfair and not smart to assume Puerto Rico would be a democratic stronghold in perpetuity (or anywhere really, but there's some evidence that some Latinx populations are increasingly conservative over time/generations).
I agree that Puerto Rico should be offered statehood (if they want it). Three million US citizens live there, which is more than the populations of 17 existing states. It is the right thing to do.
I disagree with DC statehood, however. It is one medium-sized city (a little over 700k people). I think a better plan for DC is to shrink it to just the core of the city where all the government buildings, parks, and monuments are located. Then give the rest of it (where all the people live) back to Maryland. That way the citizens have some representation in the federal government.
I'm not opposed to exploring any ideas for representation for the people that live in DC. But why does the land mass matter? It's people that are getting representation, not acreage. And DC is bigger than Wyoming and on par with Alaska.
And couldn't agree more on the voting rights act.
DC used to be part of Maryland. I think it makes more sense just to give it back, rather than creating yet another micro-population state that gets two Senators. It probably would also be viewed by the Republicans as less of a political middle finger. I'd like to see us resolve injustices without resorting to more political escalations.
If I were king for a day and could do anything I want, I'd demote Alaska back to territory status; combine Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho into one state; merge Utah into either Arizona or Colorado; combine the Dakotas; combine Kansas and Nebraska; combine Arkansas and Louisiana; merge West Virginia back into Virginia; combine Delaware with Maryland; combine Rhode Island and Connecticut; and combine Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine into one state. But that's just pure fantasy.
Shhhh, this type of logic will not be tolerated. What about splitting California? Does that make any sense in your kingdom? I don’t think so. I do like your general concept. If you are pretty similar to your neighbor merge together. Prob need a whole new thread for the naming nominations though.
Of course the simpler way to deal with this problem is just to get rid of the Senate so that all these micro-states and thinly populated states stop wielding political power that is way out of proportion to their populations. The Senate made sense in 1789 when the US was a collection of quasi-independent states formed from colonies that had been mostly going their separate ways for almost 200 years. But it ceased to make sense the moment westward expansion started adding new states, and it really didn't make any sense once the Civil War settled the state sovereignty vs. federal primacy question.
But that's seriously way off-topic, fantasyland stuff.
-
He should appoint as many good people into advisory positions as he can, and then listen to whatever the hell they tell him to do.
So you want him having an "accident" half a year into office? ;)
-
Filling his cabinet and other SES positions with Senate-approved personnel who aren't incompetent sycophants as soon as possible would be a nice start. Some election reforms would be appreciated to keep this summer's mess from becoming the new standard. Trump and his team made an art form out of small-scale violations of the law (Pompeo blatantly using his position for campaigning being a big one) and I'm not sure what the solution is since neither Congress nor the Court are reliable checks on those actions. Government should be in the business of encouraging fair elections that aren't a burden on the voter rather than finding excuses for making it more difficult, or outright unapologetically attempting fraud. I'd love to see infrastructure investments in our power and water systems, but realistically he's going to spend most of his term putting the country back together with regards to COVID. Economic relief is going to cost trillions, and it's going to take time for businesses to recover, rebuild, or start back up assuming we have a vaccine implemented in the not too-distant future.
-
He should appoint as many good people into advisory positions as he can, and then listen to whatever the hell they tell him to do.
So you want him having an "accident" half a year into office? ;)
No, not at all.
But we have to be honest about electing a geriatric president. Studies have shown that 40-50% of the people in Biden's age group suffer from cognitive decline (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316202/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20a%209%2Dyear%20study,in%20delayed%20recall%2C%20and%2021 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316202/#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20a%209%2Dyear%20study,in%20delayed%20recall%2C%20and%2021)). It's very likely that his judgement will be impaired during his time in office. As long as he has people who can keep government running properly while he has lost it, this isn't an issue. Regan did just fine in office while showing the early onset of dementia during his second term.
-
How about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hr for the HCOL states, and perhaps $12 for LCOL states by some formula, and then pegging it to inflation. I would also eliminate the server $2.13/hour exemption and increase that to $12 forever more. If a business can only survive by paying it's employees peanuts, then the business should not survive.
Puerto Rico should be a state. Consider US Virgin Islands as well. Colonialism was a long time ago and we've hopefully learned better. If Rhode Island and Wyoming can be a state, than DC should be a state too.
Big shout out for police and justice reform nationwide. Tricky subject though.
-
Yes, minimum wage should be increased.
The government already sets per diem for each city/MSA. It can set a minimum wage the same way based on cost of living.
-
Legalise abortion absolutely and institute heavy incentives (say coverage of all medical bills, all time off work and all counselling for a year) for women to have abortions.
Promote stem cell research as much as possible.
Don't really care about all the other stuff.
Realise that none of the above will ever happen in the States.
-
I second the replacing untrained idiots with people who actually know how to run their organizations is a good start. Another step would be promoting renewable energy and battery technology as much as possible through a combination of continuing tax incentives for installation, stopping tariffs on imported solar panels, updating our infrastructure and reducing pointless regulations that utilities are using to heel-drag into the 21st century.
-
He has a lot of fence-mending to do with allies alienated by Trump. What is his foreign policy?
-
He has a lot of fence-mending to do with allies alienated by Trump. What is his foreign policy?
I think right now his foreign policy is "Hi, I'm Joe Biden, not that other guy." That's probably about 80% of what he needs to get started.
-
He has a lot of fence-mending to do with allies alienated by Trump. What is his foreign policy?
From what he's saying (and US Presidents have a poor track record at keeping foreign policy plans, so take with a grain of salt)
1. Stay in the WHO and fund efforts to handle COVID.
2. Do nothing new on China because our economy can't afford it.
3. Rejoin the Paris agreement and try to slow down carbon emissions
4. Move away from justifying the use of nuclear weapons for retaliating against non-nuclear strikes and keep the New START treaty going.
5. Undo the mess Trump made with reneging on the Iran treaty and leaving Europe to clean it up.
6. Pull away from Saudi Arabia and petro-wars like the Yemen disaster (which his former boss kind of got us into, so we'll see).
7. Continue to muddle around in Afghanistan until it implodes, then abandon it.
8. Same for Iraq, Syria, etc.
9. Sigh and roll eyes when N Korea launches a new missile.
That's a pretty full plate. We haven't even gotten to Africa or the Americas yet. Honestly, if he has a foreign policy anything similar to the 11 presidents before Trump most countries would be happy.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
-
He has a lot of fence-mending to do with allies alienated by Trump. What is his foreign policy?
I dunno, it's going to be difficult. Trump was pretty big on building fences (that Mexico pays for).
-
The most important thing is campaign finance reform. Nothing else will get fixed until this is fixed. As long as it is legal to bribe elected officials and there is no limit to the size of the bribe, our government will remain broken. The Citizens United court decision has done more to destroy democracy in the US than anything else in my lifetime.
-
The most important thing is campaign finance reform. Nothing else will get fixed until this is fixed. As long as it is legal to bribe elected officials and there is no limit to the size of the bribe, our government will remain broken. The Citizens United court decision has done more to destroy democracy in the US than anything else in my lifetime.
There's pretty close to a zero percent chance of that being repealed in your lifetime with the current supreme court makeup.
-
I know it's probably something that needs to be implemented on the individual state level, but advocacy from the top down to pass Ranked Choice Voting would be great to see.
-
The most important thing is campaign finance reform. Nothing else will get fixed until this is fixed. As long as it is legal to bribe elected officials and there is no limit to the size of the bribe, our government will remain broken. The Citizens United court decision has done more to destroy democracy in the US than anything else in my lifetime.
There's pretty close to a zero percent chance of that being repealed in your lifetime with the current supreme court makeup.
Theoretically a bill could be passed that strips jurisdiction. But unfortunately, I also believe there's about zero chance of that happening through basically any Congress.
-
He has a lot of fence-mending to do with allies alienated by Trump. What is his foreign policy?
From what he's saying (and US Presidents have a poor track record at keeping foreign policy plans, so take with a grain of salt)
1. Stay in the WHO and fund efforts to handle COVID.
Spoken by another head of state. You've GOT to get the virus under control.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
Yes, but this is a thread about what Biden and a Democratic Congress should do if they get elected. Presidents and Congress don't make local policy.
-
Years 1-2: undo the horrors of the current administration
Year 3: do whatever it takes to ensure that kind of power is never wielded again (I have no idea what that would entail.)
Year 4: campaign for Kamala
-
He'll be spending at least the first few months undoing every single executive order signed over the past four years. That will take a while because Trump has signed probably thousands of them.
-
Years 1-2: undo the horrors of the current administration
Year 3: do whatever it takes to ensure that kind of power is never wielded again (I have no idea what that would entail.)
Year 4: campaign for Kamala
Year 3 may be too late for structural reforms. If the Democrats do take the Senate, historical precedent says they are at risk of losing it in the 2022 mid-terms.
-
Years 1-2: undo the horrors of the current administration
Year 3: do whatever it takes to ensure that kind of power is never wielded again (I have no idea what that would entail.)
Year 4: campaign for Kamala
Year 3 may be too late for structural reforms. If the Democrats do take the Senate, historical precedent says they are at risk of losing it in the 2022 mid-terms.
Absolutely. Dems will very likely only hold all three branches for 2 years, assuming they get that scenario. Dems are almost always underdogs to win the Senate b/c of the way it is structured. This year is actually super-favorable for the Dems because of what seats are up for re-election AND the current political landscape, and they still only have about a 70% chance of taking it (which is a considerable increase from earlier in year).
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
Elaborate please. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaking as someone on the master planning steering committee of my town where it is OUR TOWN who decides on its zoning bylaws.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
Elaborate please. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaking as someone on the master planning steering committee of my town where it is OUR TOWN who decides on its zoning bylaws.
Instead of explaining I will point you to a bit of material.
First this video about good neighborhoods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ (the others from the channel are also interesting about biking infrastructure)
and then those two posts about a compaison US/Japan:
https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/euclidian-zoning.html (you may know this stuff in your position though)
https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
-
#1. Bringing the nation together.
Ignoring the incremental polarization isnt going to work for much longer.
-
Get rid of the stupid zoning laws that cause so many problems.
What laws are you referring to? In the US, zoning laws exist at the local level (city and county), not at the federal level.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.
Elaborate please. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaking as someone on the master planning steering committee of my town where it is OUR TOWN who decides on its zoning bylaws.
Instead of explaining I will point you to a bit of material.
First this video about good neighborhoods:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ (the others from the channel are also interesting about biking infrastructure)
and then those two posts about a compaison US/Japan:
https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/euclidian-zoning.html (you may know this stuff in your position though)
https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
LennStar, it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell local governments what to do with their land unless it violates other existing federal laws. The only times the federal government got involved was when certain state-level zoning laws were considered civil rights violations and went to the Supreme Court.
The Hoover administration wrote a law in the 1920s that said "here's how you could do it." It was not a directive. Besides that, the President and Congress don't get involved.
-
Early on, he needs to get the COVID craziness under control somehow. If that means more states go into hardcore lockdown or more businesses become deemed "nonessential", then that will also take some $ to compensate the people who wouldn't be working.
Somehow he needs to repair the division within the country of the haves and the have nots, Whites and non-Whites, etc.
Here's hoping he wins and that he surrounds himself with brilliant people who already have a plan to do these things.
-
LennStar, it's unconstitutional for the federal government to tell local governments what to do
There are always several ways to do things.
For example in Germany the school system is state stuff. The schools themselves (buildings etc.) are city stuff. And still the federal government gives money for e.g. renovating.
I don't know the how in case of the US, but that is not my job, right? ;)
-
Absolutely. Dems will very likely only hold all three branches for 2 years, assuming they get that scenario. Dems are almost always underdogs to win the Senate b/c of the way it is structured. This year is actually super-favorable for the Dems because of what seats are up for re-election AND the current political landscape, and they still only have about a 70% chance of taking it (which is a considerable increase from earlier in year).
Exactly why DC statehood at the least is a must. In a perfect world we could correct all the issues with the Dakotas, split California, etc. but those take enormous efforts. I think DC statehood is feasible and not a pipe dream. Puerto Rico would be great, harder to implement, and definitely not guaranteed to be two Democratic senators (though likely at least at the beginning).
-
The 2022 senate map is not as bad for Dems as you might think. Mostly they all lost in 2016. That said, it all depends on how big any majority Dems might win in the senate is this year. 1 vote margin makes even an ok map an emergency.
I heard someone today say that there's an idea of trying to make a state of of the Navajo nation. I wonder if some really out there ideas will be floated for the sole purpose of allowing biden to shoot them down and feel like he's being moderate? Honestly I still expect him to shoot most things down except a covid relief package and some kind of voting rights package. Then they'll try to do something big that they try to negotiate in good faith on with the Republicans and we can just start the clock over from 2010, because Democrats do not learn.
-
The 2022 senate map is not as bad for Dems as you might think. Mostly they all lost in 2016. That said, it all depends on how big any majority Dems might win in the senate is this year. 1 vote margin makes even an ok map an emergency.
I heard someone today say that there's an idea of trying to make a state of of the Navajo nation. I wonder if some really out there ideas will be floated for the sole purpose of allowing biden to shoot them down and feel like he's being moderate? Honestly I still expect him to shoot most things down except a covid relief package and some kind of voting rights package. Then they'll try to do something big that they try to negotiate in good faith on with the Republicans and we can just start the clock over from 2010, because Democrats do not learn.
Like a level, Biden always finds the (Democratic) middle. He's done that his entire life.
If the party pulls left, Biden will follow. I hope.
-
The 2022 senate map is not as bad for Dems as you might think. Mostly they all lost in 2016. That said, it all depends on how big any majority Dems might win in the senate is this year. 1 vote margin makes even an ok map an emergency.
I heard someone today say that there's an idea of trying to make a state of of the Navajo nation. I wonder if some really out there ideas will be floated for the sole purpose of allowing biden to shoot them down and feel like he's being moderate? Honestly I still expect him to shoot most things down except a covid relief package and some kind of voting rights package. Then they'll try to do something big that they try to negotiate in good faith on with the Republicans and we can just start the clock over from 2010, because Democrats do not learn.
I don't really understand why leftists bash moderates so much. "Moderate" is just a political term for "normal person." The typical American is not an extremist of any kind but likes to find the middle-of-the-road approach that works for most people and has enough support to get bills passed. It makes no sense to pull too hard to the left or the right when it results in no legislation being passed, which is pretty much what has happened for the last (at a minimum) seven years. The typical American is okay with compromise if it means they get at least some of what they want. Compromise is not a dirty word. It's the way you get things done.
I think leftists got the wrong message from 2016. The real story in 2016 was that leftists decided to parrot talking points from Breitbart to accidentally help Trump win the White House because Hillary Clinton refused to tell everybody that she was going to give them things it would have been impossible to deliver on.
-
I don't really understand why leftists bash moderates so much. "Moderate" is just a political term for "normal person." The typical American is not an extremist of any kind but likes to find the middle-of-the-road approach that works for most people and has enough support to get bills passed. It makes no sense to pull too hard to the left or the right when it results in no legislation being passed, which is pretty much what has happened for the last (at a minimum) seven years. The typical American is okay with compromise if it means they get at least some of what they want. Compromise is not a dirty word. It's the way you get things done.
Lol, what? Republicans are the ones who despise "compromise" and "moderates", not "leftists". Republicans openly and intentionally engage in complete obstruction (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) when they are not in power. Any Republican congressman who is not far-right is quickly primaried as a "Republican In Name Only".
What Sui actually said was that it's pointless to try to compromise with Republicans, because they don't want to compromise they want to obstruct, which is completely true. And from that you got "leftists hate moderates and compromise"?
-
What Sui actually said was that it's pointless to try to compromise with Republicans, because they don't want to compromise they want to obstruct, which is completely true. And from that you got "leftists hate moderates and compromise"?
And not only that, but they use the rules to chain Dems (who always try to act by the rules) but ignore them totally when it is convenient. (If you need an example, just look at that judge spectacle - preventing a judge elected 9(?) month before an election if it doesn't suit them, but pressing one through with all means before the old body is cold if it is in their interest).
That has been the modus operandi for what, 20 years? 30? And is one of the main reasons why people all over the world are saying "Our politicians might be corrupt or stupid, or both, but at least not as bad as the ones in the USA!"
-
Hmmm, now it's looking like Trump favors stimulus, but McConnell--who doesn't expect to lose his Senate seat--is the hold-out. Could it be that McConnell would rather keep people hungry and angry during a Biden first term to make sure it's Biden's only term?
-
Hmmm, now it's looking like Trump favors stimulus, but McConnell--who doesn't expect to lose his Senate seat--is the hold-out. Could it be that McConnell would rather keep people hungry and angry during a Biden first term to make sure it's Biden's only term?
Every day of the week, yes.
I don't really understand why leftists bash moderates so much. "Moderate" is just a political term for "normal person." The typical American is not an extremist of any kind but likes to find the middle-of-the-road approach that works for most people and has enough support to get bills passed. It makes no sense to pull too hard to the left or the right when it results in no legislation being passed, which is pretty much what has happened for the last (at a minimum) seven years. The typical American is okay with compromise if it means they get at least some of what they want. Compromise is not a dirty word. It's the way you get things done.
Lol, what? Republicans are the ones who despise "compromise" and "moderates", not "leftists". Republicans openly and intentionally engage in complete obstruction (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) when they are not in power. Any Republican congressman who is not far-right is quickly primaried as a "Republican In Name Only".
What Sui actually said was that it's pointless to try to compromise with Republicans, because they don't want to compromise they want to obstruct, which is completely true. And from that you got "leftists hate moderates and compromise"?
McConnell has gone on the record stating his purpose in life is to make it impossible for Democrats in power to get anything done.
-
McConnell has gone on the record stating his purpose in life is to make it impossible for Democrats in power to get anything done.
True. It's not just McConnell though, he's just happy to be the fall guy because he's in a safe seat. It was Newt Gingrich before him in the house. It will be someone else after McConnell is gone. It's the entire party. They campaign on the idea that government is bad and inefficient and poorly run and should be destroyed, and then they use every bit of power they have when they get elected to ensure that it's true. That's their goal. Why would they compromise? If they compromise then the government would actually get stuff done, which is not what Republicans want.
-
It is true that Republicans are largely obstructionists with whom reasonable compromise is generally not possible. But it does not follow that the appropriate response from Democrats is to move as far to the left as possible. They should focus on accomplishing things that most (or at least a plurality of) Americans want to see accomplished. Do that without Republican help if necessary, but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves. That is the way to get re-elected so that they can keep accomplishing good things for the American people. Focusing on divisive issues and taking the most liberal positions possible is the surest way to lose Congress in the mid-terms.
-
While I agree with you in general, there is an obvious counterpoint: the ACA.
The ACA was not a far-left divisive issue, it is actually a very moderate solution to a problem that very much affected the entire country at the time. It was such a Republican idea in fact that the Republicans haven't been able to come up with a better replacement a decade later. It didn't matter. The Republicans characterized it as a far-left divisive issue, still to this day are calling it that, and managed to convince enough of the population to retake the House in the mid-terms and prevent Obama from doing much of anything else for the next 6 years.
So if the Republicans are going to scream SOCIALISM! (oh I'm sorry, these days the scare-word is MARXISM!) at everything you do anyway, then you might as well do what you want and not worry about what Republicans think.
-
One strong reason Democrats are in this mess is because Obama did not move hard enough to the left in 2009 when he had the votes in the Senate. Had the Democratic majority pursued DC statehood by removing the filibuster on statehood votes and pushed a bunch of judges through earlier without the filibuster (as they did in 2013, only until after Obama's reelection) the Democrats would not nearly be in as bad of shape as they are now. McConnell realized this, and took advantage of it. And guess what, he won based on the fact both him and his friends are still in office. Harry Reid lost whatever political game was being played. Really though, President Obama got schooled and had no spine early on.
As much as I liked Obama as a person, he left the Democratic party much worse than how he found it.
The only saving grace for Trump is McConnell. The Republican Senators since 2014 have been about as powerful of a Senate in modern history. While we focus on the Presidential election nonstop, the Senate race is almost equally as important.
-
It is true that Republicans are largely obstructionists with whom reasonable compromise is generally not possible. But it does not follow that the appropriate response from Democrats is to move as far to the left as possible. They should focus on accomplishing things that most (or at least a plurality of) Americans want to see accomplished. Do that without Republican help if necessary, but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves. That is the way to get re-elected so that they can keep accomplishing good things for the American people. Focusing on divisive issues and taking the most liberal positions possible is the surest way to lose Congress in the mid-terms.
Correct me if I am wrong. En enclave is a part of a state that is incircled by another state.
We don't meed to take that literally, but the point is the encirclement.
As far as I know the liberal (Democrats) areas are the costs and the big lake area.
And in the North is the even more liberal Canada while the south is socialist Mexico.
So for me it looks definitely like the Reps are living in an enclave.
Wrong?
Also many things that are labeled "divisive issues" - and that mostly comes from the Republicans - are not at all devisive. There is just a loud minority making it so.
The most rediculous example is imho the kneeling down before a sports game. Trump made that sound like it's a declaration of independence from humanity.
I seriously wondered if there will be people blowing themselfs up shouting Allah... you have to stand!!
-
While I agree with you in general, there is an obvious counterpoint: the ACA.
The ACA was not a far-left divisive issue, it is actually a very moderate solution to a problem that very much affected the entire country at the time. It was such a Republican idea in fact that the Republicans haven't been able to come up with a better replacement a decade later. It didn't matter. The Republicans characterized it as a far-left divisive issue, still to this day are calling it that, and managed to convince enough of the population to retake the House in the mid-terms and prevent Obama from doing much of anything else for the next 6 years.
So if the Republicans are going to scream SOCIALISM! (oh I'm sorry, these days the scare-word is MARXISM!) at everything you do anyway, then you might as well do what you want and not worry about what Republicans think.
I think that's what the Democrats did, by passing the ACA with zero Republican votes. Where they faltered was in not doing a good job explaining and selling the ACA to the people, which allowed the Republicans to draw a socialist caricature of it, which led to the loss of Congress. Eventually, when the ACA actually started working, people's opinions changed, and the Democrats ultimately benefited from passing a law that has the support of mainstream Americans. Protecting that law is why the Dems were able to take the House in 2018, and it's a big part of why they have a chance at making gains now.
-
One strong reason Democrats are in this mess is because Obama did not move hard enough to the left in 2009 when he had the votes in the Senate. Had the Democratic majority pursued DC statehood by removing the filibuster on statehood votes and pushed a bunch of judges through earlier without the filibuster (as they did in 2013, only until after Obama's reelection) the Democrats would not nearly be in as bad of shape as they are now. McConnell realized this, and took advantage of it. And guess what, he won based on the fact both him and his friends are still in office. Harry Reid lost whatever political game was being played. Really though, President Obama got schooled and had no spine early on.
As much as I liked Obama as a person, he left the Democratic party much worse than how he found it.
The only saving grace for Trump is McConnell. The Republican Senators since 2014 have been about as powerful of a Senate in modern history. While we focus on the Presidential election nonstop, the Senate race is almost equally as important.
Reid didn't need to remove the filibuster in 2009, because the Democrats had a supermajority then. I think he was wise to wait until after the 2012 election to remove it on judicial appointments, so as not to inflame the electorate. And I don't think it is necessarily an open-an-shut case that ramming through DC statehood would have produced an insurmountable Democratic Senate majority. Yes, they likely would have gained two seats in DC, but how many would they have lost in more moderate states?
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
-
It is true that Republicans are largely obstructionists with whom reasonable compromise is generally not possible. But it does not follow that the appropriate response from Democrats is to move as far to the left as possible. They should focus on accomplishing things that most (or at least a plurality of) Americans want to see accomplished. Do that without Republican help if necessary, but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves. That is the way to get re-elected so that they can keep accomplishing good things for the American people. Focusing on divisive issues and taking the most liberal positions possible is the surest way to lose Congress in the mid-terms.
Correct me if I am wrong. En enclave is a part of a state that is incircled by another state.
We don't meed to take that literally, but the point is the encirclement.
As far as I know the liberal (Democrats) areas are the costs and the big lake area.
And in the North is the even more liberal Canada while the south is socialist Mexico.
So for me it looks definitely like the Reps are living in an enclave.
Wrong?
Also many things that are labeled "divisive issues" - and that mostly comes from the Republicans - are not at all devisive. There is just a loud minority making it so.
The most rediculous example is imho the kneeling down before a sports game. Trump made that sound like it's a declaration of independence from humanity.
I seriously wondered if there will be people blowing themselfs up shouting Allah... you have to stand!!
Not sure of your point in arguing semantics around the word enclave.
I agree that Republicans are masters of defining sane, moderate policies as divisive. The Democrats need to do a much better job of countering such misinformation.
-
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
But that's my point. McConnell has made outrageous moves. The filibuster removal for judges? Reid did it but McConnell stonewalled judicial appointments. Not approving many judges in 2015-2017, or Garland? Unusual, and resulted in many new conservative judges. At best you can complain McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees for Gorsuch, but in the conservative world even Romney is happy the court is well Right now. There has been no penalty from the voters for these outrageous moves. McConnell has played to win, and is not interested in compromise. I can't think of much the Democrat Senators/House have done that have "won" in the past few decades. They have played, yes. The ACA was a giant political loser, no matter what your view on it actually helping people. That's the signature from two years of near complete control of both houses (they sort of had the super majority but not very long in that 2 year time frame). Obama took a soft attitude and wasted 2 years anchoring the left's agenda on pretty center stuff.
If Biden wins and the Democrats take at least a 52-48 majority then I hope they remove the filibuster and pass real left legislation (Green New Deal, etc.), and pack the courts. It is the only way to penalize McConnell and the path he took us down. And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing. Unfortunately, with the direction this has gone, the Democrats need to go far left just to anchor their future negotiations. McConnell has no interest in moving to the center. The center needs to be appealing to him again.
-
And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing.
Why would you assume McConnell has to either find dirt or be convincing? This is how the entire Republican party wants their politicians to behave. McConnell is just a convenient safe-seat fall guy to take the heat off of everyone else, they'd be doing the exact same things without him.
-
Why would you assume McConnell has to either find dirt or be convincing? This is how the entire Republican party wants their politicians to behave. McConnell is just a convenient safe-seat fall guy to take the heat off of everyone else, they'd be doing the exact same things without him.
I disagree. McConnell will go down as one of the most successful political leaders ever. Others could have behaved similarly. But McConnell has led the Republicans with very few hiccups, if any.
-
It is true that Republicans are largely obstructionists with whom reasonable compromise is generally not possible. But it does not follow that the appropriate response from Democrats is to move as far to the left as possible. They should focus on accomplishing things that most (or at least a plurality of) Americans want to see accomplished. Do that without Republican help if necessary, but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves. That is the way to get re-elected so that they can keep accomplishing good things for the American people. Focusing on divisive issues and taking the most liberal positions possible is the surest way to lose Congress in the mid-terms.
Correct me if I am wrong. En enclave is a part of a state that is incircled by another state.
We don't meed to take that literally, but the point is the encirclement.
As far as I know the liberal (Democrats) areas are the costs and the big lake area.
And in the North is the even more liberal Canada while the south is socialist Mexico.
So for me it looks definitely like the Reps are living in an enclave.
Wrong?
Also many things that are labeled "divisive issues" - and that mostly comes from the Republicans - are not at all devisive. There is just a loud minority making it so.
The most rediculous example is imho the kneeling down before a sports game. Trump made that sound like it's a declaration of independence from humanity.
I seriously wondered if there will be people blowing themselfs up shouting Allah... you have to stand!!
Not sure of your point in arguing semantics around the word enclave.
I agree that Republicans are masters of defining sane, moderate policies as divisive. The Democrats need to do a much better job of countering such misinformation.
Call it my philisophical streak or my love for words or whatever.
I am just curious how you got to that word. It can't be geographically, as I have shown. It can't be politically, because afaik that is not true, Dems have never been closed to outsiders. And if you put the meaning of defensive into enclave, it gets even more unlikely, because for Decades now it were the Reps that were in defensive battles - at least if you measure public support.
So why choose this unusual word?
-
This is fairly common English usage of "enclave". Definition 2 (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclave): "any small group or area enclosed within a larger one".
The "liberal" group being enclosed within the larger "Democrats" group for example. Which is itself enclosed inside the larger "Americans" group. Or geographically: liberal cities enclosed inside the larger rural areas.
I didn't see anything unusual about his use of "enclave".
-
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
But that's my point. McConnell has made outrageous moves. The filibuster removal for judges? Reid did it but McConnell stonewalled judicial appointments. Not approving many judges in 2015-2017, or Garland? Unusual, and resulted in many new conservative judges. At best you can complain McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees for Gorsuch, but in the conservative world even Romney is happy the court is well Right now. There has been no penalty from the voters for these outrageous moves. McConnell has played to win, and is not interested in compromise. I can't think of much the Democrat Senators/House have done that have "won" in the past few decades. They have played, yes. The ACA was a giant political loser, no matter what your view on it actually helping people. That's the signature from two years of near complete control of both houses (they sort of had the super majority but not very long in that 2 year time frame). Obama took a soft attitude and wasted 2 years anchoring the left's agenda on pretty center stuff.
If Biden wins and the Democrats take at least a 52-48 majority then I hope they remove the filibuster and pass real left legislation (Green New Deal, etc.), and pack the courts. It is the only way to penalize McConnell and the path he took us down. And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing. Unfortunately, with the direction this has gone, the Democrats need to go far left just to anchor their future negotiations. McConnell has no interest in moving to the center. The center needs to be appealing to him again.
I agree with your first paragraph in part, in that the Democrats didn't have much to show for the short period of time when they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. And although I wish the ACA had been a better piece of legislation, I don't agree that it was a political loser. It represented monumental progress in the battle against our law-of-the-jungle health care system, and it moved the political zeitgeist enough that much of the country does not want to go back to pre-ACA days. Once the 2010 mid-terms happened, the Democrats were dead in the water for accomplishing legislation, and the same for judicial appointments after the 2014 mid-terms. At that point they couldn't have retaliated with their own hardball tactics whether they wanted to or not.
If/when the Democrats are back in control, they will need to use some hardball tactics of their own if they expect to get anything done. The filibuster will have to go. Which is a shame, because then they will have no defense against bad legislation the next time the Republicans are in control. But it has to be done. However, again, it does not follow that they should then use their power to pass legislation that most Americans don't like. That would insure their return to the minority sooner rather than later.
-
This is fairly common English usage of "enclave". Definition 2 (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enclave): "any small group or area enclosed within a larger one".
The "liberal" group being enclosed within the larger "Democrats" group for example. Which is itself enclosed inside the larger "Americans" group. Or geographically: liberal cities enclosed inside the larger rural areas.
I didn't see anything unusual about his use of "enclave".
So with "but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves." you meant "things that also play well outside big cities"?
Hm... I am afraid that is not possible. I think in that case it is still not a (primarily) Dems/Reps based difference, but city/rural, who tend to vote that way.
Talking about liberal enclaves would mean you have switched couse and effect. City people vote Dems because they have a policy that is appealing to town dwellers. If they start doing things that appeal to rural people, it would mean towns would not vote for them.
But I guess we can end that discussion here.
However, again, it does not follow that they should then use their power to pass legislation that most Americans don't like. That would insure their return to the minority sooner rather than later.
But here we are again at the successes of the Rep's spin doctoring the politics.
Many Republican voters loved the ACA, because they were dependend on it, but they loathed Obamacare.
It's unbelievably hard to inform people that don't want to be informed and take all "information" they need from Fox News.
-
So with "but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves." you meant "things that also play well outside big cities"?
Hm... I am afraid that is not possible. I think in that case it is still not a (primarily) Dems/Reps based difference, but city/rural, who tend to vote that way.
Talking about liberal enclaves would mean you have switched couse and effect. City people vote Dems because they have a policy that is appealing to town dwellers. If they start doing things that appeal to rural people, it would mean towns would not vote for them.
But I guess we can end that discussion here.
The English language is simply not as precise as you are assuming it is. :)
You have to go for understanding the general meaning instead of nit-picking details of word usage. Which words you use adds flavor, adds shades of meaning, but not at the expense of the larger more obvious meaning.
He simply meant that Dems should do things that are popular with most people, instead of only playing to a fraction of their own base.
-
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
But that's my point. McConnell has made outrageous moves. The filibuster removal for judges? Reid did it but McConnell stonewalled judicial appointments. Not approving many judges in 2015-2017, or Garland? Unusual, and resulted in many new conservative judges. At best you can complain McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees for Gorsuch, but in the conservative world even Romney is happy the court is well Right now. There has been no penalty from the voters for these outrageous moves. McConnell has played to win, and is not interested in compromise. I can't think of much the Democrat Senators/House have done that have "won" in the past few decades. They have played, yes. The ACA was a giant political loser, no matter what your view on it actually helping people. That's the signature from two years of near complete control of both houses (they sort of had the super majority but not very long in that 2 year time frame). Obama took a soft attitude and wasted 2 years anchoring the left's agenda on pretty center stuff.
If Biden wins and the Democrats take at least a 52-48 majority then I hope they remove the filibuster and pass real left legislation (Green New Deal, etc.), and pack the courts. It is the only way to penalize McConnell and the path he took us down. And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing. Unfortunately, with the direction this has gone, the Democrats need to go far left just to anchor their future negotiations. McConnell has no interest in moving to the center. The center needs to be appealing to him again.
I agree with your first paragraph in part, in that the Democrats didn't have much to show for the short period of time when they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. And although I wish the ACA had been a better piece of legislation, I don't agree that it was a political loser. It represented monumental progress in the battle against our law-of-the-jungle health care system, and it moved the political zeitgeist enough that much of the country does not want to go back to pre-ACA days. Once the 2010 mid-terms happened, the Democrats were dead in the water for accomplishing legislation, and the same for judicial appointments after the 2014 mid-terms. At that point they couldn't have retaliated with their own hardball tactics whether they wanted to or not.
If/when the Democrats are back in control, they will need to use some hardball tactics of their own if they expect to get anything done. The filibuster will have to go. Which is a shame, because then they will have no defense against bad legislation the next time the Republicans are in control. But it has to be done. However, again, it does not follow that they should then use their power to pass legislation that most Americans don't like. That would insure their return to the minority sooner rather than later.
My 2 cents....
1. Democrats should ALWAYS do what is right for most Americans - city and rural areas alike.
2. The above does not, in my opinion, include pandering to any specific group or demographic segment. This means actively working to break the stranglehold that < 30% Americans have over appointing judges to the court(s) who has a penchant for modifying (errrr.. "re-interpreting" using the "originalist" philosophy) the constitution.
3. There are many other right things (e.g. voting rights, removing qualified immunity etc) that are pretty non-controversial, but will be made into controversial issues by the right-wing propaganda outlets.
4. I would prioritize structural issues first, and then prioritize things that benefits the most Americans (e.g. public option, especially for rural areas).
Because of #3, Dems can expect a backlash anyway, whatever they do, even if they extend better healthcare to rural areas via public option. 2022 senate map is very favorable for Dems, so they will likely keep control for 4 years. But expect 2024 senate to flip if the disenfranchisement of the majority (30% of the population controlling 70% of the votes) continue. Hence the importance of structural issues.
tl;dr
Doing the right thing is not correlated with support from the people who are benefitting from that right thing!! Dems should do that anyway!
-
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
But that's my point. McConnell has made outrageous moves. The filibuster removal for judges? Reid did it but McConnell stonewalled judicial appointments. Not approving many judges in 2015-2017, or Garland? Unusual, and resulted in many new conservative judges. At best you can complain McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees for Gorsuch, but in the conservative world even Romney is happy the court is well Right now. There has been no penalty from the voters for these outrageous moves. McConnell has played to win, and is not interested in compromise. I can't think of much the Democrat Senators/House have done that have "won" in the past few decades. They have played, yes. The ACA was a giant political loser, no matter what your view on it actually helping people. That's the signature from two years of near complete control of both houses (they sort of had the super majority but not very long in that 2 year time frame). Obama took a soft attitude and wasted 2 years anchoring the left's agenda on pretty center stuff.
If Biden wins and the Democrats take at least a 52-48 majority then I hope they remove the filibuster and pass real left legislation (Green New Deal, etc.), and pack the courts. It is the only way to penalize McConnell and the path he took us down. And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing. Unfortunately, with the direction this has gone, the Democrats need to go far left just to anchor their future negotiations. McConnell has no interest in moving to the center. The center needs to be appealing to him again.
I agree with your first paragraph in part, in that the Democrats didn't have much to show for the short period of time when they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. And although I wish the ACA had been a better piece of legislation, I don't agree that it was a political loser. It represented monumental progress in the battle against our law-of-the-jungle health care system, and it moved the political zeitgeist enough that much of the country does not want to go back to pre-ACA days. Once the 2010 mid-terms happened, the Democrats were dead in the water for accomplishing legislation, and the same for judicial appointments after the 2014 mid-terms. At that point they couldn't have retaliated with their own hardball tactics whether they wanted to or not.
If/when the Democrats are back in control, they will need to use some hardball tactics of their own if they expect to get anything done. The filibuster will have to go. Which is a shame, because then they will have no defense against bad legislation the next time the Republicans are in control. But it has to be done. However, again, it does not follow that they should then use their power to pass legislation that most Americans don't like. That would insure their return to the minority sooner rather than later.
tl;dr
Doing the right thing is not correlated with support from the people who are benefitting from that right thing!! Dems should do that anyway!
^Absolutely. The job is not to please people; it's to serve the country well.
-
So with "but make sure that they are doing things that play well across much of the country, not just in the liberal enclaves." you meant "things that also play well outside big cities"?
Hm... I am afraid that is not possible. I think in that case it is still not a (primarily) Dems/Reps based difference, but city/rural, who tend to vote that way.
Talking about liberal enclaves would mean you have switched couse and effect. City people vote Dems because they have a policy that is appealing to town dwellers. If they start doing things that appeal to rural people, it would mean towns would not vote for them.
But I guess we can end that discussion here.
The English language is simply not as precise as you are assuming it is. :)
You have to go for understanding the general meaning instead of nit-picking details of word usage. Which words you use adds flavor, adds shades of meaning, but not at the expense of the larger more obvious meaning.
He simply meant that Dems should do things that are popular with most people, instead of only playing to a fraction of their own base.
Thanks for taking over the semantics argument for me. ;)
-
My cousin lost her job during the summer of 2019. I learned that my parents have been sending money for her to make COBRA payments each month so that she can continue to have health insurance.
My cousin has been lighting up FB with her admiration of the President, even attending a rally. I'm getting concerned that she hasn't been studying the health insurance thing with enough effort.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
Our health care is run by the provinces, but the federal government is doing a lot in its areas of responsibility. Our numbers are going up again but most seem to be related to people ignoring the guidelines.
The things you mention are important. A mask-wearing socially distanced White House sets an example. Supporting WHO and the CDC and publicly supporting the recommendations made by health officials all sound like good useful acts.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
Our health care is run by the provinces, but the federal government is doing a lot in its areas of responsibility. Our numbers are going up again but most seem to be related to people ignoring the guidelines.
The things you mention are important. A mask-wearing socially distanced White House sets an example. Supporting WHO and the CDC and publicly supporting the recommendations made by health officials all sound like good useful acts.
Right and I'm 100% confident that a Biden White House will set a good mask/distancing example and will support the scientists at the CDC and FDA. There's no need to hope for Biden doing those things because that's one of the reasons to support him.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
No... you're the worst. India has a billion people, and half the deaths you guys have had. Brazil is the next shittest country, not Peru, and the UK is nowhere near. Considering infected as a percentage of population, you and Brazil are running about neck and neck. They're a third world country! All things considered, the USA is BY FAR the worst outbreak in on the planet, and doing absolutely nothing useful to stop it. You know that wall? Yeah, don't worry about building that. You don't need to worry about closing the borders, either. No one's coming to the United States of Plague. Hell, we're not even accepting your mail, let alone your people.
-
These things have to be done delicately. Generally, you want to follow your opponent's outrageous moves, rather than making an outrageous move first. Then you can claim you are only doing what you have to do to survive.
But that's my point. McConnell has made outrageous moves. The filibuster removal for judges? Reid did it but McConnell stonewalled judicial appointments. Not approving many judges in 2015-2017, or Garland? Unusual, and resulted in many new conservative judges. At best you can complain McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court nominees for Gorsuch, but in the conservative world even Romney is happy the court is well Right now. There has been no penalty from the voters for these outrageous moves. McConnell has played to win, and is not interested in compromise. I can't think of much the Democrat Senators/House have done that have "won" in the past few decades. They have played, yes. The ACA was a giant political loser, no matter what your view on it actually helping people. That's the signature from two years of near complete control of both houses (they sort of had the super majority but not very long in that 2 year time frame). Obama took a soft attitude and wasted 2 years anchoring the left's agenda on pretty center stuff.
If Biden wins and the Democrats take at least a 52-48 majority then I hope they remove the filibuster and pass real left legislation (Green New Deal, etc.), and pack the courts. It is the only way to penalize McConnell and the path he took us down. And well, it is not just him, it is all the Republican Senators who he had fall in line. Either McConnell's MO is to find dirt on every one of his party's senators, or he is surprisingly very convincing. Unfortunately, with the direction this has gone, the Democrats need to go far left just to anchor their future negotiations. McConnell has no interest in moving to the center. The center needs to be appealing to him again.
I agree with your first paragraph in part, in that the Democrats didn't have much to show for the short period of time when they had complete control of Congress and the Presidency. And although I wish the ACA had been a better piece of legislation, I don't agree that it was a political loser. It represented monumental progress in the battle against our law-of-the-jungle health care system, and it moved the political zeitgeist enough that much of the country does not want to go back to pre-ACA days. Once the 2010 mid-terms happened, the Democrats were dead in the water for accomplishing legislation, and the same for judicial appointments after the 2014 mid-terms. At that point they couldn't have retaliated with their own hardball tactics whether they wanted to or not.
If/when the Democrats are back in control, they will need to use some hardball tactics of their own if they expect to get anything done. The filibuster will have to go. Which is a shame, because then they will have no defense against bad legislation the next time the Republicans are in control. But it has to be done. However, again, it does not follow that they should then use their power to pass legislation that most Americans don't like. That would insure their return to the minority sooner rather than later.
tl;dr
Doing the right thing is not correlated with support from the people who are benefitting from that right thing!! Dems should do that anyway!
^Absolutely. The job is not to please people; it's to serve the country well.
That paternalistic attitude is what allows Republicans to claim that Democrats are a bunch of out-of-touch nanny-state elites. Democrats need to make a real effort to convince people of the merits of their policies. They're never going to convince the 35% of voters who are die-hard Trumpers, but they should be able to persuade independents and centrist Democrats. Bring those folks along, and you're golden. Make them feel like you're riding roughshod over them, and you're on the fast track to the minority.
-
That paternalistic attitude is what allows Republicans to claim that Democrats are a bunch of out-of-touch nanny-state elites. Democrats need to make a real effort to convince people of the merits of their policies. They're never going to convince the 35% of voters who are die-hard Trumpers, but they should be able to persuade independents and centrist Democrats. Bring those folks along, and you're golden. Make them feel like you're riding roughshod over them, and you're on the fast track to the minority.
The ACA debates happened just 11-12 years ago. Democrat's convinced ALL centrist democrats and compromised heavily (e.g. no public option). When polled on issues, majority of the population supported individual provisions on ACA.
That sounds to me like what you are suggesting.
Unfortunately there is a Republican spin machine that then convinced everyone that "Obamacare" is evil. I am not sure Democrats can control that spin machine. (Perhaps they can try bringing back the fairness doctrine and drive Sinclair and Fox out of business!! Sounds like too much work for not too much gain - because social media silo's will still exist!).
While that republican spin machine exists, Dems can do everything right (like they did in the case of Obamacare), and a minority of the population (that happens to control a majority of the senate and sometimes electoral college) will still be convinced they are "evil", "paternalistic" etc. etc.
Should the opinions of this minority hold Dems back from extending healthcare, for example, to millions of people for fear of political cost?
I consider Obama to be one of the very best Presidents for setting the precedent - where he decided to forge ahead and did the right thing for the American people fully knowing he will pay the political cost!!
How would you suggest he should have handled it? Let poor American's stay uninsured so that a few Democratic seats can be protected in the next election??
I don't think the normal norms apply when one side of the discussion no longer feels obligated to even pretend good faith.
-
That paternalistic attitude is what allows Republicans to claim that Democrats are a bunch of out-of-touch nanny-state elites. Democrats need to make a real effort to convince people of the merits of their policies. They're never going to convince the 35% of voters who are die-hard Trumpers, but they should be able to persuade independents and centrist Democrats. Bring those folks along, and you're golden. Make them feel like you're riding roughshod over them, and you're on the fast track to the minority.
The ACA debates happened just 11-12 years ago. Democrat's convinced ALL centrist democrats and compromised heavily (e.g. no public option). When polled on issues, majority of the population supported individual provisions on ACA.
That sounds to me like what you are suggesting.
Unfortunately there is a Republican spin machine that then convinced everyone that "Obamacare" is evil. I am not sure Democrats can control that spin machine. (Perhaps they can try bringing back the fairness doctrine and drive Sinclair and Fox out of business!! Sounds like too much work for not too much gain - because social media silo's will still exist!).
While that republican spin machine exists, Dems can do everything right (like they did in the case of Obamacare), and a minority of the population (that happens to control a majority of the senate and sometimes electoral college) will still be convinced they are "evil", "paternalistic" etc. etc.
Should the opinions of this minority hold Dems back from extending healthcare, for example, to millions of people for fear of political cost?
I consider Obama to be one of the very best Presidents for setting the precedent - where he decided to forge ahead and did the right thing for the American people fully knowing he will pay the political cost!!
How would you suggest he should have handled it? Let poor American's stay uninsured so that a few Democratic seats can be protected in the next election??
I don't think the normal norms apply when one side of the discussion no longer feels obligated to even pretend good faith.
I don't know that I have all the answers, but somehow Democrats have to counter the Republican spin machine. It seems like over and over they allow themselves to be defined by the Republicans without ever fighting back effectively. John Kerry got swift-boated, and it seemed like he never really countered that message. The ACA was pilloried, and no one was out there hammering home what was actually in the ACA. Or if they were, they weren't doing it effectively. The Republicans live in constant campaign mode; maybe Democrats need to do the same. Issue ads all the time. Not just during election years. The hard-core Republican base will always spin everything Democrats do as evil. The Democrats need to be able to drown out that message with the facts.
-
I don't know that I have all the answers, but somehow Democrats have to counter the Republican spin machine. It seems like over and over they allow themselves to be defined by the Republicans without ever fighting back effectively. John Kerry got swift-boated, and it seemed like he never really countered that message. The ACA was pilloried, and no one was out there hammering home what was actually in the ACA. Or if they were, they weren't doing it effectively. The Republicans live in constant campaign mode; maybe Democrats need to do the same. Issue ads all the time. Not just during election years. The hard-core Republican base will always spin everything Democrats do as evil. The Democrats need to be able to drown out that message with the facts.
Republicans built their propaganda machine over 50+ years. Most people don't realize the extent and depth of that network that is constantly brainwashing Americans everywhere.
I don't think a "democrat propaganda machine" that can counter it will be ready in a decade or two, and even if it could be made ready I am not sure it would be desirable. Propaganda machines drive rage and build negative partisanship driven "ideological" movements (is "negative partisanship" and ideology?) like you see on the right today. A propaganda driven ideological movement on the left could be even more dangerous than what you see on the right today!!
I don't believe trying to do such a deal with the devil is desirable or necessary. Whatever Democrats do to help Americans, it will be spun as "evil" by Fox and Sinclair (which is just a tiny little part of the right wing propaganda machine) and others. I believe it is best for the Dems to do whatever is best for the country whenever they have the best chance to do so (2020, or 22 - when senate map is even more favorable than 2020). Let the right-wing spin machine spin it. Ultimately, in 10-15 years reality will - hopefully - bring the vocal, brainwashed minority around, just like it happened for Obamacare!! After an iteration or two of that, hopefully the right-wing propaganda apparatus will lose complete credibility!!
The only alternative to the above is to do nothing, or to build an equally scary and harmful leftwing propaganda apparatus! I doubt that would be good for anybody!
I don't like this situation any more than you do! I am just blurting out what I think is the only practical pathway forward!!
-
I don't know that I have all the answers, but somehow Democrats have to counter the Republican spin machine. It seems like over and over they allow themselves to be defined by the Republicans without ever fighting back effectively. John Kerry got swift-boated, and it seemed like he never really countered that message. The ACA was pilloried, and no one was out there hammering home what was actually in the ACA. Or if they were, they weren't doing it effectively. The Republicans live in constant campaign mode; maybe Democrats need to do the same. Issue ads all the time. Not just during election years. The hard-core Republican base will always spin everything Democrats do as evil. The Democrats need to be able to drown out that message with the facts.
Republicans built their propaganda machine over 50+ years. Most people don't realize the extent and depth of that network that is constantly brainwashing Americans everywhere.
Thank you! It's been going for my entire life, and I'm in my 40s. The GOP very strongly and effectively branded itself as the "Moral Majority" and "family values" party back in the 1980s, when they got into bed with the white Evangelicals. They've been able to ram through all sorts of bullshit by falling back on that reputation.
-
I don't know that I have all the answers, but somehow Democrats have to counter the Republican spin machine. It seems like over and over they allow themselves to be defined by the Republicans without ever fighting back effectively. John Kerry got swift-boated, and it seemed like he never really countered that message. The ACA was pilloried, and no one was out there hammering home what was actually in the ACA. Or if they were, they weren't doing it effectively. The Republicans live in constant campaign mode; maybe Democrats need to do the same. Issue ads all the time. Not just during election years. The hard-core Republican base will always spin everything Democrats do as evil. The Democrats need to be able to drown out that message with the facts.
Republicans built their propaganda machine over 50+ years. Most people don't realize the extent and depth of that network that is constantly brainwashing Americans everywhere.
Thank you! It's been going for my entire life, and I'm in my 40s. The GOP very strongly and effectively branded itself as the "Moral Majority" and "family values" party back in the 1980s, when they got into bed with the white Evangelicals. They've been able to ram through all sorts of bullshit by falling back on that reputation.
Yupp, almost everyone in a battleground or red state would probably know someone (maybe a pastor or a politician or someone like that) who has been trained by the "Leadership Institute". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Institute
So it is no wonder that a coordinated rightwing spin (like what happened for "Obamacare") was so effective. Fox at national level + Sinclair in the local stations + the local favorite talk radio + local pastor trained by the Leadership Institute - any propaganda would be effective when it is coordinated so well at all levels.
It *will* be effective again, in future, in any issue that Dems pick! This is a given!! It is also a given that Dems won't be able to get such propaganda presence at all levels anytime soon, especially not the "boots on the ground" one.
I don't think such a left-wing system will be necessary. Another one or two iterations of the Obamacare debacle for this apparatus and the next generation will likely (hopefully) lose faith in it. I'm also very skeptical of any such massive multi-level ideological apparatus that specializes in bad faith talking points - left or right!
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
No... you're the worst. India has a billion people, and half the deaths you guys have had. Brazil is the next shittest country, not Peru, and the UK is nowhere near. Considering infected as a percentage of population, you and Brazil are running about neck and neck. They're a third world country! All things considered, the USA is BY FAR the worst outbreak in on the planet, and doing absolutely nothing useful to stop it. You know that wall? Yeah, don't worry about building that. You don't need to worry about closing the borders, either. No one's coming to the United States of Plague. Hell, we're not even accepting your mail, let alone your people.
I think COVID should and will be an obvious priority.
Biden can, should and probably will do a lot more than just set the tone. However, in contrast to a situation where the current President set a tone directly against necessary measures such as mask wearing, setting the tone is important. Specific COVID steps should include:
1. Demonstrate key actions that the public should follow, such as wear a mask and, when appropriate, receive a vaccination
2. Depoliticize COVID efforts by designating one key nonpartisan health official to communicate with the public on the topic (likely Dr. Fauci)
3. Confirm publicly and privately that employees in COVID-related agencies will be respected for communicating truthfully
4. Convening top experts including existing agency experts to devise a coherent national plan for COVID
5. Implement the experts' recommendations
Due to the disease's breadth of spread, plus the intense politicization to date, I suspect there will be more US COVID deaths under Biden than Trump. There's too much momentum to stop it quickly now. But in time, these mundane policies will produce far lower infection rates and largely halt the disease from further spreading. They will be a priority from the start.
That's why I voted for him, and I think many others too.
-
I don't know that I have all the answers, but somehow Democrats have to counter the Republican spin machine. It seems like over and over they allow themselves to be defined by the Republicans without ever fighting back effectively. John Kerry got swift-boated, and it seemed like he never really countered that message. The ACA was pilloried, and no one was out there hammering home what was actually in the ACA. Or if they were, they weren't doing it effectively. The Republicans live in constant campaign mode; maybe Democrats need to do the same. Issue ads all the time. Not just during election years. The hard-core Republican base will always spin everything Democrats do as evil. The Democrats need to be able to drown out that message with the facts.
Republicans built their propaganda machine over 50+ years. Most people don't realize the extent and depth of that network that is constantly brainwashing Americans everywhere.
I don't think a "democrat propaganda machine" that can counter it will be ready in a decade or two, and even if it could be made ready I am not sure it would be desirable. Propaganda machines drive rage and build negative partisanship driven "ideological" movements (is "negative partisanship" and ideology?) like you see on the right today. A propaganda driven ideological movement on the left could be even more dangerous than what you see on the right today!!
I don't believe trying to do such a deal with the devil is desirable or necessary. Whatever Democrats do to help Americans, it will be spun as "evil" by Fox and Sinclair (which is just a tiny little part of the right wing propaganda machine) and others. I believe it is best for the Dems to do whatever is best for the country whenever they have the best chance to do so (2020, or 22 - when senate map is even more favorable than 2020). Let the right-wing spin machine spin it. Ultimately, in 10-15 years reality will - hopefully - bring the vocal, brainwashed minority around, just like it happened for Obamacare!! After an iteration or two of that, hopefully the right-wing propaganda apparatus will lose complete credibility!!
The only alternative to the above is to do nothing, or to build an equally scary and harmful leftwing propaganda apparatus! I doubt that would be good for anybody!
I don't like this situation any more than you do! I am just blurting out what I think is the only practical pathway forward!!
I'm not suggesting a left-wing propaganda machine. More like a truth machine - one that fights back against the Republican propaganda by repetitive truth-telling rather than the repetitive lies told by the right.
The turn-around in public opinion on the ACA is a good example of good policy winning out in the end (maybe, if the Supreme Court doesn't take it away), but look what we had to go through to get there. Wouldn't it have been better if the public could have been convinced of the ACA's merit from the get-go?
And WTF is up with all the exclamation points? Did I really get you that worked up?
-
And WTF is up with all the exclamation points? Did I really get you that worked up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark
A sentence ending in an exclamation mark may represent an exclamation or an interjection (such as "Wow!", "Boo!"), or an imperative ("Stop!"), or may indicate astonishment or surprise: "They were the footprints of a gigantic hound!" Exclamation marks are occasionally placed mid-sentence with a function similar to a comma, for dramatic effect, although this usage is obsolete: "On the walk, oh! there was a frightful noise."[13]
I tend to use exclamations in the "astonishment/surprise" sense - like "did you know?" or "can you believe that...?" sense, and not to shout or yell.
I probably need to curb that, because I have been asked about this, and misunderstood before.
-
Um.... covid??? Guys, you're not doing anything or going anywhere until your country comes back from being the worst hotspot in the world. Until then, you're hobbled.
We're not the worst. At the least, we're in a race to the bottom with India and Peru (and maybe the UK, which hit 26k cases on the 21st).
Covid response was mentioned upthread.
There's not much Biden can do except set the tone. He could push for more federal money for health studies and stay in the WHO. He can get a stimulus bill passed so that non-essential workers don't feel compelled to go to work. He can't close schools or mandate masks or stop outdoor gatherings. That's all up to the states.
No... you're the worst. India has a billion people, and half the deaths you guys have had. Brazil is the next shittest country, not Peru, and the UK is nowhere near. Considering infected as a percentage of population, you and Brazil are running about neck and neck. They're a third world country! All things considered, the USA is BY FAR the worst outbreak in on the planet, and doing absolutely nothing useful to stop it. You know that wall? Yeah, don't worry about building that. You don't need to worry about closing the borders, either. No one's coming to the United States of Plague. Hell, we're not even accepting your mail, let alone your people.
India? C'mon. They don't even trust their own data. Why should we?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/cause-of-death-missing-or-vague-in-six-out-of-10-death-certificates/articleshow/67618893.cms
A scan of death certificates issued in Karnataka shows six of every 10 documents lack details on the cause, while mentioning only age, name and address of the deceased.
I see Peru as the highest deaths/1M and Brazil as 2nd. The UK just behind the US: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Since you did mention hotspot, the UK has more recent cases per million than the US, which is why I mentioned it above.
Of course, as you pointed out, both the US and UK (and Spain, which also has more recent cases per million than the US) are not in good company, considering our wealth and better health care systems when compared to Peru and Brazil.
-
I'm not suggesting a left-wing propaganda machine. More like a truth machine - one that fights back against the Republican propaganda by repetitive truth-telling rather than the repetitive lies told by the right.
But there is already a TV station showing the truth! Fox News! They show everyone all the lies most of the media constantly shovel down stupid people's throats!!
Maybe you have heard the saying "A lie has run three times around the world before thruth has got her boots on?"
You need a conscious and very constant effort to get to the thruth and most don't do that or can't do that, for whatever reason.
It's a problem that is literally millenia old, and "social media" only make it worse.
-
I'm not suggesting a left-wing propaganda machine. More like a truth machine - one that fights back against the Republican propaganda by repetitive truth-telling rather than the repetitive lies told by the right.
But there is already a TV station showing the truth! Fox News! They show everyone all the lies most of the media constantly shovel down stupid people's throats!!
Maybe you have heard the saying "A lie has run three times around the world before thruth has got her boots on?"
You need a conscious and very constant effort to get to the thruth and most don't do that or can't do that, for whatever reason.
It's a problem that is literally millenia old, and "social media" only make it worse.
The proliferation of all the "fact check" news stories on the web, and also the mainstream media's constant calling out of Trump's lies, give me a glimmer of hope. Perhaps that has played a small part in Biden's lead in the polls. But of course the Republican propaganda outlets are now attacking the fact checkers as "biased." I'm hoping (perhaps in vain) that about 2/3 of Americans can tell who is actually telling the truth.
-
I'm not suggesting a left-wing propaganda machine. More like a truth machine - one that fights back against the Republican propaganda by repetitive truth-telling rather than the repetitive lies told by the right.
But there is already a TV station showing the truth! Fox News! They show everyone all the lies most of the media constantly shovel down stupid people's throats!!
Maybe you have heard the saying "A lie has run three times around the world before thruth has got her boots on?"
You need a conscious and very constant effort to get to the thruth and most don't do that or can't do that, for whatever reason.
It's a problem that is literally millenia old, and "social media" only make it worse.
The proliferation of all the "fact check" news stories on the web, and also the mainstream media's constant calling out of Trump's lies, give me a glimmer of hope. Perhaps that has played a small part in Biden's lead in the polls. But of course the Republican propaganda outlets are now attacking the fact checkers as "biased." I'm hoping (perhaps in vain) that about 2/3 of Americans can tell who is actually telling the truth.
I used to think I am an optimist. You, sir, beat me by miles!
I sincerely wish and hope that 2/3rd of the Americans can beat back the sustained big-money propaganda aimed at them.
Even so, I believe it is prudent to expect another round or two of Obamacare-like situations (or worse) while the right wing propaganda machine makes it's last stand against demographic headwinds.
-
How many milliseconds into January 22nd will the Republicans be concerned about the debt again? 1?
I pose this because Biden will need a full department to deal with hypocritical hand-wringing. I guess every president does, but I feel like this one will be busier than usual.
-
It'll start in November. Conservatives will say Trump lost because he wasn't conservative enough and allowed himself to get rolled on things like that spending bill in 2018.
-
It'll start in November. Conservatives will say Trump lost because he wasn't conservative enough and allowed himself to get rolled on things like that spending bill in 2018.
And yet they will balk at the idea of repealing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed in December 2017. Hypocrites to the last breath.
Biden floated the idea of an Alternative Minimum Tax for Corporations to the tune of 15%. Why? Because he sees Amazon, GE, Apple and the like paying minimal Federal Tax Rates by using every single loophole in the book. I thing this is a grand idea, especially as CORPS have been paying less and less taxes as a percentage of federal tax income for the last 70 years. Meanwhile, they lobby very aggressively to both parties (their $$$ is free speech, remember!) for less regulation and more special loopholes that their army of accountants/lawyers can exploit.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-revenue-federal-government -Look at Figure 3 and compare to your own payroll taxes and individual taxes
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
+ Infrastructure bill.
Let's hope 2022 produces another couple of seats that produce political cover for Joe Manchin/Kyrsten Synema/Mark Kelly. If Dems can win back at least 2 seats (likely) in 2022, at least one of them will need to take the fall for the team (which I am hopeful one of them will).
Looking at their voting records and scores, I am hopeful they will find some way to make things work:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/party-senate-democrat/ideology
They are scored 0.69 for Krysten Sinema, to 0.59 for Manchin on a scale where most republicans are close to 1 and most liberal democrats are 0.00. Except for filibuster (necessary to remove to do most useful things), having this much conservative check on liberal tendencies is actually good! That produces successful compromises like Obamacare.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
Joe Manchin will get on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda if there is something in it for him, which is how politics generally works. Look for pork added to bills that aids West Virginia.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
Joe Manchin will get on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda if there is something in it for him, which is how politics generally works. Look for pork added to bills that aids West Virginia.
That would actually be a "good" thing in this case, IMO.
WV is one of the poorest states. Extra federal investment there (="pork") is very much warranted there. Even if the result is more federal deficit, in exchange of the structural changes the country badly needs, then that would be very much worth it. I just hope Munchin does not push for unproductive pork and actually bargains for real investments that will help West Virginians.
I don't expect, however, that Biden will push that.
-
I would like to see him undo the latest round of Chinese tariffs.
Also, improvements to the ACA
Anything COVID related.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
Joe Manchin will get on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda if there is something in it for him, which is how politics generally works. Look for pork added to bills that aids West Virginia.
That would actually be a "good" thing in this case, IMO.
WV is one of the poorest states. Extra federal investment there (="pork") is very much warranted there. Even if the result is more federal deficit, in exchange of the structural changes the country badly needs, then that would be very much worth it. I just hope Munchin does not push for unproductive pork and actually bargains for real investments that will help West Virginians.
I don't expect, however, that Biden will push that.
Good calls - that I hadn't thought of!
Will keep eyes peeled nose open for the enticing smell of bacon being fried up in West Virginia. Hope it's tasty and well chosen.
-
Maybe it'll be green pork and ham. Like subsidized wind or solar jobs for low-income / unemployed blue-collar workers. My relatives have lived there for decades and it seems people are coming around to that, especially on top of the mountains that were blown up for coal (ground and water is too toxic for anything like farming or residential/commercial). Or even at the oil refinery the town is built around and is almost shuttered. Maybe the rental fees the energy companies get will convince them to switch (they own a lot of land in WV).
I think that should be Biden's priority - red states will like the subsidies and jobs, blue states will like the reduction in oil/gas/coal. Tying it to social issues isn't a good idea if those are race-based, which will really tank the green deal.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
Joe Manchin will get on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda if there is something in it for him, which is how politics generally works. Look for pork added to bills that aids West Virginia.
I don't doubt that Manchin will support much of the Democratic Party's agenda. However, he won't support eliminating the filibuster, which means the Republicans can still tank the Democratic Party's agenda.
-
Well, it appears that this thread wasn't just mental masturbation after all. But it looks like the filibuster will stand, as Joe Manchin has already said that he will not support ending it. So, that takes any sweeping legislation off the table, and limits Biden to acting through appointments, regulations, and maybe things that can be squeezed into budget reconciliation bills. Perhaps that might produce a fix for the ACA, and maybe there is room for some mild bipartisan action on climate change. But the bolder ideas like DC/Puerto Rico statewide are just wild fantasies at this point.
Joe Manchin will get on board with the Democratic Party’s agenda if there is something in it for him, which is how politics generally works. Look for pork added to bills that aids West Virginia.
That would actually be a "good" thing in this case, IMO.
WV is one of the poorest states. Extra federal investment there (="pork") is very much warranted there. Even if the result is more federal deficit, in exchange of the structural changes the country badly needs, then that would be very much worth it. I just hope Munchin does not push for unproductive pork and actually bargains for real investments that will help West Virginians.
I don't expect, however, that Biden will push that.
Manchin is on the appropriations, armed services, and veteran's affairs committee, and he is poised to take over as chair of the energy and natural resources committee. So look for him to be in the driver's seat on many consequential issues, especially any legislation related to climate change. There will certainly be pork for West Virginia involved, but the main thing I worry about is the likelihood that any climate change legislation will be watered down to the point where it is meaningless. He does acknowledge the need for action on climate change, but he is still a stubborn supporter of the fossil fuel industries.
-
Maybe it'll be green pork and ham. Like subsidized wind or solar jobs for low-income / unemployed blue-collar workers. My relatives have lived there for decades and it seems people are coming around to that, especially on top of the mountains that were blown up for coal (ground and water is too toxic for anything like farming or residential/commercial). Or even at the oil refinery the town is built around and is almost shuttered. Maybe the rental fees the energy companies get will convince them to switch (they own a lot of land in WV).
I think that should be Biden's priority - red states will like the subsidies and jobs, blue states will like the reduction in oil/gas/coal. Tying it to social issues isn't a good idea if those are race-based, which will really tank the green deal.
Yes, solar is finally starting to catch on here, as people are slowly realizing that it is one of the few potentially productive uses of land that has been destroyed by surface mining. But a lot of people are still reflexively opposed to it because they see it as competition for coal and gas. I think Manchin, and maybe even others in the state's delegation (all Republicans), will support it, though, because of the jobs potential.
-
From the govtrack link I posted earlier, Kyrsten Synema seems to be more conservative leaning than Manchin. So Munchin may not end up becoming the deciding vote - but rather Synema.
-
I don't doubt that Manchin will support much of the Democratic Party's agenda. However, he won't support eliminating the filibuster, which means the Republicans can still tank the Democratic Party's agenda.
The republican party is not capable of any meaningful compromises. The "establishment" proved this during Obamacare and till 2016, and the Trump wing is just insane so there is no point talking to them anyway.
This means that without at least partial Filibuster removal there won't be anything achieved except for a initial COVID related grand stimulus.
If I had to bet, this is what I'd bet on.
-
I don't doubt that Manchin will support much of the Democratic Party's agenda. However, he won't support eliminating the filibuster, which means the Republicans can still tank the Democratic Party's agenda.
The republican party is not capable of any meaningful compromises. The "establishment" proved this during Obamacare and till 2016, and the Trump wing is just insane so there is no point talking to them anyway.
This means that without at least partial Filibuster removal there won't be anything achieved except for a initial COVID related grand stimulus.
If I had to bet, this is what I'd bet on.
Agree except to say "anything legislative.". There's a lot that can be done (repaired) just by having the likes of Devos, Barr, Pompeo, etc. out of the executive branch. That's mostly where my hopes lay as far as proving to voters that it is worthwhile to have competent people who are genuinely interested in governing effectively in power, rather than people that just want to prove correct their claim that government is ineffective and full of waste, fraud and abuse.
-
From the govtrack link I posted earlier, Kyrsten Synema seems to be more conservative leaning than Manchin. So Munchin may not end up becoming the deciding vote - but rather Synema.
Has she expressed a position on the filibuster? If there are two or more Dems against removal of the filibuster, then it is even more unlikely to happen.
-
From the govtrack link I posted earlier, Kyrsten Synema seems to be more conservative leaning than Manchin. So Munchin may not end up becoming the deciding vote - but rather Synema.
Has she expressed a position on the filibuster? If there are two or more Dems against removal of the filibuster, then it is even more unlikely to happen.
The hesitancy to remove the filibuster is because if and when the Republicans get back into power, they would have free reign to make some really bad changes. Like, REALLY bad changes.
-
From the govtrack link I posted earlier, Kyrsten Synema seems to be more conservative leaning than Manchin. So Munchin may not end up becoming the deciding vote - but rather Synema.
Has she expressed a position on the filibuster? If there are two or more Dems against removal of the filibuster, then it is even more unlikely to happen.
The hesitancy to remove the filibuster is because if and when the Republicans get back into power, they would have free reign to make some really bad changes. Like, REALLY bad changes.
The existance of the filibuster didn't prevent that in the past though ;)
-
Actually the filibuster limited the size of the tax cuts to what the parliamentarian would accept as "budget reconciliation". It also prevented more drastic changes from being made to the ACA by the Senate.
-
After the events of the last couple of months, there's another priority that needs to be moved to the top of the list: identifying, designating, and neutralizing domestic terrorist groups, including rooting out members/sympathizers in law enforcement and the military.
-
After the events of the last couple of months, there's another priority that needs to be moved to the top of the list: identifying, designating, and neutralizing domestic terrorist groups, including rooting out members/sympathizers in law enforcement and the military.
You already have the highest incarceration ratte in the world. You want to double that?
-
After the events of the last couple of months, there's another priority that needs to be moved to the top of the list: identifying, designating, and neutralizing domestic terrorist groups, including rooting out members/sympathizers in law enforcement and the military.
You already have the highest incarceration ratte in the world. You want to double that?
We can let the potheads out and replace them with the violent extremists. Seems like a fair trade. I don’t think that particular statistic should influence our management of a major national security situation. Maybe we’re just a more violent society.
-
It may have been mentioned before, but renewal of the Fairness Doctrine and application to any site claiming to be news including cable/satellite (looking at you Fox, OANN, Newsmax) would be helpful in reigning in some of the constant lies. I'm regularly shocked at the radicalization of elderly in-law family members by Fox.
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
I agree with extending unemployment benefits. People out of work need the help. But the stimulus checks are pure vote-buying. Sure, I'll put mine to good use, but I still think it's bad public policy.
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
I agree with extending unemployment benefits. People out of work need the help. But the stimulus checks are pure vote-buying. Sure, I'll put mine to good use, but I still think it's bad public policy.
I don't know. There are soooooo many people that are not eligible for unemployment now, because our economy has moved so far toward gig workers and other contractors that aren't officially employees, or for all the devastated small business owners. Lots of desperation in their ranks as well and I don't know how they are supported or why those with official W-2 jobs should get preferential treatment (aka potentially shelter or life-saving support)?
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
I agree with extending unemployment benefits. People out of work need the help. But the stimulus checks are pure vote-buying. Sure, I'll put mine to good use, but I still think it's bad public policy.
I don't know. There are soooooo many people that are not eligible for unemployment now, because our economy has moved so far toward gig workers and other contractors that aren't officially employees, or for all the devastated small business owners. Lots of desperation in their ranks as well and I don't know how they are supported or why those with official W-2 jobs should get preferential treatment (aka potentially shelter or life-saving support)?
Supposedly the self-employed and gig workers were included in the expanded unemployment benefits that were passed previously, although I've heard horror stories about how difficult it is to actually get the benefits. Seems like it shouldn't be that difficult to extend unemployment benefits to those folks.
-
Purely anecdotally (I am yet to see a proper economic study done on this), the business facing portions of the last big stimulus - the PPP and such - did not work very well. At least that is what the business owners seem to suggest, and many of them went out of business anyway.
Again anecdotally, people swear that the last round of checks + the unemployment insurance went to meet daily necessities. There aren't many Mustachians out there who will put that money straight to VTSAX.
My impression (without the backing of proper research) is that stimulus given to the workers go further in stimulating the economy than those focused on the capital owners.
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
Many people make the mistake of thinking of it as debt (and I too used to think of it that way years ago), it's not. I really suggest people read the Deficit Myth. Hypothetically let's say the US Gov't spends $3T to just give people money without doing anything else. The Fed instructs banks to mark up people's checking accounts (this is what is often referred to as printing money). $3T of Treasury securities is then issued. That's it. The fed gov't doesn't borrow the money. The $3T is what is considered added debt even though it's not.
The only limiting factors as far as gov't spending goes are inflation and whether we have the resources (labor, factories, machinery, etc) to absorb the increased spending. If you want to argue against increased stimulus for these reasons fine but to argue against them b/c of federal "debt" is just being misinformed.
-
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
Many people make the mistake of thinking of it as debt (and I too used to think of it that way years ago), it's not. I really suggest people read the Deficit Myth. Hypothetically let's say the US Gov't spends $3T to just give people money without doing anything else. The Fed instructs banks to mark up people's checking accounts (this is what is often referred to as printing money). $3T of Treasury securities is then issued. That's it. The fed gov't doesn't borrow the money. The $3T is what is considered added debt even though it's not.
The only limiting factors as far as gov't spending goes are inflation and whether we have the resources (labor, factories, machinery, etc) to absorb the increased spending. If you want to argue against increased stimulus for these reasons fine but to argue against them b/c of federal "debt" is just being misinformed.
Out of the trillions the government spends each year, the interest on the national debt (almost $28 trillion) is now approaching $400 billion - even with historically low interest rates. So adding another $3 trillion in debt, even at very low interest rates, adds tens of billions in annual interest. And if interest rates go up even moderately, that $400 billion in interest could balloon up to $500 or $600 billion or more. That is a real cost that has to be paid out of federal revenues and takes money away from other priorities.
-
We wouldn't even be in this giant hole if we hadn't had big unnecessary tax cuts to corporations when the economy was already going well. Now there's a legitimate disaster that requires government spending/increasing the deficit, and people are arguing we've already spent it. Yeah, when we didn't even need to. But now we need to, so I guess that's just too bad. I haven't gotten any of the stimulus checks, so I don't have a personal stake in this debate, but I do find it comforting that my extended family members qualify and that it's helping some of them out who really need it. I know some small business owners who are still barely hanging on and I'd like them to make it to the other side of this, too. This is a temporary situation until we can get our act together and get this vaccine out, so let's do what we need to in order to salvage what we can so the damage isn't permanent. Some of those ships have already sailed/sunk/burned, but let's try to save what's left and worry about the deficit when we're on the other side of this.
-
Crap, as if it wasn't bad enough to increase the massive debt by sending out another $1400 (and much more to couples & families) that usually don't need it and doubling unemployment benefits so that people have no incentive to return to work when they can sit at home and be better off living off taxpayer money....
Now Biden wants to include a $15/hr minimum wage increase in his stimulus. Talk about hitting small businesses when they are down! I've seen nothing but bad things and increased inflation and more businesses closing or relocating when minimum wage has been increased in my state, which is still scheduled to increase further! Biden wants to put these increases on steroids and roll them out everywhere. This is a bad sign for this presidency. Sadly, Biden seemed like the safest vote. I would definitely feel better if the Republicans had maintained control of the Senate, but that ship has sailed. I sure hope Congress doesn't pass these things.
-
We wouldn't even be in this giant hole if we hadn't had big unnecessary tax cuts to corporations when the economy was already going well. Now there's a legitimate disaster that requires government spending/increasing the deficit, and people are arguing we've already spent it. Yeah, when we didn't even need to. But now we need to, so I guess that's just too bad. I haven't gotten any of the stimulus checks, so I don't have a personal stake in this debate, but I do find it comforting that my extended family members qualify and that it's helping some of them out who really need it. I know some small business owners who are still barely hanging on and I'd like them to make it to the other side of this, too. This is a temporary situation until we can get our act together and get this vaccine out, so let's do what we need to in order to salvage what we can so the damage isn't permanent. Some of those ships have already sailed/sunk/burned, but let's try to save what's left and worry about the deficit when we're on the other side of this.
Tax cuts alone do not account for $28 trillion in debt. Reduced revenue is part of the equation, but the bottom line is that it's been decades since we had a balanced budget. Congress controls the purse strings and it's not their money. So what do they care if we borrow a few hundred billion here or a couple trillion there? After all, it's not like they're going to be stuck paying it back. If there's one area where bipartisanship is alive and well, it's spending money we don't have.
-
Crap, as if it wasn't bad enough to increase the massive debt by sending out another $1400 (and much more to couples & families) that usually don't need it and doubling unemployment benefits so that people have no incentive to return to work when they can sit at home and be better off living off taxpayer money....
Now Biden wants to include a $15/hr minimum wage increase in his stimulus. Talk about hitting small businesses when they are down! I've seen nothing but bad things and increased inflation and more businesses closing or relocating when minimum wage has been increased in my state, which is still scheduled to increase further! Biden wants to put these increases on steroids and roll them out everywhere. This is a bad sign for this presidency. Sadly, Biden seemed like the safest vote. I would definitely feel better if the Republicans had maintained control of the Senate, but that ship has sailed. I sure hope Congress doesn't pass these things.
So if this whole $1.9 trillion package actually passed (unlikely) my family would probably get over $10k between the extra $1,400 (not sure if that's just for adults or kids too) and larger child tax credits of $3,000 and $3,600 for kids under 6. Frankly it's just ridiculous. I'm not going to ignore the money falling from the sky if the government keeps throwing it from a helicopter. But I wish they would stop doing so. Oh and $15 minimum wage is really going to help all those struggling restaurants who can barely keep the doors open.
-
My impression (without the backing of proper research) is that stimulus given to the workers go further in stimulating the economy than those focused on the capital owners.
Your impression is correct.
Most people have a propensity to consume most of their "regular" income and most of any extra income they receive. IIRC, their propensity to consume results in them spending >90% of their "regular" income and the same for extra income.
Saver Mu$tachians are an anomaly.
Virtually all the people who are poor/broke due to the pandemic will immediately begin to spend all the stimulus they receive because they must to secure the rudiments of life.
Whatever difference there may be in the commencement of the velocity of money received and spent by poor and broke people versus that received and spent by well-heeled investors, I think it will almost always commence later for the latter.
-
Crap, as if it wasn't bad enough to increase the massive debt by sending out another $1400 (and much more to couples & families) that usually don't need it and doubling unemployment benefits so that people have no incentive to return to work when they can sit at home and be better off living off taxpayer money....
Now Biden wants to include a $15/hr minimum wage increase in his stimulus. Talk about hitting small businesses when they are down! I've seen nothing but bad things and increased inflation and more businesses closing or relocating when minimum wage has been increased in my state, which is still scheduled to increase further! Biden wants to put these increases on steroids and roll them out everywhere. This is a bad sign for this presidency. Sadly, Biden seemed like the safest vote. I would definitely feel better if the Republicans had maintained control of the Senate, but that ship has sailed. I sure hope Congress doesn't pass these things.
So if this whole $1.9 trillion package actually passed (unlikely) my family would probably get over $10k between the extra $1,400 (not sure if that's just for adults or kids too) and larger child tax credits of $3,000 and $3,600 for kids under 6. Frankly it's just ridiculous. I'm not going to ignore the money falling from the sky if the government keeps throwing it from a helicopter. But I wish they would stop doing so. Oh and $15 minimum wage is really going to help all those struggling restaurants who can barely keep the doors open.
What would be an adequate solution instead?
-
I think the stimulus is fine, but not the minimum wage increase at this time. First thing, deal with covid, and take the trash out--Trumps slimey incompetent appointees. Get good people in those positions, and then work on structural changes so that another Trump can't come along, do so much damage, and be successful in taking down our democracy. Limit pardon powers. Better checks and balances.
Then, what others have mentioned here.
-
Yes, Minimum Wage increase is decisivly not a good idea at the moment. Especially if you do it in big jumps. I love high minimum wages for the obvious economical and human benefits, but you have to increase it carefully so that the economy can adopt to it. A pandemic with closed shops certainly has enough other shit going to adopt to that you should not put more on the table.
It's good for your health to do some training. But not on the day you already had an heart attack!
Purely anecdotally (I am yet to see a proper economic study done on this), the business facing portions of the last big stimulus - the PPP and such - did not work very well. At least that is what the business owners seem to suggest, and many of them went out of business anyway.
Again anecdotally, people swear that the last round of checks + the unemployment insurance went to meet daily necessities. There aren't many Mustachians out there who will put that money straight to VTSAX.
My impression (without the backing of proper research) is that stimulus given to the workers go further in stimulating the economy than those focused on the capital owners.
Don't worry, others have done the research and yes, both intuitive thought and logic, and the research result are on the same side.
If you give money to poor people they spend it. If you give it to rich, they "invest" it (meaning in most cases the capital market, not an investment into production capacities - for the obvious reason in an economic crisis that there is no need for more capacity).
Biden wants to add even more trillions of dollars to our debt by sending out more money to people and doubling unemployment benefits. I voted for him, but I oppose both of these plans. I hope they can stop him.
Many people make the mistake of thinking of it as debt (and I too used to think of it that way years ago), it's not. I really suggest people read the Deficit Myth. Hypothetically let's say the US Gov't spends $3T to just give people money without doing anything else. The Fed instructs banks to mark up people's checking accounts (this is what is often referred to as printing money). $3T of Treasury securities is then issued. That's it. The fed gov't doesn't borrow the money. The $3T is what is considered added debt even though it's not.
The only limiting factors as far as gov't spending goes are inflation and whether we have the resources (labor, factories, machinery, etc) to absorb the increased spending. If you want to argue against increased stimulus for these reasons fine but to argue against them b/c of federal "debt" is just being misinformed.
Out of the trillions the government spends each year, the interest on the national debt (almost $28 trillion) is now approaching $400 billion - even with historically low interest rates. So adding another $3 trillion in debt, even at very low interest rates, adds tens of billions in annual interest. And if interest rates go up even moderately, that $400 billion in interest could balloon up to $500 or $600 billion or more. That is a real cost that has to be paid out of federal revenues and takes money away from other priorities.
Funnily enough that is not necessarily so. If you go down to the ultimate basics.
The state has the dept.
The National bank, that has created that money, is the holder.
What happens if you forfeit this debt?
The state has less debt.
The National Bank has less "money that we destroy when the state pays it back".
Not a single cent is actually moved in the real economy.
doubling unemployment benefits so that people have no incentive to return to work when they can sit at home
With this sentence I always wonder:
To what work should they go if nobody is hiring them?
Tax cuts alone do not account for $28 trillion in debt. Reduced revenue is part of the equation, but the bottom line is that it's been decades since we had a balanced budget.
On that topic, regarding to towns in the US, watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0
How America Bankrupted its Cities - The Growth Ponzi Scheme
-
I read that a large number of migrants are headed to the U.S. They think that Biden will be weak on immigration, so they are going to take advantage. This is definitely concerning. This was one of Trump's few strong points, and I worry if Biden can handle it, especially with the pressure from the far left open borders group.
-
I read that a large number of migrants are headed to the U.S. They think that Biden will be weak on immigration, so they are going to take advantage. This is definitely concerning. This was one of Trump's few strong points, and I worry if Biden can handle it, especially with the pressure from the far left open borders group.
Language is a faszinating thing. Especially the framing it allows.
I would think that "weak on immigration" means someone cannot handle it, and instead closes borders. But it is always used in the opposite.
But the thing I find really strange is that so many people in the country, that is most of all known for accepting every immigrant, are against immigrants. Especially considering they practically are all descendents of immigrants and would such be illegal and should be kicked out violently according to their own values.
Not to mention that they ignore the fact that the immigrants were always the reason for the US strength in economy and science.
-
I read that a large number of migrants are headed to the U.S. They think that Biden will be weak on immigration, so they are going to take advantage. This is definitely concerning. This was one of Trump's few strong points, and I worry if Biden can handle it, especially with the pressure from the far left open borders group.
Why are you personally so afraid of immigrants? Are immigrants bad people? Are they simply ambitious, threatening your job?
For all of US history, this country OF immigrants has generally been receptive to "certain types" of immigrants. AKA White People. It's when the immigrants were Asian or Latino that the racism really came out. Hell, even the Eastern Europeans/Jews/Russians got less crap then the Latinos have over the last 40 years.
-
Yeah, all the evidence is that immigration has consistently been a boon to our economy. I've never heard an argument against immigration that isn't based on either lack of facts or fear of "cultural change" (the "taco trucks on every corner" terror).