Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[JLee]

I've always found that premise interesting...but have never actually taken the time to see if the data backs it up. I always chalked it up to politics. The party removed from power will always claim that the current party's success is actually a result of all the previous administration's work when things are going well...and when things aren't going well, they just point to how poor a job the current admin is doing without regard for it being a result of the previous administration's policy. Sort of a "it's going well, then we did that...it's going poorly, then you did that" dynamic at play. I'm not claiming that's what the data supports, but I'd be interested to see what the data actually shows and if there's a meaningful (non-politically slanted) way to show that?

I dont know how you could ever remove political bias or the influence of macro trends. Depending on how some view policies and the pros and cons of each policy is difficult to tease out whats what.

Lets say we take current conditions on a slightly more granular level right now.

The states with the lowest unemployment rate are - Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Vermont, Alabama, Montana, and Oklahoma.

All run by Republicans...

The states with the highest unemployment rate are - Connecticut, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Hawaii, New York and Illinois & Pennsylvania.

All run by Democrats...

As someone said upthread maybe its all just coincidence :)

I would question your judgement on who is running Vermont and Pennsylvania.

Yup. Vermont voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1964 and less than 1/3rd of their House of Representatives is Republican. "Ran by Republicans" is a stretch, unless what they really meant was "elected a Republican governor."  PA also has a Republican-majority house.

IMO it is not coincidence, but it is not due to political party.  The more relevant factor is likely most of the states without major cities (or any population to speak of) have the lowest unemployment rate, and the states with the high unemployment rate are the ones that were hardest hit by covid (due to population density).  On the surface, Nevada may appear as an outlier but 2.2 of the ~3 million residents live in the Las Vegas metro area, so it is practically a densely populated area as well.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

[Tyler durden]

I've always found that premise interesting...but have never actually taken the time to see if the data backs it up. I always chalked it up to politics. The party removed from power will always claim that the current party's success is actually a result of all the previous administration's work when things are going well...and when things aren't going well, they just point to how poor a job the current admin is doing without regard for it being a result of the previous administration's policy. Sort of a "it's going well, then we did that...it's going poorly, then you did that" dynamic at play. I'm not claiming that's what the data supports, but I'd be interested to see what the data actually shows and if there's a meaningful (non-politically slanted) way to show that?

I dont know how you could ever remove political bias or the influence of macro trends. Depending on how some view policies and the pros and cons of each policy is difficult to tease out whats what.

Lets say we take current conditions on a slightly more granular level right now.

The states with the lowest unemployment rate are - Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Vermont, Alabama, Montana, and Oklahoma.

All run by Republicans...

The states with the highest unemployment rate are - Connecticut, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Hawaii, New York and Illinois & Pennsylvania.

All run by Democrats...

As someone said upthread maybe its all just coincidence :)

I would question your judgement on who is running Vermont and Pennsylvania.

Yup. Vermont voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1964 and less than 1/3rd of their House of Representatives is Republican. "Ran by Republicans" is a stretch, unless what they really meant was "elected a Republican governor."  PA also has a Republican-majority house.

IMO it is not coincidence, but it is not due to political party.  The more relevant factor is likely most of the states without major cities (or any population to speak of) have the lowest unemployment rate, and the states with the high unemployment rate are the ones that were hardest hit by covid (due to population density).  On the surface, Nevada may appear as an outlier but 2.2 of the ~3 million residents live in the Las Vegas metro area, so it is practically a densely populated area as well.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/

I 100% see the point your making. essentially where does the buck stop? Very hard to tell and very subjective. When we have a president from one party and a senate and house controlled by the opposing party, where does the buck stop? So much depends on the make up of each, the margin of power, etc.

Right now Biden and the Dems are in full control of the presidency, senate and house. But unless they can get things done through the  budget reconciliation process, they need R votes. It makes the idea of whos in charge more complicated.

[iris lily]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Yes, this is of concern.

According to the White House ‘s spokeswoman at the press conference, the White House is merely making “proposals “to Facebook as to how to handle “misinformation. “ So gentle and reasonable! Bullshit.

The government is sliding down that slippery slope of government censorship.

When does a “proposal “become a demand? When does a government “ proposal”  to an entity put undue pressure on that entity to affect content? Whether we like it or not, misinformation is protected under the first amendment.

[nereo]

Today's victim of his policies is the first amendment. 

First, an aside.  I understand facebook and twitter are private entities and entitled to determine who are their customers and thus can take Trump's account off.  (just like the bakery should be able to decide whose cake to cook or not).  The Bill of Rights including the free speech portion of the first amendment restricts government restriction of free speech not companies.

Press spokesman Psaki said "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation"   We're in this statement is the government.  The government is in effect pulling facebook posts.  That is specifically what the first amendment was passed to prevent.  Also:

Earlier, Politico reported that Biden allied groups like the DNC are planning to work with SMS carriers to read and stop text messages.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278

Of course, right now this is supposedly only about covid and vaccinations but what will be next?  inflation?  Will my posts about paying $3+ gallon for gas be stopped.  Will any texts about the family size box of wheat thins changing from 16 to 14 ounces but staying the same price be automatically stopped?

I switched to supporting Libertarians after GWB and congress passed the patriot act because it expanded domestic surveillance.  In 2001, some liberals opposed this act.  However, the patriot act is a pittance compared to the above expansion of domestic surveillance.  Will liberals again oppose this?

Yes, this is of concern.

According to the White House ‘s spokeswoman at the press conference, the White House is merely making “proposals “to Facebook as to how to handle “misinformation. “ So gentle and reasonable! Bullshit.

The government is sliding down that slippery slope of government censorship.

When does a “proposal “become a demand? When does a government “ proposal”  to an entity put undue pressure on that entity to affect content? Whether we like it or not, misinformation is protected under the first amendment.

Depends on what the misinformation is.  Libel and slander are not protected under the first amendment, nor is misinformation that incites lawless action or imminent harm (the cliched “yelling fire in a crowded theatre”).  Limits can also be placed obscenity without violating your first amendment rights, which is why town offices can strike comments that use profanity during public comment periods.

There’s a long list of case-law of misinformation which is not protected under the first amendment.

[By the River]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

[nereo]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

I suppose time will tell.  The difficulty of course is causation.

About a decade ago it was a popular opinion here and in other financial boards that the quantitative easing would lead to a big spike in inflation.  Obviously that never happened.

[LennStar]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

I suppose time will tell.  The difficulty of course is causation.

About a decade ago it was a popular opinion here and in other financial boards that the quantitative easing would lead to a big spike in inflation.  Obviously that never happened.

They would say it hasn't happened just yet.

The thing is even the "leftist liberals" would agree that QE has not lead to inflation - because most of the money didn't end up in buying stuff, but stocks. Such the demand did not exceed the production capabilities.

Really, the sudden rush to batteries and the chip problems are probabyl doing more to inflation than anything else (except the statistical effect from oil prices, which are still lower than pre-covid, but double or more 1 year ago).

[FIPurpose]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

If they're planning on paying for the infrastructure through additional taxes and not debt, then the money supply has not changed and inflation would be quite limited. So if you have the government buying up a lot of raw material, then it would supercharge the supply chain, thereby making housing materials cheaper. But the overall amount of money available in the system would not go up. It would likely move from our over-inflated stocks to basically "US capital expenditure". For an infratructure bill to be inflationary, I think it would have to start demanding the expected supply. If it doesn't, then no, the bill doesn't have to induce inflation.

I'm not saying that I obviously have this right, but there are arguments out there that we could be in for deflation in the coming months: https://www.investprovident.com/newsandinsights/2020/9/1/deflation-and-modern-monetary-theory

Basically, if the businesses get the supply/demand wrong, then businesses might be holding the ball with too much supply and not enough buyers. Like when oil prices went negative for a short while in the beginning of the pandemic, there was too much oil and not enough people who wanted to buy it.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

If they're planning on paying for the infrastructure through additional taxes and not debt, then the money supply has not changed and inflation would be quite limited. So if you have the government buying up a lot of raw material, then it would supercharge the supply chain, thereby making housing materials cheaper. But the overall amount of money available in the system would not go up. It would likely move from our over-inflated stocks to basically "US capital expenditure". For an infratructure bill to be inflationary, I think it would have to start demanding the expected supply. If it doesn't, then no, the bill doesn't have to induce inflation.

I'm not saying that I obviously have this right, but there are arguments out there that we could be in for deflation in the coming months: https://www.investprovident.com/newsandinsights/2020/9/1/deflation-and-modern-monetary-theory

Basically, if the businesses get the supply/demand wrong, then businesses might be holding the ball with too much supply and not enough buyers. Like when oil prices went negative for a short while in the beginning of the pandemic, there was too much oil and not enough people who wanted to buy it.

I'm confused....

[FIPurpose]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

If they're planning on paying for the infrastructure through additional taxes and not debt, then the money supply has not changed and inflation would be quite limited. So if you have the government buying up a lot of raw material, then it would supercharge the supply chain, thereby making housing materials cheaper. But the overall amount of money available in the system would not go up. It would likely move from our over-inflated stocks to basically "US capital expenditure". For an infratructure bill to be inflationary, I think it would have to start demanding the expected supply. If it doesn't, then no, the bill doesn't have to induce inflation.

I'm not saying that I obviously have this right, but there are arguments out there that we could be in for deflation in the coming months: https://www.investprovident.com/newsandinsights/2020/9/1/deflation-and-modern-monetary-theory

Basically, if the businesses get the supply/demand wrong, then businesses might be holding the ball with too much supply and not enough buyers. Like when oil prices went negative for a short while in the beginning of the pandemic, there was too much oil and not enough people who wanted to buy it.

I'm confused....

I'm not an economist, so tell me where I'm wrong here.

But there are 2 important ideas in supply. The actual production and the capacity. The capacity is the theoretical amount that an economy could produce of a particular product.

During covid we've seen a huge reduction in demand in several products that created deflation in a lot of markets (eg oil).
The opposite is also true. (eg lumber)

The problem comes when demand feels stuck being low, then that drives production down, and also near-term capacity down as well. However, if the government comes in saying that they will be buying x amount of a product, then production and capacity start to ramp up propping up the supply side of things. So the government then would be providing an "economy of scale" to the larger market for certain goods.

However, this all depends on what products the government is wanting. Here I'm talking about products that we currently have a high capacity for, but the production has been low due to covid. If the government wants to buy goods with a low supply, then that would obvious be an inflationary pressure.

[LennStar]

I'm not an economist, so tell me where I'm wrong here.

But there are 2 important ideas in supply. The actual production and the capacity. The capacity is the theoretical amount that an economy could produce of a particular product.

During covid we've seen a huge reduction in demand in several products that created deflation in a lot of markets (eg oil).
The opposite is also true. (eg lumber)

The problem comes when demand feels stuck being low, then that drives production down, and also near-term capacity down as well.....

It's good that you are not an economist, because that means you might use logic to look at the topic ;)

Lumber was extremely deflationary - especially since the last very dry years (here in Europe) have lead to over-production. Lumber was put in huge storages that were rained on constantly. That is (relativly) expensive and destroys a bit of the lumber, bit keeps it fresh until someone buys it. Thats how low the prices were in 2020.
The prices however spiked up when the economy got back on the wheels but is going down again. There is a lot of complicated Covid stuff going on.

Not very complicated however is that with the sudden electric car boom the prices for lithium and chips has skyrocket in this year, because both are things where production is not only very concentrated in very few production points, but also takes years to increase.
THAT is what drives prices up: More demand than production capacity.

If however we are talking about "business grade toilet paper" - the stuff only companies buy - then prices won't go up however much money you print (if we aren't talking about insane amounts) because even with a lot more money, there is simply no one buying it.

Or in short, as long as capacity is not (nearly) fully reached, money printing will not result in inflation, the companies will simply increase supply when demand is close to max. production and they thing it will increase.
That is Modern Monetary Theory in a nutshell.

Of course at the moment with Covid, the "Eco-Boom" and transport cost problems, there is a lot of insecurity, which is the reason that nobody can really predict what will happen. Another Suez-Canal blockade for a few weeks or even month will drive up at least some prices (esp. here in Europe) up a lot. A new Covid-wave with a deadlier varient may result in a deflation caused by shutdowns etc.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

If they're planning on paying for the infrastructure through additional taxes and not debt, then the money supply has not changed and inflation would be quite limited. So if you have the government buying up a lot of raw material, then it would supercharge the supply chain, thereby making housing materials cheaper. But the overall amount of money available in the system would not go up. It would likely move from our over-inflated stocks to basically "US capital expenditure". For an infratructure bill to be inflationary, I think it would have to start demanding the expected supply. If it doesn't, then no, the bill doesn't have to induce inflation.

I'm not saying that I obviously have this right, but there are arguments out there that we could be in for deflation in the coming months: https://www.investprovident.com/newsandinsights/2020/9/1/deflation-and-modern-monetary-theory

Basically, if the businesses get the supply/demand wrong, then businesses might be holding the ball with too much supply and not enough buyers. Like when oil prices went negative for a short while in the beginning of the pandemic, there was too much oil and not enough people who wanted to buy it.

I'm confused....

I'm not an economist, so tell me where I'm wrong here.

But there are 2 important ideas in supply. The actual production and the capacity. The capacity is the theoretical amount that an economy could produce of a particular product.

During covid we've seen a huge reduction in demand in several products that created deflation in a lot of markets (eg oil).
The opposite is also true. (eg lumber)

The problem comes when demand feels stuck being low, then that drives production down, and also near-term capacity down as well. However, if the government comes in saying that they will be buying x amount of a product, then production and capacity start to ramp up propping up the supply side of things. So the government then would be providing an "economy of scale" to the larger market for certain goods.

However, this all depends on what products the government is wanting. Here I'm talking about products that we currently have a high capacity for, but the production has been low due to covid. If the government wants to buy goods with a low supply, then that would obvious be an inflationary pressure.

I too am certainly no economist, so this is all just what sounds good to me :-). I can understand your concept, and I could see that it might work. I could also see it having a different effect. We need a lot of construction to keep up with demand - we're quite backlogged as a country. Do you not see any potential for the government to compete with home constructions for raw materials and for production to not ramp up enough to keep up causing prices to increase? Again, I'm totally spitballing. You may be 100% right. Mine just seems more likely in my head, but I have no facts to back me up.

[FIPurpose]

In Biden's town hall last week, he said that the newest huge spending bill in discussion would actually reduce inflation.  No way does this reduce inflation.  You could maybe say that because of the interruptions in the supply chain and all that there is enough slack that prices will not increase but no way is there a reduction.  The Moody's report he mentions says that inflation will remain uncomfortably high but later states that the proposed plan would reduce increases in housing and prescription drug costs.

The town hall answer from Whitehouse.gov:
THE PRESIDENT:  No, look, here’s the deal: Moody’s, today, went out — a Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank — said if we passed the other two things I’m trying to get done, we will, in fact, reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation.  Reduce inflation — because we’re going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back into all the things we’re talking about, driving down prices, not raising prices.

Moody's https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

If they're planning on paying for the infrastructure through additional taxes and not debt, then the money supply has not changed and inflation would be quite limited. So if you have the government buying up a lot of raw material, then it would supercharge the supply chain, thereby making housing materials cheaper. But the overall amount of money available in the system would not go up. It would likely move from our over-inflated stocks to basically "US capital expenditure". For an infratructure bill to be inflationary, I think it would have to start demanding the expected supply. If it doesn't, then no, the bill doesn't have to induce inflation.

I'm not saying that I obviously have this right, but there are arguments out there that we could be in for deflation in the coming months: https://www.investprovident.com/newsandinsights/2020/9/1/deflation-and-modern-monetary-theory

Basically, if the businesses get the supply/demand wrong, then businesses might be holding the ball with too much supply and not enough buyers. Like when oil prices went negative for a short while in the beginning of the pandemic, there was too much oil and not enough people who wanted to buy it.

I'm confused....

I'm not an economist, so tell me where I'm wrong here.

But there are 2 important ideas in supply. The actual production and the capacity. The capacity is the theoretical amount that an economy could produce of a particular product.

During covid we've seen a huge reduction in demand in several products that created deflation in a lot of markets (eg oil).
The opposite is also true. (eg lumber)

The problem comes when demand feels stuck being low, then that drives production down, and also near-term capacity down as well. However, if the government comes in saying that they will be buying x amount of a product, then production and capacity start to ramp up propping up the supply side of things. So the government then would be providing an "economy of scale" to the larger market for certain goods.

However, this all depends on what products the government is wanting. Here I'm talking about products that we currently have a high capacity for, but the production has been low due to covid. If the government wants to buy goods with a low supply, then that would obvious be an inflationary pressure.

I too am certainly no economist, so this is all just what sounds good to me :-). I can understand your concept, and I could see that it might work. I could also see it having a different effect. We need a lot of construction to keep up with demand - we're quite backlogged as a country. Do you not see any potential for the government to compete with home constructions for raw materials and for production to not ramp up enough to keep up causing prices to increase? Again, I'm totally spitballing. You may be 100% right. Mine just seems more likely in my head, but I have no facts to back me up.

I also don't have any numbers. hah!

But here's a short statement from the Director of Economic Policy Studies from the American Enterprise Institute:

Inflation occurs when economic demand for goods and services increases faster than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services. Much of President Biden’s spending plans would be inflationary because they would increase demand. Increased payments to households are one example.

A well-structured infrastructure bill would boost the supply side of the economy, reducing inflationary pressures. Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour, and putting downward pressure on consumer prices.

In addition to boosting productivity, the timing of the proposed infrastructure plans mitigates concern about inflation. The goal of the proposed infrastructure plan is not to boost the demand side of the economy, giving it a quick, Keynesian jolt through “shovel-ready” projects. This type of infrastructure spending could be inflationary. Instead, the goal is to increase the productive capacity of the economy over the course of nearly one decade. Under the plan, (roughly) no money would be spent in 2021. The vast majority of the money would be spent after 2022. We expect inflationary pressures from President Biden’s February stimulus, reopening, and pandemic-related supply constraints to have abated by 2023. So spending under the infrastructure plan would overwhelmingly occur after current concerns about inflation have subsided.

Which I would say is a much better explanation than my own sophomoric attempt.

[By the River]

I also don't have any numbers. hah!

But here's a short statement from the Director of Economic Policy Studies from the American Enterprise Institute:

Inflation occurs when economic demand for goods and services increases faster than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services. Much of President Biden’s spending plans would be inflationary because they would increase demand. Increased payments to households are one example.

A well-structured infrastructure bill would boost the supply side of the economy, reducing inflationary pressures. Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour, and putting downward pressure on consumer prices.

In addition to boosting productivity, the timing of the proposed infrastructure plans mitigates concern about inflation. The goal of the proposed infrastructure plan is not to boost the demand side of the economy, giving it a quick, Keynesian jolt through “shovel-ready” projects. This type of infrastructure spending could be inflationary. Instead, the goal is to increase the productive capacity of the economy over the course of nearly one decade. Under the plan, (roughly) no money would be spent in 2021. The vast majority of the money would be spent after 2022. We expect inflationary pressures from President Biden’s February stimulus, reopening, and pandemic-related supply constraints to have abated by 2023. So spending under the infrastructure plan would overwhelmingly occur after current concerns about inflation have subsided.

Which I would say is a much better explanation than my own sophomoric attempt.

That's a good explanation and I believe most comments have been that the bill will not increase inflation.  I still disagree that this bill as Biden said will "...reduce inflation. Reduce Inflation.  Reduce Inflation..."   Let's hope that it just keeps prices level and doesn't raise prices.

[LennStar]

I too am certainly no economist, so this is all just what sounds good to me :-). I can understand your concept, and I could see that it might work. I could also see it having a different effect. We need a lot of construction to keep up with demand - we're quite backlogged as a country. Do you not see any potential for the government to compete with home constructions for raw materials and for production to not ramp up enough to keep up causing prices to increase? Again, I'm totally spitballing. You may be 100% right. Mine just seems more likely in my head, but I have no facts to back me up.

Since I am neither knowledgleable about the current state of the US supply/demand nor the bill, I can't say anything specific.
Generally speaking there are already certain areas - I listed reasons - where demand is (temporarily) higher than production, so it would not be surprising if more government spending would lead to inflation at least in those parts.
However looking at last year as comparison (as is mostly done when you read about inflation rate) is BS.

[nereo]

That's a good explanation and I believe most comments have been that the bill will not increase inflation.  I still disagree that this bill as Biden said will "...reduce inflation. Reduce Inflation.  Reduce Inflation..."   Let's hope that it just keeps prices level and doesn't raise prices.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "keep prices level".  Zero (or near zero) inflation is generally considered to be bad for macroeconomics, as is runaway inflation in the double-digits.  The Fed has an official target of trying to keep inflation at 2%. Personally I'd like it to be closer to 2.5% (12 month average).

[WhiteTrashCash]

Well, it looks like Biden is not going to forgive any student loan debt. He says he wants Congress to do it, but realistically that is not going to happen with Congress as closely divided as it is right now, so this is a dead issue.

On the bright side, by Trump and Biden putting a forbearance on everybody's student loans for 19 months, I will be able to pay down my student loans to zero by the time the freeze ends at the end of September. So silver linings.

I just wish the forgiveness would have happened, because I've already paid over $20,000 more than I borrowed, which seems like a good profit for the government as it is.

[the_gastropod]

It is such a bummer seeing Nancy Pelosi parrot the same bs "it's not fair!" argument the right makes about taxation at large. Part of living in a society is paying your taxes, some of which will benefit you directly, some of which will (ghasp!) benefit people who are not you. Having an educated citizenry benefits that society. Having citizens not in debt up to their eyeballs also benefits society at large.

[PKFFW]

That's a good explanation and I believe most comments have been that the bill will not increase inflation.  I still disagree that this bill as Biden said will "...reduce inflation. Reduce Inflation.  Reduce Inflation..."   Let's hope that it just keeps prices level and doesn't raise prices.

"Reduce inflation" is not the same as "reduce prices".  I'm not clear on what he is claiming but....

If inflation is running at 2% and this bill reduces that to 1% it has "reduced inflation" even though prices will still rise by 1%.*



*Yes I know inflation of 1% doesn't necessarily equate to an across the board increase of prices by 1%, I'm just trying to keep the idea simple.

[nereo]

It is such a bummer seeing Nancy Pelosi parrot the same bs "it's not fair!" argument the right makes about taxation at large. Part of living in a society is paying your taxes, some of which will benefit you directly, some of which will (ghasp!) benefit people who are not you. Having an educated citizenry benefits that society. Having citizens not in debt up to their eyeballs also benefits society at large.

Can you like to something more specific?

[the_gastropod]

Yea, sorry. Probably should've included that in my post. I'm referring to her remarks today: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/565297-pelosi-disputes-bidens-power-to-forgive-student-loans

Suppose your ... child just decided they at this time did not want to go to college, but you're paying taxes to forgive somebody else's obligations. You may not be happy about that

[nereo]

Yea, sorry. Probably should've included that in my post. I'm referring to her remarks today: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/565297-pelosi-disputes-bidens-power-to-forgive-student-loans

Suppose your ... child just decided they at this time did not want to go to college, but you're paying taxes to forgive somebody else's obligations. You may not be happy about that

Pelosi’s core argument seems to be one about constitutionality.  I’m not sure she is wrong here - broadly speaking congress alone has the power of the purse. Complete debt forgiveness by EO would almost certainly wind up in court, and from what I’ve read from legal scholars I’m skeptical it would hold.  The only sure way it would hold would be for a congressional debt forgivenss bill (eithe stand-alone or part of a broader spending package).
“He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power,” Pelosi said. “That would best be an act of Congress.”

[Samuel]

Yea, sorry. Probably should've included that in my post. I'm referring to her remarks today: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/565297-pelosi-disputes-bidens-power-to-forgive-student-loans

Suppose your ... child just decided they at this time did not want to go to college, but you're paying taxes to forgive somebody else's obligations. You may not be happy about that

Pelosi’s core argument seems to be one about constitutionality.  I’m not sure she is wrong here - broadly speaking congress alone has the power of the purse. Complete debt forgiveness by EO would almost certainly wind up in court, and from what I’ve read from legal scholars I’m skeptical it would hold.  The only sure way it would hold would be for a congressional debt forgivenss bill (eithe stand-alone or part of a broader spending package).
“He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power,” Pelosi said. “That would best be an act of Congress.”

"But would it hold through the 2024 election cycle?" is surely a question some lawmakers are also asking...

Edited to add: I'm actually with Pelosi on this and am glad she's giving Biden some cover from the left. Regardless of whether you think debt forgiveness is a good idea or not is anyone really that comfortable with the idea that a President should be able to sidestep a gridlocked Congress (which is invested with the "power of the purse") and spend a trillion dollars (the estimated cost of 50k debt forgiveness) with the stroke of a pen?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

Yea, sorry. Probably should've included that in my post. I'm referring to her remarks today: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/565297-pelosi-disputes-bidens-power-to-forgive-student-loans

Suppose your ... child just decided they at this time did not want to go to college, but you're paying taxes to forgive somebody else's obligations. You may not be happy about that

Pelosi’s core argument seems to be one about constitutionality.  I’m not sure she is wrong here - broadly speaking congress alone has the power of the purse. Complete debt forgiveness by EO would almost certainly wind up in court, and from what I’ve read from legal scholars I’m skeptical it would hold.  The only sure way it would hold would be for a congressional debt forgivenss bill (eithe stand-alone or part of a broader spending package).
“He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power,” Pelosi said. “That would best be an act of Congress.”

"But would it hold through the 2024 election cycle?" is surely a question some lawmakers are also asking...

Edited to add: I'm actually with Pelosi on this and am glad she's giving Biden some cover from the left. Regardless of whether you think debt forgiveness is a good idea or not is anyone really that comfortable with the idea that a President should be able to sidestep a gridlocked Congress (which is invested with the "power of the purse") and spend a trillion dollars (the estimated cost of 50k debt forgiveness) with the stroke of a pen?

I agree that it would be a bad thing to happen in this way. I feel like people that are pushing hard for Biden to unilaterally forgive the debt, though, aren't worried about the constitutionality of it (of which I am extremely dubious) and just want it done.

[MilesTeg]

Debt forgiveness is dumb, but I could get behind allowing people to discharge that debt in a bankruptcy like other kinds of debt. Still a big favor IMO, the reason that debt can't be discharged is because those loans are given out without being guaranteed.

It's not about "the cost of having an educated society!" it's about people making poor individual choices and then expecting others to pay for it. Degrees that don't have high earnings potential remain very useful things for society, but you don't need to rack up 6 figures of debt to obtain one. Community colleges and state schools can still facilitate getting a bachelor's degree for $20-30k (not including living expenses).

Yeah, staying at home and doing CC for a couple years then going to a state school isn't as much fun, but you definitely don't get to put forward the idea that society should have to pay for you to have a fun college experience/life.

[sixwings]

Yes, fund public post secondary better and enable student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy after X number of years if there's a good faith effort to repay (in Canada it's like 7 years). The problem with education cost is that schools can and will charge extremely high prices because students have access to loans that banks are willing to give out like candy because it can't be discharged. Schools then have bloated admin costs and ridiculous state of the art facilities. Make the banks take on risk by allowing loans to be discharged and they'll stop giving out insane amounts of loans and private schools will adjust their tuition costs. Fund public schools better so costs are kept low for those students. Tuition of like 30K+ per year for undergrad is absolutely obscene.

I wouldnt get on board forgiveness of debt. That's treating the symptom not the disease. That said, it's probably bad politics to fix the problem as no voters actually care about that problem, they just want their debt forgiven, so you probably have to add forgiveness to make it something voters care about.

[Phenix]

Heavily subsidize community colleges and trade schools to help future students.
Allow student debt to be discharged after a set # of years (lets say 10) of on-time payments based on income.  Develop a progressive repayment figure based on prior year AGI.  Lower income earners would be required to pay a smaller amount (as a percentage of pay) than higher income earners.  If you make less than $130k, you would have to pay 5% of your AGI as your required minimum student loan repayment.  An AGI of $48k in 2020 would result in a required minimum payment of $2,400 ($200/month) in 2021.  Bump up the required minimum payment percentage as income raises.

Obviously those amounts are just made up, but the idea would be to establish a required minimum payment that progressively increases with income and after 120 on-time required minimum payments, the loan can be discharged.

[WhiteTrashCash]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

[MilesTeg]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

The people who are racking up massive debt are not people who have struggled. They are the people who lived privledged, sheltered lives and it never occurred to them that paying 200k for a degree with little to no earning potential wasn't a good idea. Because everything had been handed to them in the past they just assumed that would continue.

Generally, the people who struggled and didn't come from sheltered, privileged lives are the ones that went to state schools and/or community colleges or found other paths.

[Phenix]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

The people who are racking up massive debt are not people who have struggled. They are the people who lived privledged, sheltered lives and it never occurred to them that paying 200k for a degree with little to no earning potential wasn't a good idea. Because everything had been handed to them in the past they just assumed that would continue.

Generally, the people who struggled and didn't come from sheltered, privileged lives are the ones that went to state schools and/or community colleges or found other paths.

I agree.  The $50k (or whatever amount) of loan forgiveness would exceedingly help the privileged more than folks truly struggling.  Legislation to target those struggling is far better (and more likely to gain traction) than a blanket student loan forgiveness.

[WhiteTrashCash]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

The people who are racking up massive debt are not people who have struggled. They are the people who lived privledged, sheltered lives and it never occurred to them that paying 200k for a degree with little to no earning potential wasn't a good idea. Because everything had been handed to them in the past they just assumed that would continue.

Generally, the people who struggled and didn't come from sheltered, privileged lives are the ones that went to state schools and/or community colleges or found other paths.

Incorrect. I racked up $74,000 in student loan debt because I was poor. Like dirt poor. Like the kind of poor where you end up getting an intestinal parasite from eating spoiled food. The kind of poor where you eat the wood from pencils because you are so hungry. But luckily I am also extremely intelligent so I was able to go to college, turn my life around and become a middle class person.

Why do I have to pay $20,000 in student loan interest just because I was born poor and you were born rich?

[MilesTeg]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

The people who are racking up massive debt are not people who have struggled. They are the people who lived privledged, sheltered lives and it never occurred to them that paying 200k for a degree with little to no earning potential wasn't a good idea. Because everything had been handed to them in the past they just assumed that would continue.

Generally, the people who struggled and didn't come from sheltered, privileged lives are the ones that went to state schools and/or community colleges or found other paths.

Incorrect. I racked up $74,000 in student loan debt because I was poor. Like dirt poor. Like the kind of poor where you end up getting an intestinal parasite from eating spoiled food. The kind of poor where you eat the wood from pencils because you are so hungry. But luckily I am also extremely intelligent so I was able to go to college, turn my life around and become a middle class person.

Why do I have to pay $20,000 in student loan interest just because I was born poor and you were born rich?

Are you really asking why you should have to pay interest on your loan that was given to you basically with no questions asked and no collateral? Because you were poor people should lend you money for free? That kind of question puts in doubt your claim to being highly intelligent.

[MOD NOTE: Rule #1.  Temporary ban.]

[the_gastropod]

Every time a cyclist is hit by a car, there are two factions with opinions: The first faction makes arguments like “they should’ve been wearing a helmet” or “they should have been on a street with a bike lane”. They view things as they are, and criticize the victim. The other faction criticizes the system. They make arguments like “the speed limit on this street is too high”, “personal vehicles are too central to how are streets are designed”, etc. One faction is strictly concerned with living in the world as it is. The other is concerned with improving the world.

A world that allows a child to take on 6-figure of debt to obtain a college education they’ve spent their entire lives preparing to obtain seems unnecessarily cruel. The system should be improved. And recognizing and making whole past victims of that cruelty seems like a positive thing to me.

[GuitarStv]

Every time a cyclist is hit by a car, there are two factions with opinions: The first faction makes arguments like “they should’ve been wearing a helmet” or “they should have been on a street with a bike lane”. They view things as they are, and criticize the victim.  The other faction criticizes the system. They make arguments like “the speed limit on this street is too high”, “personal vehicles are too central to how are streets are designed”, etc. One faction is strictly concerned with living in the world as it is. The other is concerned with improving the world.

There's a third group who views things as they really are and criticizes the automobile for failing to follow existing law.  But they're a small group as they keep getting hit by cars.

:P

[WhiteTrashCash]

People opposed to forgiving student loans are typically people who led extremely easy lives and don't understand how other people could ever struggle. They quote a lot of statistics etc., but that's generally the case. Anyway, it doesn't matter at this point because there will be no loan forgiveness, so people who are struggling will just have to do what they can.

The people who are racking up massive debt are not people who have struggled. They are the people who lived privledged, sheltered lives and it never occurred to them that paying 200k for a degree with little to no earning potential wasn't a good idea. Because everything had been handed to them in the past they just assumed that would continue.

Generally, the people who struggled and didn't come from sheltered, privileged lives are the ones that went to state schools and/or community colleges or found other paths.

Incorrect. I racked up $74,000 in student loan debt because I was poor. Like dirt poor. Like the kind of poor where you end up getting an intestinal parasite from eating spoiled food. The kind of poor where you eat the wood from pencils because you are so hungry. But luckily I am also extremely intelligent so I was able to go to college, turn my life around and become a middle class person.

Why do I have to pay $20,000 in student loan interest just because I was born poor and you were born rich?

Are you really asking why you should have to pay interest on your loan that was given to you basically with no questions asked and no collateral? Because you were poor people should lend you money for free? That kind of question puts in doubt your claim to being highly intelligent.

Thanks for the insult. You will be the first one eaten.

[tooqk4u22]

Every time a cyclist is hit by a car, there are two factions with opinions: The first faction makes arguments like “they should’ve been wearing a helmet” or “they should have been on a street with a bike lane”. They view things as they are, and criticize the victim.  The other faction criticizes the system. They make arguments like “the speed limit on this street is too high”, “personal vehicles are too central to how are streets are designed”, etc. One faction is strictly concerned with living in the world as it is. The other is concerned with improving the world.

There's a third group who views things as they really are and criticizes the automobile for failing to follow existing law.  But they're a small group as they keep getting hit by cars.

:P

+1 with the addition of there is some inherent risk with riding a bike (on a road with cars or on a trail without) and driving cars (one of the most dangerous things we do).   We have to accept risk. 

That holds for student loans.  It's well proven that a degree is more beneficial than not.  Taking on some loans is an acceptable risk....and I am in the 1-2x debt to expected income (or even median household income).   And 2x would be considered very high in my mind but still manageable, sacrifices will be made until the income rises.

That's the problem, everybody wants something for nothing....sure $60k loans at 23 isn't great but incomes will rise.  God forbid people have to give up or defer their luxury apartment, eating out most weeks, having a brand new car, traveling extensively (afterall YOLO!!!!) Bc yeahbits easier yo bitch about that $500 student loan payment that comes with flexible income based repayment options.   

And yeah anybody who took out $200k for undergrad.....definitely lived the life during school.   

Our society has no accountability for anything anymore.   

Only caveats are (1) there is no way a 17 year old knows what they are signing up for so if they have dipshit morons for parents (which about 95% do given our society)  they will end up worse than they could have and (2)  the college system is a business machine disguised as an educational system bettering students and the world.   

[Poundwise]

My understanding of the push to cancel student debt was that the debt is an overall drag on society or the economy, however it came about. 1 in 4 Americans have student debt, or so I have read, and it is holding back an entire generation.

I think the one thing that everyone does agree on (except some college administrators and loan servicers, who thrive on the bloat) is that there is something very broken about how education is currently apportioned and paid for in this country.

[WhiteTrashCash]

My understanding of the push to cancel student debt was that the debt is an overall drag on society or the economy, however it came about. 1 in 4 Americans have student debt, or so I have read, and it is holding back an entire generation.

I think the one thing that everyone does agree on (except some college administrators and loan servicers, who thrive on the bloat) is that there is something very broken about how education is currently apportioned and paid for in this country.

The amount of interest charged on student loans is freaking obscene. I get a discount on my student loans for auto-payment so I pay 5.25% and that's low compared to what students pay who were stuck getting their loans in the years that followed. For years before my career took off, I was paying almost entirely interest each month. My first year of payments only paid about $10 per month on the principal out of $400 payments. It was really terrible.

[LennStar]

+1 with the addition of there is some inherent risk with riding a bike (on a road with cars or on a trail without) and driving cars (one of the most dangerous things we do).   We have to accept risk. 

Yes, there is inherent risk. About 1%. 9% is careless drivers and 90% is how we decide to build infrastructure. I recommend the Youtube Channel "not just bikes". (Which included my personal "best video title of all times" aka "Why Cars Rarely Crash into Buildings in the Netherlands")

Taking on some loans is an acceptable risk
...
Only caveats are (1) there is no way a 17 year old knows what they are signing up for so if they have dipshit morons for parents (which about 95% do given our society)  they will end up worse than they could have and (2)  the college system is a business machine disguised as an educational system bettering students and the world

I don't think making a decision that can quite easily ruin your whole life when you are 17 is an acceptable risk -definitaly under the problems you have said and especially considered that you don't have to do that in every non-poor country.

The education pay for itself for the society, so why should the society not pay for it? "Paying forward" is totally okay in person - person relations but not in many persons - one person relations? Why?

My first year of payments only paid about $10 per month on the principal out of $400 payments. It was really terrible.

The minimum should be that you pay back the loan sum first, and interest last. After all, the loan giver should be happy to get the money back, right???

[partgypsy]

When you read a story like this, you realize there must be some bad design involved. In the same way roads could be built to be more safe for bicyclists and pedestrians, but in the US are frequently not. 
"Carlo Bernarte said he and his wife had to move from the master bedroom to the spare room because they were scared they'd be hit while they slept. By 2016, Bernarte counted six times that vehicles had hit his home."

https://www.wral.com/vehicle-struck-one-house-got-stuck-in-another-on-raleigh-s-new-hope-road/18088605/

[Tyler durden]

So Biden is making a joke out of our legal system with his eviction moratorium. He knows it’s not legal as the bulk of experts he consulted told him so and the Supreme Court already ruled on it not being legal. His hope is it gets delayed in the courts.

https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-brushes-off-concerns-constitutionality-180322974.html

Swear to uphold and defend -

I remember some talk of returning to norms during the campaign

[LennStar]

So Biden is making a joke out of our legal system with his eviction moratorium. He knows it’s not legal as the bulk of experts he consulted told him so and the Supreme Court already ruled on it not being legal. His hope is it gets delayed in the courts.

https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-brushes-off-concerns-constitutionality-180322974.html

Swear to uphold and defend -

I remember some talk of returning to norms during the campaign

It certainly sounds like normal Republican behavior lol.

Is eviction here as in "illegal" immigrants out of the country or as in people who can't pay rent out of the house?

[nereo]

Is eviction here as in "illegal" immigrants out of the country or as in people who can't pay rent out of the house?

It’s about people who are behind on their rent.  Since early in hte pandemic there has been a moratorium on evictions under the justification that it would lead to a spike in virus cases as people would be forced to move out.

I am disappointed that Biden is using the ‘ends justify the means’  here. It’s not the way we should govern.

[By the River]

It certainly sounds like normal Republican behavior lol.

LennStar, I see that you are in Germany so let me correct you..."sounds like normal Republican US politician  behavior"

[FIPurpose]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

[EvenSteven]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

I put much of the blame on the states that have been unable or unwilling to distribute already allocated rental assistance to those who need it. There was what, 60 billion already available and only about 4 billion distributed? How close does that extra 56 billion get to solving any eviction spike crisis that might materialize?

[Samuel]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

That's all likely to happen soon anyways (other than the economic meltdown part). Court challenges are already in motion that could end the moratorium at any time, since legally this is all happening under a court order allowing a temporary extension of this unconstitutional program to allow Congress an opportunity to pass a law that would be constitutional. But Congress didn't get it done. Pelosi couldn't even get all House Democrats on board.
 
Biden knows he doesn't have the authority to do this. He said so clearly just days ago and then did it anyways. And it may only buy a week's more time...

It’s not the way we should govern.

Seriously.

[Tyler durden]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

Oh Kavanaugh the notorious bete noire for the left.

His words seem quite clear to me

Quote

“In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization ( via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31”

End quote.

[bacchi]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

Oh Kavanaugh the notorious bete noire for the left.

His words seem quite clear to me

Quote

“In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization ( via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31”

End quote.

The WSJ thinks otherwise.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brett-kavanaugh-eviction-lesson-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-joe-biden-11628110002

Key to the fiasco is a 5-4 Supreme Court order at the end of June.
[...]
Therefore, he [Kavanaugh] voted to leave the stay in place until the end of July, when the moratorium expired. He invited Congress to extend the moratorium through legislation if it wished. Congress failed.

The reason it's front of the lower courts is exactly because the SC left the stay in place.

This doesn't excuse Biden but this is, as the WSJ noted, "a lesson for the Supreme Court."

[FIPurpose]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

Oh Kavanaugh the notorious bete noire for the left.

His words seem quite clear to me

Quote

“In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization ( via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31”

End quote.

Yeah, but that's just additional confusion. So then did the president have the authority to enact the moratorium in the first place? Why the arbitrary date of July 31 and why does Kavanaugh get to decide when the CDC no longer has a valid reason to invoke a moratorium? Does the CDC have any authority to declare a health crisis?

What if things get worse? Does that mean the July 31 deadline no longer matters anymore?

I mean the list goes on. Kavanaugh made an arbitrary ruling without setting down any sort of guidelines for future decisions which is why I think Biden had to keep referencing "constitutional scholars" because Kavanaugh's ruling has confused everyone in legal academia what this means or what would pass the court's opinion or not.

Kavanaugh isn't the only guilty one of doing this. (Like in Bush v Gore saying that "here's our decision, but this totally shouldn't set any precedent") It doesn't do anything to help lower courts make a future decision. It's simply the court legislating.