I'm starting this separate from the Election feed so we can discuss the Biden picks for Cabinet positions and so on. No one seems to be asking who he will pick for Postmaster General. I think it's one we should all pay attention to. I'm only half joking about that.
More seriously, I think the precarious balance of the Senate may prevent him from plucking some Senators for Cabinet jobs. Tammy Duckworth may not get be the first female Sect. of Defense, because she needs to use her clout in the Senate.
And where will Mayor Pete land? He wants the UN Ambassador Position, I'm not sure he should have it.
I'm just so happy to see the title of this thread.
Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.
A Vice Provost at U-Penn. He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75. Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.
I'm especially interested in academics headed for the administration. Those are likely to be subcabinet positions.
One announcement for the transition team is David Skorton (https://dailyiowan.com/2020/11/12/former-university-of-iowa-president-david-skorton-named-to-joe-biden-transition-team/)for the arts and humanities team. He was president at Iowa and Cornell, then headed the Smithsonian--one of the institutions he'll oversee in the transition. Could there be a subcabinet post for him in that area?
Who else is rumored? I'm more interested in bona-fide academics than politicians from the Obama years who have been camping out as visiting professors or distinguished fellows.
'essentially saying'? What exactly did he say?
Quote from: mythbuster on November 12, 2020, 12:20:06 PM
And where will Mayor Pete land? He wants the UN Ambassador Position, I'm not sure he should have it.
He definitely shouldn't. He shouldn't have any position, although I know he's owed one for saving Biden's primary bid.
I really, really hope he doesn't appoint Republicans. But I'm also pretty sure he will.
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.
A Vice Provost at U-Penn. He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75. Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.
That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.
Look to the Yale School on Public Policy (ISPS: https://isps.yale.edu/programs) or the KSG folks (https://www.hks.harvard.edu/) for options in policy and administration, maybe?
M.
Quote from: downer on November 12, 2020, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.
A Vice Provost at U-Penn. He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75. Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.
That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.
?? He said he hopes to die at 75 and offered his dreary views on life after age 75.
What has he done in public health that is good? Please share.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 12, 2020, 02:18:59 PM
Quote from: mythbuster on November 12, 2020, 12:20:06 PM
And where will Mayor Pete land? He wants the UN Ambassador Position, I'm not sure he should have it.
He definitely shouldn't. He shouldn't have any position, although I know he's owed one for saving Biden's primary bid.
I really, really hope he doesn't appoint Republicans. But I'm also pretty sure he will.
Why no Mayor Pete for UN Ambassador or any position? What's wrong with appointing a Republican to the cabinet?
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 03:02:43 PM
Why no Mayor Pete for UN Ambassador or any position? What's wrong with appointing a Republican to the cabinet?
Because Buttigieg lacks the qualifications, apart from limitless ambition and the willingness to sacrifice anything on that altar. But if he's to get anything, I suppose he'd do the least harm as an ambassador.
As for appointing Republicans to cabinet... where can I even begin? I'm willing to accept that
maybe some Republican somewhere
might be OK, but you'd have to name them first. The overwhelming bulk of them are (or were) in total thrall to Trump, and even when they aren't, they're horrifically poor choices for the cabinet if Democrats want to be able to act on any of their policy commitments (which, of course, they don't). Let's not forget that it was progressive organizing and voting that pushed Biden over the electoral edge, not virtually nonexistent never-Trumpers. Democrats needs to wise up and stop trying to reach out to Republicans. They get burned every time. Play hardball, like they do.
But also: when was the last time a Republican president appointed a Democrat to his cabinet? I don't doubt someone somewhere and somewhen did, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't either one of the last two Republican failpresidents.
QuoteBut also: when was the last time a Republican president appointed a Democrat to his cabinet? I don't doubt someone somewhere and somewhen did, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't either one of the last two Republican failpresidents.
Cabinet, shmabinet: High level cross party appointments are not uncommon in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 12, 2020, 03:13:35 PM
Let's not forget that it was progressive organizing and voting that pushed Biden over the electoral edge, not virtually nonexistent never-Trumpers. Democrats needs to wise up and stop trying to reach out to Republicans. They get burned every time. Play hardball, like they do.
But also: when was the last time a Republican president appointed a Democrat to his cabinet? I don't doubt someone somewhere and somewhen did, but I'm willing to bet it wasn't either one of the last two Republican failpresidents.
I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.
Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.
There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines
Romney deserves to be rewarded for his straight-thinking stance during impeachment, for one.
He was our governor and did no harm....he was mostly off running the Olympics for some of the time, but he seems to be a reasonable person.
If McCain were alive, he'd be another.
And I agree that the potential splits are going to mean that some performed across-the-aisle outreach needs to occur for healing to happen.
M.
Most Cabinet positions aren't worth a bucket of spit, like the position of Vice President before and after Cheney. Chief of staff, head of the NSC, etc. are far more indicative of Biden's priorities than HUD Secretary.
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: downer on November 12, 2020, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.
A Vice Provost at U-Penn. He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75. Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.
That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.
?? He said he hopes to die at 75 and offered his dreary views on life after age 75.
What has he done in public health that is good? Please share.
Ezekiel Emmanuel is an oncologist and bioethicist. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy. He may be on the Task Force as a bioethicist more than a physician.
"Why I hope to die at 75" was published in
The Atlantic, October 2014. If https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/) is paywalled, check your library because it's worth reading even if you don't agree with him.
Emmanuel states that he opposes euthanasia, but will refuse many health screenings and treatments once he reaches 75, because our emphasis on maximizing life has lead to many people having years with poor quality of life. He considers 75 the point at which he will have lived "a rich and complete life", so he plans to stop trying to prolong his life then. An excerpt:
I am sure of my position. Doubtless, death is a loss. It deprives us of experiences and milestones, of time spent with our spouse and children. In short, it deprives us of all the things we value.
But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.
The question, as always, dear friends, is who decides.
A doctor once told me that in her experience, many people who declare that their life would not be worth living if [they had a disability/they hit a certain age/they lost a vital function/etc] change their minds decisively when that situation arises. I remember my mother saying that she tried to get her own mother to stop doing various energetic things (foreign trips alone, driving cross-country, etc.) at a certain age, and when she herself hit that age she had to laugh. "Now I see why she resisted!" she said. "I'm still totally myself — I did not hit a certain date and fall off a cliff."
As for Mayor Pete, my vote is that he can be put in charge of whatever they like, because he's smarter than a regular room-full of government functionaries, and he has first-hand experience of aspects of American life that a lot of them do not, e.g. military service, the American Midwest, places to live that are not big cities, actual working knowledge of multiple foreign languages (including Arabic) and the people that speak them. Good for him. And of course I count in his favor the fact that his father was a university English professor. As I tell my son, having a university professor for a parent is as glamorous as it gets.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 12, 2020, 08:17:34 PM
As I tell my son, having a university professor for a parent is as glamorous as it gets.
Sorry, this information is out of date.
Quote from: dismalist on November 12, 2020, 06:34:33 PM
The question, as always, dear friends, is who decides.
I think it's organized religion that has been making people think it's their duty to prolong life as much as we can. Not that I want to put down religion, but I think they can adjust their views, now that so many are living into their demented 90's.
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:57:35 PM
Quote from: downer on November 12, 2020, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on November 12, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.
A Vice Provost at U-Penn. He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75. Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.
That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.
?? He said he hopes to die at 75 and offered his dreary views on life after age 75.
What has he done in public health that is good? Please share.
Emmanuel's Atlantic article was about his preferences and was obviously aimed at provoking a dialog. It was very much about his personal values, not a general recommendation. It's part of a more general movement that prioritizes quality of life over length of life. I do wonder what he thinks about having a 78 year old president. Probably he would prefer someone younger. Me too.
As for public health, he has largely devoted his career to health policy, he runs a prominent university center on health policy and he worked with Obama on reforming health insurance. It's a solid record.
Quote from: Puget on November 12, 2020, 04:36:07 PM
I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.
Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.
There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines
This is a very important point to make. In recent months it has been clear from certain of their actions--such as talk of packing the Supreme Court and refusing any compromise on urgently needed pandemic relief and stimulus bills--that much of the Democratic leadership has assumed that a "blue wave" in November would give them the total control of all branches of government that they imagined they would have in 2016. Once again the voters have failed to deliver. And this year's record voter turnout means that they can't blame it on voter suppression, Russian hacking, post office shenanigans, and all the other dark forces that they've been claiming were arrayed against them to thwart the will of the people.
Trump's gone. That's something to be glad for. But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left. The party leadership needs to listen to that.
Quote from: apl68 on November 13, 2020, 07:56:23 AM
Quote from: Puget on November 12, 2020, 04:36:07 PM
I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.
Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.
There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines
This is a very important point to make. In recent months it has been clear from certain of their actions--such as talk of packing the Supreme Court and refusing any compromise on urgently needed pandemic relief and stimulus bills--that much of the Democratic leadership has assumed that a "blue wave" in November would give them the total control of all branches of government that they imagined they would have in 2016. Once again the voters have failed to deliver. And this year's record voter turnout means that they can't blame it on voter suppression, Russian hacking, post office shenanigans, and all the other dark forces that they've been claiming were arrayed against them to thwart the will of the people.
Trump's gone. That's something to be glad for. But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left. The party leadership needs to listen to that.
Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.
Otherwise, why bother voting when neither party speaks to your concerns?
Rather than try to appease the mythical white suburban voter who might peel a few votes from the Republican party, maybe respond to public opinion polls and global best practices?
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:04:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 13, 2020, 07:56:23 AM
Trump's gone. That's something to be glad for. But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left. The party leadership needs to listen to that.
Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.
Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is
way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)
But to many in the US, they are.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 08:12:04 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:04:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 13, 2020, 07:56:23 AM
Trump's gone. That's something to be glad for. But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left. The party leadership needs to listen to that.
Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.
Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)
Did I list "identity politics" or "intrusive government control" or "socialism" as goals of the Progressive Democratic wing?
Centrist D's can be reluctant to aggressively advocate for national healthcare and better social safety nets, for fear that the Moderate Republicans will start to fear socialism and obscenely high taxes.
Still, if neither party is speaking to your current needs (regardless of your identity), which are affordable housing, a living wage, health care and good schools, then why bother voting?
I don't pay enough attention to know about specific picks for the cabinet, but I hope Biden doesn't consider his election a mandate for "change" for whatever social policies he likes as much as it might be a mandate for genuine competence and functionality at the executive level. He should appoint people with actual competence as a primary qualification (as opposed to just mere political affiliation) to avoid being the next one-termer.
Trump's disruption could be kind of fun to watch, but I think many Americans could see his approach wasn't sustainable for the long-term.
This advice could work for college presidents as well (cough, cough).
For CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines.
She has been sheltering at Columbia after serving as deputy C.I.A. director and deputy national security adviser, in the Obama administration. Her role at Columbia appears to be as leader of the major outreach effort called Columbia World Projects, in an senior adminstrative-staff role rather than a faculty role. She has a BS in physics from Chicago and law degree from Georgetown.
For Energy Secretary: Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall. She is a professor of the practice at Georgia Tech.
This prospect is also sheltering in academia, rather than being an academic recruit. She is in a non-tenure-track position heading an institute at an institution with which she had no relationship before her most recent government service. In this case, a Distinguished Professor of the Practice and Senior Fellow at the Strategic Energy Institute. (She is also a Senior Fellow at the classic shelter, Harvard's Kennedy School. )
Her academic qualifications are top notch. She as a BS from Harvard and a PhD in International Relations from Oxford.
She worked on nuclear issues in both the Obama and Clinton administrations.
The Harvard history brings to mind Mamselle's comment upthread. I can envision the D&I report saying something like "In order to consider a more diverse applicant pool, we also looked at Yale." ;-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 13, 2020, 08:12:04 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 13, 2020, 08:04:37 AM
Quote from: apl68 on November 13, 2020, 07:56:23 AM
Trump's gone. That's something to be glad for. But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left. The party leadership needs to listen to that.
Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.
Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)
Identity politics and the "S" word have been
very much in the mouths of the farther left fringes of the Democratic party. Has anybody forgotten how far Bernie Sanders got in the primaries? And they have badly frightened many people away from supporting Democratic candidates, and into the arms of candidates that many of them wouldn't otherwise want to vote for. Continuing to dismiss these sorts of concerns as nonsense will lead to continued losses at the polls. Moderate Democrats have made these same points.
It has often been said on The Fora that "you have to teach the students you have, not the students you wish you had." It's the same way with reaching voters. Voters are trying to tell the Democratic leadership that they aren't the people that those who live in the "but I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon"--type bubble assume they are. Yes, they want some improvements in wages, health care, etc. My mostly Republican state recently voted for a significant minimum wage increase. But could the Democrats please leave the talk of socialism, and the 1619 project, and you're not a real woman if you don't support Roe v. Wade, and some of this other stuff we've been hearing on the fringes behind them? That kind of baggage has cost the Democrats dearly in our state legislature this time around.
Quote from: Puget on November 12, 2020, 04:36:07 PM
I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.
I'm thinking of things like the fact that Trump increased his share of Republican support from 88% to 94%; that although the Lincoln Project and RVAT raised a boatload of money, Open Labs data shows they were almost entirely ineffective--less effective than other ads, including those by the Democratic party!--and even, in some cases, swayed people over
to Trump; that progressive groups and leaders worked tirelessly (sometimes without much help from the campaign) to drive out the vote in key states like Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; and the widespread success of progressive ballot measures and candidates (even as moderates downballot lost big).
Quote
Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.
There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines
I'm less worried about including people who are registered Republicans but
not in elected office than I am elected Republicans, especially from the House or Senate. What worries me most about reaching across the aisle and welcoming them is that while they want things to be better, their vision of "better" is still a hellscape that fucks most people over. I don't want a repeat of 2008 (well, 2009) Obama--he royally dropped the ball, lost the initiative, and squandered his chance to effect lasting change; and while it's an understandable mistake, we've now had more than ten years to learn that you can't just compromise by conceding to Republicans. You can't pull them left; you only end up pulling yourself right, and further alienating the base of support you need the most (i.e. the left wing of the party, which is vastly larger than the number of Republicans you can sometimes peel off).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 13, 2020, 12:17:37 PM
I'm thinking of things like the fact that Trump increased his share of Republican support from 88% to 94%;
This is not at all diagnostic, because a lot of former Republicans who didn't support Trump in 2016 are now independents, so the remaining Republicans are more Trump-y. This has been well documented and reported over the last 4 years. It also misses the fact that a large portion of the American electorate is not registered with either party-- these are the swing voters, not members of the parties.
Look, I'd love a progressive agenda too, but that's simply not in the cards with the probability of the Senate remaining in Republican hands. Politics is the art of the possible. I'd much rather have an administration working with anyone willing to help get us out of the giant hole we're in and re-establish normal functioning of the federal government than one that doesn't do anything in the name of idealism and refusal to compromise.
Quote from: Puget on November 13, 2020, 12:29:33 PM
This is not at all diagnostic, because a lot of former Republicans who didn't support Trump in 2016 are now independents, so the remaining Republicans are more Trump-y. This has been well documented and reported over the last 4 years. It also misses the fact that a large portion of the American electorate is not registered with either party-- these are the swing voters, not members of the parties.
I don't disagree that it isn't diagnostic, but when we also consider the rest of it (including the local organizing, which in many states--like Michigan!--happened independently of the campaign's total inaction), I think it's pretty clear that Biden owes his victory to people to his left.
Quote
Look, I'd love a progressive agenda too, but that's simply not in the cards with the probability of the Senate remaining in Republican hands. Politics is the art of the possible. I'd much rather have an administration working with anyone willing to help get us out of the giant hole we're in and re-establish normal functioning of the federal government than one that doesn't do anything in the name of idealism and refusal to compromise.
I agree that we're not getting it, but I think we should
ask for it (slash demand it). It's because we don't that the centre keeps moving right, and Democrats incrementally enact the Republican agenda rather than one of their own. I'm deeply pessimistic that the 'hole' can be filled in by the same old Democratic tactics.
'Socialism' is but one of the buzz words that is nigh onto meaningless in most American political discourse. And this is perhaps the problem, namely that ignorance of basic facts, refusal to read serious stuff, learn, jump outside of one's bubble, etc., has led to people not understanding what is in their best interests. Add the tribal identity politics to this, and this produces a ceiling beyond which the Democrats will have a hard time climbing.
Looks like Cedric Richmond will be in charge of liaising between business interests and "climate change activists". Too bad he's shilled for oil and gas his whole congressional career and has voted with Republicans on climate at every opportunity. And rumour has it Ernest Moniz is being tapped for a climate-related cabinet spot. For people who "believe the science", Democrats sure don't act like it.
Nice work, team.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 17, 2020, 11:22:42 PM
Looks like Cedric Richmond will be in charge of liaising between business interests and "climate change activists". Too bad he's shilled for oil and gas his whole congressional career and has voted with Republicans on climate at every opportunity. And rumour has it Ernest Moniz is being tapped for a climate-related cabinet spot. For people who "believe the science", Democrats sure don't act like it.
Nice work, team.
Say more about Moniz. I appreciate that he can carry off the look of a 19th century painter while being a physics professor at MIT. Substitantively, I know him mainly for his good work in nuclear disarmament, an area where vigorous diplomacy is needed right now.
Quote from: Hibush on November 19, 2020, 09:41:31 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 17, 2020, 11:22:42 PM
Looks like Cedric Richmond will be in charge of liaising between business interests and "climate change activists". Too bad he's shilled for oil and gas his whole congressional career and has voted with Republicans on climate at every opportunity. And rumour has it Ernest Moniz is being tapped for a climate-related cabinet spot. For people who "believe the science", Democrats sure don't act like it.
Nice work, team.
Say more about Moniz. I appreciate that he can carry off the look of a 19th century painter while being a physics professor at MIT. Substitantively, I know him mainly for his good work in nuclear disarmament, an area where vigorous diplomacy is needed right now.
He was Obama's secretary of energy, and under his watch US oil and gas production increased exponentially (mainly due to fracking). In fact, he's been a huge cheerleader for fracking, going so far as to say, repeatedly, that it's been good for the environment. He's also been an advisor to BP, GE, and some Saudi oil thing.
To my mind, those ties and that record should disqualify him, especially when there are plenty of other candidates who don't have the same problems with their candidacies. It's hard enough taking Biden (and Democrats) seriously on climate even without all the oil shills.
I just saw that Cecilia Muñoz is the immigration advisor on his transition team. That seems like exacty the same sort of move as on climate, since her role in the Obama administration was to defend the family separation policy (among other things). Her Obama-era record is... not good, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Hibush on November 19, 2020, 09:41:31 AM
Say more about Moniz. I appreciate that he can carry off the look of a 19th century painter while being a physics professor at MIT.
The name helps. He sounds like an Impressionist.
Possibly Mayor Pete for Ambassador to China? What do people think?
Quote from: Cheerful on December 09, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Possibly Mayor Pete for Ambassador to China? What do people think?
It looks like Mayor Pete was not the first choice for Defense, though civilian-control concerns mean that nominee Gen. Austin is not a lock.
We just heard that Marcia Fudge is nominated for HUD, which is more obvious than Agriculture, though many non-farmers were pushing that post for her. Biden went with Vilsack, which is about as traditional as you can get: Iowa, big ag, already served in the post for a long time.
Quote from: Cheerful on December 09, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Possibly Mayor Pete for Ambassador to China? What do people think?
I think that there's a new cold war gearing up with China. I think it's entirely unjustifiable, but I think the Biden administration is gunning for it almost as much as Trump & co. were. I think that the role of ambassador to China is a very important one. And I think that, in those circumstances, you need someone with the right language skills, experience, and diplomatic skills to be your ambassador. Buttigieg ticks none of those boxes.
I know that Biden has to give Buttigieg something. The guy did drop out and endorse him, and he certainly won't be winning statewide office in Indiana. It's either a place in the Biden administration or back to the salt mines at McKinsey. It would be foolish to end the political career of a potential star. Et cetera.
Nevertheless, I kind of hope Biden screws him. Credential Man may not be the worst Democrat, but he's among the most annoying.
Quote from: writingprof on December 09, 2020, 03:43:02 PM
I know that Biden has to give Buttigieg something. The guy did drop out and endorse him, and he certainly won't be winning statewide office in Indiana. It's either a place in the Biden administration or back to the salt mines at McKinsey. It would be foolish to end the political career of a potential star. Et cetera.
Nevertheless, I kind of hope Biden screws him. Credential Man may not be the worst Democrat, but he's among the most annoying.
Every once in a while, I find we're in agreement. It's disconcerting! :)
It's being said that Biden is depopulating the House of its Democrats when it still needs that majority to get things done....
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529487-biden-picks-leave-democrats-with-slimmest-house-majority-in-modern-history
M.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 09, 2020, 08:24:04 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on December 09, 2020, 07:34:31 AM
Possibly Mayor Pete for Ambassador to China? What do people think?
I think that there's a new cold war gearing up with China. I think it's entirely unjustifiable, but I think the Biden administration is gunning for it almost as much as Trump & co. were. I think that the role of ambassador to China is a very important one. And I think that, in those circumstances, you need someone with the right language skills, experience, and diplomatic skills to be your ambassador. Buttigieg ticks none of those boxes.
The USTR will have to deal with the trade war with China, which is a substantial part of the relationship mending that needs attention. The nominee, Katherine Tai, appears to have the traits you list. WSJ says "A fluent Mandarin speaker, she was a top lawyer with the U.S. Trade Representative's office on China issues between 2007 and 2014, litigating Washington's disputes against China at the World Trade Organization. She has said China needs to be confronted strongly and strategically.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 09, 2020, 03:44:48 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 09, 2020, 03:43:02 PM
I know that Biden has to give Buttigieg something. The guy did drop out and endorse him, and he certainly won't be winning statewide office in Indiana. It's either a place in the Biden administration or back to the salt mines at McKinsey. It would be foolish to end the political career of a potential star. Et cetera.
Nevertheless, I kind of hope Biden screws him. Credential Man may not be the worst Democrat, but he's among the most annoying.
Every once in a while, I find we're in agreement. It's disconcerting! :)
As I live in the state that has given us Dan Quayle and Mike Pence I was hoping we could at least cleanse the national palate with some Mayor Pete, but nooo, you haters have to spoil it.
Prospective head of Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Denis McDonough, is not a veteran.
Quote from: Cheerful on December 10, 2020, 10:31:52 AM
Prospective head of Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Denis McDonough, is not a veteran.
Breaking news:
Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack is not a farmer.
Likely Energy secretary Ernest J. Moniz is not an atom or a lump of coal.
Please stop making me defend these idiots.
Quote from: writingprof on December 10, 2020, 02:05:03 PM
Likely Energy secretary Ernest J. Moniz is not an atom or a lump of coal.
He might be a phial of fracking juice, however.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 10, 2020, 04:35:26 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 10, 2020, 02:05:03 PM
Likely Energy secretary Ernest J. Moniz is not an atom or a lump of coal.
He might be a phial of fracking juice, however.
I've always assumed that fraternities at land-grant universities use fracking juice in their hazing rituals. "Drink it, b---h!"
Would you support an attempt to make someone who is not a lawyer into attorney general? IOW, which senior jobs, cabinet-level or otherwise, do indeed require specific education or experience, in order to hold them, and why?
I read somewhere that the Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected congressman and can, in fact, be any American. It's also the case that Supreme Court justices do not have to be lawyers. I think it's probably best if the attorney general is an attorney. I suppose you could make the case that the surgeon general should be a doctor. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me. Then again, I'm in the make-government-incompetent-so-voters-learn-to-hate-it school of conservatism.
The real question is: Should college administrators have to be academics? Yes, absolutely.
Mayor Pete for Transportation Secretary. Not very glamorous?
Quote from: Cheerful on December 15, 2020, 11:25:34 AM
Mayor Pete for Transportation Secretary. Not very glamorous?
I... guess he'll do less harm there than elsewhere? I don't know, I haven't thought about it very much. To me, he seems just as completely unqualified for that post as any other, but maybe this is one where his
disqualifications don't come immediately into play.
I was recently chatting with a friend of mine who spent 20 years working in the State Department. She "retired" in 2016 and had an interesting perspective on these picks. Her statement is that many of the structures of our government have been thoroughly trashed by the Trump administration. A combination of not filling posts, active sabotage by Trump appointees, and general incompetence have all taken a toll. She sees Biden as hiring people who know how to fix the mess. People who know what a functioning DOJ or State Department is supposed to look like. She sees this as a restoration presidency just to get us back to where we started.
This might also explain Mayor Pete for Transportation- as that department is still relatively intact. A new guy would be an OK pick in that case. Elaine Chao was circumspect relative to her other fellow cabinet appointees. Of course I think she was just a mole for her husband.
Based on this, I also expect the AG nomination to be the last one we hear about. I think Biden needs to fully know how much MORE damage will be done in the next month.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2020, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on December 15, 2020, 11:25:34 AM
Mayor Pete for Transportation Secretary. Not very glamorous?
I... guess he'll do less harm there than elsewhere? I don't know, I haven't thought about it very much. To me, he seems just as completely unqualified for that post as any other, but maybe this is one where his disqualifications don't come immediately into play.
Your thoughts (and what myth buster said) were exactly mine. I'll take it further. I don't think one CAN mess up Transportation. It is the most automatic of them all. Crap, I think I could run it.
Quote from: mythbuster on December 15, 2020, 12:11:14 PM
I was recently chatting with a friend of mine who spent 20 years working in the State Department. She "retired" in 2016 and had an interesting perspective on these picks. Her statement is that many of the structures of our government have been thoroughly trashed by the Trump administration. A combination of not filling posts, active sabotage by Trump appointees, and general incompetence have all taken a toll. She sees Biden as hiring people who know how to fix the mess. People who know what a functioning DOJ or State Department is supposed to look like. She sees this as a restoration presidency just to get us back to where we started.
This might also explain Mayor Pete for Transportation- as that department is still relatively intact. A new guy would be an OK pick in that case. Elaine Chao was circumspect relative to her other fellow cabinet appointees. Of course I think she was just a mole for her husband.
Based on this, I also expect the AG nomination to be the last one we hear about. I think Biden needs to fully know how much MORE damage will be done in the next month.
I too have an acquaintance who had a career in the State Department. He was at a very senior level when he retired, right before Trump was inaugurated, but he maintained contact with his former colleagues. They all quit or were fired under the guise of resignation by Trump and his minions. "A combination of not filling posts, active sabotage by Trump appointees, and general incompetence" is an accurate description of many if not all Cabinet-level agencies during the Trump administration.
Quote from: writingprof on December 12, 2020, 06:08:33 AM
I read somewhere that the Speaker of the House does not have to be an elected congressman and can, in fact, be any American. It's also the case that Supreme Court justices do not have to be lawyers. I think it's probably best if the attorney general is an attorney. I suppose you could make the case that the surgeon general should be a doctor. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me. Then again, I'm in the make-government-incompetent-so-voters-learn-to-hate-it school of conservatism.
The real question is: Should college administrators have to be academics? Yes, absolutely.
Its actually pretty similar. Going to grad school, teaching classes and/or doing research probably don't actually provide a lot of training for most of the the things that a University President does. I imagine that Attorney Generals don't spend much time writing and reviewing legal findings. However, you're probably going to do better at the administrative and political parts of your job if you have legal training that guides you in doing your job.
Quote from: Cheerful on December 15, 2020, 11:25:34 AM
Mayor Pete for Transportation Secretary. Not very glamorous?
In retrospect, it's a perfect fit. Who can forget the way Mayor Pete heroically turned around the South Bend subway system?
Also: Please don't leave it to me to make all the obvious jokes about Pete and the burly DOT men by whom he'll now be surrounded.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 15, 2020, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 15, 2020, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Cheerful on December 15, 2020, 11:25:34 AM
Mayor Pete for Transportation Secretary. Not very glamorous?
I... guess he'll do less harm there than elsewhere? I don't know, I haven't thought about it very much. To me, he seems just as completely unqualified for that post as any other, but maybe this is one where his disqualifications don't come immediately into play.
Your thoughts (and what myth buster said) were exactly mine. I'll take it further. I don't think one CAN mess up Transportation. It is the most automatic of them all. Crap, I think I could run it.
Probably as qualified as the incumbent, Mitch M.'s wife.
I can do Transportation: I run a model railroad. :-)
It's funny about Mayor Pete, as one thing I know about him comes from a friend's parents who live in South Bend. They were incensed at Mayor Pete because he had changed some things about the transportation infrastructure of the town. They wanted it left exactly the way it was, thank you. But no, he was determined to improve transportation. So ... we'll see. My experience of him is that he's a smart guy who also knows to look to the experts instead of making everything up on his own, so that will be a nice change from the previous administration.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2020, 01:32:00 AM
My experience of him is that he's a smart guy who also knows to look to the experts instead of making everything up on his own, so that will be a nice change from the previous administration.
It is so quaint and charming to discover that someone still believes in rule by experts. One question: Can experts be voted out of "office," or must we do what they say forever, with no recourse?
I don't understand the question. Presumably you, like most of us here, believe in the value of lifelong professional study of certain kinds of matters: public health, transportation, food and drug safety, etc. You don't vote those experts in and you don't vote them out. You hire the best people you can get, and the best people you can get to manage them. Ideally most of those experts stay in their positions through many changes of administration, because they do their jobs well and because we need people who know what they're doing, not a whole new batch of people scrambling to get up to speed on complex issues every four years. And the more that the incomers listen to the experts, the better overall, in my view. Of course, a distrust of career specialists and a sense that anybody off the street could come in and make complex specialist decisions was a hallmark of this outgoing administration, so maybe that's where you're coming from.
The problem is that while expert advice may occasionally be non-ideological, it is impossible to avoid ideological choices when acting on that advice. Thus, a vision of government in which
Quote from: Hegemony on December 16, 2020, 07:40:46 AM
incomers listen to the experts
is as hopelessly vague as a vision in which officials "do the right thing" or "serve the people."
Case in point: Experts agree that fetuses are human (not non-human) and living (not dead). How should officials act on that expertise?
Or: Experts agree that, with rare exceptions, human beings are born as either biological males or biological females. What policies ought to proceed from that fact?
Or: Experts agree that "B"lack males commit crimes at higher rates than white males. How must our representatives respond?
I could go on, obviously. There is no morally or ideologically neutral rule by experts. It's a technocratic fantasy.
So experts are pointless, because some issues have ideological angles? Oh come on — if you had to get a bridge designed, you'd still consult the right kind of engineers, not just somebody off the street. There are thousands of expert federal employees who have persisted in their jobs and their expertise through many administrations of both parties. And even if you will only listen to people of your particular ideological stripe when you hit sensitive matters like fetuses and sexes, you want people who are up to speed on the science and the intricacies, not some random businessman who has strong opinions based on no experience in the field. I would think that of any group of people, all of us here would be aware of the value of extensive training and experience. Otherwise we'd be employing those retired guys who send us letters saying, "I've run a car rental agency my whole life, but I was always interested in history/chemistry/banjo/law, so now that I'm retired, why don't I come and teach for your department?"
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
The Minister of Patronage is the obvious alternative if expertise in public benefit is not the basis.
Quote from: Hibush on December 18, 2020, 11:39:57 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
The Minister of Patronage is the obvious alternative if expertise in public benefit is not the basis.
Public benefit? No, bureaucratic benefit!
The CDC will announce soon. We shall see.
Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html)
QuoteAn independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.
Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .
That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And
whose social justice concerns?
Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 12:17:24 PM
Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html)
QuoteAn independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.
Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .
That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?
Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.
It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2020, 12:31:20 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 12:17:24 PM
Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html)
QuoteAn independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.
Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .
That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?
Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.
It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.
Actually, the CDC only makes a recommendation. The States decide.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2020, 12:31:20 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 12:17:24 PM
Meanwhile, from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html)
QuoteAn independent committee of medical experts that advises the C.D.C. on immunization practices will soon vote on whom to recommend for the second phase of vaccination — "Phase 1b." In a meeting last month, all voting members of the committee indicated support for putting essential workers ahead of people 65 and older and those with high-risk health conditions.
Historically, the committee relied on scientific evidence to inform its decisions. But now the members are weighing social justice concerns as well... .
That means saving the maximum number of lives as a criterion has gone out the window. And whose social justice concerns?
Agree or disagree, but this is politics, not science.
It says they will vote to "recommend". That sounds like the CDC makes the final call.
Actually, the CDC only makes a recommendation. The States decide.
So the committtee recommends to the CDC who recommends to the states?
Yup.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
Is this a serious question? It's a job for the people, via our elected representatives, whom we may fire if they screw it up. Move to fracking China if you don't get this.
Quote from: writingprof on December 18, 2020, 04:33:19 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
Is this a serious question? It's a job for the people, via our elected representatives, whom we may fire if they screw it up. Move to fracking China if you don't get this.
I'm really confused. It is an advisory panel. The states do make the decision, not the CDC.
QuoteI'm really confused. It is an advisory panel. The states do make the decision, not the CDC.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 18, 2020, 04:43:05 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 18, 2020, 04:33:19 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
Is this a serious question? It's a job for the people, via our elected representatives, whom we may fire if they screw it up. Move to fracking China if you don't get this.
I'm really confused. It is an advisory panel. The states do make the decision, not the CDC.
Yup, the point is that a so-called
scientific advisory council makes recommendations about so-called social justice.
Even if the advisory council had held themselves to
maximize lives saved or some such, that would still not be
science, but rather, personal preferences, or politics.
Experts are nothing more than an input, one of many, into our own decision processes.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 05:02:10 PM
Even if the advisory council had held themselves to maximize lives saved or some such, that would still not be science, but rather, personal preferences, or politics.
Ethics is not a matter of personal preference or politics.
It can overlap with these, but it's a distinct thing.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 18, 2020, 05:19:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 05:02:10 PM
Even if the advisory council had held themselves to maximize lives saved or some such, that would still not be science, but rather, personal preferences, or politics.
Ethics is not a matter of personal preference or politics.
It can overlap with these, but it's a distinct thing.
Whatever. And it ain't science.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 18, 2020, 05:19:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 05:02:10 PM
Even if the advisory council had held themselves to maximize lives saved or some such, that would still not be science, but rather, personal preferences, or politics.
Ethics is not a matter of personal preference or politics.
It can overlap with these, but it's a distinct thing.
Whatever. And it ain't science.
It's not. That doesn't mean it's wishy-washy, 'subjective', 'relative', or a matter of personal preference or politics.
More bumps on the road to transition....
https://www.axios.com/pentagon-biden-transition-briefings-123a9658-4af1-4632-a6e6-770117784d60.html
January 5, 6, and 20 are significant dates in my mind at this point.
M.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 05:02:10 PM
QuoteI'm really confused. It is an advisory panel. The states do make the decision, not the CDC.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 18, 2020, 04:43:05 PM
Quote from: writingprof on December 18, 2020, 04:33:19 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 18, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 11:19:32 AM
The genius experts at the CDC are deciding how to allocate the new vaccines. That is not a scientific decision, and the experts have no business making it.
So, if vaccine allocation is not a job for public health science experts, for whom is it a job?
Is this a serious question? It's a job for the people, via our elected representatives, whom we may fire if they screw it up. Move to fracking China if you don't get this.
I'm really confused. It is an advisory panel. The states do make the decision, not the CDC.
Yup, the point is that a so-called scientific advisory council makes recommendations about so-called social justice.
Even if the advisory council had held themselves to maximize lives saved or some such, that would still not be science, but rather, personal preferences, or politics.
Experts are nothing more than an input, one of many, into our own decision processes.
I thought the point was that we elect representatives and pay our taxes to have experts in public policy determine things like vaccine allocation.
The representatives choose experts who generally support the general public policy ideas of the voters. Maximize... Lives saved? Emphasize high-risk or high-exposure populations?
Is that politics? Well, how else does "science" work? Because at the end of the day, you have to have a goal, and you use policy experts to determine the best way to achieve those goals.
There would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
If that were to happen, the public would call and pressure their elected representatives to either influence policy or replace the "experts" with people who supported the public will.
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
Speculation for Education Secretary nominees appears to feature the following:
- Lily Eskelsen García, former president of the National Education Association
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers
Leslie T. Fenwick, dean emeritus of the Howard University School of Education and a professor of educational policy and leadership.
Miguel Cardona, education commissioner in Connecticut. Previously Asst. Superintendent in Meriden (CT)
Sharon Contreras, Guilford County (NC) Schools Superintendent; previously Syracuse (NY) superintendent
We'll see whether any are called Dr. (https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1996.0) in reports. (Garcia, MS; Weingarten, JD; Fenwick, PhD in Ed Policy; Cardona, Ed.D.; Contreras, 3xMS, "working on EdD")
They all seem to have focused on K-12 education. None appears to have a lot of experience with higher education policy. Perhaps Fenwick who was Dean of Education at Howard did some higher-ed things in her faculty role.
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 07:14:02 PM
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
There are politics no matter what the decision is. Someone made a value decision and tries to influence policy, through use of influence and power, to get their way.
- Prioritize people with compromised health? Or cull the herd by letting the sick get sicker and die, while making sure the healthy remain hale and hearty?
- Prioritize the elderly? Or hey, they have lived long enough, prioritize anyone under 35.
- Prioritize parents because they have children to care for, and let the childless (or those whose kinds are adults) go because nobody relies on them for care?
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 07:14:02 PM
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
There are politics no matter what the decision is. Someone made a value decision and tries to influence policy, through use of influence and power, to get their way.
- Prioritize people with compromised health? Or cull the herd by letting the sick get sicker and die, while making sure the healthy remain hale and hearty?
- Prioritize the elderly? Or hey, they have lived long enough, prioritize anyone under 35.
- Prioritize parents because they have children to care for, and let the childless (or those whose kinds are adults) go because nobody relies on them for care?
Yes, that's the point. These are not decisions for experts. There is no scientific truth to any of these decisions.
Oh, fer Pete's sake.
There are people who train to be able to use their scientific expertise in policy involvement all over the place.
They are not politicians, they are trained to advise those who must make laws and vote on and implement them.
Try the OECD in Europe, the Center for International Development at Columbia, their parallels in Stanford, Tufts, MIT, Harvard, and Yale, and others I only know about vaguely because people I worked for knew of them of spoke with them in Texas, Indonesia, India, Africa, Czech Republic, Greece, Slovakia, Bulgaria...
This is not an "either-or" issue that's just suddenly come up.
There are people who have worked hard at integrating good science, good policy, and good advisement into their approaches to every consultation they do and every article they write.
Most serious scholars who work in government have at least three groups of skill sets on tap: they know the science, they know the governmental structures, and the know the key people and logistical groups and how they work (or don't work, sometimes) together.
Just because you can't seem to imagine someone doing that much work that carefully in that many spheres of influence--and doing it from a desire to see an ethically based, ecologically (in the largest sense) sustainable, peaceful policy evolution in places throughout the world where medicine, ecology, education, economic development, etc. are in flux or in need of clarification--doesn't mean those people don't or can't exist.
Your imagined cosmos is too small.
Quote from: dismalist on December 19, 2020, 02:42:58 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 07:14:02 PM
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
There are politics no matter what the decision is. Someone made a value decision and tries to influence policy, through use of influence and power, to get their way.
- Prioritize people with compromised health? Or cull the herd by letting the sick get sicker and die, while making sure the healthy remain hale and hearty?
- Prioritize the elderly? Or hey, they have lived long enough, prioritize anyone under 35.
- Prioritize parents because they have children to care for, and let the childless (or those whose kinds are adults) go because nobody relies on them for care?
Yes, that's the point. These are not decisions for experts. There is no scientific truth to any of these decisions.
So, we have 331 million people and, what, 8 million initial doses of the vaccine.
So who should get them first? And how should this be decided? By whom?
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 19, 2020, 02:42:58 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 07:14:02 PM
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
There are politics no matter what the decision is. Someone made a value decision and tries to influence policy, through use of influence and power, to get their way.
- Prioritize people with compromised health? Or cull the herd by letting the sick get sicker and die, while making sure the healthy remain hale and hearty?
- Prioritize the elderly? Or hey, they have lived long enough, prioritize anyone under 35.
- Prioritize parents because they have children to care for, and let the childless (or those whose kinds are adults) go because nobody relies on them for care?
Yes, that's the point. These are not decisions for experts. There is no scientific truth to any of these decisions.
So, we have 331 million people and, what, 8 million initial doses of the vaccine.
So who should get them first? And how should this be decided? By whom?
The original point is being forgotten: None of this is scientific.
Quote from: dismalist on December 19, 2020, 08:09:59 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 19, 2020, 02:42:58 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 19, 2020, 02:04:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 18, 2020, 07:14:02 PM
QuoteThere would be quite a public outcry if, let's say, the policy experts decided that only rich people were worth saving so vaccines were allocated on the basis of one's bank account. Line up by numbers of zeros...
That's the point: If they decide differently, it's still politics.
There are politics no matter what the decision is. Someone made a value decision and tries to influence policy, through use of influence and power, to get their way.
- Prioritize people with compromised health? Or cull the herd by letting the sick get sicker and die, while making sure the healthy remain hale and hearty?
- Prioritize the elderly? Or hey, they have lived long enough, prioritize anyone under 35.
- Prioritize parents because they have children to care for, and let the childless (or those whose kinds are adults) go because nobody relies on them for care?
Yes, that's the point. These are not decisions for experts. There is no scientific truth to any of these decisions.
So, we have 331 million people and, what, 8 million initial doses of the vaccine.
So who should get them first? And how should this be decided? By whom?
The original point is being forgotten: None of this is scientific.
Doesn't mean there aren't relevant experts.
Oh, pshaw! Here's how the system works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs)
:-)
If you think the current COVID relief package is stingy, the NYT reports (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/us/politics/biden-stimulus.html?auth=login-email&login=email) that you have Biden The Austerity Hawk to thank for cutting it in half:
QuoteWith Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate far apart on how much they were willing to accept in new pandemic spending, Mr. Biden on Dec. 2 threw his support behind the $900 billion plan being pushed by the centrist group. The total was less than half of the $2 trillion that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, had been insisting on.
Mr. Biden's move was not without risks. If it had failed to affect the discussions, the president-elect risked looking powerless to move Congress before he had taken the oath of office. But members of both parties said his intervention was constructive and gave Democrats confidence to pull back on their demands.
Do you think if Biden had held out for a larger payment, he could have gotten it past Congress? Or would it just be a stalemate with the Republicans who insist on a small payout, as it has been since the summer?
Quote from: Hegemony on December 22, 2020, 08:14:04 PM
Do you think if Biden had held out for a larger payment, he could have gotten it past Congress? Or would it just be a stalemate with the Republicans who insist on a small payout, as it has been since the summer?
+1
He's a veteran of dealing with McConnell.
M.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 22, 2020, 08:14:04 PM
Do you think if Biden had held out for a larger payment, he could have gotten it past Congress? Or would it just be a stalemate with the Republicans who insist on a small payout, as it has been since the summer?
Republicans
want relief cheques. In fact, Coronavirus relief--by the end of the year!--is overwhelmingly popular among the population (like, 85%+), and Republicans are well aware of it. They have a number of squishy senators (e.g. Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, among others) and two senators who probably need to support it to buoy their electoral fortures in the Georgia runoffs. They also have a president who keeps saying, very loudly, that he's in favour--in fact, just yesterday he threatened to veto the bill unless the relief cheques went from $600 to $2000! Sure, he's an idiot who probably thinks that will win him Democratic votes on Jan. 6. So what? Exploit it to meaningfully help people! They want to do it now,
so push 'em. This is a rare opportunity to use pressure from Trump and some Republican senators to box out McConnell. It'll only get harder to do come January, because Republicans will be out of government and will revert to their obstructionist type (and they may well still hold on to the Senate).
Let's not lose sight of what happened here. The bill covers $1.4 trillion in spending. Of that, $286 billion goes to the one-time, means-tested $600 survival cheques and unemployment benefits, plus another $51 billion in food aid and rental assistance (note, however, that Moody's estimates there will be up to $70 billion in unpaid rental and utility debt by January). So: just $337B in real coronavirus relief money. (Economists everywhere agree it's nowhere near enough, by the way.) And none of it is state aid, either (which is desperately needed because, unlike the federal government, states don't have access to unlimited money).
Where does the rest go? $200 billion goes to tax breaks for the rich (compared to $166B for the relief cheques!) There's a tax break for corporate meal expenses, along with tax breaks for the Paycheck Protection Program, but no tax exemptions for jobless benefits. And the paid sick leave mandate is being terminated. There's a $3B tax break for landlords.
And there's around $700B in military spending, plus $1.5B or so for the border wall. Oh, and it doubles the amount of money available for Congressional health care (it's a piddly $5mil, but the message couldn't be clearer: they've got theirs).
Sure, all that's better than nothing. But it's not enough, they should have tried for more, and it's
certainly not a big victory which we need to hail as a standard-bearer for future politics. Biden's main job, as President-elect and as President, is to be the party's head cheerleader and visionary. Pelosi and Schumer wanted to do a bit more; Biden gave them cover to do
less. I know he's the Anointed Saviour and all, but he let the side down. It's a Pyrrhic victory, at best.
He may be thinking--as I thought last night, drifting off to sleep--that perhaps the orange-tufted gooney-bird is planning to hold the country hostage to its relief and military spending bills by refusing to sign them unless he's allowed to remain in the White House.
Biden may not want to become a president-in-exile, is all.
You saw it first here.
M.
Senate Democrats just punted another chance to try to force McConnell to hold a vote on the $2000 extension. Forty one Democrats voted against requiring him to hold a vote on it before the new military spending bill. Six Democrats and five Republicans voted in favor (in other words, they had a real chance if they could muster only a little spine).
The forty one who voted against includes Kamala Harris, who was a co-sponsor of earlier $2000 stimulus cheque legislation. She's been entirely absent from te conversation for weeks now, and now this.
Well done! 4D chess!
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 31, 2020, 10:27:06 AM
Senate Democrats just punted another chance to try to force McConnell to hold a vote on the $2000 extension. Forty one Democrats voted against requiring him to hold a vote on it before the new military spending bill. Six Democrats and five Republicans voted in favor (in other words, they had a real chance if they could muster only a little spine).
The forty one who voted against includes Kamala Harris, who was a co-sponsor of earlier $2000 stimulus cheque legislation. She's been entirely absent from te conversation for weeks now, and now this.
Well done! 4D chess!
To be fair, my understanding is that DJT threw a bunch of other stuff into the $2,000 payment legislation that was a non-starter for a lot of folks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/30/stimulus-checks-senate/
Biden set to nominate Merrick Garland for Attorney General. As you know, Garland was nominated by Obama for Supreme Court in 2016.
Sounds like the promised $2000 cheques have been downgraded to $1400 to make room for tax cuts, and Biden has started going around saying that it was always a promise of $2000 total aid, so $2000 - Trump's recent $600 = $1400.
=/
One of the first tasks of the Biden Administration will be getting the policy gears of federal government turning, after four years of incompetence and deliberate sabotage by members of the outgoing administration. It's going to take a while to get the EPA, CDC, Department of State, etc. functioning again.
For those of us in science, the revival of OSTP (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/) is good news. Having Eric Lander as head, end elevating that position to a Cabinet position is excellent news.
Quote from: Hibush on January 16, 2021, 04:40:11 PM
For those of us in science, the revival of OSTP (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/) is good news. Having Eric Lander as head, end elevating that position to a Cabinet position is excellent news.
Anything the OSTP doesn't opine one? :-)
I think his Covid plan and other funding ideas are a self dilution by THE PRESIDENT ELECT. I see him wanting to bring out the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS,, fiscal conservatives, to moderate stances of the liberals that he must APPEASE. Just you wait and see!!!
If Blue Dog or other southern or moderate Dems do nuke Biden's stimulus plan, why on earth would they do so? These people certainly have many a constituent who could well benefit from such stimulus. Heck, so does Moscow Mitch. Granted, many of these constituents have been duped by bad economics and, quite frankly also bad theology, but why wouldn't at least Dem politicians try hard to educate them, esp since such stimulus efforts would benefit the entire country.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 06:43:32 PM
If Blue Dog or other southern or moderate Dems do nuke Biden's stimulus plan, why on earth would they do so? These people certainly have many a constituent who could well benefit from such stimulus. Heck, so does Moscow Mitch. Granted, many of these constituents have been duped by bad economics and, quite frankly also bad theology, but why wouldn't at least Dem politicians try hard to educate them, esp since such stimulus efforts would benefit the entire country.
Same reason that Manchin wants to prevent adequate stimulus cheques from going out. They're fucking morons in thrall to bad economics and worse ethics.
(Not that we should grant any credibility to Economizer's randomated musings.)
Now Graham wants Schumer to cancel the Senate portion of the impeachment proceedings "for the good of the country."
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/17/graham-schumer-senate-vote-canceling-impeachment-trial-460014
What kind of emotional blackmail is that?
M.
We'll say one thing for ol' Moscow Mitch, he's got balls.
Welcome to the Minority, pal. Now sit down and shut up.
As to Mnuchin and other assorted bad actor Trumpanzees, obviously *they* will act this way, and have done a great job snowing the iggerint with their bad economics and bad morality, but the Dems should actively engage their constituents, esp in places like East Muleshoe, KY, with the reality here. They have little to lose in so doing.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 06:43:32 PM
If Blue Dog or other southern or moderate Dems do nuke Biden's stimulus plan, why on earth would they do so? These people certainly have many a constituent who could well benefit from such stimulus. Heck, so does Moscow Mitch. Granted, many of these constituents have been duped by bad economics and, quite frankly also bad theology, but why wouldn't at least Dem politicians try hard to educate them, esp since such stimulus efforts would benefit the entire country.
Because people don't want to believe they are dependent on the government, even if they are. So making sure they know that "the gummint" is giving checks to "lazy people" which now includes themselves, well...
Hence "Keep the government out of my Medicare" signs.
There is an enormous difference in "nuking" proposed expenditures and "paring them down". I think that direct money to the citizenry will be the least affected of those currently discussed. For a while anyway, some congressional legislators will make good arguments that money is real and that unrealistic proposals will have damaging consequences now and in the future.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 07:38:59 PM
We'll say one thing for ol' Moscow Mitch, he's got balls.
Welcome to the Minority, pal. Now sit down and shut up.
As to Mnuchin and other assorted bad actor Trumpanzees, obviously *they* will act this way, and have done a great job snowing the iggerint with their bad economics and bad morality, but the Dems should actively engage their constituents, esp in places like East Muleshoe, KY, with the reality here. They have little to lose in so doing.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 17, 2021, 06:47:33 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 17, 2021, 06:43:32 PM
If Blue Dog or other southern or moderate Dems do nuke Biden's stimulus plan, why on earth would they do so? These people certainly have many a constituent who could well benefit from such stimulus. Heck, so does Moscow Mitch. Granted, many of these constituents have been duped by bad economics and, quite frankly also bad theology, but why wouldn't at least Dem politicians try hard to educate them, esp since such stimulus efforts would benefit the entire country.
Same reason that Manchin wants to prevent adequate stimulus cheques from going out. They're fucking morons in thrall to bad economics and worse ethics.
(Not that we should grant any credibility to Economizer's randomated musings.)
Are there any Blue Dog Democrats still about? Moderates? To refresh my opinion, I've really not heard anything about or from either of them lately!
With the Dem majorities in both houses as slim as they are, it would not take many Blue Doggies to ruin things. Indeed, the Senate being what it is, my hidden fear is that Manchin could be induced to switch parties, much like WV Gov. Justice did in 2017. There really do not seem to be many Democrats left in WV, and these people, largely very ignorant and eager to demonstrate their opposition to elites, have doubled down on their choice to support the party that does not have their best interests at heart.
Other than some rhetoric, a commitment to encouraging/enforcing mask-wearing where possible, Dr. Fauci in the media 24/7, Biden displaying a notebook at a press conference, and a pledge of financial aid to those struggling economically, I see nothing major and tangible on Covid so far from the Biden Administration. Am I missing something?
Some of those issues will take full congressional action (protocols for which are still being hammered out) and can't be taken care of by Executive degree. And there are still issues arising about Covid's new mutations, responses to shots, etc., that are probably making some recommendations uncertain.
He can't undo 4 years of nonsense overnight by himself, basically. And it's probably wiser to take time to sort out the issues in some of those cases, too.
I might have wanted someone else, but I do trust him to get there.
M.
Quote from: Cheerful on January 25, 2021, 11:49:10 AM
Other than some rhetoric, a commitment to encouraging/enforcing mask-wearing where possible, Dr. Fauci in the media 24/7, Biden displaying a notebook at a press conference, and a pledge of financial aid to those struggling economically, I see nothing major and tangible on Covid so far from the Biden Administration. Am I missing something?
Executive actions list-- a bunch are Covid related: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
Most other things depend on congress passing the relief bill he sent them on day 1. Remember, congress controls the budget, not the president.
Also, I know we all want things fixed immediately, but maybe give it more than 5 days before getting impatient? Especially since they didn't get cooperation during the transition and have to sort out the mess starting now.
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Cheerful on January 25, 2021, 11:49:10 AM
Other than some rhetoric, a commitment to encouraging/enforcing mask-wearing where possible, Dr. Fauci in the media 24/7, Biden displaying a notebook at a press conference, and a pledge of financial aid to those struggling economically, I see nothing major and tangible on Covid so far from the Biden Administration. Am I missing something?
Executive actions list-- a bunch are Covid related: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/joe-biden/2021
Most other things depend on congress passing the relief bill he sent them on day 1. Remember, congress controls the budget, not the president.
Also, I know we all want things fixed immediately, but maybe give it more than 5 days before getting impatient? Especially since they didn't get cooperation during the transition and have to sort out the mess starting now.
I'm familiar with all the Executive Orders. The transition excuse isn't convincing. They've had months to plan, consult with all the relevant experts, etc. I thought a campaign promise was to make a big difference fighting Covid. Like vaccine production and distribution, immediately. For many dramatic and sad reasons, there is no time to waste. Many governors (D and R) have also been less than stellar and transparent.
When do you think we'll see some real results?
Here's a part of the same answer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-gridlock-threatens-biden-agenda/2021/01/23/6119e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html
And I suspect when you have to take time away from planning in the last two weeks to sort out issues like extra security, re-vamping all the inaugural plans because, crazed people taking over the Capitol, and all--well, yeah.
Proper process takes time.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on January 25, 2021, 04:46:08 PM
Here's a part of the same answer:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-gridlock-threatens-biden-agenda/2021/01/23/6119e512-5cf3-11eb-b8bd-ee36b1cd18bf_story.html
And I suspect when you have to take time away from planning in the last two weeks to sort out issues like extra security, re-vamping all the inaugural plans because, crazed people taking over the Capitol, and all--well, yeah.
Proper process takes time.
M.
Sorry for the double, but the glacier named McConnell has made a tiny bit of forward movement:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/senate-republicans-power-sharing-deal/index.html
The pragmatic issue of not wasting energy, time, and good will on proposals that will die in committees still run by Repubs, or bringing things to discussion or vote when the filibuster looms over all is a part of the delay.
The wheels may grind slowly, but you do have to let them grind. A President trying to short-circuit the process by strong-arming people was what got us in this mess.
Any other way than the right way means they've won in the larger debate over how things get done for the best of all concerned.
M.
For the historical forum record: the "jobs" plan that just dropped is a huge net good, even despite its failings.
Jobs plan
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/biden-to-let-trumps-h1-b-visa-ban-expire-in-win-for-tech-firms/
American tech firms, from Facebook Inc. to Google, rely on foreign talent to shore up domestic workforces. Infosys Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. traditionally dispatch Indian software engineers to work in tandem with their American clients, which include some of the largest Wall Street banks and technology corporations. It remains unclear whether Biden will ease visa restrictions in general, reversing curbs imposed by the former Trump administration.
Quote from: Anselm on April 04, 2021, 10:07:04 AM
Jobs plan
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/biden-to-let-trumps-h1-b-visa-ban-expire-in-win-for-tech-firms/
American tech firms, from Facebook Inc. to Google, rely on foreign talent to shore up domestic workforces. Infosys Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. traditionally dispatch Indian software engineers to work in tandem with their American clients, which include some of the largest Wall Street banks and technology corporations. It remains unclear whether Biden will ease visa restrictions in general, reversing curbs imposed by the former Trump administration.
And your point is what exactly? The unemployment rate among US software engineers probably approximates zero (hence the demand for foreign talent), and you can't put an unemployed restaurant or coal mine employee into a software engineer job. You can train that coal worker for a new infrastructure job though, and that H1B visa holder will be buying meals from restaurants putting workers back to work.
There is lots of evidence that immigration helps, not hurts, the US economy.
Quote from: Puget on April 04, 2021, 11:05:52 AM
Quote from: Anselm on April 04, 2021, 10:07:04 AM
Jobs plan
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/biden-to-let-trumps-h1-b-visa-ban-expire-in-win-for-tech-firms/
American tech firms, from Facebook Inc. to Google, rely on foreign talent to shore up domestic workforces. Infosys Ltd. and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. traditionally dispatch Indian software engineers to work in tandem with their American clients, which include some of the largest Wall Street banks and technology corporations. It remains unclear whether Biden will ease visa restrictions in general, reversing curbs imposed by the former Trump administration.
And your point is what exactly? The unemployment rate among US software engineers probably approximates zero (hence the demand for foreign talent), and you can't put an unemployed restaurant or coal mine employee into a software engineer job. You can train that coal worker for a new infrastructure job though, and that H1B visa holder will be buying meals from restaurants putting workers back to work.
There is lots of evidence that immigration helps, not hurts, the US economy.
My point:
https://www.smh.com.au/technology/us-programmers-forced-to-train-their-replacements-20030825-gdhac7.html
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article81676692.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/mar/30/citylights-engineers-axed-train-replacements/
Can't find another place to post this; the House vote on Res. 716 is live right now, very interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl7LHRo6YXI
(Reuters feed)
ETA:
It did clear (219-1 not voting/Dem; 204-8 not voting/Rep); I am very sorry to observe that Schumer probably killed any possibility of any crossovers although the balance of the abstentions are interesting.
M.
Isn't this all mostly theater? Don't they always eventually raise the debt ceiling?
I wonder if they are seriously considering minting the trillion dollar platinum coin.
Quote from: Anselm on October 13, 2021, 08:22:29 AM
Isn't this all mostly theater? Don't they always eventually raise the debt ceiling?
I wonder if they are seriously considering minting the trillion dollar platinum coin.
They always do, yes. Because they have to, since it's an entirely artificial limit.
There's no point in minting such a coin, except for show. All they have to do is change some numbers on a spreadsheet at the Federal Reserve.
Yes, it's mostly theater with a fair bit of pain for those on unemployment thrown in.
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
My folks fell for the whole "inflation is evil" message, and I've never quite forgiven the GOP for putting them in such an unnecessary tizzy.
Or for putting those of us waiting on our UI checks under so much pressure with landlords, utility companies, etc.
The only redeeming part of the experience was the very savvy big-haired/bright-T-shirt-wearing state unemployment agent who knew all the ins and outs, comforted all of us by showing us how to fill out the retrospective payment forms (because it doesn't save any UI money, it just gets paid out later in a lump sum), and huffing and rolling her eyes without ever saying an impeachable thing about the system that would get her or us in trouble.
She was such a great character, and so much in the right place at the right time.
She might have even been an angel, now that I think of it.
Some of them probably do have big, teased-up hair and wear bright, wacky T-shirts with eyebrow-raising statements on them....
M.
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
You mean like Google, Facebook, etc.? Both parties have "big-corporate-donor friends" aplenty. And they both cater to them.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 13, 2021, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
You mean like Google, Facebook, etc.? Both parties have "big-corporate-donor friends" aplenty. And they both cater to them.
This was at a time long before Facebook was a gleam in Zuckerman's eye, and 'Google' would have looked like someone misspelled what a diver wears.
I'd say more like Big Auto, Big Tobacco, those guys...the ones that didn't like unions because they made them give people weekends off and pay them something closer to a living wage.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 11:14:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 13, 2021, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
You mean like Google, Facebook, etc.? Both parties have "big-corporate-donor friends" aplenty. And they both cater to them.
This was at a time long before Facebook was a gleam in Zuckerman's eye, and 'Google' would have looked like someone misspelled what a diver wears.
I'd say more like Big Auto, Big Tobacco, those guys...the ones that didn't like unions because they made them give people weekends off and pay them something closer to a living wage.
With all of the research indicating the social costs of social media, the tech companies now are responsible for comparable, (or possibly worse), damage to society.
Big money from big donors is a siren call for politicians all over the spectrum.
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
Yes, it's mostly theater with a fair bit of pain for those on unemployment thrown in.
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
My folks fell for the whole "inflation is evil" message, and I've never quite forgiven the GOP for putting them in such an unnecessary tizzy.
Or for putting those of us waiting on our UI checks under so much pressure with landlords, utility companies, etc.
The only redeeming part of the experience was the very savvy big-haired/bright-T-shirt-wearing state unemployment agent who knew all the ins and outs, comforted all of us by showing us how to fill out the retrospective payment forms (because it doesn't save any UI money, it just gets paid out later in a lump sum), and huffing and rolling her eyes without ever saying an impeachable thing about the system that would get her or us in trouble.
Sounds shady.
Did it provide you with more time for social media/forums?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 13, 2021, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
You mean like Google, Facebook, etc.? Both parties have "big-corporate-donor friends" aplenty. And they both cater to them.
FB & zuck are hard left and may well have bought the election for Joe. More regulation coming, maybe.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2021, 11:38:18 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
Yes, it's mostly theater with a fair bit of pain for those on unemployment thrown in.
After lay-offs one year, it was excruciating to watch (always the Republicans) playing with my ability to pay my rent just so they could grandstand and act all virtuous about balancing a budget that doesn't need to be balanced (I remember that from Samuelson, too...interthreadual note) because of the scare tactics they use to goose the economy in favor of their big-corporate-donor friends.
My folks fell for the whole "inflation is evil" message, and I've never quite forgiven the GOP for putting them in such an unnecessary tizzy.
Or for putting those of us waiting on our UI checks under so much pressure with landlords, utility companies, etc.
The only redeeming part of the experience was the very savvy big-haired/bright-T-shirt-wearing state unemployment agent who knew all the ins and outs, comforted all of us by showing us how to fill out the retrospective payment forms (because it doesn't save any UI money, it just gets paid out later in a lump sum), and huffing and rolling her eyes without ever saying an impeachable thing about the system that would get her or us in trouble.
Sounds shady.
Did it provide you with more time for social media/forums?
Sorry, what?
Have you ever been on unemployment?
It's half the pay with no help on basic expenses with the other half, and all the rocky nonsense I just described.
And the social media platforms I spent my time on then (they were just forming) were Monster, Indeed, Linked-In, and all the job pages on all the schools, businesses, and editorial groups in the area.
In fact, the CHE forum was just then starting up in its revised iteration and I joined it, maybe a year or so later.
After I had a job.
(And it was the first and is still the only one I spend any time on, aside from the town forum that helped me re-find our lost relatives in the UK).
You do take deliberate insults to the level of an aspirational art-form, I must say.
Cut it out.
M.
ETA: Oh, and during that time I still had to travel to Europe (tix already booked) to give a conference paper, return to the US the next day to give one here, and I wrote and delivered three more in the time it took to find another position (I'm in a high-expense, highly-competitive area, so grocery-clerking wasn't going to suffice, or I'd have done it).
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 11:57:34 AM
Sorry, what?
Have you ever been on unemployment?
Nope.
ETA: What you've posted so far about your friend at the unemployment office is enough to make one wonder whether the rules were being bent. Plus your attitude suggests you don't think the system is shooting straight so you might not be obligated to either. Unless I misread. But I doubt it.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2021, 12:03:59 PM
Quote from: mamselle on October 13, 2021, 11:57:34 AM
Sorry, what?
Have you ever been on unemployment?
Nope.
So, you have no basis for comparison.
I was called in at 7 AM on my day off to take the call telling me that most of our unit was being laid off.
I supported the VP of R/D at a software tech company which had been a high-functioning startup bought out by a software giant whose name you'd recognize as one of those big-time Republican supporters.
The golden handcuffs had come off my boss about a year before, and after having bought out six other small competitive startups in the area we covered, the parent company was starting to downsize redundant labs and workers with a mind to transporting all the leftovers to the new VP's old "home company" site.
We all knew layoffs would be coming, and (myself included) had started looking elsewhere, but other local groups were in similar positions, so the pickings were slim: along with all the pharma labs in the area (in which I'd also worked as an EA), these "shareholder's profit-driven layoff cycles" are so familiar that there's a known protocol for getting contact info, setting up mutual job support chains, and looking out for each other as soon as it becomes clear.
And the quarterly cycles all fall at the same times in the fall and spring, so there are usually gluts of folks all looking at the same time.
Nothing shady about it.
You'd done good work, you needed (and really, deserved: the layoffs were structural, they were not job-performance-related) the unemployment income, and there were the good congressfolk of the land playing chicken over the budget and tying your hands behind your back when it came time to pay the bills.
And I didn't have kids, or a mortgage, or any of the other things that some of the bench folks and lab PIs had.
If it's never happened to you, you're lucky is all.
No call to be smug.
M.
Time for some mansplaining.
The congressfolk play a game of 'chicken' because they are in opposition to each other on fiscal policy. Whereas the real game of chicken, like James Dean's character played in Rebel Without A Cause is just a dare, a destructive stupid clashing of egos and domination. But the difference in fiscal policy is at least a little bit legitimate. The fact that money doesn't grow on trees is not some rule that republicans made up to impose on society.
I'm sure you are a hard worker Mamselle. I guess I sound smug because if I lost my adjunct gigs I actually might go work in Home Depot. My kind of swagger.
You think I didn't know what the game of chicken was about?
That was the basis of my complaint.
Sheesh!
M.
Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2021, 12:40:11 PM
The fact that money doesn't grow on trees is not some rule that republicans made up to impose on society.
It grows on spreadsheets. They understand that perfectly well when it comes to military spending and tax cuts.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 13, 2021, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2021, 12:40:11 PM
The fact that money doesn't grow on trees is not some rule that republicans made up to impose on society.
It grows on spreadsheets. They understand that perfectly well when it comes to military spending and tax cuts.
It's recorded on spreadsheets, not made on spreadsheets. Government debt is government debt, no matter how it's financed.
It's good there was increasing government indebtedness all through 2020 as it got people through Covid better. Individuals could not have borrowed enough to get through on their own account. Same for 2021. Question is how much more?
An extra trillion or two between friends is fine with me, by the way. Trick is knowing when to stop! :-)
[Military spending? Obama spent plenty, but Trump started the exit from Afghanistan. Tax cuts? To keep the tax/gdp ratio not above its longer run average.]
Right, what 'grows on trees' or is infinite is time, the future. Therefore, thanks to borrowing, so does money...;-)
What a great deal! What will the kids think of it? Gee, I don't know!
Quote from: dismalist on October 13, 2021, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 13, 2021, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on October 13, 2021, 12:40:11 PM
The fact that money doesn't grow on trees is not some rule that republicans made up to impose on society.
It grows on spreadsheets. They understand that perfectly well when it comes to military spending and tax cuts.
It's recorded on spreadsheets, not made on spreadsheets. Government debt is government debt, no matter how it's financed.
It's good there was increasing government indebtedness all through 2020 as it got people through Covid better. Individuals could not have borrowed enough to get through on their own account. Same for 2021. Question is how much more?
I agree about covid. This was definitely a time for governments to incur debt.
HOWEVER
In my several decades on the planet, I have never heard a government say "This is the good times! Things re going as well as can be expected, so now we're going to pay down debt!" (A few governments have actually managed to balance the budget, and pay down a bit of debt, but they usually don't announce it ahead of time because voters will scream to SPEND MORE MONEY!)
As more of the budget gets spent
servicing debt, that leaves less for
program spending. If governments just print more money, well, ask Zimbabwe how that works......
EVERY government EVER claims that times are tight now, so we have to borrow. Just like consumers who have several credit cards, all maxxed out.
"Paying down the debt" leads to recessions thanks to (1) large cuts to social programs, which requires individuals to foot the bill instead, and (2) a contraction in the availability of one of the main investment vehicles out there, viz. treasury bonds. This is exactly what happened in the Clinton era in the US, in Australia more recently, etc.
As I understand it, Zimbabwe's hyperinflation was not caused by the volume of currency; it was caused by (1) the diastrous land reforms (which led to a stunning 73% reduction in food production, which led to food imports--paid for in non-Z dollars!), (2) trade restrictions, and (3) pegging the Z-dollar to the US dollar, thus reducing Zimbabwe's monetary sovereignty. The printing of new money was a doomed response to hyperinflation, not its cause.
None of that applies to the US, Canada, the U.K., etc. The credit card analogy is fundamentally flawed because individual consumers are not issuers of a fiat currency.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 20, 2021, 02:53:16 PM
"Paying down the debt" leads to recessions thanks to (1) large cuts to social programs, which requires individuals to foot the bill instead, and (2) a contraction in the availability of one of the main investment vehicles out there, viz. treasury bonds. This is exactly what happened in the Clinton era in the US, in Australia more recently, etc.
As I understand it, Zimbabwe's hyperinflation was not caused by the volume of currency; it was caused by (1) the diastrous land reforms (which led to a stunning 73% reduction in food production, which led to food imports--paid for in non-Z dollars!), (2) trade restrictions, and (3) pegging the Z-dollar to the US dollar, thus reducing Zimbabwe's monetary sovereignty. The printing of new money was a doomed response to hyperinflation, not its cause.
None of that applies to the US, Canada, the U.K., etc. The credit card analogy is fundamentally flawed because individual consumers are not issuers of a fiat currency.
There is an idea from so-called Modern Monetary Theory, better called
Magical Monetary Theory, that claims governments' use of real resources can be financed by printing money -- and this is true,
so long as people wish to hold the extra money! What is forgotten is that if people don't want to hold the extra money or all the extra money, they can turn in their cash in return for government bonds, held by the monetary authority, which got them by giving currency to the government. So money holders can choose between holding bonds, at some interest rate, or money for its convenience.
Currency is government debt. The credit card analogy is exact.
Zimbabwe follows in the footsteps of Austria-Hungary 1918, Weimar 1923, and Hungary 1945-46. This is well understood and appreciated.
'Twould have been good if the government had issued more currency during the 1930's, when there was deflation. At present we have inflation, showing that people do not wish to hold more money, so they trade it in for goods.
The nicest thing I can call Modern Monetary Theory is what Hicks called the General Theory -- depression economics.
Quote from: dismalist on October 20, 2021, 03:14:37 PM
There is an idea from so-called Modern Monetary Theory, better called Magical Monetary Theory, that claims governments' use of real resources can be financed by printing money -- and this is true, so long as people wish to hold the extra money! What is forgotten is that if people don't want to hold the extra money or all the extra money, they can turn in their cash in return for government bonds, held by the monetary authority, which got them by giving currency to the government. So money holders can choose between holding bonds, at some interest rate, or money for its convenience. Currency is government debt. The credit card analogy is exact.
Pejorative appellations aside, the credit card analogy more or less works for municipal and state (or provincial) governments, because their spending is almost entirely constrained by tax revenue. They cannot issue currency, so they cannot pay off debts in US$ (for example) which exceed their revenues.
As the issuer of a fiat currency, the federal government is not at all in the same position. Whether they're in as good a position as MMT makes out is another matter. But what is undeniable is that they are in a much better position than credit card users--and as I understand it,
all economists agree on that much, regardless of what they think of the further inferences drawn by MMT.
Quote
Zimbabwe follows in the footsteps of Austria-Hungary 1918, Weimar 1923, and Hungary 1945-46. This is well understood and appreciated.
Indeed. And what's well-understood and appreciated--though not by the lay public--is that all of those cases are cases where the printing of moey was not the
cause of runaway inflation. The inflation
predated the accelerated printing. The problem is debt owed in foreign currency. (Actually, I'm confident about the first three: I don't know much about Hungary 1945 except that its industrial base was destroyed by the war.)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 20, 2021, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 20, 2021, 03:14:37 PM
There is an idea from so-called Modern Monetary Theory, better called Magical Monetary Theory, that claims governments' use of real resources can be financed by printing money -- and this is true, so long as people wish to hold the extra money! What is forgotten is that if people don't want to hold the extra money or all the extra money, they can turn in their cash in return for government bonds, held by the monetary authority, which got them by giving currency to the government. So money holders can choose between holding bonds, at some interest rate, or money for its convenience. Currency is government debt. The credit card analogy is exact.
Pejorative appellations aside, the credit card analogy more or less works for municipal and state (or provincial) governments, because their spending is almost entirely constrained by tax revenue. They cannot issue currency, so they cannot pay off debts in US$ (for example) which exceed their revenues.
As the issuer of a fiat currency, the federal government is not at all in the same position. Whether they're in as good a position as MMT makes out is another matter. But what is undeniable is that they are in a much better position than credit card users--and as I understand it, all economists agree on that much, regardless of what they think of the further inferences drawn by MMT.
Quote
Zimbabwe follows in the footsteps of Austria-Hungary 1918, Weimar 1923, and Hungary 1945-46. This is well understood and appreciated.
Indeed. And what's well-understood and appreciated--though not by the lay public--is that all of those cases are cases where the printing of moey was not the cause of runaway inflation. The inflation predated the accelerated printing.
I can't help you.
I dunno. I mean, you could help by articulating the role that the land reforms played in Zimbabwe's hyperinflation crisis, and compare that with a timeline of their increased printing. Or you could do the same for the role reparations played in Austria-Hungary and Weimar Germany.
I'm not denying that they all ended up printing more money, or that eventually there was a horrific feedback loop. I'm pointing out that the problem pre-existed the printing, and was not solved by the printing because the debt was owed in a different currency--and with the pre-existing conditions worsening economic capacity, it entirely undermined the value of the local currency so that it couldn't be exchanged for the stabler foreign currency at a suitable rate. I agree that printing money didn't save them. But it didn't save them because they had the wrong money, and they had external creditors who wanted other money they couldn't print. (In the historical cases, the money might also have been constrained by the gold standard or something [I know Germany suspended it for the war, but after that I don't know]. I don't know. If so, that's another important constraining factor.)
Quote from: dismalist on October 20, 2021, 03:14:37 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 20, 2021, 02:53:16 PM
"Paying down the debt" leads to recessions thanks to (1) large cuts to social programs, which requires individuals to foot the bill instead, and (2) a contraction in the availability of one of the main investment vehicles out there, viz. treasury bonds. This is exactly what happened in the Clinton era in the US, in Australia more recently, etc.
As I understand it, Zimbabwe's hyperinflation was not caused by the volume of currency; it was caused by (1) the diastrous land reforms (which led to a stunning 73% reduction in food production, which led to food imports--paid for in non-Z dollars!), (2) trade restrictions, and (3) pegging the Z-dollar to the US dollar, thus reducing Zimbabwe's monetary sovereignty. The printing of new money was a doomed response to hyperinflation, not its cause.
None of that applies to the US, Canada, the U.K., etc. The credit card analogy is fundamentally flawed because individual consumers are not issuers of a fiat currency.
There is an idea from so-called Modern Monetary Theory, better called Magical Monetary Theory, that claims governments' use of real resources can be financed by printing money -- and this is true, so long as people wish to hold the extra money! What is forgotten is that if people don't want to hold the extra money or all the extra money, they can turn in their cash in return for government bonds, held by the monetary authority, which got them by giving currency to the government. So money holders can choose between holding bonds, at some interest rate, or money for its convenience. Currency is government debt. The credit card analogy is exact.
Zimbabwe follows in the footsteps of Austria-Hungary 1918, Weimar 1923, and Hungary 1945-46. This is well understood and appreciated.
'Twould have been good if the government had issued more currency during the 1930's, when there was deflation. At present we have inflation, showing that people do not wish to hold more money, so they trade it in for goods.
The nicest thing I can call Modern Monetary Theory is what Hicks called the General Theory -- depression economics.
No, it's not.
First, a government has to expand the money supply simply to cover an increasing GDP caused by an increasing population and higher value-add of goods and services. What was the money supply in the USA 1900? What was the population? What was in people's houses? How about infrastructure? So, without 'printing money' how would those have been paid for?
The most simple way a government does this is reducing the federal interest rate which means banks can lend to borrowers who use these funds to invest in growth, then pay it back. The lower the interest rate, the higher the money supply. Theoretically most of those funds are going to improve the economy by increasing production while increasing consumption. As long as there is a balance between investment/production and consumption there won't be inflation.
Free silver, anyone?
History repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on October 20, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Free silver, anyone?
History repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce. :-)
You remind me of my parents, terrified by something benign that they didn't understand.
They were putty in Nixin's and Reagan's hands, whose operating principle was, "If you scare 'em, you own 'em.
(Why do you think I asked about Philip's curves upthread?
M.
Everybody wants something for nothing. Can't have it.
We're in the farce part.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 20, 2021, 03:49:45 PM
I'm pointing out that the problem pre-existed the printing, and was not solved by the printing because the debt was owed in a different currency--and with the pre-existing conditions worsening economic capacity, it entirely undermined the value of the local currency so that it couldn't be exchanged for the stabler foreign currency at a suitable rate. I agree that printing money didn't save them. But it didn't save them because they had the wrong money, and they had external creditors who wanted other money they couldn't print. (In the historical cases, the money might also have been constrained by the gold standard or something [I know Germany suspended it for the war, but after that I don't know]. I don't know. If so, that's another important constraining factor.)
This is the important point. If a country was totally self-sufficient, and didn't need to trade with anyone else, they could do whatever they wanted with their currency. However, if they have to trade with others, then unless they're trading hard goods
exclusively, the
perceived value of their currency to their trading partners is
critical. A country can't just arbitrarily pretend the value of a good or service is what they want it to be. Ultimately it's only as valuable as someone else is willing to buy or sell it for.
When will the Attorney General make up his mind whether parents who want to protect and nurture their kids in healthy ways are domestic terrorists?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrick-garland-gets-schooled-fbi-school-board-loudoun-county-11634854437
He should rescind his original statement about the parents challenging the school board and then make amends best he can. Or better still, quit his job.
It seems to have dawned on him that the Oct 4 statement was at the very least, tone deaf. My twelve year old niece could have predicted that. But then, she's probably a racist.
Another of Biden's spectacular f***ups.
ETA: Oh yeah, son-in-law is in the 'diversity' enforcement business. Conflict of interest much?
Well, how about some nuanced discussion?
As usual, I am interested in what people think.
Are you? You seem to have the answers and are simply looking for questions to fit them to.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 23, 2021, 04:39:52 PM
Are you? You seem to have the answers and are simply looking for questions to fit them to.
Well, sometimes the answers are easy.
ETA: LarryC suggesting waiting until five posts had appeared before jumping back in. Sounds like a plan. sometimes I think it's not the point of view that wears out its welcome, but the frequency. Then again, maybe both.
Nobody defends Merrick Garland. And I agree.
Sure, it helps to have the global reserve currency but I fail to see how a nation can quickly increase the money supply with no negative consequences. Otherwise they can print even more money and give us all UBI and pet unicorns. My hunch is that this inflation is not transitory. I will wait a few months and see (or at least until we get 5 more posts here).
In this room, we have a discussion of money theory.
While in this room...my take on it:
Manchen and little-miss-what's-her-name have managed to pull solo grandstanding stunts, and seem to be getting the results they seem to be getting.
What's that going to be about going forward? Won't some version of some of the things they're demanding be excluded still need to be passed at some point, anyway?
Vainglory hounds. They're no better than McConnell.
M.
I hope progressives stick to the plan and torpedo the reconciliation package (unless those two shape the fuck up). If they get what they want, there's not really anything left worth passing.
But yeah, they can just reintroduce the house bill (or whatever it is; late day brain fog) they want whenever. It's just that it real bad policy and quite unpopular, so they actually want it tied to the reconciliation package.
If they were smart, they wouldn't have torpedoed it quite so much, so that progressives would actually have a hard time voting against it.
They might have Grand Canyon and Appalachian sized egos, but they represent the views of a great many people, including myself.
That doesn't mean I support their precise views (they don't agree with each other), but 4.5 trillion is just excessive. Maybe each problem needs to be addressed in some way at some time.
Here's how majoritarian democracy works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb_kJJnD8V4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb_kJJnD8V4)
Let us be careful what we wish for.
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 27, 2021, 06:18:56 PM
They might have Grand Canyon and Appalachian sized egos, but they represent the views of a great many people, including myself.
That doesn't mean I support their precise views (they don't agree with each other), but 4.5 trillion is just excessive. Maybe each problem needs to be addressed in some way at some time.
FWIW, it's not 4.5 trillion. It started at 6, got compromised to 4.5, then 3.5, and the further watering down they want would bring it to 1-1.5 trillion. Over ten years. Over that ten-year period, it's less than 1.2% of US GDP.
In other words, this is $350 billion dollars a year. Which is not a lot of money, especially when you consider the bang for buck. Most of that spending is likely to bring down inflation because it's going towards green infrastructure and increasing productive capacity. Plus, there's the immediate relief of bringing down drug prices, paid sick leave, childcare, cutting taxes for 90% of Americans, etc. It's a small price to pay for all that. (And if you want to be serious about addressing climate change, it's nowhere near enough.)
And the increase to the corporate tax rate would still leave it well below where it was in 2016.
It's actually not particularly expensive. It's pretty easy to point to more expensive and less useful things.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 27, 2021, 08:15:40 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on October 27, 2021, 06:18:56 PM
They might have Grand Canyon and Appalachian sized egos, but they represent the views of a great many people, including myself.
That doesn't mean I support their precise views (they don't agree with each other), but 4.5 trillion is just excessive. Maybe each problem needs to be addressed in some way at some time.
FWIW, it's not 4.5 trillion. It started at 6, got compromised to 4.5, then 3.5, and the further watering down they want would bring it to 1-1.5 trillion. Over ten years. Over that ten-year period, it's less than 1.2% of US GDP.
In other words, this is $350 billion dollars a year. Which is not a lot of money, especially when you consider the bang for buck. Most of that spending is likely to bring down inflation because it's going towards green infrastructure and increasing productive capacity. Plus, there's the immediate relief of bringing down drug prices, paid sick leave, childcare, cutting taxes for 90% of Americans, etc. It's a small price to pay for all that. (And if you want to be serious about addressing climate change, it's nowhere near enough.)
And the increase to the corporate tax rate would still leave it well below where it was in 2016.
It's actually not particularly expensive. It's pretty easy to point to more expensive and less useful things.
Everything is small compared to GDP! :-)
Spending does not bring down inflation, quite the opposite.
Some people may not want what is in the bill. People differ in their interests.
Well, I certainly want it, because in all those trillions, there's got to be something in there somewhere for adjunct faculty. There it is: inflation and unemployment, because we're not competitive for the real jobs, and our jobs are going away, in the interest of equity and the preservation of truth-telling (tenure). And then higher taxes when you are working again somehow. Well...you can't have everything.
Uh, of course its at least 4.5 trillion because of the two separate bills. You can't forget that, its important.
In any case, the 3.5 is unlikely to survive past 2 trillion, so surviving spending between both bills is unlikely to be more than 3 trillion, and I am willing to wager that it will be between two and three for both bills together.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 27, 2021, 06:15:26 PM
I hope progressives stick to the plan and torpedo the reconciliation package (unless those two shape the fuck up). If they get what they want, there's not really anything left worth passing.
But yeah, they can just reintroduce the house bill (or whatever it is; late day brain fog) they want whenever. It's just that it real bad policy and quite unpopular, so they actually want it tied to the reconciliation package.
If they were smart, they wouldn't have torpedoed it quite so much, so that progressives would actually have a hard time voting against it.
That would be very stupid, because then they would have nothing. WV will never have another D senator almost certainly, and Manchin's whole brand there is that he's not like other Ds, so there is no leverage to make him do anything he doesn't want to do. If you tell him he can have the progressive version or nothing he will absolutely choose nothing.
This is how the sausage gets made. It isn't pretty, but the alternative is everyone goes hungry. The problem with a lot of progressives is they would rather make a point by going hungry, except it isn't the generally well-off folks taking this stance that actually suffer as a result, it is all the people who would have benefited from the bill, scaled back and imperfect as it is. Actually caring about people rather than politics requires not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, something the far left often has trouble remembering.
Quote from: Puget on October 28, 2021, 08:23:37 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 27, 2021, 06:15:26 PM
I hope progressives stick to the plan and torpedo the reconciliation package (unless those two shape the fuck up). If they get what they want, there's not really anything left worth passing.
But yeah, they can just reintroduce the house bill (or whatever it is; late day brain fog) they want whenever. It's just that it real bad policy and quite unpopular, so they actually want it tied to the reconciliation package.
If they were smart, they wouldn't have torpedoed it quite so much, so that progressives would actually have a hard time voting against it.
That would be very stupid, because then they would have nothing. WV will never have another D senator almost certainly, and Manchin's whole brand there is that he's not like other Ds, so there is no leverage to make him do anything he doesn't want to do. If you tell him he can have the progressive version or nothing he will absolutely choose nothing.
This is how the sausage gets made. It isn't pretty, but the alternative is everyone goes hungry. The problem with a lot of progressives is they would rather make a point by going hungry, except it isn't the generally well-off folks taking this stance that actually suffer as a result, it is all the people who would have benefited from the bill, scaled back and imperfect as it is. Actually caring about people rather than politics requires not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, something the far left often has trouble remembering.
That's the reason people like Manchin and Synema always have the leverage, and progressives never do. They're willing to follow through.
But in this case, if they allow M&S to keep gutting it then there's really not much in that couple trillion over ten years that's worth voting for, and the other bill is
terrible. Coming home with a means-tested one-year child tax credit is not anything to brag about. Also remember that Manchin and Sinema
really want to pass the house bill attached to the reconciliation bill. That's what gives progressives some leverage here.
Remember, 3.5 trillion over ten years
was the compromise. It was a
really big compromise, a perfect instance of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Past that, it's up to the party to get people in line. It's also worth noting that the reconciliation bill is a huge part of Biden's presidency and his desired legacy. Passing a useless bill that does very little to help anyone is not in his interests, either. The party wants and needs a signature achievement during this presidency--more importantly, they want and need it before the midterm elections. Progressives have no real incentive to vote for a gutted reconciliation package. Even where appeals to conscience are concerned, the gutting would leave nothing on the table that really matters to them. So why
wouldn't they exercise their power, show that they're serious and that next time the party needs to get its ducks in a row if it's serious about wanting to pass something. The ability to pass something that will make a real difference down the line is better than passing garbage now and forgoing that power entirely.
That is how the sausage gets made.
It would be different if drug pricing were still there after they gutted it, or if paid sick leave was, or childcare, or Medicare eligibility, or Medicare expansion to cover vision, hearing, and dental. Or if serious climate measures were in there. But without any of that, there's no bacon left to bring home. Just the thinnest of barley gruels. When you're negotiating, you shouldn't accept a "deal" that doesn't actually feature
anything you want in it, but which features
everything your
opponent wants. That's not the art of the deal, to coin a phrase.
Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.
As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".
Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.
Quote from: Puget on October 28, 2021, 10:20:34 AM
Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.
Ideologues (from
any part of the political spectrum) are the bane of democracy.
Quote from: Puget on October 28, 2021, 10:20:34 AM
Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.
As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".
Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.
Progressives
have compromised. A lot, and in ways thoroughly acceptable to
everyone except Manchin and Synema, who represent only their own financial interests. They even compromised
with Manchin and Synema's demands! The only people who refuse to compromise are Manchin and Synema. Surely you can't have missed that, if you've been paying attention.
You should also have noticed that gutting the bill to suit Manchin and Synema will actually
eliminate almost all of those helpful measures. That's the point.
As for the snippiness: my mother is American (I could have claimed citizenship, but never did). My partner is American. My child is American. More to the point, my partner spent her teenage years homeless in America, and we now support her mother, who without that help would remain homeless. I have actually navigated the "benefits" system in
excruciating detail to ensure she has as much help from SSI, Section 8, food stamps, Medicare/MedicAid, etc. as possible (the system makes it
very hard for family to help someone in need without compromising their meagre "benefits"). I don't just know people who might be affected; I'm materially invested in their wellbeing.
Perhaps that helps?
Adding: I just saw that Biden has unveiled a new, smaller proposal (175 billion a year for ten years). Dunno what's in it, though.
Going from "all the money anybody can possibly imagine or more" to 3.5 trillion is *not* a compromise, its grounding yourself in reality.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on October 28, 2021, 11:00:36 AM
Quote from: Puget on October 28, 2021, 10:20:34 AM
Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.
As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".
Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.
Progressives have compromised. A lot, and in ways thoroughly acceptable to everyone except Manchin and Synema, who represent only their own financial interests. They even compromised with Manchin and Synema's demands! The only people who refuse to compromise are Manchin and Synema. Surely you can't have missed that, if you've been paying attention.
You should also have noticed that gutting the bill to suit Manchin and Synema will actually eliminate almost all of those helpful measures. That's the point.
As for the snippiness: my mother is American (I could have claimed citizenship, but never did). My partner is American. My child is American. More to the point, my partner spent her teenage years homeless in America, and we now support her mother, who without that help would remain homeless. I have actually navigated the "benefits" system in excruciating detail to ensure she has as much help from SSI, Section 8, food stamps, Medicare/MedicAid, etc. as possible (the system makes it very hard for family to help someone in need without compromising their meagre "benefits"). I don't just know people who might be affected; I'm materially invested in their wellbeing.
Perhaps that helps?
One more try and then I'll disengage-- it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks is fair in terms of compromise, the reality is a 50-50 Senate that they hold the power and don't have to compromise. I don't like that any more than you do but that's the reality. The choice is not between the bill you want and the bill we have, it is between the bill we have and nothing. I maintain unreservedly that some good things for real people are better than no good things for those people. And yes, there are still plenty of good things left (see some of my examples above). I really don't understand why anyone would disagree with that, but apparently you do. . .
Sadly, the math is the math. Sinema seems to be a combo of 1) narcissist, and 2) corrupt/ bribed, and coal baron Manchin, for whatever his faults, is right about now more or less the only Democrat who could get elected in West Virginny. That is stunning, given that Dem economics is vastly better for these yahoo hillbiliies than, well... but exactly how do the Democrats begin to convince people in places like this that it is better not to remain an iggerant yahoo hillbilly, and give grandma access to a dentist.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 28, 2021, 11:48:17 PM
Sadly, the math is the math. Sinema seems to be a combo of 1) narcissist, and 2) corrupt/ bribed, and coal baron Manchin, for whatever his faults, is right about now more or less the only Democrat who could get elected in West Virginny. That is stunning, given that Dem economics is vastly better for these yahoo hillbiliies than, well... but exactly how do the Democrats begin to convince people in places like this that it is better not to remain an iggerant yahoo hillbilly, and give grandma access to a dentist.
Go back to 2016 when Hillary called half of Americans a ''basket of deplorables" and before that Obama talking dejectedly about how ignorant people in the hills of PA "retreat into religion and guns" and you see how the problem democrats have with less educated whites and others has been self-constructed. That's not smart campaigning. One callous remark like these reverberates more than 50 Trump tweets. If that's what they say about you into the microphone...
You are not wrong. I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well. Biden never said anything like this, and yet Trump continued to clean his clock with folks like that in places like this, and Manchin, coal barony notwithstanding, knows he is the only Dem now electable statewide in WV. What the Dems need, IOW, is some approach to get through to these folks, let them really know that these bills would help them. Sadly, several things work against the party in any such efforts, esp 1) tribal identity politics ('we are Republicans, and the Demoncrats are bad'), 2) pride ('who cares whether a serious eval of this bill, etc., would say it is in our interests to pass it, it would be embarassing to us to fess up to that, so we'll double down nonetheless') 3) ongoing effects of propaganda, and, yes, like it or not, 4) associating with the Dems because of their economic agenda means taking the Dem base's social agenda, which is hostile to the basic values of many of the WV crowd, and which seems to them to be, ultimately, the most important aspect of the Dem playbook, for most Dems (think on this, however much she reneges on promises to allow Medicare drug price negotiations, what would be the chances that Sinema would vote against a law to nationalize Roe v Wade?)
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2021, 09:38:37 AM
You are not wrong. I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well.
This depends on what their priorities are. Economically, the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their
social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2021, 10:13:18 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2021, 09:38:37 AM
You are not wrong. I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well.
This depends on what their priorities are. Economically, the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.
Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.
Quote from: dismalist on October 29, 2021, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2021, 10:13:18 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2021, 09:38:37 AM
You are not wrong. I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well.
This depends on what their priorities are. Economically, the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.
Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.
I like him!
The democrats are still doing this 'we know better than you what you need for yourselves' and are still paying for it by losing votes. Witness Glenn Youngkin is now even with Terry McAuliffe in polling.
ETA: or 'if you haven't figured out whether you're for me or for Trump, you ain't black.' Which is corny, BTW, unless he always substitutes 'ain't' for 'isn't.' Then there's Randi Weingarten and the politically partisan teacher's union. What the voters are hearing: 'Kids, don't be a deplorable like your dad.'
Quote from: dismalist on October 29, 2021, 10:26:27 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 29, 2021, 10:13:18 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2021, 09:38:37 AM
You are not wrong. I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well.
This depends on what their priorities are. Economically, the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.
Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.
For the voters suffer from
false consciousness.
QuoteI like him!
Eponymously, you'd have to....
M.
A rebuke to the vaccine mandate.
https://www.aol.com/news/senate-passes-resolution-repeal-biden-012300933.html
Aren't there other public health issues worth focussing on? Like keeping fentanyl from Mexico to a minimum.
If anyone should be counted on to not give any ammunition to Biden's detractors, it should be the Guardian. But bad news is just bad news.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/08/us-fentanyl-deaths-narcan-roger-crystal
Quote from: mamselle on October 31, 2021, 10:57:47 AM
QuoteI like him!
Eponymously, you'd have to....
M.
<snicker>
Good one!
Quote from: aside on December 09, 2021, 08:15:10 AM
Quote from: mamselle on October 31, 2021, 10:57:47 AM
QuoteI like him!
Eponymously, you'd have to....
M.
<snicker>
Good one!
《SMILES sweetly, bows gracefully, and exits, downstate, falling into the orchestra pit...)
M.
I would expect people who voted for Joe Biden (I abstained from voting for either candidate) might be a little grumpy at this time.
Wow, this thread surely vanished. But we've got three years to go, so...
President and VEEP's tweets in support of Jussie Smollett are still up, even now that he's been convicted of fraud. There may be a reason to respect someone's leaving up tweets that should embarrass them, if it means they decline the chance to revise history. But I don't think so in Joe's case, since he claimed he drove an eighteen wheeler when he knew it wasn't true, and other whoppers. So he's just, as Newt Gingrich says, seriously lacking in seriousness.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-kamala-harris-tweets-backing-jussie-smollett-remain-up-after-guilty-verdict/ar-AARFrmC
Quote from: mahagonny on December 10, 2021, 03:26:30 AM
Wow, this thread surely vanished. But we've got three years to go, so...
President and VEEP's tweets in support of Jussie Smollett are still up, even now that he's been convicted of fraud. There may be a reason to respect someone's leaving up tweets that should embarrass them, if it means they decline the chance to revise history. But I don't think so in Joe's case, since he claimed he drove an eighteen wheeler when he knew it wasn't true, and other whoppers. So he's just, as Newt Gingrich says, seriously lacking in seriousness.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/joe-biden-kamala-harris-tweets-backing-jussie-smollett-remain-up-after-guilty-verdict/ar-AARFrmC
Sure, they were wrong about Smollett.
But... I don't think they
can delete their Tweets at this point. It's illegal. Remember when Trump tried?
I also doubt they remember the incident.
OTOH, some degree of bipartisan cooperation is creeping in, here and there, while we natter away on other things.
That's definitely down to across-the-aisles Joe.
M.
In my opinion not only wrong about Smollett, but guilty of being duped by someone whose word should be suspect. Namely, a Hollywood type with a claim about racism, bigotry, hate crime and such. Or, if not suspect, let's say when those folks start up on that subject, have your radar out for detecting B.S.
ETA: there's always the chance they figured they could afford to be wrong. When a lot of the people who voted for you believe, for instance, that the police kill 100, 1,000 or more unarmed black men each year, as opposed the real number (something like 10 or 15) and that's what they're angry about, it might be considered more important to keep them excited than to be accurate.
The first couple of times I heard old Joe say he wanted to unite the country I believed him. That seems like a decade ago now.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 10, 2021, 08:27:25 AM
Sure, they were wrong about Smollett.
But... I don't think they can delete their Tweets at this point. It's illegal. Remember when Trump tried?
I also doubt they remember the incident.
Is this what Biden's voters are saying about him?
He doesn't remember...? (Raised eyebrows)
Smollett's jig was up some two years ago. The tweets could have been deleted.
Biden has always been reckless with words. At this stage in his life, all he is capable of is pandering to the mob. (OK I admit this is opinion. Everything else in this post is stuff everybody already knows.)
It will be interesting in 2022 with the midterms. The far left has such a hold on the democrats that in a number of cases anyone who can win the primary will likely have sabotaged their chances in the general election.
Interesting news though. With the last Cuomo out of business, CNN may be seeing changes. New ownership.
Democrats cannot run today while saying that the woke movement has gone too far. It would be political suicide. But it's what Americans believe. And what some of the candidates believe also.
It would be great for the USA and also for the democrats if the Cuomo/Smollet season turned out to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
The right has some lunatics, sure, but the demonized ones like Ingraham and Carlson are now interviewing people (including a lifelong feminist) who've had enough of the men inserting themselves into women's competitive sports, and winning new fans by doing it.
Reclaiming the center.Read and weep.
But before the democratic party can repair, it must first reveal that is has deep problems. And they can't hide the conversation by talking about Trump. The infighting is getting more common by the day.
Pelosi is getting pushed around by Omar, whom she obviously never liked. Will she take it?
Wilfred Reilly on Jussie Smollett's con https://unherd.com/2021/12/how-jussie-smolletts-hoax-unravelled/
Even Donald Trump reacted to the news with compassion for Smollett. I'm just hearing about it now.
ETA: The last sentence is a dubious signifier of how far America has come for racial equality:
" Expect instead the rich man's sentence: probation or community service."
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Wait until you hear about Kamala's corded headphones.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Wait until you hear about Kamala's corded headphones.
Oh the horror! The VP is aware of possible security risks of Bluetooth. Apparently that makes her "paranoid" but it was perfectly OK for the former guy to talk on a personal iPhone that was almost certainly vulnerable to foreign surveillance.
Not to mention the terrible scandal of her spending her own money on a moderately expensive cooking implement. In a country she was visiting to smooth over relations, where doing some public shopping at a local business selling something the country is proud of would probably be an expected part of that mission. How will the administration ever recover from this horrible event?
Quote from: Puget on December 11, 2021, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Wait until you hear about Kamala's corded headphones.
Oh the horror! The VP is aware of possible security risks of Bluetooth. Apparently that makes her "paranoid" but it was perfectly OK for the former guy to talk on a personal iPhone that was almost certainly vulnerable to foreign surveillance.
Not to mention the terrible scandal of her spending her own money on a moderately expensive cooking implement. In a country she was visiting to smooth over relations, where doing some public shopping at a local business selling something the country is proud of would probably be an expected part of that mission. How will the administration ever recover from this horrible event?
Just to be clear, in case it wasn't: I offered that comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Not only is it the smallest of potatoes, but Harris is
right to be concerned about BT security.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 10:12:16 AM
Quote from: Puget on December 11, 2021, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Wait until you hear about Kamala's corded headphones.
Oh the horror! The VP is aware of possible security risks of Bluetooth. Apparently that makes her "paranoid" but it was perfectly OK for the former guy to talk on a personal iPhone that was almost certainly vulnerable to foreign surveillance.
Not to mention the terrible scandal of her spending her own money on a moderately expensive cooking implement. In a country she was visiting to smooth over relations, where doing some public shopping at a local business selling something the country is proud of would probably be an expected part of that mission. How will the administration ever recover from this horrible event?
Just to be clear, in case it wasn't: I offered that comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Not only is it the smallest of potatoes, but Harris is right to be concerned about BT security.
Yes, it was clear, I was responding in kind. ;-)
Will BBB include some modern version of the WPA with funding for the arts? They were devastated by Covid lockdowns.
Quote from: Puget on December 11, 2021, 10:16:56 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 10:12:16 AM
Quote from: Puget on December 11, 2021, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
Wait until you hear about Kamala's corded headphones.
Oh the horror! The VP is aware of possible security risks of Bluetooth. Apparently that makes her "paranoid" but it was perfectly OK for the former guy to talk on a personal iPhone that was almost certainly vulnerable to foreign surveillance.
Not to mention the terrible scandal of her spending her own money on a moderately expensive cooking implement. In a country she was visiting to smooth over relations, where doing some public shopping at a local business selling something the country is proud of would probably be an expected part of that mission. How will the administration ever recover from this horrible event?
Just to be clear, in case it wasn't: I offered that comment with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. Not only is it the smallest of potatoes, but Harris is right to be concerned about BT security.
Yes, it was clear, I was responding in kind. ;-)
Phew!
Quote from: Anselm on December 11, 2021, 10:21:14 AM
Will BBB include some modern version of the WPA with funding for the arts? They were devastated by Covid lockdowns.
Just free coal for shopping mall Santas, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
If you hope he runs again in 2024 you are one of only 22%, according to a recent WSJ poll. Getting nominated
would even be difficult. Harris is not polling well either. I wonder who the democrats will run.
QuoteOh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
The scandal is that the Jessie Smollett thing was obvious from the beginning, but not to everyone.
Here is an early interpretation by Dave Chapelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124). :-)
Note the date, August 2019.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2021, 02:36:48 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
If you hope he runs again in 2024 you are one of only 22%, according to a recent WSJ poll. Getting nominated
would even be difficult. Harris is not polling well either. I wonder who the democrats will run.
They will run Biden unless he has some sort of catastrophic and visible health problem. I wouldn't be surprised if the internal plan is to have him run and then pass the baton to Harris after a year or two. The Democratic punditocracy is all-in on the idea that because Biden won the last election by seven million votes (even though he came within 22 000 of losing the EC), he's the only one capable of beating Trump. (This might be more true now than it was in 2020, but shrug. There are still three years to go.)
If Biden doesn't run, the Democrats will go all-in on Harris, like they did with Clinton. They do not want a contested nomination. In their minds, Clinton lost because Sanders turned a sure thing into a live contest. (Forget Comey, the eMa1Lz-media, not campaigning in Michigan, the fact that she beat him by three million votes, etc.)
There's lots of time for someone to contest the nomination and to get some wind behind their sails if Biden doesn't run again (which he will). But I doubt it'll happen, not least because the inertia behind Harris is going to be very strong, even if her campaign is as disastrous as the last. Buttigieg might make a half-hearted effort against Harris if Biden isn't running (which he will be), but he won't make it through and TBH I doubt he would expect to; he'll just be positioning himself as her foil to raise his visibility for a real run at some later date. Some people will speculate that AOC might have the organization and visibility to seriously challenge Harris, which I think is true, but I don't think she has any interest in doing so (and, frankly, I don't think it's in her political interests to do so, nor is it particularly in the progressive cause's interests). So, yeah. Unless you can convince Michelle Obama to run--which she won't, because she has no interest in doing so--then we pretty much know exactly what it'll look like.
It'll be Biden vs. Trump. You can count on it. If Trump dies, it'll be Biden vs. DeSantis. If Biden dies, it's Harris vs. Trump (or DeSantis). You heard it here... pretty much last, I think.
Frankly, the only real question seems to be which lickspittle will be Trump's VP candidate. It won't be Pence.
Quote from: Anselm on December 11, 2021, 10:21:14 AM
Will BBB include some modern version of the WPA with funding for the arts? They were devastated by Covid lockdowns.
That could have a quite good result, if it were as well-run as some of the projects then were.
I'm currently working from a study done then, that would probably never have been done otherwise. It is fully detailed, reliable, and well-annotated.
I'm aware of at least two other similar projects that met equal quality standards.
M.
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
QuoteOh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
The scandal is that the Jessie Smollett thing was obvious from the beginning, but not to everyone.
Here is an early interpretation by Dave Chapelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124). :-)
Note the date, August 2019.
Enjoy the video!
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
QuoteOh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
The scandal is that the Jessie Smollett thing was obvious from the beginning, but not to everyone.
Here is an early interpretation by Dave Chapelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124). :-)
Note the date, August 2019.
I've seen this bro. I know Jessie Smollett faked his attack. Still not a scandal for the Biden Administration.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 11, 2021, 02:36:48 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:22 AM
Oh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
If you hope he runs again in 2024 you are one of only 22%, according to a recent WSJ poll. Getting nominated
would even be difficult. Harris is not polling well either. I wonder who the democrats will run.
Biden will run again if he is healthy and will have a good shot at winning. Look at every first term president in modern history for similar polling at this point in their presidency.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
QuoteOh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
The scandal is that the Jessie Smollett thing was obvious from the beginning, but not to everyone.
Here is an early interpretation by Dave Chapelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124). :-)
Note the date, August 2019.
I've seen this bro. I know Jessie Smollett faked his attack. Still not a scandal for the Biden Administration.
Biden will run again if he is healthy and will have a good shot at winning. Look at every first term president in modern history for similar polling at this point in their presidency.
Point about Smollett is
not anything scandalous. Scandals happen all the time, to all administrations. Point is high ranking administration figures did not see through Smollett's antics when everybody and his or her brother did. That reflects on their judgement in logical, judicial, and political terms. Mere incompetence.
Where errors of judgement are concerned, they have both made vastly bigger ones.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 05:54:17 PM
Where errors of judgement are concerned, they have both made vastly bigger ones.
But it was so
easy to see through this one! Even Dave Chapelle saw through it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 06:02:34 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 05:54:17 PM
Where errors of judgement are concerned, they have both made vastly bigger ones.
But it was so easy to see through this one! Even Dave Chapelle saw through it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
I'm pretty sure this DC special came out after a bunch of evidence emerged to suggest that he had staged this attack.
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 05:38:26 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 04:01:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 02:58:46 PM
QuoteOh man this Jessie Smollett thing is really curtains for the Biden Administration. What a scandal!
The scandal is that the Jessie Smollett thing was obvious from the beginning, but not to everyone.
Here is an early interpretation by Dave Chapelle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124). :-)
Note the date, August 2019.
I've seen this bro. I know Jessie Smollett faked his attack. Still not a scandal for the Biden Administration.
Biden will run again if he is healthy and will have a good shot at winning. Look at every first term president in modern history for similar polling at this point in their presidency.
Point about Smollett is not anything scandalous. Scandals happen all the time, to all administrations. Point is high ranking administration figures did not see through Smollett's antics when everybody and his or her brother did. That reflects on their judgement in logical, judicial, and political terms. Mere incompetence.
Sure, but I was responding to another poster who made several posts about this in the Biden Administration thread, all suggesting that this was a major scandal for Biden.
Quote
I'm pretty sure this DC special came out after a bunch of evidence emerged to suggest that he had staged this attack.
End August, 2019? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 11, 2021, 05:54:17 PM
Where errors of judgement are concerned, they have both made vastly bigger ones.
Or...is it no error in judgment (or tactics anyway) if it
fires up the base.Sound familiar?
Google 'Trump fires up the base' = 67,700,000 hits
This is what we're reduced to. Politicians who encourage ignorance in order to advance their careers.
ETA: google 'Biden fires up the base' = 15,100,000 hits
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 07:55:22 PM
Quote
I'm pretty sure this DC special came out after a bunch of evidence emerged to suggest that he had staged this attack.
End August, 2019? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
Check out this article from February 2019:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/16/sources-brothers-released-bought-rope-used-in-jussie-smollett-attack/?amp
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 07:55:22 PM
Quote
I'm pretty sure this DC special came out after a bunch of evidence emerged to suggest that he had staged this attack.
End August, 2019? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
Check out this article from February 2019:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/16/sources-brothers-released-bought-rope-used-in-jussie-smollett-attack/?amp
It's not about being prescient. It's about everybody claiming they knew or know. Apparently, not everyone believed the new news. I went by Dave Chapelle!
Look, anybody commenting on jury trials before the verdict is ... a fool. Unless s/he doesn't like jury trials.
Other news: CNN's Don Lemon tipped off Jussie that the police were doubting his story. He has no idea what his job should be. No standards.
Of course I will sound like a redneck but...even the more trustworthy people like Wolf Blitzer (whom you used to be able to trust) are heavily partisan, as they and their producers amplify stories that reinforce liberal politics and attenuate ones that don't.
What I'm wondering: how many Americans have figured out that most news outlets are propaganda, by now? I figured it out, with my modest level of education. It can't be that difficult.
Sometimes the lay population surprises you in a good way.
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 08:39:42 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2021, 08:19:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2021, 07:55:22 PM
Quote
I'm pretty sure this DC special came out after a bunch of evidence emerged to suggest that he had staged this attack.
End August, 2019? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124)
Check out this article from February 2019:
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/16/sources-brothers-released-bought-rope-used-in-jussie-smollett-attack/?amp
It's not about being prescient. It's about everybody claiming they knew or know. Apparently, not everyone believed the new news. I went by Dave Chapelle!
Look, anybody commenting on jury trials before the verdict is ... a fool. Unless s/he doesn't like jury trials.
Fyi Biden and Harris weren't commenting on a jury trial. They tweeted right after the "attack" that it was terrible and that homophobia and racism are bad (how foolish and awful of them!). A few weeks later it became clear that Smollett had lied about the story, which is btw why Dave Chappelle was able to make a standup routine about it eight months later. The "controversy" is that Biden/Harris, or whoever tweets on their behalf, never went back and deleted their tweets.
There was no jury trial over any of this until two years later and the trial was over whether Smollett lied to police. I doubt anyone tweeted on Smollett's behalf in that trial, because he was obviously guilty.
QuoteFyi Biden and Harris weren't commenting on a jury trial. They tweeted right after the "attack" that it was terrible and that homophobia and racism are bad (how foolish and awful of them!).
In that case you are, no doubt, grateful that Trump said this upon hearing of the 'attack:'
"'That I can tell you is horrible. I seen it last night. I can tell you it was horrible. It doesn't get worse than that and I mean it,' the president responded."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6654489/Trump-condemns-horrible-attack-Empire-actor-Jussie-Smollett.html
Of course, he had more to say later, which, apparently Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Harris and Biden, et al, did not. They should, because a hate crime hoax that smears white people is the wrong thing for any human to do, and harmful to our society. Waters directly implicated Trump,
(who was President of the United States at the time) and his supporters as being responsible.
Trump's analysis, after having heard more, lacks nothing, in my opinion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-calls-jussie-smolletts-false-maga-story-a-hate-crime-in-reverse/ar-AARIhvW
There is a mini-scandal because the reality is that attributing racial hatred
to white people is automatically a big story, whereas racial hatred
of white people is not, even when it is clearly in evidence.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/11/22/media-bashed-for-cautious-media-tone-on-waukesha-incident-after-rush-to-condemn-rittenhouse-as-racist-1166639/
So, to the most popular question the
radical left democratic party wants you to obsess about today, namely 'is America racist?' one very good answer is 'yes, and the left are guilty of fomenting it.'
ETA: Oh, I forgot something. Racial hatred against white people also passes for
entertainment. Check out Tucker Carlson (can't find it right now) and he'll show you. But don't google "Darrell Brooks Rap" because instead of getting his art you might get links to his criminal record.
I wonder if there are any schools where you can get college level credit for writing about his work?
https://johnkassnews.com/jussie-smollett-lest-we-forget/
John Kass
Enjoy the article. We should keep talking about the Smollett hoax, how people were fooled, who admitted they were fooled and talked reasonably about it afterward, who didn't, who's reflecting quietly, and then that other category, those who sneer at any discussion after the verdict because they want the 'white racism, white bigotry' chant for whatever reason (maybe they make good money off it, or maybe they're just dumber than a box of hair).
Silence is apathy.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2021, 04:50:15 AM
QuoteFyi Biden and Harris weren't commenting on a jury trial. They tweeted right after the "attack" that it was terrible and that homophobia and racism are bad (how foolish and awful of them!).
...
This is a Biden Administration scandal to exactly one person on earth.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2021, 09:01:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2021, 04:50:15 AM
QuoteFyi Biden and Harris weren't commenting on a jury trial. They tweeted right after the "attack" that it was terrible and that homophobia and racism are bad (how foolish and awful of them!)[/i].
[/b]
...
This is a Biden Administration scandal to exactly one person on earth.
I am puzzled. I did not post those words. (which I have now bolded). I sometimes edit after posting, but that is not a quotation from me.
You might want to watch what you're doing here with the quote function please, Sunny.
As far these developments being scandalous for the Biden administration, I don't believe I made a specific claim. I will say there are way too few among us who understand that, as Glenn Loury explains, we are being swept along by hysteria about racism in America. Of course, some people make a lot of money from this hysteria, so in some cases they understand it fine., and in some cases, they intentionally add to it. And some others are buying the BS that the left serves up on a regular basis, because they don't know better.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2021, 09:15:20 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2021, 09:01:36 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 12, 2021, 04:50:15 AM
QuoteFyi Biden and Harris weren't commenting on a jury trial. They tweeted right after the "attack" that it was terrible and that homophobia and racism are bad (how foolish and awful of them!)[/i].
[/b]
...
This is a Biden Administration scandal to exactly one person on earth.
I am puzzled. I did not post those words. (which I have now bolded). I sometimes edit after posting, but that is not a quotation from me.
You might want to watch what you're doing here with the quote function please, Sunny.
As far these developments being scandalous for the Biden administration, I don't believe I made a specific claim. I will say there are way too few among us who understand that, as Glenn Loury explains, we are being swept along by hysteria about racism in America. Of course, some people make a lot of money from this hysteria, so in some cases they understand it fine., and in some cases, they intentionally add to it.
Mahagonny, you and I know that you upped this thread with a bunch of Jussie Smollett posts in a failed effort to tie it to Biden.
It is tied to biden because he claims to believe that our nation is currently gravely threatened by white supremacists, so much so that new laws need to be made to give the government enough power to protect us from them. and a member of his cabinet, merrick garland, has said equally inaccurate, silly things. things that are irresponsible and harmful to black people by likely making some of them believe the white man is their enemy, which also isn't true. a bunch of political grandstanding, meant to fire up his base. more and more black americans though are seeing through his bullshit.
If you want a real disgrace, the Biden administration has walked away from negotiations to compensate the families whose children were stolen by the Trump administration (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-administration-exits-talks-over-compensation-families-separated-border-n1286163?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma). That means they'll be defending the US government (in other words, the Trump admin) against the lawsuit.
Sounds like it's finally dawned on old Joe that his open border thing isn't going over. I wonder when he'll figure out the people he refers to as 'Latinx' hate the term.
Sincere question, why can't we both control the borders and avoid separating families?
ETA: Like, the laws, man.
And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/us/politics/manchin-build-back-better.html).
I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.
the POTUS does indeed have a plan to 'raise' [collect more from] taxes on the middle class. And it flies under the radar.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-biden-wants-more-money-for-the-irs-heres-what-the-agency-would-do-with-it/ar-AARWhki
Well, he's learned a trick or two.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 11:15:29 AM
And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/us/politics/manchin-build-back-better.html).
I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.
There was an oped in WaPo yesterday arguing that this could force Democrats to focus on doing a few things very well and fully fund them. If this is the ultimately outcome, then that would be, imo, better than BBB as it has been conceived up to this point. Of course, there is a good chance that the oped is wrong and that Manchin is a "no" on any version of BBB.
My guess is that he'd only approve a couple of long term programs, funded for at least a decade, that aren't climate related. Otherwise BBB is DOA. If they really just want to do anything, then they need to ask him and others what is acceptable instead of focusing on top line. Of course the top line would likely be under one trillion anyway at this point, and certainly not more than what has been stated to this point. The only other option is to go with what moderate Republican we're willing to pass, but it's unlikely that would survive the House.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 21, 2021, 07:30:22 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 11:15:29 AM
And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/us/politics/manchin-build-back-better.html).
I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.
There was an oped in WaPo yesterday arguing that this could force Democrats to focus on doing a few things very well and fully fund them. If this is the ultimately outcome, then that would be, imo, better than BBB as it has been conceived up to this point. Of course, there is a good chance that the oped is wrong and that Manchin is a "no" on any version of BBB.
Fully funding something is absolutely better than a handful of piecemeal policies which will be means-tested to death and expire before they can do real good. I don't really understand why there isn't more appetite for it.
I don't see any indications that Manchin is operating in good faith, however. That he took to Fox to announce his opposition is, I think, a pretty clear signal. The pretext he used was this totally unremarkable statement (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/16/statement-from-the-president-on-the-build-back-better-act/) by Biden, which also doesn't inspire much confidence that he's going to get up to much good.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 21, 2021, 07:54:48 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 21, 2021, 07:30:22 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 19, 2021, 11:15:29 AM
And today, President Manchin went on Fox to declare he won't support BBB (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/us/politics/manchin-build-back-better.html).
I wish I could evince surpprise, but he did get his infrastructure wants for free last month, so.
There was an oped in WaPo yesterday arguing that this could force Democrats to focus on doing a few things very well and fully fund them. If this is the ultimately outcome, then that would be, imo, better than BBB as it has been conceived up to this point. Of course, there is a good chance that the oped is wrong and that Manchin is a "no" on any version of BBB.
Fully funding something is absolutely better than a handful of piecemeal policies which will be means-tested to death and expire before they can do real good. I don't really understand why there isn't more appetite for it.
In all kinds of areas, Americans seem to be extremely sensitive to "who pays" and "who benefits", which comes up in all of these discussions. (But all of the ensuing
bureaucracy doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem. Go figure.)
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2021, 07:54:06 AM
My guess is that he'd only approve a couple of long term programs, funded for at least a decade, that aren't climate related. Otherwise BBB is DOA. If they really just want to do anything, then they need to ask him and others what is acceptable instead of focusing on top line. Of course the top line would likely be under one trillion anyway at this point, and certainly not more than what has been stated to this point. The only other option is to go with what moderate Republican we're willing to pass, but it's unlikely that would survive the House.
But...they did "ask," or presumably, at least, discussed, what was in the package-as-was, and he could read/could have objected/stipulated/whatever before the sham "agreement."
No-one should ever trust him again; AOC-and-co. were right to point out the need for backup plans.
He's in the same class with McConnell during Obama's years in office.
Why be a functioning gate when you can garner so much power by being a stuck-closed, constipative, dysfunctional dam wall?
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2021, 08:01:45 AM
...
In all kinds of areas, Americans seem to be extremely sensitive to "who pays" and "who benefits", which comes up in all of these discussions. (But all of the ensuing bureaucracy doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem. Go figure.)
Actually, that's been settled for a long time. Current generation benefits, future generations pay. :-)
The two major parties are playing chicken with each other.
Fivethirtyeight puts him at 41.9% approval, 53.5% disapprove. Worst ratio of all presidents except Trump.
Surprising he hasn't fired anyone. Who should be first? Are there any shake-up moves that could help his presidency?
Quote from: mahagonny on January 22, 2022, 05:37:02 PM
Fivethirtyeight puts him at 41.9% approval, 53.5% disapprove. Worst ratio of all presidents except Trump.
Surprising he hasn't fired anyone. Who should be first? Are there any shake-up moves that could help his presidency?
Firing McConnell would help his situation.
Supreme Court Judges are not officially part of the president's administration, but...
In 2005 Senator Obama tried unsuccessfully to keep Janice Rodgers Brown off the California high court. Sometime later I think it was, Senator Biden promised the democrats would use the filibuster to keep her away from the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court might have had the first woman of color way back then, but the democrats nixed it.
http://obamaspeeches.com/021-Nomination-of-Justice-Janice-Rogers-Brown-Obama-Speech.htm
Adam Serwer in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/biden-supreme-court-nominee-smear-campaign/621408/
His last sentence is ironic given the odyssey of Janice Rodgers Brown almost 20 years ago:
"And I could point out the absurdity of arguing that racism is when you first nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court after more than 200 years, not when you exclude Black women from the nation's highest court for more than 200 years."
In 1960 many felt that it was time for a Catholic president. I get that people feel it's time for a Black Woman to serve on the Supreme Court. As long as it's not someone unqualified, my inclination is to say 'you go girl!' At the same time, when I ask myself who excluded a woman from being our first female Vice President in 1984 and 2008? I have to answer, the voters who decided the other team ran the better campaign, like the way it's supposed to work. The fact that we didn't get a female Vice President either time is not proof that it couldn't have happened.
Then again, there's this:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/03/a-liberal-network-is-pushing-bidens-hand-for-scotus-pick/
From those wonderful folks who've given us live-and-let-live district attorneys. And the not so surprising result of sharply increased urban crime.
Robert Reich seems like such a nice guy. Could he just find it in his heart to shut up and keep his silly pie-in-the-sky ideas to himself?