#46 President Joe Biden

tbergs said:

static111 said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-aud-nw-stimulus-check-updates-20210303-js7gryuy25fyha2parawhfdsgq-story.html

So Biden signs off on lowering the threshold for the $1400 $2000 checks...I mean do Democrats want to win elections going forward.  To the average person this signals that a Republican admin gave more direct relief to people affected by the pandemic than the most progressive administration of all time.  I get it, he is better than Trump.  Doing this will appeal to zero republicans, we might as well make Joe Manchin the president and the Parlimentarian VP at this point.

Is it really that big of a deal? Down from 100,000 for single and 200,000 for married. That's not breaking anyone and they're asking that those savings be put to use in other parts of the relief bill. Seems to be a good way to keep more independent voters. Progressives who want to piss on it really seem to be just worried about "caving" to republicans. No need to worry, no republican will support it yet anyway.

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

tbergs said:

static111 said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-aud-nw-stimulus-check-updates-20210303-js7gryuy25fyha2parawhfdsgq-story.html

So Biden signs off on lowering the threshold for the $1400 $2000 checks...I mean do Democrats want to win elections going forward.  To the average person this signals that a Republican admin gave more direct relief to people affected by the pandemic than the most progressive administration of all time.  I get it, he is better than Trump.  Doing this will appeal to zero republicans, we might as well make Joe Manchin the president and the Parlimentarian VP at this point.

Is it really that big of a deal? Down from 100,000 for single and 200,000 for married. That's not breaking anyone and they're asking that those savings be put to use in other parts of the relief bill. Seems to be a good way to keep more independent voters. Progressives who want to piss on it really seem to be just worried about "caving" to republicans. No need to worry, no republican will support it yet anyway.

So why do it if no Republican will support it, why not strong arm Manchin and Sinema?  It’s crazy how far the Dems will bend over backwards for the right wing of the party and basically just run screaming from the left.  If people don’t think $1400 $2000 checks given to less people with less total aid going out direct to people overall than under the administration of the asshole I don’t know what bad optics is.

You need the vote.  There won't be one R vote so no one can defect for the Ds

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

tbergs said:

static111 said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-aud-nw-stimulus-check-updates-20210303-js7gryuy25fyha2parawhfdsgq-story.html

So Biden signs off on lowering the threshold for the $1400 $2000 checks...I mean do Democrats want to win elections going forward.  To the average person this signals that a Republican admin gave more direct relief to people affected by the pandemic than the most progressive administration of all time.  I get it, he is better than Trump.  Doing this will appeal to zero republicans, we might as well make Joe Manchin the president and the Parlimentarian VP at this point.

Is it really that big of a deal? Down from 100,000 for single and 200,000 for married. That's not breaking anyone and they're asking that those savings be put to use in other parts of the relief bill. Seems to be a good way to keep more independent voters. Progressives who want to piss on it really seem to be just worried about "caving" to republicans. No need to worry, no republican will support it yet anyway.

So why do it if no Republican will support it, why not strong arm Manchin and Sinema?  It’s crazy how far the Dems will bend over backwards for the right wing of the party and basically just run screaming from the left.  If people don’t think $1400 $2000 checks given to less people with less total aid going out direct to people overall than under the administration of the asshole I don’t know what bad optics is.

You need the vote.  There won't be one R vote so no one can defect for the Ds

So again why not strong arm Manchin and Sinema? 

I'm not sure how you strong arm Manchin.  He is essentially as powerful as Biden legislatively right now. 

dankind said:

tbergs said:

This is pretty much how I feel about the current stimulus checks as well. I will just be adding our check to savings and redistributing some to college funds for our kids. Eventually some will bleed in to the economy, but not much.

Opinion by Editorial Board

March 3, 2021 at 4:02 p.m. CST

Add to list

AS PRESIDENT BIDEN and the Democratic-majority Senate move toward final passage of a covid relief package, a key question has been how far they would be willing to go to make sure that cash payments go only to the neediest people. The answer began to emerge Wednesday, and unfortunately, it appears to be “not very far.” The White House and Senate Democrats have converged on a plan that would trim a House-approved plan somewhat but still enable stimulus payments to reach millions of upper-middle-class individuals and households. In addition to being unjustifiable as a response to the covid crisis, showering public money on those who don’t need it would further commit the governing party to a mistaken concept of progressive policy.

The revised plan would provide $1,400 to individuals earning up to $75,000 per year and at least some money to those making up to $80,000. For couples, the corresponding figures are $150,000 and $160,000. This is indeed an improvement, in terms of careful “targeting,” over the House’s plan, which phased out payments to individuals earning between $75,000 and $100,000, and couples making between $150,000 and $200,000 per year. Yet this still means that government cash will flow to all but roughly the top quarter of the U.S. income scale — despite January’s 10 percent rise in personal income, already boosted by a $600 direct payment in December, and despite data showing that individuals or households making more than $78,000 tend to save direct payments rather than spend them.

Economists at the nonprofit Opportunity Insights estimated that restricting payments to couples earning less than $78,000, and singles earning less than $50,000, would have saved $200 billion of the House measure’s $422 billion cost without harming economic recovery. The reported deal between Mr. Biden and the Senate would probably save a mere $10 billion to $15 billion, according to a preliminary estimate provided to us by economist Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

We understand that Mr. Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) are trying to placate not only centrist senators who wanted to tighten eligibility for the payments, but also the party’s left wing, which — in strange agreement with former president Donald Trump — favored $2,000 direct payments, with little or no means-testing. Democrats arguably have their narrow majority because their candidates for two decisive Georgia Senate seats ran on the promise of $2,000 “checks.”

In addition to thinking sincerely that the scope of the covid crisis warrants keeping that promise, progressives often assume that the way to build a constituency for longer-term income-support for the poor is to distribute some to the middle class as well. In our view, economic policy should be based on economic requirements, not political ones. Even in a cheap-interest world, government resources are not limitless and tradeoffs are still real. Funds Congress spends padding the bank accounts of people who aren’t poor, or even close to poor, are funds that won’t be available for other purposes, whether it’s programs to promote equity — or defense, scientific research and infrastructure. Real progressives accept that reality and set policy priorities accordingly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-targeted-stimulus-payments-will-still-shower-money-on-those-who-dont-need-it/2021/03/03/3c43582c-7c4c-11eb-b3d1-9e5aa3d5220c_story.html

Regarding that bolded line, I've donated the bulk of my stimulus checks to food banks and other organizations I support that the federal government generally does not, including programs to promote equity, which has rarely been prioritized as federal policy beyond tokenism (incredibly disingenuous of WaPo's editorial board to include it among the usual items, and first at that).

Anyway, I don't think that I'm the only one doing this.

Edit: I agree with the overall argument, but the rhetoric they use to make their case is manipulative and bogus.

mickeyrat said:

fucking war monger. right @static111

Joe Biden Jen Psaki Syria Iraq

Biden signals support to replace war power authority

By AAMER MADHANI

Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday signaled support to replace decades-old authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East, a little more than a week after he relied on the authorizations to carry out a retaliatory airstrike against Iranian-backed militia in eastern Syria.

The Biden administration announced its position after a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this week that would repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the wars in Iraq that presidents from both parties have relied on for legal justification to carry out strikes in the region.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden was committed to working with Congress to “ensure that the authorizations for the use of military force currently on the books are replaced with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.”

Biden spurred bipartisan backlash last week after he ordered the strikes against facilities used by Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes were in response to a rocket attack earlier in February targeting U.S. troops and civilian personnel in northern Iraq without first seeking congressional approval. The U.S. has blamed the militia for numerous attacks targeting U.S. personnel and interests in Iraq in the past.

Sen. Tim Kaine, a lead sponsor of the bill, said the reliance on the decades old authorizations for use of military force “serve no operational purpose, keep us on permanent war footing, and undermine the sovereignty of Iraq.”

“Last week’s airstrikes in Syria show that the Executive Branch, regardless of party, will continue to stretch its war powers,” said Kaine, a Virginia Democrat.

Administration officials defended the airstrikes as legal and appropriate, saying they took out facilities that housed valuable “capabilities” used by Iranian-backed militia groups to attack American and allied forces in Iraq.

But several leading members of Congress, including members in Biden’s own party, denounced the strikes — the first military action he has authorized. Kaine and others argued offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances.

The White House signaled support to replace the authorizations even as it warned the U.S. may consider military action following a rocket attack earlier this week that hit an air base in western Iraq where American and coalition troops are housed. A U.S. contractor died after at least 10 rockets slammed into the base early Wednesday.

“If we assess further response is warranted, we will take action again in a manner and time of our choosing,” Psaki said.