#46 President Joe Biden

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

Lerxst1992 said:

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

how thoroughly was your “checking”

I think he means Saudi Arabia.

I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11. I don't care that it's extra judicial. It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.

Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.

Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.

If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all?

We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important. Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably.

he would be called woke today

brianlux · August 2022

Once again, Jello nails it:

https://phasrmedia.com/what-would-jello-do-joe-biden/

Lerxst1992 · August 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

how thoroughly was your “checking”

I think he means Saudi Arabia.

I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11. I don't care that it's extra judicial. It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.

Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.

Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.

If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all?

We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important. Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably.

he would be called woke today

Sure but Adams was from an era that gave us the three fifths compromise which led to civil war and the electoral college which led to many deaths 234 years later on Jan6, so let’s not applaud too loudly.

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

how thoroughly was your “checking”

I think he means Saudi Arabia.

I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11. I don't care that it's extra judicial. It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.

Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.

Not looking to cheer. If I had a choice, I’d rather we don’t do killings like this, but in this unique case, it appears the US was very careful to have no civilian loss. And this terrorist was directly responsible for 9/11. And yes, it will suck when the bad guys get this tech, but they will use it no matter how we do. If I had a different choice, I’d hope the Arab community would be slightly tolerant of the right for a teeny tiny country to exist in peace, but since they don’t, we don’t.

If we as a country compromise principles only in unique cases then do we have principles at all?

We’ve come a long way since the days of John Adams.

he defended the Boston massacre soldiers because giving them the best defense possible was important. Even though the British wouldn’t have offered the same if the situation was reversed probably.

he would be called woke today

Sure but Adams was from an era that gave us the three fifths compromise which led to civil war and the electoral college which led to many deaths 234 years later on Jan6, so let’s not applaud too loudly.

I’m sure the republicans today would love to revisit the 3/5 compromise as part of their voting laws. Except just saying only 3 out of every 5 are allowed to vote

we are probably still in a similar place on that.

mickeyrat · August 2022

https://apnews.com/article/senate-climate-tax-deal-vote-dbdb3107c4c5e3e0e5af8a58d56c7bc1

Senate Democrats approve big Biden deal; House to vote next

By ALAN FRAM and LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less ambitious than President Joe Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs and taxing immense corporations.

The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are poised to deliver on Biden’s priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Cheers broke out as Senate Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote after an all-night session.

“Today, Senate Democrats sided with American families over special interests,” President Joe Biden said in a statement from Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. “I ran for President promising to make government work for working families again, and that is what this bill does — period.”

Biden, who had his share of long nights during his three decades as a senator, called into the Senate cloakroom during the vote on speakerphone to personally thank the staff for their hard work.

The president urged the House to pass the bill as soon as possible. The House seemed likely to provide final congressional approval when it returns briefly from summer recess on Friday.

Continues....

mrussel1 · August 2022

The cap on insulin at $35 failed in the required 60 vote threshold; however, Sen. Warnock's amendment to create the cap for Medicare patients was included in teh bill and not subject to the 60 vote threshold. It was deemed as reconciliation. While it's not all Americans, obviously this is really good for medicare patients like my mother who are diabetic.

It's been a good month for Team D so far.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3591586-democrats-fail-to-overrule-parliamentarian-on-insulin-price-cap-as-gop-votes-no/

Halifax2TheMax · August 2022

Damn you Brandon! From A Letter From An American:

The introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act caps what has turned out to be a spectacular week for the Biden administration. Jobs numbers out today showed not the downturn that many expected, but instead the addition of 528,000 new jobs, restoring the U.S. job numbers to where they were before the pandemic and putting unemployment at 3.5%, the lowest rate in 50 years. The United States Chips and Science Act (CHIPS) and the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT) have both passed Congress. The president authorized and troops achieved the killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. And gas prices have hit a 50-day low.

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending. Job creation is bad news too.

biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down. The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely

mrussel1 · August 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending. Job creation is bad news too.

biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down. The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely

I don't know.. I think this inflation was caused by the supply chain issues, which most data shows has started to abate. Second was the steep increase in gas prices because the US had cut production, Russia gas off the market, and OPEC was refusing to increase production until later in the year (now). We are clearly seeing the drop in oil and gas. You can have a booming economy without inflation, as we've had for years.
So a recession was going to be the immediate 'shot' to reduce inflation, maybe the combination of OPEC increases, strategic reserve release, supply chain improvements and the interest rate increases is already enough. I don't know why you think a safe landing is increasingly unlikely. You don't have recessions when you add 500k jobs.

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

To me interest rake hikes aren’t having the effect they should be having. Any big hike runs the risk of going too far. It’s going to require several more probably.

To me it’s just a numbers game. 4 hikes is less risky than 8 for example especially at .75

The Juggler · August 2022

Dark Brandon means business...

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/editor/4m/dpzdn0fj9zov.png

mrussel1 · August 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

To me interest rake hikes aren’t having the effect they should be having. Any big hike runs the risk of going too far. It’s going to require several more probably.

To me it’s just a numbers game. 4 hikes is less risky than 8 for example especially at .75

Well it sure as hell had an effect on the housing market. I think it's a little early to say how it affected the other CPI stuff. I think we need to wait and see if we are past peak.

Gern Blansten · August 2022

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

I suspect rentals go inverse to housing even excluding inflation. In your normal (owner occupied) markets. No idea about SF or NY which has always been rental heavy

If less people are buying due to interest rates, more are renting. Then you’ve got landlords who are more able to increase rents to cover both inflation and the increased demand

static111 · August 2022

The Juggler said:

Dark Brandon means business...

I keep looking for dark brandon T shirts. I'm not usually in for political T shirts, but i feel like this would be confusing for everyone. I prefer glowing red laser eyes dark brandon personally

brianlux · August 2022

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.

static111 · August 2022

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I'm seeing a lot of local chatter about rents increasing. People in subsidized housing saying their monthly rent is going up $280/month now.

I know the freeze was lifted but around here there are a lot of new apartment complexes being built so I would have expected rates to level.

As long as corporations continue to buy up housing and rent them through rental agencies, rents will continue to go up. Will we see a return to affordable rents? Hard to say.

This is such a terrible practice and should be legislated out of existence.

Lerxst1992 · August 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

The inflation reduction act is going to add to inflation unfortunately as it’s a lot of spending. Job creation is bad news too.

biden is in a no win as the economy needs to shrink to get inflation down. The good news is bad news as a soft landing is seemingly increasingly unlikely

This is a GOP talking point, in my opinion it is false.

This bill is not similar to all of the recent Covid stimulus, that funneled money immediately into the hands of people adversely affected by Covid, and to employers in general. This spending portion is much lower, only $360m and it is for long term spending, such as new solar and wind generation. These investments take years to implement and build, they are not immediate like all of the stimulus both parties have passed in recent years.

The reason many consider this climate provision as anti inflation even though it calls for new spending is because it prepares us to rely on oil less, protecting us from the energy price volatility we have seen over the last year. But again, this is an investment, so this benefit takes a lot of time. Congratulations to the democrats willing to invest in something where the benefits could be 5-10 years away.

The other two main provisions are anti inflationary, the cap on drug prices, and the minimum corporate profits tax.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the bill has a "negligible" effect on inflation in 2022 and into 2023. I agree, as there is no easy way to measure a bill designed to benefit over the long term.

Cropduster-80 · August 2022

The jury is out on inflation. Really a tax hike would be a good thing, definitely not a gop talking point.

At this point removing money from circulation is a good thing. Though, I’m more worried about the long term effects of inflation, not necessarily the fact stuff costs more today

oil prices are really clouding the picture though, coming off the covid supply chain issues. I don’t envy the fed right now

i like the bill overall though. It’s not going to reduce inflation in any case no matter what it’s named at least not anytime soon

Lerxst1992 · August 2022

They’re estimating a 40% emissions reduction off of the bloated 2005 benchmark, which seems like a big deal. We do one of these bills every six years and maybe by 2034 we are close to solving the CO2 problem. $360m per bill seems like a bargain if this works. Paid a ton more for Covid.

#46 President Joe Biden

Comments

Senate Democrats approve big Biden deal; House to vote next

Categories