Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

 

I must be honest, I'm not sure why so many people seem to think Biden can't win. Perhaps a year ago, but I don't see any of the current GOP "potentials" being too much of a theat.

 

Oh, I see them as huge threats.  In both senses.  

 

Face it.  Fascism isn't getting a lot of pushback, these days.  

[tshile]

5 hours ago, Simmsy said:

 

I must be honest, I'm not sure why so many people seem to think Biden can't win. Perhaps a year ago, but I don't see any of the current GOP "potentials" being too much of a theat.

there’s been issues with his approval ratings and he’s had a few missteps and/or situations that weren’t good (but not necessarily his fault)

 

and it’s easy to say Biden won’t win when we don’t even know who the other choice is. So. People with an interest in Biden losing push that narrative. 
 

generally speaking its the last 2 or so months before an election that matter. This far out? Not even knowing who the candidates are? With over 1.5 years to go until the election? I wouldn’t take any of that type of analysis seriously. 

[Larry]

Just saying. This time, 8 years ago, it was already decided it was going to be Hillary vs Jeb!  

[Captain Wiggles]

Most candidates don't even announce they're running until a year out from the general election. Trump announced two years out. 🤣

 

Main reason ya don't announce so early is because that leaves a lot of time for screw-ups on the national stage. No legit campaign manager wants to deal with that for a year let alone two. 

[Busch1724]

30 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Most candidates don't even announce they're running until a year out from the general election. Trump announced two years out. 🤣

 

Main reason ya don't announce so early is because that leaves a lot of time for screw-ups on the national stage. No legit campaign manager wants to deal with that for a year let alone two. 

 

 

Well doesn't matter if he has time for screw ups or not...he just is.

 

We have a lifetime of evidence for that. 

[tshile]

56 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Main reason ya don't announce so early is because that leaves a lot of time for screw-ups on the national stage

It also just gives you time to become old news. 
 

I mentioned this a while back in another thread but to my recollection whoever the supposed favorite is so far out (people start that nonsense as soon as the previous election is over) seems to rarely even win their primary much less the general. 
 

if I were forced to bet on trump or DeSantis or the field, at this point, id take the field

[tshile]

Remember people weee like “ugh why hasn’t Biden declared I wish he would do so already”

 

its cause he had savvy advisors. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Most candidates don't even announce they're running until a year out from the general election. Trump announced two years out. 🤣

 

Main reason ya don't announce so early is because that leaves a lot of time for screw-ups on the national stage. No legit campaign manager wants to deal with that for a year let alone two. 

That was old way.  Announcing a year before the election is too late now. Spring/Summer the year before the election is now the norm. It’s been that way 2 cycles now.

[LadySkinsFan]

Remember that TFG announced way early because he thinks no prosecutor will indict him if he's announced. I truly think he's going to be very surprised.

[EmirOfShmo]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

[China]

Chips Act Money Comes With Big Strings Attached—Even Child Care

 

Semiconductor companies cheered last summer when President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, which included about $50 billion in funding to boost U.S. chip manufacturing.

 

But now there is a catch.

 

The government will add new conditions for companies receiving the money—including sharing profits and providing child care in certain instances.

 

Details on how the Biden administration will evaluate requests for the semiconductor incentives were released by the Commerce Department on Tuesday.

 

There will be a focus on how projects advance U.S. economic and national security, according to the news release. Also on the list: commercial viability, financial strength, technical feasibility and readiness, workforce development, and efforts to spur inclusive economic growth.

 

The department said the awards will come in the form of direct funding, federal loans, or federal guarantees of third-party loans. The subsidies will be disbursed over time and be tied to pre-negotiated milestones.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

Yeah but how many freedom loving Republicans have Biden's goons arrested???

 

[Cooked Crack]

Gonna take a guess and say they didn't provide details cause they going to release Thursday?

[EmirOfShmo]

I really like how Biden & the Democrats are out in front of this. The GQP leadership is silent...and horrendous.

Makes me appreciate - more - the work & leadership of Nancy Pelosi.  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Anyone think the House GOP will actually propose a specific budget at any point?  

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Anyone think the House GOP will actually propose a specific budget at any point?  

 

Since they have a hard time putting anything together because it's easier (less thought involved than to actually do something constructive), it's a likely outcome. If they manage to agree on any budget, the majority of Americans aren't going to like it because it's all about the wealthy and corporations and not about We the People.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Anyone think the House GOP will actually propose a specific budget at any point?  

Well, under Obama, they had no problem at all passing a Paul Ryan budget every year on a party line vote. 
 

As long as they knew that somebody else would stop it from actually taking effect. (And the voters seeing the result.)

 

Granted, every one of those budgets paid for it's tax cuts, by cutting Social Security by 8% a year, for 30 years straight. (And Medicare, I assume, by an even bigger amount.)

 

It's possible that Dark Brandon has successfully gotten us to the point where pulling that one again might result in a "See?  I told you they wanted to do that."

[PleaseBlitz]

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

Granted, every one of those budgets paid for it's tax cuts, by cutting Social Security by 8% a year, for 30 years straight. (And Medicare, I assume, by an even bigger amount.)

 

I recall that all of those budgets paid for its tax cuts (on paper) by assuming 12% growth every year.  They called it "dynamic scoring" which sounds a lot better than "magic fairy dust."

[Larry]

39 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I recall that all of those budgets paid for its tax cuts (on paper) by assuming 12% growth every year.  They called it "dynamic scoring" which sounds a lot better than "magic fairy dust."

 

Hey, it's the historically proven success of Trickle Down Economics.   

 

------

 

But no.  A huge part of the Ryan budgets was:  

 

Convert SS and Medicare programs to block grants.  

 

This has several implications.  But the big one is that it turns SS from a system of "When  you retire, you will receive this amount, and the government spends whatever it takes to give you that amount", to a system of "Every year, the government will put however much it chooses to, into a bucket.  And then tell the state to decide how to hand out what's in the bucket, how much, and to whom."  

 

And then it simply budgets that every year, the government will put the same amount into the bucket that it put in last year.  Every year, the number of people taking out of the bucket goes up.  But hey, "it's not a cut.  We spent the same amount as last year."  

Edited March 7, 2023 by Larry

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I recall that all of those budgets paid for its tax cuts (on paper) by assuming 12% growth every year.  They called it "dynamic scoring" which sounds a lot better than "magic fairy dust."

I think it was 4.5%. The number comes from the 4+% we saw during good years over the last few decades but economists at the time were saying 4+% not only wasn’t likely, but may be completely unreasonable for the advanced state our economy is in. 
 

I believe they said 2+% was more reasonable 

 

—- add —-

 

The 400k number has some more nuance to it than the media reports in headlines or what gets said in speeches

 

from the article

 

Quote

The White House’s proposal would raise the net investment income tax, created by the Affordable Care Act, from 3.8 percent to 5 percent for all Americans earning more than $400,000 per year, in line with Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes for anyone under that threshold. The tax applies to capital gains and investment income. The plan also would expand this tax by applying it to more kinds of income from pass-through firms — businesses in which the owners pay taxes on their personal income taxes. Currently, these kinds of business owners do not pay this tax.

from my reading of that, this doesn’t apply to household income over 400k. It would apply to those incomes listed, if the household income is over 400k. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by tshile

[goskins10]

I believe you are both right. In looking at one of those budgets - 2014, his he expected to pay for those biddgets with a combination of medicare/medicaid cuts including aboloshing th ACA. But it can;t be balanced without what Ryan assuming his spending cuts would somehow create a burst of spending increasing government revenue. They do not provide a % but use the terms burst of economic growth. 

 

I had forgotten jsut how draconian those budgets were. Here is one reference - I was too lazy to find more. if the Times is wrong then my apologies. 

 

NY Times Ryan’s Budget Would Cut $5 Trillion in Spending Over a Decade  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html

 

:Even with those tough political choices, the budget would balance in 2024 only because Mr. Ryan is assuming his cuts would prompt a burst of economic growth to raise tax revenues above what independent economists forecast. He also does not adjust the government’s revenue ledger to reflect the cost of repealing the health care law’s tax increases and Medicare cuts, which could total $2 trillion.

 

 

[Larry]

They were lies. Pure and simple. 
 

They would have been disasters if they had actually passed. And back then, almost every Republican knew it. (Now days, I'm not so sure.)

 

But they knew that people who actually care about the country, would prevent them from becoming law. 
 

And they knew that pointing out why they were lies, would take longer than the time it takes for a Republican voter to stick his fingers in his ears. 
 

Which is the point I was making, in response to the question "Are the Republicans able to pass a budget?"  Sure they can. I'm they're willing to pass a lie, knowing that someone will stop them. 
 

They're perfectly willing to turn the launch keys on the nuclear missiles. Knowing that somebody in a different silo will countermand them. 
 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Larry