Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


goskins10
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, tshile said:

I think it depends. 
 

when it looked like an evacuation screwup and a taliban control screwup I was with you. 
 

If instead were talking about al qaeda being back to operating inside Afghanistan openly and without impunity… I don’t know. All the sudden the criticism from the right that required mental gymnastics to even approach making sense, becomes spot on accurate criticism (even if they themselves have no actual working alternative solution and never did)

 

it probably doesn’t matter anyways as I always felt there was a solid chance he had no interest in running

 

(I also always thought it was possible that was his plan, but being president for 3 years had a good chance of changing his mind when the time comes to officially make a decision…)

 

Carrying the bolded to the Tunisia thread. 

 

I still do not think it will have that much impact on him or whoever the D candidate is. People have short memories, especially when they are not directly affected. Get infrastructure through and in process and that will be the big story regardless of how the right tries to frame things. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Carrying the bolded to the Tunisia thread. 

 

I still do not think it will have that much impact on him or whoever the D candidate is. People have short memories, especially when they are not directly affected. Get infrastructure through and in process and that will be the big story regardless of how the right tries to frame things. 

 

 

How in 2024 is Afghanistan pullout going to affect the average voter? My guess, very little unless this sparks a war in the Middle East that is going on in 24 or there’s another attack on American soil, caused by terrorists based in Afghanistan.

 

The mostly likely issue deciding things in 24; is the impact of the infrastructure deals.  One, where the deals passed at all or nothing passed? If nothing passed; bound to hurt Dems.  If deals passed; did they have a positive impact or negative impact on the voters daily lives. Since the infrastructure deals will be the only major thing Joe will get passed; that will be the big factor in 24.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do admire that both of you so easily throw away the “low hanging fruit” option available to the republicans as something to build their campaign on, in favor of an incredibly complex piece of legislation, while citing the shortcomings of the electorate :)

 

but, it’s far more likely (to me) Biden doesn’t seek re-election anyways so it probably doesn’t matter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

WSJ: Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion- Joe Manchin  

 

The Biden presidency will be effectively over; if neither infrastructure deal makes it.  

If Joey M of WV plans to vote NO on the final vote for the reconciliation package, you know Kristen Sinema and maybe couple of other Dems will vote no.

That will mean progressives will vote no on the bi-partisan deal.    Both plans will be dead and Biden's presidency will be effectively over. 

Without those 2 infrastructure plans passing; those Dems voters will be angry and will not come out in 22.  The Red Wave will be bigger than expected

and will be more MAGAfied.

 

Joe Biden, going to have to do some arm twisting; or else he can kiss his presidency goodbye.  He'll just be a lame duck for the rest of term. 

Edited by Rdskns2000
  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case people haven't been paying attention, Joe Manchin hems and haws like this a lot, then extracts some concessions, then usually signs on.  It's political theater for him (1) showing his "bipartisan" bona fides as a Dem in a hugely Republican state and (2) shows how much power he actually has as the most conservative Dem Senator.  Please stop buying into @Rdskns2000 annoying and constant Chicken Little act.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are so insufferable

it’s clearly obvious he brings it up to let us know he has, and had, a very personal relationship with the military; that he takes his role wrt military very seriously

 

now the party of patriots with their salute the troops sticker on all their trucks wants him to shut up about it?

 

**** off. 

  • Like 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

 

 

This proves even further that the right has no boundaries, no conscience, and no morality. The man lost a son. He gets to grieve and discuss that grieving as long as he wants. **** every one of them! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yellen: US on track to default on national debt in October

 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Wednesday warned congressional leaders that the U.S. is on track to default on the national debt in October if the White House and Congress are unable to raise the debt limit.

 

In a Wednesday letter, Yellen said that the Treasury Department would likely run out of cash and exhaust "extraordinary" measures to keep the federal government within its legal borrowing limit at some point next month. 

 

"Once all available measures and cash on hand are fully exhausted, the United States of America would be unable to meet its obligations for the first time in our history," Yellen said.

 

"Given this uncertainty, the Treasury Department is not able to provide a specific estimate of how long the extraordinary measures will last. However, based on our best and most recent information, the most likely outcome is that cash and extraordinary measures will be exhausted during the month of October," she continued.

 

Yellen wrote the letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

 

The Treasury Department has taken so-called extraordinary measures to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on the national debt since the federal debt limit was reimposed on Aug. 1. If the Treasury Department runs out of ways to stave off a default without borrowing more money, the inability of the U.S. to pay its debts could send debilitating shockwaves through the financial system.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 9:22 AM, PeterMP said:

 

We've raised the national minimum wage before.  There is no evidence that a national minimum wage results in 100% pass through (i.e. businesses are able to pass the costs of the minimum wage onto their customers 100%).  Evidence looking at previous increases in national wage at the national level suggest it is quite small (and as stated even less than 1%).  Yes prices will go up some, but not very much.

 

The effect on employment (not so much increasing unemployment, but decreasing future employment with people leaving the labor force and so no longer being counted as unemployed) at the low wage end and low skill end is a bigger factor.

 

Though the CBO estimates the net effect is still fewer people in poverty.  The increase in wages offsets the loss of employment.

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681#:~:text=The federal minimum wage of,their family income would fall.

 

I'm not really a big fan of raising the minimum wage, but not doing it because of fears of raising inflation are pretty unfounded.

 

On 4/15/2021 at 9:28 AM, Larry said:

 

And in every one of them, they looked at places where the local minimum wage went up.  

 

Because, well, there weren't any McDonalds in the US where the national wage went up.  

 

- - - 

 

And I'll also point out.  I think that pretending that changing the minimum wage only affects people at McDonalds is a false narrative.  I believe, an intentionally false one.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage.  gradually.  Nationally.  Been in favor of it for two decades.  

 

But it's not because I'm concerned about McDonald's workers.  Well, not only them.  It's because I absolutely believe that raising the minimum wage will cause an increase in the wages of all of the workers who are at the bottom end of the wage scale.  

 

See, I believe that, while CNA's don't make minimum wage, they make close to it.  And the reason they make more than minimum, is because the net total of thousands of market forces have resulted on a "market price" for that job, which is slightly above minimum.  And that those market forces will still be in place after a MW hike.  

 

I support raising the minimum wage, because of the effect it will have on the wages of nurses.  Plumbers.  Receptionists.  Dental hygienists.  Teachers.  All the people in our country who we normally think of as trying to raise a family, on a job that pays a bit more than minimum.  

 

On 4/15/2021 at 9:54 AM, tshile said:

Yeah I wasn’t trying to provide a all encompassing summary of it :)

 

just the one part that yes - it leads to increased prices. At least for McDonald’s. Which is often the standard used in discussing minimum wage. I don’t know why, I don’t have a problem with it I just don’t know why 

 

we often hear this Econ 101 argument about max price a market will bear and how it will come out of corporate profits somehow and I always laugh. Here’s a study saying it comes from price increases. 
 

the Econ 101 argument needs to be dropped. Because it’s super basic and incorrect. 


just providing a reasonably sound analysis that shows that those people using Econ 101 arguments don’t know what they’re talking about. 
 

it’s also one company in one area. I’m sure there will be cases where it doesn’t come from price increases. But to suggest it won’t in general is naive and dumb. 

 

On 4/15/2021 at 10:45 AM, goskins10 said:

 

I have not seen anyone even suggest that changing the minimum wage only affects McDonalds - I will go further and say no one is suggesting it will only affect retail and food service which is what I think you meant. This sounds like an ax with no place to land so you are making one. If you have references where that has been discussed, that only the impact to retail and food service workers would be impacted and thus we should only care abotu them, I would be interested as I would also disagree with that analysis. There are many - too many in my opinion - jobs that are at or close to minimum wage.  

 

They used the data they had. And the only thing I am saying, and that they are saying, is that the report suggests, repeat SUGGESTS, that while raising the minimum wage will increase costs it is made up for by increased spending power based on the data they had. Nothing more nothing less. And this is in line with other studies that have been done. As time goes by and more and more and more cities and other local governments increase their minimum wage, it helps the accumulation of data. And so far - the results have been very similar. This report is in line with previous studies. 

 

All you can do is make conclusions with the data available. You can't measure the effects of national minimum wage hike until you have one. So that is not a good faith argument. 

 

It was not discussed previously, but since you bring it up, I am also in favor of a gradual minimum wage increase. I believe a step change might shock the economy and while long term I think it would be OK, it would create some short term pain that is unnecessary. Ultimately it will impact those workers near minimum wage as they will then have to compete with other jobs - the same reason they are close but above right now. 

 

 

 

 

Re: Minimum wage:

 

Minimum wage would be $26 an hour if it had grown in line with productivity

 

The federal minimum wage in the U.S. has remained glued at $7.25 an hour for the last 12 years, the longest stretch without a boost since it was first adopted in 1938. Yet there's another revealing figure that underscores how the minimum wage — created by Congress after the Great Depression as a way to ensure that Americans were fairly paid for their labor — has failed to keep up with the times.

 

Even as workers have been more industrious — helping drive corporate profits, the stock market and CEO compensation to record heights — their pay has flatlined, or even declined when factoring in inflation. If the minimum wage had kept pace with gains in the economy's productivity over the last 50 years, it would be nearly $26 an hour today, or more than $50,000 a year in annual income, one economist notes.

 

"That may sound pretty crazy, but that's roughly what the minimum wage would be today if it had kept pace with productivity growth since its value peaked in 1968," wrote Dean Baker, senior economist at the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, in a recent blog post.

 

Click on the link for more, including graph

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage.  

 

And I'm in favor of it, absolutely knowing that it will be inflationary as hell.  And that it will be a few years before all the benefits "trickle up", to coin a phrase.  I still believe that it will benefit society, anyway.  

 

I think the way I'd do it is to raise the wage, $1/hour, every year for the next 10 years.  (Maybe $2/hour, for the next 5, would be better.)  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...