Jump to content
RatkoVarda

The Presidency of Joseph R. Biden

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

Who's that fat punk proving how ignorant he is?

I can’t remember which bill it was but he was the only one to not vote for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $200 Free Offer - Launching Friday (1/22)

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is launching on Friday, January 22, 2021. Pre-register at BetMGM Sportsbook & Casino and get a free $200 bonus at their online sportsbook & casino with no deposit necessary.

Claim $200 at BetMGM Michigan Now

I just so happen to be listening to this with New Order's Temptation playing in another thread.  The juxtaposition of the joy of that NO song and Laura's sad face letting her audience down with reality was wonderful.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

I guess the vintage just goes straight to vinegar when you start with such sour grapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are the names for defense secretary and attorney general?  It’s hard to decide who to be more excited about leaving, after trump: Barr, Mnuchin, DeVos and Pompeo are at the top of mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T&P_Fan said:

Who are the names for defense secretary and attorney general?  It’s hard to decide who to be more excited about leaving, after trump: Barr, Mnuchin, DeVos and Pompeo are at the top of mind. 

I've generally heard Fluornoy for SecDef... Sen. Doug Jones, Sally Yates, Lisa Monaco for AG. (Jones would be my pick)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the economic outlook worsens, Steven Mnuchin is "stripping lifeboats from the Titanic," said Elliot Smith at CNBC. That's how one economist described the Treasury secretary's decision to end several of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending programs by Dec. 31. The $650 billion in potential aid put in place by the CARES Act could soon disappear. That includes two programs that buy corporate bonds and the Main Street lending program for companies with up to 15,000 employees. Mnuchin said it was never Congress' intent to let the central bank keep the money past 2020. But the move apparently caught the Fed by surprise. The Fed still has significant "lending authority to backstop markets in the event of a disruption." But a new crisis serious enough that it demands a revival of the emergency programs would require another agreement with the Treasury.

Why take money out of the economy as the country faces a chaotic transition and resurgent pandemic? asked The Washington Post in an editorial. Mnuchin is correct that "usage of these funds has been ­minimal" — only $25 billion in actual lending. But that's partly because the private markets were confident "the Fed was standing by with a huge arsenal of financial firepower." It's hard to read Mnuchin's decision "as anything other than an intentional act of sabotage," said Jordan Weissman at Slate. He says "his intentions are pure" and that he's "bound by law to wind down the programs." Yet just a month ago Mnuchin said that "Treasury would consider extending them" based on market conditions.

What changed? Trump lost the election.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t she just say they are under audit and they can see them when Lil Donnie from Queens releases his and a couple of Senators from Georgia come clean on stock market transactions 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing a lot of news on what Biden can/can't do in terms of stimulus should Congress not act in the next week or so.  From someone that is still heavily right leaning on fiscal matters, why doesn't any major party tie stimulus with an infrastructure package?  A quick stimulus to allow everyone enough to pay a mortgage payment while they wait for unemployment to kick in or keep a small business afloat for a couple of months is all fine and dandy, and short term, there was benefit in that.  I've seen estimates of roughly 2 trillion needed to tackle infrastructure.  That would be a years long commitment to jobs, it would relieve the economic strain on states and allow them to refocus some of their spending short term, with less maintenance upkeep costs long term, and the spending would directly benefit companies giving them no reason but to continue their investments.  At the end of the day, we'd actually see something tangible for the money we spent too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2020 at 7:57 PM, mtutiger said:

I've generally heard Fluornoy for SecDef... Sen. Doug Jones, Sally Yates, Lisa Monaco for AG. (Jones would be my pick)

Michelle Fluornoy should terrify everyone who considers themselves anti-war and pro-peace. Flourney was the lunatic advising Hillary Clinton to support a no-fly zone in Syria. As well, Flournoy also advocated for boots on the ground in Syria and was one step away from another disastrous regime change/nation build policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm seeing a lot of news on what Biden can/can't do in terms of stimulus should Congress not act in the next week or so.  From someone that is still heavily right leaning on fiscal matters, why doesn't any major party tie stimulus with an infrastructure package?  A quick stimulus to allow everyone enough to pay a mortgage payment while they wait for unemployment to kick in or keep a small business afloat for a couple of months is all fine and dandy, and short term, there was benefit in that.  I've seen estimates of roughly 2 trillion needed to tackle infrastructure.  That would be a years long commitment to jobs, it would relieve the economic strain on states and allow them to refocus some of their spending short term, with less maintenance upkeep costs long term, and the spending would directly benefit companies giving them no reason but to continue their investments.  At the end of the day, we'd actually see something tangible for the money we spent too.

This kind of plan has always appealed to me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm seeing a lot of news on what Biden can/can't do in terms of stimulus should Congress not act in the next week or so.  From someone that is still heavily right leaning on fiscal matters, why doesn't any major party tie stimulus with an infrastructure package?  A quick stimulus to allow everyone enough to pay a mortgage payment while they wait for unemployment to kick in or keep a small business afloat for a couple of months is all fine and dandy, and short term, there was benefit in that.  I've seen estimates of roughly 2 trillion needed to tackle infrastructure.  That would be a years long commitment to jobs, it would relieve the economic strain on states and allow them to refocus some of their spending short term, with less maintenance upkeep costs long term, and the spending would directly benefit companies giving them no reason but to continue their investments.  At the end of the day, we'd actually see something tangible for the money we spent too.

I feel like I am always in a weird situation to what the majority are dealing with.  We are doing fine personally, but the business we just opened before the pandemic....not so much.  We opened in December and were doing ok, then shut down and now people are afraid to leave their homes.  We cannot get any more working capital funding (we had close to 100k which is already pretty much gone JUST for working capital) because we have not been open a full year.  PPP was a joke for us because we only had 3 months of wages they took into account to average it out.  Re worked our lease twice etc.  Nowhere near giving up, but we are running out of options for funds to pay our employees.  I have reached out to every federal, state county agency that is supposed to be helping small businesses and get denied because of the age of the business.  I re apply, get denied again...put in a request to reconsider....bumpkiss.

I do not want anything for free, but would like a chance to succeed.  We are not getting that chance.  The last 3 years of my life has been taken over opening this business....life is timing I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

I'm seeing a lot of news on what Biden can/can't do in terms of stimulus should Congress not act in the next week or so.  From someone that is still heavily right leaning on fiscal matters, why doesn't any major party tie stimulus with an infrastructure package?  A quick stimulus to allow everyone enough to pay a mortgage payment while they wait for unemployment to kick in or keep a small business afloat for a couple of months is all fine and dandy, and short term, there was benefit in that.  I've seen estimates of roughly 2 trillion needed to tackle infrastructure.  That would be a years long commitment to jobs, it would relieve the economic strain on states and allow them to refocus some of their spending short term, with less maintenance upkeep costs long term, and the spending would directly benefit companies giving them no reason but to continue their investments.  At the end of the day, we'd actually see something tangible for the money we spent too.

I think logistically (meaning Congress and the Senate) are not up for that.

However, ideally, your theory works when separated.

A) Stimulus now. People need it.

B) On Infrastructure: No Republican will pass this (read: Senate as currently constructed) without a method to pay for it. That's why it won't be attached to a Covid-stimulus package.  

As a fiscal pragmatist: I'd like to see a balanced budget. With an infrastructure plan/ investment. That means rejiggering Trump's tax cuts. It may require higher taxes on gasoline. There will be other priorities that Biden will want included as well... I think infrastructure is a great idea to get some work/ jobs/ recovery projects started up. But based on the "pay for it" issue, I do NOT see it being attached to Covid stimulus. But rather a budget agreement process that rolls back some of Trump's tax cuts, gives more tax benefits to the middle class, shores-up Social Security, does infrastructure and other spending priorities, etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

I feel like I am always in a weird situation to what the majority are dealing with.  We are doing fine personally, but the business we just opened before the pandemic....not so much.  We opened in December and were doing ok, then shut down and now people are afraid to leave their homes.  We cannot get any more working capital funding (we had close to 100k which is already pretty much gone JUST for working capital) because we have not been open a full year.  PPP was a joke for us because we only had 3 months of wages they took into account to average it out.  Re worked our lease twice etc.  Nowhere near giving up, but we are running out of options for funds to pay our employees.  I have reached out to every federal, state county agency that is supposed to be helping small businesses and get denied because of the age of the business.  I re apply, get denied again...put in a request to reconsider....bumpkiss.

I do not want anything for free, but would like a chance to succeed.  We are not getting that chance.  The last 3 years of my life has been taken over opening this business....life is timing I guess.

What I mentioned, long term might aid business like you in that lending might be more fluid with that type of spending commitment from the Feds.  Short term though, doesn't help much.  That said, if something like I said immediately piggy backed the original stimulus, maybe that would have helped.

8 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

I think logistically (meaning Congress and the Senate) are not up for that.

However, ideally, your theory works when separated.

A) Stimulus now. People need it.

B) On Infrastructure: No Republican will pass this (read: Senate as currently constructed) without a method to pay for it. That's why it won't be attached to a Covid-stimulus package.  

As a fiscal pragmatist: I'd like to see a balanced budget. With an infrastructure plan/ investment. That means rejiggering Trump's tax cuts. It may require higher taxes on gasoline. There will be other priorities that Biden will want included as well... I think infrastructure is a great idea to get some work/ jobs/ recovery projects started up. But based on the "pay for it" issue, I do NOT see it being attached to Covid stimulus. But rather a budget agreement process that rolls back some of Trump's tax cuts, gives more tax benefits to the middle class, shores-up Social Security, does infrastructure and other spending priorities, etc....

From a pure 'what could'a been' standpoint, my biggest dissapointment with the Trump admin was that there was no infrastructure bill.  Under Trump, republicans didn't care about spending.  Even if behind the scenes they were pushing him not to go forward with it, as we've seen, one tweet and the GOP would have buckled under him.  Preferably you're right with a balanced approach, but who are we kidding with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Michelle Fluornoy should terrify everyone who considers themselves anti-war and pro-peace. Flourney was the lunatic advising Hillary Clinton to support a no-fly zone in Syria. As well, Flournoy also advocated for boots on the ground in Syria and was one step away from another disastrous regime change/nation build policy.

IDK, with a Biden presidency I'm not terribly concerned if our Secretary of Defense is 'pro-war'.  In a way, almost would prefer that position to be ready, willing, and wanting to jump in and fight as long as they are honest about what'll cost them in terms of military.  Then it's up to POTUS to determine if that cost weighed against political/foreign diplomacy, is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

IDK, with a Biden presidency I'm not terribly concerned if our Secretary of Defense is 'pro-war'.  In a way, almost would prefer that position to be ready, willing, and wanting to jump in and fight as long as they are honest about what'll cost them in terms of military.  Then it's up to POTUS to determine if that cost weighed against political/foreign diplomacy, is worth it.

Joe Biden, to his credit, was one of the people who showed some restraint and patience when Obama was weighing whether or not to go into Syria and use military force after Assad allegedly used chemical weapons and crossed the red line. So I would hope that the Joe Biden that wanted to rush us into war in Iraq in 2002 has heeded important lessons and realizes the mistakes that were made. That said, a Defense Secretary is one of the most important cabinet officers. They don't get final say over military action, but they can be pissing in the President's ear about the urgency of taking aggressive and reckless military action. See Don Rumsfeld and George Bush as an obvious and recent example of this issue.

Now look, George Bush couldn't butter bread, I get that how easily someone of such low intellect can be manipulated. I do believe Biden is smarter than Bush is and likely wouldn't be as susceptible to manipulation as Dubya was. That said, if he's got a hawk like Flornouy in his ear everyday telling him to take action against Assad and Syira, implement a no-fly zone in the Syrian region, take action against Iran, etc. that is still a big cause for concern. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, who had the sound judgement to vote against the Iraqi Invasion and has been on Biden's short list for Defense Secretary, would have been a better choice than Flornouy.

Furthermore, as Democrats, we can't sit here and call out neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bremmer, Kristol, etc. and then accept our own, center-left version in Michele Flornouy as Defense Secretary. If Democrats are the anti-war party, as they purported to be once Iraq went south under Bush's watch in 2004-2008, than we have to maintain our convictions and demand better than Flornouy as Defense Secretary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Joe Biden, to his credit, was one of the people who showed some restraint and patience when Obama was weighing whether or not to go into Syria and use military force after Assad allegedly used chemical weapons and crossed the red line. So I would hope that the Joe Biden that wanted to rush us into war in Iraq in 2002 has heeded important lessons and realizes the mistakes that were made. That said, a Defense Secretary is one of the most important cabinet officers. They don't get final say over military action, but they can be pissing in the President's ear about the urgency of taking aggressive and reckless military action. See Don Rumsfeld and George Bush as an obvious and recent example of this issue.

Now look, George Bush couldn't butter bread, I get that how easily someone of such low intellect can be manipulated. I do believe Biden is smarter than Bush is and likely wouldn't be as susceptible to manipulation as Dubya was. That said, if he's got a hawk like Flornouy in his ear everyday telling him to take action against Assad and Syira, implement a no-fly zone in the Syrian region, take action against Iran, etc. that is still a big cause for concern. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, who had the sound judgement to vote against the Iraqi Invasion and has been on Biden's short list for Defense Secretary, would have been a better choice than Flornouy.

Furthermore, as Democrats, we can't sit here and call out neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bremmer, Kristol, etc. and then accept our own, center-left version in Michele Flornouy as Defense Secretary. If Democrats are the anti-war party, as they purported to be once Iraq went south under Bush's watch in 2004-2008, than we have to maintain our convictions and demand better than Flornouy as Defense Secretary.

I definitely see your point.  I wouldn't say i'm pro-war even though I tend to agree with conservatives on foreign diplomacy.   I'd argue some bad intelligence, combined with a dictator that felt the US wouldn't attack him and wanted that bad intelligence to be believed by his enemies on his borders had a pretty big role in making a case for Iraq, but not trying to change the subject.  

Being a democrat, i'd expect Biden to have plenty of folks in his ear giving him the "cons" on any military move.  He does need to hear some 'pros' as well though.  I can't argue with your reasoning on not wanting the Defense Sec being the 'pro' guy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

From a pure 'what could'a been' standpoint, my biggest dissapointment with the Trump admin was that there was no infrastructure bill.  Under Trump, republicans didn't care about spending.  Even if behind the scenes they were pushing him not to go forward with it, as we've seen, one tweet and the GOP would have buckled under him.  Preferably you're right with a balanced approach, but who are we kidding with that?

The way he has comported himself probably meant that his Presidency was doomed to partisanship and polarization regardless, but this is the one thing that he could have done early on to counteract that. And he would have succeeded had he pushed for it, as you suggest.

Instead, he went after repealing Obamacare.... which probably wasn't the smartest thing to lead off with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ewsieg said:

... From a pure 'what could'a been' standpoint, my biggest disappointment with the Trump admin was that there was no infrastructure bill.  Under Trump, republicans didn't care about spending.  Even if behind the scenes they were pushing him not to go forward with it, as we've seen, one tweet and the GOP would have buckled under him...

I'm not certain if he was ever serious about that or if it was just a ploy to bag the aggrieved midwestern white male vote.

With regards to Obamacare and Taxes, that was a little bit out of his hands as Congress and the Senate pushed both the priority and the timing of it. But once they started on one (and later the other), Trump definitely threw in his two cents/ priorities. ("Whatever puts the most money in my pockets.")

He could have taken a few % off of the business tax reduction and paid for infrastructure. But... nah...

I mean, he did take a swipe at infrastructure by trying to do no additional taxes and 95% private investment... which didn't really go anywhere. 

Yeah... if he had been serious about it, and felt the need to push Congress... he coulda easily brow-beaten them into giving exactly what was needed... it wouldn't have taken all that much. In the end... I think he gave a half-hearted mostly "private-investment" path towards infrastructure and then gave up when that didn't look workable. At no point would he have considered raising taxes a % or two (on himself) to get the plan moving. Non-starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

... Instead, he went after repealing Obamacare.... which probably wasn't the smartest thing to lead off with.

That was Congress/ Senate. They demanded that first based special budgetary considerations. Obamacare first, tax cut second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the pick (First Native American Cabinet Secretary, I believe), but hopefully this is the last House member picked

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan is launching online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. These top Michigan sportsbooks have pre-launch bonus offers. No deposit is required. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - If you sign up at BetRivers Michigan now, you will receive $50 in free bets to use one their online sportsbook & casino

Click Here to claim $50 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - If you register now before FanDuel launches in January, you will receive $100 to use at their sportsbook app & online casino.

Click Here to claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan For Registering Now

BetMGM Michigan - If you sign up early at BetMGM Michigan before launch, you will receive $200 in free bets to use at their online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $200 at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Early

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,875
    • Total Posts
      3,042,887
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...