@earl-of-trumps saidSo where exactly is Biden trying to take credit for this? Link please.
@moonbus
Lame duck Trump - yes he is, but *still* the POTUS until mid January.
Pfizer announced a COVID-19 vaccine today, And yet team Biden is claiming credit.
Ya see how that works, right?
@no1marauder saidI don't think the ACA will be struck down (I find the arguments in favor of it being struck down to be borderline laughable unless the Sebelius case is simply overturned completely).
How about the scenario where the ACA is struck down? Tens of millions would lose health insurance altogether and almost everybody's coverage of preexisting conditions would be instantly jeopardized.
What is the likelihood that Moscow Mitch and the Democrats would come up with a compromise at all on a national health care policy? Since the Republicans couldn't even dec ...[text shortened]... say the odds of successful compromise are miniscule.
So would that constitute the "best outcome"?
If that happens, I will concede that healthcare legislation will be urgently needed.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidPutting healthcare aside (see above), let's look at the other major problems.
Ok:
"Does the country have major problems needing solutions that can be best addressed by Federal legislation?"
If not, do you favor the abolishing of the Federal government altogether?
Racial equality? The federal legislation on that is already in place. It's a question of enforcement on the executive level (and at the state level, of course).
Environment? Biden can get us back in the Paris accords and the like. Banning fracking overnight is a terrible idea, IMO.
Income inequality cannot be cured federal legislation.
Banking oversight is already called for by federal legislation. A vigilant SEC could do what needs to be done in that arena.
So, let me ask you: What needs to be done that can only be done by federal legislation?
@sh76 saidI disagree that federal legislation cannot effect income inequality; minimum wage laws, equitable tax reform, investments in infrastructure and education, student loan cancelation or reduction, etc. etc. etc. could and would have lasting effects on income inequality.
Putting healthcare aside (see above), let's look at the other major problems.
Racial equality? The federal legislation on that is already in place. It's a question of enforcement on the executive level (and at the state level, of course).
Environment? Biden can get us back in the Paris accords and the like. Banning fracking overnight is a terrible idea, IMO.
Income ine ...[text shortened]... at arena.
So, let me ask you: What needs to be done that can only be done by federal legislation?
Executive action on climate change is surely inadequate esp. when it can be reversed by any temporary occupant of the White House by whim.
Those are two obvious and critical areas which will go undone in your "best outcome" scenario.
And I'm sure we'll all be looking forward to the government shutdowns which will be inevitable when Moscow Mitch insists on spending cuts to social programs as a price for debt ceiling increases.
@sh76 saidWell I agree esp. when the SCOTUS didn't ask for argument regarding overturning Sebellius, but the plaintiffs are asking for relief that wound end the protections for pre-existing conditions. That alone would be a s**tshow, though I suppose it's possible the Senate Republicans would have to back something reinstating those protections though perhaps at a price in other areas that the Democrats would balk at paying.
I don't think the ACA will be struck down (I find the arguments in favor of it being struck down to be borderline laughable unless the Sebelius case is simply overturned completely).
If that happens, I will concede that healthcare legislation will be urgently needed.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidA 50-50 split means Dem control with Harris breaking ties.
Wouldn't a better outcome be the 50-50 split? There's little chance that would result in the end of the filibuster and Dems would still have to negotiate with Moscow Mitch but they'd be in a position of strength rather than weakness.
A 52-48 Republican advantage gives them little reason to bargain.
I really don't mind reasonable tax hikes (like the one Biden has proposed), but what I really don't want is the Court to be packed, states to be added, fracking banned and wealth taxes.
I may not be as up on parliamentary procedure as you are. Why can't they get rid of the filibuster on a 50-50 tie and a Harris tie-breaking vote?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidMinimum wage is best handled on a state and local level, IMO. A reasonable wage in rural Wyoming is not the same as a reasonable wage in Seattle or San Francisco. Rolling back the 2017 tax cut for those making under 400k would be fine. Infrastructure investments should get some bipartisan support, especially since it was part of Trump's platform (granted, he didn't really follow up on it). I am not in favor of student loan cancellation.
I disagree that federal legislation cannot effect income inequality; minimum wage laws, equitable tax reform, investments in infrastructure and education, student loan cancelation or reduction, etc. etc. etc. could and would have lasting effects on income inequality.
Executive action on climate change is surely inadequate esp. when it can be reversed by any temporary o ...[text shortened]... when Moscow Mitch insists on spending cuts to social programs as a price for debt ceiling increases.
Legislative action on climate change can also be reversed by future Congresses. Executive action will do for now, which is all you can do now anyway. I'm also not convinced that infrastructure investment in clean energy would not get any bipartisan support.
1 edit
@sh76 saidThe Democrats could be as "radical" as Joe Manchin would let them be.
A 50-50 split means Dem control with Harris breaking ties.
I really don't mind reasonable tax hikes (like the one Biden has proposed), but what I really don't want is the Court to be packed, states to be added, fracking banned and wealth taxes.
I may not be as up on parliamentary procedure as you are. Why can't they get rid of the filibuster on a 50-50 tie and a Harris tie-breaking vote?
They'd also need his vote to kill the filibuster which he has vowed not to do in rather colorful language:
"The West Virginia Democrat told CNN that he would oppose his party's effort to get rid of the filibuster, a stall tactic frequently used by the Senate's minority party and that requires 60 votes in the chamber to overcome.
"That's bulls**t," Manchin said this week when asked about the Democratic push to eliminate the filibuster. He noted that he opposed the Democratic effort in 2013 to eliminate the filibuster on most presidential nominees. "And I would be opposed to it again."
https://www.axios.com/democrats-50-50-senate-b7651b3a-3d91-4c8c-ac32-5059a03b9bef.html
@no1marauder saidMaybe.
The Democrats could be as "radical" as Joe Manchin would let them be.
They'd also need his vote to kill the filibuster which he has vowed not to do in rather colorful language:
"The West Virginia Democrat told CNN that he would oppose his party's effort to get rid of the filibuster, a stall tactic frequently used by the Senate's minority party and that requires 60 v ...[text shortened]... it again."
https://www.axios.com/democrats-50-50-senate-b7651b3a-3d91-4c8c-ac32-5059a03b9bef.html
Party pressure is a powerful thing. People were saying the same thing about Collins in reverse before the Kavanaugh vote.
@sh76 saidThat you oppose various measures that will help reduce income inequality doesn't mean that federal legislation would be helpless in doing so.
Minimum wage is best handled on a state and local level, IMO. A reasonable wage in rural Wyoming is not the same as a reasonable wage in Seattle or San Francisco. Rolling back the 2017 tax cut for those making under 400k would be fine. Infrastructure investments should get some bipartisan support, especially since it was part of Trump's platform (granted, he didn't really follow ...[text shortened]... o not convinced that infrastructure investment in clean energy would not get any bipartisan support.
There's been a federal minimum wage since 1938; sorry you disagree with that concept. Of course, States are free to have higher minimum wages but the present $7.25 one hasn't been increased since 2009 meaning it has lost significant value.
You know as well as I do that repealing laws is a lot harder than simply replacing Executive Order A with Executive Order B.
1 edit
@sh76 saidWhy would you be so averse to Puerto Rico becoming a state? Is there any argument against Puerto Rican statehood, except for nakedly political worries about its likely voting orientation? But even the Republican Party had the following in its manifesto in 2008, 2012, and 2016:
A 50-50 split means Dem control with Harris breaking ties.
I really don't mind reasonable tax hikes (like the one Biden has proposed), but what I really don't want is the Court to be packed, states to be added, fracking banned and wealth taxes.
I may not be as up on parliamentary procedure as you are. Why can't they get rid of the filibuster on a 50-50 tie and a Harris tie-breaking vote?
"We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referendums sponsored by the U.S. government."
@teinosuke saidGood point; Puerto Rico just voted for statehood in a nonbinding referendum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Why would you be so averse to Puerto Rico becoming a state? Is there any argument against Puerto Rican statehood, except for nakedly political worries about its likely voting orientation? But even the Republican Party had the following in its manifesto in 2008, 2012, and 2016:
"We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union ...[text shortened]... by means of a general right of referendum or specific referendums sponsored by the U.S. government."
I guess it's "radical" to want 2.8 million US citizens in PR and 700,000 in the District of Columbia to have a say in the running of their federal government.
@teinosuke saidBecause I like numbers, I would say that I like the fact that there are 50 states. I like the perfect lines of stars.
Why would you be so averse to Puerto Rico becoming a state? Is there any argument against Puerto Rican statehood, except for nakedly political worries about its likely voting orientation? But even the Republican Party had the following in its manifesto in 2008, 2012, and 2016:
"We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union ...[text shortened]... by means of a general right of referendum or specific referendums sponsored by the U.S. government."
However, 51 is a cool number as well, because its prime factorization is 3.17. It is also one less than a deck of cards without jokers, so it is frequently used in conditional probability. The lines would supposedly be alternating rows of 8 stars and 9 stars for a total of 6 rows, since 3 rows of 17 would never fit in the rectangle.
I landed in San Juan on a layover from Tobago to Newfoundland as a toddler. I remember the humidity very well.