The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[Bucknutz]

You make a lot of straw men. I never claimed the student loan forgiveness would fix anything, that is you arguing against the ether. I believe it helped individuals. I know it helps my daughter and son-in-law who both ad some debt wiped away and allowed them to sock some money into savings and investments instead of paying student loans. I then outlined that we need a complete overhaul. Nowhere did I argue that the student loan forgiveness fixed anything nor did I advocate for it. I only said that I did not appreciate the people who took full advantage of it then turning around and bitching about it, especially those of more than ample means. See here is the exact quote you are supposedly replying to:

This is the point that I am bringing up. The PPP and Student forgiveness are not similar. You think it is but it's not and I provided my reasons.

Again your own biases showing through. Show me the names I mentioned specifically and how they are all only republican. It is amazing how hard republicans try to twist things around when they get all bristly from truths being pointed out (frankly both sides do this to a point, but recently republicans are just getting ridiculous about it). I was going after those that criticized these efforts to help people who also made use of the same mechanisms to get further ahead themselves, adding to their riches while complaining that others did the same or that someone made it available at all, even while they used it when they didn't need to.

Show me how they got ahead? Just because they received a PPP doesn't mean they got themselves further ahead. How do you know they didn't need it?

You might need to drop your partisan blinders.

You can try to assign whatever blame you want, but I was making a blanket sarcastic statement. We have all kinds of rich people taking advantage of things like this, it is the nature of it. Not all of them then turn around and criticize other efforts to help people in similar ways. (yes yes we all get that you agree with PPP and disagree with student loan forgiveness, it does not make them polar opposites just because you disagree).

You need to drop your partisan blinders, otherwise you are just not worth the time to talk to as you will only see it through your red-colored lenses.

So Republican Congress persons are taking advantage of the PPP loan?

You obliviously didn't read my response saying I don't disagree with student loan forgiveness. I don't think they are polar opposites, Im just saying they are not the same. I provided context why I feel this way, but you just ignore that.

Feed the rich, but the poor can starve for all they care. That is a bad look on our country and our politics. That was my point. How you got to assuming this is supposed to be the fix of all things from that is beyond me. Just more partisan blinders not arguing the actual discussion but what they want to argue against regardless of what is actually being said.

Im arguing against your comment...

But you don't understand fishbro, those were loans for BUSINESSES for wealt....uh, I mean successful businesspeople who provided jobs and stability for maybe 10's of Americans. Wrong, these were for anybody who has a small business to help pay for payroll and expenses. Those are what should be forgiven, not any student loans!! There is a difference between the two. The PPP had stipulations to meet in order for the loan to be forgiven. Those need to be paid back, unless they were for wealth....crap there I go again, SUCCESSFUL and important businesspeople who are providing the trickle down that allows them to live extravagant lifestyles off the public dime help people in need find jobs!! Once again, a very ignorant comment that thinks only Republican Congress persons got PPP loans forgiven.

This is what I have been arguing and it's exactly what you said. "Feed the rich, but the poor can starve for all they care". Again an ignorant comment. The PPP helped anyone with a business that applied. You can be a nail polish tech, who was shut down for 6 months and still got help from the PPP.

 

[Bucknutz]

"Conversely, between $335 billion to $395 billion ended up with business owners and corporate stakeholders like suppliers and lenders."

Again a GIG worker, 1099, or Business owner are all types of business owners that can take a salary. ALL of them. Again it maxes out at $100k prorated for 2.5 months or $20,833 a person. Please show me how this gets someone a head.

You also have to provide the salaries from the previous year / months to show what the PPP award would be given.

This quote lumps "business owners" and corporate stake holders like suppliers and lenders together.

I already posted this above:

What are the other eligible expenses?

• Business mortgage interest payments: Copy of lender amortization schedule and receipts verifying payments, or lender account statements (Corporate Stake Holders)
• Business rent or lease payments: Copy of current lease agreement and receipts or cancelled checks verifying eligible payments (Corporate Stake Holders)
• Business utility payments: Copies of invoices and receipts, cancelled checks or account statements (Corporate Stake Holders)

25%-40% of the PPP could go to these Corporate Stake Holders.

 

[One Brow]

PPP was not partisan.

@LogGrad98 was referring to the partisan nature of the complaints, not the program itself.

 

[Keefe]

Not every business was a restaurant. Did you go stay at hotels on the weekends or were they closed? Did you take a Lyft to that hotel? Did you go to that closed barber shop down the street? How about a handy man to help mount a TV in your house?


As an Educator or Government worker, did you loose your job? Did you go on unemployment? If not why would you take the covid relief money? Did you spend it to stimulate the economy? Because most people didn't...

A family of 4 got making upto $150k got 3 rounds of payments

• $3400 first round
• $2400 second round
• $5600 third round

Grand total of $11,400. Even if you never lost your job or financially got hurt by the government lockdowns.

Here’s How Americans Spent Their Stimulus Checks

How did you spend your stimulus checks?

www.forbes.com

It should of went to stimulate the economy:

• First Stimulus Check: Spend (74%), Save (14%), Pay Debt (11%)
• Second Stimulus Check: Spend (22%), Save (26%), Pay Debt (51%)
• Third Stimulus Check: Spend (19%), Save (32%), Pay Debt (49%)

It looks like most people saved or paid off debt with $8000 of the $11,400.

So when I talk about the covid relief money being a bonus, I mean its a bonus to any of the government workers, educators or anyone else who did not get financially hurt by the government lockdowns. It didn't go to the people who needed it most.

Uh, no I didn’t go to a hotel or to a barber shop. There was a pandemic going on so I apologize if I cared about my life and my loved ones lives more than the well being of a Marriott. As far as what other small businesses I did help support, I won’t share. But I did so take your self-righteous ******** up the road.
And Covid relief money? I didn’t get any. But good try *******.

 

[Keefe]

You understand that gig workers, 1099 and business owners have a salary as well; 36% of the US work force is gig work. That's 59 million Americans.

Gig workers don't have employees. So yes all of the PPP money went to the gig workers salary.

Once again to have your loan forgiven you have to prove that you paid 60% of the loan to payroll. The rest went to approved expenses. Ill defend the PPP even though it was not perfect.

Please give me many examples of gig workers. Uber? Lyft? What else? Strippers? What else?

 

[Bucknutz]

Please give me many examples of gig workers. Uber? Lyft? What else? Strippers? What else?

7 Key Gig Economy Examples

The Gig economy solved a market issue across almost all verticals under the sun. Check out these gig economy examples to better understand.

www.stoketalent.com

Earning a Living with Gig Work as a Nurse - The Fioneers

Emily quit her job as a nurse, transitioning to do gig work in nursing. Learn how her quality of life improved with this career change.

thefioneers.com

Lots, Nurses handy man, sales reps, contractors, beauticians, airbnb, caregivers, designers, technicians etc...

 

[The Thriller]

Honestly? This is the root of the problem. It’s not about the money or concerns abt it not helping. It’s about preventing Biden another win. That’s all. Tribalism yet again. Reminds me of when the ACA was passed. Repubs didn’t have an alt plan to help people. They just hoped the scotus would kill it to prevent Obama from getting a W.


View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw

 

[LogGrad98]

Honestly? This is the root of the problem. It’s not about the money or concerns abt it not helping. It’s about preventing Biden another win. That’s all. Tribalism yet again. Reminds me of when the ACA was passed. Repubs didn’t have an alt plan to help people. They just hoped the scotus would kill it to prevent Obama from getting a W.


View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw

That is what everything has been about for the past 10 years. Electing Obama was the last straw for many of them. They have been on a vendetta trip ever since, and Trump just ratcheted that up many many notches. To be fair, no one has been much about compromise in the legislature nor the presidency for decades now. Literally the last thing we had any kind of agreement on, interestingly enough, was the vote to invade Iraq, which had maybe the strongest by-partisan numbers of any resolution since. Of course many pack-pedaled since the impetus to stifle the other side was already in full swing. But we have been only about what gets one side ahead or the other for decades now. And odds are it gets worse long before it gets any better, if it ever does.

This only shows through 2011 but it has been even worse since. 89% for republicans and 91% for democrats.

To me this is the single biggest indicator of the dangerous state our republic is in. Zero compromise realistically over decades is a recipe for disaster. It allows that tribalism to fester and increases the divide as any time there is a vote across party lines it is vilified to the Nth degree, which drives fewer and fewer votes across party lines. To even have a hope of re-election within the party they must toe the party line. Doing differently would not just alienate their base, but also the leadership of each respective party, which will torpedo their chances. It is a vicious cycle that I cannot see us pulling ourselves out of any time soon, if ever. It will be a death-spiral for the nation ultimately if left completely unchecked. It fundamentally undermines the greatest pillar of our political institution, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Substitute in "party" in place of "people" and it is the world we live in now.

See Congress polarize over the past 60 years, in one beautiful chart

Democrats and Republicans in the House self-segregated into homogeneous clusters.

www.vox.com

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/file.php?path=Party%20Unity%20Tables/2015_Party_Unity.pdf

 

[fishonjazz]

Honestly? This is the root of the problem. It’s not about the money or concerns abt it not helping. It’s about preventing Biden another win. That’s all. Tribalism yet again. Reminds me of when the ACA was passed. Repubs didn’t have an alt plan to help people. They just hoped the scotus would kill it to prevent Obama from getting a W.


View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw

Its like they dont realize that thousands (maybe millions?) of conservatives who were going to have their student loans erased will also be crying.



Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[str8line]

That is what everything has been about for the past 10 years. Electing Obama was the last straw for many of them. They have been on a vendetta trip ever since, and Trump just ratcheted that up many many notches. To be fair, no one has been much about compromise in the legislature nor the presidency for decades now. Literally the last thing we had any kind of agreement on, interestingly enough, was the vote to invade Iraq, which had maybe the strongest by-partisan numbers of any resolution since. Of course many pack-pedaled since the impetus to stifle the other side was already in full swing. But we have been only about what gets one side ahead or the other for decades now. And odds are it gets worse long before it gets any better, if it ever does.

This only shows through 2011 but it has been even worse since. 89% for republicans and 91% for democrats.

To me this is the single biggest indicator of the dangerous state our republic is in. Zero compromise realistically over decades is a recipe for disaster. It allows that tribalism to fester and increases the divide as any time there is a vote across party lines it is vilified to the Nth degree, which drives fewer and fewer votes across party lines. To even have a hope of re-election within the party they must toe the party line. Doing differently would not just alienate their base, but also the leadership of each respective party, which will torpedo their chances. It is a vicious cycle that I cannot see us pulling ourselves out of any time soon, if ever. It will be a death-spiral for the nation ultimately if left completely unchecked. It fundamentally undermines the greatest pillar of our political institution, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Substitute in "party" in place of "people" and it is the world we live in now.

See Congress polarize over the past 60 years, in one beautiful chart

Democrats and Republicans in the House self-segregated into homogeneous clusters.

www.vox.com

View attachment 12974

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/file.php?path=Party%20Unity%20Tables/2015_Party_Unity.pdf

View attachment 12975

Great post. Term limits is the only partial solution I can think of.

 

[One Brow]

Great post. Term limits is the only partial solution I can think of.

Politicians need to be elected from a district. Term limits won't fix districts that elect radical politicians. The real fix happens from reducing/eliminating gerrymandering.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

That is what everything has been about for the past 10 years. Electing Obama was the last straw for many of them.

The data you've presented falsifies your hypothesis. The scatter plot in 1995 is nearly identical to the scatter plot in 2011. Obama clearly has nothing to do with anything.

Your second observation is far stronger. We were more united as a society when we last had the external enemy in the Iraq War. We were also more united when the Soviet Union was a credible external enemy. Statistically we appear to be on the edge of civil war because we've had too much peace.

 

[LogGrad98]

The data you've presented falsifies your hypothesis. The scatter plot in 1995 is nearly identical to the scatter plot in 2011. Obama clearly has nothing to do with anything.

Your second observation is far stronger. We were more united as a society when we last had the external enemy in the Iraq War. We were also more united when the Soviet Union was a credible external enemy. Statistically we appear to be on the edge of civil war because we've had too much peace.

I was referring more to the tendency to vote to obstruct rather than voting for their actual, you know, standards and what their constituency wants. That became much more pronounced after the Obama election. And we see that in that the peak divisions have occurred in the past 5-6 years.

The scatter plot was simply to show how the division in the legislature has changed over the past decades.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I was referring more to the tendency to vote to obstruct rather than voting for their actual, you know, standards and what their constituency wants. That became much more pronounced after the Obama election. And we see that in that the peak divisions have occurred in the past 5-6 years.

The scatter plot was simply to show how the division in the legislature has changed over the past decades.

Even voting tendencies don't square with that so much as they align with the rise of social media. It is easier to reach deals when professionals are able to do what they do in a room without anyone watching. With social media, EVERYONE is watching everything and the one with the most extreme take gets the most eyeballs which often translates into the most campaign funds. Our representatives have traded professionalism for showmanship because the ones who opt for showmanship are the only ones who keep their jobs, and it only gets worse over time as there is always the threat of a greater showman arriving to outshine whatever the current showman is doing.

 

[Avery]

Honestly? This is the root of the problem. It’s not about the money or concerns abt it not helping. It’s about preventing Biden another win. That’s all. Tribalism yet again. Reminds me of when the ACA was passed. Repubs didn’t have an alt plan to help people. They just hoped the scotus would kill it to prevent Obama from getting a W.


View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw

I don't know who Nick Adams is, but:

#1 - Does he understand how the SC even gets cases? What lower courts will take up cases regarding this and deliver judgments anytime soon? Not exactly a lot of plantiffs rushing to sue despite the rhetoric
#2 - What is constitutionally at play here? The SC tends to not want to meddle in legislative/executive decisions especially those that are a matter of money, not morals
#3 - Let's just say the SC takes it up a few years from now as lower courts are decided and appealed. By then, loans would already have been forgiven and null and void. You gonna reinstate the debts? Get out of here.

The SC doesn't give a rat's arse about budgetary decisions. Sounds like this individual is just feeding red meat to their audience without any regard to the larger thought process.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I don't know who Nick Adams is, but:

#1 - Does he understand how the SC even gets cases? What lower courts will take up cases regarding this and deliver judgments anytime soon? Not exactly a lot of plantiffs rushing to sue despite the rhetoric
#2 - What is constitutionally at play here? The SC tends to not want to meddle in legislative/executive decisions especially those that are a matter of money, not morals
#3 - Let's just say the SC takes it up a few years from now as lower courts are decided and appealed. By then, loans would already have been forgiven and null and void. You gonna reinstate the debts? Get out of here.

The SC doesn't give a rat's arse about budgetary decisions. Sounds like this individual is just feeding red meat to their audience without any regard to the larger thought process.

It is clearly unconstitutional. The President does not have the constitutional power to unilaterally create a trillion dollar expenditure. In our system of government, it is the legislative branch that has the power of the purse. The issue that may keep it in place has nothing to do with constitutionality, as it is obviously unconstitutional, but rather finding someone with standing to challenge it in court. Our legal system requires a plaintiff who can show harm from the action that is recognized by the court. That may be difficult.

I'll let you find your own sources but include the word "standing" along with whatever search terms you are using and it should corroborate what I wrote.

 

[Avery]

It is clearly unconstitutional. The President does not have the constitutional power to unilaterally create a trillion dollar expenditure. In our system of government, it is the legislative branch that has the power of the purse. The issue that may keep it in place has nothing to do with constitutionality, as it is obviously unconstitutional, but rather finding someone with standing to challenge it in court. Our legal system requires a plaintiff who can show harm from the action that is recognized by the court. That may be difficult.

I'll let you find your own sources but include the word "standing" along with whatever search terms you are using and it should corroborate what I wrote.

Presidents have issued many executive orders allocating funds and expenditures. As an example, Trump issued EO's based on what was within his presidential power to increase unemployment benefits, defer taxes on payrolls, homeowner assistance, etc. FDR created and funded The Manhattan Project. Bush created Homeland Security which has a large yearly operating budget. The list goes on and they all have a price tag.

Do presidents have too much authority to decide matters that our legislature should? Absolutely and I think we need those checks and balances. But the Constitution provides executives a pretty wide berth on managing the operations of the government. If the SC wants to revisit Article 2 of the Constitution, they're welcome to do so.

For the record, I'm in favor of cheaper, more affordable tuition and interest-free payments of federally-subsidized loans vs. forgiveness, but we've gotten nowhere with those. I have little doubt that future administrations will continue to give bailouts be it to farmers, automakers, college students, etc. and one side will preach the win while the other will bemoan it. That's simply how Washington has worked for centuries.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Presidents have issued many executive orders allocating funds and expenditures. As an example, Trump issued EO's based on what was within his presidential power to increase unemployment benefits

That was not in Trump's power. It was unconstitutional and noted as such at the time.

'An administrative nightmare': Trump's executive action is a scramble for unemployment aid

It’s unclear if Trump has the authority to extend unemployment benefits by executive measures while side-stepping Congress.

www.usatoday.com

FDR created and funded The Manhattan Project.

The budget for the Manhattan Project was all approved by Congress.

Bush created Homeland Security which has a large yearly operating budget.

The budge for HSA goes through Congress every year. Congress has the power of the purse. What Biden has done is unconstitutional, and contrary to your assertion the constitution is actually quite restrictive in what it allows the executives to do in the course of managing the country.

 

[fishonjazz]

Democrat Mary Peltola defeats Sarah Palin in special election for Alaska's House seat

Democrat Mary Peltola is projected to win the Alaska special general election for the state’s sole House seat, ABC News reports.

Peltola defeated two Republicans -- former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Nick Begich -- and will be the first Democrat to represent the state in the House in nearly half a century, succeeding Rep. Don Young, who died in March.

 

[The Thriller]

Lol


View: https://twitter.com/rebeccapalsha/status/1565132627866447873?s=21&t=L2-UpTCH2L2QNBnsUtVcWA