***Official President Joe Biden Thread***

[stlrams 612]

37 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Unity among citizens is probably more important than party unity.  A stimulus check is going to relieve some anxiety.  And that’s good for everyone.

plus if 10 Rs vote for the full bill, why is that any less unifying

Agree that any republican support is a win and looks better.  It appears that the senate will put bill on pause until after impeachment hearings which is colossal waste of time.  Thought passage of bill was urgent? 

[Kal El 3,930]

1 hour ago, Summer Wheat said:

Leaders lead by example.  I voted for Biden as he promised to unite, to work with both sides.  Right now I am just seeing same thing just different side.

 

I saw a party unwilling to budge on a pitifully small stimulus number, when people nationwide are struggling with making any kind of payments. I’ve been lucky to keep working, but we need to help the struggling people, not the big businesses.

[The Dude 1,014]

And I am fine with targeting stimulus check based on earnings.  
 

what will be interesting is if dems feel they need to give everyone something (scaled payouts)

I will take $250

[dawgtrails 1,157]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

And I am fine with targeting stimulus check based on earnings.  
 

what will be interesting is if dems feel they need to give everyone something (scaled payouts)

I will take $250

The problem is figuring out who to target. They will be using 2019 federal tax returns, and there are plenty of folks who made 50K + then who are struggling now due to covid.

[Flash 21]

13 hours ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

President Biden and the First Lady paid their respects to Officer Sicknick in the Rotunda. Trump was nowhere to be found.

CNN and MSNBC carried the ceremony live, FOX did not. 

Was Obama there? Bush? Clinton? Carter?

I mean how far back are you going with ex-Presidents who you want at something like this? Just the bad Orange man i take it?

[Flash 21]

3 hours ago, Mile High said:

Come on dude. Biden and the Democrats want 1.9 trillion in stimulus and can get it with no help from the Republicans. The Republicans say we want a bipartisan stimulus but we only want 618 million. Why would Biden agree to that?

I thought there were actual negotiations going on, you know good faith negotiations, a little back and forth like Biden says to the public, not his or their numbers only. I'm going to check the definition of what negotiations is, I'm guessing that like one of his predecessors, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Flash 21]

1 hour ago, Kal El said:

I saw a party unwilling to budge on a pitifully small stimulus number

Link to the negotiations, please.

[Kal El 3,930]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

Link to the negotiations, please.

It was a USA Today article, that ran yesterday afternoon, I think.

[Flash 21]

1 minute ago, Kal El said:

It was a USA Today article, that ran yesterday afternoon, I think.

I'll wait

[The Commish 13,922]

There's a whole lot of muddled messaging (or maybe just whining) that I am trying to weed through.  I'm trying to understand the desire here.  Do we want Biden to push forward and get to the people what they need or do we want him to sit down and play patty cake "negotiating" for something less than what the people need?  I guess I"m not understanding what the expectation is.  Is there something in his proposal that the people in this forum feel needs to be negotiated "down"?  From the parts I've read, all the things he's asking to be funded are tied to COVID in some way (and yes, that includes the $15 min wage for fed workers).  So what is it people are looking to have cut out?

 

[Gr00vus 11,992]

Right, it seems to me this Republican proposal is a bad faith negotiation from the outset. We don't have time to entertain such things, Biden is right to give it short shrift. If the Republicans want bi-partisanship, they need to start from a place of non-obstruction. Biden can't force them to do that, and he shouldn't bother wasting time attempting to negotiate with people beginning from a place of obstruction as the desired outcome. Entertaining every non-starter position forwarded by the other party isn't equivalent to bipartisan negotiation or cooperation.

Edited February 3 by Gr00vus

[Mile High 5,283]

20 minutes ago, Flash said:

I thought there were actual negotiations going on, you know good faith negotiations, a little back and forth like Biden says to the public, not his or their numbers only. I'm going to check the definition of what negotiations is, I'm guessing that like one of his predecessors, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I don't care if he negotiations. Time to start putting the Senate on record with their votes.

[Summer Wheat 904]

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

His example is to have them over to negotiate.  He cannot, however, force them to be reasonable.

Im not saying they weren't...we don't know.  We just assume since he didn't agree with them right away that he didn't even try...that he basically told them to be quiet is what is being pushed by some right now.  But we have no indication that is even what happened.

Same thing different side...would have been to have them in...agree to it...then call them back and say no once the fringe got in their ear.  Then go to the media or social media and bash them altogether and blame them for there being no deal.

He can try to work with both sides...and he may be trying...but they also have to be willing to work with him.  Were they?

In todays politics "reasonable" means if you are on my side you are reasonable, if not you are unreasonable.

 

[Rich Conway 3,968]

2 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

In todays politics "reasonable" means if you are on my side you are reasonable, if not you are unreasonable.

 

That's kind of the point, though.  There is a certain subset of the GOP who will scream "this isn't unity" unless Biden/Democrats give them exactly what they want.  We literally saw it here in these forums, when a poster outlined what "unity" meant to him, and it was "implementing the GOP agenda".

Similarly, this is a certain subset on the other side that will scream "this isn't what I voted for" if Biden/Democrats cave even the slightest amount.

Where I think the problem exists (understanding full well that this is purely my opinion) is that the subset described in the first paragraph includes "most of the current GOP elected representatives in the House and Senate", while the subset described in the second paragraph includes "a small fringe element of the current Dem elected representatives in the House and Senate".

[sho nuff 17,177]

49 minutes ago, Flash said:

Was Obama there? Bush? Clinton? Carter?

I mean how far back are you going with ex-Presidents who you want at something like this? Just the bad Orange man i take it?

Well...he was the actual president when the death occurred...so not much relevance to Obama, Bush, Clinton or Carter.

[sho nuff 17,177]

23 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

In todays politics "reasonable" means if you are on my side you are reasonable, if not you are unreasonable.

 

I disagree...reasonable means actually being tehre for give and take.  Saying...1400 is too much right off the bat when its the main part of it...and not being willing to budge is not a reasonable take.  If they came in with things they knew from the start are non-starters...it likely is not a reasonable effort.  That is no matter what side people are on.

 

[dawgtrails 1,157]

53 minutes ago, Flash said:

Was Obama there? Bush? Clinton? Carter?

I mean how far back are you going with ex-Presidents who you want at something like this? Just the bad Orange man i take it?

This is some take.

[joffer 12,477]

1 hour ago, Flash said:

Was Obama there? Bush? Clinton? Carter?

I mean how far back are you going with ex-Presidents who you want at something like this? Just the bad Orange man i take it?

i'll go with: just back to the one who partly caused it.

[Summer Wheat 904]

39 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I disagree...reasonable means actually being tehre for give and take.  Saying...1400 is too much right off the bat when its the main part of it...and not being willing to budge is not a reasonable take.  If they came in with things they knew from the start are non-starters...it likely is not a reasonable effort.  That is no matter what side people are on.

 

Not just that, it is pretty much everything now.  Do you tink if 100% Dems vote one way and 100% GOP vote another way that there is not one on either side that might disagree?   They are all so fearful now of bucking the comopany line now.

[stlrams 612]

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

There's a whole lot of muddled messaging (or maybe just whining) that I am trying to weed through.  I'm trying to understand the desire here.  Do we want Biden to push forward and get to the people what they need or do we want him to sit down and play patty cake "negotiating" for something less than what the people need?  I guess I"m not understanding what the expectation is.  Is there something in his proposal that the people in this forum feel needs to be negotiated "down"?  From the parts I've read, all the things he's asking to be funded are tied to COVID in some way (and yes, that includes the $15 min wage for fed workers).  So what is it people are looking to have cut out?

 

I believe joe Manchin on record that he will not vote for covid relief package if $15 minimum wage included.  

[sho nuff 17,177]

1 hour ago, Summer Wheat said:

Not just that, it is pretty much everything now.  Do you tink if 100% Dems vote one way and 100% GOP vote another way that there is not one on either side that might disagree?   They are all so fearful now of bucking the comopany line now.

That I agree with as far as votes...have to vote the way the money will take you.  Vote against your company line and money will push someone to primary you.

[The Commish 13,922]

3 minutes ago, stlrams said:

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

There's a whole lot of muddled messaging (or maybe just whining) that I am trying to weed through.  I'm trying to understand the desire here.  Do we want Biden to push forward and get to the people what they need or do we want him to sit down and play patty cake "negotiating" for something less than what the people need?  I guess I"m not understanding what the expectation is.  Is there something in his proposal that the people in this forum feel needs to be negotiated "down"?  From the parts I've read, all the things he's asking to be funded are tied to COVID in some way (and yes, that includes the $15 min wage for fed workers).  So what is it people are looking to have cut out?

 

I believe joe Manchin on record that he will not vote for covid relief package if $15 minimum wage included.  

Yes....my question is to the people HERE what THEY want...seems like the people saying both "hurry up and get it done for the people" and "needs to be bipartisan" need to figure out what they want because it's seems pretty clear that getting bipartisan buy in is going to significantly impact speed (as it usually does)...can't have it both ways.  So which more important?

I'd still like to know what the people HERE object to in the Biden proposal.

[DaVinci 2,055]

3 hours ago, Flash said:

I thought there were actual negotiations going on, you know good faith negotiations, a little back and forth like Biden says to the public, not his or their numbers only. I'm going to check the definition of what negotiations is, I'm guessing that like one of his predecessors, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

If you posted your car for sale on Craigslist for $10,000 and someone sent you an offer of $3,000, would you even bother trying to negotiate with them? Low balling is not “good faith”.

[tri-man 47 9,084]

4 hours ago, Flash said:

I thought there were actual negotiations going on, you know good faith negotiations, a little back and forth like Biden says to the public, not his or their numbers only. I'm going to check the definition of what negotiations is, I'm guessing that like one of his predecessors, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen some compromise.  I don't like the high income thresholds (I've gotten the stimulus funds so far, and consider it unnecessary ..and I'm not going to go out and randomly spend it).  I'd prefer they leave out the minimum wage issue.  Regarding state/local government aid, I'm wary ...I'm in Illinois, and our Democratic leadership has been horrible with fiscal management for decades.  So I don't see why Biden couldn't bring down the income thresholds, scale back the state/local support, and remove the minimum wage issue (deal with that on its own merits).  

[timschochet 34,977]

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Yes....my question is to the people HERE what THEY want...seems like the people saying both "hurry up and get it done for the people" and "needs to be bipartisan" need to figure out what they want because it's seems pretty clear that getting bipartisan buy in is going to significantly impact speed (as it usually does)...can't have it both ways.  So which more important?

I'd still like to know what the people HERE object to in the Biden proposal.

When I started the thread about this last week the main issue of concern from Republicans was the minimum wage hike. 
I do think some Republicans will vote for the entire package though. This is why the Democrats having the majority was so important, because when you force the Republicans to actually vote on issues they turn out to be much more reasonable. 

[fatguyinalittlecoat 11,985]

Just now, tri-man 47 said:

remove the minimum wage issue (deal with that on its own merits).  

If this can't be changed through reconciliation, it's not getting changed.  

[Mookie 2,534]

12 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

Yeah, I would have liked to have seen some compromise.  I don't like the high income thresholds (I've gotten the stimulus funds so far, and consider it unnecessary ..and I'm not going to go out and randomly spend it).  I'd prefer they leave out the minimum wage issue.  Regarding state/local government aid, I'm wary ...I'm in Illinois, and our Democratic leadership has been horrible with fiscal management for decades.  So I don't see why Biden couldn't bring down the income thresholds, scale back the state/local support, and remove the minimum wage issue (deal with that on its own merits).  

If Biden and the Democrats scale this back as you suggest, do you think Republicans will vote for it?  I don't, and they've shown time and again that they won't.  So why bother?  It just adds delay.

[stlrams 612]

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Yes....my question is to the people HERE what THEY want...seems like the people saying both "hurry up and get it done for the people" and "needs to be bipartisan" need to figure out what they want because it's seems pretty clear that getting bipartisan buy in is going to significantly impact speed (as it usually does)...can't have it both ways.  So which more important?

I'd still like to know what the people HERE object to in the Biden proposal.

I’m a fiscal conservative so there’s no safe place for me lately.  I would like to see a smaller package and remove minimum wage piece.  Hoping for bipartisan and think they have until mid- march to get this done.  People just are receiving their $600 checks now.  

[The Commish 13,922]

27 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I’m a fiscal conservative so there’s no safe place for me lately.  I would like to see a smaller package and remove minimum wage piece.  Hoping for bipartisan and think they have until mid- march to get this done.  People just are receiving their $600 checks now.  

I am too...in my 46 years there's never been a "safe place" for us....do you feel that the money allocated now is "too much" for individuals given what we know about the millions that have lost their jobs and are incredibly behind on all their bills/mortgages etc?  You feel like the $1400 is more than enough to cover all that?

[stlrams 612]

31 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I am too...in my 46 years there's never been a "safe place" for us....do you feel that the money allocated now is "too much" for individuals given what we know about the millions that have lost their jobs and are incredibly behind on all their bills/mortgages etc?  You feel like the $1400 is more than enough to cover all that?

No I’m fine with $1,400 and money for covid distribution.  Believe the money to states will be a giant slush fund and get wasted so let’s cut back here  A lot of people are gaming the system now.  Specifically unemployment, rent/evictions etc.  I owned several daycares and have employees not coming back as they’re making more on unemployment.  

On a personal note, we should consider stimulus checks to non- filing us citizens.   My brother, who struggles with drugs and various mental issues, hasn’t got a dime since he hasn’t worked in close to 20 years.  

[fatguyinalittlecoat 11,985]

34 minutes ago, stlrams said:

 

On a personal note, we should consider stimulus checks to non- filing us citizens.  

Agree with this.  Does the law exclude them or is it just a logistical issue?

[tri-man 47 9,084]

2 hours ago, Mookie said:

If Biden and the Democrats scale this back as you suggest, do you think Republicans will vote for it?  I don't, and they've shown time and again that they won't.  So why bother?  It just adds delay.

I'd say a primary reason to bother with it is to demonstrate a movement away from partisanship and show a willingness to compromise.  But they should move quickly.

[stlrams 612]

34 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Agree with this.  Does the law exclude them or is it just a logistical issue?

No, all the past stimulus programs were tied to tax filing status.  So if you haven’t filed then no stimulus checks.  Apparently they only want to help people that pay taxes .  

[sfflchamp 40]

25 minutes ago, stlrams said:

No, all the past stimulus programs were tied to tax filing status.  So if you haven’t filed then no stimulus checks.  Apparently they only want to help people that pay taxes .  

The IRS had a tool on there website where you could put in your info if you were a nonfiler. Now you could file a 2020 tax return to claim the stimulus even if you don't normally file.

[The Commish 13,922]

10 hours ago, stlrams said:

No I’m fine with $1,400 and money for covid distribution.  Believe the money to states will be a giant slush fund and get wasted so let’s cut back here  A lot of people are gaming the system now.  Specifically unemployment, rent/evictions etc.  I owned several daycares and have employees not coming back as they’re making more on unemployment.  

On a personal note, we should consider stimulus checks to non- filing us citizens.   My brother, who struggles with drugs and various mental issues, hasn’t got a dime since he hasn’t worked in close to 20 years.  

Would you be opposed to cutting the money to states, but then giving it to individuals?  I think you're using a pretty broad brush here honestly.  These statements really depend on the state if we're being honest.  And I'm curious to see the volume of money being "gamed" from the system by individuals.  Do you have any sort of data pointing to this?  Obviously, I am confident there are some gaming the system...there always are.  I would just like to know what "a lot" is.  I also know their ability to do so can also be tied to state rules that already exist as well.  As for non-filers, I agree....they need to do a better job in getting money to them rather than making them hunt it down.

[The Commish 13,922]

9 hours ago, stlrams said:

No, all the past stimulus programs were tied to tax filing status.  So if you haven’t filed then no stimulus checks.  Apparently they only want to help people that pay taxes .  

This isn't true.....non filers can lay claim to their cut of the pie through the IRS, but it's not "automatic"....which is part of the problem IMO.

[rockaction 26,079]

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

This isn't true.....non filers can lay claim to their cut of the pie through the IRS, but it's not "automatic"....which is part of the problem IMO.

The problem comes if they're listed as a dependent on somebody's return. But yes, non-filers are eligible for stimulus checks. Dependents aren't.

[The Commish 13,922]

47 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The problem comes if they're listed as a dependent on somebody's return. But yes, non-filers are eligible for stimulus checks. Dependents aren't.

 All of our kids got their money (well, they didn't get it but a local charity did)...they are our dependents.  That "problem" you are speaking of is a social one between that individual and the person claiming them (against their will I guess???  not really sure what you mean here) as a dependent.  

[rockaction 26,079]

Just now, The Commish said:

 All of our kids got their money (well, they didn't get it but a local charity did)...they are our dependents.  That "problem" you are speaking of is a social one between that individual and the person claiming them (against their will I guess???  not really sure what you mean here) as a dependent.  

Really? They shouldn't have gotten that money. Whoops. I can find the relevant text if you'd like. No, I mean "problem" as in not getting money.

"For the first and second stimulus checks, Congress took a narrow view of which dependents were and weren't eligible for a payment, and some dependents you listed on your federal taxes may not have made the cut. The reason was a rule governing the first two checks that said no people over the age of 16 who are supported by their family would count toward the household total. That meant older teens, college students, older adults and older or adult children with disabilities that preclude independent living were all left out. However, the preliminary rules around the next stimulus check could change this situation in a big way."

[Mookie 2,534]

12 hours ago, tri-man 47 said:

I'd say a primary reason to bother with it is to demonstrate a movement away from partisanship and show a willingness to compromise.  But they should move quickly.

It's only compromise if both sides vote for it.  Giving away your position just to have the other side walk away is foolish.

[The Commish 13,922]

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Really? They shouldn't have gotten that money. Whoops. I can find the relevant text if you'd like. No, I mean "problem" as in not getting money.

"For the first and second stimulus checks, Congress took a narrow view of which dependents were and weren't eligible for a payment, and some dependents you listed on your federal taxes may not have made the cut. The reason was a rule governing the first two checks that said no people over the age of 16 who are supported by their family would count toward the household total. That meant older teens, college students, older adults and older or adult children with disabilities that preclude independent living were all left out. However, the preliminary rules around the next stimulus check could change this situation in a big way."

Didn't know that....our kids are all under 16...thanks for the info  

However, the reality is the problem here is a social one and battle between individuals on who's a dependent or not.  Fortunately, my family was in favor of independence and I have never had to have that battle.  When I went to college, they stopped counting me as a dependent for tax purposes.  

[timschochet 34,977]

So far so good. 

[stlrams 612]

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Would you be opposed to cutting the money to states, but then giving it to individuals?  I think you're using a pretty broad brush here honestly.  These statements really depend on the state if we're being honest.  And I'm curious to see the volume of money being "gamed" from the system by individuals.  Do you have any sort of data pointing to this?  Obviously, I am confident there are some gaming the system...there always are.  I would just like to know what "a lot" is.  I also know their ability to do so can also be tied to state rules that already exist as well.  As for non-filers, I agree....they need to do a better job in getting money to them rather than making them hunt it down.

Just based off my business, there’s roughly 20% of our staff using unemployment since they make more money then actually working.  I’d like to see a smaller package then 1.9 trillion.  To expand upon state using covid money as slush fund, my state legislature has abdicated fiscal decisions and many other issues to the governor since March 2020.  This has been extended to April therefore our govenor and possibly other governors can spend the covid money on anything without oversight.  

[stlrams 612]

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

This isn't true.....non filers can lay claim to their cut of the pie through the IRS, but it's not "automatic"....which is part of the problem IMO.

I did try one day with my brother but couldn’t complete form.  I’ll try again.  

[The Commish 13,922]

11 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Just based off my business, there’s roughly 20% of our staff using unemployment since they make more money then actually working.  I’d like to see a smaller package then 1.9 trillion.  To expand upon state using covid money as slush fund, my state legislature has abdicated fiscal decisions and many other issues to the governor since March 2020.  This has been extended to April therefore our govenor and possibly other governors can spend the covid money on anything without oversight.  

So you think the 1.9 trillion is more compensation out to society as a whole than is needed?  I'm trying to stay out of the politics of all this and deal with the real impacts we have with or without our politicians involved.  Anecdotal personal experiences don't add a ton here given we are a country of over 320M people.

[stlrams 612]

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So you think the 1.9 trillion is more compensation out to society as a whole than is needed?  I'm trying to stay out of the politics of all this and deal with the real impacts we have with or without our politicians involved.  Anecdotal personal experiences don't add a ton here given we are a country of over 320M people.

Yes.  Cut money being given to states. 

[The Commish 13,922]

5 hours ago, stlrams said:

Yes.  Cut money being given to states. 

But DON'T give that money to the people directly?  We're talking about a 1.6 trillion bill vs a 1.9 trillion bill removing the money given to states.  If we take that money and allocate to people, that's another $1100 in their pockets. (roughly)

Edited February 4 by The Commish

[MAC_32 12,779]

I'm conflicted on state funding. They're broke and need it to function, but my expectation would be for them to spend it inefficiently. If there were a solution that satisfied that problem then that's what I'd be in favor of.

[The Commish 13,922]

2 hours ago, MAC_32 said:

I'm conflicted on state funding. They're broke and need it to function, but my expectation would be for them to spend it inefficiently. If there were a solution that satisfied that problem then that's what I'd be in favor of.

Give it to municipalities or even private businesses that have shown and can prove their worth.  Or, give it to the individuals struggling.  What has been thrown out there to the individuals is a fraction of what it's cost us as an overall society.  Part of why I think it's important for those that can, to donate to the places local to them that really need the help.

[dawgtrails 1,157]

4 hours ago, stlrams said:

Just based off my business, there’s roughly 20% of our staff using unemployment since they make more money then actually working.

Is the reason they are making more on unemployment because they were making so little while working, or that the benefits in your particualr state are extremely generous?

The museum I work at is also struggling to get people to come back to work. But these are front line employees that make on average 10 bucks an hour, so I understand their hesitation.