Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Looks like a better version of the last immigration bill way back from ... 2007.

Yeah. Already the rabid fanbase is making shit up about it -- as usual stay vigilant and stay objective. Yes, it allows immigrants to become citizens. But not tomorrow -- after three to eight years of following the law, paying taxes, and staying on the radar. Oh, and it doesn't apply to anyone arriving this year. Anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed and choosing to be misinformed, or outright lying.

[Fugus]

If the GOP doesn't filibuster right?

Anyone know when or how the filibuster changed from them talking to them just calling it out and walking away?

Did that require a vote or just a change in procedures? Would like to return it to them having to talk again.

[Paranoid Android]

We have more information about Biden's upcoming immigration bill.

What it doesn't do: Instantly make every illegal immigrant a citizen. Anyone cliaming that is lying.

What it does do: Farm workers, Temporary Protected Status holders (basically refugees) and those who came over as children can apply for green cards. If they behave for three years, including paying taxes and staying on the radar, they can become citizens through the usual policy.

Everyone else needs eight years. During which, they too have to get background checks, pay taxes, and stay where the government can see them.

It is only retroactive, by which I mean, you have to prove you got here by Dec 31, 2020. Anyone showing up this year cannot benefit. Unless they are just now returning to the US, after living here for three or more years but then evicted by Trump.

it would also limit the President's power to evict a "category" of immigrants, which I would assume means race or country of origin.

The per-country caps for immigration would be raised, and also, a family all applying at once counts as one. (Spouses and children of an applicant don't count towards the cap)

My personal favorite? There's a reserve of 30,000 visas that the government can give to immigrants who were the victims of serious crimes, and who helped law enforcement. In other words, if someone is attacked for being an immigrant, they're given permission to stay.

Once again, this is not instant amnesty. This is preparing a path for people who proved they want to live here, as long as they follow the same rules as everyone else.

This feels like a massive highball, and some of the provisions will probably be stripped by the Senate GOP if it has any chance to pass.

The one "gimping" the President's power, which in Trump's case, was no doubt used to racism to pick groups to ban from entering the U.S.

It was true that the President had this power and as much as a few of us in here saw what it was, the President could do it. Now, generally President's don't like taking power away that they one day may want to use. So in a sense, I give Biden a little credit when you are willing to do this.

[wunksta]

Anyone know when or how the filibuster changed from them talking to them just calling it out and walking away?

Did that require a vote or just a change in procedures? Would like to return it to them having to talk again.

Seems like it happened with the cloture rules:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/na...s/201204080267

Even after that it was still a formality but per the rules, they just had to leave the floor open to debate rather than actually debate. By saying that they want to leave it up to debate, it forces others to get votes to end the debate, even if no one is actually debating.

[Fugus]

Seems like it happened with the cloture rules:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/na...s/201204080267

Even after that it was still a formality but per the rules, they just had to leave the floor open to debate rather than actually debate. By saying that they want to leave it up to debate, it forces others to get votes to end the debate, even if no one is actually debating.

How many votes would it take to revert it back to the old way and actually force them to talk again?

If they can do it with 51 votes, Manuchin could keep his word to McConnell and not nuke the filibuster but still move it back to what it was originally doing and force them to actually get up there and talk and not be able to postpone forever.

[cubby]

We have more information about Biden's upcoming immigration bill.

What it doesn't do: Instantly make every illegal immigrant a citizen. Anyone cliaming that is lying.

What it does do: Farm workers, Temporary Protected Status holders (basically refugees) and those who came over as children can apply for green cards. If they behave for three years, including paying taxes and staying on the radar, they can become citizens through the usual policy.

Everyone else needs eight years. During which, they too have to get background checks, pay taxes, and stay where the government can see them.

It is only retroactive, by which I mean, you have to prove you got here by Dec 31, 2020. Anyone showing up this year cannot benefit. Unless they are just now returning to the US, after living here for three or more years but then evicted by Trump.

it would also limit the President's power to evict a "category" of immigrants, which I would assume means race or country of origin.

The per-country caps for immigration would be raised, and also, a family all applying at once counts as one. (Spouses and children of an applicant don't count towards the cap)

My personal favorite? There's a reserve of 30,000 visas that the government can give to immigrants who were the victims of serious crimes, and who helped law enforcement. In other words, if someone is attacked for being an immigrant, they're given permission to stay.

Once again, this is not instant amnesty. This is preparing a path for people who proved they want to live here, as long as they follow the same rules as everyone else.

This feels like a massive highball, and some of the provisions will probably be stripped by the Senate GOP if it has any chance to pass.

Great plan. I agree re highball, and it's nice to see professional policy planners back in charge for a change. While some of this will probably get GOP'd down (see all "dumbed down"), even half of it a great step forward.

[wunksta]

How many votes would it take to revert it back to the old way and actually force them to talk again?

The Senate needs a two-thirds vote to change any of its own rules.

[Fugus]

The Senate needs a two-thirds vote to change any of its own rules.

Crap, so it's easier to nuke the filibuster than to revert it.....

[wunksta]

Crap, so it's easier to nuke the filibuster than to revert it.....

So what the Dems could do is create a precedent (the "nuclear option", which requires a simple majority) and could bypass the filibuster. Otherwise, officially changing the rules requires two-thirds.

How would eliminating the filibuster actually work?
The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Absent a large, bipartisan Senate majority that favors curtailing the right to debate, a formal change in Rule 22 is extremely unlikely.

A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.

The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...-eliminate-it/

[Omega10]

So what the Dems could do is create a precedent (the "nuclear option", which requires a simple majority) and could bypass the filibuster. Otherwise, officially changing the rules requires two-thirds.

As much as I'm anxious for things to move forward, it seems like the best democrats can do is to get as much in their one filibuster proof bill as they can, and then create bills with the idea that republicans will filibuster them during this session, but maybe not so easily in 2022. Under current rules, democrats get 1 bill per session that they can pass. These bills have to be made to count, and then make sure that plenty of ads talking about what republicans are preventing democrats from doing are made repeatedly, and that the way to get things done is to vote in more democrats.

Basically, President Biden needs to "go to the people" and overrule the republicans that are in office as much as possible. At the town hall he proved that he has what it takes to make the case. Hopefully he'll do it. In the meantime, repair the damage that Trump did to the federal government in his 4 years.

[Benggaul]

As much as I'm anxious for things to move forward, it seems like the best democrats can do is to get as much in their one filibuster proof bill as they can, and then create bills with the idea that republicans will filibuster them during this session, but maybe not so easily in 2022. Under current rules, democrats get 1 bill per session that they can pass. These bills have to be made to count, and then make sure that plenty of ads talking about what republicans are preventing democrats from doing are made repeatedly, and that the way to get things done is to vote in more democrats.

Basically, President Biden needs to "go to the people" and overrule the republicans that are in office as much as possible. At the town hall he proved that he has what it takes to make the case. Hopefully he'll do it. In the meantime, repair the damage that Trump did to the federal government in his 4 years.

It helps when the GOP are also shooting themselves in the dick like they are in Texas right now.

[Edge-]

The GOP need a distraction...
MEXICO THREATENS TO BUILD WALL!!!

And we're gonna pay for it?

I mean...if it'll keep Ted Cruz in Cancun, I'll throw some money at the gofundme.

[JohnBrown1917]

Crap, so it's easier to nuke the filibuster than to revert it.....

Good thing they have the power to do so.

[Milchshake]

Kinda wishing that comrade AMLO would deport Cruz to Venezuela by mistake.

Wait ... Jacobin totally misrepresented AMLO? But they had a cute nickname for him.

[Draco-Onis]

Good thing they have the power to do so.

Joe Manchin would never vote for it.

[Fugus]

They could get rid of it entirely with 51 votes.

But Joe Manchin has already promised he would not do that so long as the GOP doesn't abuse it excessively and doubt he would be as dishonest as McConnel or Graham when it comes to stuff like that.

If they could have just reverted it, it would have solved the problem without him actually going back on his word.

[JohnBrown1917]

Joe Manchin would never vote for it.

Being unwilling to do it does not exactly change they hold that power.

[Fugus]

Still a lot closer than they were this time last year. In another 2? Who knows... there are a bunch of GOP Senators retiring.

Yeah, hoping they can get them in 2 years with how fucked up the GOP has been the past 12 years, especially after the GOP's cult leader is not running and effectively shit on the board on the way out while exposing them for what they really are to those outside of the cult.

[Omega10]

It helps when the GOP are also shooting themselves in the dick like they are in Texas right now.

That helps a lot. And Trump hasn't BEGUN his destruction of the republican party.

Meanwhile, it looks like there will be not so much need to raise the minimum wage after all. If wages are already over $15 an hour, well it's a bit hard to care whether or not its mandatory.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walma...194807229.html

Title: Walmart just dealt a major blow to other retailers

Excerpts:

Walmart is putting its nearly $18 billion cash hoard to good use this year, and how it's spending it should absolutely scare the heck out of most other retailers.

Sounds like Walmart is doing almost as well as Amazon in a lot of ways.

First is the company's aggressive $14 billion capital investment plan for 2022. If that number is hit, it would mark a roughly $4 billon year-over-year increase from 2020. It would be the most capital Walmart has invested in its business since it spent $13.5 billion in calendar year 2011, according to Bloomberg data.

For a company really no longer building U.S. super centers and going gangbusters with international store expansion, the year-over-year increase is significant and indeed stands out. The way Walmart puts it, the large sum of money will be used to take its business operations to the next level to support the future of consumption.

"Around $14 billion with a focus on supply chain, automation, customer-facing initiatives and technology," Walmart said of its 2021 capital investment plan on its earnings release.

In other words, expect Walmart to continue to expand its same-day delivery reach (now live at 3,000 U.S. stores), bolster its online operations (think more functionality and selection) and improve warehouse efficiencies. Taken together, Walmart will likely get tougher to beat on merchandise prices and speed of service (among other areas) as a result of its spending spree.

Wow, this is them dealing with new market conditions.

And, unlike Amazon, whose workforce would likely benefit a LOT from a $15 an hour minimum wage, not so much for Walmart. In other words, "warehouse efficiencies" does not boil down to "lower wages for workers", though it may indeed mean more automation and fewer workers.

The second item that is being overlooked by investors is Walmart's decision to hike wages for workers.

Walmart said Thursday it's raising wages for 425,000 of its nearly 1.5 million employees. Yahoo Finance's Julia LaRoche first reported that wage for Walmart’s 425,000 store associates in the digital and stocking workgroups will increase to a range of $13 to $19 per hour, depending on location and market. The pay increase will take effect on March 13.

That could very well mean that 1 million employees are paid substantially LESS than $15 an hour, but it certainly is a nice move.

It's at least a little piece of good news

[cubby]

Yeah, hoping they can get them in 2 years with how fucked up the GOP has been the past 12 years, especially after the GOP's cult leader is not running and effectively shit on the board on the way out while exposing them for what they really are to those outside of the cult.

With the GOP currently imploding/splitting, 2022 might be a banner year for picking up Democratic seats. Hopefully we'll have a "perfect storm" of COVID defeated, Economy on the upswing, unemployment down, and the GOP still infighting. At the very least we might keep seats from going to the GOP as they typically might in an off year.