Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

if you could replace Biden and Kamala with any democrat candidates who would they be?

Why do Trumpsters want to replace Biden with a Democrat?

[postman1782]

I think Biden's approval ratings say otherwise.

You mean his approval that is still higher than Trump's?

[Zan15]

Just like to note that "people quitting their jobs" is, absent other issues, a positive thing. The goal of society should be to reduce the size of its labor force, not increase it; a smaller labor force means more-productive, more-efficient labor. Needing to desperately employ as many people as possible is a demonstration of a failing economy, not a strong economy.

It's only a negative if it's paired with high unemployment, but then it would be phrased more as "people getting fired from their jobs", not "people quitting".

And where's unemployment? https://www.bls.gov/charts/employmen...yment-rate.htm

There was a steady decline from 2009 under Obama to Spring 2020, where it spiked WAY up from 3.5% to nearly 15%. And then slammed right back down a couple months later; this was a momentary blip due to the pandemic's early days, and early lockdowns. It steadily fell from that peak in April 2020 (note that this was during Trump's term as President), and is currently back down at 3.9%, nearly the lowest it's been in 20 years.

So people are "quitting some jobs", but unemployment isn't spiking, meaning everyone who wants to work is managing to find work, with a small percentage that are unemployed at any given moment (you'll never get unemployment to 0% and 4-6% is generally considered "healthy").

If that's causing a problem for employers, that's a good thing. Those employers should offer higher wages and better work conditions. Or shut down. That's a positive; abusive employers shutting down because nobody wants to work there is a good thing for society.

I swear, framing everything in economics so the only perspective that's considered is that of wealthy, exploitative business owners, and not that of workers, really says everything you need to understand about where the flaws are in an economic system. If it's better for workers and worse for business owners, good. Maybe some of these inequities will start to ease themselves a bit.

a shrinking labor pool is not always good for the economy and country especially when they have a huge aging population to replace and care for.

You can still have massive labor shortages in specific industries while the rest of the labor situation looks great.

You can only squeeze so much additional production from the current labor force since production is not something that has been stagnant for the last 20 years like wages.

What's happening now, especially at the low-end wage level, is a long overdue correction of wage problems. It's very healthy and much needed to fix the abuse of employers on the most vulnerable employees. The middle class and rich only have themselves to blame for the decades of taking advantage of this bucket of labor and the effects of the "rebalancing" of their wages/benefits. They better hold on because it's only going to get worse from here on out as more of the labor force retires as predicted 20-30 years ago.

[Endus]

a shrinking labor pool is not always good for the economy and country especially when they have a huge aging population to replace and care for.

"For the economy" means "for rich businessmen and shareholders". It's just pretty obviously ugly once you get past the euphemism.

Same for "for the country", in this case.

The aging population needs support, but that's a governmental issue. Which the USA can trivially afford. It's also a demonstration of how completely borked "the economy" already was, as these aging retirees couldn't build up enough of a pension/savings to support themselves in their old age. This is why "for the economy" is a bullshit euphemism; the reality is that the economy was ravaged decades ago, leading to generations that can't afford to retire in peace despite a long life of labor. All that's changing now is that the wealthy are feeling the pinch too, after causing those economic failures for the past 50 years or so.

Replacing those workers isn't an issue unless unemployment craters, and it hasn't. If you're struggling to staff your business, pay more. Pay for training. Provide healthcare. You can't afford to? Then your business model is garbage and that's why your business won't stay afloat.

You can still have massive labor shortages in specific industries while the rest of the labor situation looks great.

Sure sounds like those industries need to pay more and possibly pay for training and relocation, too, then.

If your industry is having trouble filling its ranks and others aren't, that's a "you" problem, not a labor force problem.

You can only squeeze so much additional production from the current labor force since production is not something that has been stagnant for the last 20 years like wages.

Why would we even entertain the idea of "squeezing additional production"? You're describing abusive exploitation. Things that could easily be criminal.

What's happening now, especially at the low-end wage level, is a long overdue correction of wage problems. It's very healthy and much needed to fix the abuse of employers on the most vulnerable employees. The middle class and rich only have themselves to blame for the decades of taking advantage of this bucket of labor and the effects of the "rebalancing" of their wages/benefits. They better hold on because it's only going to get worse from here on out as more of the labor force retires as predicted 20-30 years ago.

That's what I've been getting at, though. Comments like "the economy is struggling" only look at things like stock values or GDP, which only matter to the wealthy. It focused on the benefit to the wealthy over whether that same economy is contributing to better living standards and comforts for workers. Even bringing that up will get you labelled as a "commie socialist" in a lot of circles. There's such a massive load of what's called "capitalist realism*" that's at play that people often don't realize exactly how much of a propaganda machine it is, disconnected from reality and meant to keep the populace from realizing the real state of things.

*"Capitalist Realism" should be contrasted against "Socialist Realism", which was a description of early Soviet propaganda tools and imagery. It doesn't use "realism" in a sense of "represents reality", but in the sense of "purports to present a false image to create a new false pseudo-reality". "Capitalist realism" is a much more recent term but describes that the exact same process has been at work in the Western world, just swapping capitalist rhetoric for Soviet.

[Zan15]

"For the economy" means "for rich businessmen and shareholders". It's just pretty obviously ugly once you get past the euphemism.

Same for "for the country", in this case.

The aging population needs support, but that's a governmental issue. Which the USA can trivially afford. It's also a demonstration of how completely borked "the economy" already was, as these aging retirees couldn't build up enough of a pension/savings to support themselves in their old age. This is why "for the economy" is a bullshit euphemism; the reality is that the economy was ravaged decades ago, leading to generations that can't afford to retire in peace despite a long life of labor. All that's changing now is that the wealthy are feeling the pinch too, after causing those economic failures for the past 50 years or so.

Replacing those workers isn't an issue unless unemployment craters, and it hasn't. If you're struggling to staff your business, pay more. Pay for training. Provide healthcare. You can't afford to? Then your business model is garbage and that's why your business won't stay afloat.

Sure sounds like those industries need to pay more and possibly pay for training and relocation, too, then.

If your industry is having trouble filling its ranks and others aren't, that's a "you" problem, not a labor force problem.

.

Unfortunatly in the US the govt would just turn it all over to the private sector, as they already have. Universal healthcare failures prove they are willing to let them all suffer.

Replacing those workers is a huge issue when you have retirement outpacing new employment by a factor greater than 2 to 1. Your unemployment can go down to 1% you still will not have anywhere near a large enough labor pool to replace those "boomers" unless you open up immigration.
I agree with everything you say about pay/benefits, but you could pay a million dollars an hour but it would still be usless if you don't have a labor pool to get those people in the door. Even the greatest business model in the history of mankind cannot keep up with massive labor shortages.

Maybe you don't know about the "baby boom" generation and its impact on this country? Its just rediclously huge and predicted 30+ years ago to be the very problem we are rolling down a hill right into its wall. To say its not a labor force problem makes it sound like you don't.

I also agree that the 'economy' left behind a lot of people who could not earn enough to be safe in retirment. But there is also a huge bucket of people who just never bothered to save for retirement hoping social security and medicare would foot the bill. They lacked the education or just refused to accept they shouldn't be spending everythign without a long term retirement plan.

Why would we even entertain the idea of "squeezing additional production"? You're describing abusive exploitation. Things that could easily be criminal.

Realistically if you are not going to open up immigration, which you know this country wants to do the opposite, there is only two solutions. Increase production or outsource to countries that can or don't have the labor issues we have. Though a lot of other countries have varrying degrees of the same baby boomer problem. BTW no one said increase productions by any illegal ways or slave type sweatshop labor. They would have to compensate for this increased production.

Healthy unemployment also needs to go with healthy labor force participation. Without the right balance in the labor force the non working part of the population will easily overwhem the ability of the employed population to keep the country running at a healthy pace.

[beanman12345]

Oh, are we pretending things, now?

I always find it amusing when they try deny it, like they think they are clever or something when it's really quite the opposite and just proving exactly why Trump loves the uneducated, because it's so damn obvious these people are Trumpsters who continue to fall for the grift.

[Draco-Onis]

Realistically if you are not going to open up immigration, which you know this country wants to do the opposite, there is only two solutions. Increase production or outsource to countries that can or don't have the labor issues we have. Though a lot of other countries have varrying degrees of the same baby boomer problem. BTW no one said increase productions by any illegal ways or slave type sweatshop labor. They would have to compensate for this increased production.

Healthy unemployment also needs to go with healthy labor force participation. Without the right balance in the labor force the non working part of the population will easily overwhem the ability of the employed population to keep the country running at a healthy pace.

That's because of the fantasy of infinite growth the facts are without immigration the US population would be rapidly declining since birth rates are at an all time low. If we go the way of less and less immigration Japan's economic position is our future.

[shimerra]

It's not 'my goals'. It's the goals of the people. If the people win, why do I care?

Manchin's kids are dirty, so implying they ought to be investigated is the right thing.
.

So classic lazy ends justify the means. What if one of the goals of the people is to minimize/avoid/prosecute corruption? Because for most of us it is. Which would de facto make a policy achieved by corruption not a win.

Either way I don't think insert deity here could ever make you understand that you are hypocritically whining about corruption and how it is bad while arguing that corruption is perfectly okay as long as you are corrupt for the right goal.

[PACOX]

A Joe will be picking the next justice, but his name is Manchin not Biden.

Am I joking? Only a little to dull the pain and frustration.

[DingDongKing]

So classic lazy ends justify the means. What if one of the goals of the people is to minimize/avoid/prosecute corruption? Because for most of us it is. Which would de facto make a policy achieved by corruption not a win.

Either way I don't think insert deity here could ever make you understand that you are hypocritically whining about corruption and how it is bad while arguing that corruption is perfectly okay as long as you are corrupt for the right goal.

I really could not give a shit if anyone thinks I'm a hypocrite. Can anyone here solve corruption? No? Thought so.

It's beyond naive to think that 'corruption' can be solved in one or even two generations. It is nigh impossible, as long as there is financial gain associated with political positions. So at that point, do you sit and try and 'cure' corruption or do you look after the people? It's a simple game.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...tment-n1288042

After resisting calls for a while, and this doesn't appear to be a response to those calls which he actively rejected, Breyer is announcing he's retiring from the SCOTUS.

This means Biden gets a pick, and we'll absolutely see a fight in the Senat. Democrats have the majority, technically, but we can absolutely bet that Republicans will try to drag this out as long as possible.

[DarkTZeratul]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...tment-n1288042

After resisting calls for a while, and this doesn't appear to be a response to those calls which he actively rejected, Breyer is announcing he's retiring from the SCOTUS.

This means Biden gets a pick, and we'll absolutely see a fight in the Senat. Democrats have the majority, technically, but we can absolutely bet that Republicans will try to drag this out as long as possible.

Of course, thanks to the rules the Republicans themselves put in place, there's very little they can do about it.

On the other hand, don't count on Sinema not to fuck it up somehow (Manchin will probably play ball here).

[Endus]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...tment-n1288042

After resisting calls for a while, and this doesn't appear to be a response to those calls which he actively rejected, Breyer is announcing he's retiring from the SCOTUS.

This means Biden gets a pick, and we'll absolutely see a fight in the Senat. Democrats have the majority, technically, but we can absolutely bet that Republicans will try to drag this out as long as possible.

Learn from Garland.

Pick the leftiest, most-progressive option possible. Heck, pick 5, so you can shotgun them at the Senate. Offer nothing leaning rightward of AoC or Sanders.

[Milchshake]

Geee a SCOTUS nomination just came up. Maybe this is why Biden didnt completely arrest Manchin or Sinema families.

43 judges approved so far. Including 11 on the Court of Appeals. Will be interesting how the heightened stakes play out.

Can already see Chuck Todd spending the next 10 Sundays nodding along as; Sens Ernst, Kennedey, and etc accuse Breyer and Biden of making SCOTUS ParTISAN!

[Lenonis]

Of course, thanks to the rules the Republicans themselves put in place, there's very little they can do about it.

They only have to delay until after the midterms - or at least close enough to the midterms to convince 1 democrat (manchen or sinema) to wait as well.

It's basically February. I don't know quite how this timing works -- can they start now or do they have to wait until he actually leaves? Cause if it's the latter he's leaving after his current term which means June or July at the earliest. And I have full faith in the evil that is McConnell that he can pull enough administrative maneuvers to delay.

[DarkTZeratul]

And I have full faith in the evil that is McConnell that he can pull enough administrative maneuvers to delay.

There's actually squat McConnell can do, here. It goes through the judicial committee, which he's not on, and then it goes to a full Senate hearing, which he doesn't control. Hell, in 1941 James Byrnes was confirmed the same day that FDR nominated him.

[Lenonis]

There's actually squat McConnell can do, here. It goes through the judicial committee, which he's not on, and then it goes to a full Senate hearing, which he doesn't control. Hell, in 1941 James Byrnes was confirmed the same day that FDR nominated him.

I still have full faith McConnell will find a way.

[Edge-]

There's actually squat McConnell can do, here. It goes through the judicial committee, which he's not on, and then it goes to a full Senate hearing, which he doesn't control. Hell, in 1941 James Byrnes was confirmed the same day that FDR nominated him.

But Graham, Cornyn, Lee, and Cruz all are. Honestly I'm not sure what kinds of delay tactics might be available to them, but I fully expect them to have their staff reviewing every single Senate rule to see if there are any options.

[Adam Jensen]

Can someone tell me how Biden is, according to the right, responsible for warmongering in the Ukraine, when it's Russian troops in Russian uniforms being mobilized by a Russian dictator doing the warmongering?

And even if it does come down to hot war (which I do not advocate for or want) how is it still not wholly Putin's fault?

[Endus]

Can someone tell me how Biden is, according to the right, responsible for warmongering in the Ukraine, when it's Russian troops in Russian uniforms being mobilized by a Russian dictator doing the warmongering?

And even if it does come down to hot war (which I do not advocate for or want) how is it still not wholly Putin's fault?

He neither proactively nuked Russia into glass, nor did he schlob on Putin's erect penis like a good little sub, unlike Trump.

And righties like to think those are the only two options, and somehow both are equally "strong" and "manly", despite the first being a weak-ass fear response and the latter, well, I'm already sorry enough for putting that image in people's heads.