Biden Policy Agenda Thread

[renoskier]

1 hour ago, Akkula said:

People should not have to be constrained by national borders like they have always been.  Think about all the people who are now working remotely.  Wouldn't it be a benefit to them to be able to move to Mexico or other parts of Latin America as long as they can pass a background check and pay their taxes?

People tend to think of it as a system where the USA tries to keep people out.  People like me see these unnatural command and control national borders as a way to rob me of my freedom to move.  

If people can't afford to live in the USA they will leave...just like Californians are leaving to find more affordable places to live.  Furthermore, the USA really needs low skilled and younger immigrants right now.  

In theory, I agree with you. But I'm being pragmatic about realistic and politically expedient changes.

If wish to to chase idealistic rainbows... 

[Maji]

On 1/17/2021 at 5:19 PM, grandjean87 said:

That said (I’m probably over using that phrase), I do think there are better means to achieve anti-poverty and wealth inequality goals.

Forgot to mention that I'd prefer wage subsidies over increasing the minimum wage. I doubt it's a politically viable alternative though. UBI is far-fetched too. Yang brought UBI into mainstream political discourse, but there's not enough support in Congress.

OTOH, $15 is close to the median wage in some states. That's... not ideal

[Akkula]

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

In theory, I agree with you. But I'm being pragmatic about realistic and politically expedient changes.

If wish to to chase idealistic rainbows... 

Realistically, I would ignore the border, defund the drug warriors, and put anyone who can show they have been paying taxes and are not working under the table at the LOWEST possible deportation enforcement.  Any person who is illegally working in the USA can get an ITIN and file income taxes.   You can "catch and release" those guys and then say you will follow up with them once all the lawbreakers are deported, etc.  

Mostly the only people who were gung ho about that border enforcement were proud boy white genocide types.  Ignore them.....they won't vote for you anyway.

Put the political capital into destroying the filibuster by passing a HUGE tax increase on the wealthy through reconciliation and then you can use lowering those same tax hikes as a bargaining chip to get your other priorities through.

[Maji]

Getting 60 votes won't be easy

 

[SalinasSpartan]

1 minute ago, Maji said:

Getting 60 votes won't be easy

 

I’m guessing they end up splitting this. Push through what you can with 60 votes, then force the stuff Republicans won’t support through with reconciliation and the blessing of President Manchin. 

[toonkee]

One of Biden's first policy decisions.

 

[Maji]

Boooo!

 

[toonkee]

15 minutes ago, Maji said:

Boooo!

 

America first?

[madmartigan]

On 1/19/2021 at 4:39 PM, Akkula said:

Realistically, I would ignore the border, defund the drug warriors, and put anyone who can show they have been paying taxes and are not working under the table at the LOWEST possible deportation enforcement.  Any person who is illegally working in the USA can get an ITIN and file income taxes.   You can "catch and release" those guys and then say you will follow up with them once all the lawbreakers are deported, etc.  

Mostly the only people who were gung ho about that border enforcement were proud boy white genocide types.  Ignore them.....they won't vote for you anyway.

Put the political capital into destroying the filibuster by passing a HUGE tax increase on the wealthy through reconciliation and then you can use lowering those same tax hikes as a bargaining chip to get your other priorities through.

Are you in favor of open borders? 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 1/19/2021 at 2:18 PM, Maji said:

I want a "freedom of movement" deal with Mexico and Canada. It would be similar to the EU's system, but perhaps with differences on welfare policy

@Akkula

That's a very libertarian position.  Proud of you.

[Maji]

17 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That's a very libertarian position. 

I have a few of them

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, Maji said:

I have a few of them

I approve of your new title.

Much better than "center left"

[Akkula]

49 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

Are you in favor of open borders? 

I am in favor of market sensitive borders versus militarized, protectionist, command and control, big government, mismanaged borders.

[Maji]

47 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I approve of your new title.

Much better than "center left"

Center-left is accurate. I generally support markets & welfare. That puts me center-left on a US scale... for now.

[madmartigan]

20 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I am in favor of market sensitive borders versus militarized, protectionist, command and control, big government, mismanaged borders.

What does a market sensitive border mean? 

[Akkula]

32 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

What does a market sensitive border mean? 

Based on supply and demand.   If you can support yourself and want to come,  go ahead. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 hour ago, Maji said:

Center-left is accurate. I generally support markets & welfare. That puts me center-left on a US scale... for now.

 

Yeah but your trying to marry fear of populism with policy and ideas that facilitate populism because they "help the left" makes your new title much more accurate.

 

[Maji]

15 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Yeah but your trying to marry fear of populism with policy and ideas that facilitate populism because they "help the left" makes your new title much more accurate.

 

I usually dislike populism, but that doesn't mean I support entrenching the status quo. We already have separation of powers. There are multiple safeguards in place.

Stacking the SCOTUS is the weakness. It was bad when the GOP did it in Arizona & it would be bad if the Democrats did it nationally. I do support Mayor Pete's SCOTUS proposal, but doing it now would be seen as an abuse of power.

[Maji]

We view things differently. The current system doesn't prevent populism. It helped elect a right-wing populist as president. It nearly got Trump reelected again.

In 2016, the popular vote supported a defender of liberal democracy. The electoral college handed an illiberal narcissist the presidency. Clearly it's not as simple as "popular vote = more populists."

The electoral college seems to enable right-wing populism... at least for now.

@halfmanhalfbronco

[halfmanhalfbronco]

7 minutes ago, Maji said:

We view things differently. The current system doesn't prevent populism. It helped elect a right-wing populist as president. It nearly got Trump reelected again.

In 2016, the popular vote supported a defender of liberal democracy. The electoral college handed an illiberal narcissist the presidency. Clearly it's not as simple as "popular vote = more populists."

The electoral college seems to enable right-wing populism... at least for now.

@halfmanhalfbronco

 

We have discussed this ad nauseum.  Yes, I feel a popular vote would make populist campaigns the future.  I feel removing checks on the executive, like the filibuster, would further empower populists elected to the executive.  

It's all straightforward.   It's all logical.  The EC stopped populism this election, as they "broke glass in case of emergency" to give the candidate with the best EC odds the nomination.