The Biden Presidency

By "most of us" I meant most of us here in this discussion, but I disagree with your characterization of the Democratic base, and I don't think it's true of Republicans, either.--Percy

What you paid in will be far below what you're paid out. My guess is that you've paid in around $200,000 total, and that you'll be drawing out about $30,000/year. Am I in the ballpark? If so then after just seven years of retirement you'll be receiving monies beyond what you paid in. Police and fire departments not only aren't "limited socialism," they're not socialism at all. I think you don't know what socialism is. And what about those who haven't "earned it"? Or what about those who earned it but then through the vagaries of life find themselves entering their retirement years with nothing? This is your cue to say something incredibly heartless, uncompassionate and inhumane. What we actually don't need is the casting of baseless aspersions.--Percy

You'll probably find widespread agreement among the electorate about corporate handouts/bailouts, with the exception of Nascar in the south, of course. Not that this isn't without it's contradictions. Republicans are against the regulations that would require banks to maintain higher reserves but are also against bailing out the banks when they take advantage of the lack of regulation.But Phat meant handouts to people.--Percy

Oh, yeah, that's a great example. Everyone in the country concerned about racial discrimination has jumped on board and is just heaping praise on the SF proposal. Everyone in this thread has been going on and on about it.Oh, wait, it hasn't been mentioned once in this thread up until now.But it does raise some thorny questions. How does one compensate a group for past racial discrimination that has left them with lower incomes, lesser prospects, subpar educations, worse housing, poorer health, and greater likelihood of incarceration and death? How can compensation be an answer when the racial discrimination is continuing and on-going, and where the day after reparations are made you will owe them yet more?One more point. Accurate information about one side is unlikely to come from the opposing side. If there were any truth to your claim that you get your information from a multiplicity of sources (a ludicrous claim on its face given the things you say) then what you say would reflect that. You're not yet the person you claim you want to be, informed, balanced and fair, so you may as well stop making claims that you are, because it's obvious to everyone that you aren't.--Percy

There it is, what we all knew was coming, the horrifically inhumane and discompassionate declarations, the sole exception being, "No one should ever be discriminated against." How do you propose dealing with racially driven discrimination whose expression comes from feelings that are part of people's inner makeups? You've ruled out reparations, and I agree if for no other reason than that if today you compensate someone for all past discrimination then how do you compensate them for the discrimination they experience in the future? More reparations down the road? It would be unending.Women are in the same boat, earning 82% of what men earn, being promoted 14% less often, etc., all while being the object of unfair treatment as well as physical and sexual abuse.Legislation and the rule of law doesn't work either, because too often the people in charge have the same mindset as the perpetrators and don't even perceive the discrimination as wrong.So what are we to do about it? I propose that we can't give up simply because we can't think of effective means of addressing the problem. Probably freeing our nation of racism and sexism are unattainable goals, but ideals are there not because they're achievable but because keeping our gaze on them guides us in the right direction.--Percy

Why do you think police and fire are "limited socialism"?Socialism is state ownership of business and industry.It is a common mistake to confuse social programs with socialism, but the only thing they have in common is the base word "social." Republicans like to accuse Democrats of socialism whenever a Democrat uses the word "social" in a sentence. You said we only "need retirement for those who have earned it," and I was only making the point that we need retirement for everyone, not just those who have earned it. At present the indigent elderly who are not taken in by family or friends become wards of the state. The elderly are at significantly higher risk of becoming homeless than any other age group. Needless to say the survival rate of the elderly out on the street is not good. You have insufficient funds for retirement. Your condo might prove a valuable asset if it is worth enough. For example, a reverse mortgage might provide an additional $10,000-15,000/year. Or a sale might provide funds if a less expense living arrangement is possible. You should talk to a financial adviser.--Percy

Even someone purposefully trying to look like an idiot could not succeed so spectacularly.--Percy

Building on my Message 338, I asked ChatGPT, "Why are the Scandinavian countries described as socialist even though they only have strong social programs, not socialism?" Here's its answer:

ChatGPT:

---

The Scandinavian countries are often referred to as socialist because they have implemented extensive social welfare programs, high tax rates, and a strong social safety net. However, it is important to note that the Scandinavian countries are not technically socialist because they are still capitalist economies with a market-based system.

​

Instead, the Scandinavian countries are often described as having a "Nordic model" or "welfare state capitalism". This means that they have a mixed economy that combines elements of both capitalism and socialism, with a focus on social welfare and equal distribution of wealth. This system is designed to ensure that everyone has access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and housing.

​

The Nordic model is characterized by a high level of government involvement in the economy and a strong commitment to social justice. This includes progressive taxation, where those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, and a focus on providing universal social services such as healthcare, education, and housing.

​

Overall, while the Scandinavian countries are not technically socialist, they are often described as such due to their strong social welfare programs and commitment to social justice. The Nordic model has been successful in ensuring a high standard of living and social equality, which is why it is often held up as a model for other countries to follow.

---

When you begin seeing Safeways and Exxon stations and Starbucks and banks owned by government, when your paychecks start saying United States Treasury at the top, that's when you'll know you live in a socialist country. Socialism is state ownership of business and industry, not social programs.By the way, ChatGPT is incorrect that the Nordic model combines elements of capitalism and socialism. It is a common misconception plastered all over the Internet, which is why ChatGPT thinks that socialism includes a focus on social welfare and and the equal distribution of wealth. It doesn't. What ChatGPT is describing is much closer to communism.--Percy

Berner Sanders is the loudest and most prominent advocate in America for social democracy, and he is why Republicans keep accusing Democrats of socialism, unfortunately not entirely inaccurately when it comes to Sanders and a few others.Social democracy has both short and long term goals. In the short term all it advocates is government as an engine for social justice, which means causes like racial and gender equality, LBGTQ rights, a social safety net, and so forth. Who could argue with any of that? And why would anyone call this socialism?lBut the clearly stated long term goal of social democracy is socialism. And that's a big problem. It makes Bernie Sanders, the loudest voice for social justice in this country right now, a socialist.And he's open about it. While he concedes that socialism will not be attained anytime soon, socialism is the direction he wants to go. What do you do about a guy where you agree with everything he says about where he wants to go now but are stricken in your soul about where he wants to go after that. Sanders envisions a utopia, but the reality would be more like where China is right now.Bernie Sanders is the voice of socialism in the Democratic party, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez its most visible icon. As long as they, and a few others, maybe five total between the Senate and House, remain in the Democratic party, the Republicans will be able to successfully brand the Democratic party as socialist.--Percy

It was no secret that the use of Title 42 on the southern border would end when the pandemic emergency ended, so the Biden administration's unpreparedness for the situation is inexcusable. In the months leading up to this day the Biden administration should have been putting in place policies, infrastructure and personnel to handle the expected increase in border crossings.Instead of building more facilities, or at least erecting tent cities, the Biden administration apparently expected that they could release migrants into the country when facilities reached capacity, but U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell blocked such actions last week. This is no surprise, as he had rejected a similar policy only a couple months ago.That desperation and fear is causing many people to flood our southern border is a very difficult problem. There are no easy solutions and possibly no satisfactory solutions at all, but it isn't possible to refer to the current bungling on the border as the best that we can do. We can and should do better.We already know what Trump would do because he told us at a CNN town hall a couple days ago. His solution is to treat migrants so horribly that they'd cease considering the U.S. as a destination, specifically threatening to break up families if they dare come:

Donald Trump:

---

When you say to a family that if you come we’re gong to break you up, they don’t come

---

But it remains a simple choice between Biden and whoever the Republicans offer up, likely Trump again. Between adequacy on the one hand and cruelty, delusion, misogyny, racism and sedition on the other, the choice is easy.--Percy

Well, this was unexpected. Title 42 ended and migrant border crossings are down. Administration officials are at a loss for explanations.But I think the reasons are pretty clear. Title 42 allowed border officials to immediately whisk migrants back across the border into Mexico. Migrants could try as often as they liked without penalty.But the expiration of Title 42 brought with it new penalties that aren't really all that new since they're similarly punitive to the Trump-era rules:

• Migrants who cross the border illegally cannot apply for asylum unless they've already applied for asylum in a country they're already passed through, such as Mexico.
  ​
• Such migrants could be subject to a five-year ban from re-entering the U.S.
  ​
• Future attempts to re-enter the country illegally could bring criminal charges.

I think the new rules make it more likely for migrants to wait to see how they actually play out.In related news, on ABC's This Week on Sunday, Republican Representative Michael McCaul, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, characterized the situation in general and migrants specifically in this way:

Representative Micahel McCaul:

---

But, yes, the fact is, the last two and a half years speak for themselves. We’ve had five million people enter this country illegally, 1.5 get-a-ways. It’s unsustainable.
...
And when they get into the United States, whether they have legitimate claims or not, they’re released into our society. And then you have 5 million people without any legal status. A lot of them go to stash houses. They’re trafficked. They get into criminal enterprises here in the United States.

---

This is just scare-mongering pure and simple. Most migrants come here seeking a better life, but the harder that Republicans like McCaul work at placing them in desperate circumstances the worse things will become. The answer to the border problem is not to turn ourselves into Fortress America. The answer is to welcome migrants to America and help them become productive members of our society as quickly as possible.--Percy

You're referring to when Hunter Biden sent this WahtsApp message to Chinese business contact Henry Zhao, director of Harvest Fund Management:

Hunter Biden:

---

I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.
...
I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.

---

While I can't seem to run down an article with the details, my recollection is that within days $4.7 million was wired to a Hunter Biden account. The money was a bribe for political favors, but why Zhao was convinced by Hunter Biden's absurd claims makes no sense to me. Apparently there are also audio recordings.The Hunter Biden plea deal involved two crimes. One was for underpayment of taxes by about $1 million, which he repaid several years ago, and the other was for lying on a gun application about his problems with drugs. There's an ongoing debate about whether he got off easy or not, and a couple whistleblowers are accusing the Biden justice department of slow walking the process. To me he seems pretty much like the same gaffe-prone politician he's always been with political views that have been largely stable over the years. On a scale of Trump to Lincoln, where would you put Biden? I'd rate him around a Coolidge, Carter or Ford.--Percy

Yes, that's all there is to it, but you don't have to take my word for it. There are a great many legitimate and free news outlets available on the web. Stop watching YouTube.I recently had a brief conversation about the Internet with a young person, maybe 26 or so, who said he got his news from WhatsApp. Social media like Twitter and WhatsApp and so forth are poor sources of news because you only see the articles people link to. Most people follow friends or people they agree with, and so they're most likely to be pointed at articles that are more opinion than news and that only reinforce what they already believe. Most people immerse themselves in an echo chamber of opinions they already share.If you want actual news then read a newspaper (the news section, not the opinion section) with a good journalistic reputation. You want reliable new sources that have developed strong journalistic traditions over decades. Such traditions don't just pop up overnight at social media sites or influencer accounts.Only after you know what actually happened does it make sense to access other sources of information. Some are based on what actually happened, some less so, some very much less so, and some not at all. If you're getting your "facts" from bad sources then there's a good chance you're not getting real facts. That you are a font of false facts is because you grant credibility to sources that have done nothing to earn it and everything to question it. If this is about the long run of large annual deficits then probably most of us agree that we should try to reduce the annual deficit.If this is about fiat money again, something you've criticized often, then you should probably take it to a more appropriate thread.--Percy

That's it? That's your whole rebuttal? Diomedes writes over a hundred words of explanation and that's all you have to say in reply? What is wrong with you? How is anyone to have an intelligent dialogue with you if you're entire response boils down to, "Nope!" You keep asking this question in various forms, and everyone always answers yes. What is it going to take to convince you that you are a helpless rube for certain types of misinformation? Percy does not think that every YouTube video is worthless.What I know is that you are full of misinformation and that your preferred information source is YouTube. You have a proclivity for granting credibility to YouTube sources that not only haven't earned it but certainly don't deserve it.There are a number of reliable and free news source out there. All the major networks have news sites, then there's the Guardian, Axios, the Associated Press and Politico off the top of my head. It wouldn't hurt you to spend some time at Snopes, either.--Percy

People are not suggesting that you throw away your current views. That would be the same as what you already do, blindly following someone else's advice. What people are actually suggesting is that you apply critical thinking to your current views by gathering reliable information and analyzing how well your views accord with it. You consistently mischaracterize what people say. I never said or even implied that "every YouTube video is worthless", and jar never urged you to throw Jesus away. If we want you to throw away anything it's your uncritical reliance on bogus and suspect information sources. Your whole approach to life is, "Choose who to trust and then follow their guidance." What you should instead do is listen to information and ideas and then think for yourself.--Percy