A new age dawns

[pilowsky]

A wave of relief so palpable it almost makes you reach for a towel is sweeping the world.

Fauci's happy face is indelibly etched on my mind.

 

I watched Mayor Pete being subjected to stentorious speeches by Senators.

 

But the most magical moment so far for me is the confirmation of Austin Lloyd. It's good to see the Welsh are having a say in government.

 

This is the first time an African American will be Secretary of Defence - but who's keeping score. Such appointments are now so matter-of-fact that they will soon no longer attract comment. As Kayleigh would say "Now wouldn't that be refreshing".

 

BUT:

Two Senators objected. One was the irascible Senator of dubious political views Josh Hawley (rhymes with Lord Haw-Haw). The other was Senator Mike (?Robert E.) Lee.

 

The mind boggles when imagining what was going through their minds as they go down in history, but I guess those are the Missouri Breaks. Lee, seeing the gravity of the moment might have been peeved that the appointments were upsetting his work-life balance.

 

"Never in his brief U.S. Senate career has Mike Lee, a Tea-Party backed freshman from Utah, attracted such attention. In the past month, he was the subject of the president's weekly radio address, testified before a House panel and appeared on television news programs five times.

Lee, a Republican, is the only senator fighting confirmation of all of President Barack Obama's executive and judicial nominees, after the president angered party members by appointing officials while Congress was on a holiday break.

Through his Jan. 4 action, Obama bypassed Senate confirmation of his choices and installed the first U.S. consumer financial watchdog, a position Republicans want to abolish. He also appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board." Laura Litvan 29 Feb 2012; Bloomberg.

 

 

[shyams]

Can we co-opt this thread to talk about the successes and failures of the Biden administration?

 

I am quite surprised (and occasionally saddened) by the softly-softly approach of the new President. He seems to have not found his mojo yet even though the American people are probably yearning for him to find & flaunt it.

[pilowsky]

Good idea, Biden was not my first choice.

Anyone else was my first choice - except of course Trump.

[cherdano]

Well, today we learned that The Dear Leader still has 90% of support in the Republican Senate Caucus. And henceforth the Republican 2024 primary will for the next three years be a show of "Will He run?" while every other potential candidate else is trying to gain the support of his followers by praising The Dear Leader. And to the surprise of everyone, running against The Dear Leader after praising The Dear Leader for threeseven full years won't be very successful.

 

I guess the rest of us can only hope that this fight will destroy the Republican party. We don't HAVE to watch.

[Winstonm]

I hope that Joe Biden only tries to work with the 5 Republicans who agreed with the trial and ignores the rest. It seems clear that the Republicans should be treated as if they represent North Korea

[shyams]

I don't claim to understand the functioning of the US Senate or the House so excuse me if this looks a bit premature. It's been a week since President Biden assumed office. Yet the Democrats are nowhere close to the promised relief money to the lower-income American people. While there might be delays expected due to the precarious 50:50 tie in the Senate, I fail to understand why there appears to be no real urgency to expedite the cheques for individuals.

 

Separately, the promises made to American people (or more specifically those in Georgia during the Senate run-off) was a $2,000 cheque. I found numerous mainstream media reports dated 4th and 5th Jan that explicitly say "Democrats close the Georgia campaign with populist pitch vowing $2,000 stimulus checks".Yet, after President Biden assumed office, the amount suddenly got downgraded to $1,400!

 

I wouldn't call this a good start for the Biden administration.

[awm]

I don't claim to understand the functioning of the US Senate or the House so excuse me if this looks a bit premature. It's been a week since President Biden assumed office. Yet the Democrats are nowhere close to the promised relief money to the lower-income American people. While there might be delays expected due to the precarious 50:50 tie in the Senate, I fail to understand why there appears to be no real urgency to expedite the cheques for individuals.

 

Separately, the promises made to American people (or more specifically those in Georgia during the Senate run-off) was a $2,000 cheque. I found numerous mainstream media reports dated 4th and 5th Jan that explicitly say "Democrats close the Georgia campaign with populist pitch vowing $2,000 stimulus checks".Yet, after President Biden assumed office, the amount suddenly got downgraded to $1,400!

 

I wouldn't call this a good start for the Biden administration.

 

A plan passed near the end of December which included $600 stimulus checks. The $2000 was supposed to replace the $600 checks (which have already been mailed out), so the "downgrade" to $1400 is what's left over (it's not really a downgrade).

 

Right now the Senate is very busy with fighting over procedural issues, confirming Biden's nominees, and figuring out how to run Trump's second impeachment trial, and these things are probably distracting from the stimulus checks, which have been rolled into Biden's overall $1.9 trillion proposal. Since Republicans are unlikely to support this proposal and it needs 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats are preparing to pass it through reconciliation (a process for budget and spending bills which requires only a majority vote but has some special conditions attached to it).

 

It takes time to do anything legislatively in the US (especially with a 50-50 Senate) and these relief checks aren't something Biden can just do by executive order. They'll probably come in the next few months though.

[hrothgar]

I don't claim to understand the functioning of the US Senate or the House so excuse me if this looks a bit premature. It's been a week since President Biden assumed office. Yet the Democrats are nowhere close to the promised relief money to the lower-income American people. While there might be delays expected due to the precarious 50:50 tie in the Senate, I fail to understand why there appears to be no real urgency to expedite the cheques for individuals.

 

The Senate is dysfunctional.

 

It can't pass legislation, but it sure as hell is in a position to block it.

[pilowsky]

The best thing about America is Freedom of the Press.

[barmar]

My mother never sends text messages, I wasn't even sure she knew how. But on Jan 20 she sent me

 

Hallelujah the liar and hater in chief is gone

[thepossum]

Certainly no expert on the situation but having spent some time there during the Clinton presidency and followed US politics closely for a long time, it doesn't usually take long for Democrats to get upset/disillusioned with/feel let down by Democrat administrations. I cant remember the earlier ones than that, I was too young

 

However on the plus side for me, and maybe something of a conservative view (from a very radical non conservative person) I kind of like the way democratic processes and institutions usually keep extremes under control. I'm curious to see how all the houses being aligned works out. I don't think I observed that often.

[shyams]

Where is Biden? I am surprised that he has not made more addresses to the American people.

 

I recall his people saying Biden is like the new FDR. I'm not ridiculing it (although the comparison is a bit of a stretch).

 

The one thing that impressed me about FDR (based on what I read about the situation) was his superb leadership skill and his ability to totally control a situation. I'm afraid Biden has adopted a bit too much of the softly-softly approach; he's falling behind on his agenda to be the next FDR.

[hrothgar]

Where is Biden? I am surprised that he has not made more addresses to the American people.

 

And say what precisely?

 

I would rather that the President wait until he has something meaningful to say that speak for the sake of speaking (which is what you are advocating).

 

The Biden administration is giving regular press briefings

It is providing administration officials for the Sunday talk shows

 

At some point in the next few weeks we'll have The State of the Union address.

 

I don't need to hear President Biden explain that he inherited a god awful cluster*****

I'm not sure that preempting negotiations with the Senate is constructive

 

As for you and your advice, I can't help but recall all your explanations how the Democrats were doomed in November because they picked Biden

[Winstonm]

Where is Biden? I am surprised that he has not made more addresses to the American people.

 

I recall his people saying Biden is like the new FDR. I'm not ridiculing it (although the comparison is a bit of a stretch).

 

The one thing that impressed me about FDR (based on what I read about the situation) was his superb leadership skill and his ability to totally control a situation. I'm afraid Biden has adopted a bit too much of the softly-softly approach; he's falling behind on his agenda to be the next FDR.

 

Considering that 29 state legislatures are still firmly in Trump-crazed Republicans' control and Democrats hold only narrow majorities in Congress, you would be better served hoping for a second Lincoln than FDR.

 

The good thing about Biden is that he knows there is a tiny minority of Republicans in Congress who are willing to compromise. This is a big difference between Biden and Obama. Biden understands that only a handful on the opposite side are worth his time.

[shyams]

As for you and your advice, I can't help but recall all your explanations how the Democrats were doomed in November because they picked Biden

I said that in March & April of 2020! I didn't saying anything like that once he was unquestionably the Dem nominee for President. Here's what I wrote then:

I am not American and I have no say (or substantial interest) in your country's elections. However, I strongly feel that Biden as Democratic nominee will definitely ensure the reelection of Trump in November. The only thing that can derail that outcome is the potential disaster from Coronavirus.

 

Given the misery such an event will bring, I will pray for no disaster even if it means 8 years of Trump.

PS: Does anyone watch Rising with Krystal and Saagar on YouTube? I have recently begun watching their daily shows and I must say they sound refreshingly different from mainstream media.

 

And you know what? Biden came close to losing! This is despite the significantly higher deaths caused by Trump's inaction.

 

 

Here is our exchange from April 2020 where I said Biden appeared weak.

Note: I'm not a US Citizen or resident, I cannot vote.I agree with (1) that your Great President is a clown and has screwed up big time. However, he is not the only world leader to have screwed up on this matter. Your senators and representatives have screwed up as well... really badly. So there are many people to blame for the bad situation and Trump will probably get away without bearing all of the blame for this.

 

I don't know what you folks find good about Biden. He has a track record of selling out to corporate interests (I'm not referring to his son), he doesn't have a strong record of suggesting citizen-friendly policies, and finally some of his rambling responses suggest an absence of coherent thought. And if you think the rambling responses aren't a concern, my guess is that this one factor alone will be exploited by Trump, the Republicans and those Super PACs to ensure that Trump is reelected. In summary, I think Biden makes a poor candidate to oppose Trump in the Presidential elections.

Biden is far from perfect. I would have far preferred if Warren, Klobuchar, Buttageig, ... had been the candidate. However, if is ridiculous to think that he isn't orders of magnitude than Trump

 

Who do you think would have been a better candidate in the general election and, more importantly, how is this claim consistent with that candidates inability to execute during the Democratic primary?

Probably some of the candidates you named -- Warren, Klobuchar -- or even Sanders (if the Dem establishment could somehow accept such a hard-left candidate). Even a left-field candidate like Cuomo might be better.

 

As for the Dem primaries, is it really a fair fight? The only way Mayor Pete or Senator Bernie would ever actually succeed would be if they were obnoxious and thick-skinned like Trump was during the 2016 Rep primaries. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Republican establishment had tried to derail Trump's candidacy during the early days of the 2016 primaries --- only that he browbeat every fellow Republican into submission.And as for Biden (reference to awm's post) and "return to the status quo pre-Trump" isn't the average American voter worried about back-seat driving by the Obamas or by Mrs. Biden (a la Edith Wilson)?

[Winstonm]

Shyams

 

And you know what? Biden came close to losing! This is despite the significantly higher deaths caused by Trump's inaction.

 

This is due to the oddly structured electoral college. Biden won by 7 1/2 million votes but could have lost the electoral college - which is what happened in 2016.

 

However, with the absolute idiocy exhibited by the previous administration, it feels disquieting that the Biden win wasn't along the lines of Reagan's enormous win.

[awm]

I'm happy with Biden so far. He's been quite aggressive with the executive actions, reversing many bad Trump policies and a few that have been around longer (like a Reagan-era executive order about computing "costs of regulations" that neither Clinton nor Obama bothered to fully undo).

 

The Democrats have razor-thin majorities in Congress and this can make it hard to get anything done. In principle it's a majority vote but that means you need every Democrat onboard (including some pretty conservative ones like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema), not to mention the filibuster tradition in the Senate (which either means you need 10 Republican votes or you need Manchin and Sinema to agree to blow it up). Nonetheless, the new administration has been making some progress through reconciliation and it seems likely a significant stimulus package will be passed.

 

A lot of the Democratic agenda is pretty popular and without Mitch McConnell's ability to shield his Senate colleagues from tough votes (by refusing to bring bills up for a vote or by inserting poison pills like with the $2000 checks before the new Senate was sworn in) some Republican senators may have some difficult explanations to make if they just vote against everything.

[shyams]

I read that Rep. Katie Porter of California's 45th District is no longer on the House Financial Services Committee. This appears to be a good development for some of the people who appeared before the Committee and found her questioning to be particularly brash.

 

It took a while to realise this; it seems the NY Times did not cover this piece of news.

[pilowsky]

Something that has always been unclear to me about American (Republican) governance compared with the style of government that I'm used to is the way that the 'People's House' operates.

 

In the USA, the Executive Branch is torn away from the voters and placed as a 'co-equal' branch entirely separate from the representatives.

 

The system means that there is only one "elected" official responsible for the day-to-day management of the country.

 

It's as though a large company, nominally owned by its shareholders created a Board of Directors that had absolutely no power at all to regulate the affairs of the CEO.

 

Trump came from the Family company model of management. Like Murdoch, whose company was passed onto him by his similarly rabid Father, Trump had a complete disdain for the Shareholders.

For Trump and Murdoch, their company's sole purpose is to enrich - Trump, Murdoch and their Families. Running a very distant second are the 'necessary Courtiers' and finally, the group at the bottom - everyone else.

 

When people like Trump and Murdoch say things like 'we love the people', They do not mean it in the sense of "I would throw myself under a bus". What they mean is exactly the same thing that slave-owners meant.

I love to have these people because they generate more wealth for me to con them out of.

 

Fairness to these people (here I am paraphrasing our own oleaginous Scott Morrison) means an equal chance to strip as much wealth out of the rest of society as they possibly can while evading a prison sentence.

I am not making this up; it is in Morrisons 'fairness' speech. His mantra is "A fair go for those having a go".

Mark Buckley characterises Morrisons thinking in this way:

"This is a belief system called 'prosperity theology'. If you have ever had the surreal experience of watching a televangelist performing, this will be a part of his spiel. Simply, it espouses the theory that wealth is a blessing from God, and that poverty, or a lack of wealth, well, that is a sign of God's displeasure. Of course, it is! Why else are the common people poor, if not for lack of moral fibre?"

 

This is the reason that the two get on so well. They regard people in the same way that White slave-owners regard black (substitute any word that is not a 'white anglo Saxon') as cattle.

When I use the word 'cattle', I am not making up something from thin air. I watched a video of a man who had been held captive by white slave-owners. After he and his family and friends were released from captivity (Civil war, Lincoln etc.), he said: "They gave us a meal, and then we wandered off like cattle".

 

Normally when I hear about someone who has been held captive for decades and then released there is an outrage. People cry 'How could this happen'? "The slimeball responsible should be executed." This is especially true when you learn that the captive was also sexually abused.

No such thing happened in the USA. Instead, half the country yearns for the days when 'everyone knew their place'. Now they need to be subtler about it.

 

Problem solved. They created a system of 'governance' where control of the Executive branch is kept safely away from people they don't like. Management of the electoral process is devolved into such a small scale that it is barely recognised as a plurality based system.

The effect is that the rich people can pretty much appoint whoever they choose by manipulating the boundaries.

This is presumably why Trump was genuinely astonished at Raffensbergers refusal to accommodate his wish to 'find the votes'.

There is no genuine democracy when it can be so easily manipulated by a small group of people.

Where there is no accountability.

Where the strings that attach the Board of Directors to the managers are, as Kurt Vonnegut Jr remarked when describing his relationship to the characters in his books, 'like stale rubber bands rather than tight pieces of string'.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Something that has always been unclear to me about American (Republican) governance compared with the style of government that I'm used to is the way that the 'People's House' operates.

 

In the USA, the Executive Branch is torn away from the voters and placed as a 'co-equal' branch entirely separate from the representatives.

 

The system means that there is only one "elected" official responsible for the day-to-day management of the country.

 

It's as though a large company, nominally owned by its shareholders created a Board of Directors that had absolutely no power at all to regulate the affairs of the CEO.

 

Trump came from the Family company model of management. Like Murdoch, whose company was passed onto him by his similarly rabid Father, Trump had a complete disdain for the Shareholders.

For Trump and Murdoch, their company's sole purpose is to enrich - Trump, Murdoch and their Families. Running a very distant second are the 'necessary Courtiers' and finally, the group at the bottom - everyone else.

 

When people like Trump and Murdoch say things like 'we love the people', They do not mean it in the sense of "I would throw myself under a bus". What they mean is exactly the same thing that slave-owners meant.

I love to have these people because they generate more wealth for me to con them out of.

 

Fairness to these people (here I am paraphrasing our own oleaginous Scott Morrison) means an equal chance to strip as much wealth out of the rest of society as they possibly can while evading a prison sentence.

I am not making this up; it is in Morrisons 'fairness' speech. His mantra is "A fair go for those having a go".

Mark Buckley characterises Morrisons thinking in this way:

"This is a belief system called 'prosperity theology'. If you have ever had the surreal experience of watching a televangelist performing, this will be a part of his spiel. Simply, it espouses the theory that wealth is a blessing from God, and that poverty, or a lack of wealth, well, that is a sign of God's displeasure. Of course, it is! Why else are the common people poor, if not for lack of moral fibre?"

 

This is the reason that the two get on so well. They regard people in the same way that White slave-owners regard black (substitute any word that is not a 'white anglo Saxon') as cattle.

When I use the word 'cattle', I am not making up something from thin air. I watched a video of a man who had been held captive by white slave-owners. After he and his family and friends were released from captivity (Civil war, Lincoln etc.), he said: "They gave us a meal, and then we wandered off like cattle".

 

Normally when I hear about someone who has been held captive for decades and then released there is an outrage. People cry 'How could this happen'? "The slimeball responsible should be executed." This is especially true when you learn that the captive was also sexually abused.

No such thing happened in the USA. Instead, half the country yearns for the days when 'everyone knew their place'. Now they need to be subtler about it.

 

Problem solved. They created a system of 'governance' where control of the Executive branch is kept safely away from people they don't like. Management of the electoral process is devolved into such a small scale that it is barely recognised as a plurality based system.

The effect is that the rich people can pretty much appoint whoever they choose by manipulating the boundaries.

This is presumably why Trump was genuinely astonished at Raffensbergers refusal to accommodate his wish to 'find the votes'.

There is no genuine democracy when it can be so easily manipulated by a small group of people.

Where there is no accountability.

Where the strings that attach the Board of Directors to the managers are, as Kurt Vonnegut Jr remarked when describing his relationship to the characters in his books, 'like stale rubber bands rather than tight pieces of string'.

 

 

 

 

You perception is excellent. The U.S. system was not supposed to work this way - the framers' imagined a much stronger Congress but warned against both demagoguery as well as political parties. Our Congress has abdicated much of its power and responsibility in order to maintain deniability for re-election sake.

 

The framers' never envisioned a class of citizens whose only job was to ensure their own re-election. But that has become the standard for our Congress. It also makes the presidency much more powerful than was intended.

[thepossum]

It is curious though. I was constantly bombarded by views from the left that it didn't matter who was in the Whitehouse since there was no plurality and essentially just a big corporate state.

 

But when the Trump administration was in "power" strangely the left forgot those views. And when I pointed it out to them I was often accused of becoming very conservative

 

Its the same topsy turvy approach to language/politics/philosophy that sees libertarian anti-authoritarian types now described as authoritarian. Strangely its the same characters doing that too

 

All these liberal minded progressive people I thought were anti-authoritarian progressive radical anti-establishment liberal changed their spots over a few years and became facsists

 

They started redefining everything in fact to fit their new world order

 

It reminds me a bit of a Douglas Adams passage about "man" proving that God didn't exist then going on to prove that black is white and being killed at a zebra crossing - apologies for garbling the passage

[pilowsky]

For reasons that opaque to me, the DNC has decided to bombard me with requests for financial support.

They are also sending me daily request for me to donate and become a member of the DNC.

This last offer interested me strangely.

Could I really become a member of the DNC?

I filled out the form, and when I arrived at the spot that said 'donate $x', I typed in 0. $0.00 is the maximum amount of money that a foreign national can donate to any politician in the USA.

Once you donate the money you are apparently entitled to 0, so I thought that my offer was reasonably priced.

In Australia, when you join a party (as opposed to a 'committee), you can attend monthly meetings. You can influence policy. Decisions made at your local Branch are sent to the annual State convention (which you can attend as a delegate if elected by your branch). If supported there, they move on to the National Conference.

At one of these state-level meetings, I was able to introduce a no-smoking in the workplace motion.

Decades later, smoking is not permitted in Australian workplaces.

(I'll tell you the story about how I induced a question about nicotine metabolism at a medical school viva voce some other time - ashtrays were commonplace at the medical school I attended in the 1970s).

 

Why do I bring this up?

Today I was sent a letter from Joe and Kamala detailing the miracle of Universal health care in America (pro-tip - there isn't any).

Every American deserves the peace of mind that comes with affordable quality health care, especially in the midst of a pandemic that has taken the lives of over 480,000, infected millions of others, and left millions more unemployed.

 

That is exactly why the Biden-Harris Administration has opened HealthCare.gov for a special health insurance enrollment period running through May 15. As we continue to fight for critical, direct relief through the American Rescue Plan, this special enrollment period will ensure health insurance coverage is affordable and accessible for all.

 

Take a minute to learn about this special enrollment period today.

As Democrats, we know the importance of good health care. That's why President Biden initiated this special enrollment period, and why we're fighting to get the American Rescue Plan through Congress. The American Rescue Plan takes a multi-pronged approach to the health care crisis by:

 

• Increasing federal subsidies to ensure no one pays more than 8.5% of their income for comprehensive health coverage,
• And ramping up testing, tracing, and our national vaccination program to get shots into as many arms as quickly as possible.

Democrats are working day and night to get this legislation enacted and relief delivered to the American people. In the meantime, take a minute to make sure you and your loved ones have the health care you need: Head to HealthCare.gov to learn more today.

 

We'll get through this together,

 

The Democrats

 

 

I was so excited I immediately attempted to see how wonderful health care is in America - it isn't.

Here is what the Healthcare.gov site responded with

 

Income levels & savings

• Income levels & savings
• How to save on your monthly insurance bill with a premium tax credit
• Cost-sharing reductions

Here we tell you if your income is in the range to save. Then we'll show you how much you'll save.

 

If your income is $23,791 - $43,100:

• You may qualify for a Marketplace plan with lower monthly premiums plus extra savings, including lower deductibles and copayments. To get the extra savings, you must enroll in a plan in the Silver category.

 

When you look at it remember that in Australia, Rupert Murdoch (if he were still a citizen of Australia - he relinquished it so that he could buy Media companies in America), could walk into a public hospital with any medical problem and get treatment valued at >$250,000 for no payment whatsoever. Zip, nada, nothing.

 

That's what universal health care means in the Biden era. If you are poor, hungry or in need of urgent medical help, it can be yours for a $1000 co-payment.

 

Income calculator USA: https://www.pewresea...n-middle-class/

Health care calculator USA: https://www.healthca...-medicaid-chip/

[cherdano]

LOLLLL

‘My warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics,’ [McConnell] says. ‘I’m not talking about political contributions, he adds.

 

 

P.S.: Shall we try to use this thread to discuss US politics? I'd rather not have to think about the guy mentioned in the title of the other thread as long as possible.

[johnu]

It is curious though. I was constantly bombarded by views from the left that it didn't matter who was in the Whitehouse since there was no plurality and essentially just a big corporate state.

 

??? People from the left of what country told you that??? Certainly not any American who knows something about American politics. POTUS is the most powerful person in the US (and maybe the entire world). Even if the opposition party controls Congress, POTUS controls the military, DOJ, State, other cabinet Secretaries, and can issue far reaching executive orders and slowroll or stop a lot of legislation from being executed.

[johnu]

P.S.: Shall we try to use this thread to discuss US politics? I'd rather not have to think about the guy mentioned in the title of the other thread as long as possible.

 

The Trump fundraising scam is the least surprising part about his presidency

 

The twice impeached Grifter in Chief perpetrated at least a $120+ million swindle on his own supporters.

 

"Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election.

 

"Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.

 

"As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a 'money bomb,' that doubled a person's contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language."