The Biden Administration Thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
I made 76k last year. Like , almost on the dot. Hell yeah, Im getting the whole enchilada. I like the targeted approach though. It seems more appropriate.

where are my BidenBucksTM?!?! I was promised 2k in the GA special election?!?!!?
Well you got the $600 yeah? So the $1400 you'll be getting here ought to do the trick.

Don’t worry 93 you will get your stimulus money.
I just hope y’all spend it on something that will stimulate the economy.
I've been pondering this. My initial inclination is to always squirrel it away. But it is intended for a purpose and I have been wanting to redo the countertops.
And we would already have it if Pelosi had just pushed a bill with checks only before the election like Trump asked.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Sep 12, 2008
638
171
1,593
"CNN’s Jake Tapper tweeted out, “An analysis of the past 100 years shows President Biden’s 15 most recent predecessors all held a formal solo press conference within 33 days of taking office,” Jake Tapper said. “Biden has not and it’s day 42.”
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
Previous stimulus didnt have the same income limits.. the phase out was much higher. Biden and senate dems lopped it off 40K short of what it was for joint filers. 160K is very different from 200K. 160K sounds like a lot in OK, but in many other high cost of living states, it isn't much.



Sure but i expect leaders to do more than preach. they should practice WHAT they preach. we are one month into the Biden admin and bipartisanship isn't even being attempted. go figure.
What would propose he do to encourage bipartisanship with a clearly recalcitrant and uninterested Republican legislative leadership?
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,178
5,530
1,743
29
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
Previous stimulus didnt have the same income limits.. the phase out was much higher. Biden and senate dems lopped it off 40K short of what it was for joint filers. 160K is very different from 200K. 160K sounds like a lot in OK, but in many other high cost of living states, it isn't much.



Sure but i expect leaders to do more than preach. they should practice WHAT they preach. we are one month into the Biden admin and bipartisanship isn't even being attempted. go figure.
What would propose he do to encourage bipartisanship with a clearly recalcitrant and uninterested Republican legislative leadership?
Have you been asleep for the last 4 years. Dems had a frankly fiscally liberal president in office and refused to work with him when they could have got a ton of stuff through. Sorry if you get upset at Republicans for doing the same lmao.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
Uninterested leadership?

Welcome to 2021 Rumple Stiltskin.

Thankfully for you, you clearly missed the last 6 months of 2020!
Have you been asleep for the last 4 years. Dems had a frankly fiscally liberal president in office and refused to work with him when they could have got a ton of stuff through. Sorry if you get upset at Republicans for doing the same lmao.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
So you don’t have an answer either.

Got it.

@ramases2112 absolutely nothing in my post indicates I am in any way upset.

I asked a question...a polite question at that...and all you and GB can offer is “dur...dur...dur...Democrats...last four years”.

It looks like four more years of Mitchie and the boys doing their best to ensure Biden is a one term President (sounds familiar). It takes two sides to compromise. I don’t think either side is particularly interested.
 
Last edited:

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
What would propose he do to encourage bipartisanship with a clearly recalcitrant and uninterested Republican legislative leadership?
There is public support both left and right for stimulus checks, it was all the leftwing pork shoved into the current bill (and then removed by parliamentarian due to reconciliation rules).

A straight up covid relief bill would have had a lot of bipartisan support. There would have been debate on the numbers, but there was support. We ended up in budget reconciliation because Dems wanted more than just stimulus.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
There is public support both left and right for stimulus checks, it was all the leftwing pork shoved into the current bill (and then removed by parliamentarian due to reconciliation rules).

A straight up covid relief bill would have had a lot of bipartisan support. There would have been debate on the numbers, but there was support. We ended up in budget reconciliation because Dems wanted more than just stimulus.
Fair enough. Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response.

What you call leftwing pork, others would call necessary and important stimulus and relief. IMO, vowing to filibuster anything other than stimulus checks also is not in the spirit of cooperation and compromise...bipartisanship. IMO, he attempted bipartisanship in obtaining the other forms of relief. He got a firm no, no cooperation, no discussion response, and then tried reconciliation.

Bipartisanship requires that both partisan groups compromise. Bipartisanship isn't just giving up and taking just what one minority partisan group will allow and wants. When he received no indication of cooperation or compromise on what you call leftwing pork (and others call necessary and important relief), he acted accordingly. The President, no matter who he or she may be, cannot engage in bipartisanship if the other partisan group is not interested in engaging in the hard work of compromise and negotiation.

I'm not into trying to blame or call out either or our two primary parties for the failure to engage in bipartisanship. For way too long, neither of them have been interested in bipartisanship in Congress. Until they get their House (and Senate) in order on that, there is very little the President is going to be able to do.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
Fair enough. Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response.

What you call leftwing pork, others would call necessary and important stimulus and relief. IMO, vowing to filibuster anything other than stimulus checks also is not in the spirit of cooperation and compromise...bipartisanship. IMO, he attempted bipartisanship in obtaining the other forms of relief. He got a firm no, no cooperation, no discussion response, and then tried reconciliation.

Bipartisanship requires that both partisan groups compromise. Bipartisanship isn't just giving up and taking just what one minority partisan group will allow and wants. When he received no indication of cooperation or compromise on what you call leftwing pork (and others call necessary and important relief), he acted accordingly. The President, no matter who he or she may be, cannot engage in bipartisanship if the other partisan group is not interested in engaging in the hard work of compromise and negotiation.

I'm not into trying to blame or call out either or our two primary parties for the failure to engage in bipartisanship. For way too long, neither of them have been interested in bipartisanship in Congress. Until they get their House (and Senate) in order on that, there is very little the President is going to be able to do.
This is not how I remember it at all. Biden said SPEED was key. Not compromise. When the GOPers balked at the amount of pork*, he moved to budget reconciliation almost IMMEDIATELY, and the parliamentarian smacked them down. (pork = historic democrat priorities - like minimum wage - that are not directly related to covid) There was no attempt to deal - which is part of compromise. He knew he could get most of what he wanted on straight party vote having effectively both chambers and he okayed it. Bipartisanship is only necessary, when you don't have the power to get your way.

There was pretty good support on COVID relief/stimulus. When Dems put forth the pork in the House, and GOP (both senate and house) both said "yeah - no", he didn't hesitate. No debate. Just went to reconciliation. Not even attempting to cut the pork to get bipartisanship.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
This is not how I remember it at all. Biden said SPEED was key. Not compromise. When the GOPers balked at the amount of pork*, he moved to budget reconciliation almost IMMEDIATELY, and the parliamentarian smacked them down. (pork = historic democrat priorities - like minimum wage - that are not directly related to covid) There was no attempt to deal - which is part of compromise. He knew he could get most of what he wanted on straight party vote having effectively both chambers and he okayed it. Bipartisanship is only necessary, when you don't have the power to get your way.

There was pretty good support on COVID relief/stimulus. When Dems put forth the pork in the House, and GOP (both senate and house) both said "yeah - no", he didn't hesitate. No debate. Just went to reconciliation. Not even attempting to cut the pork to get bipartisanship.
We obviously have different views on both the pork/valid relief issue.

We seem to agree that both GOP contingents in Senate and House clearly immediately said no to anything other than stimulus checks....indicating no interest in attempting to deal or compromise on those issues.

We definitely seem to disagree on whether or not either party is showing interest in bipartisanship. You seem to think only one side is showing that interest. I think neither one is, or has, shown any interest in bipartisanship.

Good talk.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
We obviously have different views on both the pork/valid relief issue.

We seem to agree that both GOP contingents in Senate and House clearly immediately said no to anything other than stimulus checks....indicating no interest in attempting to deal or compromise on those issues.

We definitely seem to disagree on whether or not either party is showing interest in bipartisanship. You seem to think only one side is showing that interest. I think neither one is, or has, shown any interest in bipartisanship.

Good talk.
I think the Dems (as they are power) had the burden to reach out -if they actually gave two craps about bipartisanship. Saying "take it or leave it, because we have to go fast" isn't a good faith effort. They can go it alone so they don't even have to try.

For expediency, they chose to go it alone rather than get all wound up and bogged down in "compromise" and "governing from the center"

republicans are just as bad when they are in power. I agree neither seem to have interest, but pinning THIS one on GOPer doesn't seem to be appropriate.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
I think the Dems (as they are power) had the burden to reach out -if they actually gave to craps about bipartisanship. Saying "take it or leave it, because we have to go fast" isn't a good faith effort. They can go it alone so they don't even have to try.

For expediency, they chose to go it alone rather than get all wound up and bogged down in "compromise" and "governing from the center"
Whereas I think if the Dems are told by the Republicans in the Senate "we're not going to take any of your (by R definition) "pork"...Hard NO on "Democratic pork" (which they did) when the Senate has the filibuster, there is no other option but to try the reconciliation process.

I do not see it as "expediency" at all at that point. Republicans made it clear that some things were non-negotiable....they weren't interested....so Biden and the Dems tried (unsuccessfully, I'll point out) to go the reconciliation route on those items the Republican minority in the Senate wanted nothing to do with.

So we disagree.

Which is completely fine.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
Whereas I think if the Dems are told by the Republicans in the Senate "we're not going to take any of your (by R definition) "pork"...Hard NO on "Democratic pork" (which they did) when the Senate has the filibuster, there is no other option but to try the reconciliation process.

I do not see it as "expediency" at all at that point. Republicans made it clear that some things were non-negotiable....they weren't interested....so Biden and the Dems tried (unsuccessfully, I'll point out) to go the reconciliation route on those items the Republican minority in the Senate wanted nothing to do with.

So we disagree.

Which is completely fine.
That isn't what happened. The Dems presented the deal as a take it or leave it "for bipartisanship", otherwise they were just going to do it through budget reconciliation for SPEED. That procedure was public prior to the deal evening being proposed or formulated. When you present your position up front as we are doing this with or without you (which the Dems did - and they had the votes to do so) - it ain't negotiation nor is it compromise. If I were offered an unfavorable "deal" under the same conditions, I wouldn't be interested (and I would assume most reasonable people wouldn't be interested also). There was no offer of a deal in good faith.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,387
20,475
1,743
That isn't what happened. The Dems presented the deal as a take it or leave it "for bipartisanship", otherwise they were just going to do it through budget reconciliation for SPEED. That procedure was public prior to the deal evening being proposed or formulated. When you present your position up front as we are doing this with or without you (which the Dems did - and they had the votes to do so) - it ain't negotiation nor is it compromise. If I were offered an unfavorable "deal" under the same conditions, I wouldn't be interested (and I would assume most reasonable people wouldn't be interested also). There was no offer of a deal in good faith.
We disagree.

And that is perfectly fine.

Do you think further discussion of your interpretation of what happened is going to convince me that you are right?

Do you think further discuss of my interpretation of what happened is going to convince you that I am right?

Or has this now become a "last word" wins type of thing?

We disagree.

And that is perfectly fine.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
We disagree.

And that is perfectly fine.

Do you think further discussion of your interpretation of what happened is going to convince me that you are right?

Do you think further discuss of my interpretation of what happened is going to convince you that I am right?

Or has this now become a "last word" wins type of thing?

We disagree.

And that is perfectly fine.
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
10,499
7,781
1,743
Spring, TX
You gif was outstanding though, so I had to respond.
Yours was on point as well. I think out of our disagreement, we may have discovered gold. A buddy comedy with nic cage and Richard simmons. I would pay money, and brave covid to see that in theaters. Picture of the year baby!!