|
mannerup posted:would love to hear the case for how Biden has implemented more left wing domestic legislation than LBJ I think you know the President doesn’t write legislation.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Bwee posted:Isn't Biden like objectively the most left wing president since probably FDR (which is not saying much, but still) If he had accomplished more than 10% of what he was proposing in 2021 then this would be true, but despite his personal promise to deliver Manchin's vote, he did not actually do most of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
mannerup posted:why I said 'implemented', not 'written' I think you also know the president doesn't pass legislation through Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Well, that's it, wrap it up folks We wouldn't be here if we were doing that
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
Carter was really bad at getting things through Congress (and his executive politics more set up Reagan's than carried the country left) but at least he had a triple digit Democratic margin in the House and 61 Senate seats. LBJ had even more and also was good at riding Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
mannerup posted:again, 'implemented' is not 'passed'. I am not the person who made the argument that Biden was the most left wing president since FDR because it's a patently untrue statement. You can make the argument that Biden was unable to enact a left wing domestic agenda because of Congress, but I don't see how that argument does any favors for Biden's left wing bona fides. The president runs the executive. If you want to evaluate them as individuals and not who had how much control of Congress, you look at executive actions not constrained by Congress. You know this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The president runs the executive. If you want to evaluate them as individuals and not who had how much control of Congress, you look at executive actions not constrained by Congress. You know this. The President can definitely be a big influence on what bills congress focus/vote on, how their party members vote, etc. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “executive action”, but bill signing/vetoing is an action taken by the president
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
mannerup posted:would love to hear the case for how Biden has implemented more left wing domestic legislation than LBJ The question wasn't how much legislation they got passed, but how left-wing the presidents themselves were. What's the difference? Well, Dems had two-thirds supermajorities in both houses of Congress during LBJ's presidency, which had a much bigger impact on the legislation passed than the president's personal positions alone. The Dem majority was not only filibuster-proof but also veto-proof. A better basis for comparison would be Obama, who had a much thicker Congressional majority than Biden did but governed well to Biden's right, both in terms of legislation and in terms of executive actions. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Since Carter arguably but that's faint praise. Wasn't Carter relatively conservative as president? His ultra-left reputation was mostly built by his post-presidency activities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
mannerup posted:One of the key functions of the executive branch is to implement legislation passed by Congress. If you solely judge a President based on executive orders (which as we've seen with the recent Obama to Trump to Biden administration transitions are not permanent and at the whims of the next administration), then you are missing one of their core responsibilities. It's why LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty were such sweeping moves that still exist today in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. So you know separation of powers exists, and you're choosing to pretend that it doesn't because it lets you get the result you want. Kalit posted:The President can definitely be a big influence on what bills congress focus/vote on, how their party members vote, etc. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “executive action”, but bill signing/vetoing is an action taken by the president Apparently we need a basic US civics explainer thread or something. The primary functions in which the president has direct authority are not "big influence on what bills congress focuses or votes on." You are closer to accurate when you say "how their party members vote". The president has, depending on current rules and distribution of funding, more influence over members of their own party when the party is further into the majority or minority in Congress. Even then, that control or influence is indirect and a heavy function of other parts of the party apparatus. Evaluating individual presidents against each other in terms of Congressional outcomes makes no loving sense because it willfully ignores all the other factors reflecting the relative levels of influence they can actually have in that setting. Insisting on it means choosing to embrace ignorance about how the government works. The resident as executive and head of administrative functions exerts much more direct power through the prioritization and direction and selection of administrative law priorities and leadership. This includes, but is very definitely not limited to, executive orders. It is, in this setting as well, limited by the actual internal functions of individual administrative agencies, which are deliberately structured so that many parts of their policymaking apparatus can resist political influence. To evaluate the president's actual, direct influence on national policy, you have to evaluate who the president selects as leaders for different agencies (subject to Congressional approval), how those leaders function, and what actions are taken by those agencies relative to how those agencies are also constrained by the law, courts and Congress. The actual analysis of what the executive does requires looking for specifics. For example, the Biden selections for the FTC are possibly the most aggressive leaders in its history, and they have successfully shifted that agency's culture to similarly aggressive action, and he has expressed direct and indirect support for such actions, including targeting some of the most powerful companies in the country. Conversely, conservative courts have responded by striking down a major method by which the FTC has taken enforcement action. In response, the agency has tried to find different provisions of the law to pursue the same actions, which may or may not succeed in court. To provide another example, the administration deliberately refused to spend Congressionally allocated funds to build a part of the Mexican border wall, delaying its construction until 2023 when it was unambiguously legally required to do so- resulting in numerous lawsuits. Right now Biden is being blamed for spending that money, but this blame only makes sense if you deliberately ignore how the law works. To provide a third example cutting in the other direction, the administration has been relatively unfocused in its administration of FDA. While it's unrealistic to blame the current president for the baby formula shortage from earlier this year, Biden's directives to the agency have lacked focus, and the "new" head Robert Califf is a returning figure from the Obama administration who has developed a reputation as being mostly out to lunch on anything other than drug development issues. The administration has directly pursued unprecedentedly aggressive actions on drug pricing through HHS and related entities, but food and drug policy has not improved in any significant way due to presidential administrative action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
mannerup posted:would love to hear the case for how Biden has implemented more left wing domestic legislation than LBJ All new cars are all going to be electric within a decade because the government. The factories are already over a year into being imported. These are extremely large factories. One I’m familiar with had over forty multipurpose vessel voyages chartered of machinery. That’s one factory of one automaker. My understanding is that automaker is making three. All (not just the big three!) the auto manufacturers are moving on building at similar scale. It’s unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So you know separation of powers exists, and you're choosing to pretend that it doesn't because it lets you get the result you want. What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Notice how I said “can [definitely] be”, not “is”. I never claimed he had the power to direct individuals in congress for what to focus on/how to vote. But party members in congress usually rally around the president’s priorities to some degree I don’t need a long, rambling reply pretending like I don’t know how the executive/legislative branches work Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
mannerup posted:
Both of whom inched left of their extremely centrist campaigns in their first two years, saw their congressional majorities absolutely cored in midterms, and spent six years doing damage control. That part always gets left out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I got a little criticized for this before, but I think the combination of inflation and the effects of interest rates is a big drag on Biden. He's in the hot seat now and he gets the blame whether or not that's totally warranted. I don't think it's losing the plot as much as Biden having to pay for the struggles people are going through. There is a year to go, and if things continue on their current trajectory sentiment should improve somewhat, but like you I worry that the narrative is set, and that even if we have an entire year of 2.5-3% inflation before the election people will be cutting Biden no slack, even though the entire actual policy response has already been made (partially by the Federal Reserve, partially by global supply chains, very tinily partially because of the Inflation Reduction Act). And that response was wildly more successfully than any economist predicted (considering it was faster than expected and didn't require any recession or significant increase in unemployment). Eric Cantonese posted:Whatever matters to the Paul Krugmans of the world as they tell you the big picture isn't necessarily going to help everyday voters with big grievances. The current issue, high prices, can only be solved with time. Financial aid to voters is nearly out of the question because it would be successfully attacked as inflationary. Yes - it sounds insane, but voters would be pissed if Biden offered them free money. The argument would be that it would all be inflated away in a matter of months/weeks/hours anyway, and it would work. Like, I realize these are technical arguments that won't resonate with voters in a direct way, but there are people who are capable of understanding these things who do not know that inflation has decreased dramatically, and if nobody ever tells them because of some political guilt over "ignoring" the price issue - which it really doesn't - then how are they ever going to know? When campaigning, you are allowed to argue you have done a good job! Now, I like to read Times comments (some wild stuff in there sometimes) - if you go by the comments Krugman gets on his columns then a major messaging issue is that it's hard to even point out that inflation has come down without it making people feel like the price issue is being ignored. Some kind of acknowledgement of intractable high prices has to be included in the pitch, so people know you give a poo poo. Like every other political issue it has been carefully whittled by years of partisan politics and media framing to have basically no response that won't piss off at least 40% of the electorate. e: Oh yeah, and the interest rates are a legitimate concern, and it's weird that they haven't had a huge depressive effect on consumer spending yet. I mean, I know they have already affected my spending. I started favoring the idea of firing Powell two rate hikes ago; it seems like a great idea, you can get somebody in with better policy, and also blame him for contributing to inflation on his way out the door. Voters don't know that he was actually very aggressive, they just know he's The Guy in Charge of Inflation. It wouldn't be "fair" to Powell per se but lol at caring about being fair to somebody of that strata. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
mannerup posted:I applaud the Biden administration for doing this and think it is unquestionably good policy, my only worry is because it was done solely by executive action it is vulnerable to a future Republican administration who can roll it back just as easily. You are conflating two different things. The IRA is causing the automakers , all of them to build new electric vehicle manufacturing facilities. Physically these facilities are being built right now. This is due to a law. The rules making process is being used to encourage this process along and provide incentives for customers. This is executive order.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:53
|
|
|
mannerup posted:Obama made the right move in passing Obamacare in spite of it costing him the 2010 midterms. Why even a trifecta of Republican governance after his administration were unable to touch it (partially due to their own incompetence as well). Oh, it wasn't a bad thing at all, and it beats Clinton's health care proposal contributing to losing Congress without even getting passed. My point is that any rightward force either of them had on the country was a trailing indicator on Congress, and from there, voters. Even though both ran pretty centrist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Kalit posted:What exactly did I say that was incorrect? Notice how I said “can [definitely] be”, not “is”. I never claimed he had the power to direct individuals in congress for what to focus on/how to vote. But party members in congress usually rally around the president’s priorities to some degree You posted two sentences: quote:The President can definitely be a big influence on what bills congress focus/vote on, how their party members vote, etc. This indicates you do not know how the legislative branch works. The President does not have "big influence on what bills congress focus/vote on" unless they have a supermajority in both houses, strongly aligned party leadership and funding influence. The president does not have "big influence on...how their party members vote" unless they have actual leverage over those members. Other posters have also described why this is different between different administrations and is not a reflection of individual presidents. quote:And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “executive action”, but bill signing/vetoing is an action taken by the president This indicates you do not know how the executive or the legislative branch works. Bill signing and vetoing is the presidential authority that is most constrained by the legislative branch. The rest of my post was an explanation of what executive action normally entails. Bar Ran Dun posted:You are conflating two different things. The rules making process is not the same thing as executive orders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The rules making process is not the same thing as executive orders. You are correct and I was being sloppy with my language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Both of whom inched left of their extremely centrist campaigns in their first two years, saw their congressional majorities absolutely cored in midterms, and spent six years doing damage control. That part always gets left out. Campaign Obama would absolutely have been the most left wing president since FDR. He was moving to the center hard before he even took the inaugural oath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Campaign Obama would absolutely have been the most left wing president since FDR The Campaign Obama in the mind of people who never looked further than his poster was as weird as Onion Biden to anyone who actually looked at his campaign proposals. Right from the primary both him and Clinton were staking out the center since even with Bush and Republicans unpopular 2004 had done so much to bake people into assuming a permanent Republican white house like it was 1990 again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:The Campaign Obama in the mind of people who never looked further than his poster was as weird as Onion Biden to anyone who actually looked at his campaign proposals. Right from the primary both him and Clinton were staking out the center since even with Bush and Republicans unpopular 2004 had done so much to bake people into assuming a permanent Republican white house like it was 1990 again. Campaign Obama supported the public option. Public option health care would have been back door nationalization of health care and by itself make him fit the criteria for most left wing president since FDR. Or at least LBJ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Campaign Obama supported the public option. Public option health care would have been back door nationalization of health care and by itself make him fit the criteria for most left wing president since FDR. Or at least LBJ. So basically just like President Obama except no one asked him the specific question of "If it becomes clear the Senate will never send you a public option, do you pass it or veto it." I mean, again, Obama's indication that he would pass an ACA without a public option was a trailing indicator of the state of things in Congress and , and as a candidate he was never shy about the idea that he'd work with what he can get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
mannerup posted:if the question is on how left-wing they are personally, I don't think that is really a useful metric since its not really a falsifiable statement. Biden could theoretically be the most personally left-wing President the United States has ever had, but if that isn't reflected in the legislation they implemented then it's a meaningless distinction. Well that was expressly the statement under discussion. How would changing the topic to an unrelated thing help? quote:I don't disagree with this assessment, but as Hieronymous Alloy pointed out with Biden being the most left-wing President since Carter (which I think is a fair argument), that just means he wasn't as conservative in policy as Clinton or Obama during the peak of the third-way neoliberal policy implementation years. That is how comparatives work, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Campaign Obama would absolutely have been the most left wing president since FDR. Obama needs to confront the irony of what he believes and many the choices he made. Dude loves Niebuhr and should revisit Niebuhr because an explicit reading of Niebuhr applied to now is pretty drat hard on his choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:All new cars are all going to be electric within a decade because the government. Can I just say thank you for posting here? You consistently have a very unique and interesting view of what’s going on in the world in your field of expertise at a level of experience rarely encountered online.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Campaign Obama supported the public option. Public option health care would have been back door nationalization of health care and by itself make him fit the criteria for most left wing president since FDR. Or at least LBJ. To put in perspective where this stands in terms of historical Dem positions, Carter supported a public option too...because he was a conservative Dem who was trying to drag the Dems right and thwart the efforts of the Congressional Dems pushing for full single-payer healthcare. And of course, before Carter we had LBJ, who pushed for the creation of both Medicare and Medicaid, programs with such a massive impact on the healthcare industry that campaigners for public options today often use the term "Medicare for All". And going back further, we have Truman, who backed the Wagner-Murray-Dingell public option bill as part of his Fair Deal set of programs. Backing a public option (or more) isn't unusual among post-war Democratic presidents. If anything, the Clintons were the odd ones by not backing one, but it's understandable after watching national health insurance proposals struggle to make it anywhere in Congress for decades, resulting in no actual improvement to American workers as the system got worse and worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
Yes and now we're just pretending that health care is no longer an issue, I guess Still pretty unbelievable that Covid didn't prompt another push on healthcare, but clearly the insurance lobby has that under control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:All new cars are all going to be electric within a decade because the government. Yes but how are the national electric grids going to handle it when 200 million households all plug in their cars at night to charge?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
mannerup posted:if you are talking about the New York Times article, its quite the read. Fox is clearly leaning all-in on that side of the issue, even to a stereotypical degree it would be helluva hosed up punchline to the whole biden electoralism argument from earlier in the thread if, in the end, Biden lost due to people who thought he wasn't zionist enough (especially if he never takes any actions he morally should that would def piss those types off)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yes but how are the national electric grids going to handle it when 200 million households all plug in their cars at night to charge? Probably the same way they handle all the households turning their ovens on for hours at thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yes but how are the national electric grids going to handle it when 200 million households all plug in their cars at night to charge? That they have unfortunately not adequately addressed. Nor have they adequately addressed a national charging network. It’ll also take much longer than that though for all cars to be electric. All new cars is a decade, nearly all cars is probably three decades?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You posted two sentences: Do you understand what the word "can" means? You literally just listed an example scenario where my statement is 100% true: Discendo Vox posted:unless they have a supermajority in both houses, strongly aligned party leadership and funding influence Discendo Vox posted:This indicates you do not know how the executive or the legislative branch works. Bill signing and vetoing is the presidential authority that is most constrained by the legislative branch. The rest of my post was an explanation of what executive action normally entails. Huh? I'm confused. In your long rear end reply, you were talking about what the executive branch can do, in addition to executive orders. But now, with this last statement, you are referring specifically to executive orders. I haven't heard the term "executive action", which is why I made that statement. I didn't know if you were talking about executive orders or actions taken by the executive branch in general. And I'm still unclear because of your vague argument/wording.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you understand what the word "can" means? You literally just listed an example scenario where my statement is 100% true: As I and others have now articulated three times, the described circumstances (supermajority in both houses, strongly aligned party leadership, funding influence, and, generally, leverage over members of the legislature) are not things that the President controls. Presidential influence over the legislature is contingent upon those and other factors. It is not a constant or controlled scope of activity. As I already said, as you had initially responded to, and as you apparently continue to struggle with, if you want to evaluate them as individuals and not who had how much control of Congress, you look at executive actions not constrained by Congress. Kalit posted:Huh? I'm confused. In your long rear end reply, you were talking about what the executive branch can do, in addition to executive orders. But now, with this last statement, you are referring specifically to executive orders. Go back to the post you are quoting from and look at who I am responding to. The "last statement" is not addressed to you. Kalit posted:I haven't heard the term "executive action", which is why I made that statement. I didn't know if you were talking about executive orders or actions taken by the executive branch in general. And I'm still unclear because of your vague argument/wording. The president through their executive authority over the administrative state has sources of action and direction other than executive orders. Executive action and authority is separate from the signing and veto power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yes but how are the national electric grids going to handle it when 200 million households all plug in their cars at night to charge? The electric grid currently spins down a bunch of power plants overnight output needs to basically exactly match demand and demand drops during the night so probably actually pretty well, the power plants that currently get spun down overnight just... won't get spun down overnight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:All new cars are all going to be electric within a decade because the government. I'm sure this has been brought up before, but when do we need to start re-thinking the modern service station? Right now the model is to get as many vehicles in and out in around five minutes or so; when the average stop starts going up to 30m+, how many stations can be transitioned into something that can handle that capacity and what will they offer? I ask this because a Bucee's was proposed around me, and in addition to the usual NIMBYs who piss and poo poo themselves at the idea of any additional traffic in their area, there was concerns about building some 150+ pump monstrosity when said pumps would start going extinct in around 15 or so years, so how would they start to handle the influx of electric vehicles in the oncoming decades. Between those two things and Texas having to go full Texas at all times the proposal died, but it's something worth thinking about. Maybe this is time for drive-ins to make a comeback: show up, plug in, get food, watch something for however long, and leave. Only issue is you can't sell booze for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:50
|
|