Beware the Ides of March -- U.S. Politics March 2021

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2091 of them)

When they fail to deliver on something - for the next two years - it is entirely on the party as a whole

You are correct that this is how the blame works. I see it happening here on this thread every few minutes. It drives me up a wall that the party that just drew 80,000,000 votes is now forced to act as stupidly as the single stupidest Democratic senator. Chains being as strong as their weakest link, indeed.

Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:37 (five years ago)

Old Lunch otm. I already have plenty of ire for the Republicans, that goes without saying. I'm extra pissed at the Dems who are caving.

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:37 (five years ago)

I agree with the ideas that the Dems stand or fall collectively on what gets done. Where I disagree is that sending out $1,400 checks is delivering — it's delivering $1,400 checks. But whatever. Ire away.

a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:38 (five years ago)

I mean I'm just repeating a point others have made but it's delivering to a lot fewer people than promised. And that most definitely matters.

Stefan Twerkelle (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:45 (five years ago)

I'm uncharacteristically torn. tipsy's where I was this morning, but I'm in an anti-Biden mood based on the basic point that fewer people will get dough regardless of anticipatory anxiety about attack ads in '22.

So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:47 (five years ago)

idk why ms. shaheen couldn't have waited for the big infrastructure bill that is apparently coming next to sneak in her little kickback for telecoms.

little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:48 (five years ago)

Man, is infrastructure week coming up already?!

Stefan Twerkelle (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:49 (five years ago)

american infrastructure makes maeby feel "c-minus"

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c

little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:53 (five years ago)

NEW: President Biden calls Texas and Mississippi decisions to end mask mandates “a big mistake" and criticizes what he views as “Neanderthal thinking” after CDC warned against complacency in the face of emerging coronavirus variants on Monday. https://t.co/rdOcWokNDa

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 3, 2021

fuck u Joe!

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:55 (five years ago)

lol

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:56 (five years ago)

RIP Neanderthal

bodied by the President, it's realy sad

Hello Nice FBI Lady (DJP), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:57 (five years ago)

Incredible to think they won’t run ads on failure to deliver on promises. They have hours of footage of Biden (and Warnock) promising $2000 checks if only you’d vote for the Democrats.

Now fewer voters are getting smaller checks. That’s bad politics (and bad policy).

― Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:15 PM bookmarkflaglink

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:57 (five years ago)

lol

So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:58 (five years ago)

This is the kind of stuff Rs have threatened if Dems nuke the filibuster — withdrawing consent for routine stuff. https://t.co/LYZhIFtsMf

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) March 3, 2021

Hmmmm seems like they’re doing it anyway

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:58 (five years ago)

xpost i know the bigger harm = if you piss off your voter base enough, they stay home on election day, but how are Rs going to successfully enact attack ads that expose that Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200) and when they weren't willing to give them anything, much less 1400.

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:59 (five years ago)

xpost - No, but "broken promises" sets up some slam dunk ads that, uh, could easily have been avoided.

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 19:59 (five years ago)

By "slam dunk" I mean easy content.

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:00 (five years ago)

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

Warmock’s opponent won’t have voted against checks... but yes in general. Republicans acting with rank hypocrisy? Inconceivable!

While obstructing Obama for six years they did not continually run on a slow economic recovery and rising healthcare costs.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:01 (five years ago)

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:57 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think the messaging would be more like "remember when you got a check when donald trump was president and not when joe biden was prez?"

of course, that would make me remember the reasons why people needed a stimulus check in the first place...

little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:01 (five years ago)

so the Rs strategy will be "the Democrats promised you 2k and didn't deliver! vote for us, the party that....also won't give you 2k!"?

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:57 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Since when did the gop have to give their base anything but dem tears to make them happy?

Stefan Twerkelle (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:02 (five years ago)

Democrats actually provided a larger one-time stimulus check than they ever did (1400 vs 1200)

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:03 (five years ago)

I don't really care about ads (do they actually influence people? idk), but the fear is depressing D turnout in a midterm -- "Dems can't do anything right, why bother?" -- not whether Rs have a cohesive philosophy of governance. Framing this around people switching parties is kind of misleading

rob, Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:05 (five years ago)

hope some enterprising Hill staffer at McCarthy's office is ghosting on ILE now taking notes

So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:05 (five years ago)

geave mi mani

JoeStork, Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:07 (five years ago)

I'm mad about the means testing changes, don't get me wrong, but....think some of you are overestimating how much of an effect it'll have long-term. of course it'll lead to attack ads! but even when Obama's economic recovery was very slow, and attack ads appeared of Obama saying if he couldn't repair the economy, he should be a one-term President, and he still managed to win re-election.

granted, bloodbath at the midterms, but the party in power always loses seats and I tend to feel racism played a role (a Black President! let me vote for people of the opposite party so he can't enact pro-Black legislation!).

i'm with Alfred, I'm just mad about it in principle, not because of optics/lost votes later. plus you can bet, if society re-opens en masse due to the Biden admins aggressive federal efforts in strengthening vaccine production and distribution, even though vaccine development began long before he was in office, he will definitely get a positive bump from that. stuff's open again, nationally! much less people are dying! businesses can be at full capacity! whether he was fully responsible or not, he'll be associated with it.

whether that benefits D Senators and House reps...is another thing.

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:08 (five years ago)

people might ignore the "one-time" and focus on the fact that the gop gave away $1800, which is more than the dems gave away. there also might be political value in giving more money in a one-time payment than the previous admin. gave in 4 years, but i'm not a big-brained dc insider.

― little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, March 3, 2021 3:03 PM bookmarkflaglink

screw that, Dems get all of the credit for the $600 in January. wouldn't have even been in the bill if not for D politicians, and they need to mention that in their own ads. not that it matters, it took then a whopping 10 months to do it, Biden's been in office five weeks.

some Senators are already pushing for another round of payments, which I'm sure won't be as easy as I can see that asshole Manchin already pushing back on it, but it should definitely be attempted. i want monthly payments, but i see less of a road for that since there are only a handful on record supporting it. but maybe try for that first, compromise with another one time payment of like...idk, $1,200?

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:11 (five years ago)

Fwiw, the only reason I'm angry about this is the 12 million people who won't get money many of them really need. I was only mentioning the point about ads because I think it's very very unlikely that this doesn't come back to bite the Dems in the ass, pretending this will be completely forgotten by 2022 seems silly. A lot of people suffered economically in this pandemic and I think that's going to extend the memories of a lot of people.

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:12 (five years ago)

xpost though to your point I actually see dumb Democrats pushing the "Rs got us $1800 vs $1400, they're better than us" nonsense narrative so the truth doesn't really matter with voters, which I know was your point

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:12 (five years ago)

logistical question - what i read told me that they only go by 2019 tax return if that's what's on file, but if you've filed in 2020, they'll use that (similar to last year). is that true? if so, at least those who had a salary drop in 2019-2020 due to layoffs/furloughs etc may qualify if they have filed for 2020 already....if not, i think they can claim the difference in a credit next year.

that still doesn't come close to paying everybody that was paid before but thinking of add'tl options

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:15 (five years ago)

*filed for 2020

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:16 (five years ago)

God knows complicated explanations are a political winner. The fact is people would have $1800 from a Republican President and a Republican Senate and less than that from a Democratic House, Senate and President.

I don’t think those numbers matter. I think saying “$2000” over and over and over matters and I think no check at all is going to matter a lot to 12 million upper-middle class voters (who are prone to voting).

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:16 (five years ago)

. I wouldn’t be so sure that Dems get credit for the $600 in December. Trump was president. That’s how it will be remembered by lots of folks.

And tbf, the $1400 still hasn’t actually happened. Never doubt their ability to even fuck this up. I’d cop to being a “dumb democrat”, but I might be registered independent now iirc

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:18 (five years ago)

Also, Neanderthal, in the other thread you were calling deeper means testing a dead issue that non-Manchinites had won.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:20 (five years ago)

at least the enhanced unemployment is expected to stay at $400 (which is still too low, but $100 higher than before, which i'll take, since my mother is utilizing it).

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:21 (five years ago)

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them. Like actually who benefits by being stingy after a full year of the economy being more or less shut down for tens of millions of people?

If you’re putting your chips on a gangbusters economy (by no means a forgone conclusion) after vaccinations reopenings then the stimulus will pAy fOr iTsELf.

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:22 (five years ago)

You compromise for the thrill of compromise - deal-making is an art...

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:24 (five years ago)

xpost you are right, I did. and now i'm eating crow on that.

but if you recall they were talking about phasing out payments at 50,000 for single participants, 100,000 for married participants, and people were reacting angrily as if that had already happened. the current phase-out changes, though I obviously oppose them, was nowhere near that much of a chop (though still fairly ridiculous)

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:25 (five years ago)

assuming the child credits stay untouched, I have more than a few friends who will benefit greatly from it

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:26 (five years ago)

isn't the idea to give also give money to people that don't need it so they will buy stuff?

Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:28 (five years ago)

I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them.

All 50 democratic senators' votes, instead of fewer than 50.

Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:28 (five years ago)

well yeah the point of a stimulus is to stimulate the economy, though basically this round of checks is more "the previous administration abandoned you, this is to give you something so you can pay some bills" by this point.

it's dumb to reduce the pay thresholds and i am hoping Manchin gets eaten by wolves.

Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:29 (five years ago)

if the Democrats think being the party of austerity and “tough on Venezuela/ Iran/ whoever the natsec bugbear of the day is”, but with a rainbow flag slapped on the side going to finally give them those permanent majorities then they are in for some really dark days

but hey wgaf. not me. line go up!

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:29 (five years ago)

Governing more like they prefer divided government to permanent majorities. After all, the country needs a strong Republican Party.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:36 (five years ago)

Loathe though I am to come near this thread, did anyone else see the NYTimes (I think?) story about a lot of state budgets being better off post covid/recession than people predicted? A few states are still doing pretty badly, but a few are actually doing really well, too, and people seem to be at least partly crediting the impact of that $600 stimulus check for taking some of the burden off local governments.

Heck, here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/01/business/covid-state-tax-revenue.html

And I might as well C&P it, too, for anyone without access:

Virus Did Not Bring Financial Rout That Many States Feared
Grim forecasts held up for a few states, but many took in about as much tax revenue as before the pandemic — sometimes a lot more.

By Mary Williams Walsh

March 1, 2021

Throughout the debate over stimulus measures, one question has repeatedly brought gridlock in Washington: Should the states get no-strings federal aid?

Republicans have mostly said no, casting it as a bailout for spendthrift blue states. Democrats have argued the opposite, saying that states face dire fiscal consequences without aid, and included $350 billion in relief for state and local governments in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion federal stimulus bill, which narrowly passed the House this past weekend. It faces a much tougher fight in the Senate.

As it turns out, new data shows that a year after the pandemic wrought economic devastation around the country, forcing states to revise their revenue forecasts and prepare for the worst, for many the worst didn’t come. One big reason: $600-a-week federal supplements that allowed people to keep spending — and states to keep collecting sales tax revenue — even when they were jobless, along with the usual state unemployment benefits.

By some measures, the states ended up collecting nearly as much revenue in 2020 as they did in 2019. A J.P. Morgan survey called 2020 “virtually flat” with 2019, based on the 47 states that report their tax revenues every month, or all except Alaska, Oregon and Wyoming.

A researcher at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, found that total state revenues from April through December were down just 1.8 percent from the same period in 2019. Moody’s Analytics used a different method and found that 31 states now had enough cash to fully absorb the economic stress of the pandemic recession on their own.

“You can see it’s just a completely different story this time,” said Louise Sheiner, a Brookings Institution economist whose research showed that over all, the states struggled far less during the pandemic than in previous recessions.

New Jersey, for instance, managed to avoid financial calamity despite a dire forecast when the pandemic started, because of better-than-expected tax revenue from retail sales and high earners, who lost fewer jobs and reaped the benefits of a bullish stock market. However, it still had to borrow $4 billion in emergency relief.

The findings are being cited by Republican lawmakers. In a Feb. 2 blog post, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, said the J.P. Morgan report was evidence that the states were doing just fine. He called on Democrats not to insist on “blue-state slush funds that are not needed.”

At the same time, Democrats have said states need relief even if their revenues are resilient, because their costs will spiral as schools reopen and vaccination programs roll out.

States need revenue to function. For day-to-day operations, they raise money by collecting different kinds of taxes: sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on singular transactions like energy production or gasoline sales. (For public works, they issue bonds.)

Most state tax collections plunged last spring when shutdown orders started and millions were thrown out of work as businesses closed. That prompted many states to issue doomsday forecasts, lay off workers and turn to Washington for billions of dollars in aid to replace revenue they were expecting to lose. Many feared a replay of the Great Recession, when state revenues fell 8 percent and took more than five years to recover, exacerbating the overall downturn.

But this time, after falling 4 percent over all, Ms. Sheiner said, tax collections turned back up again, all in the span of a few months. She and other public finance experts cautioned that the numbers didn’t tell the full story. With new variants of the virus emerging, the pandemic isn’t over yet, and revenues could slip again — just as states increase spending amid signs of an economic rebound.

Also, averaging the states’ revenues — the J.P. Morgan report used weighted averages to show that revenues last year were down just 0.06 percent from 2019 — can mask the pain of the states whose tax collections have not yet rebounded. And focusing just on state revenue collection glosses over the weakness of local governments, which administer many social services under state administration.

No matter how they measured the states’ rebound, the analysts said the federal stimulus money that began to flow to consumers and small businesses late in March — especially the extraordinary support for the jobless through the end of July — had helped greatly. Those programs allowed consumer spending to continue, even as unemployment surged to levels not seen since the 1930s.

During the Great Recession, Congress sent supplements of just $25 a week. This time, Washington sent supplements of $600 a week. Since the pandemic ravaged low-wage sectors like retail sales and restaurants, adding $600 a week to the lowest unemployment benefits pushed many recipients’ purchasing power above what they had while working.

In Illinois, for example, per capita personal income actually rose as the pandemic kicked in. It climbed to $66,224 in the second quarter, from $59,896 in the first, according to the state’s Office of Management and Budget.

Consumer spending, in turn, bolstered the states’ sales tax revenues. The federal unemployment benefits also buoyed income tax receipts in the 36 states that tax unemployment benefits.

The Federal Reserve helped indirectly by making credit widely available at very low interest rates, prompting investors to leave the safety of the bond markets and buy stocks. That fueled an enormous stock-market rally, which ultimately gave states including New Jersey capital gains to tax.

Many states also benefited from tax-law changes enacted before the pandemic, after a 2018 Supreme Court decision that let them compel out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on online purchases. The new laws ended years of legal wrangling over how to tax such sales, just in time to help the states weather the pandemic-induced shift to online shopping.

“If the Covid-19 pandemic had occurred even five years earlier than it did, the impacts to state and local sales taxes would have been truly devastating,” Dan White, director of government consulting and public finance research at Moody’s, said.

In his survey, Peter DeGroot, head of municipal research and strategy at J.P. Morgan, found a handful of states, including Idaho, South Dakota and New Mexico, that managed to take in even more money last year than in 2019. The survey also identified several states where tax revenues have not yet bounced back because they depend heavily on tourism, oil and gas, or coal extraction — among them Hawaii, Nevada, Florida, Texas and West Virginia.

Ms. Sheiner’s analysis showed that Idaho had the biggest revenue recovery of any state. She conducted her research with Byron Lutz, an economist with the Federal Reserve.

The head of Idaho’s Division of Financial Management, Alex J. Adams, said in an interview that the rebound had taken officials by surprise, and that they thought one reason was an influx of new residents from California, seeking to escape that state’s high cost of living — a trend that started before the pandemic but accelerated last year. Mr. Adams also said Idaho didn’t pause construction when the lockdowns happened, which helped economic activity.

Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, said in his State of the State address in January that 2020 revenue collections were strong enough to send $295 million back to the taxpayers, and still have enough to invest in better highways, bridges and broadband access. He also wrote to Idaho’s congressional delegation last year, urging it to oppose the use of no-strings federal dollars to bail out mismanaged states.

With some states now “enjoying windfalls” and others still struggling, Mr. White said a smaller amount of money, more carefully targeted to the states that needed it most, would be the most efficient approach for Congress. But getting assistance to those governments that truly need it, without sending unnecessary aid to those that do not, will require some “exceptional creativity,” he said.

To some extent, the states’ surprising recoveries reflect the timing of events last year. The pandemic started just as many state lawmakers were reviewing initial budget proposals for the coming fiscal year. The proposals, drawn up weeks before the shock, forecast a year of strong tax collections.

Then, in a matter of weeks, millions of people lost their jobs. State officials think of unemployment as a powerful driver of their fiscal affairs; research from past recessions suggests that a single percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate can produce $45 billion worth of state budget woe.

So they braced for disaster. Most states tore up their initial budgets, laid off workers and, like the federal government, pushed back their April income-tax deadlines to mid-July. Income tax receipts plummeted.

In April, the National Governors Association called on Congress to appropriate $500 billion “to meet the states’ budgetary shortfalls.” But the $500 billion of no-strings budget relief did not materialize. Most state lawmakers finished their budgets by the end of June and went home — and were not on hand to see the wave of income-tax revenue that arrived in mid-July.

By the end of July, revenue had recovered to 2019 levels and stayed there, said Ms. Sheiner, the policy director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. Ms. Sheiner said she and her colleagues had been pointing out the signs of a recovery since September, but state officials remain guarded. They have not yet begun hiring back the 1.3 million public workers they laid off.

“If you talk to state and local government officers, they’re really cautious,” she said. “There’s so much uncertainty. They’re thinking, What if it goes back to how it was last spring?

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:37 (five years ago)

lol why aren’t young people making expensive babies?!?!

Experts sound the alarm on declining birth rates among younger generations: "It's a crisis" https://t.co/MkdeBtVFiC

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2021

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:44 (five years ago)

_I just don’t know what doing dumb shit gets them._

All 50 democratic senators' votes, instead of fewer than 50.


Ok, then, more specifically—what does it get Sinema or Manchin? Who is in their ear telling them that if we give poor and working class people (of which both your states have tons) direct stimulus money then Bad Stuff Will Happen?

Their corporate donors? Jesus? The Great goddamn Gazoo? I’m honestly asking who.

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:45 (five years ago)

Millennials are not killing the condom industry.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 20:45 (five years ago)

Ok, then, more specifically—what does it get Sinema or Manchin?

As you have pointed out, there's plenty of reason to think these are dumb shit moves, poorly conceived, wrong-headed and counter-productive. But we just got a four year object lesson in a president who made countless poorly conceived, wrong-headed and counter-productive dumb shit moves and lost an election because of it. He still thought he was being smart all the way along and we all had to deal with the fallout. Sinema and Manchin aren't senators because they are political geniuses. Stupid assholes get elected, too.

Judge Roi Behan (Aimless), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 21:05 (five years ago)

]There are a lot of things to be mad at the Dems about, but those of you convinced that this whole $1400 vs $2000 thing is a big deal are just ... wrong. It's not. The Republicans are NEVER going to run ads anywhere talking about $2,000 checks


Lmao saving this one.

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 21:05 (five years ago)

yeah thinking about that, they will specifically say "donald trump promised $2000 checks and joe biden gave you $1400"

little johnny juul (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 3 March 2021 21:09 (five years ago)


This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.