The Biden Presidency Thread

[Carpet_pissr]

This is really the perfect opportunity for Manchin and Sinema to board the dump the filibuster train.

Why in the world would he do that? What’s in it for him?

[ImLawBoy]

This is really the perfect opportunity for Manchin and Sinema to board the dump the filibuster train.

Why in the world would he do that? What’s in it for him?

A fawning media extolling his bravery and virtue.

[Carpet_pissr]

This is really the perfect opportunity for Manchin and Sinema to board the dump the filibuster train.

Why in the world would he do that? What’s in it for him?

A fawning media extolling his bravery and virtue.

FOX, OAN and others whom very likely have the most West Virginian eyeballs, would like a word with you.

[malchior]

Also let's be real if Manchin or Sinema signed on they'd have a parade of select VSP people quoted across most of MSM talking about how they're throwing tradition in the bin. There is no upside.

[ImLawBoy]

This is really the perfect opportunity for Manchin and Sinema to board the dump the filibuster train.

Why in the world would he do that? What’s in it for him?

A fawning media extolling his bravery and virtue.

FOX, OAN and others whom very likely have the most West Virginian eyeballs, would like a word with you.

He's old and reelection odds are pretty long for him anyway (he barely won last time, and his constituency is not moving to the left). He can move on to a cushy consulting job or join the media or something.

Also let's be real if Manchin or Sinema signed on they'd have a parade of select VSP people quoted across most of MSM talking about how they're throwing tradition in the bin. There is no upside.

Please. There's plenty of upside. There might not be enough upside to outweigh the downside, but that doesn't mean there's no upside. You could argue there's no net upside, but that's a different thing and is highly dependent on what he sees/expects with his next election.

[malchior]

Also let's be real if Manchin or Sinema signed on they'd have a parade of select VSP people quoted across most of MSM talking about how they're throwing tradition in the bin. There is no upside.

Please. There's plenty of upside. There might not be enough upside to outweigh the downside, but that doesn't mean there's no upside. You could argue there's no net upside, but that's a different thing and is highly dependent on what he sees/expects with his next election.

No upside as seen from Manchin's point of view. He doesn't do it and people back home are happy. He does it and they are mad and the MSM punishes him for it as well for clicks. I don't see where there is much there for him. It's why I'm absolutely convinced he'll never move. Unless I'm missing something.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the MSM punishes him for clicks. And it really depends on what he's looking for at the end of this term. I think he's likely to be ousted next term, whether he primaried by a quixotic leftie or rolled by an R in the general. If he thinks that's the case, too, then he can set himself up for the future by a Man of Principle and bucking his constituency to do what's right for the country.

To be clear, I think it's highly unlikely that any of this happens. I'm just saying there's an opportunity here.

[malchior]

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the MSM punishes him for clicks.

It isn't but thats been the pattern. For example, Biden gets queried constantly about the crazy shit the GOP says. When he responds in a way that is seen as negative then he starts getting questions from the WH press corps about how he said he'd be a bipartisan President. It's inane. At this point the media is sniping at all sides just as badly as anyone else. Which makes some sense, they are people navigating the chaos too. I'm just assuming they generally increase chaos and people in the storm like Manchin see that clearly.

And it really depends on what he's looking for at the end of this term. I think he's likely to be ousted next term, whether he primaried by a quixotic leftie or rolled by an R in the general. If he thinks that's the case, too, then he can set himself up for the future by a Man of Principle and bucking his constituency to do what's right for the country.

He could but I don't think he is that man. I'd be happy to be wrong but my measure is that he is far too self-interested to sacrifice himself like that. I base that on a model where he has demonstrated he is a shrewd political calculator carefully picking and choosing his battles. Much like Collins.

And I suspect he early on found that the math makes no sense for him here. At least that how I approach the analysis here. His WaPo editorial felt especially composed to talk to people back home and build a base to consolidate more VSP power. Like you say, he obviously knows he is in a difficult position and I think he is trying to put up the fight until the end here that is good for *him* - no matter what it means for the country.

To be clear, I think it's highly unlikely that any of this happens. I'm just saying there's an opportunity here.

Of course, but I've lost count of all the opportunities for people of all stripes to be above it all and pull us back from madness. We just have to look at Liz Cheney going down in flames for her principles to see why that might not be appealing to Manchin either (if he truly is in it for himself first).

[Kraken]

Somehow I missed the VSP memo. Google tells me "VSP Vision Care is a vision care health insurance company operating in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom." On page 3 it also tells me it's the Virginia State Police or a variable star plotter. Maybe it's very special person? Someone clue me in.

[malchior]

Very serious people. I think Krugman coined the phrase back during the Great Recession.

[El Guapo]

Also let's be real if Manchin or Sinema signed on they'd have a parade of select VSP people quoted across most of MSM talking about how they're throwing tradition in the bin. There is no upside.

Please. There's plenty of upside. There might not be enough upside to outweigh the downside, but that doesn't mean there's no upside. You could argue there's no net upside, but that's a different thing and is highly dependent on what he sees/expects with his next election.

No upside as seen from Manchin's point of view. He doesn't do it and people back home are happy. He does it and they are mad and the MSM punishes him for it as well for clicks. I don't see where there is much there for him. It's why I'm absolutely convinced he'll never move. Unless I'm missing something.

I think the smart play for Manchin is to continue to loudly support the filibuster, then quietly support filibuster rule carve outs in areas where he wants legislation to pass. In particular it's 100% in his best interest to allow voting legislation to pass, since it's not like WV republicans aren't going to try to boost their chances of outing Manchin by restricting the WV electorate as much as possible to rural republican areas.

Then Manchin can run for reelection as the lone guy fighting for bipartisanship who saved the filibuster, while also making sure that Democrats can continue to vote.

I'm sure he'll mess it up, though.

[malchior]

This poll is ... not right ... it'd mean some Trump voters breaking for Biden. That ain't happening. The curious side effect is the melt down that ensued. People coming out of the woodwork screaming about high unemployment, inflation, and all sorts of nonsense. It's sort of interesting how fragile their bubble reality is. As if good news would be the end of the world.

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1391895967545401346

[El Guapo]

Biden's approval average is something like 56%, right? So yeah, that's probably an outlier, though not an insane one relative to the average. That said, one asset that Biden and the Democrats have in the coming elections is that as the Republican Party descends further into madness, the size of the pool that they appeal to is likely to continue to shrink (though the zeal of the remaining supporters will continue to grow).

[noxiousdog]

It's not surprising right now.

1) The public perception is Covid is nearing the end (whether it is or not). This could bite Biden in the ass later. It will completely depend on vaccination rate including boosters.
2) Things are more normal. It feels better. It feels like adults are back in charge.

[Defiant]

It's probably an outlier, but...

This poll is ... not right ... it'd mean some Trump voters breaking for Biden. That ain't happening.

I wouldn't be shocked if something like 2-4% did switch to supporting Biden (after he's shown that he's not a pedophile with dementia), but just because someone approves of someone's job, doesn't mean that the would support voting for them (eg, every presidents that had large approval ratings).

[Blackhawk]

Things are more normal. It feels better. It feels like adults are back in charge.

That's got to be a big part of the response on both sides. "Evil lib" or not, there is a lot less daily outrage, and that means less stress, and that means people are feeling less anxious. At the same time, as you said, the challenges of the last year feel like they're beginning to resolve. People are able to catch their breath. That makes for good polling.

Too bad polling today isn't the same as polling 18 months from now.

[Carpet_pissr]

There seems to be less outrage, and a modicum of calm bc it feels like adults are in charge, etc….for a Biden voter.

I promise you there is daily outrage, more than when Trump was in office, if you voted for Trump.

It’s all a matter of perception, and why our human brains are our worst enemy. Lying to us constantly about the ‘actual’ state of the world around us.

[El Guapo]

Also I think of the first rule of polling being that you shouldn't put a lot of weight on any one poll. I'm sure that there is at least one good quality poll showing Biden with a 45% or so approval rating too.

[noxiousdog]

Also I think of the first rule of polling being that you shouldn't put a lot of weight on any one poll. I'm sure that there is at least one good quality poll showing Biden with a 45% or so approval rating too.

Full poll listing in the middle

[Holman]

Biden just cancelled some Trump executive orders, including the one that would have constructed a "National Garden of Heroes" (including statues of Billy Graham and Antonin Scalia).

[stimpy]

Be.....better?

[malchior]

Be.....better?

Funny how this is only reported in Murdoch rags. Also, it is misleading to assume a Family Trust is 'tax-advantaged'. I have one set up and it isn't tax advantaged at all. It just specifies the disposition of some assets that will skip probate. Scary stuff!

[Skinypupy]

Be.....better?

Funny how this is only reported in Murdoch rags. Also, it is misleading to assume a Family Trust is 'tax-advantaged'. I have one set up and it isn't tax advantaged at all. It just specifies the disposition of some assets that will skip probate. Scary stuff!

Having gone through the process of establishing a Family Trust quite recently, this was my exact thought. The trust puts legalese around all our assets and specifies where the go when we kick the bucket. Labeling it as somehow sinister is amusing; although I’ll freely admit there are likely some tax loopholes I’m unaware of in the process.

[malchior]

Be.....better?

Funny how this is only reported in Murdoch rags. Also, it is misleading to assume a Family Trust is 'tax-advantaged'. I have one set up and it isn't tax advantaged at all. It just specifies the disposition of some assets that will skip probate. Scary stuff!

Having gone through the process of establishing a Family Trust quite recently, this was my exact thought. The trust puts legalese around all our assets and specifies where the go when we kick the bucket. Labeling it as somehow sinister is amusing; although I’ll freely admit there are likely some tax loopholes I’m unaware of in the process.

Right. It's a legal vehicle. It can be structured for "tax-advantage" or not. Just like corporations or partnerships or other vehicles can be used to hide assets. Leaping to the nefarious conclusion in a "news" article kind of gives away that it's the usual junk.

[stimpy]

Are either one of you public officials?
It's a platform they ran on.

"Yet that is a practice that Harris promised to end during the campaign.

The pledge was spelled out in the Biden Plan to Guarantee Government works for the People.

It promised to restore faith in American government by drawing a line under Trump and what it described as 'the most corrupt administration in modern history.'

In particular it set about eliminating conflicts of interest and closing a loophole that allows candidates and public officials to transfer assets into trusts controlled by family members or friends, and then disclose just the existence of the trust.

'This loophole has allowed many senior officials — including President Trump — to avoid disclosing significant financial interests,' said the pledge."

[stimpy]

Leaping to the nefarious conclusion in a "news" article kind of gives away that it's the usual junk.

And holy shit.....this forum would be empty if it werent for people drawing nefarious conclusions from "news" articles......

You guys dont even bother to try and hide your lack of impartiality....

[Kraken]

Be.....better?

Funny how this is only reported in Murdoch rags. Also, it is misleading to assume a Family Trust is 'tax-advantaged'. I have one set up and it isn't tax advantaged at all. It just specifies the disposition of some assets that will skip probate. Scary stuff!

Having gone through the process of establishing a Family Trust quite recently, this was my exact thought. The trust puts legalese around all our assets and specifies where the go when we kick the bucket. Labeling it as somehow sinister is amusing; although I’ll freely admit there are likely some tax loopholes I’m unaware of in the process.

Right. It's a legal vehicle. It can be structured for "tax-advantage" or not. Just like corporations or partnerships or other vehicles can be used to hide assets. Leaping to the nefarious conclusion in a "news" article kind of gives away that it's the usual junk.

Coincidentally, me and Wife are meeting with a lawyer tomorrow afternoon to discuss making a will (which her employer will pay for) and possibly creating a trust instead (which they will not). Taxes are not top-of-mind; protecting our assets from probate or a nursing home is. The difference between a will and a trust comes down to how much it will cost, and how it benefits us (as opposed to our heirs).

I don't understand any of this stuff, but intend to learn over the next couple of weeks.

[malchior]

Leaping to the nefarious conclusion in a "news" article kind of gives away that it's the usual junk.

And holy shit.....this forum would be empty if it werent for people drawing nefarious conclusions from "news" articles......

You guys dont even bother to try and hide your lack of impartiality....

It isn't lack of impartiality. I just pointed out a very basic flaw in the argument. It could even be true but I have to layer in that the source is not trustworthy as well. My confidence it is accurate is very low. Just to reiterate where is *actual evidence* that the trust was created for tax advantage? Where is the actual proven conflict with their platform? The reason this isn't a story anywhere outside less reputable sources is that it right now is premised on a paper thin argument. It might deserve a formal question or more research but they wrote an article alleging ill intent and hypocrisy without evidence.

[LawBeefaroni]

Come on. It is a family trust, which has tax advantages. It's a "tax advantaged trust.". Whether she uses it to avoid taxes is another matter but it is a potential tax shelter.

That fact that it holds real estate in 2 different states seems to indicate that it does convey some tax advantages.


It bears examination if we want to hold all elected officials to the same standards. And the conflict is that it contains undisclosed assets. Not the tax implications.

[Alefroth]

Are either one of you public officials?
It's a platform they ran on.

"Yet that is a practice that Harris promised to end during the campaign.

The pledge was spelled out in the Biden Plan to Guarantee Government works for the People.

It promised to restore faith in American government by drawing a line under Trump and what it described as 'the most corrupt administration in modern history.'

In particular it set about eliminating conflicts of interest and closing a loophole that allows candidates and public officials to transfer assets into trusts controlled by family members or friends, and then disclose just the existence of the trust.

'This loophole has allowed many senior officials — including President Trump — to avoid disclosing significant financial interests,' said the pledge."

I'm all for her being punished to the extent Trump was.

[Zarathud]

That article is a blatant hack job written by someone who knows nothing about trusts.

A Family Trust is a name for a trust — and how the trust is created and structured will make it tax-advantaged or not. Being a trustee is simply a responsibility to use money for a designated purpose and beneficiary. Knowing VP Kamela Harris is a trustee means nothing by itself.

This could be money received from a family member at death. It could be money gifted during lifetime. It could be their money set aside in an estate plan. Whose money funded it, who created it, and how it is administered makes all the difference.

This is what I do for a living. Perfectly legal, normal and legitimate tax and family asset planning. It’s what well-advised people do to help their family by planning ahead.

Go get a Will and trust. The cost is worth avoiding a bunch of unpleasantness at death and afterwards. I see it every day, especially lately.

[malchior]

Come on. It is a family trust, which has tax advantages. It's a "tax advantaged trust.". Whether she uses it to avoid taxes is another matter but it is a potential tax shelter.

Come on indeed. Like I said - it might be but the article treats it like it's an established fact.

That fact that it holds real estate in 2 different states seems to indicate that it does convey some tax advantages.

This is pure conjecture. So does mine. I'm getting no tax benefit from the arrangement. In any case, it warrants a look but the problem is the certainty in the article.

It bears examination if we want to hold all elected officials to the same standards. And the conflict is that it contains undisclosed assets. Not the tax implications.

I agree on this point. Though it's also hardly unusual. Many family's have trusts. In any case, I'm personally binning it until someone beyond the Murdoch universe isn't ignoring it. I have a feeling I know why there aren't other stories and it has nothing to do with the liberal media.

[Zarathud]

The article is pure bullshit propaganda from stumpy. There is no issue there at all, as long as tax returns are filed with the IRS.

[Kraken]

Go get a Will and trust. The cost is worth avoiding a bunch of unpleasantness at death and afterwards. I see it every day, especially lately.

On the bright side, I'll be dead. But I do want to ensure that my cat is provided for, and so we're meeting with a lawyer tomorrow. We did this once before and it ended badly, but that's a different thread.

[stimpy]

It's typical politician hypocritical bullshit.
They ran on a pledge to do something.
They blustered on about the "Biden Plan to Guarantee Government works for the People".
They railed against Trump for doing exactly what they're doing.
You lap dogs ate it up, but wont hold them accountable for doing nothing in regards to it after they got elected.

Higher standard my ass.......

it's not about punishment or what private citizens use the trusts for.
They pledged to stop public officials from being able to do it.

I must have missed the efforts they've made on fulfilling that pledge so far.....

[Zarathud]

How about disclosing their tax returns? You are so quick to find blame, and don’t bother to recognize the difference.

There’s a reason Trump is under so many investigations.

[hepcat]

Are either one of you public officials?
It's a platform they ran on.

"Yet that is a practice that Harris promised to end during the campaign.

The pledge was spelled out in the Biden Plan to Guarantee Government works for the People.

It promised to restore faith in American government by drawing a line under Trump and what it described as 'the most corrupt administration in modern history.'

In particular it set about eliminating conflicts of interest and closing a loophole that allows candidates and public officials to transfer assets into trusts controlled by family members or friends, and then disclose just the existence of the trust.

'This loophole has allowed many senior officials — including President Trump — to avoid disclosing significant financial interests,' said the pledge."

I'm all for her being punished to the extent Trump was.

[stimpy]

How about disclosing their tax returns? You are so quick to find blame, and don’t bother to recognize the difference.

There’s a reason Trump is under so many investigations.

What good is disclosing them if you're not actually.......ya know......disclosing them?

[Octavious]

I really hope someone drops a bunt on them in the 9th inning of a no hitter. He will burst into flames. Seriously that dude needs to go. I've seen people get less crap for getting a DWI. Oh wait...

[LordMortis]

I really hope someone drops a bunt on them in the 9th inning of a no hitter. He will burst into flames. Seriously that dude needs to go. I've seen people get less crap for getting a DWI. Oh wait...