Because the non-Dems haven't been divisive with their "he's not American" "She drinks the blood of terrified babies" "It's all Socialism" "They're going to take your guns" etc...
Like Obama, he tried to work with all perspectives - but there are some folks out there who are just not open to anything other than tearing everything up. He was never, ever, gonna use reason to sway them - and shouldn't have.
I took a corporate leadership course a few years ago, and there was a very interesting exercise about how to get your project done when you have a few supporters, a few neutrals, and a few enemies. I tried to convince the enemies that my plan was right, which was my problem. At the end, the folks summarizing the best way to get something to succeed was to take your team, work with the fence-sitters, and not bother with the antagonists who will just use up your energy and cause you to slow down and will do everything they can to thwart you.
Biden started in my shoes "well, perhaps logic and reasoning will bring them to my side" - and now he's moved towards the approach that works: get a majority on your side and let the folks stuck in their rut just stay there.
Move forward.
Yes, working on the fence sitters is the correct approach,
but this is far from a text book case.
Trump's presidency was built in building divisiveness,
and putting these types of messages out only makes him stronger,
at a time when he is on the ropes.
You could have been bold, strong, indirectly called out the threats to our democracy,
and still stayed on the high road.
I guess we get the leaders we deserve.
Because the non-Dems haven't been divisive with their "he's not American" "She drinks the blood of terrified babies" "It's all Socialism" "They're going to take your guns" etc...
Like Obama, he tried to work with all perspectives - but there are some folks out there who are just not open to anything other than tearing everything up. He was never, ever, gonna use reason to sway them - and shouldn't have.
I took a corporate leadership course a few years ago, and there was a very interesting exercise about how to get your project done when you have a few supporters, a few neutrals, and a few enemies. I tried to convince the enemies that my plan was right, which was my problem. At the end, the folks summarizing the best way to get something to succeed was to take your team, work with the fence-sitters, and not bother with the antagonists who will just use up your energy and cause you to slow down and will do everything they can to thwart you.
Biden started in my shoes "well, perhaps logic and reasoning will bring them to my side" - and now he's moved towards the approach that works: get a majority on your side and let the folks stuck in their rut just stay there.
He's targeting the Senate and gubernatorial races that Trump candidates are in. PA is THE poster child for Republican stupidity. Dr. Oz is a total nitwit, and Doug Mastriano is the walking embodiment of Qanon. It would be harder to pick two less deserving idiots to run. Trump wants Mastriano, who has literally pledged to ensure Trump wins PA in 2024 if he runs.
It's nice to see the Dems actually call things out and fight for a change, instead of taking the high road. "When they go low, we go high" has proven to be a foolish strategy.
I had the complete opposite view.
Pandering to their respective bases is all we are getting...and that's getting us no where.
That was not the speech this country needs right now.
You can be tough, and still not be divisive.
And I didnt realize Biden was a Floyd fan, what a setup.
I didnt listen to the full speech, read some articles, saw some videos...but I do not think he took the right tack.
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that our systems and democracy are being threatened, but I can't agree with the president delivering this message.
It should have been one more of pulling together, and leading to the future back as one nation.
Why even mention chubby? It's just feeding the troll, giving him more energy.
He's targeting the Senate and gubernatorial races that Trump candidates are in. PA is THE poster child for Republican stupidity. Dr. Oz is a total nitwit, and Doug Mastriano is the walking embodiment of Qanon. It would be harder to pick two less deserving idiots to run. Trump wants Mastriano, who has literally pledged to ensure Trump wins PA in 2024 if he runs.
It's nice to see the Dems actually call things out and fight for a change, instead of taking the high road. "When they go low, we go high" has proven to be a foolish strategy.
I didnt listen to the full speech, read some articles, saw some videos...but I do not think he took the right tack.
I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that our systems and democracy are being threatened, but I can't agree with the president delivering this message.
It should have been one more of pulling together, and leading to the future back as one nation.
Why even mention chubby? It's just feeding the troll, giving him more energy.
Don't know what all the fuss is about. If you voted for Biden, then you also voted for this. He is just keeping a campaign promise.
Excellent. Let's go Brandon! After all, we all know that colleges are for-profit rip-offs with huge endowments.
Kids can't get enough scratch together to even start on the idea of home ownership.
I would've gone for forgiving all interest payments, but this'll do in a pinch. The only people that complain about it are either 1) backed by big-money sponsors, 2) reflexive complainers in the GOP looking for every illogical reason to clutch their pearls, or 3) selfish Americans who hate that others have gotten a break and they didn't. Where were they when tax laws changed to give a break to the wealthy? Answer: they weren't being prompted by the rich to complain, like they are now.
I don't think there is any way to associate student debt with lifestyle or commitment... but this will give rise to all kinds of stories.
"I worked 500 hours of overtime last year to pay my wife's medical bills, and that pushed us over the $250k income threshold. In effect, I worked 300 hours so I could continue to owe my student loans from the 1980's"
Fix the program and lower costs... but don't randomly forgive debts that people took on because they haven't been successful. It rewards the wrong things...and will become a "defund the police" opportunity for the right.
rgio, I am just ranting away because it seems like many I knew spent lots of time in the bar and going out 3 or 4 nights a week. I reckon most who have built up big debts received bad advice, do not understand finance, and have little understanding of the labour market. Then, the American socialist state often bails out large corporations who screwed up so..... there is that precedent.
As for the medical bills...... maybe, just maybe a basic, universal public health care system might solve some of those problems. Then US voters appear to oppose using the monopsony power of the government to bring down drug costs. In the name of freedom?
In the meantime, the US public debt/GDP ratio keeps growing. And forgiving student debt will not solve thorny deep structural economic issues. Nor will it fix the inherent volatility introduced into the US economy by the employment mandate of the US Federal Reserve.
I would've cancelled student loan interest. Staves off all those "but I paid my debt off!" complaints.
Except for Trump, of course; he just declares bankruptcy and screws over his lender.
Not sure why this kind of student should cross-subsidize people who partied their way through school and racked up huge debts.
I don't think there is any way to associate student debt with lifestyle or commitment... but this will give rise to all kinds of stories.
"I worked 500 hours of overtime last year to pay my wife's medical bills, and that pushed us over the $250k income threshold. In effect, I worked 300 hours so I could continue to owe my student loans from the 1980's"
Fix the program and lower costs... but don't randomly forgive debts that people took on because they haven't been successful. It rewards the wrong things...and will become a "defund the police" opportunity for the right.
This is a mistake, both in the overall concept and the implementation.
The program as described forces those who didn't attend college, and those who paid for college out of savings instead of borrowing money, to pay a portion on behalf of those who borrowed money. Since 2/3rds of Americans didn't attend college, and many didn't borrow to attend, it will get a lot of negative pushback from a majority of Americans.
The idea that $125k is the threshold ($250k married) seems a bit high.
......
Agreed. Student loan money is some of the softest loan money available. Nobody has yet to explain to me why working folks with no college or university education should pay for the education of college and university graduates.
Many of us worked hard and lived very frugally during our university years and kept living frugally after we graduated in order to pay off the student loans as quickly as possible. Not sure why this kind of student should cross-subsidize people who partied their way through school and racked up huge debts.
This is a mistake, both in the overall concept and the implementation.
The program as described forces those who didn't attend college, and those who paid for college out of savings instead of borrowing money, to pay a portion on behalf of those who borrowed money. Since 2/3rds of Americans didn't attend college, and many didn't borrow to attend, it will get a lot of negative pushback from a majority of Americans.
The idea that $125k is the threshold ($250k married) seems a bit high.
It also doesn't address the private loans, and the ridiculous interest rate that people have been paying (7% when I looked a few years ago, while the fed rate was under 1% and mortgages were at 3.5%).
another bad idea (this should be in the Election thread)
p.s., and this is from someone who's kids will benefit.
Does this reverse the inflation reduction act from last week? Seesaw
This is a mistake, both in the overall concept and the implementation.
The program as described forces those who didn't attend college, and those who paid for college out of savings instead of borrowing money, to pay a portion on behalf of those who borrowed money. Since 2/3rds of Americans didn't attend college, and many didn't borrow to attend, it will get a lot of negative pushback from a majority of Americans.
The idea that $125k is the threshold ($250k married) seems a bit high.
It also doesn't address the private loans, and the ridiculous interest rate that people have been paying (7% when I looked a few years ago, while the fed rate was under 1% and mortgages were at 3.5%).
Totally love someone's suggestion that the President should sign the bills with a giant "LET'S GO BRANDON!" banner behind him. That would immediately tank all the opposition's signs.
And it would be evil, which is my primary reason for liking it.
Pretty sure that ship has sailed but would have been a good response.
Totally love someone's suggestion that the President should sign the bills with a giant "LET'S GO BRANDON!" banner behind him. That would immediately tank all the opposition's signs.
And it would be evil, which is my primary reason for liking it.
I don't think he was being sarcastic. I am pretty sure Westslope sees Russia as the victim of US warmongering / NATO expansionism and is completely innocent of any aggressive intent towards its neighbours. Not sure how he can think that, given the historical evidence, but I am pretty sure that is what he thinks.
I would really love to hear his view on Finland & Sweden joining NATO and who was responsible for that.
I'm guessing he will spin it as aggressive NATO expansionism forced on those two countries... instead of what it really is... to try and protect the sovereignty of those nations from a nation that demonstrates it clearly doesn't respect that.
Yep, his inability to acknowledge that small nations have any agency is kind of hilarious, given that he usually champions the rights of minorities and the undertrodden.
