Biden’s First year review

Year one summary

Oh, the hummanity

I mean I knew they would drive it in the ditch, I just didn’t know how soon or so hard. 

59 thoughts on “Biden’s First year review

  1. A few setbacks are not unusual with a toxic Congress. I think it is amazing we even got the infrastructure bill through. But we did. BBB might get through, but unfortunately the voting rights bill, even authored by Manchin, is stuck. Schumer will use parliamentary maneuvers to get a vote just put the Republicans on record.

    Unfortunately the political climate is wrapped around one topic only: undying sycophancy to the Big Lie and Trump. There are plenty of Republicans who would love for the party to dump the ex-president. But courage is lacking. Re: Cruz’s shameful display of groveling for Carlson is just about the best example of where the GOP is stuck.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Toxic Congress?

      The Dems had majorities in both houses.

      The filibuster is there to compel compromise with the minority so that the country doesn’t swing radically back and forth every election.

      Biden was in the Senate since Lincoln’s second term, he should have some idea of how the Senate works and what was required, but he tried to govern like he had FDR or LBJ majorities.

      Try toxic hubris.

      Like

      1. Trump had both houses of Congress for two years also. No wall, no infrastructure, no health care bill. No immigration reform.

        The fact is that with 140+ Republicans who support the Big Lie in the House and a split Senate, not much will happen. And through some “miracle” the GOP gained seats in the house in 2020 while the president lost by 7 million votes. So the House is razor thin also.

        Finally, the Democrats have a broad base that makes party discipline tougher. The GOP is like a party of fearful drones who dare not speak their own minds lest they get worked over by a Tucker and Friends.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. What did Trump want that Democrats could work with? And working with Trump was impossible.

            The tax bill was cobbled together without Democrats and in secret. Then hauled out for a quick vote.

            He never followed up on infrastructure.

            Recall the bi-partisan immigration bill that fully funded his wall in 2018? He said bring him a bill he would take the heat.

            Well, he reneged. Hard to negotiate with man who won’t reciprocate.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “Trump was also limited by the filibuster.”

            So you blame failure to get legislation passed on Biden but not on Trump. When BOTH were limited by lack of effective control of the Senate?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. No one said it was in the Constitution. The Filibuster originated in the Seante Rules in 1806 as a means to insure adequate, but not endless, debate on issues. The rule has served for over 200 years and should not be discarded lightly.

            Do you really want all laws to swing back and forth every time the electoral pendulum swings?

            Like

          4. …” a means to insure adequate, but not endless, debate on issues.”

            If only that were the way it worked today. It is not about finding compromise; it is about stonewalling legislation that is not liked by either party. The filibuster is being abused today and the Senate has Constitutional grounds to do away with it.

            Hamilton advocated for the idea that the majority of votes should rule in both house in one of the Federalist papers.

            “Do you really want all laws to swing back and forth every time the electoral pendulum swings?”

            See Youngkin’s Day One EO’s, including one that he can’t order. Leaving the RGGI. It was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. He has not Commonwealth Constitutional grounds to order it. He needs to take it to the Legislature to get that done.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. I haven’t read the RGGI act, but I’m going to guess his people have. Most such bills allow the governor to make some decisions on implementation.

            We shall see, I’m sure Dominion, which makes out like a bandit under RGGI will sue if there are grounds, or will fund a proxy to do it.

            In any case, major changes in how the country works should be made by large majorities or not at all.

            Like

  2. The Filibuster is not part of the Constitution. It is now a complete anachronism with no legitimate purpose under the Constitution. It’s ongoing abuse by the Republicans and the billionaire class to thwart the will of the electorate ensures it will be ended in the not-too-distant future.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. People who are not stupid, learn from experience. You can call them or me all the names you want, but that does not change my opinion that the filibuster is now a harmful anachronism.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So, after the next election and Republicans have a narrow majority in both houses, it will be OK with you if the GOP makes exceptions to the filibuster?

            Like

          3. I want the filibuster abolished. It is more important in the long run than anything the Republicans might get through should they have control of Congress. Besides, whenever Republicans get into position to actually change the law, they manage to alienate the majority by pandering to their base of fanatics.

            Like

          4. Well, we will disagree.

            I don’t want major changes in our law or economy based on narrow majorities that shift every 2 years.

            If an idea can’t get 60 votes in the Senate, the country isn’t ready for it yet.

            Like

          5. “I don’t want major changes in our law or economy based on narrow majorities that shift every 2 years.”

            Those shifting narrow majorities are artificial. The real majority is substantial, stable, and left of center. The popular vote for President has favored the Democrats consistently. The overall votes for Senators and House members also strongly favor the Democrats. And do so consistently. In the current 50-50 Senate the population of states with Democratic senators has 41.5 million more people than the states with Republican senators. The filibuster exacerbates this embedded anti-democratic structure of the Constitution. It needs to end.

            https://tinyurl.com/ym864aw7

            Liked by 1 person

          6. I have great faith in the people’s ability to learn when smacked between the eyes with a 2 X 4. They experimented with giving Democrats power and have learned their lesson, at least for now.

            But consider what would have happened had the filibuster not existed in 2016.

            No, Obamacare, No Dept of Education, a drastically cut EPA, an airtight border.

            Looks good to me, but I bet you would be horrified.

            Take care what you wish for.

            (Gabbard/Manchin 24)

            Like

          7. Let them kill Obamacare. That would be great!

            I believe that our leaders should be answerable to the people, not to the corporations and billionaires who finance campaigns in little states such as West Virginia.

            If the Republicans had succeeded in killing the Affordable Care Act it would have been VERY GOOD for the Democrats. They put on a show of killing it when they knew they could not for that reason. With no filibuster, the GOP could no longer get away with being only the party of “No!”

            You say you have faith in the people. Uh, no – you don’t. That is why you support every anti-democracy gimmick that the losing party dreams up.

            Almost all of your comments about Biden are based on a fact not in evidence – that the country is doing badly on his watch. Be warned. Those “alternative facts” will bite you if you put too much weight on them.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. If you think the Affordable Care Act is so damn bad, why do you want to make it difficult for the Republicans to repeal it by protecting the archaic a widely circumvented filibuster?

            Your comment about Medicaid recipients is very revealing. And not in a good way.

            You seem to have forgotten that the essence of the Affordable Care Act is not the internet marketplace, it is the reforms, standardization, and regulation of the insurance industry. If you think people want to go back to the days when getting sick meant you were priced out of or outright denied insurance, you are dead wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Your comment about Medicaid recipients is very revealing. And not in a good way.”

            Revealing about whom?

            The entire strategy of the Democratic party is to get people accustomed to looking to government to get the things they should provide for themselves.

            Gradually seducing people into dependence on government has been the plan for 60 years,

            Like

          10. “Revealing about whom?”

            About you.

            It drips with resentment that anybody should get help coming – you think – out of your pocketbook. It is not just those receiving Medicaid assistance who are happy they are getting it. It is all decent Americans – still a majority – that do not want desperate fellow human beings (mostly children, the disabled, and the very elderly) to be denied the help they need.

            You are not alone in your attitude. We saw the Republicans the last time they had power in this state gleefully turn down the federally funded assistance that those children, handicapped and elderly needed.

            https://www.prb.org/resources/majority-of-people-covered-by-medicaid-and-similar-programs-are-children-older-adults-or-disabled/

            Liked by 1 person

          11. You’re projecting again.

            First, my retirement is structured in such a way that my taxes are just about right for my share of the legitimate functions of government, So, it’s not about my personal situation.

            Medicaid has been expanded to include low and low middle income families up to 138% of the poverty level, not just children and elders who failed to prepare for their old age. This basically bails out their employers from needing to provide insurance to be competitive.

            The harm, in my mind, is to the recipients of the Democrat’s largesse. Adults should provide for themselves and their families. Encouraging people to expect to be taken care of weakens them. This infantilization of the American people has been ongoing since the 1960’s

            I look at today’s young adults, especially the more educated, like the teacher’s union, and I just don’t see them storming Omaha Beach, or struggling through a great depression as our grandparents did.

            “Hard times create strong men,
            Strong men create good times,
            Good times create weak men,
            Weak men create hard times.” Anacyclosis

            The ancient Greeks had that right, and today’s Democratic party is cynically in the business of mass producing weak men.

            Like

          12. “So, it’s not about my personal situation.”

            Which makes all your anger and resentment even more unreasoning.

            I will bet a dollar against a donut that your retirement structure includes both Social Security and Medicare. It is good for you that it does since the health problems of you and your wife would have ruined your plans otherwise.

            You cannot help yourself, can you? It is all that bottled up anger and resentment. You disparage impoverished elders as people “who failed to prepare for their old age.” Good grief! How out of touch with reality are you?

            You bemoan the fact that, golly, Medicaid goes up to 138% of the poverty line. The poverty line is $12,880. So, at 138% Medicaid stops helping if you earn more than $17,775. Do you know what rents are? Do you know what insurance costs even for a young healthy person? At least $6,000. No problem in your fantasy world where employers would provide if only the government did not. Not even remotely realistic.

            And never mind the elderly and the working poor, now you are disparaging whole generations of younger people as “weak men” who could never take Omaha Beach or survive a depression. Another fantasy.

            Your lengthy response (thanks for that) and the poem you provide are powerful confirmation that I was not far off the mark when I wrote. . . “Your comment about Medicaid recipients is very revealing. And not in a good way.” Now you have just fleshed it out.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. And you have fleshed out yours,

            You want masses of weak and irresponsible drones who will reliably vote Democrat in order to guarantee your side maintains power.

            But what happens when strong men are needed, and you have made them all into big children?

            Like

          14. Are you saying that keeping healthcare unaffordable and unavailable for the the families in the bottom quintiles, that is getting rid of Medicaid, will make men stronger.

            Survival of the fittest and the upper quintiles?

            Liked by 2 people

          15. Yes, you did. Do you think that is what the GOP would implement when and if they ever overhaul the healthcare with a “better, cheaper” system?

            I liked parts of your system except it did not address pre-existing conditions. That is the part that makes it difficult if not impossible to change insurance coverage once a person has been diagnosed or treated for almost any condition or disease.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. Uh, in the TLP plan, you would be continuously insured from birth unless you deliberately chose not to be. Changing jobs or being unemployed would not change that.

            The GOP did try to implement parts of the plan, the enhanced HSA among others but was blocked by a Democrat filibuster, but we offered the full plan to both parties, if neither chose to accept, that is not our fault.

            Like

          17. But how do you change insurer with pre-existing conditions?

            Your company may charge too much, have bad service or you can afford better coverage elsewhere as you get older.

            I liked the idea of the individual coverage rather than through employment. But the free market part is scrapped if underwriting can prevent that. And before Obamacare, the rules favoring health insurers were egregious for denying, delaying, dropping customers as a course of business.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. Insurance is a contract. They can’t drop you as long as he premium is paid, and the TLP plan allows for continuous payment no matter where you work.

            Like

          19. You should have been a lawyer. Still no answer to the simple question about how to change insurance companies if the one you have is not good for you. If pre-existing conditions are a factor, you could be stuck just like you are if getting insurance through the job.

            At birth, you have no choice, but as you go through life, the free market is supposed to keep insurers in check through competition.

            Yes, insurance is a contract. And if the company denies coverage, it is up to the premium payer to appeal and litigate. Talk about a power imbalance and an enormous burden on the litigants taking years to get judicial relief.

            The point is that free markets don’t account for having to litigate under our current system.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. “And you have fleshed out yours”

            Strong men? Like you? Don’t get me started. I am going to exercise some self-censorship and just wish you a good night.

            Like

      1. Fellow hypocrites?
        I am not sure what issue you think I have been hypocritical about, but it most certainly is not this one. I have NEVER been a believer in this archaic, anti-democratic, and often racist rule which for decades was the main tool of people like Strom Thurmond blocking the end of Petty Apartheid in this country. The Senate itself is anti-democratic with empty land getting better representation than people. The filibuster has always made it even less democratic. It needs to go. And it will.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The Daily Caller? Really? How pathetic is that? But it is a good example of what is wrong with you people. You latch on to this sort of nonsense because you really, really want to believe it.

    Here in the real world, President Biden has had a good year despite the monumental mess he was left to deal with. He enjoyed some major successes and experienced some disappointing failures. And, on his watch, the country has had a thriving economy and was not engaged in ANY wars for the first time in decades.

    Here is a report from the real world. Enjoy.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/12/joe-biden-first-year/621141/

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Where is it not?

        Whether you care to admit it or not, it is garbage. It accurately reflects its founder, Tucker Carlson and has well documented connections with White Supremacists, Anti-Semites, and other deplorables. It’s idea of journalism is to throw mud and publicize doctored pictures and videos. Its puerile intellectual level is demonstrated by it running fake nudes of AOC.

        You are known by the company you keep. You should not admit to relying on it.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

        Liked by 1 person

          1. The article is about Biden’s polling. That is not what you claimed it was about. Nothing has been driven into the ditch. And, being who they are, DC focuses entirely on the worst of many polls. 538 has the overall approval number 10 points better. Interesting that Biden’s low point, is about the same as Trump’s high point. But, sure, his polling could be better, but it is not the apocalypse of your dreams.

            https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

            The reality behind the polling is that people are unhappy that the pandemic and all the disruption it causes have come roaring back and Biden gets the blame. So be it. It will pass. Killing thousands of people with anti-vaxx, anti-mask nonsense is turning out to be good political strategy for the GOP – in the short term.

            As we get into the election cycle later this year the pandemic will be fading, better vaccines will be distributed, year over year inflation numbers will have turned around, the job market will still be the best in decades for ordinary folks, people will be ever more disgusted with SCOTUS, the facts of 1/6 will be widely known, and Dear Leader will continue his campaign of wrecking the GOP. We will see how the poll that counts goes in November.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Uh, no. I am telling you.

            Every election cycle you soak up nonsense from inside right-wing bubble, get excited, only to have your hopes crushed when reality raises its ugly head. GOP was going to dominate 2018. They didn’t. Trump was going to win 2020 bigly. He didn’t. You seem on the same path for 2022. A little bad news for President Biden and your fever rises.

            Trumpism may yet prevail – God help us, but my advice is to temper your expectations for the various reasons mentioned.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. You are under the delusion that I like Trump and all of his policy. I don’t. But he was far better than Hillary and what the GOP needed at the time, to help them grow spines.

            Like

          4. “You are under the delusion that I like Trump and all of his policy.”

            Delusion?

            All I know about what you like is what you choose to write, not write and ignore.

            In sum, it boils down to something akin to adulation. Egregious failings and crimes are minimized while almost non-existent competence is praised to the high heavens. Trump is a con man extraordinaire, and you have been had, IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

  4. The colorized video of the Hindenburg disaster is fitting. Stumble Joe is in over his head, and anyone can see it, if willing.

    Critics made far too much of flimsy evidence that Biden’s predecessor would bring fascism to America. I see Biden, or the cabal that holds him up, as the more likely fascist. His administration reminds me of that episode in the original Star Trek series, Patterns of Force where one of Kirk’s history professors at Star Fleet Academy has introduced Nazism to a backward planet, only to become the barely conscious puppet of the regime he created.

    Dark as such imagery may seem, Star Trek’s Ekosians saved themselves in the end. Similarly, nearly twice as many souls aboard the Hindenburg survived the accident than perished. The last survivor died just last year at age 95.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s