The ONLY Biden Term

[TheCatt]

I'm with him on school closings, not so much with the thing about people leaving the workforce.

We need people in the workforce to grow the economy.

I think as a society we should be moving back to one income households.

Good luck. Although, maybe we should encourage throuples? Two working parents and one stays home

I remember that worked really well when I did it playing the Sims back in 2001.

[Leisher]

We need people in the workforce to grow the economy.

If one person can achieve the spending power of two, why do both need to work? So companies can raise prices to offset the additional manpower?

Maybe if most of corporate America wasn't grossly overpaying their C Suite to give them overinflated earnings every quarter so their stock price spikes, then people could afford more and spending would increase? The economy would follow along with it.

[TheCatt]

We need people in the workforce to grow the economy.

If one person can achieve the spending power of two, why do both need to work? So companies can raise prices to offset the additional manpower?

Maybe if most of corporate America wasn't grossly overpaying their C Suite to give them overinflated earnings every quarter so their stock price spikes, then people could afford more and spending would increase? The economy would follow along with it.

I think C suite earnings are a micro problem in a macro world.

[Leisher]

We need people in the workforce to grow the economy.

If one person can achieve the spending power of two, why do both need to work? So companies can raise prices to offset the additional manpower?

Maybe if most of corporate America wasn't grossly overpaying their C Suite to give them overinflated earnings every quarter so their stock price spikes, then people could afford more and spending would increase? The economy would follow along with it.

I think C suite earnings are a micro problem in a macro world.

If a corporation wants to pay their CEO $15M/yr, I don't really care. It's when the CEO's financial package is tied to the company's stock prices that, I believe, leads to problems.

[TheCatt]

If a corporation wants to pay their CEO $15M/yr, I don't really care. It's when the CEO's financial package is tied to the company's stock prices that, I believe, leads to problems.

That started because people thought the straight up salary that CEOs were getting was too much and unrelated to performance. The US even created an extra tax on excessive salaries by removing their deductibility in the 1990s.

Ooops.

[Leisher]

If a corporation wants to pay their CEO $15M/yr, I don't really care. It's when the CEO's financial package is tied to the company's stock prices that, I believe, leads to problems.

That started because people thought the straight up salary that CEOs were getting was too much and unrelated to performance. The US even created an extra tax on excessive salaries by removing their deductibility in the 1990s.

Ooops.

It's almost like the government doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to business. Weird that a bunch of lawyers would be clueless about taxes and economic repercussions.

[Leisher]

CBO weighs in on the minimum wage hike act.

[Leisher]

South Dakota filing lawsuit to challenge Biden's executive orders.

They're actually challenging executive orders in general. Probably a good use of "checks and balances" just to make sure the ever growing use of them is legal.

[TheCatt]

South Dakota filing lawsuit to challenge Biden's executive orders.

They're actually challenging executive orders in general. Probably a good use of "checks and balances" just to make sure the ever growing use of them is legal.

After reading it, I don't think they have a leg to stand on

[Leisher]

South Dakota filing lawsuit to challenge Biden's executive orders.

They're actually challenging executive orders in general. Probably a good use of "checks and balances" just to make sure the ever growing use of them is legal.

After reading it, I don't think they have a leg to stand on

Probably not, but someone should look into it. The president should absolutely have executive orders, but should they count as legislation?

[Leisher]

Three governors under fire.

Cuomo should possibly be in jail. I don't know enough about Newsom's controversy (Troy?). Abbott is pretty shit, but he's not responsible for years of piss poor infrastructure planning. (That's not a defense of the man and how he's handling the situation, but he did inherit a problem that nobody anticipated.)

Combine these three with Cruz's antics, and I legit have a sliver of hope that people are going to start holding more politicians' feet to the fire.

[TheCatt]

Three governors under fire.

Cuomo should possibly be in jail. I don't know enough about Newsom's controversy (Troy?). Abbott is pretty shit, but he's not responsible for years of piss poor infrastructure planning. (That's not a defense of the man and how he's handling the situation, but he did inherit a problem that nobody anticipated.)

Combine these three with Cruz's antics, and I legit have a sliver of hope that people are going to start holding more politicians' feet to the fire.

Burn them all.

[Leisher]

Burn them all.

Yep.

Biden refusing to cancel $50K in student debt.

[Leisher]

Two Centrist Dems are going to be a problem for Biden.

I'm a huge fan of this. Like the 5 or so GOP senators who went against party ranks to vote for impeachment of Trump, the Dems need their own inter party "checks and balances" to keep them honest.

[Leisher]

Latest Harvard/Harris poll on a number of hot topics.

Follow the tweet below. No idea who that blue check is, but he summarizes a bunch of them so you don't have to go digging. Some surprising and not so surprising results.

[Leisher]

Don't know where else to put this...

The U.S. "freedom" score just keeps dropping.

Despite the opening few paragraphs of the article, you'll see it's been dropping steadily since 2009.

[TheCatt]

Don't know where else to put this...

The U.S. "freedom" score just keeps dropping.

Despite the opening few paragraphs of the article, you'll see it's been dropping steadily since 2009.

Feel like that's more of a Trump term thing.

[Leisher]

Don't know where else to put this...

The U.S. "freedom" score just keeps dropping.

Despite the opening few paragraphs of the article, you'll see it's been dropping steadily since 2009.

Feel like that's more of a Trump term thing.

Reported now, it goes here.

I was treating it like a current event, and no other thread is more current...?

[Leisher]

Left leaning Yahoo questioning why Biden is the "absent president".

[Leisher]

Might as well put this political poll here.

It covers a lot of different issues, like people thinking political violence is inevitable, how Rs and Ds handled Jan 6th, and so on.

However, one area that fascinates me is voting:

And as Republicans in several states move to make voting rules more restrictive partly in response to false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, the poll finds 53% of adults say the bigger problem for elections in the US is that the rules aren't strict enough to prevent illegal votes while 39% say the bigger problem is that the rules make it too difficult for eligible citizens to cast ballots.
There are broad divides on this question by party, by race and ethnicity. Nearly all Republicans (92%) say that voting rules not being strict enough is a bigger problem, and a majority of independents agree (56%). Among Democrats, 70% say the bigger problem is that the rules make it too hard for eligible citizens to cast ballots.
Most people of color say that access is the bigger problem (50% to 40%), while Whites break the opposite way (59% say it's a bigger problem that the rules aren't strict enough). But among both of those groups, there are divisions. Most Black Americans say that access is the bigger problem, while a narrow majority of Hispanic Americans break toward concerns that the rules are not tight enough. And while 92% of White Republicans say that the rules are not strict enough, 81% of White Democrats say the rules make it too hard for eligible citizens to vote.

So wait...
Rs think voting rules are not restrictive enough, despite no widespread voter fraud in the last election (Although, to be fair, there was fraud, just not in the numbers Trump claims.). Ds think voting rules are too restrictive despite the highest turnout ever and them winning all over the place.

What?!? I mean, I guess it's just a total coincidence that each party's stance matches exactly what they need to win an election...