Split Biden or Trump too old?

[scombrid]

All presidents rely very very heavily on their staff and cabinet. Decent CEOs do as well.

They do. In order to help them implement their vision. Not to serve as a figurehead for somebody's else's vision to be implemented.

Which does not make them figure heads but effective leaders. Attempting to do everything yourself is as foolish and ineffective as attempting to plow and plant and harvest and mill and market and sell produce from 10000acres of la

Who said that Biden should micromanage everything? But he ran as a moderate. And we the voters expected him to govern as one.

What an effective leader does is to assemble a team that shares a vision, is more than competent, dedicated, well informed and also willing to give push back and who can work independently to carry out the vision.

Exactly. And Biden failed to do that.

Trump’s buffoonery would have been of little consequence of he had a thing like a coherent plan—or competent staff. We should all be grateful they were so grossly incompetent that they failed to completely destroy the nation.

Even Trump managed to accomplish some things - tax cuts for example, and rapprochement between many Arab states and Israel was also started by his administration. But even he ran as more moderate than he turned out to be.
But yes, one big problem with Trump was lack of follow-through. Like when he droned Soleimani. Iran then attacked a US base with missiles and Trump effectively did not respond. He should have bombed IRGC targets. And also their nuclear sites.
Because where are we now? We are back to rotten deals and giving the theocratic regime in Tehran billions of dollars. Another of Biden's foreign policy blunders.

The tax cuts were McConnell’s and Ryan’s.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jacking up the credit card is hardly an accomplishment.

Tell that to those who have been pushing the B³ spending bill.

Where did you get your degree in economics?

 

[Swammerdami]

Because where are we now? We are back to rotten deals and giving the theocratic regime in Tehran billions of dollars. Another of Biden's foreign policy blunders.

Stop pushing rightwing lies. We are not giving Tehran billions of dollars. We are unfreezing some of their assets so that they can use them for humanitarian purposes. Yes, I know money is funigible. But the point is charges like yours should be accurate.

Another point is that the world being what it is, there will be only rotten deals with regimes like Iran. The adult question is whether one can live with the degree of "rottenness" and its foreseeable outcomes.

Right now, Iran's regime is slowly throttling itself. Frankly, short of a miracle, I cannot think of a better longer run outcome than Iranians cleaning up themselves because any other alternative seems to present simply more death and destruction to the region and the world.

Iran's governance is flawed, but there are subpolities in the Western Hemisphere which also suffer from the same flaws as Iran. And, as is the case in many countries, upcoming elections may exacerbate this evilness:

• Deny rights to women; in particular criminalize abortion. CHECK.
• Disqualify voters and use other rule changes to help incumbents win re-election. CHECK.
• Allow corrupt judges to serve on the highest court. CHECK.
• Some leaders declare that State is subservient to Church. CHECK.
• Promote school curricula which indoctrinate children. CHECK.
• Ban books said to be pornographic or otherwise "bad." CHECK.
• Help finance terrorist regimes and organizations. CHECK.

Yes, many regimes are as "evil" or corrupt as Iran. Iran is treated as special by right-wing ignorati because of their "Death to America" chants. But these chants are due in large part to America's own anti-Iran rhetoric.

Biden is correct to encourage economic and financial ties with salvageable regimes. But the Trump Administration should also get some credit. Didn't they negotiate a $3 Billion investment in America's hedge-fund industry from the corrupt Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia? $3 Billion in FUNGIBLE money, as Derec might say.

 

[Toni]

Because where are we now? We are back to rotten deals and giving the theocratic regime in Tehran billions of dollars. Another of Biden's foreign policy blunders.

Stop pushing rightwing lies. We are not giving Tehran billions of dollars. We are unfreezing some of their assets so that they can use them for humanitarian purposes. Yes, I know money is funigible. But the point is charges like yours should be accurate.

Another point is that the world being what it is, there will be only rotten deals with regimes like Iran. The adult question is whether one can live with the degree of "rottenness" and its foreseeable outcomes.

Right now, Iran's regime is slowly throttling itself. Frankly, short of a miracle, I cannot think of a better longer run outcome than Iranians cleaning up themselves because any other alternative seems to present simply more death and destruction to the region and the world.

Iran's governance is flawed, but there are subpolities in the Western Hemisphere which also suffer from the same flaws as Iran. And, as is the case in many countries, upcoming elections may exacerbate this evilness:

• Deny rights to women; in particular criminalize abortion. CHECK.
• Disqualify voters and use other rule changes to help incumbents win re-election. CHECK.
• Allow corrupt judges to serve on the highest court. CHECK.
• Some leaders declare that State is subservient to Church. CHECK.
• Promote school curricula which indoctrinate children. CHECK.
• Ban books said to be pornographic or otherwise "bad." CHECK.
• Help finance terrorist regimes and organizations. CHECK.

Yes, many regimes are as "evil" or corrupt as Iran. Iran is treated as special by right-wing ignorati because of their "Death to America" chants. But these chants are due in large part to America's own anti-Iran rhetoric.

Biden is correct to encourage economic and financial ties with salvageable regimes. But the Trump Administration should also get some credit. Didn't they negotiate a $3 Billion investment in America's hedge-fund industry from the corrupt Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia? $3 Billion in FUNGIBLE money, as Derec might say.

I’ve always been a bit bemused by the right’s demonization of adherents of Islam considering many of them wholeheartedly embrace the same or very similar social policies. Of course you forgot to mention the anti-gay/LGBTQ+ policies. For a group that seems to be horrified by Sharia law, much of the GOP certainly does embrace most of its tenents…..

 

[Toni]

When has Nixon advocated UBI?

Negative income tax, explained | MIT Sloan

Could a negative income tax replace the welfare system?

mitsloan.mit.edu

The article specifically states that this negative tax proposal was not UBI.
And as I said, while different than this proposal, what we have now is effectively negative income tax rate for many parents due to all the refundable tax credits they have access to.

Eh, my economics connections have always pretty much equated the two. For very low income people, the difference is negligible.

As it is, our basic welfare system makes it extremely difficult for people who need support to be able to move to a more self supporting situation because few people go from making almost no money to making greater than the poverty line in a month or year. It's impossible to save money in order to cover ordinary 'emergencies' or to plan for that period of time while waiting for paychecks to start.

The system needs to be overhauled.

 

[bilby]

Big picture is, without that deal, Tehran regime would not have these funds. Period.
And what are they doing with the moneys? It funds terrorism.

Well, no.

That's like saying that my wages fund drunkenness. Sure, I spend some of my wage on getting drunk; But it's a tiny fraction of what I spend money on.

The Iranian government spends some money funding terrorism (as does the US government); But mostly it goes to domestic spending, just like that of most governments.

You care a lot about funding for terrorism, and not at all about funding for road construction and maintenance in Khuzestan province, because you think that the former is more likely to affect you than the latter.

But mostly that's irrational fear; The probability is that the only thing the Iranian government will ever do that will affect you personally is to decide to sell more (or less) oil on the international market.

If you're worried about islamic terrorists (and apparently you are, to the point of obsession), then you would be better served to worry about Saudi Arabia than about Iran.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’ve always been a bit bemused by the right’s demonization of adherents of Islam considering many of them wholeheartedly embrace the same or very similar social policies. Of course you forgot to mention the anti-gay/LGBTQ+ policies. For a group that seems to be horrified by Sharia law, much of the GOP certainly does embrace most of its tenents…..

Yup--they want Christian-Sharia law.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Derec]

That is not a sign that Trump is too old.

It is a real concern with large scale offshore wind, even if any danger is dismissed by Big Wind.

 

[Derec]

That's like saying that my wages fund drunkenness. Sure, I spend some of my wage on getting drunk; But it's a tiny fraction of what I spend money on.

That's not the right way to look at it. The question is not what percentage of total Iranian budget is spent on terrorism (more than your booze budget, I hope), but about what any marginal funds are spent on.
If you are likely to spend an unexpected $100 windfall on getting drunk, then it is fair to say that getting that money funds your drunkenness. It's the same with the regime in Tehran. What are they going to spend a $6G windfall on? Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are much more likely than some road in Khuzestan.

The Iranian government spends some money funding terrorism (as does the US government)

What terrorism does US government fund?

If you're worried about islamic terrorists (and apparently you are, to the point of obsession), then you would be better served to worry about Saudi Arabia than about Iran.

The Saudi government are our allies, and are reforming to some extent. Tehran regime is, if anything, getting worse.
There is a difference between Saudi citizens acting on their own and government actions (like IRGC funding and arming Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc.)

 

[ZiprHead]

That is not a sign that Trump is too old.

It is a real concern with large scale offshore wind, even if any danger is dismissed by Big Wind.

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

 

[Derec]

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

Those blades are huge and loud, sounds travel long distances in water, and whales are sensitive to sound. So it is at least plausible.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

 

[Derec]

Eh, my economics connections have always pretty much equated the two. For very low income people, the difference is negligible.

Again, the article you linked to explains the difference.

The system needs to be overhauled.

We agree there. One things that need overhauling is that if you have children, the system is very generous. If you have no children, help by the system is virtually non-existent. Even programs not nominally just for those with children, like SNAP, are that in practice because limits are very low for single adults. That's btw. one of the things that irked me about the expanded child tax credit in B³. Parents are already very generously subsidized. And yet Biden administration wants to subsidize them even more. A family with $100k income would get additional benefits under that bill, while a single person making $25k would be expected to help fund it through taxes and the hidden "inflation tax".

 

[robnisch]

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

Those blades are huge and loud, sounds travel long distances in water, and whales are sensitive to sound. So it is at least plausible.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

Greenpeace has said there is no evidence that wind turbines cause whale deaths. Greenpeace!

 

[ZiprHead]

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

Those blades are huge and loud, sounds travel long distances in water, and whales are sensitive to sound. So it is at least plausible.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

It has been.

offshore wind generators effects on whales - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Shadowy Man]

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

Those blades are huge and loud, sounds travel long distances in water, and whales are sensitive to sound. So it is at least plausible.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

It has been.

offshore wind generators effects on whales - Google Search

www.google.com

No no. You can’t trust the word of elite experts. Haven’t you learned anything of late?? Sheesh…

 

[ZiprHead]

Really??? You're actually believing that load of horse pucky???

Those blades are huge and loud, sounds travel long distances in water, and whales are sensitive to sound. So it is at least plausible.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

It has been.

offshore wind generators effects on whales - Google Search

www.google.com

No no. You can’t trust the word of elite experts. Haven’t you learned anything of late?? Sheesh…

sorry...

 

[laughing dog]

Eh, my economics connections have always pretty much equated the two. For very low income people, the difference is negligible.

Again, the article you linked to explains the difference.

As I pointed out earlier, whether or not there is a functional difference depends on the actual structure and implementation. If the after tax income is identical under a NIT or UBI then there is no functional difference.

As Toni points out, there is a negligible difference at low incomes.

 

[Derec]

Greenpeace has said there is no evidence that wind turbines cause whale deaths. Greenpeace!

Yeah, I know. Not the most credible group out there.

It certainly is something that should be investigated seriously, and not dismissed just because of the imperative to have 100% renewable energy by some particular date.

It has been.

offshore wind generators effects on whales - Google Search

www.google.com

All I see are claims that so far there hasn't been a link established. Not that it has been investigated.