Jump to content

Open Club  ·  33 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Again, I read about Mr. Robert's actions regarding the West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish case so no, I didn't.

IMHO what he did was unethical, regardless of his political motivations.  

You may be a fan of 'the ends always justify the means'.  I'm not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jill Biden’s Doctorate Is Garbage Because Her Dissertation Is Garbage https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/jill-bidens-doctorate-is-garbage-because-her-dissertation-is-garbage/?utm_source=recir

Ronnie's policies brought us to this point, and anyone saying anything less is delusional. 

Before they will do that, they need to reign in their own power.  With term limits in both houses.

Posted Images

Biden's Coronavirus Relief Package Has Almost Nothing to Do With the Coronavirus: https://reason.com/2021/02/18/bidens-coronavirus-relief-package-has-almost-nothing-to-do-with-the-coronavirus/

Quote

Over and over again, President Joe Biden has pitched his $1.9 trillion stimulus plan as vital to restoring a struggling American economy and recovering from the pandemic. Many households are struggling, he tweeted earlier this month, with desperate Americans wondering how they are going to eat. "That's why I'm urging Congress to pass the American Rescue Plan and deliver much-needed relief." Time, he has insisted, is of the essence. "We don't have a second to waste when it comes to delivering the American people the relief they desperately need. I'm calling on Congress to act quickly and pass the American Rescue Plan." 

The fiscal response,  he has argued, must be commensurate to the crisis at hand. "Now is the time we should be spending," he said at a CNN town hall this week. "Now is the time to go big." 

Biden has certainly gone big. His $1.9 trillion deficit-funded plan would be among the largest stimulus/relief packages in history. But much of the spending he has proposed would do little or nothing to help actually struggling Americans. Instead, the plan is padded with non-urgent, pre-existing Democratic policy priorities that have, at most, only tangential relationship to the crisis at hand. 

Take schooling, for example. The mass closure of schools has caused immeasurable chaos and frustration for families across the country, especially those with working parents, and it has set back educational advancement for children, especially in lower-income families with fewer resources or alternatives. Beyond the disruptions to family schedules and educational achievement, there is mounting evidence that school closures, in combination with other forms of isolation stemming from the pandemic, have taken a dark toll on student mental health. In the Las Vegas area, schools finally reopened following a rash of suicides in which 18 students took their own lives. 

Biden ran on reopening most schools for in-person instruction within a hundred days—a promise his administration has both walked back and then kinda-sorta attempted to un-walk back. But reopening, he has insisted, is conditioned on schools obtaining sufficient funding in a relief package. Accordingly, his plan includes about $128 billion for K-12 schooling "for preparation for, prevention of, and response to the coronavirus pandemic or for other uses allowed by other federal education programs," as part of a $170 billion boost in education-related spending.

This is a dubious argument on its face, considering that private schools have largely reopened, as have public schools in some states, such as Florida, that have pushed for faster and more widespread reopenings. 

But even if you think substantial additional funding is strictly necessary for rapid reopening, there's a problem: The vast majority of the relief plan's money for schools wouldn't be spent in the current fiscal year, or even next year. Previous coronavirus relief and congressional spending bills have already included more than $100 billion in funding for schools. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, "most of those funds remain to be spent."

As a result, just $6 billion would be spent in the 2021 fiscal year, which runs through September. Another $32 billion would be spent in 2022, and the rest by 2028. Biden is insisting that schools must reopen soon—and also that the only way for them to reopen is to authorize more than $120 billion in spending, most of which wouldn't roll out for years. It doesn't make much sense. 

Similarly, Biden's plan calls for $350 billion to backstop state budgets, which were projected to be down as much as 8 percent overall this year. Yet according to The Wall Street Journal, total revenues were down just 1.6 percent for the 2020 fiscal year, and 18 states ended the year with above-projection revenue. As Reason's Christian Britschgi noted last week, Biden's plan would disburse money to every state—including California, which is set for a $15 billion surplus. Previous coronavirus relief bills, meanwhile, have already doled out $300 billion to bolster state budgets. The billions in extra funding Biden's plan would deliver to soaring state budgets would, in all likelihood, not be spent this coming year. So much for not having a second to waste. 

There's more like this peppered throughout Biden's pandemic relief plan. Biden and his communications team raise the issue of food insecurity—then insist that checks should go to a two-earner family with stable jobs making $120,000 a year in a city with a roughly $40,000 annual median income for couples.

This is despite the fact that the average couple with comparable six-figure earnings has experienced no unusual job loss and has piled up record levels of personal savings. Even if the goal is just to pump more money into the economy, these checks wouldn't, for the most part, be spent. They'd just add to the savings. 

As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) notes, half the spending in the coronavirus relief plan would go toward such poorly targeted measures. The plan also includes expansions to Obamacare subsidies and would hike the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour—in 2025. Ultimately, the hike would cost jobs rather than preserve them. But raising the federal minimum wage has been a Democratic policy priority for years, so it got stuffed into the relief bill grab bag. 

How much of this alleged coronavirus relief plan is actually related to the coronavirus?  According to CRFB, just 1 percent of the relief plan's spending would go toward vaccines, and just 5 percent would go toward pandemic-related public health needs. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the spending—about $300 billion—would be spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis. 

Biden keeps insisting that time is of the essence, that massive federal spending is urgently needed to speed America's recovery from its coronavirus-induced health and economic downturn. But the practical details of his plan say otherwise. The president's relief plan is an object lesson in non-urgent, non-vital policymaking. Biden is pitching a coronavirus relief package that has very little to do with coronavirus relief.

It's just Biden trying to put lipstick on a pig,  where coronavirus is the lipstick.

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9300987/Rand-Paul-likens-gender-surgery-genital-mutilation-exchange-trans-nominee-HHS-deputy.html

Rand Paul compares gender change surgery for minors to genital mutilation in furious exchange with Biden's transgender pick for assistant HHS secretary

Rand Paul angrily confronted Joe Biden's pick for assistant secretary for Health and Human Services on Thursday, likening gender changes surgeries to genital mutilation and pushing the transgender nominee on if they would allow minors to decide if they want to go on hormones to stop puberty.

'We should be outraged that someone is talking to a three-year-old about changing their sex,' Paul said of Rachel Levine, a transgender woman Biden picked to help head up HHS.

Paul, who was a practicing ophthalmologist before becoming a U.S. senator, likened transgender minors starting on transitioning treatments to genital mutilation, blaming the increasing rates of trans-identified youth on 'the social pressure to conform.'

'Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned,' Paul began in his line of questioning of Levine.

'Most genital mutilation is not typical performed by force,' he continued in an opening monologue. 'But, as [the World Health Organization] notes, that by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community.'

'American culture is now normalizing the idea that minors can be given hormones to prevent their biological development of their secondary sexual characteristics,' Paul continued as Levine appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for her confirmation hearing on Thursday.

'Dr. Levine, you have supported allowing minors to be given hormone blockers to prevent them from going through puberty, as well as surgical destruction of a minor's genitalia,' the Kentucky Republican senator pointed out. 'Do you believe minors are capable of making such a life changing decision of changing one's sex?'

Levine thanked the senator for his 'interest' in transgender medicine, calling it 'a very complex and nuanced field with robust research and standards of care that have been developed' over time.

'If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will look forward to working with you and your office and coming to your office to discuss the particulars of the standards of care for transgender medicine,' Levine said.

Levine, a pediatrician, is currently secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health and rose to prominence in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. She was nominated to become Biden's assistant secretary of HHS. If confirmed, she would act as HHS secretary nominee Xavier Becerra's deputy.

Becerra currently serves as attorney general for California.

During the hearing Thursday, Levine did not address the substance of Paul's questions at any points regarding transgender healthcare decisions in cases with minors.

'Let it go into the record that the witness refused to answer the question,' Paul said of Levine. 'The question is a very specific one: should minors be making these momentous decisions?'

'For most of the history of medicine, we wouldn't let you have a cut sewn up in the ER [without parental consent],' he lamented. 'But you're willing to let a minor take things that prevent their puberty, and you think they get that back?'

'You give a woman testosterone enough that she grows a beard, you think she's going to go back looking like a woman when you stop the testosterone? You have permanently changed them. Infertility is another problem,' Paul said.

Levine appeared before the Senate panel alongside Surgeon General nominee Vivek Murthy for a dual confirmation hearing.

'According to the WHO, genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a violation of human right. Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because because, as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children,' Paul continued in likening putting children on hormones to castration and female circumcision.

'I'm alarmed that you're not saying they should be prevented from making decisions to amputate their breasts or genitalia,' Paul said during the heated exchange between him and Levine. 'We have always said that minors do not have full rights—will you make a more firm decision on whether or not minors should be involved in these decisions?'

Levine reiterated that transgender medicine is 'a very complex and nuanced field,' but refused to directly answer whether minors should be able to make medical decisions based on changing their sex.

No doubt this is "very complex and nuanced"......but the inability of this individual to be able to articulate a position on this in unacceptable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...