Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Smee_Again

Biden looking to increase the IRS budget by $1.2Bn with $900M of that earmarked to audit wealthy individuals and corporations.

Faugheen

everlast75 wrote: »

He referred to Matt Gaetz as Rick Gates.

He referred to Tim Cook as Tim Apple.

He referred to the town "Paradise" as "Pleasure".

Think harder.

He referred to Kevin McCarthy as 'Steve'.

And of course, this almighty corker:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307463977501425664?s=20

Real Donald Trump

Mod: Week off for breaching your threadban

BanditLuke

Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.

everlast75

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.

Don't ever say that if you want anyone, and I mean anyone, to take a point that you are trying to make seriously.

duploelabs

BanditLuke wrote: »

Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.

Previous american presidents have had this policy since our low corporate tax became a thing, did you hold them in the same scrutiny?

Igotadose

Biden's ideas on corporate tax do go beyond what previous POTUS's were about. They're actually pretty aggressive per the analysis in Slate:

https://slate.com/business/2021/04/joe-biden-tax-havens-corporate-global-minimum.html

Only 10 countries need to go along with 'minimum tax rate' of 21% for 80% of the multinational profits to be taxed at the higher rate.

I don't see how this could be good for Ireland, FDI is a big part of our economy and it seems like we have very little home-grown industry to replace it.

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

Biden's ideas on corporate tax do go beyond what previous POTUS's were about. They're actually pretty aggressive per the analysis in Slate:

https://slate.com/business/2021/04/joe-biden-tax-havens-corporate-global-minimum.html

Only 10 countries need to go along with 'minimum tax rate' of 21% for 80% of the multinational profits to be taxed at the higher rate.

I don't see how this could be good for Ireland, FDI is a big part of our economy and it seems like we have very little home-grown industry to replace it.

We would want to double down as a tax shelter and oppose this, we need those jobs

Smee_Again

Biden has created a bipartisan commission into SCOTUS reform with the report due in 6 months. The report will not make recommendations on any particular reforms that’ll be left to Biden.

It’ll be very interesting to see what it says about term limits and appointing a new Judge during the last few months of a sitting president’s term.

Faugheen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We would want to double down as a tax shelter and oppose this, we need those jobs

And we will still get them. American multinationals already set up here aren’t going to leave because of this and any American MNC worth its salt will want to set up an EU base eventually. We appeal to that market because we’re the only English-speaking country in the bloc.

What it should be though is a kick up the arse to sort out infrastructure, transport and housing to enhance our pitch further.

Faugheen

Smee_Again wrote: »

Biden has created a bipartisan commission into SCOTUS reform with the report due in 6 months. The report will not make recommendations on any particular reforms that’ll be left to Biden.

It’ll be very interesting to see what it says about term limits and appointing a new Judge during the last few months of a sitting president’s term.

I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.

Smee_Again

Faugheen wrote: »

I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.

I agree, it was a GOP stunt and nothing else but it’s out there now so it’ll pop up again and again until a solution is agreed. Term limits could be that solution, other than that I don’t know enough about the process to make any guesses.

BanditLuke

duploelabs wrote: »

Previous american presidents have had this policy since our low corporate tax became a thing, did you hold them in the same scrutiny?

Their policies don't compare to what Biden is attempting.

If/when FDI does a runner because of it things will get very hairy here indeed. We have the square root of fcuk all domestic economy to sustain or current standard of living.

ohnonotgmail

Faugheen wrote: »

I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.

Presidents don't fill judge positions. They only nominate. the power to appoint lies with congress.

Water John

Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?

ohnonotgmail

Water John wrote: »

Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?

it should be. 9 isn't a magical sacrosanct number.

Water John

11, 13 or 15 would be better. One post filling wouldn't have as much impact. Also many shades of opinion in different areas would come through the judgements, it would be more nuanced.

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?

Hopefully not, the democrats have only put it on the table because theyre upset they havent got it stacked anymore.

Anyone agreeing with expansion under dem oversight would be the first people to go into meltdown if the republicans re expanded it again to regain control

Water John

Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.

I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

It might be interesting to have a rule where the court must always have more judges appointed by the opposite party. That means one would have to be fired when the Senate changes hands (with a replacement nominee and alternate selected by the previous congress), it would likely be the most “extreme” judge. That would prohibit this potential court-packing tit for tat we’re talking about and, encourage judges to take a more centrist viewpoint. Of course, zero chance of it happening.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

It might be interesting to have a rule where the court must always have more judges appointed by the opposite party. That means one would have to be fired when the Senate changes hands (with a replacement nominee and alternate selected by the previous congress), it would likely be the most “extreme” judge. That would prohibit this potential court-packing tit for tat we’re talking about and, encourage judges to take a more centrist viewpoint. Of course, zero chance of it happening.

Of course. There's no notion of political party in the Constitution. However, preventing the Senate from ignoring a President's nomination (to any court, not just the USSC) should be fixed.

Term limits for USSC judges makes sense these days, people live a lot longer than when the Constitution was drawn up.

Dyr

Imagine if Trump had tried to increasing the numbers of the court, there'd have been absolute ructions

I'd imagine most of the people on here trying to justify any such move President Biden have the self awareness to know full well the extent of their own double standards. Must be weird to be so internally compromised.

ohnonotgmail

Manic Moran wrote: »

I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.

salmocab

Bambi wrote: »

Imagine if Trump had tried to increasing the numbers of the court, there'd have been absolute ructions

I'd imagine most of the people on here trying to justify any such move President Biden have the self awareness to know full well the extent of their own double standards. Must be weird to be so internally compromised.

He’s not actually trying to do it, you do understand that. Someone was giving a hypothetical idea. Must be weird to be getting outraged about absolutely nothing.

Water John

My use of the word, reliable, referred to the opinion of the SCOTUS being largely in line with present public thinking, in any matter, obviously within the confines of what's actually written down in the document. Certainly have no time for the originalists.
On the other hand, if some part of the Constitution conflicts with modern society, then it's up to the people to amend it, not the SCOTUS job.

eagle eye

ohnonotgmail wrote:

it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.

You mean a bit like social media?

ohnonotgmail

eagle eye wrote: »

You mean a bit like social media?

yeah, thats exactly what I meant. FFS.

Manic Moran

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.

Nope, not the point at all. If the desired outcome of the judicial process of interpreting and applying laws is supposed to line up with the changing wills of the population, the correct thing to do is to have the peoples’ voted representatives change the laws just like they are supposed to do. You try to change the laws, not try to control the court.

ohnonotgmail

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nope, not the point at all. If the desired outcome of the judicial process of interpreting and applying laws is supposed to line up with the changing wills of the population, the correct thing to do is to have the peoples’ voted representatives change the laws just like they are supposed to do. You try to change the laws, not try to control the court.

so you don't think the makeup of the supreme court should reflect the makeup of the population? that it is right for the majority of the supreme court to make judgements from a political interpretation that the majority of the population are opposed to?

Leroy42

I think rather than reflecting the makeup on the population the SCOTUS should be apolitical and judge issues based on the constitution, not their interpretation of it. (I know that is impossible but it should be reduced as much as possible).

When there is clear ambiguity in the constitution, the US needs to have more referendum to actually sort it out.

Clearly the US needs to have a ref on abortion. Another one on gun control.

osarusan

Water John wrote: »

Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the civil/police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

salmocab

osarusan wrote: »

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

Term limits seem sensible to me, based on say 16 years once it’s setup correct after a few years pretty much every president would get a pick which would in turn make it a bit more reflective of the electorate. It would need some rules made and initially would take some messing around with the sitting judges terms to get the system flowing but would work in the longer term.

Quin_Dub

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it should be. 9 isn't a magical sacrosanct number.

Water John wrote: »

11, 13 or 15 would be better. One post filling wouldn't have as much impact. Also many shades of opinion in different areas would come through the judgements, it would be more nuanced.

I do recall reading an article around the time of RBG's death about the history of their being 9 Judges.

It was something to do with alignment to the number of appellate courts (the layer below the Supreme court if I'm getting the name wrong) which was 9 back in the day.

There are 11 of those courts now.

Quin_Dub

osarusan wrote: »

I think expanding the number of judges would lead to the nominations becoming more extreme though, and more extreme judges doesn't result in more reliable decisions.


I think it should be left at 9. Increasing it just comes across as knee-jerk stuff to me at least, and sets a precedent that could only get worse.


I think the problems are much more deeply embedded in society in terms of their binary party system which politicises different aspects of the police/legal system (Sheriffs and DAs running for office and so on).

It has always amazed me that a whole host of fairly run of the mill career civil service positions here are filled via public election in the US.

If you consider departmental leadership positions in County Councils across Ireland - Most of those are filled via public election in the US.

Don't get me wrong , more public accountability in those sorts of roles is always good, but having those people more interesting in fund-raising and electioneering than doing the day job seems utterly pointless.

Yeah_Right

I think its interesting that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS are Catholic when only about 20% of the US are. Just as many people are atheists, where are their voices on the Supreme court!! About 50% of the country are "other" Christians but none of the justices are. I find all that quite surprising considering how obsessed the yanks are with God and country, church and state etc.

Tony EH

What makes you think that just because they were born "Catholic" that they are practising? More than likely they're type of Catholic that merely observes the odd holiday.

Just like most "Catholics" here.

Quin_Dub

Tony EH wrote: »

What makes you think that just because they were born "Catholic" that they are practising? More than likely they're type of Catholic that merely observes the odd holiday.

Just like most "Catholics" here.

Amy Coney-Barrett is most definitely an active card carrying Catholic , are several of the others.

It is an odd demographic make-up though relative to the wider US.

The US is a largely Protestant country by volume , yet there's only 1 Protestant on the current court - Gorsuch and he was raised a Catholic but later converted . Brayer and Kagan are Jewish , all the rest are Catholic.

Yeah_Right

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Amy Coney-Barrett is most definitely an active card carrying Catholic , are several of the others.

It is an odd demographic make-up though relative to the wider US.

The US is a largely Protestant country by volume , yet there's only 1 Protestant on the current court - Gorsuch and he was raised a Catholic but later converted . Brayer and Kagan are Jewish , all the rest are Catholic.

That's what I was getting at as opposed to whether they were devout or even practicing. Just that the make up is very different from the national demographics.

eagle eye

Yeah_Right wrote:

I think its interesting that 7 out of 9 SCOTUS are Catholic when only about 20% of the US are. Just as many people are atheists, where are their voices on the Supreme court!! About 50% of the country are "other" Christians but none of the justices are. I find all that quite surprising considering how obsessed the yanks are with God and country, church and state etc.

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

I’d say that’s an optimistic view.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

Yeah that's a bit naive going by some of their public comments

Quin_Dub

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they are religious or not. Their job is about the law, their personal lives have no bearing on their decisions.

Seriously?

Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular were chosen for explicitly for their viewpoints on Abortion , Marriage and Gay rights in general.

And those viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with the law.

rossie1977

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Seriously?

Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular were chosen for explicitly for their viewpoints on Abortion , Marriage and Gay rights in general.

And those viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with the law.

Supreme Court should be the most qualified candidates and instead it's become partisan mess especially over past decade.

Kavanaugh and Barrett wouldn't get work on TV court if judges were picked on talent and qualifications.

biko

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-refugees-trump-policies-intact/2021/04/11/d3cd4c36-9aef-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

Biden set to accept fewest refugees of any modern president, including Trump, report says

Signing a presidential determination typically takes place almost immediately after such policy announcements. The delay has so far lasted eight weeks.

Because of it, Biden is on track to accept the fewest refugees this year of any modern president, including Trump, according to a report released Friday from the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit humanitarian aid group.

duploelabs

biko wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-refugees-trump-policies-intact/2021/04/11/d3cd4c36-9aef-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

Biden set to accept fewest refugees of any modern president, including Trump, report says

Is that not what you want?

frag420

Not if Biden is doing it, jeez!!!

Smee_Again

duploelabs wrote: »

Is that not what you want?

Not when Biden does it obviously.

namloc1980

Trump supporters: "Biden is soft on refugees! He wants open borders!!! Waaaaahhhhhhh"

Reality: Biden is set to accept less refugees than his predecessor.

Trump Supporters: "Biden is too tough on refugees - oh the humanity!! Waaaaahhhhhhhh"

biko

Lol, Biden could close the borders fully and I would still be the bad guy somehow

Overheal

Seems incumbent on him to un**** the mess Trump left him first.