The challenges ahead (Biden's America)

[N.E. Brigand]

Nate Cohn of the New York Times points to the following word cloud generated from responses to a recent poll by people who had a negative or mixed opinions of Joe Biden:



I continue to think that "border" and "immigration" are inflated right wing talking points, but that doesn't necessarily mean Pres. Biden can just ignore them and hope they fade from the public mind. I assume that's why Biden said yesterday that he has no plans to authorize the $450,000 per person settlement which news reports said earlier this week were going to be paid to members of families separated by the Trump administration. I don't know to what degree the White House is supposed to weigh in on such decisions by the Dept. of Justice. If DOJ doesn't settle, I sure hope the plaintiffs win their lawsuit and get a lot more.

I'm not sure what Biden should do about "afghanistan": should he hope it recedes into history, or should he emphasize how he ended America's longest war? Cohn thinks Biden's handling of the withdrawal hurt perception of his overall competence. (Mind you, I doubt it would have gone better under any other president.)

With today's great news about new oral anti-Covid therapies, "vaccines" and "coronavirus" ought to continue to fall in importance.

As for "economy," per the latest Dept. of Labor report out this morning, the U.S. added 531,000 jobs in October. On top of that the DOL issued revised numbers for August and September (as they usually do*), and it turns out the number of jobs added those two months increased by 235,000. Accordingly, the U.S. unemployment rate has dropped to 4.6%, down from 4.8% last month and 6.3% when Biden took office. As it happens, 4.6% was the rate when Donald Trump took office in 2017. Over the course of his term, it dropped 3.5% by Feb. 2020, then rocketed to 14.85% because of the pandemic. Two days ago, before the jobs numbers were known, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said the U.S. could have "full employment," i.e. less than 3% unemployment, by next year.

*This month, I'm part of the problem. Starting about 18 months ago, my company was added to those who monthly report employment numbers. But I was too swamped to get our October figures submitted in time, so what I did submit will become part of the "revised" numbers issued in a month.

[N.E. Brigand]

Nothing happens, twice.

BIF: Let's go.

BBB: We can't.

BIF: Why not?

BBB: We're waiting for CBO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This response to that tweet is perfect:

Dow is over 36,000, unemployment has dropped from 6.3 in Jan. to 4.8. Over 5 million jobs added, a record. 220m vaccines in 10 months. And only 30% of country think US is on right track. The Democratic Party has a huge messaging problem.

[N.E. Brigand]

As for "economy," per the latest Dept. of Labor report out this morning, the U.S. added 531,000 jobs in October. On top of that the DOL issued revised numbers for August and September (as they usually do*), and it turns out the number of jobs added those two months increased by 235,000. Accordingly, the U.S. unemployment rate has dropped to 4.6%, down from 4.8% last month and 6.3% when Biden took office. As it happens, 4.6% was the rate when Donald Trump took office in 2017. Over the course of his term, it dropped 3.5% by Feb. 2020, then rocketed to 14.85% because of the pandemic. Two days ago, before the jobs numbers were known, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said the U.S. could have "full employment," i.e. less than 3% unemployment, by next year.

Back in February, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that the U.S. wouldn't reach 4.6% unemployment until December 2023.

In March, Congress passed an enormous Covid relief package. Every Republican voted against it.

And in October, the U.S. reached 4.6% unemployment, more than two years ahead of the forecast.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Will this be enough to convince the progressives to vote yes on the infrastructure bill tonite?

Moderates issue statement offering commitments on Build Back Better bill

Stay tuned!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Pramila Jayapal says yes, and they are voting now. Pelosi would not let a vote go forward if she wasn't confident of winning.

[Frelga]

I believe it passed.

[N.E. Brigand]

After nearly five years, it finally really was infrastructure week.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Six Democrats voted no: the four members of 'the squad' plus Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. But 13 Republicans voted yes, making it truly a bipartisan win for Biden.

[Frelga]

Here's a Pro Publica writer doing a read through the bill. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but there's some cool stuff there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just to be clear, by "the bill" you are referring to the reconciliation bill that has not yet passed by either house of Congress, not the infrastructure bill that has been passed by both houses.

[Frelga]

Good point, V. They started the thread before the bill passed the House.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But the point remains that there is an awful lot of good stuff in the reconciliation bill, and even if some ultimately gets removed to satisfy Manchin there still will be a lot of good stuff.

[Frelga]

The Infrastructure Bill that the House voted on goes to Biden, so that part is done.

House passes $555 billion infrastructure bill, sends legislation to Biden's desk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I wonder why CNN calls it the "$1.2 trillion infrastructure package" but then says (like the NBC story) that it "will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years."

What's the other $650 billion?

Edit: see post below

[Frelga]

Typo? Confusion? I don't even know.

Someone pointed out that the focus on the cost of updating infrastructure is misleading, as the cost of NOT updating infrastructure is socialized. Their example was, drivers absorbing the cost of not fixing potholes through car repairs, but of course it applies to everything. Supply chain problems are a plague on my husband's construction projects. Mail delays hurt businesses that rely on mail orders and customers who need their deliveries on time. And that's not even touching on major disasters whose impact could have been mitigated with infrastructure updates, not only in dollars but in lives lost.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The great Heather Cox Richardson has a great post on the claims that the infrastructure bill is "socialism" and the history of accusations of "socialism" in the U.S.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I wonder why CNN calls it the "$1.2 trillion infrastructure package" but then says (like the NBC story) that it "will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years."

What's the other $650 billion?

Previously approved spending.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/explaine ... 00274.html

The bill is being advertised as a $1.2 trillion massive overhaul of America’s crumbling infrastructure, but in reality it will only include $550 billion in new spending, the rest of the package uses previously approved spending.

[N.E. Brigand]

A new poll in West Virginia finds that Sen. Joe Manchin remains quite popular there, with 61% approving vs. 37% disapproving, but also that Pres. Joe Biden is quite unpopular in that state, with just 33% approving and 65% disapproving.

And yet it may be notable that Biden only won 30% of the West Virginia vote last year, which in light of Biden's low approval numbers nationally at this time could suggest the poll skews Democratic.

[elengil]

And yet it may be notable that Biden only won 30% of the West Virginia vote last year, which in light of Biden's low approval numbers nationally at this time could suggest the poll skews Democratic.

Be careful not to conflate polls of the general population with percentages of those who actually vote...