Hee-haw, y'all. The 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Politics & Elections
3221
  1. It *is *doctored as it was taken out of context and cut early. If you read for a couple more minutes he clearly was being sarcastic towards Rand. Every pundit that isnt a rabid sanders supported agrees with this. Biden, in that clip, was in NO WAY supporting any cuts to SocSec.

*“In 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare,” wrote the Sanders campaign in a Jan. 7 newsletter. The night before on CNN, Sanders had attacked Biden’s record on Social Security and Medicare.

Ryan is a former Republican House speaker who proposed sweeping changes to Social Security that were never enacted.

We found that the Sanders campaign newsletter distorts what Biden said about Ryan’s plan.*

*To understand Biden’s tone, you have to actually watch and listen to his words. The snippet of written text, which the Sanders’ campaign newsletter used, doesn’t relay Biden’s full point.

The Sanders campaign omits what Biden said next (our emphasis is in bold):…Our ruling
A Sanders campaign newsletter said, “In 2018, Biden lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”

That stems from a speech Biden gave in 2018 in which he spoke about Ryan. Biden appeared to be mocking Ryan, not praising him.

The Sanders campaign omitted what Biden said next: the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare and to change the tax code, which he said benefitted the mega rich. Overall, the point of Biden’s speech was to criticize tax cuts for the rich and call for more help to the middle class.

The Sanders campaign plucked out part of what Biden said but omitted the full context of his comments.

We rate this statement False. *

And he didnt actually vote for any COLA freeze, he suggested a complete freeze on EVERYTHING to the GOP as a compromise- but the GOP didnt accept- as Biden knew full well they wouldnt. It was a way of showing that the GOP wasnt being sincere when they were blathering on about cutting the debt. He drew a line in the sand , and the GOP blinked- as he knew they would. It was a tool to show the GOP were hypocrites.

So, Poltifact agrees-** Sanders was lying. **

3222

Whatever. It is kind of academic, in light of

  • One of Ronald Reagan’s first major moves as president was to implement a mammoth tax cut, tilted toward the wealthy, and to increase defense spending. Biden, a Delaware senator at the time, supported both moves.*

Reagan’s idiotic policies screwed the country over the long term, so, if Biden supported that, fuck that shit.

3223

That “cite” is from a rabid sanders supporter, and was given without any sources.

However, what he was talking about was the Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia

which: "…the bill won support from a mix of congressional Republicans and Democrats, including Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the top domestic priority of President Reagan’s second term. The act lowered federal income tax rates, decreasing the number of tax brackets and reducing the top tax rate from 50 percent to 33 percent. The act also expanded the earned income tax credit, the standard deduction, and the personal exemption, removing approximately six million lower-income Americans from the tax base. Despite these cuts, the bill was revenue neutral; this was achieved through an increase in the alternative minimum tax and the elimination of deductions for things like rental housing, individual retirement accounts, and depreciation."

So by no means was it a “mammoth tax cut, tilted toward the wealthy, and to increase defense spending.” It was revenue neutral, helped six million lower-income Americans and was NOT "tilted toward the wealthy".

You cant believe OpEd pieces by rabid Bernie bros.

3224

I think Biden could withstand losing in both IA and NH if he comes in 2nd in both races. He could conceivably lose by a hair in Iowa and probably get thumped in NH, but he could regroup and win more moderate states. But if he limps in at 3rd place, then people are going to question what seems to be his greatest selling point: his supposed viability. I think Biden will have staying power because nobody else is going to have the establishment vote, but Biden would be facing headwinds and Bernie’s campaign would be seriously energized in places like California. And if Bernie and Biden split up the prizes on Super Tuesday, then we’re looking at a very long, bruising primary season that could end up being settled on the convention floor.

3225

It was most decidedly not revenue neutral. For at least six decades prior to the tax cut, the national debt lie nominally flat; since Reagan, the debt has been on a positive delta – positive in the sense that it has been rising. How the hell you can say that it was revenue neutral when the debt has been steadily rising is utterly baffling to me.

3226

I didnt say that, my cite did. But yes, some later Reagonomics cuts were not neutral- just that that one was, which is why both sides supported it.

3227

So Democrats are calling each other liars. Who benefits from that?

Did anyone here yet post a link to the video where Biden allegedly supports SocSec cuts? I just did! Anyone who thinks Biden was endorsing SocSec cuts in that 2018 speech did not listen to the speech. Anyone who quotes the sarcastic lines from that speech out of context IS A LIAR! (If this means I’ve just called Bernie a liar, so be it. But the he-said she-said he-said he-said is too dense to untangle.)

The Biden speech is perfect intelligent progressivism. It focuses on rising income inequality; laments the billionaires’ wealth, but while admitting that the billionaires themselves are generally patriotic.

It took a few clicks to get to the actual speech. Most of the news/opinion links lead to other such links, as though Biden’s words are irrelevant — we want to know what Alice thinks about Bob’s views on what Carl thinks about David’s comments on Eddie’s take on Biden’s speech! :smiley:

Sorry if posting the actual YouTube with Biden’s words is off-topic here. :smack:

3228

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Democratic party and the progressive cause more broadly is going to be weakened by its own internal divisions. In 2016, I labeled the Sanders wing as the “purity” wing, but as the Sanders and progressive movement has matured, I think what we’re seeing is a generational clash, a clash of values, and fight for what the future of the Democratic party and progressive movement will look like. It’s a natural process, and it’s a process that needs to happen once in a while, but damn, what a shitty time to have that conflict.

I wish Michael Bloomberg had decided to run earlier. I am increasingly impressed by Bloomberg and his being a billionaire doesn’t mean shit to me. I think he’s the only one running who has any idea of how to fight Trump and the Republicans con game. And he’s doing it by trying to beat them at their own game: with shit tons of money and propaganda. And unlike Biden he doesn’t have to run around begging for Wall St for cash. Bloomberg’s a tough guy. He’s not gonna take Trump’s shit. He’s not gonna backpedal or be put on the defensive. He’s going to fight these bastards.

3229

So you’re choosing to ignore all the other videos showing Biden expressing willingness to cut SSI and instead just keep talking about the ONE video that was misleadingly edited?

3230

:confused: What the …? :confused:

First of all, I clicked every single video link I noticed lately in this thread … all Zero of them. (There probably were some I missed. I skimmed. Sue me?) I did follow one link until FINALLY I reached an actual YouTube with Biden’s actual words. I posted a link to it, thinking that might be helpful.

I closed that post with “Sorry if posting the actual YouTube with Biden’s words is off-topic here.” That line was tongue-in-cheek humor. But given your reaction perhaps it was apt!

Second, nobody disputes that Biden was willing to put means-testing of SocSec benefits (possibly along with other “cuts”) on the table during negotiations with Ryan to balance the budget. I’m not a supporter of such means-testing, but it is a reasonable way to save a huge sum. And IIUC Biden dropped his support for this when the Tea Party showed they were insincere and negotiations fell through.

But third and most important, Biden is the man of integrity and moderation most likely to beat Trump and most likely to be a successful President. It’s only his age that gives me pause. The best thing I can say about a possible Sanders or Warren Presidency is that Congress will just laugh at their impractical (if well-intentioned) proposals.

I admire Elizabeth Warren, and admire others who admire her. I like Bernie Sanders (though some of his supporters seem over-the-top). Obviously I would vote even for a Democratic pile-of-shit over any Republican. But when I hear the irrational venom that progressives hurl against Biden it makes me sad … and helps explain why Trump is still better than even-money to be re-elected.

3231

Some of the ‘progressives’ I know really do live in such a tight bubble that they seriously have lost track of reality. Some really do think that Biden and Buttigieg are Republicans. Some actually believe that Bernie Sanders would easily win West Virginia. The shit that they sling against Biden, who has a very good chance of being the nominee, is unbelievable. The 1990s may not seem that long ago as the pop culture of movies and music is still fairly prevalent but politically they were light years ago. Progressives who were children or not even born during the Anita Hill hearings really do need to take a chill and realize it was a very different time politically and there was pressure to confirm a black justice to replace Marshall. Also, if Biden has to be crucified for Anita Hill, then he needs to be worshipped for blocking Bork. Naturally, the under 30 types have no idea of who Bork was and how bad he would have been.

3232

FWIW …

Yeah agreed that Swiftboating style campaign tactics, and hard negative approaches in general, are potentially very harmful to whoever ends up as the D standard bearer.

But about the subject of Soc Sec … I’d love to have it come up in a debate. Any candidate who does NOT think that it needs some fixing lest it is just unable to deliver for those feeding into it now and over the next decades would lose some respect from me.

Raising payroll tax rates to increase its funding is a regressive approach. Maybe eliminating the cap makes sense but that increases taxes on the middle class which is going to be unpopular.

Raising the eligibility age makes sense as more live healthier and are productive longer now … just look at our nominees!

Means testing makes some sense as part of the mix … simply put those who don’t really need it as much maybe should get less.

I don’t know. But any candidate who wants to just pretend that there is no problem that needs to be fixed because there is no solution that will be universally politically popular is being disingenuous at best.

3233

Yes, since there are no other videos of Biden cutting Soc sec. Biden’s policy is 100% on the side of INCREASING SocSec benefits.

https://joebiden.com/older-americans/

This is 100% a new sanders lie, and is bullshit.

Yes, at one time Biden called the GOPs bluff on reducing the debt by calling for a Freeze on spending increases (which would have a freeze on Socsec increases). He knew damn well they wouldnt go for it, he was just calling their bluff. The GOP likes to talk shit about reducing the debt, but they are the main cause of increasing it. Biden simply had a cool way of showing that.

Biden is Rated 89% by the Alliance for Retired Americans- indicating a pro-senior voting record.

3234

I am not sure if Biden was actually in favor of means testing, since it’s the one thing the GOP hates. I think he was again, just calling their bluff. As you pointed out, the negotiations broke down, due to the GOP being full of crap.

That is a typical Biden tactic- calling the GOPs bluff on crap. He seems sincere when he is doing it, but you can see the little smile.

3235

Yes, raising the tax level and increasing the age are both needed things to keep SocSec solvent. Something has to be done.

Sanders wants to raise the cap.

3236

My main takeaway from that speech is that Biden is way better at talking slowly than he is at talking fast. In all these debates, he’s been racing to beat the clock and it causes him to stammer and trip over his words and generally sound like shit. And I get that he’s in a hurry to make his point and he’s fighting the time.

If Biden is the nominee, and I were a campaign consultant for him, I would say: take it SLOW, Joe. When it’s your turn to talk, in the debates against Trump, focus on making your point with less verbiage, not more. Stick to basic essential truths about what you stand for and why it’s better than Trump’s vision for America. Resist the urge to rattle off accomplishments and accolades and statistics and figures - talk to the audience the way you talked in that video above. And if you’re addressing Trump, talk to him in the same way: cool headed and confident.

This could actually work. A Biden who debates Trump the way he’s been debating these other Democrats will spell doom, IMO.

3237

I met a Bloomberg supporter for the first time this week. He’s a gun control activist and says there is no one with a better record than him on the issue.

3238

I can’t tell if you’re even serious or not. I couldn’t think of a worse platform for a Democratic candidate.

3239

He’d be the first to lose both IA and NH and win his party’s nomination since anyone cared about winning Iowa. But it could happen. It’s gotta happen one of these years, right? :wink:

However, I think the difference between second and third in Iowa isn’t going to be meaningful, especially if they continue to be as closely bunched as they are.

Well yeah, there’s a lot of rich-Dem money behind discrediting Dems who might actually threaten the status quo for rich people. It’s something we progressive types just realize is a fact of life, even if hand-wringers are upset that it’s tearing up the party. Yeah, it sucks, but no point in complaining.

3240

It would fire up the right wing, which would uncork the flow of money from special interests, but I’m confident that gun control is increasingly an issue that the left can win, and it should be more openly confrontational about it.

There are reasonable gun owners and gun rights supporters, but the more vocal kind who oppose even modest measures on the premise of nothing more than totally baseless, paranoid slippery slope arguments are borderline mentally ill. And I think it’s good for the country to see that gun rights activists are about as worthy of citizenship as members of the Taliban.