The Biden Presidency

berbatrick said:
The CDC's power to declare a rent deferment/eviction moratorium during Covid was set aside by the Supreme Court. The ruling is a small but precise lesson about the function of a government in a capitalist economy. According to the court, the moratorium destroys "the most fundamental element of property ownership - the right to exclude" and opens the way for such nightmares as "mandate(d) free delivery of groceries to homes of the vulnerable".
On the other hand, the CDC's power to expel a million people and rob them of their internationally-recognised rights is unquestioned.
Click to expand...

So which is it then?

Based on your post you want consistency, so which is it:
A) Evictions good and let the asylum's seekers in
B) Evictions bad and get their asses on planes
 
WI_Red said:
So which is it then?

Based on your post you want consistency, so which is it:
A) Evictions good and let the asylum's seekers in
B) Evictions bad and get their asses on planes
Click to expand...

Why is your takeaway that @berbatrick wants concistency, whatever that means, instead of the fact that he's highlighting what "rights" are upheld?
 
NotThatSoph said:
Why is your takeaway that @berbatrick wants concistency, whatever that means, instead of the fact that he's highlighting what "rights" are upheld?
Click to expand...

Simple, he highlights 2 occasions where the CDC's power to make policy is enforced or not enforced by the courts. The CDC either does, or does not, have the power to make binding policy.

I am 100% on the side of the CDC not having power to make policy. They are a subsidiary of one branch, and not the legislative one, of the government. Congress, and their cowardice and greed, is at fault for both of these abominations.
 
WI_Red said:
So which is it then?

Based on your post you want consistency, so which is it:
A) Evictions good and let the asylum's seekers in
B) Evictions bad and get their asses on planes
Click to expand...

"property rights suck"
- berbatrick, 2021 (and also a million people before)
 
WI_Red said:
Simple, he highlights 2 occasions where the CDC's power to make policy is enforced or not enforced by the courts. The CDC either does, or does not, have the power to make binding policy.

I am 100% on the side of the CDC not having power to make policy. They are a subsidiary of one branch, and not the legislative one, of the government. Congress, and their cowardice and greed, is at fault for both of these abominations.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's simple at all. The CDC either does, or does not, have the power to make binding policy. Yet this is not true. It can make policy in one case but not in the other, and surprise surprise guess where they can and where they cannot.

This is pretty analogous, I think: I think it's very interesting how libertarians talk about personal freedom, property rights and the non-aggression principle, yet a lot of them support strong borders. This is not because I want them to be consistent, that I want them to either support open borders or to become (more) statists. I think it's interesting because it shows what and who they actually care about.

I don't have to be a pro immigration libertarian to talk shit about Hoppeans.
 
WI_Red said:
Please define property rights as they exist in you world view.
Click to expand...

the right to own productive/speculative assets, like machinery or housing or patents. which is the fundamental right in a capitalist economy.

other people have defined it better, and other people have formulated objections to it in a better way, i'm not an expert on either bit. i'll find some links tomorrow.
 
berbatrick said:
the right to own productive/speculative assets, like machinery or housing or patents. which is the fundamental right in a capitalist economy.

other people have defined it better, and other people have formulated objections to it in a better way, i'm not an expert on either bit. i'll find some links tomorrow.
Click to expand...

So your position is that property, whether physical or intellectual, should not be owned by individuals orocmpanies?

I am not looking for experts views, I am asking if that is your view and why you think that way.

When it comes to home ownership for example I am completely in the camp that individuals/families should be allowed to own their home. At the same time I recognize that historically, and even today, only a specific segment of the population is afforded these rights in full. The historical discrimination in home ownership is one of the leading causes of wealth disparity in the US. The solution though is not to bar home ownership but to ensure the it is equally open to all while also taking steps to right the wrongs that were done (red lining, etc.). Similarly I do think regulation needs to be put in place for speculative home buying that will cause potentially huge issues with single family home ownership. Again, the answer is to fix the system, not destroy it.

Similarly I absolutely think people and companies should own, for a time and scope, their own IP. My company for example developed a novel technology a few decades ago that revolutionized drug discovery. This was after an investment in the tens of millions in R&D for the technology itself but an equal amount for quality testing, manufacturing processes, stability testing, etc. If the company could not own that IP, and therefore an exclusive window to produce and sell the product, then all that work and investment could be skipped by our competitors who would then produce a "generic" version and undercut our pricing. That is exactly what happened when the product went off patent, but the window had given us the time and revenue to reinvest into a next generation of products. So why do you think owning IP is wrong? There are cases, especially with pharmaceuticals, of massive abuse of the patent and IP process but the answer in my view is to fix it, not to blow it up.
 
HOW MODERATE DEMOCRATS DERAILED POLICE REFORM
Centrists demanded a police reform bill that didn’t go too far. Now they don’t get one at all.


BIPARTISAN NEGOTIATIONS ON police reform fell apart once and for all this week, four months after Congress missed its symbolic deadline to pass a package designed to raise standards for accountability and transparency in law enforcement. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., blamed his counterpart in leading negotiations on the bill, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., for walking away from talks this week after Republicans rejected Democrats’ final offer.

Booker told reporters that Republicans would not get on board with measures that even the Fraternal Order of Police had agreed to compromise on or standards for law enforcement accreditation that were in place under former President Donald Trump. One major sticking point had emerged over efforts to change some parts of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects police officers from civil suits.

“The effort from the very beginning was to get police reform that would raise professional standards, police reform that would create a lot more transparency, and then police reform that would create more accountability,” Booker told reporters on September 22 after leaving a meeting with Scott. “We were not able to come to agreements on those three big areas.”

Negotiators failed to agree on measures to collect data on use of force, police killing, or bias within police departments. Criminal justice reform advocates had long criticized the bill for taking a piecemeal approach that wouldn’t fundamentally change policing because it did not drastically cut public investment in law enforcement.

“Even though we could get the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, to agree to changing a national use of force standard, [and] we could get them to agree to changing, in effect, qualified immunity, we could not get there with our Republican negotiators,” Booker said.

Despite Booker’s comments, it’s unclear what compromise, if any, the FOP had accepted. The union opposed changes to qualified immunity and standards for prosecuting use of force. And Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., told Fox News on Wednesday that the Los Angeles police union “actually was supporting the reform process, but some of the national organizations disagreed, and Senator Scott would never get to yes.”

Booker doubled down on Democrats’ attempts to compromise by using a Trump executive order, which conditioned Department of Justice grants to state and local law enforcement on proof of certain training standards, as a starting point. “When it comes to creating accreditation standards in alignment with what Donald Trump put in an executive order,” Booker said, “we couldn’t get that when it comes to raising professional standards.”

In response to Booker’s comments, a spokesperson for Scott said that he “agreed with the language in the Trump executive order; however, the provision they attached that would diminish police resources was a bridge too far.” The provision in question conditioned grants to law enforcement on having proper accreditation, as was the case in Trump’s order.

Moderate Democrats who were not directly part of negotiations also played a major role in derailing talks. Several centrists openly criticized the push from groups on the left to reallocate funding for law enforcement toward community infrastructure and social services, and they blamed their slim margins in last year’s midterm elections on calls to “defund the police.” Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., one of the largest recipients of police funding in Congress as of June 2020, said during an infamous caucus call about election results that he had been forced to “walk the plank” on qualified immunity. New Jersey’s largest police union withdrew its endorsement of Pascrell last summer after he voted for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a House bill that Democrats tried to advance as a basis for the package and that reformed, but did not fully end, qualified immunity. Pascrell won reelection with 65.8 percent of the vote.

In late April, Scott had proposed a compromise on qualified immunity that would shift liability from individual officers to their departments or municipalities. In a May 2 interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Scott said he was finding Democratic support for his proposal and wanted to “make sure that the bad apples are punished.” Scott praised the 2017 conviction of the officer who shot and killed Walter Scott in 2015 in his home state of South Carolina, as well as the April conviction of Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd. Axios reported that after Chauvin’s conviction, congressional aides felt less pressure to pass a major police reform package. And Scott’s tone would soon change.

One comment from a moderate appears to have pushed the course of negotiations south. On May 9, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN that Democrats should be open to passing a bill that didn’t touch qualified immunity. In an interview two days later, Scott’s office declined to comment on the record but denied that Scott was against eliminating qualified immunity, and said he was still pushing his compromise proposal. The next day, in response to comments from Bass that the package needed to eliminate qualified immunity, Scott said he was “on the exact opposite side.” A June draft of the legislation included a proposal similar to Scott’s.

“Between this and Haiti, Black people naturally are wondering what they are getting for their vote,” one senior Democratic staffer told The Intercept. “Clyburn’s comment hindered negotiations, and the fact that it came from the highest-ranking African American in Congress gives cover for the number of moderates that had no intention of honoring the commitment they made as they marched or tweeted Black Lives Matter last summer.”

Scott denied reports that talks started to break down after Clyburn’s remarks, and he expressed optimism in the early months of summer that negotiators would reach a deal soon. But by August, Politico reported that proposed changes to qualified immunity were taken off the table.

In a statement Wednesday, Bass said that Democrats’ counterparts were “unwilling to come to a compromise” and that negotiators had “no other option than to explore further avenues to stop police brutality in this country. I will not ask our community to wait another 200 days.” She called on President Joe Biden and the White House to ”use the full extent of their constitutionally-mandated power to bring about meaningful police reform” in the form of an executive order.

Later that day, Bass told Fox News that there was no single sticking point that led to the breakdown in negotiations. Things collapsed because Booker couldn’t get Scott to agree on compromises, she added. “It was not over qualified immunity. It really wasn’t.”
Click to expand...
 
entropy said:
Click to expand...


Typical Newsweek misleading headline. He's not cutting funding, the $45b was the initial proposed increase which has fallen to $2b during the process of bill negotiations. The HBCU's aren't actually losing funding they previously had.
 
Kentonio said:
Typical Newsweek misleading headline. He's not cutting funding, the $45b was the initial proposed increase which has fallen to $2b during the process of bill negotiations. The HBCU's aren't actually losing funding they previously had.
Click to expand...
common sense will tell you that no university can survive losing such a huge amount in current funding. biden is cutting the proposed funding. which goes back to him misleading people to vote for him on promises he never intended to deliver.
 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/22/hbcus-get-less-they-say-needed-build-back-better-act
In the current version of the budget reconciliation bill serving as the vehicle for Biden’s Build Back Better Act, HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions are slated to receive $27 billion in tuition subsidies, $1.45 billion for institutional aid and $2 billion to improve research and development infrastructure. Meanwhile, Biden proposed a total of $55 billion for HBCUs and other MSIs to upgrade research infrastructure and create research incubators for improving STEM education.

“The number is just significantly lower than what we had hoped for,” said Paul Jones, president of Fort Valley State University and vice chair of the Council of 1890 Presidents. “Along with the minority-serving institutions and the Hispanic-serving institutions, it's really sort of lumping us all into this one sector when we all have tremendous needs.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/09/10/hbcu-reconciliation-fight/
Yet lawmakers dialed back funding for those schools designed to better serve students. Biden proposed a total of $55 billion for HBCUs and MSIs to upgrade research infrastructure and create up to 200 research incubators to bolster STEM education. House Democrats, however, are only setting aside $2 billion in grant funding that higher education leaders say would place many HBCUs at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
 
:lol: why even reply to my post?? just weird af. The link I posted has more than enough info as to why people are unhappy with biden. starting with the funding amount to how the funding is being structured.
 
entropy said:
:lol: why even reply to my post?? just weird af. The link I posted has more than enough info as to why people are unhappy with biden. starting with the funding amount to how the funding is being structured.
Click to expand...
Probably because the poster understands that Congress holds the power of the purse. But I could be wrong.
 
Carolina Red said:
It’s definitely easier to blame one person rather than to blame a few hundred.
Click to expand...
ground breaking stuff.
MarylandMUFan said:
I think there are 2 HBCU's in West Virginia. Biden should have told Joe M. that each of those schools will get 20 billion each if he comes along with the 3.5 trillion plan and gets the idiot from Arizona to join him.
Click to expand...
Literally try anything instead of shifting blame or caving so easily.
 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/09/22/hbcus-get-less-they-say-needed-build-back-better-act
The biggest champion of that legislation, Representative Alma Adams, a Democrat from North Carolina, sent a letter to her colleagues Sunday, expressing concerns with how the infrastructure funding has been structured in the Build Back Better Act -- first, that all MSIs will have to compete for the same pot of money, and second, that priority is given to institutions receiving less than $10 million a year in federal research dollars.

“This is contrary to President Biden’s own goals for HBCU and MSI funding, which states ‘to ensure funding is more equitably distributed among HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, the Biden administration will require that competitive grant programs make similar universities compete against each other, for example, ensuring that HBCUs only compete against HBCUs.’ If this language as written becomes law, it is accurate to say that HBCUs will only successfully compete for pennies on the dollar,” Adams wrote, adding that while she appreciates the intention of allowing colleges and universities with smaller research capacities to jump-start their efforts, the legislation would actually inhibit R-2 HBCUs from becoming R-1 institutions by deprioritizing their grant applications.


Adams said she won’t vote for the legislation as it currently exists because she believes it “will not serve its intended purpose.”

Harry L. Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which represents public HBCUs, expressed similar concerns about the reconciliation bill in a statement following its release. He said the organization was “surprised at and disappointed with” the level and allocation of the infrastructure funding.

“At present, the reconciliation bill proposes to allocate only $2 billion in infrastructure funding for HBCUs and Minority-Serving Institutions alike; a surprisingly limited sum to account for a group of more than 700 institutions of higher education,” Williams said. While we certainly do not oppose MSIs receiving their own tranche of infrastructure funding, we strongly believe that it is not in the interest of HBCUs to be forced to compete with MSIs who do not have the substantial deferred maintenance expenses and elemental infrastructure needs of HBCUs, and certainly have not experienced the extensive legacy of underfunding that our institutions have encountered.”
Click to expand...

Reposting to give more context as to how watered down this legislation is going to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.