Tuesday, August 23, 2022
Random Political Stuff
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-farmers-usda-loan-relief-inflation-reduction-act-ira-john-boyd/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/most-black-voters-support-eliminating-student-loan-debt-new-survey-n1258030
As we head into the '22 midterm, and the '24 presidential elections, I wonder what it would do to the DFL candidates if up to 40% of black voters chose to stay home?
I sympathize with the black farmers who were specifically told that their loans would be forgiven, and now find out that they most likely will not be. I also think it's a bit ironic that the federal government continues to subsidize tobacco farmers to grow a product that is a significant healath hazard.
As far as the student loan debt thing, it's simply one more legal "bribe" to convince people to vote DFL. Much like the Walz chacks that our DFL governor promised us last yer after the state took billions of dollars more than it needed from taxpayers. Walz, promised us a token check, while the legislature argues abut how much or our money to spend.
Mean while DFL Candidate Nina Turner has this pearl of bullshit. "Also—your tax dollars won’t be spent canceling the debt.". It's refreshing when DFL candidates don;t know how government is funded.
https://www.newsweek.com/student-loan-forgiveness-left-wing-trickle-down-economics-opinion-1734963
Then there's this.
What's obvious is that Biden is waiting until the last possible minute to address the student loan issue because he wants it to be fresh when it's time to vote. Obviously Biden had to announce something today, and it's looking like many on the left aren't particularly happy with his attempt to thread the needle. Especually the black activists.
https://notthebee.com/article/report-biden-admin-is-canceling-student-loan-debt-up-to-10k-for-people-who-make-less-than-125000-a-year/
I'm not generally a fan of "stories" where they simply aggregate a bunch of social media posts, but it's easier and cleaner to simply post the link to the aggregation which has screenshots, and Twitter handles for verification of what was actually said.
Meanwhile, this $320+ billion dollar attempt to buy votes will likely increase inflation, and wipe out any theoretical deficit reduction that Biden might have claimed in his term so far. I'm not going to address the multitued of other siiues around this, those are well covered. I might try to find the video of Pocahontas laughing at someone at one of her events who asked some reasonable questions about this topic. Is laughing at voters a good campaign strategy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62i2feu9fxk
Meanwhile, Biden simply lies about things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/18/bidens-bogus-1-million-construction-jobs-boast/
This bullshit claim will likely get repeated until the election as well.
https://morningconsult.com/2022/08/18/america-ideology-less-liberal-but-not-necessarily-more-conservative/
Finally, the number of blacks who identify as liberal has dropped from 49% to 34% since 2017. Obviously we don't know how this will specifically transer into voting patterns, but if 15% of black voters stop voting DFL across the board, woudn't that mean significant losses for the DFL? If 5% of those folks actually voted for the GOP, that seems like a significant swing to me. At some point I can't believe that the DFL practice of assuming that 95% of blacks are automatically going to vote for then, no matter what, aren't going to end badly for the DFL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
It's an incredibly difficult thing to predict. Also unwise is to presume those suffering the most from Dem policies will actually choose to vote against Dems when voting time rolls around. It's no secret many have expressed the wildly suicidal claim they won't vote for Trump under any circumstances. This isn't really new, as way too many allegedly intelligent people have long rejected GOP or conservative candidates despite constant suffering from Dem policies.
"I sympathize with the black farmers who were specifically told that their loans would be forgiven, and now find out that they most likely will not be."
? You DO know that it is the GOP that is making this not happen, right? Are you suggesting that because the Democrats couldn't convince EVEN ONE GOP representative to go along with them or support such reasonable promises, that black farmers would want to punish Democrats who are being blocked by ALL the GOP and some conservative Democrats??
??
Do you think black people aren't smart enough to recognize who is blocking such legislation?
"? You DO know that it is the GOP that is making this not happen, right?"
You do know how to use punctuation properly, right?
You do know that the GOP doesn't actually have the ability to prevent legislation from passing through congress, right?
You do know that when you blame the GOP for every failure of DFL legislation that you look like a partisan idiot, right?
"Are you suggesting that because the Democrats couldn't convince EVEN ONE GOP representative to go along with them or support such reasonable promises, that black farmers would want to punish Democrats who are being blocked by ALL the GOP and some conservative Democrats??"
No. But it's interesting that you acknowledge that the problem is "some conservative democrats", yet blame the GOP.
"Do you think black people aren't smart enough to recognize who is blocking such legislation?"
Like all people, the intelligence of black people varies. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that all black people have the same level of intelligence.
What I do think is that the data we've been seeing for a while suggests that there are increasing numbers of black people who are dissatisfied with the DFL and who are saying that they will not continue to automatically vote democrat. What I do think is that this kind of thing makes it look like the DFL doesn't really value black people that much beyond getting their votes.
As I pointed out, if 5-10% of black voters simply stayed at home, the DFL would be in trouble electorally. If 5-10% actually switched their votes, we'd see quite a swing.
At this point it's only polling data, but it'll be interesting to see if future voting data confirms that polling data.
Art,
Yes, it's hard. I'm not one to put a lot of confidence in polls, but the fact that we're seeing a consistent trend of black people saying that they are not going to vote DFL is worth watching and comparing with actual election results. As I pointed out, if eve 1/3 of the 15% stay home, that could be a major loss of the DFL.
Right now, I'm hearing a lot of whining about financial support for the GOP. Frankly, I'm not inclined to give them a dime (though I'm not opposed to direct donations to specific candidates). But we've seen enough examples of rich candidates financing their own campaigns, as well as well financed campaigns losing to their opponents who had less dough, so I'm not all that concerned.
The same is true of minority support. We'll see how it plays out when it's time to vote.
Why should farmers have loan "forgiveness"? Just like students, they knew what the loan was about and knew they'd have to pay it back. "Forgiveness" means to transfer the loan to taxpayers.
Art,
Exactly, let's see how things play out when the only polls that really matter close.
Glenn,
That's an entirely different question. I tend to agree with you in principle. Yet, if farmers (in this case) took out loans from the Feds under specific terms, then it seems like the Feds should honor the terms, doesn't it? The point I'm making is that we're finally seeing that black voters are starting to turn on the DFL because the DFL isn't doing what they promised. The ethics of these sorts of vote buying schemes are an entirely different matter.
But why should the government promise to "forgive" their loans to begin with?!?! It is not fair for ANYONE to have their loan "forgiven."
"It is not fair for ANYONE to have their loan "forgiven."
These attacks on forgiving debt as a matter of justice and/or support for the poor by people claiming to be Christians is mind-boggling to me. Because our God is a forgiving kind of a God, forgiveness is kind of our shtick, ya know?
Glenn,
That's an entirely different, although equally valid question. My point in THIS post isn't so much about exploring the the fairness of loan "forgiveness". My point in this post is that there are political consequences to (the DFL) pushing people into loans under false pretenses. It also touches on the propriety of the DFL/feds promising something, then breaking their promise.
Obviously the loan "forgiveness" is a huge scam on the US taxpayers, will make inflation worse, doesn't do anything to fix the problems with US higher education, is predicated on a lie, and will primarily benefit those who are white middle and upper middle class. It's literally the antithesis of fairness. It's just not the point of this post.
"These attacks on forgiving debt as a matter of justice and/or support for the poor by people claiming to be Christians is mind-boggling to me."
It's mind boggling to me that people like you actually believe the lie that these loans are being forgiven. They are being transferred to the US national debt, which will be paid, plus interest, by our children and grandchildren.
"Because our God is a forgiving kind of a God, forgiveness is kind of our shtick, ya know?"
Yes, God is in the business of forgiving sin. Loans, not so much. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I can't remember any instance in either scripture or the annals of the Early Church, where God miraculously forgave loans, or commanded taxpayers to pay the loans of others. Maybe you can dazzle us with your Biblical/Church history knowledge and show us where God pays loans?
With the acknowledgement that this could be Dan on one of his instances of being unable to comment under his own name, I assume that it's not.
Dan frequently goes off on those who take the Bible literally. He's quick to point out what he sees as figurative language in scripture, regardless of whether of not his hunches actually make sense.
In this case we seen Anon, and Dan conflating Jesus use of the term "debt" when referring to sin, and actual monetary debt. We further see these folks conflating the forgiveness of sin, with this (falsely named) "debt forgiveness". When Jesus speaks of debt (sin) He speaks of paying the debt in full on our behalf. He never spoke of transferring one person's debt to others. Because Jesus paid our "debts", He forgives our sin.
Since I give people a fair degree of freedom, I'll allow this foolishness, I probably won't waste a lot of time with these wooden, literal, conflations.
This is Dan, in case it doesn't recognize me or identify me as such.
Craig...
"I'm not a biblical scholar..."
Clearly.
"...but I can't remember any instance in either scripture or the annals of the Early Church, where God miraculously forgave loans, or commanded taxpayers to pay the loans of others."
The jubilee laws spoken of in the Old Testament and referenced by Jesus.
"For I have come to bring good news to the poor, freedom for the captive, healing for the sick, the day of God's good favor/jubilee."
For starters. You should read about it. It really is kind of a big deal. In The Bible and stuff.
More on debt forgiveness and the Bible...
"The biblical bases for this petition of the Lord’s Prayer, Luke 11:4 and Matthew 6:12 and 6:14, were written in part with reference to the biblical seventh-year laws (shmitah). They require that after every six-year period, financial debts be relieved and the land lie fallow (Deuteronomy 15:1-3). Complete debt relief had the unintended effect of drying up loans to the poor, so a workaround was developed to ensure that such loans continued.
As this was second best to complete debt forgiveness, the rabbis of Jesus’s era set strict, poor-friendly conditions on lending and interest rates, and the shmitah laws of debt relief remained an important moral principle."
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/forgive-our-debts-the-economics-of-the-lords-prayer/11314116#:~:text=We%20see%20it%20reflected%20in,monetary%20and%20non%2Dmonetary%20connotations.
Dan T
I would add that even in any case where a debt is forgiven, be it sin or money, it is the person owed who has the authority. Federal loans are not given by any politician or bureaucrat, but by the people as it is our money, not theirs. Thus, to set up any program by which our money is used in loans cannot be forgiven by those who are not the true "owners" of the loaned money. That would be we the people, and we must be paid since the program is beyond the scope and authority of the government in the first place.
Craig...
"It's mind boggling to me that people like you actually believe the lie that these loans are being forgiven. They are being transferred to the US national debt, which will be paid, plus interest, by our children and grandchildren. "
Indeed, just as our great and immoral expenditures on weapons and planning for war is and at a much greater rate. In 2020, the US spent about $760 Billion and THAT debt, paid year after year after year after year after year, etc, will CERTAINLY be passed on to our children. Thus, your concern for the $300 billion over ten years for loan forgiveness is eclipsed by the $8.7 trillion in military expenditures over the next ten years.
But here's the thing: It need not be passed on to our children and grandchildren. We could start taxing the ultra-wealthy at a more reasonable rate (and maybe we will, at least a little, thanks to the IRA). AND we could reduce expenditures on our military budget, if you're concerned about passing on debt. That would seem a more appropriate place to start.
The fact remains, for those whose debt has been forgiven, it HAS been forgiven. Just as a point of fact. You recognize this, yes?
This one act is not meant to fix everything. It's dealing with just this one area of concern. Just like the infrastructure deal doesn't fix or pay for everything, just a subset of concerns.
And yes, we taxpayers ARE sharing this debt, just like we share the debt for roads and police and a military. Just like we're paying the debt (and this is especially true for the poor, people of color and otherwise marginalized) for our policies that lead to more climate change chaos.
It's sort of how it works when you don't live in an anarchical dystopia, right?
Craig..
"At some point I can't believe that the DFL practice of assuming that 95% of blacks are automatically going to vote for then, no matter what, aren't going to end badly for the DFL. "
At some point I can't believe that you won't recognize that as long as the GOP has policies and people that are actively hostile and even racist at times towards black people, that you can't count on them swinging your way in any significant numbers. You all need to realize the depth of hostility that many black folks report hearing from the GOP and this remains reflected in voting patterns. It's not enough for Democrats to not be "not good enough" or supportive enough of black people. The GOP HAS to offer some recognition of the racism and hostility towards black people and concerns coming from their own side.
Craig...
" He never spoke of transferring one person's debt to others. Because Jesus paid our "debts", He forgives our sin. "
Look, I get it. When you've been so thoroughly indoctrinated to one worldview, it can be hard to see what's in front of your very eyes.
Jesus...
"A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
...Jesus said to him, “There is still one thing lacking.
Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
Again, that's from Jesus. Perhaps you've heard the story but missed the transferring of wealth he said was necessary for that rich ruler to be saved?
Or how about that wee little man Jesus saved? It's not just a cute kids' song, you know? There's the consistent theme of the rich transferring their wealth to the poor so that they could pay their debts and necessities.
"So he [Zaccheus] hurried down and was happy to welcome him. All who saw it began to grumble and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.”
Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord,
“Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor;
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”
Or recall how Jesus condemned those who would invite to dinner the rich or others who might later pay back the favor. Instead, he counseled,
“But when you give a banquet, invite
the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind”
And again, Jesus began his ministry with the declaration of bringing good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. He declared the day of God's good favor, which the Jewish people hearing would certainly recognize as a reference back to the Jubilee wealth redistribution laws that were part of what was required of a God-loving nation.
Indeed, God condemns those nations that FAILED to "redistribute" wealth to the poor and who oppressed the poor.
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
It really is there throughout the whole of the Bible, the Gospel of Enough, of Grace, of the Siding with the Poor.
How did Jesus tell John the Baptist that he could tell he was from God? "Tell him how I preach the good news to the poor."
And good news for the poor IS being able to have enough to live and thrive and being welcomed, not excluded. Grace, grace, grace. Throughout the Bible and it regularly shows up as forgiveness of debt and the wealthy paying to the poor.
This is Dan, just in case.
"The jubilee laws spoken of in the Old Testament and referenced by Jesus."
Excellent, by all means let us formulate our laws based on a law that was specifically for the Israelite theocracy, and a law that was never actually followed by them.
The problem is that Dan seems to fail to understand that Biden isn't proposing "forgiveness" of loans, merely transferring the responsibility for the loans to others.
Art,
Exactly.
"Excellent, by all means let us formulate our laws based on a law that was specifically for the Israelite theocracy,"
Not at all what I'm saying. You said you weren't familiar with debt forgiveness in The Bible. I pointed out to you how it was central to Israel in both its theocracy and monarchy stages and that was carried over by Jesus into the New Testament.. It's pretty central to Christianity and Judaism.
You are correct that we don't know if it was ever fully implemented by Israel. They appear to have largely ignored God's command, as you seem to be advocating, and God held them accountable for that failure.
My answering your question is not the same as saying we should implement jubilee laws as described in the Old Testament into US laws. It's just noting what has been done in the past, or at least called for and how key it is to Judea christian teaching.
"Thus, your concern for the $300 billion over ten years for loan forgiveness is eclipsed by the $8.7 trillion in military expenditures over the next ten years."
No, this is a false statement. You are assuming facts not in evidence, and ignoring that providing for national defense is mandated by the constitution. In any event, the reality is that your wasting time trying to make a case based on "forgiveness" simply points out the big lie being told about the whole vote buying scheme.
"We could start taxing the ultra-wealthy at a more reasonable rate (and maybe we will, at least a little, thanks to the IRA). AND we could reduce expenditures on our military budget, if you're concerned about passing on debt. That would seem a more appropriate place to start."
Ahhhhh the "tax the ultra wealthy" canard. The reality is that confiscating every dime the "ultra wealthy" have wouldn't make a dent in our insanely large national debt. I'm always open to rational reductions in our military that don't prevent them from fulfilling their constitutionally mandated duties.
How about this. Why doesn't Biden propose an immediate reduction in military spending of 320+ billion dollars, as a mandatory precondition for this vote buying scheme? Why is Biden simply continuing to add billions and billions of spending with little or no corresponding moves?
"The fact remains, for those whose debt has been forgiven, it HAS been forgiven. Just as a point of fact. You recognize this, yes?"
No, it's literally not been "forgiven", it's been transferred from one entity to another.
"This one act is not meant to fix everything. It's dealing with just this one area of concern. Just like the infrastructure deal doesn't fix or pay for everything, just a subset of concerns."
Since I never said this one act was intended to "fix everything", the above is silly and pointless. I'll note that there is no movement from the Biden administration to actually fix the problems of the cost of higher education, just this band aid on one small part of the problem. Which will theoretically gain the DFL some more votes this fall.
"And yes, we taxpayers ARE sharing this debt, just like we share the debt for roads and police and a military. Just like we're paying the debt (and this is especially true for the poor, people of color and otherwise marginalized) for our policies that lead to more climate change chaos."
Where exactly are we seeing "climate change chaos" that is directly linked to a student loans? Are you really claiming that 320+ billion could 100% solve climate change chaos?
Yes, we are taking privately incurred debts taken by individuals (primarily white middle/upper middle class) and transferring it to the public. What an idiotic argument. If college degrees are as valuable as roads, police, and the military then why stop at a measly $10K, and why put limits on this transfer?
"It's sort of how it works when you don't live in an anarchical dystopia, right?"
Who in the hell is suggesting this idiocy? On the other hand wouldn't unchecked spending increases by the federal government, resulting in an ever increasing national debt potentially lead to something like that?
"At some point I can't believe that you won't recognize that as long as the GOP has policies and people that are actively hostile and even racist at times towards black people, that you can't count on them swinging your way in any significant numbers."
1. I've never said that these votes would "swing" toward the GOP.
2. In recent posts noting the increasing polling data and other news showing that blacks and Hispanics are moving away from the DFL, I've been quite specific in NOT assuming that they would all go to the GOP.
3. The above has absolutely zero relationship to what I actually said, and seem to indicate an inability to read, comprehend, or deal with what I actually said.
The rest is simply blathering talking points regurgitated reflexively without acknowledging the news reports of polling data.
"Again, that's from Jesus. Perhaps you've heard the story but missed the transferring of wealth he said was necessary for that rich ruler to be saved?"
The fact that you cherry picked this is hilarious.
1. If the "transferring of wealth" was required for salvation, then Jesus is teaching that salvation is by works, not grace.
2. Jesus did not take the guy's wealth against his will.
3. Jesus did not take the guy's money against his will in order to pay off people's loans.
4. If you are suggesting that this "transferring of wealth" is a principle that is required for salvation as a general rule, then I guess you're not saved.
5. Was Jesus really imposing a two tiered swstem of salvation? One for the "rich", one for the "poor"? If so, what's the cut off?
"Or how about that wee little man Jesus saved? It's not just a cute kids' song, you know? There's the consistent theme of the rich transferring their wealth to the poor so that they could pay their debts and necessities."
1. Zaccheus voluntarily chose to return his ill gotten gains, he wasn't required to do so.
2. Jesus never mentioned Zaccheus wealth as an impediment to his salvation.
3. This wasn't a case of a presidential fiat taking money from Zaccheus in order to pay other people's private debts.
4. Nowhere in the story does is suggest what the money was to be used for.
More blather of trying to proof text, cherry pick, and eisegete, support for this unilateral vote buying scheme of Biden's.
And every single comment misses the point of the post. That "black voices" are pissed at Biden and that this and other actions of the DFL are likely to cost the DFL votes. Because y'all are so convinced that the black folks will continually turn out and vote DFL no matter what y'all do.
But it's clear that you're all for using cherry picked scripture as a basis for governing the US.
"This is Dan, just in case."
Dan, the problem in identifying which comments are yours is not on my end. It's literally your ability to make comments from your google/blogger account.
Anon,
"My answering your question is not the same as saying we should implement jubilee laws as described in the Old Testament into US laws. It's just noting what has been done in the past, or at least called for and how key it is to Judea christian teaching."
When you use this law that was specific to a particular time in a particular period of Jewish history, which Jesus did NOT mandate for the Church, (More like He claimed to be the fulfillment of the Jubilee laws.) as an excuse to justify the taking if money from one group to transfer to another group by presidential fiat, it's pretty obvious that you're directly linking the two.
Dan doesn't understand Jubilee laws, either, but aside from that, he once again perverts the message of Christ's position with regard to the rich young man and Zaccheus to promote his marxist redistribution of other people's wealth. He also speaks to the con regarding "fair share", as if the wealthy aren't already responsible for the lion's share of revenues to the federal coffers. And as you point out, Craig, Dan perverts even further the issue when daring to suggest the federal government shouldn't be bolstering our military. Sure, there's little doubt they could spend the money more efficiently so as to reduce the need for great sums of tax dollars, but now especially, with morons believing the military is in any way enhanced through social justice bullshit and pro-LGBT enabling, it's less likely we can get away with less military spending to overcome such wastes of time and money to ensure we are the pre-eminent superpower against whom no other nation (China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran) would dare lift a finger. Dan, who pretends to care about people, works toward leaving them vulnerable to all manner of attack.
Art,
I agree that Dan's and Anon's understanding of the Jubilee is flawed. One aspect of the Jubilee that they seem to miss is the fact that everything went back to it's original owners. It wasn't the state of Israel taking on all of the debts as a part of the public treasury, it was a reset where everyone got a new start where they were 7 years ago. In any event, it was a commandment of YHWH, not a decree by one human ruler.
It was also, like so much of OT law, a symbolic representation of the ultimate redemption of all of humanity through Jesus.
I suspect that YHWH isn't thrilled with a bunch of folks trying to use His command that was specific to a certain time and place to justify a partisan vote buying scheme.
Not to mention how amusing it is to see all these pissed off, left wing black agitators who aren't happy with being thrown these crumbs when they were promised the whole steak dinner.
I really think that Anon and Dan don't want to accept that the number of black voters who are willing to cheerfully accept whatever scraps the get from the DFL in exchange for continue to pull the DFL lever could ever decrease. As long as the DFL can sell the fear of the unknown, and black voters continue to buy it, nothing will ever change.
Hell, all we have to do is look at the cities where the DFL has been in total control for decades and see what the end game is. Personally, I think streets covered with human excrement, businesses robbed and vandalized at will, increasing numbers of carjackings and shootings, and systemic racism in the DFL controlled power structures sounds like these cities are headed for dystopia sooner than the rest of us.
Post a Comment