“Senators Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act, which would establish a rebate payment program that would provide $2,000 to every individual, including children and other dependents, until this crisis is over.” from the one page summary of the bill.
Joe Biden is either not on board with this or he’s doing a fantastic job of hiding his support.
Please share widely!
Finally, a fair criticism! I agree that he should signal his support for this legislation.
Or he just hasn’t gotten to it yet. I think this is awfully nitpicky, though hopefully he has an answer if asked.
It isn’t nit-picky to those who for whatever reason are still suffering even after the first round of checks have come and gone.
Joe Biden is now our LEADER. It is not “nit-picky” to demand that he lead.
I just don’t have a lot of patience for several rounds of, “Why hasn’t _________ commented about _______ ?” when something has been raised for only a couple of days. I would much rather wait a few days for a considered response rather than get an immediate half-baked one. I get that this is a top issue right now, but so often it’s used as a purity test – “Candidate X won’t say something RIGHT THIS SECOND about my pet issue so s/he is inherently no good and possibly a secret sell out to the other side.”
I get that.
My “purity test” is that our nominee lead the charge for whatever issues we Democrats collectively think are most important. It seems to me protecting working-class and middle-class families from utter disaster during and after this pandemic is at or near the top of any such list of important issues.
It seems to me that the bill in question is the most important legislative act pertaining to this issue on the table right now.
I don’t think it’s asking too much to expect the leader of our party to be proactive in supporting this measure.
Reports I have seen indicate that Biden IS leading by preparing for possibly the most activist presidency since FDR’s. Right now Congressional leaders are the ones actually in office so it makes sense that they lead more immediately. If all Biden does is say “me too” to everything they propose, while not necessarily a bad thing, that strikes me as following rather than leading anyway.
You apparently have a different view of what it means to lead than me. So far, I’ve heard his supporters say that he’ll “possibly be the most activist presidency since FDR’s”. Where is the substance to support that?
I remember LBJ’s Great Society and Barack Obama’s universal health care (I’m carefully avoiding mention of the Bill Clinton administration in hopes of avoiding yet another flamewar). I see no evidence that Mr. Biden is contemplating anything as radical as either of those two programs.
When I get a chance, I’ll look for some archival footage of FDR appearances during his first campaign.
This is my source for the FDR comparison.
He says the words but the plans don’t back it up, and that is all that matters.
Biden’s “New Deal” plans won’t work if people keep throwing his words back in his mouth.
Would putting Warren on the ticket get you to change your mind about Biden? Asking sincerely. I am beginning to think it’s a good idea.
I wholeheartedly agree and upvoted this.
I also greatly appreciate the positive tone, showing that tough criticism can be done courteously.
Enjoy it while you can, Tom.
It’s a little late… They took care of Wall Street more than a month ago.. Wall Street got $4.5 trillion… which could have been more than $13,000 for every American. That was the time to negotiate for actual people.
So now we’re highly invested in a trickle-down solution to the economic crisis. Even under normal circumstances, trickle-down is a highly dubious way to run an economy. But during a pandemic, in which we are being told to stay home, there is no way it can operate at all. We bought a really nice boat to cross a desert.
All of this should have been pointed out when the bailout was being negotiated. But at this point no one is in any particular hurry because the 1% who actually matter have already been taken care of.
The above is perhaps a moot point, as Governors begin to reopen the economy. But what’s not being said is that this reopening is necessitated by the wildly inappropriate fiscal response at the federal level.
This argument is the inverse of the right wing populists who say “veterans benefits are being cut while single women get all dem welfare checks”. America is so freakin rich we can bail out the banks and bail out ordinary people. Anyone saying it is an either/or proposition is ignoring this fact.
I’m not talking about two different things — I’m talking about the economic response to the crisis. Comparing various approaches is how we arrive at the best policy.
What’s more, comparing UBI to the Wall Street bailout is a powerful MORAL argument. If we refuse to ‘go there’ then we’re not making the best possible case for this legislation.
Pelosi has joined the call for 2k monthly payments until the crisis is over as part of a new $3 trillion package. You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that Mitch McConnnel and not Joe Biden is the key barrier to bolder legislation passing the Senate. The Democrats had to pass something that could pass a Republican Senate to keep the economy running during this pandemic. They also got the $600/wk booster shot to unemployment and the $1200 direct payments to individuals.
That was not a Republican victory, but a Republican concession. The $600/wk in particular is a huge across the board benefit that in some cases nearly quadruples the amount some penny pinching states already allow. This new package is a lot closer to what you and I want and unfortunately much less likely to pass, but Pelosi is putting the pressure on McConnell to make it happen. We will see if he is willing to give up his majority to stiff working Americans one last time.
Pelosi gave us a bare minimum one-time payment, which Republicans were already calling for.. They took advantage of our momentary weakness to give Wall Street everything… for $1,200. Policy like this is why we have such an obscene wealth disparity in this country. We’d be much better off with no deal.
I fundamentally disagree with your final sentence. Especially in an emergency you take what you can get that everyone agrees on, then fight later.
That’s exactly the problem: everyone agreed to the Wall Street bailout, Pelosi included. For roughly the same amount of money that we gave to Wall Street, we could have extended the $1,200 individual payments for 12 months. But Wall Street’s emergency trumps the emergency of actual people. That is the political choice made by the leadership of both parties.
So you would prefer to delay any relief to make a point?
I didn’t suggest a delay, I suggested a different policy. If Republicans hold things up, then you deal with that. But we didn’t even have Pelosi on our side soo….
But fighting for a different policy that the other chamber or party isn’t going to go for will have effect of delaying any relief. I say start with what the stingiest party is willing to give to at least get aid flowing, then fight to enhance that aid in subsequent legislation.