Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:13 am
(I'm) Dark Brandon, I've come to bargain.

That should be Biden's 2024 campaign slogan.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:57 amI've read some accounts that have argued that what McCarthy was really pushing for at the end of the day was just a deal that would establish debt ceiling hostage taking as a normal practice. Such that ultimately what was important was not getting a long list of concessions (though that certainly would have been nice from his perspective), but rather was one-sided concessions - that he needed to get Democrats to give something in exchange for nothing other than raising the debt ceiling.

That's a possibility as well and fits with the game theory. What drives me a bit crazy is all the hot takes are often what was best *in this moment* without really looking at the game theory or big picture.

Here is the game as it is proven out as of now when the nation approaches debt ceiling.

I'll abstract out the multi-chamber aspects for simplification:

Republican President -> Republican Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Republican President -> Democratic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Democratic President -> Democratic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Democratic President -> Republic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling after Hostage Taking and forced alignment with Republican priorities.

And this is well known and established. There are multiple ways to re-balance the game. Raise the debt ceiling to a level where it isn't a persistent concern or eliminate it altogether. Or the Democrats have to start taking hostages as well. If the game isn't rebalanced there are long-term political consequences. Frankly we're already deep into that territory. The Republicans have multiple avenues to force their priorities in non-democratic ways that are chipping away at trust in the system overall.

Now back to the Biden is playing 4D chess or out-negotiated them position. IMO that idea just doesn't survive scrutiny in review. We just have to look at what happened. After he was elected, people predicted this chain of events and pushed for the elimination or alternate pathing to resolve the debt ceiling issue. That advice went unheeded. As late as the fall, people started to make a lot of noise about this. We can argue if Manchinema would allow a change in the status of the debt ceiling but it was a rising issue.

And what did Biden or the administration do? Nothing. They didn't prepare. They didn't begin messaging. They instead adopted a non-tenable strategy which is just argue they won't negotiate the debt limit. In effect, he looked at the game above and didn't understand the known outcomes. It indicates he or other policy wonks didn't look ahead even a move or two and realize they can't win the game. In fact, IMO he pretty much admitted he blundered when he outright said he came around on the 14th amendment but there wasn't time to pursue it. He said that just after his team committed to negotiating on the debt ceiling. Which again was something he said he wouldn't do. It essentially cemented that the rules above are *true*.

And the accounts that follow start with them getting into knock down fights under extreme pressure. That isn't sound negotiating or 4D chess. Did he have enough skill to grind out a draw of sorts? Sure but considering the risks we face? That's the rub to me. I still think people just don't understand how to evaluate risk. This was bad. Very bad. So in context I struggle to understand how anyone can say Biden out-negotiated anybody.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:45 am And what did Biden or the administration do? Nothing. They didn't prepare. They didn't begin messaging. They instead adopted a non-tenable strategy which is just argue they won't negotiate the debt limit. In effect, he looked at the game above and didn't understand the known outcomes

This WaPo op-ed (by Jennifer Rubin) would disagree with your take.

Biden could not very well run to the press to tell them McCarthy wasn’t getting much of anything. The “play” here was to allow McCarthy to spin his way out of the corner that he and the Freedom Caucus had painted themselves into. Letting McCarthy boast that his great achievement was “getting Biden to negotiate” was a small price to pay for avoiding economic catastrophe and landing the best deal one could hope for in divided government.

gilraen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 12:00 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:45 am And what did Biden or the administration do? Nothing. They didn't prepare. They didn't begin messaging. They instead adopted a non-tenable strategy which is just argue they won't negotiate the debt limit. In effect, he looked at the game above and didn't understand the known outcomes

This WaPo op-ed (by Jennifer Rubin) would disagree with your take.

Biden could not very well run to the press to tell them McCarthy wasn’t getting much of anything. The “play” here was to allow McCarthy to spin his way out of the corner that he and the Freedom Caucus had painted themselves into. Letting McCarthy boast that his great achievement was “getting Biden to negotiate” was a small price to pay for avoiding economic catastrophe and landing the best deal one could hope for in divided government.

Hers is a comment about the short-term tactics (which is sound). This in no way or shape even comes close to refuting the strategic aspects I am speaking to.

Also -

What drives me a bit crazy is all the hot takes are often what was best *in this moment* without really looking at the game theory or big picture.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:45 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:57 amI've read some accounts that have argued that what McCarthy was really pushing for at the end of the day was just a deal that would establish debt ceiling hostage taking as a normal practice. Such that ultimately what was important was not getting a long list of concessions (though that certainly would have been nice from his perspective), but rather was one-sided concessions - that he needed to get Democrats to give something in exchange for nothing other than raising the debt ceiling.

That's a possibility as well and fits with the game theory. What drives me a bit crazy is all the hot takes are often what was best *in this moment* without really looking at the game theory or big picture.

Here is the game as it is proven out as of now when the nation approaches debt ceiling.

I'll abstract out the multi-chamber aspects for simplification:

Republican President -> Republican Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Republican President -> Democratic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Democratic President -> Democratic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling
Democratic President -> Republic Congress = Raise Debt Ceiling after Hostage Taking and forced alignment with Republican priorities.

And this is well known and established. There are multiple ways to re-balance the game. Raise the debt ceiling to a level where it isn't a persistent concern or eliminate it altogether. Or the Democrats have to start taking hostages as well. If the game isn't rebalanced there are long-term political consequences. Frankly we're already deep into that territory. The Republicans have multiple avenues to force their priorities in non-democratic ways that are chipping away at trust in the system overall.

Now back to the Biden is playing 4D chess or out-negotiated them position. IMO that idea just doesn't survive scrutiny in review. We just have to look at what happened. After he was elected, people predicted this chain of events and pushed for the elimination or alternate pathing to resolve the debt ceiling issue. That advice went unheeded. As late as the fall, people started to make a lot of noise about this. We can argue if Manchinema would allow a change in the status of the debt ceiling but it was a rising issue.

And what did Biden or the administration do? Nothing. They didn't prepare. They didn't begin messaging. They instead adopted a non-tenable strategy which is just argue they won't negotiate the debt limit. In effect, he looked at the game above and didn't understand the known outcomes. It indicates he or other policy wonks didn't look ahead even a move or two and realize they can't win the game. In fact, IMO he pretty much admitted he blundered when he outright said he came around on the 14th amendment but there wasn't time to pursue it. He said that just after his team committed to negotiating on the debt ceiling. Which again was something he said he wouldn't do. It essentially cemented that the rules above are *true*.

And the accounts that follow start with them getting into knock down fights under extreme pressure. That isn't sound negotiating or 4D chess. Did he have enough skill to grind out a draw of sorts? Sure but considering the risks we face? That's the rub to me. I still think people just don't understand how to evaluate risk. This was bad. Very bad. So in context I struggle to understand how anyone can say Biden out-negotiated anybody.

Yeah. I mean, I think you can reasonably argue that Biden did ok in the end. The 14th amendment / premium bond / executive action options, while I think probably the best option ultimately, were certainly not without significant risks. Brian Schatz at least has indicated that there were debt ceiling abolition discussions in late 2022 but that Manchin and Sinema (of course) were not on board.

But it's hard to argue, I think, that Biden did great, or was pursuing 4D chess, etc.

Since I have my own brand of doom and gloom, you had to know what just happened isn't going to be good for public health, right?

Locally:

One of the clearest impacts of the debt-limit deal would be to cut off all unobligated money devoted to hiring and maintaining more public health workers – up to $350 million.

...

The U.S. public health workforce was stretched thin even before the pandemic, having shrunk by more than 20 percent from 2009 to 2019 from underfunding. COVID relief money helped temporarily bolster the workforce, allowing public health offices to track the virus’ spread, carry out contact tracing, distribute vaccines and more. But burnout and harassment are driving workers away, threatening to leave the nation’s public health agencies worse off than they were before COVID hit.

Nationally:

The bill would rescind about $1.7 billion from the CDC, which is about half of what Mullen initially expected. There’s some good news: The legislation largely spares relief money for efforts to identify new variants through genomic surveillance, as well as systems that monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.

Still, “losing $1.7 billion from CDC being rescinded is a missed opportunity and a disappointment, because we could have used those funds to ensure that we're better prepared for the next pandemic,” said Mullen.

The bill would also claw back money from programs aiming to increase trust in vaccines, for instance, and could hamper agency-wide efforts to modernize data collection and infrastructure by taking away money from a CDC general fund, though money explicitly allocated to those programs appears safe.

The deal would roughly halve available funding for the CDC’s Rapid Response Reserve Fund, said Casalotti, “whose sole purpose is to exist so that if there is a problem, you can respond early.”

Globally:

All remaining relief funds for the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ research into non-COVID-19 pandemic threats, including research into other coronaviruses and pandemic flu, would be rescinded. The agency, part of the National Institutes of Health, has become a target of ire for Republicans in the pandemic era – motivated in large part by animus toward its former chief, Anthony Fauci, who retired late last year.

“The notion that we had just gone through a pandemic, and [only to] then eliminate research to prepare for future coronavirus pandemics just makes no sense,” said Ellie Dehoney, Senior Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at Research!America, a health-research advocacy group.

El Guapo wrote:But it's hard to argue, I think, that Biden did great, or was pursuing 4D chess, etc.

I think it's just as hard to argue that he somehow continously keeps accidentally stumbling into success after success.

The long term strategy is to avoid legislative ties with Republican maniacs.

* Double *

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:But it's hard to argue, I think, that Biden did great, or was pursuing 4D chess, etc.

I think it's just as hard to argue that he somehow continously keeps accidentally stumbling into success after success.

As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:57 am I've read some accounts that have argued that what McCarthy was really pushing for at the end of the day was just a deal that would establish debt ceiling hostage taking as a normal practice. Such that ultimately what was important was not getting a long list of concessions (though that certainly would have been nice from his perspective), but rather was one-sided concessions - that he needed to get Democrats to give something in exchange for nothing other than raising the debt ceiling.

Sort of how McConnell established that a Republican Senate will never again confirm a Democratic SCOTUS nominee. Welp, what can you do?

malchior wrote:As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

What would you define as a success, given the realities of what he was working with? Not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:51 pm

malchior wrote:As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

What would you define as a success, given the realities of what he was working with? Not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know.

And not being sarcastic - read the post above and try to understand my point of view here. I don't define surviving after walking into a trap everyone was warning you about for 2 years as success. Everyone seems hellbent on overlooking the bumbling journey because things sort of worked out in the end.

Biden's a career politician - I think he thinks in career politician terms. And as sucky as it sounds, I think there's not a big driver for him to change how politics as usual works. So he works within those boundaries. He's not going to go out of his way to avoid traps, because he knows his party may one day be using the exact same traps. He's not the guy that's going to shake up DC with bold maneuvers. What we got is exactly what I expected.

I see it as a success because we didn't default and the price paid for not defaulting was minimal compared to what he could have given up. I'm not claiming that it any way solved the long-term problems with government. But I've never expected Biden to be the guy that fixes that. He IS that.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:53 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:51 pm

malchior wrote:As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

What would you define as a success, given the realities of what he was working with? Not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know.

And not being sarcastic - read the post above and try to understand my point of view here. I don't define surviving after walking into a trap everyone was warning you about for 2 years as success. Everyone seems hellbent on overlooking the bumbling journey because things sort of worked out in the end.

We know what you consider not a success, but you won't answer YK as to what you do consider a success?

Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:03 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:53 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:51 pm

malchior wrote:As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

What would you define as a success, given the realities of what he was working with? Not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know.

And not being sarcastic - read the post above and try to understand my point of view here. I don't define surviving after walking into a trap everyone was warning you about for 2 years as success. Everyone seems hellbent on overlooking the bumbling journey because things sort of worked out in the end.

We know what you consider not a success, but you won't answer YK as to what you do consider a success?

I argue this is the wrong question to ask but I'll try to answer it. The glib answer is we can't know what success could look like because he failed to be prepared enough to make a path viable. To riff on YKs take, I would agree we should have no expectations for Biden to be a visionary. Not being a visionary is fine if you are willing to listen to the actual visionaries in your orbit. And he should staff knowing that is a weakness he needs coverage of. We don't see much evidence of this. In the end, the President is the leader of an entire nation *and* a political party. He is ultimately responsible for the vision - the strategy - even if it is built by other people and he just ultimately tinkers with it or approves it.

That's ultimately one of my biggest problems with Biden. This is part of some fundamental baked in flaws in his leadership capabilities. We can accept that his core competencies are maintaining relationships and knowing how to navigate Congress to some extent. However, he has huge blind spots when it comes to preparation for known problems. Especially ones where the Republicans are acting well outside the boundaries of norms. He simply has been unable to confront them. He has demonstrated he can't craft a message to stake out a defendable position. Over and over he appears to be caught flat-footed by events that everyone knew were going to be a problem.

Anyway, why do I think 'what does success look like' is the wrong question? The better question is what could he have done that might have prepared him to succeed.

Here is a relevant walkthrough. Starting from the debt ceiling game I laid out. As a note, when I am talking about games - it is in the game theory sense. The way the rules work, the Democrats always lose - they have to offer concessions. In failing to confront that, he embarked on a strategy that was essentially a surrender from the start. He took the untenable position that had no chance of succeeding or balancing the game.

Why? He didn't have to have a vision. He ignored the people with vision. He failed there as a leader. He stuck to a known losing strategy. I consider that bad leadership. Worse he had several visionaries proposing solid ideas beyond the 'trillion dollar coin'. One of them report directly to him. Yellen. Yellen last year proposed a two-prong strategy to confront the debt ceiling issue -- the 14A and Premium bond ideas. Considering the ultimate stakes they should have fully vetted them on the chance they became viable cards to play.

Worse Biden eventually came to say he came around to the 14A idea when it was too late. Actual evidence he was *unprepared*. He could have listened to his visionaries last year and had workable plans in place. That would have given him the options that could have led to success. Maybe they wouldn't have succeeded but we should expect the most senior leader in our country is prepared with options versus his chosen course which again ultimately proved that the game rules are true and set up a future crisis. That's definitely not success in my book.

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pm Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

I thought it was one representative could call a vote.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:53 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pm Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

I thought it was one representative could call a vote.

They can but it seems no one would unless they thought they could get him. McCarthy apparently counted his votes this time and realized he could get away with this because no one dared take a non-lethal swing.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:00 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:53 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pm Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

I thought it was one representative could call a vote.

They can but it seems no one would unless they thought they could get him. McCarthy apparently counted his votes this time and realized he could get away with this because no one dared take a non-lethal swing.

If you come at the king, you best not miss.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 6:00 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:53 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pm Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

I thought it was one representative could call a vote.

They can but it seems no one would unless they thought they could get him. McCarthy apparently counted his votes this time and realized he could get away with this because no one dared take a non-lethal swing.

I know, I was just explaining it to Unagi.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:53 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:38 pm Can't just one pissed-off (R) in the house vote Kevin off the island? I thought that was the thing.

I thought it was one representative could call a vote.

Okay, well - yeah, that's what I was also basically referring to, and I realize that's not exactly voting him off the island - but it is opening that up that vote.. and I would have thought one of the deplorables would have jumped all over this.

A vision with no votes leads to a disaster.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:47 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:33 pm

El Guapo wrote:But it's hard to argue, I think, that Biden did great, or was pursuing 4D chess, etc.

I think it's just as hard to argue that he somehow continously keeps accidentally stumbling into success after success.

As I wrote above I'm still struggling to understand how this is a success. It seems many are hellbent on defending Biden despite the reality of what happened.

I think you may be confusing it with “hellbent on defending the image of the Democrats in the 2024 election”

Zarathud wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:07 pm A vision with no votes leads to a disaster.

This is a lesson taught in Wandavision.

Debt Ceiling Crisis of Theseus.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 5:13 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 10:02 pmRather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

That post wasn't a response to yours but you did pick up the spirit of why I ignored it. If you truly believe he helped avoid a war in Poland (beyond preposterous) or Taiwan (a touch less preposterous but still not especially reality based) then I felt like letting it go was the best course but let's say I agree to disagree.

Apollo wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 11:19 pmBiden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

People says this often but I posted actual poll data showing that people disapprove his Presidency by a large margin. Similar numbers to Trump. People have to realize that our government in its wild gyrations often produces results that the majority of Americans dislike. And that's not about far left or far right.

FWIW, Poland and NATO don't think it was "beyond preposterous" at all:

(Note - "Rassmussen" below is the former head of NATO, but also currently advising Ukraine, but take *special * note of Poland's concerns, and ask yourself about how full NATO member Poland would feel if 150k troops and 20-40 miles of Russian Tanks were on their border, and not just struggling in Ukraine.

Poland apparently is feels so strongly that they (may) want Polish soldiers on the ground in Ukraine, with or without NATO.

Rasmussen said: “If Nato cannot agree on a clear path forward for Ukraine, there is a clear possibility that some countries individually might take action. We know that Poland is very engaged in providing concrete assistance to Ukraine. And I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that Poland would engage even stronger in this context on a national basis and be followed by the Baltic states, maybe including the possibility of troops on the ground.

“I think the Poles would seriously consider going in and assemble a coalition of the willing if Ukraine doesn’t get anything in Vilnius. We shouldn’t underestimate the Polish feelings, the Poles feel that for too long western Europe did not listen to their warnings against the true Russian mentality.”

He said it would be entirely legal for Ukraine to seek such military assistance.

And Poland is dramatically ramping up Army recruitment.

Pssh, what do the Poles know about Russians?

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:14 pm Pssh, what do the Poles know about Russians?

Or getting invaded.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 7:20 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 5:13 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 10:02 pmRather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

That post wasn't a response to yours but you did pick up the spirit of why I ignored it. If you truly believe he helped avoid a war in Poland (beyond preposterous) or Taiwan (a touch less preposterous but still not especially reality based) then I felt like letting it go was the best course but let's say I agree to disagree.

Apollo wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 11:19 pmBiden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

People says this often but I posted actual poll data showing that people disapprove his Presidency by a large margin. Similar numbers to Trump. People have to realize that our government in its wild gyrations often produces results that the majority of Americans dislike. And that's not about far left or far right.

FWIW, Poland and NATO don't think it was "beyond preposterous" at all:

You've badly misinterpreted this article. At the very least I'd suggest not believing someone who literally doesn't actually speak for NATO or Poland as actually speaking for them. He is advocating for Ukraine and these are his individual opinions.

Also, Poland's bump makes sense considering their domestic politics intersecting with realpolitik. Their governing coalition is right-wing and has expressed desire to project strength irrespective of the Russian threat. The threat of Russia is real but they may be (heck likely are) taking advantage to adjust their military spend. Increased recruitment or spend alone is not a strong indicator that they want to escalate much less enter the war.

So now that the deficit crisis is pushed off, The House Ways and Means is seeking for 220 billion dollar tax cut

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 023-06-09/

Under the proposed legislation, married couples filing jointly would receive a $4,000 "deduction bonus" for two years that the committee said would potentially help up to 107 million families who take the standard deduction.

The legislation also would significantly increase the way businesses could claim depreciation deductions, raising the threshold to a permanent $2.5 million from the current $1 million that was contained in the Republicans' broad 2017 tax cut package.

Other provisions include an expansion of tax benefits for small start-up enterprises to "S Corporations," while eliminating some "red tape" that small businesses experience related to contract workers.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2023 6:45 am So now that the deficit crisis is pushed off, The House Ways and Means is seeking for 220 billion dollar tax cut

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 023-06-09/

Under the proposed legislation, married couples filing jointly would receive a $4,000 "deduction bonus" for two years that the committee said would potentially help up to 107 million families who take the standard deduction.

The legislation also would significantly increase the way businesses could claim depreciation deductions, raising the threshold to a permanent $2.5 million from the current $1 million that was contained in the Republicans' broad 2017 tax cut package.

Other provisions include an expansion of tax benefits for small start-up enterprises to "S Corporations," while eliminating some "red tape" that small businesses experience related to contract workers.

Well yeah, they gotta get started on those spending cuts ASAP!
Spending cuts for the well off so they don't have to spend so much on taxes.

I love the temporary for us perm for them strategy. Sadly they are so dumb it works.