United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[strunkenwhite]

It very much undermines the spirit of a Presidential Pardon. There are sometimes good reasons to do an endrun around it, this very much does not look like one.

I believe presidential pardons are capable of covering any actions that lie in the past. In this particular case, it seems Trump only pardoned crimes for which a conviction had been obtained. Now it seems they are retrying the charges that had a hung jury. Previously, they didn't bother with that since they already got the guy. Since Trump un-got him, they want to get him again. Certainly this undermines the spirit of Trump's wishes, but I don't see any threat to the Presidential pardon power. If anything, I'd think the biggest threat is that future presidents might make pardons too broad in an attempt to deny any similar tricks (and pardon undiscovered, unrelated wrongdoing as collateral damage).

 

[Bear Ribs]

 

[Cherico]

Notice how he's promising all of this shit now that the democrats lost the house?

 

[Megadeath]

Notice how he's promising all of this shit now that the democrats lost the house?

Is there any issue with the actual proposed plan? Or is it just the complaint as old as time, that a politician did a thing for cynical advantage as much as for ethical or policy reasons?

 

[Cherico]

Is there any issue with the actual proposed plan? Or is it just the complaint as old as time, that a politician did a thing for cynical advantage as much as for ethical or policy reasons?

The law of unintended consequences for one.

Take the credit card thing, you lower those fees and companies will issue credit cards to fewer people and not give people who are considered risks have access to credit which keeps them from building up credit which makes it harder for them to get things in the future like Renting an appartment, getting a loan for a house and that sort of thing.

It also means that banks will be more likely to just cut people off and loose in the future.


As for sitting next to your kid on the plane? American airlines often run on razor thin marjins with some of them being pretty much in perpetual bankrupcy. So the airline is going to find other ways to get their fees or their going to go under. So bigger ticket prices for everyone.

With hotels lets face facts the two year lockdowns pretty much fucked the Hotel industry their struggling and a lot of them are resorting to drastic measures to survive expecially independent places in the tourist areas that were hard fucked by bidens decisions.

200 dollars to cancel your cable plan? That can actually be reasonable if they have to send some one in to manually shut off the infostructor at that point your paying for very expensive skilled labor.


As for concert fees, holding a concert expecially a major one is expensive as shit and a whole lot can go wrong expecially with all of the regulations that are involved.

All of this is feel good shit that will result in the costs being pushed onto the consumer, and will have negative unintended conquences.

 

[Megadeath]

The law of unintended consequences for one.

Take the credit card thing, you lower those fees and companies will issue credit cards to fewer people and not give people who are considered risks have access to credit which keeps them from building up credit which makes it harder for them to get things in the future like Renting an appartment, getting a loan for a house and that sort of thing.

It also means that banks will be more likely to just cut people off and loose in the future.


As for sitting next to your kid on the plane? American airlines often run on razor thin marjins with some of them being pretty much in perpetual bankrupcy. So the airline is going to find other ways to get their fees or their going to go under. So bigger ticket prices for everyone.

With hotels lets face facts the two year lockdowns pretty much fucked the Hotel industry their struggling and a lot of them are resorting to drastic measures to survive expecially independent places in the tourist areas that were hard fucked by bidens decisions.

200 dollars to cancel your cable plan? That can actually be reasonable if they have to send some one in to manually shut off the infostructor at that point your paying for very expensive skilled labor.


As for concert fees, holding a concert expecially a major one is expensive as shit and a whole lot can go wrong expecially with all of the regulations that are involved.

All of this is feel good shit that will result in the costs being pushed onto the consumer, and will have negative unintended conquences.

So... You're in favour of banks using artificially high "gocha" late fees, to ensure they have enough profit to give credit cards to riskier clients? And all the rest. You didn't need to go through point by point like that, ya know? I was just asking if there was another issue or if it was just the cynicism being complained about.

 

[Rocinante]

The law of unintended consequences for one.

Take the credit card thing, you lower those fees and companies will issue credit cards to fewer people and not give people who are considered risks have access to credit which keeps them from building up credit which makes it harder for them to get things in the future like Renting an appartment, getting a loan for a house and that sort of thing.

It also means that banks will be more likely to just cut people off and loose in the future.


As for sitting next to your kid on the plane? American airlines often run on razor thin marjins with some of them being pretty much in perpetual bankrupcy. So the airline is going to find other ways to get their fees or their going to go under. So bigger ticket prices for everyone.

With hotels lets face facts the two year lockdowns pretty much fucked the Hotel industry their struggling and a lot of them are resorting to drastic measures to survive expecially independent places in the tourist areas that were hard fucked by bidens decisions.

200 dollars to cancel your cable plan? That can actually be reasonable if they have to send some one in to manually shut off the infostructor at that point your paying for very expensive skilled labor.


As for concert fees, holding a concert expecially a major one is expensive as shit and a whole lot can go wrong expecially with all of the regulations that are involved.

All of this is feel good shit that will result in the costs being pushed onto the consumer, and will have negative unintended conquences.

Addressing your last paragraph.

The cost is already on the consumer.

 

[Skallagrim]

Addressing your last paragraph.

The cost is already on the consumer.

A key difference is that the burden is shifted away from the specific consumers doing the thing, and instead distributed across all consumers.

In other words: a "socialised" economy. You don't pay for your stuff, everybody has to pay into everything.

I'm not a big fan of that. I'm not a big fan of @Megadeath disingenuous "so you're saying..." tactic, either. One can disagree with abusive practices while still condemning bullshit non-solutions that exist only to serve as vote-for-me freebies that a politician distributes to his client-voters.

 

[Rocinante]

A key difference is that the burden is shifted away from the specific consumers doing the thing, and instead distributed across all consumers.

In other words: a "socialised" economy. You don't pay for your stuff, everybody has to pay into everything.

I'm not a big fan of that. I'm not a big fan of @Megadeath disingenuous "so you're saying..." tactic, either. One can disagree with abusive practices while still condemning bullshit non-solutions that exist only to serve as vote-for-me freebies that a politician distributes to his client-voters.

No. Not always. All consumers are getting hit by BS fees on plane and concert tickets.

I just bought 4 tickets for a show and there was an extra $25 fee PER TICKET.

My problem is with these BS fees that hut and hurt everyone.

 

[Megadeath]

A key difference is that the burden is shifted away from the specific consumers doing the thing, and instead distributed across all consumers.

In other words: a "socialised" economy. You don't pay for your stuff, everybody has to pay into everything.

I'm not a big fan of that. I'm not a big fan of @Megadeath disingenuous "so you're saying..." tactic, either. One can disagree with abusive practices while still condemning bullshit non-solutions that exist only to serve as vote-for-me freebies that a politician distributes to his client-voters.

And I'm not a big fan of being called disingenuous. I asked if there was a problem with the policy, or just the cynical implementation. The response was basically a point by point explanation of why each of the exampled fees was a positive.

Further, in this case the "abusive practice" is jacked up fees. The proposed solution is "cut down or eliminate those fees." So I don't see how either it can be considered a non-solution to the problem, or how you can oppose the proposed solution unless you do do support the abusive practice.

Does that last post I responded to really sound like it's disagreeing with those abusive practices? Because to me it reads as a point by point defence of them. Which is kinda the exact opposite. He didn't say "Well, of course they're bad but the solution needs to focus on this other thing." But, I do make allowance for the fact that it's entirely possible, even easy, to misunderstand people on the internet. Thus me looking to clarify that I am actually understanding the position he's taken.

 

[Skallagrim]

Does that last post I responded to really sound like it's disagreeing with those abusive practices? Because to me it reads as a point by point defence of them. Which is kinda the exact opposite. He didn't say "Well, of course they're bad but the solution needs to focus on this other thing." But, I do make allowance for the fact that it's entirely possible, even easy, to misunderstand people on the internet. Thus me looking to clarify that I am actually understanding the position he's taken.

If a post starts out by explaining that it's about the problem of unintended consequences, and then points out the actual unintended consequences of the proposed solutions, then you are being disingenuous if your conclusion is "so that means you oppose all solution, huh?"

You're framing it differently now, trying to play the "I'm just asking honest questions" angle, but "So... You're in favour of [X]" isn't an honest question. It's literally begging the question, and it makes you a bit of a Cathy Newman clone. It's not an invitation to an honest conversation, or at least doesn't come across as one.

 

[Rocinante]

If a post starts out by explaining that it's about the problem of unintended consequences, and then points out the actual unintended consequences of the proposed solutions, then you are being disingenuous if your conclusion is "so that means you oppose all solution, huh?"

You're framing it differently now, trying to play the "I'm just asking honest questions" angle, but "So... You're in favour of [X]" isn't an honest question. It's literally begging the question, and it makes you a bit of a Cathy Newman clone. It's not an invitation to an honest conversation, or at least doesn't come across as one.

To be fair, i very often disagree with @Megadeath and his posting style. But @Cherico very much gives the impression that he supports these things. That's how I read it, and I am far more likely to be charitable towards cherico than mega when it comes to understanding their underlying meaning.

If Cherico didn't mean to make it sound like he supports this stuff, he's done a bad job of it.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and let him clarify before I make claims about what he meant. I just don't think Mega's conclusion is much of a stretch, because his post lead me in the same direction.

I absolutely do think there's a problem with BS junk fees in this country. I'd like it if accurate prices were displayed up front. What is actually happening is that places advertise lower prices to attract customers, and then bump it way up with nonsense fees. It's BS. I have a very strong feeling that if a republican rather than a Democrat came up with this, that reactions would be different, because I don't think anyone likes getting hit with BS fees. I fucking hate Biden, but I suspect some of the opposition here is "it came from Biden, so it's bad." A broken clock csn be right twice a day.

 

[Megadeath]

If a post starts out by explaining that it's about the problem of unintended consequences, and then points out the actual unintended consequences of the proposed solutions, then you are being disingenuous if your conclusion is "so that means you oppose all solution, huh?"

You're framing it differently now, trying to play the "I'm just asking honest questions" angle, but "So... You're in favour of [X]" isn't an honest question. It's literally begging the question, and it makes you a bit of a Cathy Newman clone. It's not an invitation to an honest conversation, or at least doesn't come across as one.

When the proposed solution is simply "reduce or eliminate the fees" and the problem is "excessive fees" I actually think that being opposed to that proposal does mean "you oppose all solution, huh?" That seems like an unlikely, and even ludicrous position, thus me looking for clarification.

Your own initial insult of me, to another poster, without any kind of actual engagement seems even less like any kind of attempt at honest conversation. Which isn't particularly helped by the continued condescending tone or insults.

 

[Megadeath]

To be fair, i very often disagree with @Megadeath and his posting style. But @Cherico very much gives the impression that he supports these things. That's how I read it, and I am far more likely to be charitable towards cherico than mega when it comes to understanding their underlying meaning.

If Cherico didn't mean to make it sound like he supports this stuff, he's done a bad job of it.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though and let him clarify before I make claims about what he meant. I just don't think Mega's conclusion is much of a stretch, because his post lead me in the same direction.

I absolutely do think there's a problem with BS junk fees in this country. I'd like it if accurate prices were displayed up front. What is actually happening is that places advertise lower prices to attract customers, and then bump it way up with nonsense fees. It's BS. I have a very strong feeling that if a republican rather than a Democrat came up with this, that reactions would be different, because I don't think anyone likes getting hit with BS fees. I fucking hate Biden, but I suspect some of the opposition here is "it came from Biden, so it's bad." A broken clock csn be right twice a day.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Given the proliferation of BS fee companies love to pile on, I have a certain amount of sympathy here. We've got restaurants sneakily adding a "COVID 19" fee to bills,

What is a COVID-19 surcharge? Why some restaurants are adding them to your bill

Some eateries are charging new fees to help make up for the rising cost of food and operating costs.

www.today.com

Or saying they're adding an "Economic Recovery Fee." What?

Economic times are tough for all of us. It is unfair to put the burden of an extra five dollars on people paying 155 for their artisanal macaroni and cheese.

I haven't been able to find exact details (I suspect they don't exist yet) but the bill is called the Junk Free Protection act and is meant primarily to target resort fees, airline fees to sit together on flights, ticket fees to buy a ticket, credit card late fees in excess of eight dollars, and early termination fees for cable.

That seems bizarrely narrow and tailored... as in these are mostly fees the rich are paying for luxury goods, not fees that are getting paid for by the poor minorities he's supposed to be worried about. Over half the list refers to vacation stuff and only credit card fees are really going to hit anybody below the upper middle class. I've come up with a possible set of fees Biden could target more easily and will less legal pushback, and which would affect more Americans:

More seriously, were I to want to honestly hit back on fees, rather than trying to make fees illegal I might try to push an upfront pricing act where companies, all companies, are required to bundle all their fees together* and give the customer a complete and full price upfront. Do this to stuff like hospitals too. For things like credit card late fees that depend on customer behaviors, the company is required to assume the worst-case scenario and present the customer with the highest possible charge, but is allowed to actually charge less for "good behavior" so to speak. Companies would be allowed to print different prices for different bundles of services provided everything is properly spelled out for each and the total price is the maximum the customer will pay for that bundle.

That would actually force some competition into the ring. The problem with many of these fee arrangements is that they're designed to let the company present a low price to a customer, then suddenly raise it with unavoidable "fees" after the customer's already too sunk into the process to easily pull out. The customer can never actually get the low price they were advertised at the beginning. It's dishonest, anti-free-market, and anti-competitive because it prevents the customer from making a rational decision, a customer can't pick the best option for them if they cannot tell what the costs are until it's too late. That COVID-19 fee above is a perfect example, the restaurant is trying to recover the increased costs of food but doesn't want the customer to know, so the menu shows a lower price but, oops, when the waiter drops the bill off too late you find you're paying more than you agreed to at the beginning.

This would have knock-on effects in that companies would instead try to hide that they are providing fewer services for the same charge. That would need addressing down the line.

As an addendum I feel this really isn't something that should be done at the national level, regulation of fees feels like it should be a state-level issue.

*There are specific edge cases where this could be impossible, writing a 6,000-page legalese act of congress to cover them is beyond what I'm willing to do for a couple of likes on the board.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I might try to push an upfront pricing act where companies, all companies, are required to bundle all their fees together* and give the customer a complete and full price upfront. Do this to stuff like hospitals too.

As an addendum I feel this really isn't something that should be done at the national level, regulation of fees feels like it should be a state-level issue.

I'm on board with both of these points.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No. Not always. All consumers are getting hit by BS fees on plane and concert tickets.

I just bought 4 tickets for a show and there was an extra $25 fee PER TICKET.

My problem is with these BS fees that hut and hurt everyone.

Ticketmaster is widely hated by customers for a reason. And yet, the free market's final verdict is that they're a massively successful company and none of the whining and bitching customers do translates into not doing business with them, even though literally everything they sell is a frivolous luxury which no one actually *needs*, which you'd think would make them fall over themselves to make customers happy.

Honestly, the hand of the market clearly says, "Be Ticketmaster."

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Given the proliferation of BS fee companies love to pile on, I have a certain amount of sympathy here. We've got restaurants sneakily adding a "COVID 19" fee to bills,

What is a COVID-19 surcharge? Why some restaurants are adding them to your bill

Some eateries are charging new fees to help make up for the rising cost of food and operating costs.

www.today.com

Or saying they're adding an "Economic Recovery Fee." What?

Economic times are tough for all of us. It is unfair to put the burden of an extra five dollars on people paying 155 for their artisanal macaroni and cheese.

To be fair, that's a *lot* more food than one portion of fancy mac and cheese. All but one of those items are in the $12-$16 range, which actually puts this towards the low end of the 'family restaurant' range, it's just that these customers had eight food items plus drinks.

Also, restaurants are a little weird because they're the one place where you order *and consume* the product before paying for it. Just about all other retail *do* show a complete up-front price with fees before you finalize the purchase.

 

[Rocinante]

Ticketmaster is widely hated by customers for a reason. And yet, the free market's final verdict is that they're a massively successful company and none of the whining and bitching customers do translates into not doing business with them, even though literally everything they sell is a frivolous luxury which no one actually *needs*, which you'd think would make them fall over themselves to make customers happy.

Honestly, the hand of the market clearly says, "Be Ticketmaster."

There is no major competitor that also sells tickets to the events people want to see.

There might be other companies that sell tickets, but if they're on TM, that's where you have to get them.

If there was a viable alternative without the fees, people would use that.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Sure, but Ticketmaster did the work to secure those exclusive contracts and business deals. I think they have the right to profit from their work as they see fit, especially since no one is even remotely harmed. I can "buy" government intervention in things like healthcare, but anything short of actual fraud should be fair game for frivolities.