What is joe biden's biggest challenge as president?

What is the biggest problem facing Biden right now?

Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 16 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • Letting immigrants down easy.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 'All of the above' involves the crisis at the border. Paradoxically Trump's "wall" and "racism" kept Central Americans from migrating en masse to the border.

    Biden/Harris essentially invited folks with their "anti-racist", "anti wall" campaign promises, and unfortunately the U.S. is now seeing an impossible situation of people at the border. It is a real humanitarian nightmare.

    To answer all of your poll options: there are many people crossing rhe border that have not been vaccinated, some possessing unregulated firearms, and drugs, and to discuss the reality of this is often branded as racist against Latinx.

    I don't suppose Biden or Harris will find an easy way to climb over these problems.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I believe it is that mainly the Republican Party leadership is more interested in doing anything they can do to stop President Biden even if it hurts the people in their states or the nation.

    Lets take the current debate over what is Infrastructure.

    The Federal Government funded basic electrical utility infrastructure of rural America thought the Rural Electrification Act in 1936 with a subsidy to the local utility companies.

    They then made a decision (and deal) to have the largest phone companies develop rural telephone infrastructure to be payed for though higher "regulated" phone bills.

    So Infrastructure has over 80 years of history of including electrical and communication utilities, as well as briges, roads, and rail.

    I don't get at all why the Republicans currently feel it only applies to airports, bridges, rail, and roads.

    Selective amnesia apparently.

    Now I agree that its debatable if President Biden's concept of "social infrastructure" is correct. But, I will admit that there might be some parts of his proposal to consider and discuss given how society has changed in the last 80 years.

    The polls I read said about 70% of republican voters approved of the recent stimulus package that was passed without a single republican senate vote of support.

    That's hard evidence that the Republican Leadership and Senators are disconnected badly with the people that they claim to represent.

    That's the biggest challenge.

    Imagine what could happen if the Republican Party actually focused on things that would be good for the population?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • You obviously don't understand what 3 trillion dollars is and another 2 $trillion. I don't know where you live, but most major U.S cities are continually working on their highways. They cost about 2 billion each over the course of many years. Multiply that times 1k and you can understand how insane 2 and $5 trillion is.

      1936 wires, are of zero relevance nowadays. To act like one party
      Or the other aren't absolute dog shit is a fools errand. The roads and bridges and internet do need to be upgraded, but not to the cost of $5trillion...

      This money must be borrowed or printed, all of which leads to disater. Let the pretty Republicans pretend they give a shit about the deficit and debt, the Democrats will creepily welcome more of it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • I believe that you missed a few key parts of President Biden's proposal. Key among them is that he is planning to raise taxes to pay for it. So no major new debt from his proposal.

        For the transportation infrastructural he is proposing raising the federal gas tax to pay for that portion.

        Please view the following NY Times "retro report" on the condition of our bridges and why (10 minutes):


        The concept of "no new taxes" has hamstrung bridge repairs nationwide - for decades in many states (and Minnesota has been fixing theirs because they raised their gas tax to provide the funding).

        Here in Wisconsin the Republican Party has prevented the raising of the gas tax to fix roads and bridges for decades - despite constant reports over the last few decades saying that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation needs more money to maintain and update our roads and bridges. The Republican answer is that "there are other ways to fund this need of the DOT" - and they have not yet been able to find one even though they have been in control of the state legislator for a long time.

        Nationwide there is likely about $1 Trillion needed to replace just the "poor" quality bridges out there (these are rated at I understand at 50% of their original design strength).

        I and a number of other people I know have personally talked with our Republican State Representative and Senator to tell them to raise gas taxes for roads and bridges... and they always tell us that "no new taxes" and other ways to fund things are more important. Key question: How does a State fund something without tax revenue, and if you don't have enough revenue - without raising taxes somewhere?

        For the non-transportation portion the proposal is to raise taxes on business back to 28% (it was 35% when President Trump took office, and he and the Republicans cut it - while increasing our borrowing and deficit by trillions), and by raising taxes on the rich (people who make more than $400,000 per year) who also had their taxes cut by President Trump and the Republicans which increased our borrowing and the deficit.

        Both the electrification of rural America before and continuing after WWII vastly improved our country.

        The running of telephone wires to rural America in the 1950's and 1960's also vastly improved our county.

        The economic benefits of doing that vastly outweighed the cost and is part of what made American one of the most advanced countries in the world.

        I agree that doing the same for broadband internet will have a similar effect - and we are not worthy of our heritage if we don't step up and do for our descendants what our great, and great great grandparents did for us.

        This is all supposed to be cost/revenue neutral at the Federal level with the new taxes to pay for it.

        What's your beef with that?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Personally I think you, (USA people), should make all previous politicians from governors on up, (representatives and senators) pay the extra out of their retirements.
          They say a simple $0.06 or .07 per liter or .025 per gal would raise almost a trillion to fund the infrastructure part.

          They tried that here it only lines politians pockets. It never makes it to where they say and it never gets cut back once the objective is reached if it ever is.
          You said your from the great state of Wisconsin, you do know that about $.32 of each gal is a state tax and .20 is already federal tax. The excuse used to put that in place was infrastructure improvement and upkeep.
          Average state tax is .28 per gal so your already above average and it ranges from .14 to .77 poor NY, CA,and PA. Their at the top and I have visited at last two of those, and they do not have bragging rights for their infrastructure.

          You mentioned telephone and electric same as broadband. Why do, or should your electric and cable companies make ungodly profits on the property of the people. They should have been made to gradually pay that cost back over the last 70 years, and if they did, which I bet they pay a federal use tax then that should have been going into a pot for improvements. Cell towers as well as broadband should have been in that category.

          The problem I see is you let them implement a tax but fail to follow up or require it be used the way it was promised.
          We and most contries that have fees or breathing taxes have the same problem. Because some lawyer or politician writes the laws and always leaves an out or loop holes.

          USA had it right at one time keep most government and money expenses at the lowest level possible then you can keep their feet to the fire.
          Country controlled money you have little to no control and normally no clue where a lot of it is going.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • The USA has a good record of using gas tax money for transportation. Its called a "segregated fund" and can only be used for transportation purposes.

            Utility bills (Electric, gas, telephone by landline) are also segregated and controlled by the State Public Service Commission. Again, very well controlled.

            Now that does not mean that in the past that there have not been situations where companies have paid bribes to transportation or utility commission members... That's pretty rare now and the penalties at this time are massive for both the companies and the administrators/politicians serving on the boards.

            Cable and cellphone are relatively new technologies and the public utility commissions in various states got to choose if they regulated cable or not; and I believe that cell phone service was just left to the open market (which has lowered it cost).

            I have do doubt that a federal or state gas tax increase would be spent on transportation cost. That is the only place that money could be spent.

            The other areas of improvement would be funded from the general budget (unless broadband was put under the Utility Commissions); and you are right that there can be problems with ensuring that money gets spent properly. I do believe the USA has a better track records on spending money appropriately than a number of other countries.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            • That's great that you feel that way, however if you're reading and believing the NY times as well as forgetting about the obstructionist policies the Democrats pulled over the last four years, then there is really nothing an open minded person willing to look at all the information, especially from a outsiders perspective, can say that you would listen to.

              You said the money is controlled, however, that's where the loop holes come in. In most places it can be spent on anything they can remotely consider transportation cost, trains, buses, airports, salaries, signs, surveys to tell them their doing a good job or NOT. Actual improvement of roads and bridges take the lowest priority because if a bridge or road collapses especially a major one they can get emergency funding to repair it. Funding that never requires payback.

              Anything that actually gets done is through an inflated contract to a cousin or brouther's wife's uncle.
              Do you really believe $.032 of every gal sold in Wisconsin goes to infrastructure 'Needs'.
              Remembering that only federal highway/roadways are federal responsibilities.

              Your state is free to raise state taxes on their people for anything they want. The politicians, (both parties) won't because they know they will lose the next election.
              People want everything new and great as long as somebody else is paying the bill.
              That why as you stated a majority or Republicans agreed with the stimulus. You going to give me money, yeah, I like it, who cares where the other 1.4 trillion is going.
              Not even your Democrates were behind it, if it didn't have a check for the people even with all their pet projects in it.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Not dying due to old age in his term.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Infastruture

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • all those damn squirrels

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Mitch Mcconnell, obviously

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Hahaha good one. The populist right already lost hope in his ability.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • The only thing I've seen that suggests that is he reworked a law that allows him to pick three successors if he retires early or something that the governor chooses from

        I mean not a single republican voted for the third stimulus, something Trump was for, at least publicly, and I think only five of the six required republicans voted to impeach Trump, something Mcconnell wanted (he didn't want Trump impeached even they weren't even on speaking points, I think as a matter of pride)

        What makes you think his peers want him out? He's talking like he's gonna be a senator throughout Biden's presidency, talking about retaking the Senate in a year and a half

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You forgot the choice. Remembering his lines or where he is.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment