Honestly, it’s kinda icky for a candidate to campaign for himself in conjunction with handing out public money, whether it’s done by a Republican (Trump with the relief checks) or a Democrat.
On top of that, IIRC the student loan aid was executive action alone (i.e. Biden specifically enacted it) while the pandemic checks were passed by congress so at best Trump might be able to say he pushed for it but it was still congress that made it happen.
“Handing out public money”? So if we increase funding of healthcare or education, are politicians not allowed to talk about that either? Is it less icky if you tell people they got a tax cut, as conservatives do? This is just nonsense. You may as well say that progressivism is icky to talk about.
I think there is a huge psychological difference between “spending on public good” and “here is some money”, and especially where the latter happens, it should be very clear that the money is coming from the state/nation, not the individual leading it.
That may be obvious to you, so the message doesn’t look like a problem, but I bet at least 1% of Americans think Trump personally gave them some of his personal cash out of generosity, effectively turning it into a bribe with public money. Which is exactly why Trump insisted that his name would be placed on the check. (The letter that came with it was surprisingly reasonable and clear, which is why I estimated 1% and not 5%).
The 813,000 borrowers receiving the email were those who weren’t accurately credited for student loan payments that should have given them forgiveness, or people placed into forbearance by loan servicers who violated Department of Education policies.
This is money the DoE never should have been collecting in the first place.
Yeah, because fuck if people actually realize he’s doing the things he promised he’d do as President. /s
The public is not smart enough to know the good things Biden is doing unless he actively promotes them, and the media, who runs on ragebait, isn’t going to throw him any bones.
This is a necessary component of campaigning, it’s something every incumbent does to demonstrate that they deserve another term, and given that fascism is a real possibility next November, I’d say it’s explicitly vital in this case.
All government spending uses public money. Either through taxes or borrowing (creating money).
What do you think the purpose of a government is? Anyone who supports democracy will tell you it is for the benefit of the public.
The icky thing about the relief checks is that Trump was taking credit for something he didn’t do. Even kindergarteners don’t like that.
This was something Biden accomplished by directing the efforts of the executive branch. This was a campaign promise, and a long time career goal of his. He’s a politician, he’s allowed to explain how he used the lawful actions of the government to benefit the public. In fact, that’s what politicians in the executive branch are supposed to do, it’s their job.
Every bit of money the government spends is handing out public money. If they spend it on universal healthcare then they can remind people that they don’t have medical bills too. Or even that shiny new military thing that some people just seem to get a hard on for but that’s not really his audience I think.
Honestly, it’s kinda icky for a candidate to campaign for himself in conjunction with handing out public money, whether it’s done by a Republican (Trump with the relief checks) or a Democrat.
I’m less ick on Biden because he campaigned on student loan relief.
So I see this as more of a “hey, remember that promise I made? Well here’s me making good on my word.”
For contrast, trump " hey remember that pandemic I allowed to become a massive issue before doing anything about? Well here’s some money, have fun. "
On top of that, IIRC the student loan aid was executive action alone (i.e. Biden specifically enacted it) while the pandemic checks were passed by congress so at best Trump might be able to say he pushed for it but it was still congress that made it happen.
“Handing out public money”? So if we increase funding of healthcare or education, are politicians not allowed to talk about that either? Is it less icky if you tell people they got a tax cut, as conservatives do? This is just nonsense. You may as well say that progressivism is icky to talk about.
I think there is a huge psychological difference between “spending on public good” and “here is some money”, and especially where the latter happens, it should be very clear that the money is coming from the state/nation, not the individual leading it.
That may be obvious to you, so the message doesn’t look like a problem, but I bet at least 1% of Americans think Trump personally gave them some of his personal cash out of generosity, effectively turning it into a bribe with public money. Which is exactly why Trump insisted that his name would be placed on the check. (The letter that came with it was surprisingly reasonable and clear, which is why I estimated 1% and not 5%).
This is money the DoE never should have been collecting in the first place.
So the letters should be apologies, not “you’re welcome.”
Yeah, because fuck if people actually realize he’s doing the things he promised he’d do as President. /s
The public is not smart enough to know the good things Biden is doing unless he actively promotes them, and the media, who runs on ragebait, isn’t going to throw him any bones.
This is a necessary component of campaigning, it’s something every incumbent does to demonstrate that they deserve another term, and given that fascism is a real possibility next November, I’d say it’s explicitly vital in this case.
All government spending uses public money. Either through taxes or borrowing (creating money).
What do you think the purpose of a government is? Anyone who supports democracy will tell you it is for the benefit of the public.
The icky thing about the relief checks is that Trump was taking credit for something he didn’t do. Even kindergarteners don’t like that.
This was something Biden accomplished by directing the efforts of the executive branch. This was a campaign promise, and a long time career goal of his. He’s a politician, he’s allowed to explain how he used the lawful actions of the government to benefit the public. In fact, that’s what politicians in the executive branch are supposed to do, it’s their job.
Every bit of money the government spends is handing out public money. If they spend it on universal healthcare then they can remind people that they don’t have medical bills too. Or even that shiny new military thing that some people just seem to get a hard on for but that’s not really his audience I think.
I think that it took a lot of time to push it. When were the first news about that? A couple of years ago?