91–100 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly this whole situation is political but I'd make 2 points. 1. You might be surprised at the election outcome. 2. The headline is based on the article, not what people think it should be.
I can only have my confidence in the U.S. voting public renewed or absolutely shattered this November.
It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…
Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) - and where that's not quite possible, at least keep the illusion of an every-expanding, anything goes "free market" system chugging along for another year or two -- at the expense of everyone and everything…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ”Environmental regulations cost money. Lots of money.” That’s a narrow-minded view. Sure, environmental regulations cost oil and gas companies money. But this fails to consider the external costs to society: increased healthcare costs and reduced life expectancy due to air and water pollution, future costs of global heating including property damage to coastal cities from rising sea levels, agricultural regions bec…
Yes, pollution regulation is a classic example of something which has a huge cost on one group (business) and a minor benefit to a large group (everyone else), but the minority is much more motivated. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our government with special interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name three? Without Medicare for all, seeing as it’s not actually a popular platform issue.
I’ll reply to this since I cannot reply to the sibling comment - but Medicare for all is not an actually popular or feasible idea. The polls that show support for Medicare for all have wording you the effect of “would you like free healthcare?”. Support quickly drops once polls start asking about the real trade offs that would have to be made in order to actually afford this change in healthcare, and the tax hikes ne…
It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name three? Without Medicare for all, seeing as it’s not actually a popular platform issue.
Hey, let's ignore this one issue that has majority acceptance across political lines and upwards of 70% Democrat approval because I've got a grudge against it. You can do what you want, throwaway account. When you get Matt Gaetz in 2024 let me know how it feels. 4 years of more means testing will get you there real quick.
For what it's worth, if Dems manage to gain control of the Senate, then I think President Biden will sign anything that is put in front of him, including an M4A bill. Not doing that would actually cost him the 2024 election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) - and where that's not quite possible, at least keep the illusion of an every-expanding, anything goes "free market" system chugging along for another year or two -- at the expense of everyone and everything…
The demographics of voting are not so clear-cut (though income is correlated with votes), and the bigger gap is really between male and female voters.[1] There is also abundant evidence that people do not vote in their economic self-interest.[2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-yo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
Voting is actually the least effective means of democratic change (It is more effective then sitting at home, and complaining.) The second least effective means of democratic change is getting other people to vote. The most effective means of democratic change is picking the candidates that will be in the running - before voting happens - which can largely be done with dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. But is it government’s role solely to boost oil company profits? Or should they consider these against long-term costs incurred by everyone? Surely there is a middle ground that works for everyone. It’s not as if major oil companies are struggling to survive.
> But is it government’s role solely to boost oil company profits? Or should they consider these against long-term costs incurred by everyone? We don't live in a world where we get to speculate on what the intended role of government ought to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you name three? Without Medicare for all, seeing as it’s not actually a popular platform issue.
I’ll reply to this since I cannot reply to the sibling comment - but Medicare for all is not an actually popular or feasible idea. The polls that show support for Medicare for all have wording you the effect of “would you like free healthcare?”. Support quickly drops once polls start asking about the real trade offs that would have to be made in order to actually afford this change in healthcare, and the tax hikes ne…
Crazy how when you word polls to indicate that taxes would be "hiked," that people get spooked. Never mind how we'd save money overall.
> Trying to pass off m4a as a feasible plan isn’t real
This is the real tragedy of the Bernie campaign. It wasn't feasible because it'd be spiked by Democrats in addition to Republicans. It's really heart-rending. You've got an entire voting base who simply can't imagine a better future where you're not squeezed for every cent, where you're not represented by people who are more focused on representing Pfizer, and where you don't have to be constantly in fear of accidentally getting cancer and, whoops, kids can't go to college now. Or say you catch a stray bullet, take an ambulance, and you're not covered--youre double fucked then.
It’s very hard to understand why the current administration has such an urge to roll back environmental regulations. I grew up in a time when rivers were red or green depending on what type of leather the factory upstream was processing at the time. The only fish you could see were dead. Breathing in cities was hard. Environmental regulation is a big success story that improved the lives of countless people while com…
Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) - and where that's not quite possible, at least keep the illusion of an every-expanding, anything goes "free market" system chugging along for another year or two -- at the expense of everyone and everything…
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...