People are basically results oriented thinkers.
I wonder what percentage of those people think that the 2020 election was stolen.
Itās the white percentage
3 Likes
Manchin is convening a bipartisan group to attempt to move climate change legislation under normal order with 60 votes (haha good one). His plan would (LOL) address change while protecting fossil fuels (LMAO/WAAF).
This is such horseshit, like this motherfucker is managing to keep a straight face while telling us he thinks thereās a snowballs chance in West Virginia of getting 10 Republicans to vote for a climate change bill. And the media is covering it as if itās a real thing instead of the kayfabe they know it to be.
Iād say itās an insult to everyoneās collective intelligence but clearly the national collective of intelligence is lacking.
Dude, I just about sent my soda out my nose. You gotta put a trigger warning on this.
1 Like
Well it certainly doesnāt help that the press reports on this shit as a good faith attempt to negotiate.
2 Likes
I bet some of it is self-delusion. If they report on everything exactly as it is, theyād probably get so depressed that theyād kill themselves.
Stuff like this is making me increasingly detached from politics lately. Like a tidal wave is coming and Iām completely powerless to stop it so I might as well focus on other things.
WAAF.jpg
2 Likes
Re: climate legislation, I think it depends on what you want. The truth is that addressing climate change represents a potential boon to the economy and so some stuff is easy to move and if you just assume the market will take care of the rest then hey ā¦ like, expanding purchase incentives for EVs, new incentives for transmission, development of a technology-neutral tax incentive for zero carbon generation, are all things which could get some Republican support, in particular the 2nd item.
A carbon tax? Regulation of power plants ābeyond the fencelineā? No, probably not,
Where do folks stand on this? Obviously some forgiveness is better than none, but income limits feel like they could alienate some, and are too susceptible to debate, ā¦ just fāing do it already.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/04/30/white-house-student-loans/
Poor, dumb people love fascism, particularly when their leader is as stupid as them. It feeds perfectly into the narrative that they are unsuccessful in life due to the secret global elites, and all they need is one of their own to come in and drain the swamp. I donāt even think this is uniquely American, weāve seen this script for at least a century, currently playing out in places like Hungary and Brazil. But itās the reason that one of the pillars of modern conservatism is anti-education and anti-intellectualism (despite their shepherds all being ivy league grads).
All seriousness aside, I have to assume that Shorās conclusion to this is that the Dems need to be more fascist.
2 Likes
Iām anti means testing but am having a hard time getting too worked up over a $300k income limit.
When you look at how the Senate is setup and behaving to serve the interests of the rich and powerful and frustrate democratic will, not saying Iād turn to fascismā¦ā¦ but I understandā¦
Youāve already lost most people with tax credits (and youāre making them wait for no functional reason).
Wipe X amt under 100k, Xy% under 200k, and Xz% under 300k, progressively like the tax code. Done.
Agree with bolded. I actually think itās a good idea in theory.
However, most around here seem to think itās impossible for the government to pull this off cleanly without making it extremely hard for people who need it to get the benefit. Apparently, if you want lower income people to get it, then you have to get worked up about bolded (or so Iām told).
Iām not mad if itās 10k or whatever, but if itās a big amount of loans forgiven and I would have gotten it if this passed last year, itās pretty damn annoying
I think preventing anyone who graduates from medical school and gets a residency spot from getting any relief would only be a small mistake. Itās one of the few paths with a near-guaranteed payoff for the education.
Clearly, there are some people who would meet those requirements and still be overburdened by their debt for one reason or another, hence it would be problematic to actually do this. So, this policy would be flawed, but only minorly so.
Obviously, this would never happen, so the doctorbros are safe.
if weāre going to have means testing I support setting it at the highest possible number that will still annoy ikes
6 Likes