I dunno dude
Imagine thinking that people they make 150k are rich while billionaires pay lower taxes. What does China have to do with US climate legislation. It doesn’t. Oh and they tried to have a treaty but you guys didn’t like that either
Yeah why do anything about climate change because of China just burn coal for shits and giggles
imagine threatening someone’s career over just the flu vaccine
The goal is, and always has been to depopulate, so in that sense, they are working effectively ?
Imagine not getting just the flue vaccine and losing your job over it
Stop sending secret encoded high frequency irradiated cryptographic parallelogram transmissions
This website is obviously a globalist front for the pro depopulation agenda.
This a totally fair viewpoint (will revisit below though), correct me if in wrong, but he backed this bill earlier on, only to change his mind when it counted through.
150k ain't what it used to be. Have you seen what daycare costs these days? A 3/2 starter house/renting a home or larger apartment? Kids activities that enrich thier lives a bit? Sports leagues and diapers and special formula because your kid is shitting blood on breast milk etc etc etc.
Wait I thought we were supposed to be world leaders and shit? (Ya hit me with the strawman, you know what I'm getting at). Is it such a bad thing to do good things for the environment because we are the richest most advanced country on earth and we just can? Is that a bad thing? I mean damn Sweden makes most of its power with nuke and hydro and has for some time, and is on track to be gas free on cars within a decade I think I read somewhere. If they can why can't we?
That is a bad argument, but it's what needed to be done to get more countries on board with vowing to make changes, namely yes, China and India who hold what.... a quarter of the world population, along with developing nations in the third world.
www.wsj.com
To counter point your thing, yes I think it’s gross that the Paris climate accord lets China, and other developing nations pollute, and I would rather everyone switch to a renewable/nuclear energy grid, however we as the developed world did improve our countries off the back of fossil fuels, and is fucked up to tell countries we exploited that they can not do the same thing we did to improve their countries. But I’m also prepared for nothing to ever happen with anything because people like to point fingers elsewhere instead of being leadersYeah, both of their taxes should be higher. The median household income of the US is 67,521. A household that makes double that shouldn’t be getting tax breaks like that, period. Manchin’s proposal is extremely reasonable, outliers like SF and NYC shouldn’t dictate policy for the rest of the country. Those should be addressed at the state level, not the federal.
Read my post again. The people who argue that change has to happen here now and argue for policies like the Paris accords are hypocrites, because the Paris accords literally let China pollute at record levels for decades. It makes no sense. Either we’re at a tipping point on the earth where pollution needs to be curtailed worldwide now to avoid permanent harm, or we aren’t, and that argument needs to go away.
No, everyone needs to do something. Getting rid of coal here but saying “China should have 20+ years of burning coal at record levels because they haven’t had their fair turn like we did” is stupid.
I don’t think he did…? He put out an OpEd a month ago saying he didn’t support it as proposed, and that’s when negotiations began.
Opinion | Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion
Amid inflation, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a check on groupthink power. Democrats loved it when Liz Cheney and others spoke out against the Trump cult and tried to bring them as a whole back to the center, and now they’re crying when Manchin and Sinema are doing it on their side. Maybe extremes are wrong on both sides?
See above. The median household income is 67k, and millions of families make due with close to that amount to raise kids. With that statistic, I don’t think Manchin’s proposal is radical. Not everyone there can afford to cruise around Hefner on a boat, so you’re definitely better off than many there.
I would accept the argument of “We’re supposed to be world leaders, so we should lead.” I don’t accept the argument of “We need to do something now because if we don’t come together and do anything, we’ll pass the point of no return with climate. But we also need to honor the Paris accords and let China burn record numbers of coal for 20 years because it’s their turn.”
I’m just looking for an ideologically consistent, non-hypocritical stance, and I’m not seeing it by the doom and gloom climate change radicalists. It’s one thing to say “I’m driving a Tesla because it’s the right thing to do, but you do you,” but those Tesla drivers having a “rejoin the Paris accords” bumper sticker shaming someone rolling coal in a F-150 are dumb, because they’re literally advocating for an open wound of China pollution.
I don’t think it’s needed at all. If we’re supposed to be leaders, why don’t we lead and make others follow? It’s not really leadership when we don’t flex leadership muscle and force others to get in line.
Yes, and bring them up to our level, not accept their awful level.
That’s the basis for a slippery slope argument, which is why I keep bringing up the official US median household income. It removes that bias.
US Politicians benefiting from corporate interests is a tale as old as time, but I feel that’s a different topic than the one here. The irony is real when we talk about “toothless climate change laws” and the Paris Accords, though.
Democrats had their fair share of zero support in 2016, so we’re just flipping that back and forth now when it comes to the extreme bills. I like that there’s a bipartisan infrastructure bill being worked on, but I don’t fault Republicans for universally being against a Democrat pet project bill when the reverse can, and does, happen. Extremes need to go away on both sides, and we need more bipartisan compromises.
I was speaking in terms of the "infrastructure" bill it was attached to, I'm unsure of his original position on the tax credit in particular. Fact remains he's playing his role as spoiler for progressive reforms, as he always does. Again, see the article referenced a day or two ago about the rotating villain strategy.
No, but intentionally and continually doing contrarian things to gain political clout is not that.Opinion | Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion
Amid inflation, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a check on groupthink power.
Because the Trump wing of the GOP is dogshit insane. Did you see the gubernatorial candidate in Montana I think calling Taylor-greene a commie because she was saying impeach Joe biden? Apparently acknowledging the biden presidency as a member of congress makes you a leftist now? It's a race to the bottom with those people.
I don't see what's extreme about progressive policies most of the developed world have. I don't see anyone in congress talking about nationalizing GE and Amazon.
Do I need it? No. We made due without it for the months beforehand, but again we are fortunate enough to be in a position where we don't have to pay for daycare and live in a lower COL area. Again, I'm not saying what I make, or 150k (which is not what I'm making lol) is a poverty wage but whether it's a single mom making 26k a year using it to buy food for her kid, or a family making 80k a year who it allows to get over the hump into home ownership in a neighborhood with good schools, or the family whose making 149k a year who use it to pay for little Timmy's travel baseball league, its all enriching for the kids, and by extension the country in the future.
I don't think the Paris Climate Accords were meant to be a permanent fix, more a starting point. China/India, and to a lesser extent the third world do absolutely need to get on board faster o agree. But something is better than nothing. It can't always be black and white do it or do not when dealing with 200 countries and 8 billion people.
People rolling coal should be shamed, because it's fucking retarded and thumbing your nose at environmental causes because you can is childish. That said, I do agree governments and big business absolutely need to stop putting the onus on individuals when it's them causing the bulk of the problems.
Leadership is not authoritarianism, at least it shouldn't be from the "freest country in the world". This is a bad take.
Agree. Problem lies in how to do that. Paris Climate agreement is far from perfect, but it's better than doing absolutely nothing, which seems to be the plan of the right.
Wake up. They got people making 50k fighting with people that make 150k while they are making 5,0000,000+Yeah, both of their taxes should be higher. The median household income of the US is 67,521. A household that makes double that shouldn’t be getting tax breaks like that, period. Manchin’s proposal is extremely reasonable, outliers like SF and NYC shouldn’t dictate policy for the rest of the country. Those should be addressed at the state level, not the federal.
Read my post again. The people who argue that change has to happen here now and argue for policies like the Paris accords are hypocrites, because the Paris accords literally let China pollute at record levels for decades. It makes no sense. Either we’re at a tipping point on the earth where pollution needs to be curtailed worldwide now to avoid permanent harm, or we aren’t, and that argument needs to go away.
No, everyone needs to do something. Getting rid of coal here but saying “China should have 20+ years of burning coal at record levels because they haven’t had their fair turn like we did” is stupid.
I don’t think he did…? He put out an OpEd a month ago saying he didn’t support it as proposed, and that’s when negotiations began.
Opinion | Why I Won’t Support Spending Another $3.5 Trillion
Amid inflation, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a check on groupthink power. Democrats loved it when Liz Cheney and others spoke out against the Trump cult and tried to bring them as a whole back to the center, and now they’re crying when Manchin and Sinema are doing it on their side. Maybe extremes are wrong on both sides?
See above. The median household income is 67k, and millions of families make due with close to that amount to raise kids. With that statistic, I don’t think Manchin’s proposal is radical. Not everyone there can afford to cruise around Hefner on a boat, so you’re definitely better off than many there.
I would accept the argument of “We’re supposed to be world leaders, so we should lead.” I don’t accept the argument of “We need to do something now because if we don’t come together and do anything, we’ll pass the point of no return with climate. But we also need to honor the Paris accords and let China burn record numbers of coal for 20 years because it’s their turn.”
I’m just looking for an ideologically consistent, non-hypocritical stance, and I’m not seeing it by the doom and gloom climate change radicalists. It’s one thing to say “I’m driving a Tesla because it’s the right thing to do, but you do you,” but those Tesla drivers having a “rejoin the Paris accords” bumper sticker shaming someone rolling coal in a F-150 are dumb, because they’re literally advocating for an open wound of China pollution.
I don’t think it’s needed at all. If we’re supposed to be leaders, why don’t we lead and make others follow? It’s not really leadership when we don’t flex leadership muscle and force others to get in line.
Yes, and bring them up to our level, not accept their awful level.
That’s the basis for a slippery slope argument, which is why I keep bringing up the official US median household income. It removes that bias.
US Politicians benefiting from corporate interests is a tale as old as time, but I feel that’s a different topic than the one here. The irony is real when we talk about “toothless climate change laws” and the Paris Accords, though.
Democrats had their fair share of zero support in 2016, so we’re just flipping that back and forth now when it comes to the extreme bills. I like that there’s a bipartisan infrastructure bill being worked on, but I don’t fault Republicans for universally being against a Democrat pet project bill when the reverse can, and does, happen. Extremes need to go away on both sides, and we need more bipartisan compromises.
I think people making 150k should pay more in taxes than people that make 50k and they do. I also think we need way higher brackets for the obscenely wealthy. But class division is too easy for politicians to stir up
Lets say the President of the USA, Russia, China, the UK etc were all on a boat.
Yah. My point is more that people want to means tests these programs that help middle class people while they are giving trillion dollar tax breaks to the ultra rich
