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.
Amid inflation, debt and the inevitability of future crises, Congress needs to take a strategic pause.
www.wsj.com
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.