Makes sense. I think the gas tax is pretty regressive. There are better ways to bear the burden of infrastructure needs.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
Makes sense. I think the gas tax is pretty regressive. There are better ways to bear the burden of infrastructure needs.
Nice to see the American public on the same page on where we should be extracting tax dollars
These corporate tax avoiders have pockets enough with legal schemes. Its time for them to pay something back into the system.
Hell corporate entities rely on American infrastructure just as much if not significantly more that the public. Seems fair to me!
These corporate tax avoiders have pockets enough with legal schemes. Its time for them to pay something back into the system.
Hell corporate entities rely on American infrastructure just as much if not significantly more that the public. Seems fair to me!
Remember a few weeks ago when people were scolding others in here for talking about a gas tax and how "nobody was talking about it?"
If Biden had to address it, it was being talked about.
Working class people don't hate getting handouts if they get them also and it doesn't raise their taxes. A huge thing that caused swings towards Trump with Hispanics in South Texas is the stimulus check from Trump with his name on it.
i might have missed this, but I don't recall reading any numbers backing this statement.
Interviews were done with Hispanic voters in areas that switched from Hillary to Trump and the 2 primary reasons were the stimulus check with Trump's name on it and worry that the government shutdown would effect their jobs and businesses.
Not really, the worst candidate is in the lead and the progressive candidates are trailing. But with ranked choice voting, who knows what will happen.
Rudy Guiliani says Adams gives him some hope for NYC. Turnout is terrible so far. There isn't really an electrifying candidate running that gets people excited to vote. Seems like most of them have had some kind of scandal come out.
The Manhattan DA race has probably the worst candidate in the lead according to polls.
Last edited:
The latter is one of their interests so they aren't really voting against their interests.
This is what people need to understand about those voters. I'm from rural Mississippi and I can assure you that they barely have economics on the brain at the polls (at least any further than "GOP good for businesses"). It's all about abortion, guns, and keeping God in our schools
Is there any defense for Biden not doing this other than "norms"?
Based on polling we know Dems are generally not good at taking credit for the benefits of passing dem legislation.
The Biden government did send out a letter to everyone who received the payments:
Right, but they would get more from increased wages and healthcare than from keeping the blacks down. It's also debatable if guns and preventing abortion and God are actually in their interest. Those things arguably all do them more harm than good.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this.The Biden government did send out a letter to everyone who received the payments:
Imagine if Biden did an address the nation speech that aired on every channel in primetime to speak about this?
But knowing their "guy/side" is winning allows them to sleep soundly at night. Which results in an increased quality of life on an immaterial level. During the Trump years, there was a large number of liberals who came down with stress-related symptoms even if none of Trump's antics impacted them directly and his tax cuts might have even saved them some bucks. Same story here, but in reverse.
You're still going back to financials. It's not about the money for them. There's no account of money or benefits you can float them to make them pro-choice. None. Walk into any church or town hall in these areas and campaign on that and you'll be thrown out and probably physically assaulted
Do some reading up on why unionization failed in the south in the post WW2 era, it would be enlightening.
White workers in the south rejected higher wages and better working conditions across the board because unionization would necessarily have placed black and white workers on equal footing. Those white workers were unwilling to give up segregation no matter what you paid them.
Money was secondary to maintaining privilege.
First I'd follow this advice.
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
As well as setup a foundation to donate towards causes I respect/like/admire/etc.
Awareness to... who?
I get that we love the idea of the bully pulpit. I love it too! In a filibuster world, it's meaningless.
Bad timing for progressives. You have rising crime rates so people will vote candidates with a tough on crime message. Two years ago, Adams would be toast.
Even if left policies would provide increased wages or healthcare (they wouldn't, all of the big current plans have specific externalities that work against the rural working class because they were developed to the specific benefit of the younger urban professionals) it's not clear how any of them would change the long-term outlook or trajectory of these places, which have been in decline for decades.
Unless there's something credible happening to reverse that long-term decline in these communities, they will feel completely shut out of equality of opportunity and participation with the rest of the country's progress. You won't change their nihilism without halting that decline and finding ways to include them in the 21st century American narrative.
Unless there's something credible happening to reverse that long-term decline in these communities, they will feel completely shut out of equality of opportunity and participation with the rest of the country's progress. You won't change their nihilism without halting that decline and finding ways to include them in the 21st century American narrative.
Republicans insure everything is polarized nowadays.
He can tell people what's in the bill, that it's coming up for a vote, and to call their senators to make sure it passes. It might be meaningless or it might work. Doing nothing just guarantees it's failure.
The original point I was making is that Americans do want those entitlements, even if they place other things like racism/sexism above that when voting. There are certain posters who will deny that the American people want stuff like wage increases and better healthcare in the first place.
There's a reason Republicans always try to take credit for Dem legislation like the whole restaurant recovery initiative.
There's a reason Republicans always try to take credit for Dem legislation like the whole restaurant recovery initiative.
It's weird because Krasner won his primary handily here in Philly where the crime rates are much worse.
I don't know much of about Phily politics, but we voted for Rudy and Bloomberg back to back. So NYC dems going for Adams isn't surprising.
I guess NYC is just more conservative than people realize but with a few progressive districts.
Correct. Also, all politics is local, and locals hate crime and love police.
My opinion is that NYC tends to be more pragmatic. Crime is high - vote for a perceived tough guy. Mayor is being too conservative, schools suck - Vote for a progressive, Snow not being plowed - kick whoever it is the fuck out.
Biden going on air to blast the GOP would make all of us feel good and it's what should happen in a non-insane country.
But it would even further ensure we get zero GOP votes for anything for the next year and a half. And zero GOP votes means no Manchin votes. They'd be screaming bloody murder about how partisan and polarizing Biden is despite their lord and savior Trump blasting the Dems nonstop for 4 years.
But it would even further ensure we get zero GOP votes for anything for the next year and a half. And zero GOP votes means no Manchin votes. They'd be screaming bloody murder about how partisan and polarizing Biden is despite their lord and savior Trump blasting the Dems nonstop for 4 years.
Every President has used the bully pulpit to push their agenda. I'm not sure why some of y'all are opposed to Biden doing so for the most important piece of legislation he should be fighting for. Trump and Bush did it for tax cuts. Obama did it for ACA. Clinton did it for NAFTA.
There isn't anything I'm not understanding. I'm saying they vote the way the do because they are both racist and dumb, not because it's in their self-interest.
You want Joe Manchen voters to identify this effort directly with Joe Biden? How does that help break the filibuster?
Surprise, Joe Manchin can't win without WV Democratic voters.
Joe Manchen also cant win with only WV democratic voters. Why are you ignoring the rest of his coalition?
My argument is that "he's not giving a speech on this thing" isn't effective use of the bully pulpit. There aren't 10 movable votes on this.
Him giving a primetime speech on something that actually doesn't exist as of yet (language is still being worked on) is silly, especially when it's going to fail.
Letting this fail without him "making it partisan" is another chip in the pile of getting rid of this damn filibuster.
Yes, Dems have been installing non-partisan redistricting commissions and other similar reforms for a long time. It's the right thing to do and has wide support where we've passed it . Without it we'd never have enough support in the party to pass a bill regulating the practice everywhere. The anti-gerrymandering provisions in the legislation exist because of those reforms being in place, and at no point should Dems feel bad that we're doing the right thing there.
Yeah, it's too bad Biden's huge win in the WV primaries didn't lead to a bigger electoral victory win even after Biden won West - oh wait, he didn't? It turns out 98% of the time who wins a primary has zero connection to who wins the state in the general? OK then.
Again, a lot of this is untrue (free college is not popular, cheaper healthcare is popular but not M4A isn't), and most importantly, WV turned red not because of neoliberalism, since ya' know Clinton stil won it in 1992 and 1996, even after the '94 wipeout, and boring ole' Michael Dukakis won it in 1988, but the real change happened in 2000, when Al Gore ran on maybe caring about the environment, and after that, Democrat's said silly things like let's be slightly nicer to gay people or immigrants, and West Virginia went red.
Unfortunately, education polarization is happening everywhere, and it's really hurting us because of our shitty system. But it's also true that America has also been more socially conservative than Europe consistently for decades, and the reality is, part of reason why lots of rural areas went red is it turns out they aren't liberals, and don't want ot be alliance with the 20% of the country that are dirty liberals like the people in tihs thread (yes, even you socialists are basically liberals since only 8% of American's consider themselves 'very liberal).
Two third of left-leaning economic policy, including some quite radical stuff (restructing patents for medicine, workers on corporate boards) is quite popular. One third of left-leaning economic policy (free ocllege, Medicare for All) is unpopular. Combine that with a lot of unfortunately unpopular left-wing social issues, and you have a situation where the problem for the Left is instead of focusing on the 2/3 of stuff that's actually popular and ignoring the other 1/3 and being quiet about the left-wing social stuff you're for, you double down on everything, and in the end, lose.
So yes, pass child tax credits, worker co-determination, and other popular things. Stop talking about stopping immigration enforcement, etc. Now, I'm not saying don't do it. Republicans don't run on putting dirty chemicals in the water and destroying unions via the NLRB. They just appoint people to do that. This may be tough to hear, but that's what should happen w/ lots of social policies we can do via the government. Don't talk about it, but the install radicals to the NLRB, EPA, etc.
Look at what Biden did w/ refugee caps or frankly, radically restructuring immigration enforcement on the southern border so kids get processed much quicker - they didn't make a huge deal of it, but simply did it, improved lots of peoples lives, even though it's actually unpopular (raising the refugee cap was like 15 points underwater at the last poll I looked at).
President's openly getting involved in an issue tends to polarize and make the issue less popular. Both in the case of Obama & Trump, there are multiple issues where their support of something polarized the issue. Now, sometimes that's worth it, especially when there's softness on your side of the issue and it's already associated with you, but if something isn't totally polarized, the POTUS getting involved is actually usually bad, which goes against the Green Lantern Theory of Politics.
What Trump-Manchin voters are going to hear that Joe Biden wants their proud independent-minded Senator to support a bill that makes it harder to poass voter ID and makes it easier for unelected big government coastal elitist Washington bureaucrats to stick their nose into West Virginia's election rules. The best thing to happen is if Biden doesn't make a big deal about this bill, the deal gets made that basically gets Manchin's compromise (which is still incredibly good) passed via reconciliation and instead of Trump-Manchin voters knowing Manchin voted for a bad bill, they forget about it, because it never becomes a national issue the way the ACA or the Trump Tax Cuts did.
Last edited:
There weren't 10 votes for tax cuts, but that never stopped Republicans.
S1, formerly HR1 does exist and it's what's being brought up for a vote this week. You might be thinking about Manchin's voting rights bill.
So you think Biden pushing a bill that makes it easier for people in WV to vote is going to cause Joe Manchin to lose instead of allowing and exciting more people to vote for him?
- Status