US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[ArtDecade]

Jeremiah 2:7
I brought you into a bountiful country,
To eat its fruit and its goodness.
But when you entered, you defiled My land
And made My heritage an abomination.

Look. We all know that @Glades isn't an avid reader of the Bible or the Constitution. At best, he reads memes on Conservative websites.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

It's almost like being beholden to a small group of robber barons for our energy needs was not a good idea.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Look. We all know that @Glades isn't an avid reader of the Bible or the Constitution. At best, he reads memes on Conservative websites.

Hehe. "Reads" hehe.

 

[nightflameauto]

Jeremiah 2:7
I brought you into a bountiful country,
To eat its fruit and its goodness.
But when you entered, you defiled My land
And made My heritage an abomination.

I learned as a kid from my bible-thumper grandma, never, ever quote bible passages to a Christian. It confuses and frightens them.

 

[Adieu]

US Will Face High Gas Prices ‘as Long as It Takes,’ Biden Says

www.bloomberg.com

​

CMON MAN

It's ok, my V8 runs fine on E85

 

[TheBlackBard]

I'm on the verge of begging a Scandinavian regime to infiltrate and invade my country so that I can have a taste of what their life is like. Problem is, they're more civilized than the US, so it's not going to happen.

 

[bostjan]

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

 

[Drew]

Also, I think it's cool that you're in here discussing this stuff. I would like to hear more of your thinking on these topics, because I have trouble trying to talk about this stuff with the conservative people I know, because they just get mad, and say a few "I owned the lib" things, and disengage. I try to read about why people vote GOP these days (when it seems to be against their individual interests) but it's really hard to actually talk with someone to try to understand it.

Not directed at me, but I'll bite.

This decision is likely to welcome more constitutional challenges to regulatory agencies, absolutely. And some will likely hold up in - at least, with the Supreme Court's current composition - the courts. but, it's very important to keep in mind what this decision does and does not do.

The tl;dr version of yesterdy's decision is the Courts believe that regulatory agencies have a fairly wide degree of latitude when it comes to their purposes as spelled out in the legislation creating them in the first place, but very little lattitude with respect to things outside those clearly demarcated purposes, even if a contemporary understanding would be that these things probably should be within their purview. So, the EPA was charted to regulate the emission of pollutants into the environment - chemical processing byproducts, soot and pollutants emitted during power generation, car emissions, etc etc etc. But, Obama's directive to the EPA to also consider carbon dioxide emissions, due to their contribution to climate change, was outside of their original scope and was not an act of Congress, so for the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions is not within their purview and is, the court decided, unconstitutional.

In my particular corner of the regulatory world, for a convenient example, there have been a LOT of pieces published this week before and after the decision on what it could/will mean for the SEC's recent moves on ESG-related disclosures, and that they're likely to also be challenged in the Courts now, since they're not sources of "financial" risk in the traditional sense that the SEC was authorized to require companies to disclose (I personally disagree with this read - ESG factors certainly CAN be sources of economic risk, and I think if you're doing investment analysis that isn't at least ESG-aware even if ESG isn't a primary investment goal, then you're getting an incomplete risk picture).

But, that's a pretty good example of a corellary - nothing in this decision would impact the SEC creating new rules related to market risk, liquidity risk, credit risk, volatility risk, whathaveyou... but, potentially could limit their ability to promulgate rules related to climate risk or governance risk.

 

[Drew]

I'm on the verge of begging a Scandinavian regime to infiltrate and invade my country so that I can have a taste of what their life is like. Problem is, they're more civilized than the US, so it's not going to happen.

It was NOT easy flying back from Italy and Switzerland last weekend, for sure.

 

[TheBlackBard]

It was NOT easy flying back from Italy and Switzerland last weekend, for sure.

I mean, it's funny, but it's also sad as fuck for me, because like... I only recently, like a few years ago finally came to the grips that this country that I live in is pure bullshit, and not even close to what I was raised believing it was and it's an eye-opener. I went from realizing we have issues and I love this country enough to want it to address and correct these issues, to now? I'm seriously looking at other countries to try and move to. Problem is, I'm not adept at any other languages, I've become accustomed to non-skilled factory work, and my motivation is in the shitter due to my mental health issues that are extremely hard to address because healthcare.

 

[bostjan]

Seems there may be a bit of misinterpretation going on with the media. The original EPA charter from congress delegates power to the EPA to do the following:

• The EPA would have the capacity to do research on important pollutants irrespective of the media in which they appear, and on the impact of these pollutants on the total environment.
• Both by itself and together with other agencies, the EPA would monitor the condition of the environment--biological as well as physical.
• With these data, the EPA would be able to establish quantitative "environmental baselines"--critical for efforts to measure adequately the success or failure of pollution abatement efforts.
• The EPA would be able--in concert with the states--to set and enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants.
• Industries seeking to minimize the adverse impact of their activities on the environment would be assured of consistent standards covering the full range of their waste disposal problems.
• As states developed and expanded their own pollution control programs, they would be able to look to one agency to support their efforts with financial and technical assistance and training.

The SCotUS opinion concludes:

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

What's this 111d? Here:

(d) Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source​

(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this title but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies.

(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—

(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have under section 7410(c) of this title in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and

(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he would have under sections 7413 and 7414 of this title with respect to an implementation plan.


In promulgating a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this paragraph, the Administrator shall take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the category of sources to which such standard applies.

Section 7408(a) (and (b)):

(A) emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;

(B) the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources; and

So, according to the Clean Air Act that established the EPA's regulation power over the air (in 1970), the EPA has the authority to define what is an "air pollutant" (S7408(a)) and can enforce whatever provisions necessary to limit it (S111d2b), but the SCotUS ruled that the EPA was not delegated the power to enforce regulations on whatever it defines as an "air pollutant" in the opinion, simply stating that the EPA doesn't have such authority. That's an odd nut to crack and try to make perfect sense. The court's opinion is very indirect in its reasoning why it reached this decision. That's where the danger for future rulings comes into play. If it's simply the case that congress can pass a law that delegates some specific authority to a government agency, but, the moment it is challenged in court, the court can simply rule that the agency does not have the proper level of authority to enforce the regulations upon private companies, because the law that clearly states such authority only extends toward recommendations for the states, then why should we believe that the IRS, ATF, DHS, FBI, NSA, etc., have any authority at all over companies or private citizens?!

 

[spudmunkey]

And the FTC, SEC, OSHA...maybe even the Federal Reserve?

 

[Hollowway]

Not directed at me, but I'll bite.

This decision is likely to welcome more constitutional challenges to regulatory agencies, absolutely. And some will likely hold up in - at least, with the Supreme Court's current composition - the courts. but, it's very important to keep in mind what this decision does and does not do.

The tl;dr version of yesterdy's decision is the Courts believe that regulatory agencies have a fairly wide degree of latitude when it comes to their purposes as spelled out in the legislation creating them in the first place, but very little lattitude with respect to things outside those clearly demarcated purposes, even if a contemporary understanding would be that these things probably should be within their purview. So, the EPA was charted to regulate the emission of pollutants into the environment - chemical processing byproducts, soot and pollutants emitted during power generation, car emissions, etc etc etc. But, Obama's directive to the EPA to also consider carbon dioxide emissions, due to their contribution to climate change, was outside of their original scope and was not an act of Congress, so for the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions is not within their purview and is, the court decided, unconstitutional.

In my particular corner of the regulatory world, for a convenient example, there have been a LOT of pieces published this week before and after the decision on what it could/will mean for the SEC's recent moves on ESG-related disclosures, and that they're likely to also be challenged in the Courts now, since they're not sources of "financial" risk in the traditional sense that the SEC was authorized to require companies to disclose (I personally disagree with this read - ESG factors certainly CAN be sources of economic risk, and I think if you're doing investment analysis that isn't at least ESG-aware even if ESG isn't a primary investment goal, then you're getting an incomplete risk picture).

But, that's a pretty good example of a corellary - nothing in this decision would impact the SEC creating new rules related to market risk, liquidity risk, credit risk, volatility risk, whathaveyou... but, potentially could limit their ability to promulgate rules related to climate risk or governance risk.

I appreciate that insight. My biggest fear is that the GOP and right don’t have an overall plan, and and just making myopic decisions for short term gain. I know that to be a fact with Trump, but I worry about the rest of the party, too. I do my best to seek out people trying to explain how they envision these changes improving lives in the future, but it’s super hard to find someone who can show how things are expected to fold out. Like, it’s plainly evident to me how universals healthcare would help everyone out. But the GOP hasn’t presented any alternative plan. Most of their criticisms of universal health care is based on unfounded rumors. But I’d like to know what is the rationale for keeping the status quo the way it is. And being against gay marriage - in what way will that help the country? (Not directing this at you, Drew. I’m just saying I really want to get a perspective on their thoughts.)

I read a really interesting article about 2 years ago about why poorer white people often vote for policies that will hurt them. “Voting against their interest,” as it’s usually phrased. The author said that they will root hard for tax cuts for rich people, and not taxing billionaires, because in this way they see themselves aligned with these “successful” white people, and are therefore more aligned with them, than the black people who are technically at their socioeconomic status. In other words, it was seen as a subtle racism, where poor white people try to distance themselves from poor black people by hanging around rich white people, pretending their on the team of these “successful” people.

Anyway, I’m continually baffled by the motivations of the right, because I just cannot relate to it in any way. And it’s hard for find someone on the right who is willing to lay out the plan, so we can see how an individual decision moves things along toward a better future for the country.

 

[ArtDecade]

And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.

 

[wheresthefbomb]

And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.

"your campaign is a psyop"

Sickest burn of the year

 

[DrewH]

I appreciate that insight. My biggest fear is that the GOP and right don’t have an overall plan, and and just making myopic decisions for short term gain. I know that to be a fact with Trump, but I worry about the rest of the party, too. I do my best to seek out people trying to explain how they envision these changes improving lives in the future, but it’s super hard to find someone who can show how things are expected to fold out. Like, it’s plainly evident to me how universals healthcare would help everyone out. But the GOP hasn’t presented any alternative plan. Most of their criticisms of universal health care is based on unfounded rumors. But I’d like to know what is the rationale for keeping the status quo the way it is. And being against gay marriage - in what way will that help the country? (Not directing this at you, Drew. I’m just saying I really want to get a perspective on their thoughts.)

I read a really interesting article about 2 years ago about why poorer white people often vote for policies that will hurt them. “Voting against their interest,” as it’s usually phrased. The author said that they will root hard for tax cuts for rich people, and not taxing billionaires, because in this way they see themselves aligned with these “successful” white people, and are therefore more aligned with them, than the black people who are technically at their socioeconomic status. In other words, it was seen as a subtle racism, where poor white people try to distance themselves from poor black people by hanging around rich white people, pretending their on the team of these “successful” people.

Anyway, I’m continually baffled by the motivations of the right, because I just cannot relate to it in any way. And it’s hard for find someone on the right who is willing to lay out the plan, so we can see how an individual decision moves things along toward a better future for the country.

Lot of meat on this bone..

That article is complete bullsh&t. Poor white people are poor for a reason. Usually because they are simple, stupid, lazy, or all of the above. GOP strategy has always preyed upon this. Just tell them something is good for them and they will support it. Tell them something is evil or bad for them and they will believe it. Stupid and uneducated people are the easiest to manipulate. Trump said it best in a mid 90s interview. He would run as a Republican for those very reasons. This is why the GOP base doesn't clamor for universal health care. They've been told that progressive policy is evil. Dems who support progressive policy are the devils, even though national healthcare would vastly improve their lives. But, they can't understand things on that level of complexity. The most absurd thing you mentioned from that article is poor white people hanging with rich white people? Since when? We are very much a class based society. That stuff doesn't happen. Why do poor white people distance themselves from poor black people? You can call it racism but it's technically one class viewing another class as inferior and unworthy just as rich white people look down upon poor white people.

Want to know what the GOP overall plan is? It's the same as it has been for decades. The consolidation of wealth and power. That's it. They throw just enough bones at their base to keep them happy enough so they can carry out that plan. GOP voters, most being very stupid, are simply unaware that is the real motivation of the party. The GOP voters who are successful and have risen in life want to keep what they have and not have any competition for it. Hence why social programs are a no-go. Gotta keep the people low and stupid so they buy your BS while not having the opportunity to rise in life to potentially compete for a piece of your pie.

 

[wankerness]

So, anyone read about the upcoming decision on "Independent Legislature?" It's hard for me to tell what's bullshit with this and what isn't, cause most discussion on articles I've seen on the subject is pitched at a level of "this is the end of democracy period and I'm stockpiling guns in preparation for it."

Basically, the supreme court is supposed to decide on whether State Legislatures have the authority to completely just throw out any votes they want to from their state, up to and including just plain choosing a different president than the voters of the state selected if they don't like the outcome. If this is truly what it is, there's absolutely no way that Wisconsin will ever vote for another Democratic president, despite usually leaning blue in statewide elections, cause we're gerrymandered to the point where there's no way our horrible legislature (currently on a paid 10 month vacation after refusing to do anything about the 1800s abortion law going into effect) would EVER let a vote that went democratic stand.

Supposedly this would also mean that with statewide elections like supreme court and senate where they couldn't purely just overturn the results, they would have the rights to throw out tons of votes from regions they deem "suspect" (aka, any city in the state, since that's where all the 2020 conspiracy theorists say the liberals cheated and were having widespread voter fraud despite no evidence). Currently 30 states have majority republican legislatures and would be expected to do this.

Anyway, here's an article on the subject that is really thin on details and speculation:

Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections

The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision this year to throw out the Republican-drawn congressional map for gerrymandering.

www.politico.com

Supposedly 4 of the conservative justices (everyone but Roberts) have already said they support this, with Amy Coney Barrett being THE ONLY one who hasn't voiced an opinion one way or the other. So, if this stuff is actually true, I guess democracy's future is in the hands of Amy Coney Barrett. Not good.

 

[Xaios]

Trump said it best in a mid 90s interview. He would run as a Republican for those very reasons.

While I don't doubt there's truth to that sentiment, the Trump quote you're referring to is fake, long since debunked.

 

[Adieu]

Industries seeking to minimize the adverse impact of their activities on the environment would be assured of consistent standards covering the full range of their waste disposal problems

What is this utopian communist mumbo-jumbo?

What kind of idiot actually believes that industries SEEK "to minimize the adverse impact of their activities"???

 

[Adieu]

So, anyone read about the upcoming decision on "Independent Legislature?" It's hard for me to tell what's bullshit with this and what isn't, cause most discussion on articles I've seen on the subject is pitched at a level of "this is the end of democracy period and I'm stockpiling guns in preparation for it."

Basically, the supreme court is supposed to decide on whether State Legislatures have the authority to completely just throw out any votes they want to from their state, up to and including just plain choosing a different president than the voters of the state selected if they don't like the outcome. If this is truly what it is, there's absolutely no way that Wisconsin will ever vote for another Democratic president, despite usually leaning blue in statewide elections, cause we're gerrymandered to the point where there's no way our horrible legislature (currently on a paid 10 month vacation after refusing to do anything about the 1800s abortion law going into effect) would EVER let a vote that went democratic stand.

Supposedly this would also mean that with statewide elections like supreme court and senate where they couldn't purely just overturn the results, they would have the rights to throw out tons of votes from regions they deem "suspect" (aka, any city in the state, since that's where all the 2020 conspiracy theorists say the liberals cheated and were having widespread voter fraud despite no evidence). Currently 30 states have majority republican legislatures and would be expected to do this.

Anyway, here's an article on the subject that is really thin on details and speculation:

Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections

The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision this year to throw out the Republican-drawn congressional map for gerrymandering.

www.politico.com

Supposedly 4 of the conservative justices (everyone but Roberts) have already said they support this, with Amy Coney Barrett being THE ONLY one who hasn't voiced an opinion one way or the other. So, if this stuff is actually true, I guess democracy's future is in the hands of Amy Coney Barrett. Not good.

Maybe this is actually good? If voters actually got motivated and FUCKING TURNED UP, the Republicans would be DONE.

Pretty much everywhere.