Political Discussion

Didn't Neera talk shit about Bernie too?

Really is unprecedented that a politician would make strong partisan statements on twitter.../s
Neera talked shit about everyone. Her Twitter habits, while the focus of a lot of attention, are the least objectionable thing about her. The corruption is the real reason why she needs to be denied the job that puts her in charge of issuing ethics waivers.
 


In many cases judges are ruling that the justice department can't keep people who stormed the capital detained until trial.

Is this because they are allowing bail? Or is this because of white privilege. If it's because of the ladder that really angers me.
 
Neera talked shit about everyone. Her Twitter habits, while the focus of a lot of attention, are the least objectionable thing about her. The corruption is the real reason why she needs to be denied the job that puts her in charge of issuing ethics waivers.
Yes, so much this.
This is an old story from 2015. Tanden is firmly in the pocket of big business and will eschew party values when it conflicts with the narrative of her corporate and billionaire donors. Also, yes, she advocated that we charge Libya for the bombs we dropped on them.

The emails, provided to The Intercept by a source authorized to receive them, are particularly illuminating about the actions of Tanden (right), a stalwart Clinton loyalist as well as a former Obama White House official. They show Tanden and key aides engaging in extensive efforts of accommodation in response to AIPAC’s and Lewis’ vehement complaints that CAP is allowing its writers to be “anti-Israel.” Other emails show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred in bombing Libya, on the grounds that Americans will support future wars only if they see that the countries attacked by the U.S. pay for the invasions.

NONE OF THIS should be surprising. The Nation previously investigated CAP’s once-secret list of corporate donors, documenting how the group will abandon Democratic Party orthodoxy whenever that orthodoxy conflicts with the interests of its funders. That article noted that “Tanden ratcheted up the efforts to openly court donors, which has impacted CAP’s work. Staffers were very clearly instructed to check with the think tank’s development team before writing anything that might upset contributors.”

Since that article, CAP, to its credit, has provided some greater transparency about its funding sources. As the Washington Post’s Sargent reported earlier this year, “CAP’s top donors include Walmart and Citigroup,” and also “include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents leading biotech and bio-pharma firms, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.” Other large CAP donors include Goldman Sachs, the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, Bank of America, Google and Time Warner.

Still, many of its largest donors remain concealed. That is disturbing because of persistent reports that CAP manipulates and suppresses its own writers’ opinions to suit the interests of its donors. One former CAP staffer described to The Intercept the not-so-subtle ways they were pressured to abandon positions that offended CAP’s donors; the staffer was directed to meet with corporate lobbyists who argued against his progressive position on a widely debated political controversy, and was told by CAP officials that his views were “bad” and “unhelpful.”


 
Last edited:
When the Onion nails it....a little too close to home.

Zuckerberg closed his remarks with repeated assurances that despite a likely legal battle ahead, no one government could stand up to the fortitude of Facebook.
 
CNN had a great opinion piece this morning that talks about how Texas going it alone and deregulated is good and how that wasn't the cause of the power grid failure.

Opinion: Texas goes it alone on electric power. That's actually a good thing

The TL/DL

The unregulated electric grid has lead to the most innovation in the country. Many people associate California with green energy, but Texas is actually the leader. Texas both more Solar and Wind energy generation than California. Because Texas is independent from the interstate grid, there is no requirement to go through the federal government to seek approvals to test out new types of energy generation. This means it's far easier, quicker and cheaper to innovate and test new types of power generation and has allowed Texas to create the most green energy. If Texas was its own Country, it would be the 6 largest green energy producer in the world.

In addition to green energy, the deregulations have kept cost down, there is far more competition and over all the consumer wins.

The failure of the power grid was not because Texas is independent from the interstate grid, nor was it from the failure of wind turbines like the Governor said on Fox News.

The failure came from the failure of the Natural Gas. Natural gas is one of the leading forms of power generation in Texas, and the cold weather crippled it. Not only was demand way of for heating, but the distribution system failed because of the cold weather freezing things at plants.

As for not being connected to an interstate grid. The surrounding grids to to Texas were in critical condition as well. Both grids surrounding Texas saw rolling blackouts as well from the failure of Natural Gas power generation from the cold weather. While they didn't see rolling blackouts to the scale of Texas, they were happening. So this proves if Texas had interstate connectivity the blackouts would have still happened. And every well could have effected more people, just spread out over a larger region including many places outside of Texas.

Lastly, which is the part I disagree with. Is that Capitalism and Deregulation had nothing to do with the failure. The failure occurred because both the power companies and the natural gas companies have not invested in updating their infrastructure. Much of the infrastructure is antiquated and hasn't been updated in decades. This same infrastructure also has never been built to withstand extreme weather temps. For example, much of the infrastructure in Texas has been designed to work in temperatures below the freezing point. It was thought not thought to be needed.

To me that sounds exactly like capitalism. Investing the bare minimum to turn the most profit.

This article also fails to mention anything about the electric bills people were seeing in the order of several thousand dollars to 10's of thousands of dollars.

There was another article on CNN about this this morning though.


It basically sums this up as Capitalism works until it doesn't. Most of the time it works the best for everyone.

People have the options. Most people choose to have the fixed rate plans they buy through energy resellers, but some to choose to buy their electricity at wholesale market rate through services like Griddy. Griddy says 96.9% of the time their rates are lower than the set fixed rates. And when they are not, its incentive for people to conserve electricity. The article says normally that is a good thing. But when it fails, it fails drastically.

One example of how bad it failed is one City, Denton in the Dallas-Fort Worth area saw an energy bill for $207 million accumulated over just four days. $207 million is 3 times the cities entire costs for electricity in the entire fiscal year of 2020.

Energy suppliers also got hit with these huge bills. Some may file for bankruptcy while many will pass on the cost to fixed rate customers with higher rates next time they renew their contact.

There is some movement in the Texas house looking into options for not sticking consumers with these unreasonable bills.

Many of the consumers who got these unreasonable bills are likely the same consumers with the least ability to pay for them as well. People who choose to gamble on the the market rate plans to save money are likely people who live in or near poverty. Where saving a little money can help them put food on the table or pay rent.
 
Yes, so much this.
This is an old story from 2015. Tanden is firmly in the pocket of big business and will eschew party values when it conflicts with the narrative of her corporate and billionaire donors. Also, yes, she advocated that we charge Libya for the bombs we dropped on them.

The emails, provided to The Intercept by a source authorized to receive them, are particularly illuminating about the actions of Tanden (right), a stalwart Clinton loyalist as well as a former Obama White House official. They show Tanden and key aides engaging in extensive efforts of accommodation in response to AIPAC’s and Lewis’ vehement complaints that CAP is allowing its writers to be “anti-Israel.” Other emails show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S. for the costs incurred in bombing Libya, on the grounds that Americans will support future wars only if they see that the countries attacked by the U.S. pay for the invasions.

NONE OF THIS should be surprising. The Nation previously investigated CAP’s once-secret list of corporate donors, documenting how the group will abandon Democratic Party orthodoxy whenever that orthodoxy conflicts with the interests of its funders. That article noted that “Tanden ratcheted up the efforts to openly court donors, which has impacted CAP’s work. Staffers were very clearly instructed to check with the think tank’s development team before writing anything that might upset contributors.”

Since that article, CAP, to its credit, has provided some greater transparency about its funding sources. As the Washington Post’s Sargent reported earlier this year, “CAP’s top donors include Walmart and Citigroup,” and also “include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents leading biotech and bio-pharma firms, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.” Other large CAP donors include Goldman Sachs, the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, Bank of America, Google and Time Warner.

Still, many of its largest donors remain concealed. That is disturbing because of persistent reports that CAP manipulates and suppresses its own writers’ opinions to suit the interests of its donors. One former CAP staffer described to The Intercept the not-so-subtle ways they were pressured to abandon positions that offended CAP’s donors; the staffer was directed to meet with corporate lobbyists who argued against his progressive position on a widely debated political controversy, and was told by CAP officials that his views were “bad” and “unhelpful.”



Neera Tanden’s nomination being defended and opposed by some of the folks that have picked sides shows the level that blind partisanship stands in the way good sense. I don’t understand why the purported progressives in congress are defending her and I honestly don’t understand why Republicans like McConnel are opposing her. She should be a person that (principled) progressives, (principled) conservatives, and (principled) libertarians should be able to unite in their opposition. On every level that matters, she’s a bad person.
 
Neera Tanden’s nomination being defended and opposed by some of the folks that have picked sides shows the level that blind partisanship stands in the way good sense. I don’t understand why the purported progressives in congress are defending her and I honestly don’t understand why Republicans like McConnel are opposing her. She should be a person that (principled) progressives, (principled) conservatives, and (principled) libertarians should be able to unite in their opposition. On every level that matters, she’s a bad person.
This is thoughtful reasoning on why someone should oppose her nomination but so far no Senator has presented this rational for voting against her nomination. Maybe Bernie will adopt this tact once he realizes her ship is sunk. Everyone else is just hung up on the mean tweets which makes them all look like hypocrites.
 
This is thoughtful reasoning on why someone should oppose her nomination but so far no Senator has presented this rational for voting against her nomination. Maybe Bernie will adopt this tact once he realizes her ship is sunk. Everyone else is just hung up on the mean tweets which makes them all look like hypocrites.

Because they are.

All of them.

When you only pretend to hold different values and views for public consumption, civility is paramount.
 
The housing market in the Tahoe area is blowing up.

With people in the Bay area working largely from home right now many of those folks are buying second homes in Tahoe.

In an example of how much the housing market has blown up looking at the listing history of this property.


It was listed for 270k back in 2012. Last November 470k. Now this property listed at 650k.

And this appears to be a common story in the area.

What does this mean for the housing market in general. And is this happening outside of other cities?

Will property values further be driving up by those who can afford 2 homes and further push the lower middle class into poverty?
 
The housing market in the Tahoe area is blowing up.

With people in the Bay area working largely from home right now many of those folks are buying second homes in Tahoe.

In an example of how much the housing market has blown up looking at the listing history of this property.


It was listed for 270k back in 2012. Last November 470k. Now this property listed at 650k.

And this appears to be a common story in the area.

What does this mean for the housing market in general. And is this happening outside of other cities?

Will property values further be driving up by those who can afford 2 homes and further push the lower middle class into poverty?
Are the Mannequins just there for scale? Or does the current tenant live like that?

My house is about doubled in value in 8 years in the suburbs of Atlanta.
 
The housing market in the Tahoe area is blowing up.

With people in the Bay area working largely from home right now many of those folks are buying second homes in Tahoe.

In an example of how much the housing market has blown up looking at the listing history of this property.


It was listed for 270k back in 2012. Last November 470k. Now this property listed at 650k.

And this appears to be a common story in the area.

What does this mean for the housing market in general. And is this happening outside of other cities?

Will property values further be driving up by those who can afford 2 homes and further push the lower middle class into poverty?
With amenities like these who wouldn’t wanna move to Lake Tahoe...

 
View attachment 89411

The best picture from the listing earlier today sadly has been taken down, but here it is.

Yes this crazy Zillow listing is what started this discussion, but it very quickly turned to be about the property values on another forum on I'm on.
My area's property values have followed a similar trend. Really crazy. Absolutely could not come close to affording my house for what they are selling for after we have been here for 6 years. Would be nice to cash in, but hard to make the leap to move to a cheaper area, because we like the reasons it costs more.
 
Alternate GOP proposal for increasing the minimum wage. It doesn't go nearly far enough. I get it. They don't want to put small businesses out of business. We cannot keep protecting giant monopolies by citing that worker protections and wage increases would kill small business. You know what kills small business? The anti-competitive nature of monopolies.

The recent proposal released by Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) would not even increase the minimum wage to 1960s levels, after adjusting for inflation. It is a meager increase that fails to address the problem of low pay in the U.S. economy.

The Romney–Cotton proposal would slowly raise the federal minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 per hour to $10 per hour in 2025. In contrast, the Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025.

Romney–Cotton’s $10 target by 2025 is the equivalent of $9.19 per hour in today’s dollars, about 13% less than what the minimum wage was at its high-water mark in 1968.

It is unconscionable that we should pay the lowest-wage workers today less than what they earned five decades ago, while the economy’s productivity has more than doubled over the last 50 years. The Romney–Cotton proposal would continue that harmful trend; would maintain a separate lower wage for young workers and those with disabilities; and would—incredibly—fail to increase the separate minimum wage for tipped workers that has been stuck at $2.13 per hour for 30 years.

 
Back
Top