Whim or not, there is no legitimate reason for it.
You are ignoring that there are already very generous subsidies for having children. Why pile on even more?
Why exactly? Domestic production of oil and gas creates jobs and government revenues. Having to import e.g. 5-6 Mbbl/day more oil per day due to onerous regulations would siphon billions from US consumers and companies to entities abroad - many of them unsavory.
Great wealth is not a guarantee that it will not be spent foolishly.
US reducing our oil and gas production would not lead to peace, as result would be a more powerful Russia and a more powerful Iran. No thanks.
Being funded by AIPAC is not inconsistent with caring about one's district.
It doesn't do good journalism. It's a rag, and a blatantly anti-Israel one. Look on their homepage. It's mostly anti-Israel and anti-AIPAC screeds.
Do you really think people should have a "upper-middle-class standard of living" paid by taxpayers just because they have children?
BS. I wonder what kind of brands these "barely enough to survive" wear, what number behind their iPhone is, what kind of car they drive and how often they visit Starbucks and eat out. Easy to struggle even on decent income/subsidies when you spend like a drunken sailor.
Most visibly, Biden visited the striking UAW members when they were extorting the Detroit auto makers last year.
They wouldn't. So why are left-wing ones ok? Unions should not insert themselves into political issues unrelated to their raison d'être.
Completely unrealistic, especially in the US where much of the population is armed. Even countries where private weapons possession is more tightly regulated mostly have armed cops. Countries where regular police are rare and many of them are tiny islands like Vanuatu and Nauru.
But I think it's gear like that that the Left views as "militarized" for whatever reason. They usually bitch about "militarized police" when riot police breaks up one of their riots.
S in SWAT stands for special. These units are not for routine use. That said, they are not only used against heavily armed gangs. Heavily armed individuals holed up in a dwelling are dangerous enough that SWAT would be called in.
I'd stop talking about if conservatives stopped being stupid.
Other countries need to modernized se and that requires massive income. Why does that matter to us? Because happy countries do not normally attack their neighbors. It’s good for peace and good for the world and good for us.Why exactly? Domestic production of oil and gas creates jobs and government revenues. Having to import e.g. 5-6 Mbbl/day more oil per day due to onerous regulations would siphon billions from US consumers and companies to entities abroad - many of them unsavory.
Expansion of US natural gas production also allowed us to export LNG to Europe reducing their reliance on natural gas from Russia.
What do you think would be the result of US having half the oil production and half the gas production we have today? Do you think Russia would be more powerful or less? What about Iran?
Great wealth is not a guarantee that it will not be spent foolishly.
And there is such a thing as a resource curse that many countries overreliant on extractable resources fall prey to.
US reducing our oil and gas production would not lead to peace, as result would be a more powerful Russia and a more powerful Iran. No thanks.
As to environment, I am all for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels over time. But we need to eliminate coal first, and we will need oil and gas for a few more decades, no matter what. Also, how is the environment helped if we drill less and other countries drill more? Especially since most countries have subpar environmental regulations. Compare US fracking with something like Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela!
Balance? It would be yet another very small "state" - <700k people, <70 sq. mi. area.
Even Wyoming has the population far greater than three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named Colin, and a small hen in its late 40s like Dunny-on-the-Wold.More seriously, I think that the less-populous states have becomeRotten and pocket boroughs
At least Wyoming or Alaska have large areas where it makes sense that they are their own state despite sparse population. DC is just a city, and that land was originally Maryland's.
Well that's not quite right. Also, I wonder why they picked π since Israel is famously a hypercube (due to Jewish physics).
Well, what is her position on the Hamas' war against Israel?
Would a Russia with more oil and gas wealth, and ability to turn off a greater percentage of oil and gas supplies to those who oppose its policies be more peaceful or less so?
Fossil fuels are on its way out, even if it will take decades to completely wean ourselves from them.
True, I am in favor of developing new technologies. But we also need present technologies for the present day.
What if Iran and Russia exhaust their reserves? Or come close? What if while Iran and Russia sell their oil, the rest of the world moves away from fossil fuels?
What standard did you use to determine there was no reason?
What exactly is wrong with helping low income people better approach middle class status?
Given that an estimated 16% of children in the US live in poverty, your view of “ generous” appears rather miserly.
I explained it. There already is a plethora of subsidies for breeding.
Why should only the low income people with children be helped to approach middle class status? Why are we childfree always treated as red haired stepchildren by the tax system?
Existing child tax credit, earned income tax credit, SNAP, rental assistance, Medicaid, when you add them all up, it is far from "miserly".
So much better for us, as they would lose much of their geopolitical power when they do. John McCain described Russia as "a gas station masquerading as a country". Iran is not much better.
That would be the best case scenario. Keep their production as low as possible since we produce a lot and make as much of their reserves stranded assets.
Easily accessible oil has been pumped and sold everywhere, not just in the US. All oil producers use advanced techniques to maintain production levels.
Yes, I am very fond of it. And I am very opposed to those who want to ban it for spurious reasons.
I agree we need to move away from fossil fuels. And we need to start with coal, the by far the most polluting fossil fuel. It is not just the most carbon intensive fossil fuel, but it also emits huge quantities of other pollutants like sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, and even uranium.
I agree.
US is also moving away from fossil fuels. It's not like we are doing nothing while other countries are busy transitioning.
Children are not able to take care of themselves. And for some obscure reason, our society seems to think that children represent the present and the future, so we should try to help them.
First, childfree people are eligible for subsidies. It is true that we tend to think that adults can better take of themselves. There is a portion of the our population (" fiscal conservatives ")does seem to agree with you, that we should reduce income support programs in order to stop subsidizing those adults.
Households earning over $400,000 per year are not eligible for EITC, Medicaid or SNAP. All of those are income-means tested.
I’m glad you agree that it is better if other countries exhaust their fossil fuel reserves.So much better for us, as they would lose much of their geopolitical power when they do. John McCain described Russia as "a gas station masquerading as a country". Iran is not much better.
Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon. Iran has more than 100 years of both oil and gas at current production.
That would be the best case scenario. Keep their production as low as possible since we produce a lot and make as much of their reserves stranded assets.
Easily accessible oil has been pumped and sold everywhere, not just in the US. All oil producers use advanced techniques to maintain production levels.
Yes, I am very fond of it. And I am very opposed to those who want to ban it for spurious reasons.
The environmental damage due to fracking is overstated. We have discussed all that in detail before.
I agree we need to move away from fossil fuels. And we need to start with coal, the by far the most polluting fossil fuel. It is not just the most carbon intensive fossil fuel, but it also emits huge quantities of other pollutants like sulfur dioxide, mercury, particulates, and even uranium.
Oil and natural gas will also take decades to phase out. Vast majority of cars still use gasoline. Trucking still uses diesel. They can be electrified, but it will take time. Planes use jet fuel. They can't be easily electrified, but they can use synfuels like butanol - but making that also requires a lot of energy.
Combined cycle gas power plants are very efficient and clean. No reason to decommission them prematurely just because of politics.
It's not that easy to completely reform the energy system of the modern society.
I agree.
US is also moving away from fossil fuels. It's not like we are doing nothing while other countries are busy transitioning.
In fact, if you want to single out countries for shaming, it should be China and India, not the US.
And the shale revolution played a role in this, as fracked gas was able to displace coal.
And I asked you what method you used to determine the "plethora" is too much?
I absolutely agree more should be done for single people. But jealousy is not a reason to not attempt to get children out of poverty.
For fuck's sake, show us any family making $400k receiving the above benefits.
What they advocate is a form of
Sewer socialismBack in 2019, NP dismissed them as irrelevant. “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got."
Another reason may be the failure of Clintonism to accomplish its stated goals. Make lots of progressive promises, then wring one's hands about how helpless one is and propose weak half-measures. Also act like one has battered-partner syndrome with the Republican Party, perpetually trying to appease it despite getting lots of nastiness and hostility in response.
? What were the “weak half measures”?Opinion | How the Squad and Like-Minded Progressives Have Changed Their Party - The New York Times - April 23, 2024
What they advocate is a form of
Back in 2019, NP dismissed them as irrelevant. “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got."
There is a recent book about The Squad where NP would brag about how she has activist signs from before AOC was born, and AOC would ask how much she has done recently with them.
Another reason may be the failure of Clintonism to accomplish its stated goals. Make lots of progressive promises, then wring one's hands about how helpless one is and propose weak half-measures. Also act like one has battered-partner syndrome with the Republican Party, perpetually trying to appease it despite getting lots of nastiness and hostility in response.
Consider abortion, like Bill Clinton saying that he wants abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare", and not getting any support from anti-abortionists.
