Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Potential Legislative/Policy Agenda Discussions


Recommended Posts

EPA dismisses dozens of key science advisers picked under Trump

 

The Biden administration says it needs to restore trust in the agency by ‘resetting’ membership on two key science advisory panels.
 

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan will purge more than 40 outside experts appointed under President Donald Trump from two key advisory panels, a move he says will help restore the role of science at the agency and reduce the heavy influence of industry over environmental regulations.

 

The unusual decision, announced Wednesday, will sweep away outside researchers picked under the previous administration whose expert advice helped the agency craft regulations related to air pollution, the oil-and-gas extraction method known as fracking and other issues.

 

Critics say that, under Trump, membership of the two panels — the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — tilted too heavily in favor of regulated industries and that their positions sometimes contradicted scientific consensus.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to AOC on the replay of maddow...

 

i think she’s right. Go big or go home. We’re the wealthiest nation in history. Let’s invest super heavy in ourselves. 
 

tired of only hearing how such a bold and big and meaningful move will destroy us from the same people that support underage girl seekers and people that think it’s ok to storm the Capitol because your dude didn’t win.

 

we’re so back asswards. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna hope it's a down payment and we add on in the future.  Having a hard time seeing enough votes for a bigger package.

 

But in principle, totally agree.  Infrastructure investment should be huge.  Give trillions in tax cuts, it's the moral thing to do.  Spend trillions to invest in America, it's socialism run amuck.  FFS....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard AOC and while I agree with her point I don't think the feds ought to have to cover the whole thing. Invest in basic infrastructure that lays the groundwork for private industry to build on. Transportation access + reliable energy grid + upgraded internet service = somewhere you'd want to grow a business. The Holy Grail for any and all rebuilding efforts is reestablishing a vibrant tax base, companies and jobs and the attendant service sector to feed them all working together. Then you have the local municipal funding available to make direct investment targeted on a microscale. It will take far in excess of the $10 tril floated in reality, but there is a momentum to such things and the feds just need to get the ball rolling and support it.

 

Go back and read what FDR & Co. did in '32, maybe the single biggest effect came from loan guarantees, not actually shoveling out cash but just backstopping banking to free up money, knowing they weren't going to take the full hit if it failed. The work programs remembered so nostalgically like the WPA or CCC were cheap investments, we got huge returns out those for the money spent.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Still no gun bill. I wonder how many shootings it will take under a democratic President to get something done...


I think if he had the votes he would have done it  already.

 

I do wonder how much of a political problem it is though. Anything they do with guns may just be what takes away your senate majority for the next 4 years. It maybe be worth it, for the country, to do as much good as you can In other areas FIRST, then act on guns. I am aware of how cold that sounds and I feel yucky for typing it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Llevron said:


I think if he had the votes he would have done it  already.

 

I do wonder how much of a political problem it is though. Anything they do with guns may just be what takes away your senate majority for the next 4 years. It maybe be worth it, for the country, to do as much good as you can In other areas FIRST, then act on guns. I am aware of how cold that sounds and I feel yucky for typing it. 

 

It is entirely a political problem and just exactly how you want to spend your political capital and for what effect.

There is a long list of problems that need addressing, but we need to understand that there will have to be some prioritizing to accomplish anything. The Rs are committed to producing enough of a cluster**** to roil the waters and keep anything from crossing the finish line, running out the clock before the midterms where we already see their plans to deny voting to vast swaths of the country. 

IMO it needs to be voting-voting-voting- this is the first and most important tool to advance the agenda and prevent any backsliding efforts by the right to undo what has already been done. Get HR1 and the John R Lewis Voting Rights Act done and all those other things become possible. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Democrats wonder why they can't ever have sustained victories in elections, because despite their legislation being popular, they are too scared to even embrace it.   So tired of this.  When is the change going to come.  I grew up learning the term "neo-liberal" and thought it would be ancient history by now, but it won't go away and every time it feels deja-vu.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

And the Democrats wonder why they can't ever have sustained victories in elections, because despite their legislation being popular, they are too scared to even embrace it.   So tired of this.  When is the change going to come.  I grew up learning the term "neo-liberal" and thought it would be ancient history by now, but it won't go away and every time it feels deja-vu.

What specifically???  Seems like they are doing a lot... with The gun control thing at least what @LD0506makes sense. I don’t like it but it is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skinsmarydu said:

image.png.6b7951fdfeb0a6e2ca0fb118fc22556d.png

 

 

NOOOOOOOO!!!  Pete don't say it!!!  Jen Psaki is going to kill him as he walks!  It is not that simple! Why align yourself with a failed initiative!  Love me some Pete and he has a bright future but this is the kind of stuff that will hold him back! 

 

Never miss the opportunity to shut the **** up!!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

And the Democrats wonder why they can't ever have sustained victories in elections, because despite their legislation being popular, they are too scared to even embrace it.   So tired of this.  When is the change going to come.  I grew up learning the term "neo-liberal" and thought it would be ancient history by now, but it won't go away and every time it feels deja-vu.

 

I agree with @CousinsCowgirl84 (I know surprised me too 😉 )  There have to be priorities. These are major issues. And I get gun control is a major one. But you need to get some wins on some issues that have cross party support - at least at the voter level. Voting right and infrastructure to me are the next biggest, then health care. 

 

We have had a gun problems for centuries. If it has to wait for 2 years to get some big wins in so truly legitimate and effective gun control can be passed, then so be it. If you go after gun control right now as a priority over the other issues, you will lose on all of them. Get some big wins, build up some trust. There will always be the naysayers but there are a lot that are more central that can be swayed with some legislation that has tangible and mostly immediate benefits.  

 

I think this focused approach is what is needed, just as long as they keep the train moving forward. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to imagine implementing new gun control measures is a win with already devoted democrats that are going to vote democrat anyways.  It's not going to win you any fringe voters or convert any republicans, and may only push them further from democratic policies.  This isn't something I'd want to touch for a while.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch Pete Buttigieg School, Run Circles Around Fox News Hosts (Again)

 

One of the worst things to see when you're a Fox News host has to be seeing Pete Buttigieg's name on your lineup for the day.

 

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg made his name shading, reading, and vocally sparring with the anchors of the conservative news station. This started as he hoped to make his own bid for president, and became a role he leaned into once he was tapped as a surrogate for then-candidate Joe Biden. Now, as the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, Buttigieg has been dispatched again to the network.

 

In a flood of morning show interviews to sell the $2 trillion infrastructure bill the Biden administration has proposed — they have dubbed it the American Jobs Plan — Buttigieg returned to the network for an appearance on America's Newsroom. For the segment, he spoke with Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer. To kick things off, Hemmer ran though some numbers of what the bill contained, noting that there was $650 billion developed to electric grid improvements, broadband internet access, and water systems and $174 billion to spur development and sales of electric vehicles. 

 

"We crunched the numbers and we've found that 5.5 percent — well 5.6 percent — of the $2 trillion proposal is only dedicated to roads and bridges," Hemmer said bluntly. "Why is that?"

"Well, we're talking about roads and bridges, we're talking about rails and transit, we're talking about airports and ports," Buttigieg began, underscoring a point he's made before about transportation and infrastructure being more wide-ranging than commonly thought. "As you mentioned, we're talking about things like the grid. I don't know why anybody would say that it's a mistake to invest in the grid after what we just witness in Texas."

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, China said:

Watch Pete Buttigieg School, Run Circles Around Fox News Hosts (Again)

 

One of the worst things to see when you're a Fox News host has to be seeing Pete Buttigieg's name on your lineup for the day.

 

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg made his name shading, reading, and vocally sparring with the anchors of the conservative news station. This started as he hoped to make his own bid for president, and became a role he leaned into once he was tapped as a surrogate for then-candidate Joe Biden. Now, as the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, Buttigieg has been dispatched again to the network.

 

In a flood of morning show interviews to sell the $2 trillion infrastructure bill the Biden administration has proposed — they have dubbed it the American Jobs Plan — Buttigieg returned to the network for an appearance on America's Newsroom. For the segment, he spoke with Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer. To kick things off, Hemmer ran though some numbers of what the bill contained, noting that there was $650 billion developed to electric grid improvements, broadband internet access, and water systems and $174 billion to spur development and sales of electric vehicles. 

 

"We crunched the numbers and we've found that 5.5 percent — well 5.6 percent — of the $2 trillion proposal is only dedicated to roads and bridges," Hemmer said bluntly. "Why is that?"

"Well, we're talking about roads and bridges, we're talking about rails and transit, we're talking about airports and ports," Buttigieg began, underscoring a point he's made before about transportation and infrastructure being more wide-ranging than commonly thought. "As you mentioned, we're talking about things like the grid. I don't know why anybody would say that it's a mistake to invest in the grid after what we just witness in Texas."

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

What  stupid question. Pete as is typical made them pay. How can you NOT look at infrastructure as way more than roads and bridges. Right wing idiots showing their narrow frame of mind.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I've got to imagine implementing new gun control measures is a win with already devoted democrats that are going to vote democrat anyways.  It's not going to win you any fringe voters or convert any republicans, and may only push them further from democratic policies.  This isn't something I'd want to touch for a while.

Yeah, while you can point to the polls all you want showing Republican/Independent support for background checks and such, RW media and congress persons will vilify any efforts on this front.  And gun control (I like the shift to using the term gun safety), unlike things like the stimulus plan, infrastructure and voting rights, is a 3rd rail issue that can truly galvanize defiance to the issue.

 

With all of that said, I do think it might be beneficial to craft a very narrowly scoped bill and force a vote on it - purely background checks, or purely closing the “gun show loophole”, or something of the sort.  Leave the rest for the time being.  Force Republicans to vote against the public’s wishes and don’t give them the cover that some other aspects of ‘gun safety’ measures would provide.  Maybe follow that up with a law allowing the ATF to digitize their records... and so on.

 

On a separate note, I wonder when we see some work on Healthcare.  Public support for the ACA should mean that some tweaks/improvements ought to be viewed pretty favorably.  It will still be slammed by the right, but the attitude shift should take a lot of the sting from such attacks.  I could be wrong though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nike, FedEx, and 24 other companies with $77 billion of combined income have avoided paying taxes for years, a new report found

 

55 of America's biggest companies paid $0 in federal taxes last year, a new study from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found.

 

The 55 publicly traded companies would have paid an estimated $12 billion in federal taxes if not for corporate tax breaks in 2020, including $8.5 billion in tax avoidance and $3.5 billion in tax rebates, the report found using regulatory filings and other information.

 

Nearly half of the companies have avoided paying federal taxes for the last three years, according to the report. Nike, FedEx, and DTE Energy were among 26 companies that recorded $77 billion in combined pre-tax income in the past three years, but did not pay any federal income taxes.


The news comes at the same time President Joe Biden looks to raise taxes on corporations. The White House announced this week that it plans to limit the number of companies that do not pay federal taxes, as well as increase the corporate tax rate to 28% - raising an estimated $2 trillion over the course of 15 years.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...