President Biden, critics corner

[yoink 321]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Why do you hate poor people?

eh? 

Bill's saying it's backward that milk is more expensive than gas. If you reversed the prices of each I'm pretty sure that not only would poor people be OK having a dietry staple be cheaper, but we'd have more tax money to spend on road infrastructure.

Why do you hate infrastructure workers?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:32 AM, jakee said:

He brings it up so often that my assumption is he once accidentally took a guy back to a hotel room and has never got over it.

One night in Bangkok makes a grown man.....

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I hope you are wrong, higher energy costs hurt the poor and working class disproportionately.

 

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Why do you hate poor people?

Suddenly the GOP boosters are concerned about the poor in America. The next thing you know they will be concerned about the deficit!

Norway would be a good country to compare with the US. In the US gas is 72 cents per liter, Norway its $1.88 a liter. Per capita the US uses 42% more oil. Norway produces twenty times more oil per capita than the US does. Norway doesn't use cheap fuel to subsidize oil companies and donations to political parties. Its sovereign wealth fund which holds the state revenues of its oil resources has $195,000 per capita.

Thats called responsible government in a warming world. As compared to the I want my SUV, screw everyone else because we'll just build walls.

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Why do you hate poor people?

?? Poor people need food to survive.  It's expensive.  If milk were cheap and gas was expensive, they'd be able to afford milk for their kids more easily.

Why do you hate poor kids?

[airdvr 210]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

Why do you hate poor kids?

<sarcasm>Because they chose the wrong parents</sarcasm>

You don't really believe that access to cheap milk is more beneficial than access to cheap transportation do you?

[murps2000 86]

45 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Poor people need food to survive.  It's expensive.  If milk were cheap and gas was expensive, they'd be able to afford milk for their kids more easily.

Why do you hate poor kids?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind if gas gets more expensive because there are already externalized costs tied to fossil fuels that I think we all bear, and our children will bear as well. But I fail to see how that will bring down the cost of milk.

As far as Keystone pipeline is concerned, like it or not, one way or another, Alberta tar sands oil is getting to the market. I agree there are dangers associated with pipelines but we’re ass deep into the project by now. I’m not sure it’s a wise move to cancel it at this point. OTOH, I’d be very happy to see legislation overturning the “tax cuts and jobs” act of 2017, particularly the part of the bill that opened up ANWR.

[timski 80]

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline#map

Native controversy?   I guess the simple solution of running parallel lines instead of a completely different route isn't an option?  

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

<sarcasm>Because they chose the wrong parents</sarcasm>

You don't really believe that access to cheap milk is more beneficial than access to cheap transportation do you?

Access to cheap milk will help cure hunger for people in poverty.  Access to cheap gas will not.  (And that's not the same as access to cheap transportation.)

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, murps2000 said:

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind if gas gets more expensive because there are already externalized costs tied to fossil fuels that I think we all bear, and our children will bear as well. But I fail to see how that will bring down the cost of milk.

The relative prices of those two items represents (in part) the effort we put into making them accessible to people.  We put a lot of effort into making gas affordable; billions in subsidies to oil companies, huge tax breaks, wars to maintain our access to oil and tax money used to enable consumption of oil (i.e. roads.)  If we put as much effort into food for the needy milk prices would be lower.

But that's not my primary point.  My primary point is that if we want to put our efforts and money into making something cheaper, it shouldn't be gas.  US gas is almost the cheapest in the world.  Food might be a better option.  Reducing pollution might be a better option.  Education, research, even the arts - all would likely be a much better option.

 

[yoink 321]

But then rich people wouldn’t make as much money.

Why do you hate poor rich people, Bill?

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

The relative prices of those two items represents (in part) the effort we put into making them accessible to people. .. Food might be a better option.  Reducing pollution might be a better option.  Education, research, even the arts - all would likely be a much better option.

 

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

'The U.S. Department of Agriculture simply sent him a check to compensate him for the low prices resulting from the trade war.

" 'Trump money' is what we call it," Henry said. "It helped a lot. And it's my understanding, they're going to do it again.". trump money subsidies to US agriculture averages $20 billion a year.

I completely agree with your general premises. Carbon taxes are in fact the best way to encourage fossil fuel use reduction. Canada in general approves that, with Alberta and Sask governments opposing. Although a substantial part of the Alta. and Sask. populations endorse the carbon tax.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Phil1111

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

The relative prices of those two items represents (in part) the effort we put into making them accessible to people.  We put a lot of effort into making gas affordable; billions in subsidies to oil companies, huge tax breaks, wars to maintain our access to oil and tax money used to enable consumption of oil (i.e. roads.)  If we put as much effort into food for the needy milk prices would be lower.

But that's not my primary point.  My primary point is that if we want to put our efforts and money into making something cheaper, it shouldn't be gas.  US gas is almost the cheapest in the world.  Food might be a better option.  Reducing pollution might be a better option.  Education, research, even the arts - all would likely be a much better option.

 

Thanks for clarifying. Those are both valid points IMO

[airdvr 210]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Access to cheap milk will help cure hunger for people in poverty.  Access to cheap gas will not.  (And that's not the same as access to cheap transportation.)

Which of those 2 staples do you think has a better chance of lifting them out of poverty?

[billvon 2,991]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Which of those 2 staples do you think has a better chance of lifting them out of poverty?

Milk.  Hard to do anything when you are starving, or have rickets.

OTOH, no one has ever died because they had to take the bus (or the train, or a bike, or walk) instead of drive.

[jakee 1,489]

56 minutes ago, billvon said:

Milk.  Hard to do anything when you are starving, or have rickets.

OTOH, no one has ever died because they had to take the bus (or the train, or a bike, or walk) instead of drive.

Let them drink gas.

[mistercwood 287]

8 hours ago, kallend said:

Trouble with pipelines is that when they do fail, they fail catastrophically.  Since 1986 pipeline accidents have spilled an average of 76,000 barrels per year.

Now a real criticism.  Biden will ban travel from South Africa to contain a variant of the virus detected there. (U.S. citizens and permanent residents are exempt.)

So does the virus discriminate based on citizenship or residency?

If it's combined with mandatory, enforced hotel quarantine for returning citizens - like we've been doing for most of the last year - then it's a decent plan to restrict the spread while still letting people come home.

If it's not, then it's just as dumb and meaningless as Trump's China travel "ban" was.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Which of those 2 staples do you think has a better chance of lifting them out of poverty?

Neither. Only cheap guns and free access to "zygotes are babies, too" ball caps and other paraphernalia will lift the self intentionally unfortunate out of poverty.

[billvon 2,991]

39 minutes ago, jakee said:

Let them drink gas.

There was a James Bond movie that ended with a meme like that . . . .

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Access to cheap milk will help cure hunger for people in poverty.  Access to cheap gas will not.  (And that's not the same as access to cheap transportation.)

For a large part of the US, cheap gas is the only way to cheap transportation. 

[wmw999 2,444]

4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

For a large part of the US, cheap gas is the only way to cheap transportation. 

Reducing our dependence on individual transportation is definitely an aspirational goal for a lot of people; the rural poor are often very dependent on it, as are just about everyone in a suburb. We can do better -- but part of what it takes is abandoning the "i can do whatever I want to, whenever I want to" ethos that leads people away from carpooling and mass transit when it is available.

Wendy P.

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Which of those 2 staples do you think has a better chance of lifting them out of poverty?

There are many countries in Europe with poverty as bad as the US. Portugal for example. They pay $6.74 a gallon for gas. In addition they don't subsidize the oil industry $20 billion a year.

Odd that the GOP figures the poor in America don't need health care but need cheap gas for the cars that they seldom drive. All just part of the B.S. of the "I've got mine" party.dom drive far.

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Milk.  Hard to do anything when you are starving, or have rickets.

OTOH, no one has ever died because they had to take the bus (or the train, or a bike, or walk) instead of drive.

Clearly you live in a bubble. Most folks in America lives in regions where there is no bus or train/subway/trolley and must commute distances to great for biking and walking to be a viable option.  

[Phil1111 1,149]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Clearly you live in a bubble. Most folks in America lives in regions where there is no bus or train/subway/trolley and must commute distances to great for biking and walking to be a viable option.  

14% of American live in rural areas. The rest in Urban or suburban.

[billvon 2,991]

43 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Clearly you live in a bubble. Most folks in America lives in regions where there is no bus or train/subway/trolley and must commute distances to great for biking and walking to be a viable option.  

Nope.  Most folks in America live in cities or suburbs where there is public transportation.   Per the 2017 American Housing Survey, only 21% of Americans live in rural areas distant from mass transit.

The out-of-touch elite who live out in the country on 20 acres thinks everyone lives like that - but reality, as usual, differs from your preconceptions.

[yoink 321]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

Which of those 2 staples do you think has a better chance of lifting them out of poverty?

The fact you think access to gas is a human staple explains a lot about your world view.

 

It’s a luxury. An important one no doubt, and a keystone to modern civilization. But it’s not a staple.