A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz Posts 9Comments 928Joined 2 yr. ago
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz
Posts
9
Comments
928
Joined
2 yr. ago
The constitution is quite racist. Has she never looked at the constitution? Oh right yeah, republican, she hasn't. Hey Nimarata, they later famously had to add a whole amendment to add equal protection under the law regardless of race, after you know, that whole civil war thing.
It was hard to get dumber after her civil war comments, but she found a way. This is even more mental gymnastics than all that lost cause BS. Like holy crap, you can't glance at any time period of American history without racism or its effects rearing its ugly head.
There are some pockets of affordability out there.
The map in this article is nice (though you have to scroll through some annoying stuff to get there):
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/homes/housing-market-prices-affordability-dg/
I would guess those would be the areas of next major population influx as people continue to flee high cost of living in other areas. Climate change making much of the west and southeast more unattractive in the long run too. While the more affordable areas are still relatively cheap compared to the rest of the country, most of them have already been seeing large spikes in housing prices too. We need some major policy changes to encourage cheap and higher density housing, better use of land in general, can't just keep building only single family homes in low density areas sprawling out forever.
Yeah not looking forward to Gorsuch's opinion on this case:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/roots-limits-gorsuchs-views-chevron-deference/
Comment from a ublock developer on this:
There is a lot of chatter in the last days about how Youtube is slow with content blockers. Those performance issues affect only the latest version of both Adblock Plus (3.22) & AdBlock (5.17), and afflict more than just Youtube. uBO is not affected.
If a patient doesn't want to take it, they just say they don't want to take it, no one is force feeding people or calling security. Patients refuse medication all the time for many different reasons. In this example, the nurse should just document the patient refused and why, notify the doctor what happened, and continue on with their work. Not stand there in an hour long staring contest until the patient takes it.
It's very important the medical staff know what things you have and haven't actually taken while in the hospital (and before you got there too). If it's a medication you really need, your doctor will probably come and explain why refusing is a bad idea. If people don't like the plan, don't want any treatment, or don't want to stay in the hospital, they can just walk out and leave. It's a hospital not a prison. Your doctor may just ask you to sign something just to document they explained to you why leaving is a bad idea.
Unfortunately the DEA is the agency that makes the final decision. I have less faith in them to do the right thing on this than the FDA. Though the new head Biden appointed specifically called for a review of the scheduling, which could be a signal the DEA is receptive to dropping it. Schedule I for marijuana is a joke. I mean, you could make an argument caffeine is more dangerous. Even just lowering it to another level could make a big difference in the states it's legal.
This article is mostly about 2022 data but has a lot of the numbers you're looking for:
https://scrippsnews.com/stories/corporate-investors-are-purchasing-more-single-family-homes/
This is an important point.
Here's a map of tax burden by state:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494
Income tax isn't everything.
Even this map though isn't quite telling the whole story. If you're in a state like Texas relying on things like sales, excise, or other regressive taxes for the majority of tax revenue, lower income people will be paying a higher share than richer people. Income tax is progressive, so lower income people pay lower rates. Whereas your sales or excise or other regressive taxes are proportionally hitting lower income people more than higher income. So the states without income tax are often the hardest on people with low or middle incomes. Not to mention that taxes may be paying for a more robust social safety net that you may need at some point.
No, the average internet download speed in the United State is about 171 Mbps. Though disclaimer, I'm not sure of the exact reliability of that number, different sources are reporting quite a range of speeds, though I don't see any under 100 Mbps average and I see many reporting well above this. You'd also have to consider median vs average since people with fiber sitting at gigabit speeds may be dragging that number up, median may be lower.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/fastest-slowest-internet
There are certainly some areas, especially rural, that struggle though. And upload speed is often much worse unless you have fiber. Major cities are definitely getting much better than 10 Mbps down though.
He literally has, as people pointed out to you. Last comment because it's clear now you're not discussing this in good faith. President does not pass laws. Congress does. They don't even need a president to pass a law, you could pass a public option or Medicare for all even with a president opposed to it. So attack Biden all you want (though I don't know why you would in this case, he's on your side for this issue), swap out presidents all you want, you won't get a public option by focusing on the presidency. Your ire should be directed at congress, specifically the Republicans that continue to block the public option or other potential reforms like Medicare for all.
So now politicians should not state their policies on any issue, unless they are somehow prescient, know the exact makeup that congress will have when they are elected, and what exactly will end up getting through or not? I would like to know where people stand on things, and him continuing to state support for a public option is important, even if it's not possible for him to enact it by himself. And people have already pointed out to you he did make attempts. Biden is not the reason we don't have a public option.
Ah, so you wouldn't support any politician, unless they are a dictator who will unilaterally impose their laws and ideas without Congress, got it.
Save some hate for the Republicans, the main reason we don't have a public option. Sure you can find a rare democrat here or there that doesn't support it. But then you have a republican party where 100% of the individuals are against it, and won't even let it be voted on in the senate.
"All he's done is make promises." Take this hyperbolic, bad-faith nonsense elsewhere. He's about done all he can within the bounds of current laws, and helped get some things through congress that could fit into the reconciliation process. Again, not a dictator.
I agree they should do more, but that's going to involve getting republicans in congress out of the way of progress somehow. Whether that's electing enough democrats to over ride them (unlikely with the urban rural divide and how we elect senators), convincing even a handful of republicans to step down and not support a filibuster, or ending the filibuster entirely (which I think is most likely thing to happen, but wouldn't make sense to do until they have clear house and senate majorities and could actually do something good with it).
A public option would be impossible to pass through reconciliation rules. All that process can do is allocate money. A law creating a public insurance option would need to be passed the normal way, which means controlling the house at the same time as either getting a super majority in the senate or ending the filibuster. Or you know alternatively, even a small minority of Republicans not being horrible and breaking a filibuster. They wouldn't even have to vote for it, just agree to allow debate to end so a vote can go through.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
Terrible title. It's implying the study is something about the accuracy of finger printing. It's a study where Ai was able to find some similarities in finger prints to different fingers in the same person, and sometimes could guess if they were different fingers from the same person, though not very consistently. I'm not making any judgements on the accuracy of forensic fingerprinting techniques here but that's not what this article or study is about.
Exactly, this is just one of many changes that gave gone through. The SAVE plan itself which is new provides a lot of benefits. Pslf has become much easier and broader. Tons of changes have been made across the existing student loan and forgiveness programs. There's also another major new regulation working it's way through that should be ready sometime this year.
It's not as broad as the original plan though. We also won't know the exact details until the rule is finalized. Unfortunately the supreme court made clear they won't allow the broad loan forgiveness Biden first tried unless congress passes another law (even though it seems multiple laws already clearly give Biden this power, but we don't need to rehash all of that. Republicans are always gonna sue to stop any positive things done by democrats, and supreme court gonna supreme court).
Here's a chart for debt as percent gdp over time which is a little more informative. Not saying debt isn't a problem, just that absolute numbers are hard to interpret, debt as percent gdp is easier at a glance to see what's going on over time.
Europe is doing their best to catch up on some fronts. Keep at it, you'll get there. We'll continue sending fast food chains your way to help.
Musolini's grand daughter sends her regards:
The United States is in serious trouble if the Supreme Court buys this argument. Everything from drug approval to environmental protections to consumer financial protections, you name it, could all come crashing down overnight. My hope is that 2-3 of the conservatives (some combination of Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) aren't quite crazy enough to allow this, but we'll see. We already know how Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas will go.