US Politics - All He Wants for Christmas Was His Two Dead Sheep

[The Anti-Targ]

Goldman Sachs announced that it's putting $750 Bn towards climate change transition projects, and it is going to be limiting its lending to new fossil fuel projects, esp in the Arctic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/goldman-sachs-targets-750-billion-for-climate-transition-projects.html

Late to the party. Banks should have been applying market pressure on climate change years ago. But I guess now the bean counters have decided an investment tipping point of some kind has been reached. But it is good to see that some in the market place are starting to do something.

[ThinkerX]

27 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Goldman Sachs announced that it's putting $750 Bn towards climate change transition projects, and it is going to be limiting its lending to new fossil fuel projects, esp in the Arctic.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/goldman-sachs-targets-750-billion-for-climate-transition-projects.html

Late to the party. Banks should have been applying market pressure on climate change years ago. But I guess now the bean counters have decided an investment tipping point of some kind has been reached. But it is good to see that some in the market place are starting to do something.

I have been seeing articles linked to Facebook for a while now where (some) corporations are starting to take climate change very seriously - flooded or otherwise damaged real estate hurts the bottom line.  This, of course, makes no impression whatsoever on the climate change deniers.

[Martell Spy]

Kind of surprised some people here have not already heard. Trump gets to gun down people in the street. And Senate Republicans will endorse it. Trump can gun down a billionaire Republican white man, like a Koch brother, in the street, and Senate Republicans will endorse it and Koch brothers will pour money into the Republican war-chest. That is where we are right now. Because tax cuts and abortion.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Obviously you don’t want to read too much into any single poll, but I saw one on Morning Joe that really put a smile on my face. Every generation except the GI and Silent generations supported each Democratic candidate over Trump. Every day more likely Republican voters die than more likely Democratic voters, and every day more likely Democratic voters become eligible to vote than likely Republican voters.

Given this, since we have a minimum age to vote, shouldn’t we also have a maximum? Why should some old fart have as much say as I about how the world will look like well after they’re dead while I’ll be in the prime of my life? Obviously the question is facetious, but it’s impossible to deny there’s some truth to it.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Given this, since we have a minimum age to vote, shouldn’t we also have a maximum? Why should some old fart have as much say as I about how the world will look like well after they’re dead while I’ll be in the prime of my life? Obviously the question is facetious, but it’s impossible to deny there’s some truth to it. 

I am willing to deny that there is even some truth in it .  Anyone who is 80 could realistically still live another 20 years, and it's not like they shouldn't have some choices on policy for that time.  90+ year old voters make up a tiny fraction of the overall electorate (I can't quickly find any stats on that, but I know they make up a small portion of the population) so it's not like disenfranchising them would make a meaningful difference. 

I remain firmly committed to the idea that a truly democratic society should be doing all it can to make it easier for every citizen to vote.  I know you're being facetious (you said it yourself), but I think this is a point that democrats need to be making across the country, because it is something that polls REALLY well, but Republican officeholders nonetheless are fighting tooth and nail. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am willing to deny that there is even some truth in it .  Anyone who is 80 could realistically still live another 20 years, and it's not like they shouldn't have some choices on policy for that time.  90+ year old voters make up a tiny fraction of the overall electorate (I can't quickly find any stats on that, but I know they make up a small portion of the population) so it's not like disenfranchising them would make a meaningful difference. 

I remain firmly committed to the idea that a truly democratic society should be doing all it can to make it easier for every citizen to vote.  I know you're being facetious (you said it yourself), but I think this is a point that democrats need to be making across the country, because it is something that polls REALLY well, but Republican officeholders nonetheless are fighting tooth and nail. 

If you want to play this game, as you said, the elderly make up a relatively small part of the population, but their policy choices are to restrict voting access, and Republicans pander to that, so if you want a net increase in voter registration you’d agree with my factious argument.

[TrueMetis]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously you don’t want to read too much into any single poll, but I saw one on Morning Joe that really put a smile on my face. Every generation except the GI and Silent generations supported each Democratic candidate over Trump. Every day more likely Republican voters die than more likely Democratic voters, and every day more likely Democratic voters become eligible to vote than likely Republican voters.

Given this, since we have a minimum age to vote, shouldn’t we also have a maximum? Why should some old fart have as much say as I about how the world will look like well after they’re dead while I’ll be in the prime of my life? Obviously the question is facetious, but it’s impossible to deny there’s some truth to it. 

I've recently started to come around to the idea of weighted votes in some fashion. After all, as a 20 something any long term policy is going to impact me far more than an 80 year old. So shouldn't my vote count somewhat more? Not sure there's a practical way to apply such a thing though.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I've recently started to come around to the idea of weighted votes in some fashion. After all, as a 20 something any long term policy is going to impact me far more than an 80 year old. So shouldn't my vote count somewhat more? Not sure there's a practical way to apply such a thing though.

Well if we’re going down the dark comedy path, there’s absolutely a practical way to go about it. It’s just unseemly, but it is well documented is dystopian literature.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Eh taper down ya ageism. Not all oldsters are conservatives and besides that's a terrible proposal.

Something we might expect out of China or Putin but not worthy of any Democratic state.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously you don’t want to read too much into any single poll, but I saw one on Morning Joe that really put a smile on my face. Every generation except the GI and Silent generations supported each Democratic candidate over Trump. Every day more likely Republican voters die than more likely Democratic voters, and every day more likely Democratic voters become eligible to vote than likely Republican voters.

Given this, since we have a minimum age to vote, shouldn’t we also have a maximum? Why should some old fart have as much say as I about how the world will look like well after they’re dead while I’ll be in the prime of my life? Obviously the question is facetious, but it’s impossible to deny there’s some truth to it.

The great majority of elderly voters have children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren whose future they are concerned about. 

Showing how one shouldn't read too much into a single poll, the USA Today poll unfortunately put Trump ahead of every major Democratic candidate, though age breakdowns were not reported. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-2020-election-leads-democratic-rivals/2663659001/

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

I've recently started to come around to the idea of weighted votes in some fashion. After all, as a 20 something any long term policy is going to impact me far more than an 80 year old. So shouldn't my vote count somewhat more? Not sure there's a practical way to apply such a thing though.

We already have weighted voting!  Just move to from NY or California to Wyoming and your voting power is greatly increased!  Freeeeedom!!!!

[Zorral]

Wisconsin is purging something like 6% of voter registrations; Georgia something like 8% -- so why not include people over 50 and people under 40? 

In fact, why not examine the signatories to documents such as this and if the name appears on the voter rolls, purge it babee, purge!

ttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/17/trump-impeachment-700-historians-call-for-removal

Quote

 

The letter was co-ordinated by Project Democracy, an advocacy group which last month released a similar letter signed by more than 500 law professors.

“It is our considered judgment,” the historians wrote, “that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.”

 

And indeed,  when signing on, I did think about the above, the southern slavocracy, Nazi and McCarthy eras' practices.

 

[Fragile Bird]

21 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Odd that that a republican would support this.  Desperation?  A pretense of bipartisanship?  Still, should it somehow pass, I have a number of quasi-relatives who'd qualify....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/mitt-romney-and-michael-bennet-just-unveiled-a-basic-income-plan-for-kids/ar-BBY3lK0?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic

 

 

 

You mean there are no child support payments in the US now? How gothic.

eta: just looked up the Canadian numbers. If you earn less than $30,000 a year, you get $6,400 (it’s gone up each year for inflation since 2016, it’s almost $6,600 now I think) each year, paid in monthly installments, for each child under the age of 6, and $5,400 for those between 6 and 17. There’s a sliding scale if you make more than $30k. 
 

There’s also $2,730 (2016 number) payment for any child eligible for the disability tax credit.

$1,500 is kinda cheesy.

eta 2: and the money in non-taxable, so no, your income going up does not reduce payments to additional children. Imagine you are a minimum or close to minimum wage earning with 3 children, an extra 18 to 20k a year lifts you out of poverty.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

20 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Odd that that a republican would support this.  Desperation?  A pretense of bipartisanship?  Still, should it somehow pass, I have a number of quasi-relatives who'd qualify....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/mitt-romney-and-michael-bennet-just-unveiled-a-basic-income-plan-for-kids/ar-BBY3lK0?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic

 

 

 

I think it's Romney's mormon side, to be honest. Mormon's typically skew conservative, but when you look at how Salt Lake City curbed homelessness from the mid 2000s until a couple of years ago, it was pretty progressive. I mean, just giving housing to the homeless is something a lot of Democrats might scoff at.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

The great majority of elderly voters have children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren whose future they are concerned about. 

Actions speak louder than expressed sentiments, no?  

[Ormond]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actions speak louder than expressed sentiments, no?  

You and I may believe that those who vote Republican are actually voting against the interests of their grandchildren, but that doesn't mean most of them see it that way. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Ormond said:

You and I may believe that those who vote Republican are actually voting against the interests of their grandchildren, but that doesn't mean most of them see it that way. 

And? That doesn’t justify the behavior, and I find it odd that a psychology professor would be okay with reinforcing bad behavior. My last living grandparent votes straight Republican, and him telling me he loves me does not change the fact that he just voted for a ton of climate change deniers, that given power, will actively do damage to me for the remainder of my life and the lives of all his family members.

[sologdin]

but they don't believe in climate change or that it will do any harm? these problems are epistemological rather than ontological.  what needs solicited is the foundation of their certainty rather than the moral principles under which they act.

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Eh taper down ya ageism. Not all oldsters are conservatives and besides that's a terrible proposal.

Something we might expect out of China or Putin but not worthy of any Democratic state.

Well we don't have one of those, so it's moot.

[sologdin]

swift (travels, III.x) reports a state of immortals wherein age-weighted rights are the norm:

Quote

 

"As soon as they have completed the term of eighty years, they are looked on as dead in law; their heirs immediately succeed to their estates; only a small pittance is reserved for their support; and the poor ones are maintained at the public charge. After that period, they are held incapable of any employment of trust or profit; they cannot purchase lands, or take leases; neither are they allowed to be witnesses in any cause, either civil or criminal, not even for the decision of meers and bounds.

"At ninety, they lose their teeth and hair; they have at that age no distinction of taste, but eat and drink whatever they can get, without relish or appetite. The diseases they were subject to still continue, without increasing or diminishing. In talking, they forget the common appellation of things, and the names of persons, even of those who are their nearest friends and relations. For the same reason, they never can amuse themselves with reading, because their memory will not serve to carry them from the beginning of a sentence to the end; and by this defect, they are deprived of the only entertainment whereof they might otherwise be capable.

 

in the words of the RSB, they are addicted to atrocity, which fairly describes our trump voters.