Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[EvenSteven]

Guitarstv -

From the bloomberg article...

"Black borrowers pay $13,464 more over the life of a home loan, with interest, mortgage-insurance and tax expenses higher than for their White counterparts, further hurting African Americans’ ability to save for retirement, according to a new study.

The biggest reason for the gap is the risk-based pricing found in most U.S. mortgages, which disadvantage Black borrowers because they tend to make smaller down payments and have lower credit scores, said the report’s authors,"

I dont think the article is proving the point you think it is. Blacks paying PMI because of smaller down payments or low credit scores is not racism. Its not red lining. Its just life. Its true of everyone regardless of skin color.

You claim im moving goal posts. I disagree. I had asked if there was data backing up they would be less likely to be given a loan. The understanding being they are being denied because of skin color. Your own link shows they are denied because they are simply not applying.



The paywall thing... I pay for the WSJ i dont for the Post. Not sure what to say. Im not trying to be hypocritical in linking to a paywalled account. Chalk it up to an oversight.

One could argue that red lining practices ( which should be illegal of course ) have shifted to loans for start up capital. it's possible, even probable but the data presented to me thus far was not compelling. Again, unless you feel not applying for a loan is somehow similar to the racist practices of red lining. On that we can agree to dis agree.

The bolded part just floored me. Black people as a population having lower credit scores and less wealth isn't racism, it's just the way it is. Black people are just inherently less credit worthy and poor, nothing to do with racism, it is just inherent to their race.

*Jaw on floor*

[Kris]

Guitarstv -

From the bloomberg article...

"Black borrowers pay $13,464 more over the life of a home loan, with interest, mortgage-insurance and tax expenses higher than for their White counterparts, further hurting African Americans’ ability to save for retirement, according to a new study.

The biggest reason for the gap is the risk-based pricing found in most U.S. mortgages, which disadvantage Black borrowers because they tend to make smaller down payments and have lower credit scores, said the report’s authors,"

I dont think the article is proving the point you think it is. Blacks paying PMI because of smaller down payments or low credit scores is not racism. Its not red lining. Its just life. Its true of everyone regardless of skin color.

You claim im moving goal posts. I disagree. I had asked if there was data backing up they would be less likely to be given a loan. The understanding being they are being denied because of skin color. Your own link shows they are denied because they are simply not applying.



The paywall thing... I pay for the WSJ i dont for the Post. Not sure what to say. Im not trying to be hypocritical in linking to a paywalled account. Chalk it up to an oversight.

One could argue that red lining practices ( which should be illegal of course ) have shifted to loans for start up capital. it's possible, even probable but the data presented to me thus far was not compelling. Again, unless you feel not applying for a loan is somehow similar to the racist practices of red lining. On that we can agree to dis agree.

The bolded part just floored me. Black people as a population having lower credit scores and less wealth isn't racism, it's just the way it is. Black people are just inherently less credit worthy and poor, nothing to do with racism, it is just inherent to their race.

*Jaw on floor*

The lack of self-awareness is rather stunning.

[Tyler durden]

Guitarstv -

From the bloomberg article...

"Black borrowers pay $13,464 more over the life of a home loan, with interest, mortgage-insurance and tax expenses higher than for their White counterparts, further hurting African Americans’ ability to save for retirement, according to a new study.

The biggest reason for the gap is the risk-based pricing found in most U.S. mortgages, which disadvantage Black borrowers because they tend to make smaller down payments and have lower credit scores, said the report’s authors,"

I dont think the article is proving the point you think it is. Blacks paying PMI because of smaller down payments or low credit scores is not racism. Its not red lining. Its just life. Its true of everyone regardless of skin color.

You claim im moving goal posts. I disagree. I had asked if there was data backing up they would be less likely to be given a loan. The understanding being they are being denied because of skin color. Your own link shows they are denied because they are simply not applying.



The paywall thing... I pay for the WSJ i dont for the Post. Not sure what to say. Im not trying to be hypocritical in linking to a paywalled account. Chalk it up to an oversight.

One could argue that red lining practices ( which should be illegal of course ) have shifted to loans for start up capital. it's possible, even probable but the data presented to me thus far was not compelling. Again, unless you feel not applying for a loan is somehow similar to the racist practices of red lining. On that we can agree to dis agree.

The bolded part just floored me. Black people as a population having lower credit scores and less wealth isn't racism, it's just the way it is. Black people are just inherently less credit worthy and poor, nothing to do with racism, it is just inherent to their race.

*Jaw on floor*

I see what your saying. The point I was trying to make was that everyone, regardless of skin color, would pay PMI and a higher interest rates etc if they had bad credit and low down payments.

If you want to talk about why certain populations have low down payments and bad credit that is different than the point i was making. Perhaps it is even partially attributable to the aforementioned red lining.

Point being I dont think blacks are "extra" penalized by banks when they have bad credit or put down low down payments compared to other groups. The why behind it is certainly worth discussing.

[JLee]

Guitarstv -

From the bloomberg article...

"Black borrowers pay $13,464 more over the life of a home loan, with interest, mortgage-insurance and tax expenses higher than for their White counterparts, further hurting African Americans’ ability to save for retirement, according to a new study.

The biggest reason for the gap is the risk-based pricing found in most U.S. mortgages, which disadvantage Black borrowers because they tend to make smaller down payments and have lower credit scores, said the report’s authors,"

I dont think the article is proving the point you think it is. Blacks paying PMI because of smaller down payments or low credit scores is not racism. Its not red lining. Its just life. Its true of everyone regardless of skin color.

You claim im moving goal posts. I disagree. I had asked if there was data backing up they would be less likely to be given a loan. The understanding being they are being denied because of skin color. Your own link shows they are denied because they are simply not applying.



The paywall thing... I pay for the WSJ i dont for the Post. Not sure what to say. Im not trying to be hypocritical in linking to a paywalled account. Chalk it up to an oversight.

One could argue that red lining practices ( which should be illegal of course ) have shifted to loans for start up capital. it's possible, even probable but the data presented to me thus far was not compelling. Again, unless you feel not applying for a loan is somehow similar to the racist practices of red lining. On that we can agree to dis agree.

The bolded part just floored me. Black people as a population having lower credit scores and less wealth isn't racism, it's just the way it is. Black people are just inherently less credit worthy and poor, nothing to do with racism, it is just inherent to their race.

*Jaw on floor*

I see what your saying. The point I was trying to make was that everyone, regardless of skin color, would pay PMI and a higher interest rates etc if they had bad credit and low down payments.

If you want to talk about why certain populations have low down payments and bad credit that is different than the point i was making. Perhaps it is even partially attributable to the aforementioned red lining.

Point being I dont think blacks are "extra" penalized by banks when they have bad credit or put down low down payments compared to other groups. The why behind it is certainly worth discussing.

1) Wrong.

Economists have had evidence for decades that car dealers tend to charge minorities higher prices. A series of studies I authored and co-authored in the 1990s found that auto dealers consistently charge black consumers prices that are hundreds or thousands of dollars more than their offers to white shoppers. These inflated prices can more than double the dealer’s profits compared with selling the same vehicle to a similar white customer.

As dealers earn more and more profit from finance fees, the discriminatory practices appear to be at work there, too. In the past few years, Honda and Toyota have both settled lawsuits brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for more than $20 million because minority borrowers were charged higher interest markups than equally qualified white borrowers. Neither company admitted wrongdoing.

Also, houses owned by black people are frequently appraised for significantly lower values than houses owned by white people which obviously is problematic for home ownership / building equity:

The Hortons live just minutes from the Ortega River, in a predominantly white neighborhood of 1950s homes that tend to sell for $350,000 to $550,000. They had expected their home to appraise for around $450,000, but the appraiser felt differently, assigning a value of $330,000. Ms. Horton, who is Black, immediately suspected discrimination.

The couple’s bank agreed that the value was off and ordered a second appraisal. But before the new appraiser could arrive, Ms. Horton, a lawyer, began an experiment: She took all family photos off the mantle. Instead, she hung up a series of oil paintings of Mr. Horton, who is white, and his grandparents that had been in storage. Books by Zora Neale Hurston and Toni Morrison were taken off the shelves, and holiday photo cards sent by friends were edited so that only those showing white families were left on display. On the day of the appraisal, Ms. Horton took the couple’s 6-year-old son on a shopping trip to Target, and left Mr. Horton alone at home to answer the door.

The new appraiser gave their home a value of $465,000 — a more than 40 percent increase from the first appraisal.

2) ....you think?

[Tyler durden]

Jlee

Yes i think we are in agreement. To refine what I'm saying. Take a white guy and black guy with poor credit and low down payments. They will both get a higher interest rate on a loan compared to someone who is showing up with 25% down and 800 credit score. The fact those 2 people are getting a lower rate by the bank isnt racism, but the why behind it could be. And, seeming they should both get the same rate.

The cases you pointed out are awful. As stated above people are Ass**** and always will be. In our Biden thread here, is calling for more overt racism the right answer? I say no. I think it will do far more harm than good in the long run.

Are there some laws out there we need repealed that are making companies / governments behave in a discriminatory way that you noticed and would want to change?

[GuitarStv]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

[Tyler durden]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

Well its not like they are going to come out and say it that way. But per the article, the funds would be exhausted by the time the white applicants got their chance to apply. So effectively, "whites need not apply"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-restaurant-aid-priority-women-minorities-77650760

For the $28.6 billion program, the Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners have applied for $29 billion through more than 147,000 applications. Payments totaling $2.7 billion have already been sent out to 21,000 restaurants, officials said.

“Given the limited pot of funds, this puts white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone,” the lawsuit states.

[EvenSteven]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

Well its not like they are going to come out and say it that way. But per the article, the funds would be exhausted by the time the white applicants got their chance to apply. So effectively, "whites need not apply"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-restaurant-aid-priority-women-minorities-77650760

For the $28.6 billion program, the Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners have applied for $29 billion through more than 147,000 applications. Payments totaling $2.7 billion have already been sent out to 21,000 restaurants, officials said.

“Given the limited pot of funds, this puts white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone,” the lawsuit states.

Do you think this program should be run more like the Paycheck Protection Program was run, in order to eliminate the racial bias that you perceive here?

[GuitarStv]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

Well its not like they are going to come out and say it that way. But per the article, the funds would be exhausted by the time the white applicants got their chance to apply. So effectively, "whites need not apply"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-restaurant-aid-priority-women-minorities-77650760

For the $28.6 billion program, the Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners have applied for $29 billion through more than 147,000 applications. Payments totaling $2.7 billion have already been sent out to 21,000 restaurants, officials said.

“Given the limited pot of funds, this puts white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone,” the lawsuit states.

While I do still believe that you're focusing on race where the policy doesn't (as white women and white male veterans are both certainly in the group that gets benefits first), that is a fair point that many white men who apply will lose out the way that the program is setup.  I didn't realize that there was such a large shortfall for the program.

I retract my comment.

[Tyler durden]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

Well its not like they are going to come out and say it that way. But per the article, the funds would be exhausted by the time the white applicants got their chance to apply. So effectively, "whites need not apply"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-restaurant-aid-priority-women-minorities-77650760

For the $28.6 billion program, the Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners have applied for $29 billion through more than 147,000 applications. Payments totaling $2.7 billion have already been sent out to 21,000 restaurants, officials said.

“Given the limited pot of funds, this puts white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone,” the lawsuit states.

Do you think this program should be run more like the Paycheck Protection Program was run, in order to eliminate the racial bias that you perceive here?

I'm not trying to be lazy but I dont know enough about PPP to say so but yeah it seems maybe that would be better.

I generally take issue with the level of spending but i get why it was done. It seems like so much money was flying around, more than enough should be available to get people money who need, without putting racial or gender restrictions on any of it.

[EvenSteven]

I worry about the blow back of the overt racism we see from Biden's "whites need not apply" style of affirmative action.

The bill was in no way 'whites need not apply'.  It processed applications from black people and women first - effectively putting them at the front of the line.  Do you not see a pretty significant difference there?

As mentioned, I don't think that the bill Biden put forth was a good one.  Hyperbolic comments to make it seem worse doesn't help your case though.

Well its not like they are going to come out and say it that way. But per the article, the funds would be exhausted by the time the white applicants got their chance to apply. So effectively, "whites need not apply"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/suit-challenges-restaurant-aid-priority-women-minorities-77650760

For the $28.6 billion program, the Small Business Administration announced Wednesday that women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners have applied for $29 billion through more than 147,000 applications. Payments totaling $2.7 billion have already been sent out to 21,000 restaurants, officials said.

“Given the limited pot of funds, this puts white male applicants at significant risk that, by the time their applications are processed, the money will be gone,” the lawsuit states.

Do you think this program should be run more like the Paycheck Protection Program was run, in order to eliminate the racial bias that you perceive here?

I'm not trying to be lazy but I dont know enough about PPP to say so but yeah it seems maybe that would be better.

I generally take issue with the level of spending but i get why it was done. It seems like so much money was flying around, more than enough should be available to get people money who need, without putting racial or gender restrictions on any of it.

The reason I ask is because in a contextless, frictionless world with spherical cows I agree with you that no priorities based on race would be the best way to do things. But we live in a world with context, and when that was done with the PPP loans, we ended up seeing a lot of inequity based on race, because the context that these policies live in is rife with systemic racism.

What you see as neutral and unbiased (and I agree would be, if we ignore the systems we live in) always ends up disproportionately benefiting white men because of the context in which these policies are implemented.

[Tyler durden]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

[PDXTabs]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

I have my own problems with our level of deficits, but I also hate it when people complain about how expensive his infrastructure plans are (not necessarily you, you just reminded me). Specifically, his very first (largest) infrastructure plan was for $2.3T... over ten years. Which means on average $230B/yr, because I took maths. Compared to the US military budget of $722B/yr that sounds downright affordable to me.

[nereo]

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.  So says the reports of basically every entity that’s bothered to attempt to quantify infrastructure needs under both Dems and GOP administrations.  One of the few places where I agreed with Trump’s rhetoric was on how our core infrastructure was crumbling and an embarrassment compared to lots of other nations. 

Our total needs - the gap between what we spend and what we would need to spend to fix everything - is (best estimate) a bit over $2T.  That’s not including investment in also-very-important NEW (“21st century!”) infrastructure.

Yes, the headline numbers of Biden’s plan are very large, but they are
1) spread out over 10 years and
2) don’t go nearly far enough to fix decades of underfunding.

On a positive note, passing such a bill would mean in ten years our infrastructure will be substantially better than the D/C- grade we have now.  But we’ll likely need an equally large boost of funding in 2031 if we intend to close the gap fully.

[Cache_Stash]

PR voted on this in 1967, 1998, 2012, and 2017.  DC voted in 2016 with an 86% vote to make DC a state.

I don't think that's what he's talking about though. There's a few different parts: an area declaring it wants to be a state and then the US Government permitting them to become a state. DC could vote itself to be a state every single year and it doesn't matter unless the president leads congress to take the same action. That's what's new news:

https://news.yahoo.com/house-votes-washington-dc-uss-160216681.html

We all know it has nothing to do with representation either, it's to pack the house and senate with permanent Democrats, same as he wants to pack the supreme court.

Personally, I think PR should be granted their independence and option to sign on to the Compact of Free Association, as should Guam and the USVI. None of them should be states. D.C. wasn't ever truly intended to have permanent residents requiring representation so the best option would be to redraw the borders of D.C. to only include the government buildings and parks, thus no residents aside from the president.

Also it's worth pointing out that D.C. does in fact have votes in the electoral college, so they only lack house & senate members. Again though, just redraw the borders so all the permanent residents are in neighboring states and not D.C. city limits and the problem goes away - everyone has full representation then.

You have an interesting definition of "pack the house and senate" when the Democratic half of the Senate represents over 40 million more people than the Republican half.

Is "pack the Senate" Republican-speak for "a representative democracy"?

Your level of ignorance on the reasoning for two senators per state is astounding.  We are a democratic Republic.  "Democratic" is an adjective just to help guide you.

[OtherJen]

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the federal Senate. Each state gets 2 senators who are elected in statewide races. One could, however, argue very reasonably that this gives outsized power to less-populated states (e.g., Vermont), which have much smaller senator-to-constituent ratios than more-populated states (e.g., California).

It’s a problem in other races, though, especially at the state level. Those are far more concerning to me. Why else besides heavy partisan gerrymandering would Michigan have 2 Democrat federal senators, and a Democrat governor/lt. governor, attorney general, and sec. of state, but have both branches of state Congress heavily controlled by Republicans? It’s a real concern (among those of us paying attention) that the state legislature will interfere with the certification of next year’s elections.

[JLee]

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the federal Senate. Each state gets 2 senators who are elected in statewide races. One could, however, argue very reasonably that this gives outsized power to less-populated states (e.g., Vermont), which have much smaller senator-to-constituent ratios than more-populated states (e.g., California).

It’s a problem in other races, though, especially at the state level. Those are far more concerning to me. Why else besides heavy partisan gerrymandering would Michigan have 2 Democrat federal senators, and a Democrat governor/lt. governor, attorney general, and sec. of state, but have both branches of state Congress heavily controlled by Republicans? It’s a real concern (among those of us paying attention) that the state legislature will interfere with the certification of next year’s elections.

Indeed. And as the population grows and cities become larger, the senator-to-constituent ratio will continue to shift.

It will be interesting to see if the post-covid landscape results in changes on that front - with traditionally Republican states seeing population growth from larger metropolitan areas, I suspect they will start to turn purple.  Granted, in that case gerrymandering will still be a major factor in overall election results.

The Dakotas were brought in as two states largely to flip Congress, and both new states had a combined population of about 500,000 (as opposed to New York at ~6 million at the time). PR has 3.2 million people now - if they want to be a state, they should be a state.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I'm still waiting to see if Biden is planning on fulfilling his campaign pledge to forgive $10,000 of everyone's student loan debts. Either he'll do it through executive order (if that's legal) and actually do it or he'll put it on Congress where it is impossible to happen and then say "Oh, well, I tried." I've already paid much more than I borrowed for my student loans, so I have no problem with accepting forgiveness for the final $10,000. My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school. Overall, I think I deserve this.

[PDXTabs]

My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school.

I have a good friend with a good job who can't afford their six figure law school debt just because of the interest rate. The only policy change needed to make their loans affordable is to get the rate that they pay closer to my mortgage rate, or the 10 year treasury note. You know, like it was when I graduated.

[nereo]

I'm still waiting to see if Biden is planning on fulfilling his campaign pledge to forgive $10,000 of everyone's student loan debts. Either he'll do it through executive order (if that's legal) and actually do it or he'll put it on Congress where it is impossible to happen and then say "Oh, well, I tried." I've already paid much more than I borrowed for my student loans, so I have no problem with accepting forgiveness for the final $10,000. My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school. Overall, I think I deserve this.

I’m interested in seeing if this goes anywhere as well.

As with infrastructure, the $10k loan forgiveness sounds substantial until it’s in context.  Assuming a ‘typical’ student at a 4 year college that amounts to $2500k/year for higher education. In a country with one of the most expensive median tuition rates anywhere.

I’d like to see a lot more direct funding of our higher education, perhaps coupled with tuition caps, rather than granting loans and then (possibly) forgiving a portion.

[Tyler durden]

I had mentioned up thread how the Biden Admin had a whites need to apply type situation for restaurant owners hit from the pandemic.

It appears this is a pattern with him. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/06/10/judge-suspends-biden-debt-relief-program-farmers-color/7646187002/

The Biden administration created the loan forgiveness program for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers earlier this year under the American Rescue Plan Act. The program paid up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for producers who are Black, American Indian or Alaskan native, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian American or Pacific Islander.

Soooo much money is being spent. People in need, are people in need. Why are we requiring race based criteria here? Just spend the money on people who need it. I mean if Biden is in favor of reparations he should be honest and just come out and say so.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school.

I have a good friend with a good job who can't afford their six figure law school debt just because of the interest rate. The only policy change needed to make their loans affordable is to get the rate that they pay closer to my mortgage rate, or the 10 year treasury note. You know, like it was when I graduated.

I really wonder why no one proposes something like this. I think it would be much easier to get bipartisan support for this.

[nereo]

My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school.

I have a good friend with a good job who can't afford their six figure law school debt just because of the interest rate. The only policy change needed to make their loans affordable is to get the rate that they pay closer to my mortgage rate, or the 10 year treasury note. You know, like it was when I graduated.

I really wonder why no one proposes something like this. I think it would be much easier to get bipartisan support for this.

It's actually a recent change. 
Rates used to be pegged to the 10y T-note (+1.7% IRRC).  IN 2007 President W Bush signed into law the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act", which fixed the interest rates for Stafford loans at 6.8%

The justification was to ensure the Stafford loans were at a minimum cost neutral during bad labor markets (read: highest defaults) and at most times revenue-generating. Shortly thereafter the great recession forced the largest decrease in both federal and state direct-funding of higher education across all 50 states: in almost all states direct funding still has not returned to 2007 levels. The net result has been higher tuition rates and higher rates on student loans, all during a time with historically low borrowing costs.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

My interest rate was quite high, so America made a profit from me already and the investment in my education has already paid off because now I pay taxes for other people's children to go to school.

I have a good friend with a good job who can't afford their six figure law school debt just because of the interest rate. The only policy change needed to make their loans affordable is to get the rate that they pay closer to my mortgage rate, or the 10 year treasury note. You know, like it was when I graduated.

I really wonder why no one proposes something like this. I think it would be much easier to get bipartisan support for this.

It's actually a recent change. 
Rates used to be pegged to the 10y T-note (+1.7% IRRC).  IN 2007 President W Bush signed into law the "College Cost Reduction and Access Act", which fixed the interest rates for Stafford loans at 6.8%

The justification was to ensure the Stafford loans were at a minimum cost neutral during bad labor markets (read: highest defaults) and at most times revenue-generating. Shortly thereafter the great recession forced the largest decrease in both federal and state direct-funding of higher education across all 50 states: in almost all states direct funding still has not returned to 2007 levels. The net result has been higher tuition rates and higher rates on student loans, all during a time with historically low borrowing costs.

Did not know that. Dang.  That's frustrating, because it's such an easy fix to reduce interest rates and maybe lose some money at times versus fully forgiving loans or forgiving 10k or whatever.

[JetBlast]

Nearly six months in office and there’s still no nominee for Solicitor General, the attorney that oversees government litigation in the Supreme Court. What’s up with that?

[Tyler durden]

Nearly six months in office and there’s still no nominee for Solicitor General, the attorney that oversees government litigation in the Supreme Court. What’s up with that?

How long does a thing like that usually take?

Seems like one of those things you would have picked out prior to being elected so one would assume it would be a fast process but Im not familiar with the inner workings so maybe its "on schedule"

[JetBlast]

Nearly six months in office and there’s still no nominee for Solicitor General, the attorney that oversees government litigation in the Supreme Court. What’s up with that?

How long does a thing like that usually take?

Seems like one of those things you would have picked out prior to being elected so one would assume it would be a fast process but Im not familiar with the inner workings so maybe its "on schedule"

Obama choice of Elena Kagan was made public on January 5th. Trump’s choice of then acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco was announced March 7th.

[nereo]

Nearly six months in office and there’s still no nominee for Solicitor General, the attorney that oversees government litigation in the Supreme Court. What’s up with that?

How long does a thing like that usually take?

Seems like one of those things you would have picked out prior to being elected so one would assume it would be a fast process but Im not familiar with the inner workings so maybe its "on schedule"

Obama choice of Elena Kagan was made public on January 5th. Trump’s choice of then acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco was announced March 7th.

Biden is out-pacing Trump in terms of confirmations for key roles, but lags behind both Obama and George W Bush.

He is ahead of both Trump and Obama for completely filling all cabinet level spots.  all this with a delayed start due to Trump's refusal to concede and the impacts that had on Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2020/biden-appointee-tracker/

[LennStar]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

[tooqk4u22]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

[JLee]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/states-that-charge-extra-fees-to-own-an-electric-vehicle

[tooqk4u22]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/states-that-charge-extra-fees-to-own-an-electric-vehicle

I stand corrected, well at least partially 17 out of 50 states and I am sure more will follow at some point.

[PDXTabs]

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/states-that-charge-extra-fees-to-own-an-electric-vehicle

I stand corrected, well at least partially 17 out of 50 states and I am sure more will follow at some point.

I feel compelled to point out that the gas tax has not "paid for" the roads for longer than I've been alive. As it stands right now gas taxes only pay for about 40% of road funding in Oregon at this point, and that's just at the state level. That isn't talking about local municipalities that often use a ton of property tax revenue for city roads. Furthermore, that doesn't include related costs of the roads like reduced property tax revenue (roads don't pay taxes) or Police/Fire/Ambulance response. Alvin Spivak and Stanley Hart wrote about this in Automobile Dependence & Denial in 1993.

[nereo]

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/states-that-charge-extra-fees-to-own-an-electric-vehicle

I stand corrected, well at least partially 17 out of 50 states and I am sure more will follow at some point.

I feel compelled to point out that the gas tax has not "paid for" the roads for longer than I've been alive. As it stands right now gas taxes only pay for about 40% of road funding in Oregon at this point, and that's just at the state level. That isn't talking about local municipalities that often use a ton of property tax revenue for city roads. Furthermore, that doesn't include related costs of the roads like reduced property tax revenue (roads don't pay taxes) or Police/Fire/Ambulance response. Alvin Spivak and Stanley Hart wrote about this in Automobile Dependence & Denial in 1993.

Yup. We haven’t raised the gas tax since 1993, and it was never indexed to inflation.  Meanwhile, the fleet MPG has gone up substantially (google tells me it was a mere 20.7 in 1993), and the number of roads has increased as well. 

If we wanted the gasoline tax to cover all road maintenance it would have been north of 50¢ for a while now.  Ironically that would only accelerate the shift towards electric vehicles.

[LennStar]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

Yeah, electric cars are still a lot worse than bikes. But you still missed the main point (besides that you can't blame EVs for the last decades of infrastructure investments): It's the big cargo trucks that do the majority of damage. Followed by those extra heavy SUVs and pickups (because of their numbers). A Prius is only 1/10 of that.

The suburbanisation of housing and industry and exclusive zones are main factors for the costs besides truck use.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0

[tooqk4u22]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

Yeah, electric cars are still a lot worse than bikes. But you still missed the main point (besides that you can't blame EVs for the last decades of infrastructure investments): It's the big cargo trucks that do the majority of damage. Followed by those extra heavy SUVs and pickups (because of their numbers). A Prius is only 1/10 of that.

The suburbanisation of housing and industry and exclusive zones are main factors for the costs besides truck use.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0

My point wasn't so much about current number of EVs not paying for roads but more so about the future where EVs become a significant or majority of vehicles on the road including those big cargo trucks, suvs and pickup trucks all of which are in the design and marketing stages and will weigh more than the gas versions due to the batteries.   

Not to mention the roads, highways, bridges in the US primarily exist for commerce and suburbanization.   

[GuitarStv]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

Yeah, electric cars are still a lot worse than bikes. But you still missed the main point (besides that you can't blame EVs for the last decades of infrastructure investments): It's the big cargo trucks that do the majority of damage. Followed by those extra heavy SUVs and pickups (because of their numbers). A Prius is only 1/10 of that.

The suburbanisation of housing and industry and exclusive zones are main factors for the costs besides truck use.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0

My point wasn't so much about current number of EVs not paying for roads but more so about the future where EVs become a significant or majority of vehicles on the road including those big cargo trucks, suvs and pickup trucks all of which are in the design and marketing stages and will weigh more than the gas versions due to the batteries.   

Not to mention the roads, highways, bridges in the US primarily exist for commerce and suburbanization.

The overwhelming majority of pickup trucks and SUVs on the road are driven as single passenger commuter type vehicles.  While I agree that electric versions would do more damage to the roads, maybe the issue is that we've never taxed these sorts of damaging vehicles at a reasonable rate for the damage they do.

[JLee]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

Is that the stuff that would expire if you don't get rid of it fast?

We’ve been under-investing in our infrastructure for decades by many billions of dollars.

Well, yes and no. You may have invested enough, but just in a terribly wrong way.
btw. next time someone is angry about bad street conditions, ask them what car they drive. An F-150 damages the street about 1 million times more than a bike. And a truck (the thing for freight, not for rolling coal) is 100 times worse than even that.
Raod damage goes by the power of 4 to weight. Power of 4 is scary!

What about EVs that use and wear down the same roads but don't contribute comparably as a lot of road infrastructure is funded by gas tax. And these EVs also are moving to f150 like weights and semi trucks.     

Yeah, electric cars are still a lot worse than bikes. But you still missed the main point (besides that you can't blame EVs for the last decades of infrastructure investments): It's the big cargo trucks that do the majority of damage. Followed by those extra heavy SUVs and pickups (because of their numbers). A Prius is only 1/10 of that.

The suburbanisation of housing and industry and exclusive zones are main factors for the costs besides truck use.
See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUeqxXwCA0

My point wasn't so much about current number of EVs not paying for roads but more so about the future where EVs become a significant or majority of vehicles on the road including those big cargo trucks, suvs and pickup trucks all of which are in the design and marketing stages and will weigh more than the gas versions due to the batteries.   

Not to mention the roads, highways, bridges in the US primarily exist for commerce and suburbanization.

The overwhelming majority of pickup trucks and SUVs on the road are driven as single passenger commuter type vehicles.  While I agree that electric versions would do more damage to the roads, maybe the issue is that we've never taxed these sorts of damaging vehicles at a reasonable rate for the damage they do.

We are also still in the process of incentivizing EV adoption, so combining incentives with additional taxes/fees seems counter-productive.  The best option IMO would be an annual fee based on vehicle weight and miles driven, which would apply to all vehicles reasonably equally.

[partgypsy]

I havent seen much in the way of Biden's policies to really comment on lately. He seems pretty engaged to spend a bunch of money on an economic recovery that is already underway. Dont know if adding trillions more to the debt is needed right now.

On a very positive note, I just read that he is planning on donating, with the help of Pfizer, 500 million vaccines to poor countries. This is excellent news. Makes me think of America as that shining city on the hill. Job well done here. Hopefully we can do even more if needed.

I am glad that this is happening to (the donation of vaccines). However my more cynical side wants to point out this is not entirely altruistic; vaccines were ordered to get our vaccinations to our 70-80% target with lots of vaccinations planned this summer, but disappointingly many Americans are deciding not to get vaccinated. This is at the same time in other countries people are scrambling to do whatever they can to get vaccinated, with more demand than supply. If he didn't donate the vaccines they would probably get wasted here, while in other countries they wont.

[PKFFW]

I am glad that this is happening to (the donation of vaccines). However my more cynical side wants to point out this is not entirely altruistic; vaccines were ordered to get our vaccinations to our 70-80% target with lots of vaccinations planned this summer, but disappointingly many Americans are deciding not to get vaccinated. This is at the same time in other countries people are scrambling to do whatever they can to get vaccinated, with more demand than supply. If he didn't donate the vaccines they would probably get wasted here, while in other countries they wont.

Or to put it another way, he saw a global imbalance between supply and demand across varying jurisdictions and, rather than getting into a pissing contest about who is the greatest, who should get the credit for creating the vaccines, who has the hugest dick and all that sort of stuff like the previous POTUS would have while letting the vaccines go to waste, he organised a solution to get vaccines to where they were needed and could be used.  Sure, one could be cynical and take issue with it not being entirely altruistic, but it worked.

[nereo]

Essentially we are arguing the hierarchy of altruism here.

While it would be great to think that the distribution of vaccines is being done solely for the most selfless of reasons, ultimately I think we can agree that it’s a good thing even if its for completely selfish ones. It’s certainly better than not helping at all. In all likelihood the reasons are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

[OtherJen]

Essentially we are arguing the hierarchy of altruism here.

While it would be great to think that the distribution of vaccines is being done solely for the most selfless of reasons, ultimately I think we can agree that it’s a good thing even if its for completely selfish ones. It’s certainly better than not helping at all. In all likelihood the reasons are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

I've been at the "whatever gets shots in arms" point for a while now. Make vaccination super convenient by setting up in grocery stores, bars, schools, etc.? Great, bring it on. Give people free donuts/beer/weed/lotto tickets to get vaccinated? Great, bring it on. Ship half a billion doses of vaccine that otherwise might expire and be wasted to countries that are desperate for them? Also great, bring it on. No reason why others in the world should suffer because the Qcult here believes the nonsense about Gates microchips or whatever.

[nereo]

Essentially we are arguing the hierarchy of altruism here.

While it would be great to think that the distribution of vaccines is being done solely for the most selfless of reasons, ultimately I think we can agree that it’s a good thing even if its for completely selfish ones. It’s certainly better than not helping at all. In all likelihood the reasons are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

I've been at the "whatever gets shots in arms" point for a while now. Make vaccination super convenient by setting up in grocery stores, bars, schools, etc.? Great, bring it on. Give people free donuts/beer/weed/lotto tickets to get vaccinated? Great, bring it on. Ship half a billion doses of vaccine that otherwise might expire and be wasted to countries that are desperate for them? Also great, bring it on. No reason why others in the world should suffer because the Qcult here believes the nonsense about Gates microchips or whatever.

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.
But…. We don’t.  So if giving a certain people a free beer gets the shot into their arms, even if I don’t get a free beer because I was TOO willing and signed up first - so be it.

[partgypsy]

Essentially we are arguing the hierarchy of altruism here.

While it would be great to think that the distribution of vaccines is being done solely for the most selfless of reasons, ultimately I think we can agree that it’s a good thing even if its for completely selfish ones. It’s certainly better than not helping at all. In all likelihood the reasons are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

I've been at the "whatever gets shots in arms" point for a while now. Make vaccination super convenient by setting up in grocery stores, bars, schools, etc.? Great, bring it on. Give people free donuts/beer/weed/lotto tickets to get vaccinated? Great, bring it on. Ship half a billion doses of vaccine that otherwise might expire and be wasted to countries that are desperate for them? Also great, bring it on. No reason why others in the world should suffer because the Qcult here believes the nonsense about Gates microchips or whatever.

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.
But…. We don’t.  So if giving a certain people a free beer gets the shot into their arms, even if I don’t get a free beer because I was TOO willing and signed up first - so be it.

I agree with all of this. I just wanted to point out there was a pragmatic reason this was happening rather, than being 100% altruistic. At the same time, thinking of who the last potus was, he would have done something different, with the outcome less of the US and global population being vaccinated. And yes in the long term it helps the US if people in other countries are vaccinated. the longer this virus hangs around in lots of bodies, the more likely more dangerous variants can emerge.

[RetiredAt63]

Essentially we are arguing the hierarchy of altruism here.

While it would be great to think that the distribution of vaccines is being done solely for the most selfless of reasons, ultimately I think we can agree that it’s a good thing even if its for completely selfish ones. It’s certainly better than not helping at all. In all likelihood the reasons are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

I've been at the "whatever gets shots in arms" point for a while now. Make vaccination super convenient by setting up in grocery stores, bars, schools, etc.? Great, bring it on. Give people free donuts/beer/weed/lotto tickets to get vaccinated? Great, bring it on. Ship half a billion doses of vaccine that otherwise might expire and be wasted to countries that are desperate for them? Also great, bring it on. No reason why others in the world should suffer because the Qcult here believes the nonsense about Gates microchips or whatever.

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.
But…. We don’t.  So if giving a certain people a free beer gets the shot into their arms, even if I don’t get a free beer because I was TOO willing and signed up first - so be it.

I agree with all of this. I just wanted to point out there was a pragmatic reason this was happening rather, than being 100% altruistic. At the same time, thinking of who the last potus was, he would have done something different, with the outcome less of the US and global population being vaccinated. And yes in the long term it helps the US if people in other countries are vaccinated. the longer this virus hangs around in lots of bodies, the more likely more dangerous variants can emerge.

China and Russia are providing their vaccines to poor countries.  It's past time the US started.  For diplomacy reasons too.

[LennStar]

My point wasn't so much about current number of EVs not paying for roads but more so about the future where EVs become a significant or majority of vehicles on the road including those big cargo trucks, suvs and pickup trucks all of which are in the design and marketing stages and will weigh more than the gas versions due to the batteries.   

Not to mention the roads, highways, bridges in the US primarily exist for commerce and suburbanization.

Is there no energy tax in the US?
Part of the reason why the US is so goddamn wasteful is because gas and electricity are so cheap.

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.

I can't even write "that's Communism" ironically because that is basically the definition.

The thing is that many people are unable to decide what "best available science and trusted experts" are. Heck, I feel the majority don't even has a basic understanding of statistics or the scientific method.

[wenchsenior]

My point wasn't so much about current number of EVs not paying for roads but more so about the future where EVs become a significant or majority of vehicles on the road including those big cargo trucks, suvs and pickup trucks all of which are in the design and marketing stages and will weigh more than the gas versions due to the batteries.   

Not to mention the roads, highways, bridges in the US primarily exist for commerce and suburbanization.

Is there no energy tax in the US?
Part of the reason why the US is so goddamn wasteful is because gas and electricity are so cheap.

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.

I can't even write "that's Communism" ironically because that is basically the definition.

The thing is that many people are unable to decide what "best available science and trusted experts" are. Heck, I feel the majority don't even has a basic understanding of statistics or the scientific method.

The majority of even highly educated Americans absolutely don't understand basic concepts about the scientific method. I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had where I've explained to people with advanced degrees in non-scientific fields (and even few with degrees in science) that a 'theory' is not a speculation or guess that someone pulled out their ass (such as the word means colloquially), or that the scientific method cannot definitively prove things to be true, but can only disprove things...and that this is a feature, not a bug.

[nereo]

I’m a research scientist in a small company. Part of my job involves running experiments to find the best combination of things (light, temperature, nutrients etc). Everyone I work with is very intelligent and most have advanced degrees, but I’ve had to step back a number of times and explain exactly why we needed to test specific combinations and have a control in order to know what was affecting what.

… some will choose to feel superior. I tend to think it’s just part of living in a developed society where specialization is the norm. While I can design and run experimetns all day long, I get lost with the necessary marketing which makes our company profitable, and I only have a cursory understanding of the various electrical loads that our engineer designs to ensure each of our climate-controlled spaces is able to maintain the fairly specific parameters regardless of what we are doing.  Everyone has their skills, and on one has them all.

[ncornilsen]

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.

I can't even write "that's Communism" ironically because that is basically the definition.

The thing is that many people are unable to decide what "best available science and trusted experts" are. Heck, I feel the majority don't even has a basic understanding of statistics or the scientific method.

TF you talking about with communism? Even in idealized communism, that isn't a pillar of how it works or how it's defined... and is more of the basis for capitalism than anything. In real life communism, you listen to the state and who the state says is an expert because of politics, or you get a bullet in the back of your head over an unmarked grave. (as empirical data shows to be the case.)In fact, communist tendency to put politics over science or society is almost the entire reason we are even IN this pandemic.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately, if you like murderous collectivist ideologies)  It seems we're already well on the way to this. Case in point, the whole active suppression of the Lab leak theory of the Wuhan Corona Virus. There was a sscientist who admitted that the signed that letter "debunking" it ssolely to hinder Trump. (And before you go on the whole racism thing... it isn't racist to hold a foreign nation accountable for releasing (negligently or otherwise) something like COVID on the world.  Besides holding china accountable, knowing this, and actually investigating it, may have shown that there were gaps in our state of the art methods that we could improve... but because of politics, china will not be held to account, and we will never really know.)

In my life, the people I know who get the most sanctimonious about "Science is real11!!1!" know the least about statistics or science, and ignore science that doesn't align with their world views to the same degree as those who say we need to question science and experts because they are humans with agendas, conflicts of interest, and payoffs.

If republicans are "questioning science in bad faith," then democrats are "following science in bad faith" to exactly the same degree.
 
That said, I got 2 shots of Moderna the second it was available, my child and I are up to date on every vaccine recommended, and I wear a mask everywhere I go unless I know who's there and that I'm not creating a risk for someone.

[LennStar]

Completely agree. I wish we live in a world where people did things (like get a vaccine) because it was the right thing to do for them and for society, and that all people based their decisions on the best available science and trusted experts rather than some some charlatan they follow on twitter or subscribe to on YouTube.

I can't even write "that's Communism" ironically because that is basically the definition.

The thing is that many people are unable to decide what "best available science and trusted experts" are. Heck, I feel the majority don't even has a basic understanding of statistics or the scientific method.

TF you talking about with communism? Even in idealized communism, that isn't a pillar of how it works or how it's defined... and is more of the basis for capitalism than anything. In real life communism, you listen to the state and who the state says is an expert because of politics, or you get a bullet in the back of your head over an unmarked grave. (as empirical data shows to be the case.)In fact, communist tendency to put politics over science or society is almost the entire reason we are even IN this pandemic.

I don't know if I should answer that here, and the rest is US political stuff I don't knwo what oyu are talking about...
but:
1. There never has been real life communism (on a state level). Not even the "communist" states say it ever happened, believe them at least in this point, okay?
2. What you describe is foremost a description of autocratic dictatorship-leaning states. Like Russia or Saudi-Arabia or maybe Iran today.
Some of them tell you they are lead by a communist party. Some say they are capitalistic democracies. Doesn't matter which flag, that depends in most cases from whom they get the most money. (Also see the book in my sig)
3. Yes, what I describe is the idealized communism - or the "communist personality" as it was called here back in the day when I lived in "real existing Socialism".

Or as Marx has put it in reference to distribution:
Socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work!"
Communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
And this "From" includes - speaking about vaccines - to act according to the doctor's consensus and get vaccinated (also the doctors do rational decisions, not on ideological grounds, as do politicians).

A government like you described is per definition not communistic. You may say it's a Socialist (difference to communist is that the government still needs to force you to act like a communist personality) government gone too far in the dictatorship direction, but it certainly is not communistic.

And yeah, I know we can't all be like Jesus and his apostles, who are the most known communist group of the world. because human nature is just not that way, communism will never be. (Also for the same reason the ideal capitalistic world could never work, but I disgress.)