@
jackjjackson JJJr I said:
I don't know what they are saying about "voting" , If it's about propsponing the elections because of crisis? Then maybe there is something to say for that. If it's about changing how voting works in the US... then it has nothing to do with corona and we are in full agreement on that part.
When you quote that article:
"gives grants to states to protect November's elections by expanding early voting and creating a universal mail-in-ballot system"Apperently she wants a vote in november. I'm not sure about you, but if the crisis isn't solved in november, then someone will have to come up with answer to organise it without threatening public health? Or prospone it. I personally would be in favor of prosponing it, but that's my personal choice as a person (not even as a civilian of the US). And that personal choice isn't an objective "right" or "wrong" choice, it's just a subjective opinion that I have and I would defend. Just like it's in the right of anny other person to defend their opinion. If Pelosi can make a good case for her proposal then I don't see why she shouldn't put it up for a vote. Since it's directly linked to the corona-emergency AND it doesn't fundamentally change how voting works in the US. It's just a way to organise the original process during an emergency situation.
"The package also includes a host of liberal provisions that have little chance of making it into the final package, including tax credits to promote green energy and mandatory emissions reductions for the airlines set to receive federal help." This is in direct agreement with what the economists say from the itinera institute in Belgium. That when you start loaning people money to survive a crisis, you need to make sure that these industries you are aiding have a long term life expectancy. A lot of economists believe that denieing that human beings have anny effect on the climate at all is totally ludicrous. But in certain countries like the US, this denial keeps excisting. This is therefore a political discussion you can have, but the idea that you just have to support anny industry just because it's there without asking annything in return... is madness. Because some of these industries will be saved by governement money, and will go belly up because they are outdated later on. At that moment, you are nationalising debt, because the compagnies you save that aren't substainable in the future will not be able to pay back their loans.
This is totally diffrent then changing active regulations or laws. It's just a quid pro quo for getting loan. Something that is really not that abnormal in these kinds of situations. If you go look up what happened in 2008, there were also demands for banks if you want to get a loan from the governement.
One thought regarding temporary actions of the EPA is that social distancing is enhanced and the spread or CV 19 slowed. Interestingly worldwide CNN says pollution levels have lowered dramatically in just a few weeks. That’s a positive.
How is social distancing enhanced by flat out stopping the working of EPA all together? You have a moment in time where rules won't be enforced by the federal governement, meaning that all kinds of bad practises can be done because no one is enforcing the law? This is a choice by the executive branch under the umbrella of the corona-emergency, how can you as a citizen be okay with that?
It's nice that CNN says that pollution levels went down, but that has nothing to do with EPA what so ever. There is no relation there, because if there was, then maybe we can just scratch all laws that are concerned about the health of workers and the enviorment concerning compagnies, because apperently not enforcing those rules will make everything better. But I think we are both smart enough that it doesn't work like that.