politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think there's a key misunderstanding with regards to what real change should be.
The inflation reduction act seeks to curb inflation overall, that's the goal. How do we measure the success of this bill? Well, that seems obvious - by looking at how it impacts inflation. Yet is that really meaningful change?
If I leave my house once a month, kick a wall as hard as possible, and then go to the hospital, does the hospital patching up my foot amount to meaningful change in my life? The damage to my foot gets worse every month. My actions eat up actual resources that could be better used to help others. Fixing my foot up is both literally, and figuratively treating the symptom and not the root cause.
The hole that everyone falls down is conflating real change to an immediate reduction in events and situations they personally don't like. There is no single cause behind the high inflation we've seen in recent years. It's not covid, it's not printing too much money, it's not republican or democratic leadership. It's a byproduct of a collection of systems and their interactions with one another. The sum total of countless decisions spanning decades - from actual changes to monetary policy, to changes on how we teach monetary policy, to reactions to the 2008 crisis, or Covid, or globalization, etc, etc.
Putting an end to recent inflationary trends would do absolutely nothing to change the underlying systems that got us here today. It would do little to change our overall social and economic trajectories. The same goes for student loan forgiveness. Even if Biden made education free for all Americans, would the average American find themselves to be in a better financial situation than, say, 30 years ago? Beyond that, would that cost just magically go away, or simply be transfered elsewhere?
Given recent economic trends, cheaper and potentially free education is practically inevitable. The average worker is trending towards generalization, and the workplace is changing so rapidly that a variety of secondary industries centered around providing educational services to already educated adults have ballooned in size over the past decade. There is no realistic future where education isn't far cheaper and more available, we're simply at the point now where this reality is being reflected within the perceived pool of actions available to our leaders - in this particular instance made more available by an immediate need to appease a population segment that's rapidly seen their future prospects dwindle.
None of what Biden has done is new with regards to actual impact on the average American. He has done exactly what plenty of other American presidents have done prior. The sole reason why you assign more value to his student debt relief program or the added renewable energy subsidies is because it impacts you directly, and is something you can relate to. He has addressed an immediate problem that you strongly relate to.
Some years ago I was enrolled in one of the first real college degrees specifically focused on training individuals to enter the modern renewable energy sector. As part of this program I spent a decent amount of time specifically researching climate policy, and in my own time I made an active effort to study the science behind climate change. This was something like 15 years ago now. One thing that was painfully obvious to me at the time was that significant climate change was practically inevitable.
Positive feedback loops weren't well understood, but certainly studied and documented enough to be raising some massive red flags, yet climate models always seemed to lean towards optimism for what I can only assume was the sake of political buy-in. And here we are, in 2023, only just admitting that we won't hit our 1.5C target that was set not even a decade prior. Most people seem to have been very aware that nothing meaningful would be done to prevent climate change.
So why then would you equate the recent surge in spending on renewable energy to real change? At this point in time real change with regards to th global climate crisis can only come as part of a massive, collective effort on behalf of the whole world comparable to what we saw during the great wars of the last century. Investing additional resources in a growing industry that is financially viable is hardly enacting meaningful change - that is simply operating as usual.
I just want to say that I appreciate how well thought out your reply is. I don't really have a response, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. You bring up a lot of good food for thought.