this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
132 points (92.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5653 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it's tax incentives for things those corporations were going to do anyhow.

you can see where biden really is on climate, with his actions pertaining to oil. His presidency has seen more oil released from the national stockpile than all others combined, he took the positive action of personally authorizing the Willow Project in alaska (drilling on national lands); and he's authorized increased production elsewhere.

also "this environment" was democratic control of both houses of congress (albeit with really narrow margins)

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

it's tax incentives for things those corporations were going to do anyhow.

Absolutely not. I can only really say for sure about the one aspect I'm familiar with, but I can assure you that the "Build America, Buy America (BABA)" requirement included in the funding that was approved in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, would 100% not have happened otherwise.

In fact, it's going to be a massive ~~pain in the ass~~ undertaking to get contractors to comply with it in general. There is zero chance that they would have done so otherwise.

Also, most (if not all, I'm not sure) of the money from the BIL for infrastructure projects will go into contracts that pay prevailing wage to workers. If you're not familiar with prevailing wage, it's pretty fucking high. Much higher than a contractor would ever choose to pay a (non-union) worker.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Contractor pay has nothing to do with the environmental aspects of their legislation. The environmental things are all basically subsidizing companies for things there already doing or going to.

Further, even the act itself recognizes it’s all going to corpo pockets:

(7) by incentivizing domestic manufacturing, domestic content procurement preferences reinvest tax dollars in companies and processes using the highest labor and environmental standards in the world;

Ignore the bit about “highest labor and enviro standards”, it’s bald faced bullshit. BABA is subsidizing corporations.

Yes, that translates into American job, however… do you really think these corporations are going to be paying most of this subsidy into wages?

It’s like how Teslas were 50-60k cars and subsidized with tax. Tesla to buy it, but then suddenly dropped to 40k when people couldn’t afford it anyhow. Or federal school loans directly subsidizing the high cost of tuition.

It’s all just corpo pork. Pure and simple.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Who said I was only talking about the environmental aspects? Also, you're acting like I wrote the fucking legislation, I didn't even say if I support it or not.

Prevailing wage is an entirely different thing, and sure I guess you can choose to ignore it, but it's not a bad thing.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Build Back Better is the single largest investment in green infrastructure by any nation anywhere.

I want more, but I don’t know that a more progressive president could have done better in this environment.

(emphasis mine), Is the comment I was replying to- talking when I was speaking about the environmental aspects of the legislative agenda. Both my comment and the original comment were both in the context of green infrastructure.

are you saying I'm being unreasonable for assuming you were responding to me about my comment in kind? It's fine if you want to talk about your pay raise. (I presume.) But like... that's not what this conversation is about... so you're changing the subject.

Biden's record on the environment is bad. You getting better pay for a few jobs doesn't really change that record. The fact is climate change is an existential threat to humanity on a global scale, and Biden has done fuck-all to deal with it before it gets worse. On balance, he's made the situation worse; and has increased the inertia in fighting oil and transitioning to a carbon-neutral economy, which we kind of have to do in the next year or two before things get even more fucked than they already are.

Also, you’re acting like I wrote the fucking legislation, I didn’t even say if I support it or not.

If you don't support at least the parts you keep wanting to distract us with... why the fuck do you keep defending it? Actually, right now I'm assuming you're just a troll.