Vaccine

[what-happened]

And the overwhelming majority are happier now, strange ain’t it? I guess not everyone is so desperate to attempt to spin reality into an image they prefer, they just accept it.

Who is this majority you speak of that is happier?

 

[whatithink]

Inflation is not a good thing for your average consumer.

It is a worldwide phenomena because over the past 2 yrs most of the advanced economies printed lots of money because their policies hurt economic activity.

And the idiots who run the country now think spending another couple of trillion on D wish list stuff will A) be a productive use of tax money and B) not affect inflation even more.

They even trotted out that their 3.5 trillion spending bill had a zero cost. As if...



There actually is a lot presidents can do. Deregulation is a big driver.

The funny thing is with fracking and deregulation it helped bring our emission levels down to below what they wanted for the Paris Accords. Yet we did it without tying ourselves to the heavy regulation the left so desires. The main driver? We starting pulling a lot of natural gas out of the ground. It is both cheap and clean to use.

Further being energy independent is a good thing. It is far better to keep our money here vs filling the coffers of countries in the ME and Russia (the Euros get a lot of energy from them).

Inflation in the 1-2% range is fine, but we're higher than that and that is cause for concern. The driver is not necessarily governments printing money. All the while govts were printing money, consumer debt was decreasing, savings were increasing and demand was dampened. The velocity of spend is just as important as the money supply in inflation.

The D plan is over 10 years and includes items that the govt should be doing, specifically on infrastructure. The net infrastructure spend in the US started to decline around the 2008 crash as state and the fed reduced spending on it and never came back to it. That's been calculated in the $1T range of "lost" spend relative to what was been spent annually prior. Infrastructure spend is accretive to an economy and relied on by both business and workers to be successful. As for being paid for, the plan was laid out but never likely to be approved. That doesn't mean I think everything in the D plan is good, just that everything in the D plan is not bad. There's certainly plenty that is necessary and should be spent and it should be the govt spending it.

Fracking is interesting. The high oil prices from 2009 made it economically viable, and so the boom in fracking. A price point at around $50 was needed to pay back the bonds. The bust cycle for fracking once prices went below that started, with the cause being supply pushing down prices below viability (for many). Funnily enough OPEC like prices in the $70 range, but that enables fracking to be viable which drives up supply & prices down etc.

We import more oil from Canada that all other imports combined. We also export oil that could be used domestically, but its cheaper to export than to send it to the high demand centers in the US. So energy independence (consumption vs production) does not mean that we only use US oil. We are still sending plenty of dollars overseas.

 

[crush]

Inflation in the 1-2% range is fine, but we're higher than that and that is cause for concern. The driver is not necessarily governments printing money. All the while govts were printing money, consumer debt was decreasing, savings were increasing and demand was dampened. The velocity of spend is just as important as the money supply in inflation.

The D plan is over 10 years and includes items that the govt should be doing, specifically on infrastructure. The net infrastructure spend in the US started to decline around the 2008 crash as state and the fed reduced spending on it and never came back to it. That's been calculated in the $1T range of "lost" spend relative to what was been spent annually prior. Infrastructure spend is accretive to an economy and relied on by both business and workers to be successful. As for being paid for, the plan was laid out but never likely to be approved. That doesn't mean I think everything in the D plan is good, just that everything in the D plan is not bad. There's certainly plenty that is necessary and should be spent and it should be the govt spending it.

Fracking is interesting. The high oil prices from 2009 made it economically viable, and so the boom in fracking. A price point at around $50 was needed to pay back the bonds. The bust cycle for fracking once prices went below that started, with the cause being supply pushing down prices below viability (for many). Funnily enough OPEC like prices in the $70 range, but that enables fracking to be viable which drives up supply prices down etc.

We import more oil from Canada that all other imports combined. We also export oil that could be used domestically, but its cheaper to export than to send it to the high demand centers in the US. So energy independence (consumption vs production) does not mean that we only use US oil. We are still sending plenty of dollars overseas.

Dude, do you know what your actually about? People are getting fired left & right, right now, all because they wont kneel and take two+boosters for life for the team in the arm. Because so many say, "No way" they get fired now and have to hold unto their money. Small business is on life support and not looking good at all. This is going to get way worse because of people like you, That's what i think.

 

[Desert Hound]

The D plan is over 10 years and includes items that the govt should be doing, specifically on infrastructure.

See that is where you are wrong.

They are using gimmicks like gov usually does. The taxes will be around for at least 10 yrs. Much of the spending items are for far fewer years.

So by saying the whole thing is over 10 yrs it makes it look better. What you have is front loaded spending but taxes going on far longer. It hides the cost so to speak. Most people fall for that shell game.

Funnily enough OPEC like prices in the $70 range, but that enables fracking to be viable which drives up supply & prices down etc.

That kind of is the point. Without our own supply, we would be paying more. Fracking forces the other countries to lower their prices. That is a benefit to us.

And while the Saudis, etc can drop the price to lower than $50 to make fracking not terribly viable, they themselves cannot afford to do so for long because they have built in a cost structure to their countries that require X amount of revenue to pay for. In short their funding for their programs assumes a price above $50 (at which fracking is viable).

The other thing about fracking is that it is relatively new. Over time they will get more efficient at what they are doing, and their break even point will go down.

We import more oil from Canada that all other imports combined.

Canada is a country where we should import from. Better to get from them then to limit ourselves, and then turn around and increase our spending on countries in the ME.

The net infrastructure spend in the US started to decline around the 2008 crash as state and the fed reduced spending on it and never came back to it.

To be fair much of what the dems call infrastructure in their plan is not infrastructure as we know it. They use the term in order to sell it.

And it works. Watch the people talk about it. They talk bridges, etc. And your average person thinks yeah we need that. And yet much of what is in there is not infrastructure. It is another shell game to put in place a wish list that progressives have been pushing for many years.

Here are some of the items in the "infrastructure bill"

- extended child care credit
- universal pre-k
- paid family leave
- expand obamacare
- expand medicare
- free community college
- let medicare negotiate drug prices
etc etc

And so on. That stuff should not be in an infrastructure bill because it doesn't have anything to do with infrastructure as we know it.

The above items should be in their own bill and called what they are.

Now things are in flux because there are pushback in certain areas. So you will see stuff, dropped, etc.

Then of course you have the tax side of it which has a plethora of issues.

 

[what-happened]

Doctors must be honest with parents about unknown risks of COVID-19 emergency vaccine

We all want to do what is absolutely best for children's health. If medical providers get this wrong, everything is on the line for vaccines.

www.yahoo.com

This is a good read, well articulated. It's a stance that many pediatric providers fall in line with. Tactical patience by providers and a joint, well informed decision conversation with their patients is likely the course for many.

There are a lot of important decision influencing details that the FDA and the CDC will not provide, and that's unfortunate. Responsible pediatric providers will have the right conversations. Moderna is slow rolling their offereing to see how this plays out. I'm sure it's not out of the goodness of their heart (pun intended). Why rolll out a product that many will be reluctant to consume.

 

[MicPaPa]

The reality is it mattered to quite a few people. The reality is that it cost Trump the election. As I always point out to dad4, you can live in the world you wish for, or you can live in the world we are in. Trump is toxic to a certain number of people who otherwise support his policies. You can go with him and increase the chances the rs will lose, or you can go with someone that will reflect his policies but be more palatable from a character point of view. Youngkin showed that was possible...he retained the R gaines among minorities and the working class, won back the suburbs.

I prefer: God gives you what you need, not necessarily what you want.

You are certainly free to interpret the Virginia bellwether election however you choose, but we obviously read it quite differently. I don’t put much stock in polls, especially those conducted by legacy media, but for the purpose of my point I selected a random Virginia CBS affiliate. This is what they listed as the top voter issues in Virginia’s gubernatorial election:

economy 34%
covid-19 17%
education 14%
healthcare 7%
climate change 7%
racism 5%
immigration 5%
abortion 5%
law enforcement 4%

Understanding their list ended there, I cannot disprove your insistence that personality/manners/vulgarity/meanness/hurtful tweets etc. etc. etc. matters, but I can say with confidence that it mattered somewhere between 10th-? to Virginia voters.

I could care less about Trump personally, in fact, you can put me down as “personality 0%”, but you can also put me down as 100% for how Trump handled the above list. It’s not who he is, it’s what he brings to the table at a time we need it. The left and their water boys in the media/big tech are on the march to destroy this country as it was founded. It is clear to many of us that the McCains, Romneys, Jeds!, and even the Youngkins are not going to get it done. Thus, you got what we needed, not what you wanted.

 

[watfly]

Fuel costs were higher in 2017, 2018 & 2019 relative to the 3 preceding years under Obama. They dropped in 2020 as the world closed down. There is also a correlation between the oil price and the economic viability of fracking to get it out of the ground. So the higher price meant more fracking of marginal fields. Of course fracking is not exactly environmentally friendly, so removing regulations for the oil companies to make more money at higher prices to the detriment of any local environments and people, was a price worth paying for their profits "energy independence".

The current costs are partly to do with a surge in demand as the world opens up and the fact that the oil producers are making hay while they gradually increase production to meet the demand, i.e. they probably make more money with a "short" supply / high demand scenario, and do not want a surge in supply which would drive the price down.

Energy independence is also a bit of a "meh" for me. There is a strategic (defense) advantage in keeping our oil in the ground and using everyone elses as a hedge against a day when their's is all used up and we are still oil "rich". Practically we have more than enough energy production to meet any defense needs, so the independence thing is just a dog whistle.

Your points in regards to fuel costs are primarily short term related. There is very little doubt by energy professionals that in the long term, eliminating projects like the Keystone pipeline, which contributes to energy independence, will have a negative long term impact on supply and the resulting costs.

It defies logic that having more control over our energy and less reliance on the Middle East is a "meh" thing. Is it a panacea for all our ills, no, but its a very powerful element. Having national control over what is arguably the #1 world commodity (I'd actually say water is #1) is not a minor thing.

In terms of "dog whistle" goes, you strike me as a moderate guy that wouldn't use the gimmicks of the far left which uses the term to mischaracterize the words of the right, often to cast reasonable arguments in a pejorative light.

 

[whatithink]

The left and their water boys in the media/big tech are on the march to destroy this country as it was founded.

What does "this country as it was founded" mean and how are the left & their water boys on the march to destroy it?

Genuine Q.

 

[dad4]

Your points in regards to fuel costs are primarily short term related. There is very little doubt by energy professionals that in the long term, eliminating projects like the Keystone pipeline, which contributes to energy independence, will have a negative long term impact on supply and the resulting costs.

It defies logic that having more control over our energy and less reliance on the Middle East is a "meh" thing. Is it a panacea for all our ills, no, but its a very powerful element. Having national control over what is arguably the #1 world commodity (I'd actually say water is #1) is not a minor thing.

In terms of "dog whistle" goes, you strike me as a moderate guy that wouldn't use the gimmicks of the far left which uses the term to mischaracterize the words of the right, often to cast reasonable arguments in a pejorative light.

Keystone would have made more sense if it had stopped at the Chicago refineries.

Going all the way to the Louisiana export terminals makes it clear that the goal had nothing to do with energy independence.

 

[whatithink]

Your points in regards to fuel costs are primarily short term related. There is very little doubt by energy professionals that in the long term, eliminating projects like the Keystone pipeline, which contributes to energy independence, will have a negative long term impact on supply and the resulting costs.

It defies logic that having more control over our energy and less reliance on the Middle East is a "meh" thing. Is it a panacea for all our ills, no, but its a very powerful element. Having national control over what is arguably the #1 world commodity (I'd actually say water is #1) is not a minor thing.

In terms of "dog whistle" goes, you strike me as a moderate guy that wouldn't use the gimmicks of the far left which uses the term to mischaracterize the words of the right, often to cast reasonable arguments in a pejorative light.

Keystone is moving crude from CA to TX for refinery. Oil refined in the gulf is used domestically and also exported, where its cheaper to export (to MX for example) than ship to the East coast. If CA built their own refineries, it would be moot, but its (currently) cheaper to sent it to TX.

On the ME thing, we get very little from there.

• The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by share of total petroleum imports in 2020 were
• Canada52%
• Mexico11%
• Russia7%
• Saudi Arabia7%
• Colombia4%
• The top five sources of U.S. crude oil imports by share of total crude oil imports in 2020 were
• Canada61%
• Mexico11%
• Saudi Arabia8%
• Colombia4%
• Iraq3%

Agree, water is #1.

Everyone uses gimmicks. All gimmicks are used to stir an emotional reaction and not a fact based reaction. The cries about importing from the ME and therefore needing to be energy independent is an example of dog whistling to me. The facts are that we are not reliant on ME oil anymore. We still import it, but its a small %.

 

[whatithink]

See that is where you are wrong.

They are using gimmicks like gov usually does. The taxes will be around for at least 10 yrs. Much of the spending items are for far fewer years.

So by saying the whole thing is over 10 yrs it makes it look better. What you have is front loaded spending but taxes going on far longer. It hides the cost so to speak. Most people fall for that shell game.


That kind of is the point. Without our own supply, we would be paying more. Fracking forces the other countries to lower their prices. That is a benefit to us.

And while the Saudis, etc can drop the price to lower than $50 to make fracking not terribly viable, they themselves cannot afford to do so for long because they have built in a cost structure to their countries that require X amount of revenue to pay for. In short their funding for their programs assumes a price above $50 (at which fracking is viable).

The other thing about fracking is that it is relatively new. Over time they will get more efficient at what they are doing, and their break even point will go down.


Canada is a country where we should import from. Better to get from them then to limit ourselves, and then turn around and increase our spending on countries in the ME.



To be fair much of what the dems call infrastructure in their plan is not infrastructure as we know it. They use the term in order to sell it.

And it works. Watch the people talk about it. They talk bridges, etc. And your average person thinks yeah we need that. And yet much of what is in there is not infrastructure. It is another shell game to put in place a wish list that progressives have been pushing for many years.

Here are some of the items in the "infrastructure bill"

- extended child care credit
- universal pre-k
- paid family leave
- expand obamacare
- expand medicare
- free community college
- let medicare negotiate drug prices
etc etc

And so on. That stuff should not be in an infrastructure bill because it doesn't have anything to do with infrastructure as we know it.

The above items should be in their own bill and called what they are.

Now things are in flux because there are pushback in certain areas. So you will see stuff, dropped, etc.

Then of course you have the tax side of it which has a plethora of issues.

Sure, gimmicks, everyone uses gimmicks. Everyone sells based on what they think appeals to you and ignores the crap you'd be turned off on.

For the infrastructure bill, I already said there is good/bad in it, that's the nature of every bill TBH irrespective of who brings it. It went from $3.5T to $1.5T to whatever its at now. Its boring TBH. The Ds should start breaking it up to get some wins. They should do it in small pieces and pass it month after month to build a story of governing and investing and confidence in their ability. They won't and they will pay the price. My 0.02.

 

[watfly]

Random thoughts on the topics at hand:

QE kept rates artificially low. However, the level of inflation we're seeing now is not healthy. It's a effectively a tax on everyone, with the biggest burden on those that can least afford it. When my carne asada burrito is $10 I know inflation is out of control.

It's not that Dem's don't have some good ideas, it's just that there good ideas are often way down the priority list. And often those good ideas negatively impact the items of higher priority. The Dem's try to tell you that you should be concerned about y over x, but only the kool-aid drinkers fall for that. Wasn't it Carville that said "it's the economy stupid". We may have to add "and don't F with kids" to that quote.

Character matters. Trump is a thin-skinned asshole, but let's not pretend that Biden is a bastion of honesty and accountability. Now in his defense he may not know he is lying either due to his obvious cognitive decline, or the fact his puppet masters only give him so much information, or a combination of both.

My wife's uncle is in a nursing home and is now seriously ill with Covid. He is vaccinated as are the other nursing home residents, despite this, 15 other residents have Covid. Remind me again how effective the vaccination is against infection and why we should discriminate against those that are unvaccinated, but previously infected.

 

[Grace T.]

I prefer: God gives you what you need, not necessarily what you want.

You are certainly free to interpret the Virginia bellwether election however you choose, but we obviously read it quite differently. I don’t put much stock in polls, especially those conducted by legacy media, but for the purpose of my point I selected a random Virginia CBS affiliate. This is what they listed as the top voter issues in Virginia’s gubernatorial election:

economy 34%
covid-19 17%
education 14%
healthcare 7%
climate change 7%
racism 5%
immigration 5%
abortion 5%
law enforcement 4%

Understanding their list ended there, I cannot disprove your insistence that personality/manners/vulgarity/meanness/hurtful tweets etc. etc. etc. matters, but I can say with confidence that it mattered somewhere between 10th-? to Virginia voters.

I could care less about Trump personally, in fact, you can put me down as “personality 0%”, but you can also put me down as 100% for how Trump handled the above list. It’s not who he is, it’s what he brings to the table at a time we need it. The left and their water boys in the media/big tech are on the march to destroy this country as it was founded. It is clear to many of us that the McCains, Romneys, Jeds!, and even the Youngkins are not going to get it done. Thus, you got what we needed, not what you wanted.

Trump wasn't on the ballot in Virginia. He wisely stayed away. Youngkin didn't have any glaring personal issues. There are two separate issues:

1) should character count in selecting the nation's leader...I'm agnostic on this, though I do think given the President does some flag waiving it is of some (but not overarching) importance. It's a rational position to say it should count as 0%...but only if you give it a pass for both sides (otherwise you are just doing the partisan warrior thing)...that means Clinton and his lady friends shouldn't have been part of the conversation if you are consistent.

2) does character in fact count in selecting the nation's leader. You are one out of millions of voters....unfortunately for you the reality is that for many people it does matter. How much does it matter? The way to probably think about it is as power boost in a video game....a positive boost (such as winning a war a la Eisenhower or Collin Powell) might get you a bonus on top of the issues but can't save you from a very negative position....a negative penalty can sink you particularly if you have a good opponent (or in Biden's case one that chose to use COVID to hide in the basement and then just be a blank slate to everyone). The reality is Trump is toxic so he'd be going into 2024 with an overwhelming negative penalty. Could he still be Harris? Maybe...depends on facts on the ground....but he's starting with an anvil on him.

p.s. I'm no Romney or Jeb! fan....I've been saying since lawschool the problem with the Republican party is that they have a leadership more concerned with coddling elites than willing to fight. There was a moment in the debates where Romney could have turned it....he was asked about the Republican Party....he could have said "for far too long the Republican Party has been concerned with the rich and well off instead of working americans" but he's not that guy.

 

[watfly]

Keystone is moving crude from CA to TX for refinery. Oil refined in the gulf is used domestically and also exported, where its cheaper to export (to MX for example) than ship to the East coast. If CA built their own refineries, it would be moot, but its (currently) cheaper to sent it to TX.

On the ME thing, we get very little from there.

• The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by share of total petroleum imports in 2020 were
• Canada52%
• Mexico11%
• Russia7%
• Saudi Arabia7%
• Colombia4%
• The top five sources of U.S. crude oil imports by share of total crude oil imports in 2020 were
• Canada61%
• Mexico11%
• Saudi Arabia8%
• Colombia4%
• Iraq3%

Agree, water is #1.

Everyone uses gimmicks. All gimmicks are used to stir an emotional reaction and not a fact based reaction. The cries about importing from the ME and therefore needing to be energy independent is an example of dog whistling to me. The facts are that we are not reliant on ME oil anymore. We still import it, but its a small %.

Since you have a more detailed picture of petro than I do, can you explain the reasons for the difference in fuel costs between gas stations a few hours away from each other in California and Arizona. Recently I've seen unleaded in Phoenix at $2.95 and in San Diego for $5.09. Maybe those are both extremes but they were both in similar suburban areas. That's a $2.14, or 73% difference. From what I've read the gas tax in CA is $0.67 per gallon and AZ is $.019, which is a $0.48 difference. Where is the $1.66, or 56%, difference coming from?

Should we replace the "I Did That" Biden stickers on the gas pumps, with Newsom stickers instead?

 

[what-happened]

My wife's uncle is in a nursing home and is now seriously ill with Covid. He is vaccinated as are the other nursing home residents, despite this, 15 other residents have Covid. Remind me again how effective the vaccination is against infection and why we should discriminate against those that are unvaccinated, but previously infected.

This is not a scenario that "experts" want to discuss. A coherent discussion could be had but the vaccine mandate train has left the station, especially for adults. I think the 5-11 vaccine will be handled differently.

 

[Desert Hound]

The Ds should start breaking it up to get some wins.

Like for instance if they broke it up into things actually related to infrastructure. If they did, it would pass.

Boring is why most people don't pay attention and we pass things that should not pass. Spend money we should not pass.

Most people pay no attention. Most of the rest that do, look at the headlines only. Very few bother to dig into various news of the day items.

 

[MicPaPa]

What does "this country as it was founded" mean and how are the left & their water boys on the march to destroy it?

Genuine Q.

I draw a clear distinction between the left and liberals. By far the best explanation of that distinction I have seen and the best answer to your question comes from the below comparison by Dennis Prager. I could not say it better myself and fully endorse it:

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Left vs. Liberal

1. Race: This is probably the most obvious difference between liberal and left. The liberal position on race has always been a) the color of a person’s skin is insignificant and b) those who believe race is significant are racists. Meanwhile, the left believes the very opposite. To the left, it’s the liberal attitude toward race—it’s unimportant—that is racist. That’s why the University of California officially lists the statement, “There is only one race, the human race” as racist. And liberals have always been passionately committed to racial integration, while the left is increasingly committed to racial segregation—such as all-black dormitories and separate black graduations at universities.

2. Capitalism: Liberals have always been pro-capitalism, because liberals are committed to free enterprise and because they know capitalism is the only way to lift great numbers of people out of poverty. It is true that liberals want government to play a bigger role in the economy than conservatives do, but liberals never opposed capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are left-wing values.

3. Nationalism: Liberals believe in the nation-state, whether that nation is the United States, Brazil, or France. But because the left divides the world by class rather than by national identity, the left has always opposed nationalism. So, while liberals have always wanted to protect American sovereignty and borders, the left is for open borders. When the writers of Superman were liberals, Superman was a proud American whose very motto was “Truth, justice, and the American way.” But that all changed a few years ago, when left-wing writers took over the comic strip and had Superman renounce his American citizenship to be a citizen of the world. Free Courses for Free Minds .com The left has contempt for nationalism, seeing it as the road to fascism. Better that we should all be “citizens of the world” in a world without borders.

4. View of America: Liberals have always venerated America. Watch American films from the 1930s through the 1950s and you will be watching overtly patriotic, America-celebrating films—virtually all produced, directed and acted by liberals. Liberals were quite aware of America’s imperfections, but they agreed with Abraham Lincoln that America is “the last, best hope of earth.” The left, however, believes the left is the last, best hope of earth and regards America as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, violent, and imperialistic.

5. Free speech: No one has been more committed than American liberals to the famous statement, “I wholly disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But the left is leading the first widespread suppression of free speech in modern American history—from the universities to the tech companies that govern the internet to almost every other institution and place of work. Of course, the left claims to only oppose “hate speech.” But putting aside the fact that the left deems “hate speech” anything it differs with, protecting what you or I might consider hate speech is the entire point of free speech.

6. Western civilization: Liberals have always championed and sought to protect Western civilization. Liberals celebrate the West’s unique moral, philosophical, artistic, musical and literary achievements, and have taught them at virtually every university. The most revered liberal in American political history, President Franklin Roosevelt, often cited the need to protect Western civilization and even “Christian civilization.” Yet, when President Donald Trump spoke of the need to protect Western civilization in a speech in Warsaw, the left-wing media, also known as the mainstream media, denounced him. They argued that Western civilization is no better than any other and that “Western civilization” is just a euphemism for “white supremacy.” So, then, if liberalism and leftism are so different, why don’t liberals oppose the left? In a nutshell, because they have been taught all their lives to fear the right. But as one of the best[1]known liberals in America, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, said, “As a liberal, as an American, and as a Jew, I far more fear the left than the right.” Dear liberals: Conservatives are not your enemy. The left is.

 

[whatithink]

Like for instance if they broke it up into things actually related to infrastructure. If they did, it would pass.

Boring is why most people don't pay attention and we pass things that should not pass. Spend money we should not pass.

Most people pay no attention. Most of the rest that do, look at the headlines only. Very few bother to dig into various news of the day items.

Its boring to me as they are arguing with themselves. Once they stop and come up with something, I'll pay attention to what they are proposing.

 

[Desert Hound]

Its boring to me as they are arguing with themselves. Once they stop and come up with something, I'll pay attention to what they are proposing.

The problem with that is over the last decade or so, most major bills have passed without debate. By the time it gets to the floor it is too late. It is an up or down vote.

In the past you saw debates on the floor about the pros and cons.

You really don't see that anymore. So one has to pay attention during the sausage making process and put pressure on then.

 

[whatithink]

Since you have a more detailed picture of petro than I do, can you explain the reasons for the difference in fuel costs between gas stations a few hours away from each other in California and Arizona. Recently I've seen unleaded in Phoenix at $2.95 and in San Diego for $5.09. Maybe those are both extremes but they were both in similar suburban areas. That's a $2.14, or 73% difference. From what I've read the gas tax in CA is $0.67 per gallon and AZ is $.019, which is a $0.48 difference. Where is the $1.66, or 56%, difference coming from?

Should we replace the "I Did That" Biden stickers on the gas pumps, with Newsom stickers instead?

I wouldn't claim to have a more detailed picture. The price would be reflective of the costs to operate and how much you can get away with. If gas stations in AZ could get away with $5 per gallon, they would. I fill up at Costco. If going to CA, top up in Yuma (typically) and a one time top off in CA - and am shocked at the cost.

 

[whatithink]

The problem with that is over the last decade or so, most major bills have passed without debate. By the time it gets to the floor it is too late. It is an up or down vote.

In the past you saw debates on the floor about the pros and cons.

You really don't see that anymore. So one has to pay attention during the sausage making process and put pressure on then.

Neither Rs or Ds are concerned with the plebs paying attention. As you said previously, they will sell the bits they think people like; and then squish in as much special interests (that the plebs would not like) as possible in side deals.