Nope, the theory the Dems have to ostentatiously support is the theory of electromagnetism. The GOPsters will be obliged to reject everything based on electricity, magnetism, or radio waves!
I think it’s the “centrism” part that will get to them. Sounds very socialist to me.
So they can keep channelling money to their wealthy paymasters. This has been the real (and only serious) goal for decades.
Maybe that can explain why all the keys, coins, and other non-ferrous objects are made magnetic by the Covid vaccine.
You get paid 174K.
The US Census Bureau says that in 2019 the median earnings of people who worked full-time, year-round were $57,456 for men and $47,299 for women (quite a discrepancy there, I note.)
So I wouldn’t say they’re doing that badly. They have expenses, of course; but they get an additional allowance to cover a lot of that.
Of course, they also spend time discussing things with billionaires. That probably skews perceptions somewhat.
Motley Fool: While most of us – by definition – will never join the top 1%, joining the top 10% (or even the top 5%) is attainable for those in well-paying fields. You need to make $118,400 to join the top 10% and $195,070 for the top 5%. Again, these figures don’t include investment income, but they give you a baseline.
By definition, most of us will never join the top 10%, let alone the top 5%. And the base salary for Senators and Representatives is by those figures well over what’s needed for the top 10% and not all that far from the top 5%. As I said, they’re not doing that badly.
I don’t agree. Whether climate change exists is a factual topic. Whether anything should be done about it is a political thing. The reality is that plenty of climate change “deniers” (or at least “downplayers”) have known climate change is real for years. There are plenty who deny it for political expediency not because they actually disbelieve.
In reality there are plenty who know climate change is real but in line with their “every person for themselves” philosophy, inconveniencing themselves for the sake of people outside their monkeysphere is evil socialism.
If one doesn’t want to do anything about a problem, then a good strategy is to not admit it exists. That way, you don’t have to even give time of day to those who say something should be done about it.
That isn’t that much money when you consider that they are maintaining two residences (they do not get a living allowance for time in DC, and they can no longer write off the expenses). DC isn’t a cheap city to live in part time. Its certainly better than the median U.S. income…but there are less risky and more profitable grifts than being a U.S. Representative. (Risky in that you need to get elected - every two years - which takes money and time. Getting elected the first time is certainly not a sure thing)
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but I need to ask this question. I know that median does not equal average.
Statista tells me that in 2019 there were about 74 million full-time employed men in the US. Am I correct in assuming, then, that 37 million of those men earned more than the median of $57,456, and 37 million earned less?
I believe so.
In other words, half the country, or at least half the country living off wages, managed on less than that. (Some, of course, had multiple incomes in the same family – but so do many congresspeople.)
I expect some of them are living in DC. – median wage in DC in 2019 was apparently 49,542. Median total household income was 86,420. Again, half the people are managing on less than that.
Of course, some people in DC are living in poverty. While we might expect Congress to try to do something about that, expecting them and their families to share it is unreasonable. But even if we divide that 174K in half to allow for two residences, both of them in expensive areas (and of course nowhere near one’s income all goes to the cost of the residence; they don’t need double of everything that costs money): that’s 87K, which is well above the median. So a lot more than half the people in DC are managing on less than that.
Maybe this thread should return to the original question. For example, do you all think the Republican party is likely to actually try to do something about climate change?
Only to the extent that it will get them elected in the next election (whenever that happens to be). IOW, no, not long-term or actually effective. Just something for show.
Hari Seldon is asking us? What does psychohistory say?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I do have a certain amount of hope, but not from the Republican party itself.
I think there are Republicans who take seriously the issue of climate change but who consider it less important than the issue of getting re-elected. I’m sure there are plenty of backbenchers who cringe when Louie Gohmert starts talking about planetary orbits but know that they’ll get a primary opponent from the left, funded well by some fossil fuel companies and supported by dark money for the attack ads, if they make a serious move to fight climate change.
The key to getting those folks involved is to make them more fearful of losing the general election, which is hard to do in a well-gerrymandered district.
(I just had an epiphany about how gerrymanders aid the GQP in maintaining party discipline, but that’s not the topic of discussion.)
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if Engine No. 1 can change fossil fuel companies’ policies regarding political contributions and involvement (read: push polls and astroturf campaigns).
Mumble mumble. Have to set up the equations. … Then solve them. … Oh, it shows that when Miami is under water and Texas and Oklahoma are without potable water, the Republican party will discover that not only is global warming real, but we’d better do something about. Maybe 50 years away.
I think they just smell money, now that alternative energy and green technologies are reaching a widespread market. They’re just looking for opportunities to cash in, help their campaign donors cash in, or both. Almost certainly both.
It’s reminiscent of the right-wing love affair with the natural products and vitamin and supplement industries. For years top Republican politicians have been passing legislation that allows these products to remain virtually unregulated, while personally profiting from investment in these entities.
Except this has the potential to be way more lucrative than supplements. Of course they’re interested - they’ll promote these industries stealthily while railing against them publicly. It’s just more money grab, I think.
Indeed. You wouldn’t get an Indian tycoon shelling out over ten BILLION for no expectation of return.
Isaac Asimov said in one of his essays, “Screaming after you’ve gone over a cliff is easy but not useful. The trick is to stop before you get that far.”
What I find interesting is why they are so scared of even acknowledging the most basic rhetoric when over in Britain (as one example) the Conservative Party at least pay lip service on environmental issues. Boris Johnson might not take bold action leading the way on climate change but he’s not pretending it’s not real either. When Biden signed the US back into the Paris Accords Johnson was one of the world leaders who commended the decision.
Because they see it as a Democrat [sic] issue. They can’t align themselves with anything that smells like That Other Party.