Maggie's Farm

President Biden's Major Accomplishments
 
Meet The 46th President Of The United States
 

Eeyore: That list looks like it was put together by the Babylon Bee.

All this is entailed in just the first bullet point:

RJP: It's not the Inflation Reduction Act any more, it's the "the climate, tax and health care bill".

The former is the proper name, the latter is just what it is sometimes called. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will reduce the deficit, which will reduce pressure on inflation over the long term. Investments in energy conservation will reduce pressures on energy prices. Energy investments will help the transition to a modern, green economy, which will save money on climate mitigation in the years to come. The bill will also reduce prescription drug costs, also reducing the pressure on overall prices.

Did you want to discuss the second bullet point, the CHIPS Act?

B. Hammer: More Solyndra's.

Tesla was also an Department of Energy investment. Some investments pay off. Some don't. Overall, the government made money on the energy loans, while helping establish an American foothold in the new, burgeoning electric vehicle industry.

B. Hammer: You left out the terrorism funding.

With regards to a possible deal with Iran, the money would not be from the U.S. taxpayer, but earned by Iran, largely through the sale of oil.

The question is how best to curtail Iran's nuclear program. Ultimately, Iran can acquire a nuclear weapon if it wants to. Once the uranium is refined, then making the weapon only takes weeks, and requires only basic technology.

The fundamental concept is called breakout time. That's the time it takes a country to decide to make a nuclear weapon and actually having made one. Without refined uranium, but with the technology to do so, it can take months or even years. Iran has an incentive to have the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon, but not necessarily the final product. If their breakout time is sufficiently short, then they can confidently respond to most external threats, if the need arises. On the other hand, the West wants a long breakout time. That way, the West can respond, if Iran moves towards manufacturing a weapon. To do that, though, you need an inspections regime for the manufacture of refined uranium.

The original deal, negotiated by the Obama administration, kept Iran to a one-year breakout time. And it was largely working. The complaint was that it didn't stop Iran's nuclear program. Well, duh. Nothing can do that, certainly not sanctions.

Because the U.S. reneged on the nuclear deal, Iran is currently thought to have a breakout time of a few weeks at most, not to mention an even greater distrust of the Americans than they had before. The new deal would attempt to roll that back to about six months breakout time, still sufficient for the West to mount a response, if Iran were to make a move towards manufacturing a weapon, but short enough to hopefully give conservative factions in Iran some confidence about their ability to produce a weapon, if there were to be an external threat.

Regardless, over the long term, Iran will have a nuclear weapon, if they want one.

JustMe: Almost everyone in middle America makes far less than $125,000 a year. They cannot figure out why in the world that THEY should pay off some of the debt of people making that kind of money.

University tuition is only a nominal fee for citizens in India and Mexico. Of course, we can't expect Americans to be able to afford what more advanced countries can.

B. Hammer: Funny how Indians and Mexicans would rather go to American university.

And some Americans study abroad.

B. Hammer: And these woke administrators are doing a fantastic job of making a college degree as near worthless as a degree from Mexico or India.

Oh, those crazy Indians coming to America for an inferior degree.

There are fine universities in both Mexico and India, though not as advanced as those in Germany or France, both of which also offer a university education to domestic and international students for a nominal fee.

B. Hammer: There isn’t a statist/Marxist/communist program that you don’t support.

Well, that's not true. We don't support the nationalization of industry, for instance, much less a dictatorship of the proletariat.

B. Hammer: trying to convince a bunch of republicans to the evils of smaller, less intrusive government?

Didn't know facts depended upon partisan affiliation. In any case, we advocate for a Goldilocks size of government; not too big and not too small. Many countries with liberal societies and advanced economies afford not only free university education but universal healthcare, all the while maintaining robust market economies. But, again; one can't expect the U.S. to be able to afford what more developed countries take for granted.

indyjonesouthere: You don't have to nationalize an industry if you create law to punish one industry (gasoline powered cars) and create law to subsidize another industry. (battery powered cars) That kind of lawmaking equates to nationalization.

Well, no. That's not nationalization. Countries often subsidize industries. In the U.S., automobiles were subsidized by a vast network of government-built roads in the 20th century, or the giveaway of vast tracts of land to build the continental railroad system in the 19th century. Most countries subsidize various industries in order to gain an advantage over other countries, or to shield industries thought to be essential for national defense. That is not the same as nationalization of industry.

indyjonesouthere: I didn't call it nationalization. Read it again. What I did imply is that it garners the same result.

No, it doesn't. Giving land to the railroads to build the transcontinental highway was a huge government subsidy, but it wasn't effectively the same as nationalization or Marxism or whatever bugaboo you imagine. Nor are subsidies given to the steel or oil industries.

indyjonesouthere: An industry will survive or fail due to governments interference.

An industry may survive or not, but businesses will still be in direct competition with others. Consider the superhighway system, a government program that encouraged the growth of the auto industry. Government didn't take over the car industry, and car manufacturers still continued to vigorously compete. Whatever you may think of the superhighway system, Eisenhower was no communist, and didn't effectively nationalize the auto industry.

indyjonesouthere: For Ike the interstate highway system was considered the National Defense Highway system.

And if you apply your so-called definition, Eisenhower was a fascist. Or a communist. Or somehow both.

indyjonesouthere: IKE didn't promote the interstate system to subsidize the auto industry.

You're working hard to avoid the point. The head of the committee said, "It was evident we needed better highways. We needed them for safety, to accommodate more automobiles. We needed them for defense purposes, if that should ever be necessary. And we needed them for the economy. Not just as a public works measure, but for future growth." They were clearly tilting the economy towards the automobile and away from other forms of transportation.

There was an entire century of the government supporting the auto industry at the expense of other transportation industries, including the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Other examples include the U.S. space program, or, going farther afield, the government-sponsored Columbus expeditions.

indyjonesouthere: Now you want to bring in everyone elses opinion? Perhaps the committee chairman was a fascist?

So Eisenhower picked a fascist to oversee the building of the interstate system?

We noted that the government invested in upgrading roads for cars over generations, so it's not just the one program.

indyjonesouthere: How much does the US spend on defense VS what does Europe spend.

The U.S. spends about 3.7% of GDP, but that includes both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. NATO nations have agreed to a goal of 2% of GDP by 2024.

indyjonesouthere: Now they can't defend themselves

Russia is having troubles with Ukraine, a country with a third of its population and with an eighth of its GDP. Comparing NATO in Europe to Russia:

Population, 3 to 1
GDP, 12 to 1
Military spending, 5 to 1

indyjonesouthere: And Ukraine holding their own.

The situation for Ukraine is dire. They are a small country being invaded by a much larger country. But, Ukraine has made Russia pay a heavy price for every advance.

indyjonesouthere: The countries with liberal societies with free healthcare and education...but very little defense spending.

E.U. spending was over 2% of GDP before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They reduced their spending after that, as did the U.S., but have since begun to increase it again. They are currently at 1.6% and growing to a target of 2%. That 0.4% doesn't explain the difference, though.

Healthcare spending
Country, percent of GDP
France, 11.1%
Germany, 12.5%
Spain, 9.1%
United States, 19.7%

indyjonesouthere: How is that working out for europe with little defense spending and Ukraine getting its butt kicked and losing its war.

NATO is not at war with Russia. Ukraine is a small country that was invaded by a large and aggressive neighbor. Not sure your point here. Do you think NATO should attack a nuclear-armed Russia?

indyjonesouthere: NATO has no function other than subsidizing European defense.

NATO has helped maintain stability in Europe. You will note that Ukraine is not a NATO member. By the way, NATO includes Article 5, a commitment to mutual defense. Article 5 has only been invoked once in the history of NATO. Can you say when?

indyjonesouthere: Subsidizing European defense allow them to provide "free" healthcare and education.

We already responded to this. E.U. defense spending was over 2% of GDP before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, yet they still provided universal healthcare coverage in most of its member countries. E.U. defense spending is now 1.6% of GDP, and the 0.4% is much smaller than the difference in healthcare spending between the U.S. and E.U.

indyjonesouthere: Nato is a destabilizing force in Europe.

Yes, standing against aggression and tyranny will always make aggressors and tyrants upset.

RJP: Soviet Union fell in 1991, EU formed in 1993. What the hell are you talking about?

Countries that comprise today's European Union. The European Union doesn't actually have a permanent military structure.

Military Expenditure (% of GDP) - European Union. If you click through to individual countries, you can see when the year were included in the E.U. totals (e.g. Latvia in 1993).

Mike Anderson: Many of those Indian universities, like the Indian Statistical Institute, are highly selective, and have very small student bodies.

About 100 million Indians have a higher education degree.

Mike Anderson: 100 million sounds like a lot until you realize the current estimated population of India is 1,407,563,842. So about 1 in 14, around 7%.

Well, as noted, not every country can be as advanced as to provide low-cost higher education for their citizens. And 100 million highly educated Indians can have a huge impact on the Indian and on the global economy.

OneGuy: I am 100% with you on making college cost less and 100% opposed to having taxpayers pay for that.

That was the old system, where only the rich and well-connected could afford a university education. But, then again, university was primarily for making connections with other well-to-do families and businesses.

SK: Several generations of engineers, chemists, biologists, physicians, architects, educators, veterinarians, nurses, etc, who got solid educations for a few hundred dollars a semester and came out of school with little debt, would have a thing or two to say about that.

In fixed dollars, the cost of tuition at public 4-year U.S. colleges has gone up about 4x since 1970. Costs of many other labor-intensive industries have also gone up significantly, such as medicine and caregiving—unless the labor costs can be exported. Yet, other developed (and some less developed) countries manage to provide low-cost higher education.

IdahoBob: You have probably seen the lawyers ads on TV telling you if you were at Camp Lejune you may be able to share in a multi-billion dollar scam/lawsuit.

Ah, memories. Just yesterday, it was argued that pollution could be controlled through lawsuits.

As for Camp Lejeune, they've been polluting the groundwater for decades, and the problem has been known for decades. Polluting started in the 1950s, and the worst water wells were shut down in the 1980s.

IdahoBob: All the "victims" are merely suffering the ills of old age. This is really all about making lawyers rich.

That's one of the problems with trying to sue over pollution. The damage is diffuse, and it's difficult to prove individual cases, even if the statistics show a strong correlation. Another problem is that the defendants are often rich and powerful. Another problem is the cost of suing is high. Even if you win the suit, it can take years, and winning is not guaranteed, and polluters often avoid accountability, or made so much money while polluting, they happily settle for pennies on the dollar.

Gringo: Some Lebanese Christians went to a Palestinian camp and killed some Palestinians.

Some Palestinians? Hundreds of civilians were massacred. Israel was the occupying power, surrounded the camp, prevented anyone from leaving, and then allowed Christian militias to enter the camp.