#american institute for economic research

[thefreethoughtprojectcom]

Tyrants and rulers will always seek power, but they depend on followers. People making meaning of their own lives is one the most effective ways to prevent that siren’s call.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/solutions/the-necessity-of-making-a-meaningful-life-people-power-and-freedom

#TheFreeThoughtProject

[gettothestabbing]

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted in January that “wind and solar energy will lead growth in U.S. power generation for the next two years.” Critics say adding ever more wind and solar capacity could be paying more for less, as additional weather-dependent capacity falls short of producing electricity when consumers need it. “We built a heck of a lot of wind capacity in 2023 in the United States, but the actual amount of wind electricity produced went down, simply because you have wind droughts,” energy economist Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), told The Epoch Times. “The windiest spots have been hit pretty hard with wind turbines, so now they’re going to places that are less prolific in terms of wind, and the result is you’re getting less wind per installed megawatt of wind power than you did before.” According to the EIA, while overall “renewable” energy production grew by 2 percent in 2023, largely because of increases in biofuels and solar energy, consumption of wind energy declined for the first time in 25 years. “Our entire grid has been built with the goal of moving power to people when they need it,” Kish said, but noted that, increasingly, this is shifting to providing electricity “whenever the wind blows or the sun shines.”

Coal plants, while emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2), have provided an affordable, reliable, and flexible supply of “dispatchable” electricity, which can be ramped up or down to meet demand. To date, while installed wind and solar capacity have increased, natural gas has been the prime beneficiary of the transition away from coal—both as a supplier of base-load power and as a backup to wind and solar when the weather doesn’t cooperate. U.S. natural gas consumption reached a record 89.1 billion cubic feet per day in 2023 and has increased by an average of 4 percent per year since 2018, according to an April report by the EIA.

“The combination of [artificial intelligence] and increased reliance on intermittent renewables means more natural gas—both because solar and wind can’t easily provide electricity with low harmonic distortions that delicate data center kit needs—but also because unreliable power sources infiltrate the grid, assuring 24x7 supply relies ever more on dispatchable, traditional energy, which is gas,” Simon Lack, founder and managing partner of SL Advisors LLC, told The Epoch Times. Unlike coal, however, gas is not stored onsite at power plants but rather delivered just in time via pipelines. During winter storm Uri in Texas, for example, freezing temperatures and electricity outages disrupted gas deliveries, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reported, exacerbating the crisis that ended with widespread blackouts and the deaths of an estimated 246 people. While natural gas is abundant, affordable, and burns cleaner than coal, it doesn’t satisfy net-zero goals of “decarbonizing” energy and reducing global emissions by at least 43 percent by 2030, 60 percent by 2035, and reaching net-zero by 2050. Given that, nuclear energy is increasingly being touted as the ideal solution.

The 54 U.S. nuclear plants and 93 U.S. nuclear reactors, located across 28 states, currently generate about 19 percent of the nation’s electricity, according to the EIA. A nuclear plant’s capacity factor, which measures the amount of usable energy it produces as a percentage of the maximum it could potentially produce, is the highest of all power sources, averaging more than 92 percent, according to the DOE. By comparison, the capacity factors for wind and solar are the lowest of all major U.S. energy sources, at 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Nuclear power plants are designed to run 24 hours per day, seven days per week, making them ideal for reliable, base-load electricity. Energy economist Ryan Yonk, a director at the American Institute for Economic Research, said the safety of nuclear plants has improved with time, and although risk has not been completely eliminated, this leaves nuclear as the “no-carbon energy” of the future, provided that the industry can build plants that address risk concerns and regulatory concerns. “If you really care deeply about CO2 and view it as a substantial problem, we have an established technology that doesn’t produce CO2, that produces large amounts of low-cost energy at relatively low risk,” he said. The Biden administration appears to have also come around to that point of view, and the Inflation Reduction Act enacted by the administration offers a 30 percent federal investment tax credit for new nuclear projects. The White House announced in March that it was “signing on to last year’s multi-country declaration at COP28 to triple nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050; developing new reactor designs; extending the service lives of existing nuclear reactors; and growing the momentum behind new deployments.”

The DOE is also working to ease the conversion of existing coal plants to nuclear. According to the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, “we’ll need an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear capacity to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and some of that could take place at or near retiring coal plants.” The agency stated that more than 300 existing and retired coal plants could be converted to nuclear energy, and this would increase the U.S. nuclear capacity by more than 250 gigawatts, nearly tripling its current capacity of 95 gigawatts.

As US Coal Plants Shutter, a Renewed Focus on Nuclear (Kevin Stocklin and Andrew Moran, Epoch Times)

[jewish-sideblog]

I think people forget that the Nazis never said they were the bad guys. If someone says, hey, I’m evil! You don’t let them take over your country. They presented themselves as scientific, not hateful. By their own account, they were progressives, and the superiority of White Europe over the other races was a proven and immutable fact. They had scientists and archaeologists and historians to prove it. They didn’t tell people they wanted to kill the Jews because they were hateful. They manufactured evidence to frame us for very real tragedies, and they had methodological research to prove that we were genetically predisposed to misconduct. Wouldn’t you believe that?

Hollywood has spent the last 80 years portraying the Nazis as an obvious and intimidating evil. That’s a good thing in some ways, because we want general audiences to recognize that they were evil. But we also want them to be able to recognize how and why they came to power. Not by self-describing themselves as an evil empire, but by convincing people that they were the good guys and the saviors. They hosted the Olympics. Several European countries capitulated and volunteered themselves to the Empire. There were American and British Fascist Parties. They had broad public support. Hollywood never shows that part, so general audiences never learn to recognize the actual signs of antisemitism.

People today think they can’t possibly be antisemitic, because they’re leftist! They abhor bigotry! They could never comprehend Nazi ideology coming from the mouth of a bisexual college student wearing a graphic tee and jeans. How could they? The only depiction of antisemites they’ve ever seen have been gaunt, pale, middle-aged men in black leather trench coats with skulls on their caps.

If the Nazis time-travelled from the 1930s and wanted to take power now, they’d change their original tactics, but not by much. They would target countries suffering from an identity crisis and an economic collapse. They would portray themselves as the pinnacle of what that society considers progressive. Back then, it was race science. These days it’s performative wokeness. Once they’d garnered enough respect and reputation, they’d begin manufacturing propaganda and lies to manipulate people’s anger and fears at a single target— Jews.

If the Nazis made an actual return, they wouldn’t look like neo-Nazis. They wouldn’t be nearly as obvious about their hatred. Their evil wouldn’t give them yellow eyes, and no suspenseful music would play when they walked in the room. They’d be friendly. They’d look like you. They would learn what things your community fears and what things you already hate. They would lie and fabricate evidence to connect the rich elites and the imperialists you revile to a single source of unequivocal Jewish evil. It wouldn’t be hard— they already have two-thousand years of institutional antisemitism they can rely on to paint their picture.

If you’re curious why antisemitism today is coming from grassroots organizations, young, liberal college campuses, suburban neighborhoods with pride flags and All Are Welcome Here signs? That’s why. It’s because, as a global society, we’ve forgotten that the world didn’t used to see the Nazis as bad guys. And what is forgotten about history is doomed to be repeated.

[robertreich]

The Truth About Immigrants and the Economy

Immigrants are good for the economy and our society! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

For centuries, immigration has been America’s secret sauce for economic growth and prosperity.

But for just as long, immigrants have been an easy scapegoat.

One of the oldest, ugliest lies is to falsely smear immigrants as criminals.

It’s just not true. Crime is way down in America. Anyone who says otherwise is fearmongering.

And whatever crime there is is not being driven by immigration. Immigrants, regardless of citizenship status, are 60% less likely to be incarcerated for committing crimes than U.S.-born citizens.

Maybe that’s why border cities are among America’s safest.

Immigration opponents also claim immigrants are a drag on the economy and a drain on government resources.

Rubbish!

Quite the opposite, the major reason immigrants are coming to America is to build a better life for themselves and their families, contributing to the American economy.

The long-term economic benefits of immigration outweigh any short-term costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that adding more immigrants as workers and consumers — including undocumented immigrants — will grow America’s economy by about $7 trillion over the next decade. And those immigrants would increase tax revenue by about $1 trillion, shrinking the deficit and helping pay for programs we all benefit from.

Immigrants of all statuses pay more in taxes than they get in government benefits. Research by the libertarian Cato Institute found first-generation immigrants pay $1.38 in taxes for every $1 they receive in benefits,

This is especially true for undocumented immigrants, who pay billions in taxes each year, but are excluded from almost all federal benefits. After all, you need documentation to receive federal benefits. Guess what undocumented immigrants don’t have. Hello?

And of course, one of the most common anti-immigrant claims also isn’t true.

No. Immigrants are not taking away jobs that Americans want. Undocumented immigrants in particular are doing some of the most dangerous, difficult, low-paying, and essential jobs in the country.

Despite what certain pundits might tell you, immigration has not stopped the U.S. from enjoying record-low unemployment.

And as the Baby Boom generation moves into retirement, young immigrants will help support Social Security by providing a thriving base of younger workers who are paying into the system. The fact that so many immigrants want to come here gives America an advantage over other countries with aging populations, like Germany and Japan.  

What’s more, immigrants are particularly ambitious and hardworking. They are 80% more likely to start a new business than U.S. born citizens. Immigrant-founded businesses also impressively comprise 103 companies in last year’s Fortune 500.

And immigrants continue to add immeasurably to the richness of American culture. We should be celebrating them, not denigrating them.

It’s time to speak the facts and the truth. We need immigrants to keep our economy — and our country — vibrant and growing. They are not “poisoning the blood” of our nation. They’re renewing and restoring it.

[metamatar]

One of the world’s top arms exporters, Israel exports annually as much as $7 billion worth of military technology, or 2.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. An additional 1.35 percent of GDP is dedicated to military research and development, and 6.7 percent is spent on its defense budget— the world’s second largest military budget as a percentage of GDP after Saudi Arabia. All told, 10.25 percent of the Israeli economy is involved directly in arms. Comparatively, for the United States, the world’s top weapons exporter, arms account for around 3.7 percent of its economy. Israel is actually the world’s largest arms supplier per capita, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the World Bank, at ninety-eight dollars; it is followed by a distant Russia at fifty-eight dollars, and Sweden at fifty-three dollars.

These figures do not include the contribution from natural resources exploited under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.50 They do not factor in the service sector’s revenue or general industry and construction taking place in the West Bank. Such figures are difficult to quantify, since many companies operate in the West Bank but have offices in Tel Aviv to obscure where operations take place. Nor does this account for Israeli exports into the Occupied Territories, which are 72 percent of Palestinian imports and 0.16 percent of Israeli GDP. All told, the Israeli economy is deeply involved in a web of expenditure and profit around the ongoing occupation and expansion of settlements.

American military aid supplanting open-ended government grants has had the effect of increasing arms production and diminishing the overall economic reach of the state. No longer is foreign aid and imperialist incentive directly invested in the working class. Israeli workers are now rewarded through the arms economy. This is why, despite the lack of social mobility and the economic degradation of neoliberalism, the working class remains committed as ever to Zionism.

The working class has become dependent on the education, housing, and career opportunities that their participation in the IDF affords them. They have found routes for advancement in the military-fueled high-tech industry, with over 9 percent of workers concentrated in high-tech. And as pensions and real wages are eroded, the cheaper cost of settlement living in the Occupied Territories has become essential.

[haggishlyhagging]

The more women are paid, the less eager they are to marry. A 1982 study of three thousand singles found that women earning high incomes are almost twice as likely to want to remain unwed as women earning low incomes. "What is going to happen to marriage and childbearing in a society where women really have equality?" Princeton demographer Charles Westoff wondered in the Wall Street Journal in 1986. "The more economically independent women are, the less attractive marriage becomes."

Men in the '80s, on the other hand, were a little more anxious to marry than the press accounts let on. Single men far outnumbered women in dating services, matchmaking clubs, and the personals columns, all of which enjoyed explosive growth in the decade. In the mid-80s, video dating services were complaining of a three-to-one male-to-female sex ratio in their membership rolls. In fact, it had become common practice for dating services to admit single women at heavily reduced rates, even free memberships, in hopes of remedying the imbalance.

Personal ads were similarly lopsided. In an analysis of 1,200 ads in 1988, sociologist Theresa Montini found that most were placed by thirty-five-year-old heterosexual men and the vast majority "wanted a long-term relationship." Dating service directors reported that the majority of men they counseled were seeking spouses, not dates. When Great Expectations, the nation's largest dating service, surveyed its members in 1988, it found that 93 percent of the men wanted, within one year, to have either "a commitment with one person" or marriage. Only 7 percent of the men said they were seeking "lots of dates with different people." Asked to describe "what concerns you the day after you had sex with a new partner," only 9 percent of the men checked "Was I good?" while 42 percent said they were wondering whether it could lead to a "committed relationship."

These men had good cause to pursue nuptials; if there's one pattern that psychological studies have established, it's that the institution of marriage has an overwhelmingly salutary effect on men's mental health. "Being married," the prominent government demographer Paul Glick once estimated, "is about twice as advantageous to men as to women in terms of continued survival." Or, as family sociologist Jessie Bernard wrote in 1972:

“There are few findings more consistent, less equivocal, [and] more convincing, than the sometimes spectacular and always impressive superiority on almost every index—demographic, psychological, or social—of married over never-married men. Despite all the jokes about marriage in which men indulge, all the complaints they lodge against it, it is one of the greatest boons of their sex.”

Bernard's observation still applies. As Ronald C. Kessler, who tracks changes in men's mental health at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, says: "All this business about how hard it is to be a single woman doesn't make much sense when you look at what's really going on. It's single men who have the worst of it. When men marry, their mental health massively increases."

The mental health data, chronicled in dozens of studies that have looked at marital differences in the last forty years, are consistent and overwhelming: The suicide rate of single men is twice as high as that of married men. Single men suffer from nearly twice as many severe neurotic symptoms and are far more susceptible to nervous breakdowns, depression, even nightmares. And despite the all-American image of the carefree single cowboy, in reality bachelors are far more likely to be morose, passive, and phobic than married men.

When contrasted with single women, unwed men fared no better in mental health studies. Single men suffer from twice as many mental health impairments as single women; they are more depressed, more passive, more likely to experience nervous breakdowns and all the designated symptoms of psychological distress—from fainting to insomnia. In one study, one third of the single men scored high for severe neurotic symptoms; only 4 percent of the single women did.

-Susan Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women

[palms-upturned]

For US unions like the UAW — which has thousands of members in weapons factories making the bombs, missiles, and aircraft used by Israel, as well in university departments doing research linked to the Israeli military — the Palestinian trade union call to action is particularly relevant. When the UAW’s national leadership came out in support of a cease-fire on December 1, they also voted to establish a “Divestment and Just Transition Working Group.” The stated purpose of the working group is to study the UAW’s own economic ties to Israel and explore ways to convert war-related industries to production for peaceful purposes while ensuring a just transition for weapons workers.

Members of UAW Labor for Palestine say they have started making visits to a Colt factory in Connecticut, which holds a contract to supply rifles to the Israeli military, to talk with their fellow union members about Palestine, a cease-fire, and a just transition. They want to see the union’s leadership support such organizing activity.

“If UAW leaders decided to, they could, tomorrow, form a national organizing campaign to educate and mobilize rank-and-file towards the UAW’s own ceasefire and just transition call,” UAW Labor for Palestine members said in a statement. “They could hold weapons shop town halls in every region; they could connect their small cadre of volunteer organizers — like us — to the people we are so keen to organize with; they could even send some of their staff to help with this work.”

On January 21, the membership of UAW Local 551, which represents 4,600 autoworkers at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant (who were part of last year’s historic stand-up strike) endorsed the Palestinian trade unions’ call to not cooperate in the production and transportation of arms for Israel. Ten days later, UAW Locals 2865 and 5810, representing around forty-seven thousand academic workers at the University of California, passed a measure urging the union’s national leaders to ensure that the envisioned Divestment and Just Transition Working Group “has the needed resources to execute its mission, and that Palestinian, Arab and Muslim workers whose communities are disproportionately affected by U.S.-backed wars are well-represented on the committee.”

Members of UAW Locals 2865 and 5810 at UC Santa Cruz’s Astronomy Department have pledged to withhold any labor that supports militarism and to refuse research collaboration with military institutions and arms companies. In December, unionized academic workers from multiple universities formed Researchers Against War (RAW) to expose and cut ties between their research and warfare, and to organize in their labs and departments for more transparency about where the funding for their work comes from and more control over what their labor is used for. RAW, which was formed after a series of discussions by union members first convened by US Labor Against Racism and War last fall, hosted a national teach-in and planning meeting on February 12.

Meanwhile, public sector workers in New York City have begun their own campaign to divest their pension money from Israel. On January 25, rank-and-file members of AFSCME District Council (DC) 37 launched a petition calling on the New York City Employees’ Retirement System to divest the $115 million it holds in Israeli securities. The investments include $30 million in bonds that directly fund the Israeli military and its activities. “As rank-and-file members of DC 37 who contribute to and benefit from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System and care about the lives of working people everywhere, we refuse to support the Israeli government and the corporations that extract profit from the killing of innocent civilians,” the petition states.

In an election year when President Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates will depend heavily on organized labor for donations and especially get-out-the-vote efforts, rank and filers are also trying to push their unions to exert leverage on the president by getting him to firmly stand against the ongoing massacre in Gaza. NEA members with Educators for Palestine are calling on their union’s leaders to withdraw their support for Biden’s reelection campaign until he stops “sending military funding, equipment, and intelligence to Israel,” marching from AFT headquarters to NEA headquarters in Washington, DC on February 10 to assert their demand. Similarly, after the UAW International Executive Board endorsed Biden last month — a decision that sparked intense division within the union — UAW Labor for Palestine is demanding the endorsement be revoked “until [Biden] calls for a permanent ceasefire and stops sending weapons to Israel.”

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Vermont has become the first state to enact a law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a share of the damage caused by climate change after the state suffered catastrophic summer flooding and damage from other extreme weather.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law without his signature late Thursday, saying he is very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on “Big Oil” alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight. But he acknowledged that he understands something has to be done to address the toll of climate change.

“I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways,” Scott, a moderate Republican in the largely blue state of Vermont, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

The popular governor who recently announced that he’s running for reelection to a fifth two-year term, has been at odds with the Democrat-controlled Legislature, which he has called out of balance. He was expected by environmental advocates to veto the bill but then allowed it to be enacted. Scott wrote to lawmakers that he was comforted that the Agency of Natural Resources is required to report back to the Legislature on the feasibility of the effort.

Last July’s flooding from torrential rains inundated Vermont’s capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city Barre, some southern Vermont communities and ripped through homes and washed away roads around the rural state. Some saw it as the state’s worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood that killed dozens of people and caused widespread destruction. It took months for businesses — from restaurants to shops — to rebuild, losing out on their summer and even fall seasons. Several have just recently reopened while scores of homeowners were left with flood-ravaged homes heading into the cold season.

Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, would provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026, on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024. The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company.

It’s a polluter-pays model affecting companies engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil attributable to more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions during the time period. The funds could be used by the state for such things as upgrading stormwater drainage systems; upgrading roads, bridges and railroads; relocating, elevating or retrofitting sewage treatment plants; and making energy efficient weatherization upgrades to public and private buildings. It’s modeled after the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program.

“For too long, giant fossil fuel companies have knowingly lit the match of climate disruption without being required to do a thing to put out the fire,” Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement. “Finally, maybe for the first time anywhere, Vermont is going to hold the companies most responsible for climate-driven floods, fires and heat waves financially accountable for a fair share of the damages they’ve caused.”

Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures.

The American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, has said it’s extremely concerned the legislation “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is preempted by federal law.”

“This punitive new fee represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America’s energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides,” spokesman Scott Lauermann said in a statement Friday.

Vermont lawmakers know the state will face legal challenges, but the governor worries about the costs and what it means for other states if Vermont fails.

State Rep. Martin LaLonde, a Democrat and an attorney, believes Vermont has a solid legal case. Legislators worked closely with many legal scholars in crafting the bill, he said in statement.

“Most importantly, the stakes are too high – and the costs too steep for Vermonters – to release corporations that caused the mess from their obligation to help clean it up,” he said.

[flagellant]

soy sauce question: why do you think the limited information on Blanche Appleton indicates some kimd of conspiracy? It doesn't really seem surprising that there's not more information available about her, since she was one of thousands of mid-level bureaucrats trying to figure out how to distribute scarce post-war resources appropriately. Have you found any other signs of a cover-up or yakuza involvement?

Since starting this research the information has steadily been showing a clearer picture; the finer details of it are still pretty vague and blurry, but I've at least nailed down the foundations.

There was a woman named Blanche Appleton, married to Melville Dickinson, who worked for the GHQ-SCAP and the UNRRA during World War II and lived in Japan during the American postwar occupation. Her descendant that I'm in contact with have told me, quote,

"My grandmother spoke fluent Japanese (among many other languages) and did have connections in the business world there although no one in the family knows of their exact nature."

and

This is the first that I have ever heard of any connection to soy sauce or any particular business venture. There was always a family rumor that she was well connected, but that was attributed to my grandfather's position, not hers.

She was given control over the soy sauce industry in Japan via America--sources here, here, and in the Tokyo Institute for International Policy Studies' 2005 meeting, "Upcoming Changes in Japanese Society and the Future Shape of the Nation". All of these sources not just state that Appleton was involved on the Economics and Scientific team at General Headquarters, they all corroborate and confirm that she, as an individual government worker, was given total control over soy breweries and had power to refuse or grant the materials needed to create soy sauce.

Soy sauce brewed pre-industrialization is considered far superior to the modern techniques which were invented to hasten turnarounds and "waste" less soy beans. From all sources I can find so far, Appleton seems to have had a fundamental disconnect and disbelief about what soy sauce is supposed to be or what it represents, even going so far as to saying that she, quote,

"I want to change Japan's taste preference.”

For the final question regarding proof of yakuza/cover-up, I'm not at liberty to say right now, and I hope you can understand why I might be extremely hesitant and outright unwilling to confirm or deny any of that sort of thing before full publication and complete confidence in something that won't get me sued out of my mind. For legal purposes right now, as I work on this investigation, you can quote me as saying that there is not yet any substantial, non-circumstantial evidence which directly links all three parties of Blanche Appleton, the US government, and the Kikkoman Corporation together in any form of conspiratorial agreement or relationship. I hope that can satisfy you and answer at least some of your questions, just as I hope that you can be satisfied with the reason why I don't feel safe giving anything more than that to the public right now.

[ngdrb]

"The Growing Dangers of the MAGA Movement"

A Growing Threat to American DemocracyIntroductionThe "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, which coalesced around Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and has persisted beyond his presidency, represents one of the most significant political and cultural forces in modern American history. What began as a catchy campaign slogan has evolved into a broad ideological movement with tens of millions of devoted adherents.

While supporters view it as a patriotic effort to restore traditional American values and strength, critics see the MAGA movement as an existential threat to democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law in the United States. This essay will examine the origins and evolution of the MAGA movement, analyze its core ideological tenets and tactics, and explore the various ways in which it poses growing dangers to American democratic institutions and social cohesion.

By synthesizing research, expert analysis, and recent events, we can better understand the nature of this movement and the challenges it presents.

Origins and Evolution of the MAGA Movement

The roots of the MAGA movement can be traced back to long-standing currents of populism, nativism, and anti-establishment sentiment in American politics. However, it was Donald Trump who managed to coalesce these disparate threads into a potent political force during his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump's promise to "Make America Great Again" resonated with millions of Americans who felt left behind by globalization, demographic changes, and shifting cultural norms.

His brash, outsider persona and willingness to buck political correctness attracted those who were disillusioned with conventional politicians. Trump tapped into feelings of economic anxiety, cultural displacement, and resentment toward coastal elites to build a devoted base of support.

After his surprise victory in 2016, the MAGA slogan transformed from a campaign catchphrase into a full-fledged movement and identity. Trump supporters eagerly adopted the MAGA label, proudly wearing red hats and using the hashtag online. The movement took on a life of its own, with Trump as its figurehead but extending well beyond just one man.

Throughout Trump's presidency, the MAGA movement continued to evolve and radicalize. As Trump faced investigations, impeachment proceedings, and constant media scrutiny, his base became increasingly defensive and hostile toward perceived enemies.

Conspiracy theories like QAnon found fertile ground among MAGA adherents. The movement adopted an increasingly apocalyptic and militant tone, portraying itself as the last line of defense against sinister forces trying to destroy America.

The movement reached a crescendo - and a dangerous breaking point - on January 6, 2021, when thousands of Trump supporters violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This event crystallized the growing extremism within the MAGA movement and its willingness to subvert democratic processes. Even after Trump left office, the MAGA movement has endured as a powerful force in American politics. It has reshaped the Republican Party in Trump's image and continues to exert enormous influence through primaries, fundraising, and setting the terms of political debate on the right.

Core Tenets and Ideology

While the MAGA movement encompasses a range of views, several core ideological tenets have emerged as central to its worldview:

America First Nationalism: The movement advocates an "America First" foreign and economic policy, rejecting globalism in favor of national sovereignty and protectionism.

Anti-immigration: Restricting both legal and illegal immigration is a top priority, often couched in nativist rhetoric about preserving American culture.

Cultural traditionalism: MAGA adherents push back against progressive social changes, championing traditional gender roles, religious values, and a nostalgic view of America's past.

Deep state paranoia: The movement is deeply distrustful of government institutions, mainstream media, and other power centers, believing them to be corrupt and working against the interests of everyday Americans.

Cult of personality: Loyalty to Donald Trump personally is a defining feature, with the movement portraying him as a messianic figure fighting dark forces.

Anti-"wokeness": The MAGA movement positions itself in staunch opposition to progressive ideas about systemic racism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other social justice causes.

Election denialism: Following Trump's lead, much of the movement refuses to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 election results, pushing baseless fraud claims.

Conspiratorial thinking: The movement is prone to embracing and amplifying conspiracy theories that support its worldview, from QAnon to COVID-19 misinformation.

These ideological pillars form the foundation of the MAGA movement's grievance-fueled politics and its antagonistic stance toward democratic institutions and norms.

Tactics and Strategies

The MAGA movement employs a range of tactics to advance its goals and expand its influence:

Social media mobilization: Savvy use of platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and newer alt-tech sites allows rapid dissemination of messaging and coordination of grassroots action.

Alternative media ecosystem: A network of right-wing news outlets, podcasts, and influencers creates an insular information bubble for supporters.

Intimidation and threats: Movement figures often use violent rhetoric and veiled threats to intimidate opponents and critics.

Litigation and legal challenges: An army of pro-Trump lawyers file dubious lawsuits to challenge election results and other perceived slights.

Primary challenges: The movement targets "disloyal" Republicans with primary opponents to enforce ideological conformity.

Propaganda and disinformation: Coordinated campaigns spread misleading narratives and outright falsehoods to shape public opinion.

Protests and rallies: Mass gatherings serve to energize the base and project a show of force.

Infiltration of local offices: The movement has pushed supporters to take over low-level government positions like election boards and school boards.

These tactics have proven effective at solidifying the movement's power within the Republican Party and exerting outsized influence on the national political conversation.Growing Dangers to DemocracyThe MAGA movement poses several interconnected threats to the stability and functioning of American democracy:

Undermining faith in elections

Perhaps the most immediate danger is the movement's persistent efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of U.S. elections. By pushing baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and refusing to accept unfavorable results, MAGA leaders are actively eroding public trust in the democratic process.This delegitimization of elections has several alarming consequences. It provides justification for new voting restrictions that disproportionately impact minority communities. It increases the risk of political violence, as we saw on January 6th when MAGA supporters felt empowered to use force to "stop the steal." And it creates a permission structure for future attempts to overturn legitimate election results.If a large segment of the population no longer believes in the basic mechanics of democracy, it becomes nearly impossible to have peaceful transfers of power or to solve problems through normal political channels.

2.Assault on the rule of law

The MAGA movement has shown a troubling willingness to disregard the rule of law when it conflicts with their goals. This manifests in several ways:

Refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas and oversight efforts

Pardoning political allies convicted of crimes

Interfering in ongoing investigations for political purposes

Calling for the imprisonment of political opponents without due process

Flouting ethics rules and profiting from public office

By treating the law as optional or applicable only to their enemies, MAGA leaders set a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of constitutional governance.

3.Embracing political violence

While not universal among supporters, there is a strong current of militancy within the MAGA movement that views violence as a legitimate political tool. This mindset has led to increased threats against public officials, journalists, and even fellow Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal.The events of January 6th represented a shocking escalation, demonstrating that a significant portion of the movement is willing to use force to achieve its ends. Even more concerning is the way many MAGA leaders have subsequently downplayed or justified the Capitol attack.This normalization of political violence profoundly destabilizes democracy and makes peaceful resolution of differences far more difficult

4.Undermining truth and shared reality

The MAGA movement's loose relationship with factual reality represents another serious threat to functional democracy. By embracing conspiracy theories, rejecting scientific expertise, and creating alternative information ecosystems, the movement erodes the possibility of having good-faith debates based on a shared set of facts.When a large segment of the population lives in a completely different epistemic reality, it becomes nearly impossible to find common ground or craft effective policy solutions. This rejection of truth and expertise also leaves followers vulnerable to manipulation and extreme ideas.

5.Weakening of democratic institutions

MAGA leaders have waged a sustained assault on the legitimacy of key democratic institutions like the justice system, intelligence agencies, the press, and career civil servants. By portraying these entities as part of a nefarious "deep state" working against the people, the movement weakens public trust in the very institutions needed for democracy to function.This institutional erosion creates a vicious cycle, as weakened institutions are less able to serve as a check on abuses of power, leading to further deterioration.6.

Personality cult dynamics

The MAGA movement's intense devotion to Donald Trump personally introduces instability and irrationality into the political system. When loyalty to an individual trumps commitment to principles or the national interest, it opens the door to significant abuses of power.The personalization of politics around Trump also makes it more difficult to resolve political differences through normal democratic means. Policy debates get reduced to whether one supports or opposes Trump as an individual.

7.Minority rule tendencies

There are strong anti-democratic currents within the MAGA movement that seek to entrench minority rule through a variety of mechanisms:

Extreme gerrymandering

Voter suppression targeting Democratic-leaning groups

Exploiting the electoral college and Senate's rural bias

Court packing to lock in a conservative judiciary

Calls to repeal the 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators)

These efforts to insulate MAGA power from the will of the majority represent a fundamental threat to the principle of popular sovereignty.

8.Scapegoating and demonitiization

The MAGA movement's rhetoric often seeks to divide Americans into "real" patriots versus dangerous "others" - whether immigrants, racial minorities, liberals, or the nebulous "elite." This deliberate "us vs. them" framing corrodes social cohesion and paints political opponents as existential enemies rather than fellow citizens with differing views.Taken to extremes, this dehumanization of the opposition can be used to justify anti-democratic actions or even violence in the name of defending the "real America.

Potential Future Trajectories

Looking ahead, there are several potential paths the MAGA movement could take, each with significant implications for American democracy:

Moderation and reintegration: In this optimistic scenario, the movement gradually moderates its views and tactics, allowing for its reintegration into normal democratic politics. This would likely require new leadership and a rejection of its most extreme elements.

Continued radicalization: The movement could continue down the path of escalating extremism, embracing more conspiratorial thinking and explicit calls for anti-democratic action. This risks further political violence and democratic backsliding.

Splintering: Internal divisions could cause the movement to fragment into competing factions, potentially diminishing its overall influence but also creating space for even more radical offshoots.

Institutional capture: The movement could succeed in taking over the Republican Party entirely and gaining control of key government institutions, allowing for the implementation of its agenda through official channels.

Authoritarian takeover: In a worst-case scenario, MAGA leaders could leverage a crisis or electoral victory to rapidly dismantle democratic guardrails and institute authoritarian rule, similar to what has occurred in countries like Hungary.

The trajectory the movement takes will depend on a variety of factors, including the actions of MAGA leaders, the response of democratic institutions, economic conditions, and unforeseen events that could reshape the political landscape. Responding to the Threat Given the serious dangers posed by the MAGA movement, a robust democratic response is necessary. Some potential strategies include:

Strengthening democratic institutions: Shoring up the integrity and independence of bodies like the Justice Department, election administration, and civil service to withstand political pressure.

Civic education: Improving public understanding of democratic processes and values to build resilience against anti-democratic messaging.

Media literacy: Equipping citizens with the tools to critically evaluate information sources and resist disinformation.

Bipartisan coalition building: Forging alliances between Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans to present a united front in defense of democratic norms.

Economic policy: Addressing the legitimate economic grievances that fuel support for the movement through inclusive growth policies.

Legal accountability: Ensuring that violations of law and democratic norms face appropriate consequences, regardless of political affiliation.

Depolarization efforts: Investing in initiatives that bridge partisan divides and rebuild social cohesion at the community level.

Election reform: Implementing reforms to increase faith in election integrity while expanding access to voting.

Countering extremism: Providing off-ramps and support for those at risk of radicalization into anti-democratic ideologies.

Conclusion

The MAGA movement represents one of the most significant challenges to American democracy in generations. Its potent mix of grievance politics, personality cult dynamics, and anti-democratic tendencies poses a multifaceted threat to the stability and functioning of the country's political system.

While the movement taps into some legitimate frustrations with the status quo, its proposed solutions and tactics risk undermining the very foundations of constitutional governance. The normalization of political violence, erosion of truth, and delegitimization of democratic institutions create a volatile situation with the potential for severe instability.

Responding effectively to this threat will require a clear-eyed understanding of the movement's appeal and tactics, coupled with proactive efforts to strengthen democratic guardrails and rebuild civic cohesion. The future of American democracy may well hinge on the ability to successfully navigate this challenge in the years to come.

Ultimately, preserving a healthy democracy requires constant vigilance and renewal. The MAGA movement serves as a stark reminder that even long-established democracies are not immune to authoritarian impulses. By understanding the nature of this threat, Americans across the political spectrum can work to uphold the principles of democratic self-governance for future generations.

[darkmaga-retard]

The news that Ford was scrapping its SUV EV came just a month after the company announced it was switching the manufacturing at its plant in Oakville, Ontario, which had been earmarked for EV production, to Ford’s F-series pickups, its flagship fuel-powered trucks.

“The move,” the New York Times reported, “is the latest example of how automakers are pulling back on aggressive investment plans in response to the slowing growth of electric vehicle sales.”

Several factors contribute to the low demand for EVs, including high prices, range anxiety and a lack of charging infrastructure. EVs are significantly more expensive than comparable fuel-powered vehicles, and the price gap is widening. Consumers also express concerns about limited driving range, particularly in cold weather, and the availability of charging stations.

Ford’s aggressive push into EVs, driven in part by government incentives and pressure, has resulted in significant financial losses.

“The costs of listening to industry experts and politicians in Washington instead of consumers – and profits – have been severe,” the American Institute for Economic Research (“AIER”) said. 

The company lost billions of dollars on EV sales, selling each unit at a substantial loss. Ford reported a loss of $4.7 billion on EV sales in 2023, roughly $40,525 per vehicle sold.

It highlights the importance of meeting consumer demand in a free market economy.

“Ford’s massive pullback from EVs is part of a broader return to economic reality. Companies flourish in a free market economy not by serving bureaucrats but consumers, the true ‘bosses’,” AIER wrote.

[mimi-0007]

****†** EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. ****Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory—which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Unitary executive theory is a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor of fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of various federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. .

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other government agencies, or terminated. Scientific research would receive federal funding only if it suits conservative principles. The Project urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and to restrict access to contraception. The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank that leads the development of Project 2025, asserted in April 2024 that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state" while driving the country to emulate totalitarian nations, such as North Korea. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity, stating in its Mandate that "freedom is defined by God, not man." Project 2025 proposes criminalizing pornography, removing protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action. The Project advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and to direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. It recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants across the country. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted that it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many people to join the government in order to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future President to "regain control" of the federal government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation has developed Project 2025 in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA, led by its executive director Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America, led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal, led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller. The Project is detailed in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a version of which Heritage has written as transition plans for each prospective Republican president since 1980. Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.

[bitchesgetriches]

bgr, i have some money that i can put in a retirement account, but i’m having trouble bringing myself to do it because the world seems like it’s on the verge of ending (not to be dramatic). i’m in my early twenties and it’s hard to imagine current financial institutions still existing in 50 years, for better or for worse.

Man that hits hard. We get it! The future is pretty fucking uncertain right now. So here are 3 reasons that should motivate you to start a retirement account anyway:

If the world goes to hell in a handbasket, the people who will suffer the most are the poor. That's how it always is. People with fewer resources always get shit on most when economic downturns happen. So consider your retirement account one way to provide a little security for you and your community against the day the shit hits the fan.

You don't have to wait to retire to use a retirement account. In the event of a major emergency, you can withdraw from that retirement account and use the money. You'll pay tax penalties, but if things are really grim, that'll be the least of your worries.

Economic collapse rarely happens overnight. We're going to have some warning. And when that warning comes, the more diversified your finances are, the more options you'll have to secure yourself and your loved ones. That means not only having cash on hand, but a savings account you can access quickly, non-retirement investment accounts, a retirement account, a credit card, assets you can liquidate fast. It's about having Plans B through Z lined up if the worst should happen.

We have a bunch of similar questions, so I think this is worth researching a bit more. Especially with, y'know, multiple wars going on and American democracy balanced on the edge of a knife. We'll look into it and write a more comprehensive guide to both why you should still have a retirement fund AND how you can use it to secure your present if our collective future is taken away.

And this was grim so HERE ARE SOME PUPPIES:

More advice:

Season 1, Episode 12: "Should I Believe the Fear-Mongering about Another Recession?" 

Ask the Bitches: How Do I Prepare for a Recession? 

You Must Be This Big to Be an Emergency Fund 

Dafuq Is Insurance and Why Do You Even Need It? 

3 Times I Was Damn Grateful for My Emergency Fund (And Side Income) 

If you found this helpful, consider joining our Patreon.

[misfitwashere]

We thank you, Joe

Tonight is for you

Robert Reich

Aug 19, 2024

Friends,

Tonight’s opening of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party and the nation to take stock of Joe Biden’s term of office and thank him for his service.

He still has five months to go as president, of course, but the baton has been passed.

Biden’s singular achievement has been to change the economic paradigm that reigned since Reagan and return to one that dominated public life between 1933 and 1980 — and is far superior to the one that has prevailed since.

Biden’s democratic capitalism is neither socialism nor “big government.” It is, rather, a return to an era when government organized the market for the greater good.

The Great Crash of 1929 followed by the Great Depression taught the nation a crucial lesson that we forgot after Reagan’s presidency: markets are human creations. The economy that collapsed in 1929 was the consequence of allowing nearly unlimited borrowing, encouraging people to gamble on Wall Street, and permitting the Street to take huge risks with other people’s money.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration reversed this. They stopped the looting of America. They also gave Americans a modicum of economic security. During World War II, they put almost every American to work.

Subsequent Democratic and Republican administrations enlarged and extended democratic capitalism. Wall Street was regulated, as were television networks, airlines, railroads, and other common carriers. CEO pay was modest. Taxes on the highest earners financed public investments in infrastructure (such as the national highway system) and higher education.

America’s postwar industrial policy spurred innovation. The Department of Defense and its Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration developed satellite communications, container ships, and the internet. The National Institutes of Health did trailblazing basic research in biochemistry, DNA, and infectious diseases.

Public spending rose during economic downturns to encourage hiring. Antitrust enforcers broke up AT&T and other monopolies. Small businesses were protected from giant chain stores. Labor unions thrived. By the 1960s, a third of all private-sector workers were unionized. Large corporations sought to be responsive to all their stakeholders.

But then America took a giant U-turn. The OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s brought double-digit inflation followed by Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s effort to “break the back” of it by raising interest rates so high that the economy fell into deep recession.

All of which prepared the ground for Reagan’s war on democratic capitalism. From 1981 onward, a new bipartisan orthodoxy emerged that markets functioned well only if the government got out of the way.

The goal of economic policy thereby shifted from the common good to economic growth, even though Americans already well-off gained most from that growth. And the means shifted from public oversight of the market to deregulation, free trade, privatization, “trickle-down” tax cuts, and deficit reduction — all of which helped the monied interests make even more money.

The economy grew for the next 40 years, but median wages stagnated, and inequalities of income and wealth surged. In sum, after Reagan’s presidency, democratic capitalism — organized to serve public purposes — all but disappeared. It was replaced by corporate capitalism, organized to serve the monied interests.

**

Joe Biden revived democratic capitalism. He learned from the Obama administration’s mistake of spending too little to pull the economy out of the Great Recession that the pandemic required substantially greater spending, which would also give working families a cushion against adversity. So he pushed for and got the giant $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

This was followed by a $550 billion initiative to rebuild the nation’s bridges, roads, public transit, broadband, water, and energy systems. He championed the biggest investment in clean energy sources in American history — expanding wind and solar power, electric vehicles, carbon capture and sequestration, and hydrogen and small nuclear reactors. He then led the largest public investment ever made in semiconductors, the building blocks of the next economy. Notably, these initiatives were targeted to companies that employ American workers.

Biden also embarked on altering the balance of power between capital and labor, as had FDR. Biden put trustbusters at the head of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. And he remade the National Labor Relations Board into a strong advocate for labor unions.

Unlike his Democratic predecessors Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Biden did not reduce all trade barriers. He targeted them to industries that were crucial to America’s future — semiconductors, electric batteries, electric vehicles. Unlike Trump, Biden did not give a huge tax cut to corporations and the wealthy.

It’s also worth noting that, in contrast with every president since Reagan, Biden did not fill his White House with former Wall Street executives. Not one of his economic advisers — not even his treasury secretary — is from the Street.

The one large blot on Biden’s record is Benjamin Netanyahu. Biden should have been tougher on him — refusing to provide him offensive weapons unless Netanyahu stopped his massacre in Gaza. Yes, I know: Hamas began the bloodbath. But that is no excuse for Netanyahu’s disproportionate response, which has made Israel a pariah and endangered its future. Nor an excuse for our complicity.

***

One more thing needs to be said in praise of Joe Biden. He did something Donald Trump could never do: He put his country over ego, ambition, and pride. He bowed out with grace and dignity. He gave us Kamala Harris.

Presidents don’t want to bow out. Both Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson had to be shoved out of office. Biden was not forced out. He did nothing wrong. His problem is that he was old and losing some of the capacities that dwindle with old age.

Even among people who are not president, old age inevitably triggers denial. How many elderly people do you know who accept that they can’t do the things they used to do or think they should be able to do? How many willingly give up the keys to their car? It’s not surprising he resisted.

Yet Biden cares about America and was aware of the damage a second Trump administration could do to this nation, and to the world. Biden’s patriotism won out over any denial or wounded pride or false sense of infallibility or paranoia.

For this and much else, we thank you, Joe.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos:

President Joe Biden is no longer a candidate for 2024. However, no one should be less than incredibly enthusiastic—and grateful—when it comes to his accomplishments during his term. Biden is simply the greatest progressive president of our lifetimes. Full stop. Biden pulled America from the death, despair, and economic hardships generated by Donald Trump's criminal mismanagement of the pandemic that was killing 20,000 Americans per week when he took office. He steered the nation around a recession that economists considered inevitable, generated a surge in manufacturing that is still just getting started, brought new business creation to record levels, broke records on creating jobs and reducing unemployment, and shored up the importance of unions as the heart of the middle class. 

He restored faith in America around the world, healed the rift Trump created with our allies by strengthening and expanding NATO, and kept faith with Ukraine as it struggled against an illegal and unprovoked invasion by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. He put America back into the fight against the climate crisis, oversaw record levels of new renewable energy, took serious steps to address long-festering environmental issues, steered U.S. auto manufacturing toward the future, and did it all while reaching record levels of oil production and destroying OPEC’s hold over the United States. He demonstrated compassion and took action to protect society's most vulnerable members in the face of rising Republican hate. He ushered in an era of declining crime, declining gun sales, and rising opportunity. 

[...] People are going to be driving on better roads, crossing safe bridges, and enjoying improved public facilities for years thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The American Rescue Plan not only provided the vaccine that pulled the nation through the worst of the pandemic, but kept money in people’s pockets, kept families in their homes, and kept businesses in business at a time when other economies around the world were suffering. Technology jobs and factories that had been bleeding away from the United States for decades came racing back thanks to the CHIPS and Science Act, and that same bill is stimulating basic research whose benefit will be felt for decades. The Inflation Reduction Act not only helped address its namesake issue, but provided funds for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and the protection of both farmlands and wild spaces. 

This is a far from exhaustive list. Biden accomplished more in the last three and a half years than any other president has done in two terms. He did it while never sinking into treating his political opponents as any less than his fellow Americans. He never surrendered his boundless faith in American institutions and our founding principles. And he did it while attending church each Sunday before visiting the graves of his first wife and two of his children, all lost to tragedy.

Joe Biden in his one term as President did a lot of good for America, as he helped get America out of the mess as a result of COVID and got several influential bills passed.

[visit-new-york]

New York City

New York tumblr more photos here New York City, often simply referred to as NYC, is one of the most iconic and vibrant cities in the world. Located in the northeastern part of the United States, it is situated on the southeastern tip of the state of New York. With a population of over 8 million residents within the city limits and over 20 million in the greater metropolitan area, it is the most populous city in the United States.

Geography and Layout: New York City is composed of five boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island. The city is located on a series of islands and connected by bridges and tunnels. Manhattan, the heart of the city, is where many of its most famous landmarks are located. It is divided into several neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and atmosphere. The city is known for its impressive skyline, dominated by iconic skyscrapers like the Empire State Building, One World Trade Center (Freedom Tower), and the Chrysler Building.

Culture and Diversity: One of New York City's defining characteristics is its incredible diversity. People from all over the world have made the city their home, resulting in a rich tapestry of cultures, languages, cuisines, and traditions. This diversity is celebrated through various cultural events, festivals, and neighborhoods that showcase the heritage of different communities.

The city's cultural scene is unparalleled, with world-class museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), and the American Museum of Natural History. Broadway, located in the Theater District of Manhattan, is synonymous with American theater and is famous for its top-tier productions.

Economy and Business: New York City is a global economic powerhouse. Its financial district, centered around Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, is home to some of the world's largest and most influential financial institutions. The city's economy is incredibly diverse, encompassing finance, media, technology, fashion, tourism, and more.

Education and Research: The city boasts some of the world's most prestigious universities, including Columbia University, New York University (NYU), and The City University of New York (CUNY) system. These institutions contribute to the city's reputation as a hub for research, innovation, and intellectual exchange.

Cuisine and Culinary Scene: New York City is a culinary melting pot, offering an array of dining options that reflect its multicultural makeup. From street food carts offering hot dogs and pretzels to high-end restaurants serving international cuisines, the city caters to all tastes and budgets. Iconic foods like New York-style pizza, bagels, and deli sandwiches are part of the city's culinary fabric.

Transportation: The city's extensive public transportation system, which includes the subway, buses, and ferries, is a crucial part of daily life for millions of residents and visitors. The yellow taxi cabs are also an iconic symbol of the city's transportation.

Landmarks and Attractions: New York City is home to an impressive array of landmarks and attractions. Some of the must-visit places include:

Times Square: A bustling commercial and entertainment hub known for its bright lights, theaters, and New Year's Eve celebrations.

Central Park: An expansive green oasis in the heart of Manhattan, offering a retreat from the urban hustle and bustle.

Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island: Iconic symbols of American freedom and immigration history.

Brooklyn Bridge: A historic suspension bridge connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn, offering stunning views of the city skyline.

Rockefeller Center: A complex of commercial buildings, famous for its ice-skating rink and the Top of the Rock observation deck.

The High Line: A unique elevated park built on a former railway track, offering a serene escape above the city streets.

Museums and Art Galleries: In addition to the aforementioned museums, NYC is home to the Guggenheim Museum, Whitney Museum of American Art, and more.

Challenges and Opportunities: Despite its allure, New York City also faces challenges such as high living costs, traffic congestion, and issues related to affordable housing. The city has shown resilience in the face of challenges, and initiatives are continually being developed to address these concerns and create a more equitable and sustainable future.

In summary, New York City is a dynamic and multifaceted metropolis that captivates visitors and residents alike with its cultural richness, economic vitality, and unparalleled energy. Its ability to constantly reinvent itself while honoring its history makes it a truly remarkable and enduring global city.