Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
16
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@greensandbeansgaming1358 Just wanted to weigh in on your comments about NY and California deciding presidents every year.
First of all these 2 states have less than 17% the total US population. You may as well argue that Texas and Florida decide our elections as the populations are roughly equal.
This way of thinking also assumes that members of those states will also vote the same way. As the previous comment noted, upstate NY frequently votes very differently to NYC. Due to this fact, in an electoral college system their votes are ignored, however in a popular vote count they will be added just like everyone else. Their vote goes from being worthless to counting.
A more open voting system like this would also force presidential candidates to pay closer attention to states that they would usually win or lose without much contest. As it stands, Democrats and Republicans never bother with California, Alabama, Washington or Mississippi, with the election decided by usually less than half the states going 1 way or the other. If ever single vote is counted equally, suddenly Republicans can appeal to Californians, and Democrats to Alabamans.
Just as you say, different states have different cultures, but so do individuals within states. Surely they should be heard as well. Should we consider voters in smaller states more heavily just because they are in a small state? Why do the people of Wyoming matter more than 3 times more than Californians? Because there are less of them? So because I like in a high populace state I'm now less of a person?
A popular vote is the only fair way to hold an election. There is a reason the US is considered a flawed democracy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alsilva3720 There isn't a bill, they haven't written it yet. According to the general plan however, yes around 5% is going to roads and bridges. They are also putting money into Amtrak, climate-related disaster resilience, road safety, airport upgrades, ports, public transit, electric vehicle chargers, retrofitting homes, high-speed broadband, school upgrades, water infrastructure, improving the electric grid, VA hospitals and clinics, public housing, cleaning up abandoned wells, clean energy, community college upgrades, federal building modernization, childcare facility upgrades, caregiver funding for elderly and disables, domestic manufacturing support, American workforce development infrastructure and worker protection, upgrade research labs, climate tech, domestic industry capacity monitoring, dislocated worker programs, new technology foundation, and research and development for small businesses. Lots of things that will pay dividends in the future overall.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lulu111593 According to the CDC the vast majority of those 94% didn't have life threatening conditions. Obesity is considered a comorbidity, but that's already about 42% of the country. Then enter things like diabetes, asthma, COPD, kidney disease, HIV, heart disease, liver disease, transplants, pregnancy, tobacco users or any sort of immunodeficiency. The vast majority of these deaths are in people who were weakened by their conditions, but certainly not at death's door. If you then look at excess deaths year over year the numbers get worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@macarenaturcattideleon5642
"What will help our economy is open blue states and stop killing jobs"
Biden has no control over how open or closed blue states are. The plan he has proposed will create jobs.
"don’t increase our taxes when business are struggling"
If a business has no new profits then they don't pay taxes. The idea that struggling businesses are effected by changes to tax rates is a misnomer.
"increase wages when people don’t have jobs"
Increasing wages will uplift the economy, stimulating billions in spending, and adding billions to tax revenue.
"2T money isn’t going to infrastructure"
Right, about 80%+ is though. The rest is going to elderly care, as I explained above.
"1.9T didn’t went to American people! Only 9% of the 1.9T went to the American people"
Incorrect. The stimulus cheques alone made up over 20% of that funding. Almost all the rest of the funding also went back to the American people. Small business loans, unemployment payments, SNAP benefits, expanded tax credits, covid response, healthcare are all directly to us. The rest helps the American people in less direct ways. Broadly quoting the number 9% (which was a reference to only the direct stimulus payments as a percentage of the entire omnibus bill) is so stupid I'm not sure where to start.
"You are entitled to your on opinion not to your facts"
Which is why I am stating the actual facts and not Fox News talking points based on lies.
"Everything is Billions and Trillions in this administration"
Almost like they're trying to stimulate the economy or something.
"Infrastructure in other words means money flowing into corrupt politicians packets and we the taxpayers get the bill to pay of all this printed money"
No, infrastructure funding means building and upgrading the many many out of date pieces of US infrastructure. This included:
56,000 structurally deficient bridges in the US, and over 200,000 that are more than 50 years old.
15,500 high hazard dams.
Over 1 million drinking water pipes that are over 100 years old.
Almost all US power grid transmission and distribution lines being over 60 years old, with a life expectancy of just 50 years.
Funding for levees to protect from flooding.
Various national parks projects that need attention.
Port overhauls needed to replace small ports that cannot accommodate larger and larger ships.
Hugely outdate railways that need a massive amount of funds for not just repairs, but also new high-speed lines that could make billions for the economy.
Crumbling roads, with a backlog of $836 billion in unmet capitol needs to repair and replace the 32% of urban and 14% of rural broken roads.
24% of school buildings in fair and poor condition that need upgrades and repairs.
Distinct lack of recycling pretty much anywhere in the country.
$90 billion in backlogged public transit projects.
Building over 500 new wastewater treatment plants.
All of these projects will also create jobs. So are you in favour of job creation or not?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jwoods9659
"Name one green job, aside from the largest one" lol
Okay, wind turbine technician, grid integration engineer, energy transition specialist, renewable estimator and renewable energy designer. Then there are all the jobs that can be created when making these renewable products like:
Solar panels made in a dozen different states.
Wind turbine manufactures like GE Renewable Energy and PacWind.
Hydroelectric dam contraction jobs.
US biofuel manufacturing, which also reduces our reliance on oil.
Geothermal energy jobs, which could in reality be the real key to heating millions of homes for almost nothing, and are made by US HVAC companies, and installed by qualified geotechnical engineers.
At the end of the day the green energy sector creates more jobs per KWh than any other sector, and currently employs over 3 million Americans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikhailtolstykh4104 No, it's not splitting hairs, it's giving you a best case scenario and showing how obviously you just made up numbers. As I already said, which you ignored because you're blinded by your indoctrination, this is a best case scenario for you and doesn't take into account the sharp reduction in infections and hospitalizations in this same time period. To make it a bit more clear for you if you look at the infection rates of the prior month due to the amount of time between infection and death, and use a 7 day moving average to account for slight shifts in trends day-to-day, you end up with a much clearer picture. It makes sense that the height of infections match the height of deaths, so for this example we'll use the peak in new infections at the start of May and compare it to the peak of deaths at the start of June. This matched the majority of death trends when reviewing new infections vs deaths. What you'll see in this timeframe is a 7 day moving average of new infections at the peak at the start of May of 414,188 cases. The deaths at the peak around 2 weeks later were 4209. This gives a death rate of almost exactly 1.0162%. If we then transpose the number of new infections over the current deaths using the same 2 week time period we get a number of infections of 46,617, and a number of deaths over the same lag time, we get 542, which is a death rate of 1.1627%, an increase of 14% when compared to the previous time period when there was a peak of infections.
So when you actually look at the data, not only are you wrong, you are really really wrong. Deaths in fact increased, and it's far more likely that the introduction of ivermectin was so insignificant it fell between the cracks of standard deviations in a normal distribution.
Or, put simply, the death rate increased in India after they switched to your magic drug.
Funnily enough they have been trialing ivermectin since December 2020 and haven't included it in the MATH+ protocol for a reason, because there is nothing to suggest that it helps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edhuber3557
"Good point. Any pipeline can carry any product in any quantity in any direction at any, all, and the same time."
Again, they already have a keystone pipeline. Building a larger line, especially one that goes over indigenous lands and breaks multiple treaties, while increasing domestic oil prices, is a waste.
"On the other, hand these are present US gov't funds which will be well managed, as always, because of politician's extensive knowledge of technology and infrastructure."
They don't need to have extensive knowledge. They are given recommendations, most notably the recent US infrastructure report care, to advise their decisions.
"We know this taxpayer outlay will be spent for useful, albeit as-yet-unclear infrastructure"
Almost like there isn't a bill yet.
"If holes, pits, or pockets in roads are not filled, then pols will find ratholes, bottomless pits, or pol pockets"
Oh please. They're not the military.
Honestly, you're just throwing out conspiracy theories with nothing to show for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1