That’s unfortunate; I’ve used the same credit union for about 22 years and have never had any issues like you describe at all. My experience has been incredibly smooth and I’ve never had any issues with availability of funds coming into or out of my account. Hopefully you can find a better one.

Also don’t forget about credit unions.

Baby steps are great, and I’m a huge fan of the strongtowns mentality of “what is the next smallest thing we can do that will make progess”.

Unfortunately this is a baby step nowhere, and most likely a big boy step backwards. It won’t meaningfully reduce carbon emissions even if everything else stays the same. Unfortunately things probably won’t stay the same, instead prices for food and transportation will increase leading towards resentment towards climate change policies and those that enacted them.

I appreciate California’s efforts but these kind of half measures are at best nearly useless in terms of fighting CO2 emissions and are likely to be counter productive.

Nearly useless because vehicles only account for 25% of emissions. So even if CA replaced 100% of their gasoline and diesel with 0 carbon fuels it would reduce nationwide CO2 by about 3% (assuming California is 12% of the population and 12% of the 25% of emissions from vehicles). That’s nice, but really not something that will move the needle on climate change. So best case scenario there’s no meaningful changes in global emissions.

Even under this best case co2 reduction this is going to increase transportation and food costs. This pisses people off, further alienating them from the Democratic party. This will push the electorate towards Republicans who will promise to lower gas prices that the Democrats are pushing up with useless policies to fight the global warming hoax. This further hampers other efforts to address co2 emissions and climate change.

To live and work nearly anywhere in the United States, California included, you will almost always be dependent on your car. Since there’s no real substitute good to buy when fuel prices increase there’s no practical way to avoid the finacial hardship caused by this misguided policy. Raising fuel prices without viable alternatives to car travel won’t change anything and will make people angry and resentful towards those that are responsible for raising fuel prices.

We need to stop chasing half assed non-solutions and start building solutions that are viable alternatives to car travel. Build roads that are safe for pedestrians and micromobility. Build reliable and safe public transportation wherever it’s feasible. Reduce the number of cars trips by incentivizing work from home.

Who knows, maybe these steps will decrease demand for cars and fuel so much that prices of electric cars and 0 carbon fuels will come down enough that we’ll be able to 100% replace co2 emissions where public transit isn’t feasible without causing a financial hardship. Until then this is another poor political choice with no real upside by Democrats.

At this point another D isn’t likely to have much impact on legislation given the strong Republican majority in the senate. Maybe having another D in the senate will make a difference after 2026 which is nicr.

For now Rosen is just another piece of shit pushing Israel’s agenda and I’m disgusted this will further embolden the AIPAC to continue their intensive campaign to control American politics.

Oh shit you’re the one who shared those online articles? Thank you for your service 🫡

My family is trying to sort out which European country to move too and it seems like so many of them are electing some sort of Trump.

For me Europe is still a better option than the US for two primary reasons.

First, most countries are so far ahead of America in terms of social progress even if a PM/president/whatever leader takes a country back 30 years it’ll still be way ahead of the US.

Second, most European countries have a much better voting system that will make it easier to oust the Trumpian leader and fix the stuff they messed up in the future.

I don’t know if you voted for him or not, I do know you have aggressively and prolifically campaigned for him on Lemmy.

Looks like your aggressive support Trump worked out very well.

In the the US laws are passed by the legislative branch, in particular laws around spending are passed by the House of Represtatives. Currently the House or Representatives is controlled by the Republican party, the party of which Donald Trump is the undisputed leader. As such Trump has sufficient control over the Republican party to broadly control the parties legislative priorities, including spending. In fact he has already used this authority to enact his legislative priorities around spending and immigration reform among other things.

Donald Trump has directed the Republican party to support the genocide in Gaza, so the Republican party provides the funding necessary to for the IDF to conduct the genocide in Gaza.

Additionally when Donald Trump was president he did several things to empower Israel including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and required all Palestinian affairs to go through this embassy.

While the Democratic party has played a part in supporting the genocide, Donald Trump and the Republican party absolutely have the power to stop the US from passing funding bills to arm the IDF and help stop the genocide. Instead he and the Republican party he leads enthusiastically support what Israel has been doing in Gaza and now are trying to do in Lebanon. There’s every reason he’ll take the US’s support for the genocide even further.

Uhh this guys only been right 10 times since 1984, that’s way worse than a broken clock.

That’s a weird way of saying Trump supports Russian imperialism and will encourage genocide in Ukraine in addition to the genocide in Palestine.

Do you have any sources to back up your claims?

This sounds great but isn’t really true at all. Please don’t spread misinformation.

money Congress appropriates? Yes, federal agencies must prudently plan to spend money during its period of availability, but the President can request that Congress cancel or rescind some of this funding. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (Impoundment Control Act) of 1974 outlines a fast-track procedure for legislation responding to a President’s rescission request. Upon submitting a proposal to Congress, the President can withhold the funds targeted for rescission for up to 45 days or until a withholding would prevent the funding from being prudently obligated. If Congress has not enacted legislation by the end of that period, the funds must be released, and they cannot be proposed for rescission again under the Impoundment Control Act. Until 2018, a president had not proposed a rescission under this process since 2000. In May 2018, President Trump sent a package of proposed rescissions to Congress for consideration. Congress did not act on that request to approve any of the proposed reductions under the fast-track procedure, and the funding was released.

From here: http://democrats-budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheets/frequently-asked-questions-about-federal-budget#Congress appropriates

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds

This reticence to give out CHIPS Act funding right away apparently stemmed from fears from the government that Intel specifically would not meet its promises. “[There is fear that] Intel is going to take chips money, build an empty shell of a factory and then never actually open it, because they don’t have customers,” said former Commerce Department official Caitlin Legacki.

Honestly this seems like rare reasonable move by the federal government.