A man that had an extremely tough Presidency and received considerable blame for many of the policies of Nixon.
I especially loved the work he did after his Presidency . . . and probably one of the few who made a bigger impact after his time in office (compared to what others have done after their time in office).
My favourite Carter moment during his Presidency was his fireside chat wearing a sweater during the “energy crisis”. Not many American Presidents would have the guts to tell the electorate they needed to make sacrifices, even if it was only to tell them to turn down the thermostat a bit.
Well to be fair, the whole 55 mph speed limit was an enforced sacrifice.
Yeah but Nixon was already unpopular when the 55 mph rule was brought in and he was not eligible for reelection as he was in his second term. Not much to lose personally. Carter was urging sacrifices early in his first term.
Fox News is attacking “woke” corporations. Always annoys me to see taking action on climate change (and other progressive actions) labelled as a “left wing” activity.
Several states in the US are attempting different tactics to “encourage” companies to exclude climate risk in their investment risk assessments.
(supposedly a non-paywalled link)
Interesting. I read the rejection of the ND bill at least to be a positive development if I understand correctly what the bill was trying to do? Article was a bit unclear on details of ND bill.
ESG principles can put companies in an awkward position. Some stockholders would sue for failing to consider ESG in their investments. Other stockholders would sue for failing to maximize profits.
Wow, that is quite the propaganda piece from Fox.
This article belongs in the “Political Lies” thread. "Ben & Jerry’s [is a] Vermont-based ice cream company " is one of the only true statements from that article.
In fairness, it is labeled as an opinion piece, authored by someone who (I assume) isn’t on Fox News payroll.
EDIT: Looks like he’s a regular contributor to the Fox News opinion section. Presumably he’s being paid, although he’s probably not really a “Fox News staffer” (at least to the extent that you can draw a distinction between “people who work for X” and “people who submit columns for X”
Probably paid him something for the piece.
I need to update my post. Looks like the author is a regular contributor…so he’s probably getting paid.
Freelance or payroll? Seems like a distinction without a difference.
Senate Republicans use same Fox adjectives of woke, left wing and liberal as reasons to overturn rule permitting investment managers to consider climate change (and other ESG items) in investment decisions.
I have not been following this issue, so I may be hideously under-informed.
But it seems to me like it should be perfectly fine to take various issues into consideration when investing. If you want to avoid “sin” companies like porn or alcohol or tobacco, fine. Want to not invest in gun/weapon manufacturers, fine. Want to not profit from big bad corporations like Walmart that put Mom & Pop shops out of business, fine. Or skip investing in big polluters, great. Or not invest in any right/left wing media companies, sure.
But if you are doing so it should be clearly communicated. Then if I don’t mind making a buck off Smith & Wesson but you want to feel warm & fuzzy about investing in a company with a much higher P/E ratio that makes biodegradable windmills we can both do as our consciences dictate.
That doesn’t seem like it should be hard. Why is it hard? What am I missing? Is it 401K investment choices? Are there employers who only offer a choice between Monsanto and OANN?
What you are missing is those companies spend a shit ton on money lobby Congress and want that sweet, sweet retirement investment money flowing.