#Subsidies (Government support programs)

[luxuryroof]

Budget 2025: A Game Changer for Indian Real Estate? Key Expectations & Market Impact

Will This Budget Unlock Growth, Affordability, and Investment in Real Estate?

As India gears up for Union Budget 2025, the real estate sector is on high alert, anticipating policy shifts that could redefine housing affordability, taxation benefits, and infrastructure expansion. With the industry contributing nearly 7% to the GDP and projected to reach $1 trillion by 2030, real estate stakeholders—homebuyers, investors, and developers—are eyeing reforms that can boost demand, streamline regulations, and fuel long-term growth.

From tax breaks for homebuyers to incentives for green real estate, this year’s budget could be a make-or-break moment for the property market. Here’s what the industry is hoping for:

1. Affordable Housing: Bigger Incentives, Bigger Opportunities

One of the biggest expectations from Budget 2025 is an aggressive push for affordable housing, a segment that remains a key government priority. With the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) in full swing, developers and buyers alike are looking for:

✅ Extension of PMAY Benefits – Increased funding and subsidies for first-time homebuyers under Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS). ✅ Higher Tax Deductions – Raising the Section 80EEA benefit (currently ₹1.5 lakh) to ₹2.5 lakh to help middle-income buyers. ✅ Lower GST on Under-Construction Properties – Reducing the current 5% GST (without ITC) to 3% or reinstating input tax credit (ITC) for builders to cut costs.

These moves could enhance affordability, improve sales volumes, and strengthen India’s housing demand.

2. Tax Benefits: More Savings for Homebuyers & Developers

Industry players have long demanded higher tax exemptions to boost liquidity and sales. Key tax-related expectations from Budget 2025 include:

📌 Increase in Home Loan Interest Deduction – Raising the Section 24(b) limit from ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh can make home loans more attractive. 📌 Relaxation in Capital Gains Tax – Expanding Section 54 exemptions to encourage reinvestment in real estate. 📌 GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) for Developers – Allowing builders to claim ITC can reduce project costs and make homes more affordable.

A well-balanced tax regime could encourage new home purchases, attract more investors, and drive fresh capital into the sector.

3. Infrastructure & Urban Expansion: Driving Real Estate Growth

Real estate thrives on strong infrastructure, and this budget is expected to boost metro expansions, smart city projects, and expressway networks. Experts are calling for:

🏗️ More Funding for Smart Cities & Urban Development – Expanding beyond metros to Tier 2 & Tier 3 cities. 🚆 Increased Connectivity Through Highways & Metro Rail – Unlocking new investment zones for real estate growth. 🏢 SEZ Reforms & Commercial Hubs – Making it easier to develop and sell properties in Special Economic Zones.

With India’s urbanization rate growing at 2.3% annually, these measures could expand real estate demand beyond metro cities.

4. REITs, Co-Living & Rental Housing: Unlocking the Next Big Market

The rental housing sector and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are emerging as game-changers, and Budget 2025 could further boost these markets with:

💼 Tax Incentives for REIT Investors – Offering capital gains tax exemptions or tax-free dividends to increase retail participation. 🏘️ Rental Housing & Co-Living Support – Special incentives for rental housing projects, student housing, and senior living. 📊 New Rental Housing Policy – Making it easier for private players to set up and manage large-scale rental properties.

With millennials and Gen Z preferring rental options, a structured rental housing framework could increase affordability and expand investment opportunities.

5. Stamp Duty & Registration Charges: A Much-Needed Rationalization

One of the biggest roadblocks in real estate transactions is high stamp duty and registration charges, which vary across states. The sector is hoping for:

📉 Reduction in Stamp Duty for First-Time Buyers – A centralized reduction policy to increase home sales. 🏡 Tax Deduction on Stamp Duty Costs – Making stamp duty partially deductible under income tax laws to improve affordability.

These measures could significantly lower property acquisition costs and encourage more real estate transactions.

6. Green Real Estate & Sustainable Development

Sustainability is the future, and Budget 2025 is expected to encourage eco-friendly real estate practices by:

🌱 Tax Benefits for Green Buildings – Reduced GST and subsidies for energy-efficient and sustainable real estate projects. ⚡ Incentives for Solar & Renewable Energy in Housing – Subsidies for solar power, rainwater harvesting, and energy-efficient homes. 🏗️ Higher Floor Space Index (FSI) for Green Certified Projects – Allowing eco-friendly buildings to have higher permissible construction limits.

With climate change concerns rising, incentivizing green real estate can attract global investors and ensure long-term sustainability.

Final Thoughts: Will Budget 2025 Be a Game Changer?

The Union Budget 2025 has the potential to revolutionize the real estate sector by focusing on affordability, infrastructure expansion, taxation benefits, and sustainable development.

For homebuyers, tax relaxations and lower interest rates could make homeownership easier. For developers, GST simplifications and incentives could reduce costs and increase profitability. For investors, REIT incentives and rental housing policies could unlock new income streams.

A progressive and real-estate-friendly budget could fuel industry growth, attract foreign investments, and make housing more accessible for millions of Indians. All eyes are now on the finance ministry—will Budget 2025 deliver the much-needed boost? Only time will tell. 🚀

[cksaksen-blog]

Big Changes to Singapore’s Welfare System: What Every Family Needs to Know!

The Singapore government has rolled out several key welfare initiatives aimed at improving support for the elderly, expanding housing grants for low-income families, and strengthening family welfare programs. These changes will provide increased financial aid in areas like healthcare, housing, and childcare, ensuring that vulnerable groups in society have better access to essential…

[reasonsforhope]

"Cody Two Bears, a member of the Sioux tribe in North Dakota, founded Indigenized Energy, a native-led energy company with a unique mission — installing solar farms for tribal nations in the United States.

This initiative arises from the historical reliance of Native Americans on the U.S. government for power, a paradigm that is gradually shifting.

The spark for Two Bears' vision ignited during the Standing Rock protests in 2016, where he witnessed the arrest of a fellow protester during efforts to prevent the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline on sacred tribal land.

Disturbed by the status quo, Two Bears decided to channel his activism into action and create tangible change.

His company, Indigenized Energy, addresses a critical issue faced by many reservations: poverty and lack of access to basic power.

Reservations are among the poorest communities in the country, and in some, like the Navajo Nation, many homes lack electricity.

Even in regions where the land has been exploited for coal and uranium, residents face obstacles to accessing power.

Renewable energy, specifically solar power, is a beacon of hope for tribes seeking to overcome these challenges.

Not only does it present an environmentally sustainable option, but it has become the most cost-effective form of energy globally, thanks in part to incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Tribal nations can receive tax subsidies of up to 30% for solar and wind farms, along with grants for electrification, climate resiliency, and energy generation.

And Indigenized Energy is not focused solely on installing solar farms — it also emphasizes community empowerment through education and skill development.

In collaboration with organizations like Red Cloud Renewable, efforts are underway to train Indigenous tribal members for jobs in the renewable energy sector.

The program provides free training to individuals, with a focus on solar installation skills.

Graduates, ranging from late teens to late 50s, receive pre-apprenticeship certification, and the organization is planning to launch additional programs to support graduates with career services such as resume building and interview coaching...

The adoption of solar power by Native communities signifies progress toward sustainable development, cultural preservation, and economic self-determination, contributing to a more equitable and environmentally conscious future.

These initiatives are part of a broader movement toward "energy sovereignty," wherein tribes strive to have control over their own power sources.

This movement represents not only an economic opportunity and a source of jobs for these communities but also a means of reclaiming control over their land and resources, signifying a departure from historical exploitation and an embrace of sustainable practices deeply rooted in Indigenous cultures."

-via Good Good Good, December 10, 2023

[dandelionsresilience]

Dandelion News - January 22-28

Like these weekly compilations? Tip me at $kaybarr1735 or check out my Dandelion Doodles!

1. Sunfish that got sick after aquarium closed has recovered — thanks to human cutouts

“A solitary sunfish […] appeared unwell days after the facility closed last month for renovations. As a last-ditch measure to save the popular fish, its keepers hung their uniforms and set up human cutouts outside the tank. The next morning, the sunfish ate for the first time in about a week and has been steadily recovering[….]”

2. Costco stands by DEI policies, accuses conservative lobbyists of 'broader agenda'

“[Each of the board of directors and 98% of shareholders voted to reject a measure against DEI.] Costco's board wrote that “our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary[….]””

3. Nearly $37 Million Will Support Habitat Restoration in Coastal Louisiana

“The project will restore nearly 380 acres of marsh and construct more than 7,000 feet of terraces in St. Bernard Parish. […] Coastal wetlands help protect communities [… from] wind, waves, and flooding[… and] support a statewide seafood industry valued at nearly $1 billion per year.”

4. Cooling green roofs seemed like an impossible dream for Brazil's favelas. Not true!

“[… A Brazilian nonprofit] teaches favela residents how to build their own green roofs as a way to beat the heat without overloading electrical grids[…,] dampen noise pollution, improve building energy efficiency, prevent flooding by reducing storm water runoff and ease anxiety.”

5. Bacteria found to eat forever chemicals -- and even some of their toxic byproducts

“"Many previous studies have only reported the degradation of PFAS, but not the formation of metabolites. We not only accounted for PFAS byproducts but found some of them continued to be further degraded by the bacteria," says the study's first author[….]”

6. A father and daughter’s to turn oil data into life-saving water

“The aquifer [discovered through oil-owned seismic data], it turned out, was vast enough to provide water for 2 million people for more than a century.”

7. Trump’s funding pause won’t impact federal student loans, Pell Grants

“[… T]he temporary pause will not impact “assistance received directly by individuals,” including federal direct student loans and Pell Grants, which are government subsidies that help low-income students pay for college.”

8. In Uganda, a women-led reforestation initiative fights flooding, erosion

“[… T]he Kasese municipality has established nurseries to provide free tree seedlings, particularly to women, to support reforestation efforts. [… They] plant Ficus trees near their homesteads to provide shade and help control erosion, and Dracaena trees on their fields to retain soil moisture.”

9. [A Texas school board] votes yes to provide low-cost housing to staff at no cost to the district

“The program will include 300 homes[…] only a short commute to campuses. […] Rent will be determined on a sliding scale based on their salaries, with those making less receiving a larger discount. The proposed community would include amenities, like childcare facilities[….]”

10. Heat pumps keep widening their lead on gas furnaces

“Americans bought 37% more air-source heat pumps than the next-most-popular heating appliance, gas furnaces, during the first 11 months of the year. That smashes 2023’s record-setting lead of 21%.”

January 15-21 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)

[samuelbush7578]

Elon Musk’s Five-Pronged Approach to Reducing Government

Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), has long been vocal about his concerns regarding excessive government intervention. Whether it’s through regulatory pushback, decentralization efforts, or technological disruption, Musk is actively working to reduce government influence in five key ways.

1. Challenging Regulatory Overreach

Musk has repeatedly criticized government regulations that he believes stifle innovation. From Tesla’s battles with dealership laws to SpaceX’s friction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), he has frequently clashed with authorities over what he sees as unnecessary red tape. By publicly pushing back against these restrictions, he aims to set precedents that could lead to reduced regulatory burdens across industries.

2. Privatizing Space Exploration

NASA was once the sole player in space exploration, but SpaceX has shifted the industry toward privatization. By reducing dependence on government-funded programs and proving that private companies can outperform traditional bureaucratic models, Musk is driving a shift away from government monopolization of space travel.

3. Advocating for Free Speech and Decentralization

After acquiring Twitter (now X), Musk positioned himself as a champion of free speech, often criticizing government involvement in content moderation. He has also expressed support for decentralized social media and blockchain technologies, which could reduce reliance on centralized, government-regulated platforms.

4. Developing Alternative Energy and Infrastructure

Tesla’s push for electric vehicles and solar power indirectly challenges government-controlled energy industries. By promoting self-sufficient energy solutions, such as home battery storage and off-grid living, Musk is creating alternatives that reduce reliance on state-controlled utilities and fossil fuel subsidies.

5. Advancing AI and Automation to Limit Government’s Role

Musk has a complex stance on artificial intelligence (AI), both warning about its dangers and investing in its development through xAI. By accelerating automation, he envisions a future where technology reduces the need for bureaucratic inefficiencies, potentially shrinking government involvement in areas like labor regulation and public sector jobs.

Conclusion

Musk’s efforts to reduce government influence aren’t just theoretical; they manifest in tangible actions across multiple industries. Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen, but his impact is already reshaping the relationship between innovation and regulation.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

J. Dylan Sandifer at TNR:

Two egos like Elon Musk’s and Donald Trump’s could never share the spotlight if it weren’t for the unifying force of grifter solidarity—two oligarchs teaming up to further tip the scales against everyone else. Just as Trump’s P.R. campaign as a canny dealmaker hid his multiple bankruptcies, Musk’s rogue genius performance serves as cover for the fact that he’s just another billionaire buying up others’ ideas and playing the system with enough of a safety net to repeatedly fail. His whole shtick is built on the idea that he’s a bold, self-made innovator who defies the odds, shuns government handouts, and stands for the unbridled power of the free market. In reality, his empire, built originally on an apartheid emerald mine, has been propped up by public money for years. One of its most consistent sources of income has been Tesla’s exploitation of the carbon credit market.

Tesla, the supposed future of clean energy, isn’t just making money by selling electric cars—it’s making a fortune off a regulatory loophole. In the first nine months of 2024, 43 percent of Tesla’s net income came from selling credits to other automakers that hadn’t met emissions standards. It’s not innovation that’s keeping Tesla’s finances afloat; it’s a rigged system that Musk is milking for everything it’s worth. And all the while, he’s using his newfound power as Trump’s unelected co-president to gut the very government programs that provide working people with a fraction of the support that he’s quietly pocketing. Musk loves to sneer at working-class people who rely on food stamps or unemployment benefits, claiming they’re lazy or entitled. But what’s more entitled than using regulatory credits to boost your company’s stock price and then leveraging that stock for loans to keep your cash flow steady? The hypocrisy gets even more grotesque when you look at Musk’s role in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—the dystopian fever dream where he’s now helping Trump dismantle social programs under the guise of “cutting waste.” While he’s ensuring billionaires like himself keep their tax breaks and loopholes, he’s working to slash food assistance, disability benefits, and Social Security. The plan is clear: If you’re rich, the government will help you get richer. If you’re poor, you’re on your own. Meanwhile, Musk has strategically positioned himself to undermine public infrastructure alternatives to his products. Musk has started targeting public transit and infrastructure projects, claiming they are bloated and inefficient—while his own half-baked ideas, like the Las Vegas “Loop” (a glorified tunnel for Teslas), receive public subsidies and fizzle out into tech-world vaporware. He is claiming that government spending on social good is a waste, while positioning himself as the one true visionary who should receive those taxpayer dollars instead. Here’s how Tesla’s legalized scam works: Under California’s Zero Emission Vehicle, or ZEV, mandate and the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards, carmakers are required to meet emissions targets. If they don’t, they have to buy carbon credits from companies that produce cleaner vehicles. Tesla, which only sells electric cars, racks up a surplus of these credits and sells them to gas-guzzling automakers that don’t want to invest in real change. In other words, Tesla isn’t making money because it’s selling cars efficiently—it’s making money because Ford and GM still rely on gasoline. Musk has figured out how to turn regulatory inaction into a billion-dollar side hustle. If Tesla’s carbon credit well ever runs dry—if regulatory standards change or if automakers finally catch up—Tesla’s bottom line takes a hit. That’s when the whole house of cards Musk has built starts to wobble.

Musk’s entire empire hinges on one thing: Tesla’s sky-high stock price. He’s leveraged Tesla shares to take out massive loans, using them as collateral to fund his lifestyle and side projects. This means that keeping Tesla’s valuation high is a matter of personal financial survival. Those carbon credits—essentially free money from the government—make Tesla’s earnings look better than they actually are, which in turn props up its stock price. But this strategy is starting to fall apart. Tesla’s stock is plummeting—down nearly 40 percent this year—due to increased competition, battery technology falling behind, and Musk’s erratic behavior scaring off investors. When a company is built on smoke and mirrors, it doesn’t take much for the illusion to shatter.

A big chunk of Elon Musk’s Tesla income comes from their regulatory credits scheme.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

An upwelling of outrage spreads across America

January 29, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump plunged America into chaos on Tuesday as the implications of his unconstitutional “freeze” on federal grants and loans began to sink in. In a gigantic miscalculation, Trump risked driving the US economy into a tailspin that would take years to overcome.

Or not.

Trump has the opportunity to blink (voluntarily or involuntarily)—but that window is closing rapidly. There are three offramps to this crisis caused by his illegal “freeze” on all federal grants and loans:

Public outrage will force Trump to retreat. A massive upwelling of public outrage is spreading across America. It may take a day or two for MAGA members of Congress to absorb the outrage from their constituents who suddenly realize Trump's thoughtless action has threatened their constituent’s economic security. Millions of Americans have been plunged into uncertainty over government benefits, loans, grants, and payments. They are letting their representatives know how they feel. See Politico, Trump's spending freeze spreads chaos across US. Indivisible has called on congressional Democrats to oppose all nominees until Trump repeals the unconstitutional freeze, saying, “Shut down the Senate.”

The markets may tell Trump to retreat. In a day or two, the money managers on Wall Street will realize that freezing government benefits to seniors, students, veterans, families, government contractors, and people in general will cause a sudden, massive contraction in consumer spending. A shrinking economy will instill fear in the most bullish fund managers. If the markets drop over worries of recession, Trump will hear from the only constituency he fears: Megadonors upset over losses in their portfolios.

Private litigants should be able to obtain an injunction. It is also possible that a judge will pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it. If they do so, they will grant a permanent injunction against Trump's unconstitutional order. On Tuesday, a federal judge granted an “administrative stay,” but that stay was ambiguous and limited. The stay was designed to allow the parties to submit briefing for a hearing next Monday. Moreover, the stay appeared to allow some portions of the “freeze” to remain in effect. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

Trump attempted to quiet the growing sense of panic by claiming that the freeze would not affect individuals receiving “direct assistance” from the federal government. That assurance is illusory because most federal grants and loans are not paid directly to individuals but rather, are paid through states, federal agencies, and third-party programs that manage federal grants and loans—e.g., Head Start, scientific research grants, federal infrastructure projects, educational subsidies to state schools, programs to support and house veterans.

And despite the assurances from the White House that “direct assistance” to individuals would not be affected, the facts proved otherwise. The Medicaid portal was closed to states (who administer Medicaid funds) for much of the day. See Quartz, Trump Medicaid freeze locks 72 million Americans out of their health insurance. The administration claimed that the shutdown of the Medicaid portal was a “fluke” unrelated to the freeze—a lie so transparent it hurts to repeat it.

Here is the (semi) good news: The Trump administration has already begun to walk-back the reach of the ill-considered freeze, claiming that the following grants and loans are not affected by the freeze: Medicaid, student loans, small business loans, and SNAP food assistance. It is likely that as the media and constituents identify more crucial programs—like food inspection, air traffic control improvements, law enforcement subsidies, veterans’ programs--the administration will make case-by-case exceptions that will swallow the rule.

Although millions of Americans may suffer economic hardship and extreme anxiety in the short term, the financial crisis of withholding hundreds of billions of dollars with no notice may be averted. But the constitutional crisis remains front and center. We cannot allow the constitutional questions to be lost in the understandable focus on the financial implications of Trump's order.

Trump's order is unconstitutional—and it is important that we not lose sight of that fact

Many in the media are downplaying the illegality and unconstitutionality of Trump's “freeze” order. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC described the illegal order as “controversial.” The New York Times covered the freeze order as a political kerfuffle: “Trump’s ‘Flood the Zone’ Strategy Leaves Opponents Gasping in Outrage.” The NYTimes Editorial Board had nothing to say about Trump's blatant effort to rewrite the Constitution by demoting Congress to an advisory body subject to being overridden on presidential whim.

Congressional Republicans defended the order’s legality. The few Republicans who criticized the order did so only on the ground that it “went too far” in affecting their constituents. Susan Collins said,

I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example. But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.

Here’s the problem with Susan Collins’s analysis: The order is unconstitutional not because it is overbroad but because the president has no authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Period. See ABC News, Trump funding freeze a blatant violation of Constitution, federal law: Legal experts.

As I wrote yesterday, we need to set aside euphemisms and niceties in raising the alarm. Rebecca Solnit (of The Guardian) rose to the challenge with a post on BlueSky:

[T]hat was a coup last night in case no one mentioned that to you. The executive branch seized the power of the purse the Constitution gave to Congress, which is a pretty authoritarian / illegal consolidation of powers move. Time to go yell at your reps, the media, etc.

Senator Angus King of Maine said,

This is a profound constitutional issue. What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States.

See Charles P. Pierce, Esquire, Trump’s Federal Grant Freeze Looks Like an Assault on the Authority of Congress.

The grassroots organization Indivisible likewise pulled no punches with a special alert to its members, headlined: Trump’s Dictatorial Power Grab: Chaos, Cruelty, and Constitutional Collapse.

Indivisible wrote:

Congress Controls Federal Spending. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress—not the president—the power to allocate and control federal funds. By freezing funds Congress appropriated, Trump is undermining a foundational principle of democracy. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Enacted after Nixon’s abuses, the ICA explicitly prohibits the president from withholding funds appropriated by Congress without following a strict process. Trump has not followed this process, and in many cases, the ICA outright bars the impoundment of these funds.

Indivisible suggests a “no holds barred” response (with which I wholeheartedly agree):

Refuse to Negotiate. Trump is using federal programs as hostages in a power grab. Democrats must refuse to engage in any funding or debt ceiling negotiations while this freeze remains in place. No compromises with dictatorship. Sound the Alarm. Every senator must become a megaphone for what’s at stake. Go on TV, hold town halls, and flood social media with the stories of families who will lose food, homes, and healthcare because of Trump’s chaos. Back Legal Challenges. Support every lawsuit challenging this freeze. File amicus briefs, amplify cases, and make it clear this isn’t just morally wrong—it’s illegal.

All good suggestions. And the point about backing legal challenges may be the best way to fight this power grab. US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued a short-term administrative stay to allow further briefing on an application for an injunction. See CNN, Judge temporarily blocks part of Trump administration’s plans to freeze federal aid.

The lawsuit before Judge AliKhan makes an important point: The memo was issued by the Acting Director of the OMB. Per the lawsuit, the OMB has no authority to direct agencies to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Per the plaintiffs in the lawsuit:

The [OMB] Memo fails to explain the source of (the Office of Management and Budget’s) purported legal authority to gut every program in the federal government.

Good point. While the OMB is integral to the preparation and monitoring of congressional appropriations, OMB has no authority to override a congressional appropriation. See, generally, Congressional Research Service, Office of Management and Budget (OMB): An Overview.

Here are the takeaways:

First, the freeze threatens the separation of powers specified in the Constitution. We must not allow that point to be lost in the chaos and pain that the illegal order will cause.

Second, the upwelling of public outrage spreading across America is already having an impact! This is the path forward! We must do more of it consistently over the long term. We are off to a good start!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[old-school-butch]

The shrinking global population

This is something that is getting lots of media attention, especially in anything focused on economics and global growth.

The narrative goes like this: as a country’s wealth grows and living gets more expensive, women get more educated and push back the age of marriage and opt to have fewer kids.

There is an incoming deluge of think pieces and policies too to ‘encourage larger families’ that will range from abortion bans to baby subsidies.

As feminists, we must insist that these discussions focus on the reality of women’s labor as the unpaid resource that is being exploited in our society.

Some key points:

1. Even women working full-time jobs do more housework and childcare than their male partners. This is called the ‘double-shift’ and it’s been observed since the 60s.

2, Women in advanced economies that have more supportive programs for mothers, (where having a child doesn’t mean abandoning your career) have more kids that women in advanced economies that offer no support. In nations where those measures - like parental leave - extend to fathers, dads take on more of the work of raising kids and ultimately... this also leads to more kids. So the patriarchal argument that women’s rights need to end so women will return to being barefoot and pregnant can be rebutted with the simple notion of ‘maybe try making motherhood less shitty for women?’

3. Even without government subsidies, women around the world who have male partners who take on more of the house work and childcare have more children. A specific complaint of South Korean feminists, for example, is that men have not changed their attitudes about the role of wives as domestic servants. Why marry a man and have your workload triple - caring for yourself, him and a baby too? Women are making rational choices.

4. Limiting those choices will be attempted. Bans on birth control, abortion rights will be a theme for the next decade.

5. Appealing to racism and/or weird guilt trips will be attempted. Resist all messaging to ‘save’ whatever ethnic, religious, racial or cultural group you are in by having more children than you want.

6. We must resist another rational choice that will be available for some women - to offload the work of child-raising onto an underclass of women. From using surrogates, maids, or low-paid childcare workers - the ‘solutions’ available to upper/middle-class women will continue to exploit economically vulnerable women as a group. Men already exploit these women as mail-order brides, and this practice will increase since so many countries have aborted so many girl fetuses that there’s an excess population of males. Instead, we need to examine how to make childcare more efficient and extend health care for all families to protect women and children’s health.

7. A shrinking population is always framed as a disaster in the making, but surely some economists can come up with ways to manage this process in a way that makes a bit more room on this planet for plants and animals. Growing populations have driven famines and wars for millennia, surely it’s time for humans to learn to how to create a slower, more stable impact on the earth.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization coined CSA in 2009 to describe practices aimed at increasing farm resilience and reducing the carbon footprint of a global food system responsible for up to 37 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, however, observers say that CSA has been usurped by the Gates-led corporate alliance, with programs like Water Efficient Maize for Africa serving as green-painted Trojan horses for industry. “CSA is an agribusiness-led vision of surveillance [and] data-driven farmerless farming, [which explains why] its biggest promoters include Bayer, McDonnell, and Walmart,” said Mariam Mayet of the African Centre for Biodiversity. “From a climate perspective, it entrenches the global inequalities of a corporate food regime. There’s no system shift at all.” Octavaio Sánchez, the grizzled director of Honduras’s National Association for the Promotion of Organic Agriculture, contends that policies that promote true resilience must focus on regenerating soils through the use of organic fertilizers, crop rotation, and the preservation of native seeds able to adapt to changing conditions. These are the cornerstones of a global agro-ecology movement that has emerged from the seed and food sovereignty coalitions of the past three decades. The peasant-led agro-ecology movement—with La Via Campesina and AFSA in front—rejects the familiar refrain from agribusiness promoters that it is condemning farmers to permanent poverty and stagnation. The movement’s position is supported by both a growing literature of case studies and the development of scientific agro-ecological practices. When Gates Foundation officers were preparing to launch AGRA in 2006, researchers at the University of Essex published a study showing that agro-ecological practices increased yields by an average of nearly 80 percent across 12.6 million farms in 57 poor countries. The authors concluded that “all crops showed water use efficiency gains,” which led to “improvements in food productivity.” The UN’s High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition recommended in 2019 that governments support agro-ecological projects and redirect “subsidies and incentives that at present benefit unsustainable practices,” a judgment based on similar studies undertaken around the world.

[voltaspistol]

My friends, here is some information that is being overlooked ... Kelly Barone asked a question: "Why do you think JDT proclaimed that people were either male or female"? Many guessed, but only Kelly was able to succinctly name it.

And here it is --- it was in the original Project 2025 on page 432 in the section: "Financial and Social Order Framework" whose objective is "to restore traditional family structures by reinforcing financial and economic policies that align with conservative values."

Look at what followed:

Section 1: Gender-Based Financial Governance

• All financial accounts will be restructured to prioritize the head of household (traditionally male) as the primary account holder.

• Women’s financial assets will be transferred to their legal male guardian (husband, father, or next of kin) to reinforce familial stability.

• Independent access to credit, loans, and property ownership for unmarried women will be gradually phased out to encourage traditional family roles.

Section 2: Workforce Participation Regulations

• Workplace protections for women, such as maternity leave and pay equity laws, will be reevaluated to ensure they do not unfairly disadvantage male breadwinners.

• Hiring practices will be adjusted to prioritize family stability, encouraging married women to focus on domestic responsibilities.

• Women’s eligibility for unemployment benefits and financial aid will be contingent on marital status and family needs.

Section 3: Social Welfare and Financial Support Restrictions

• Federal assistance programs, including childcare subsidies and food assistance, will be redesigned to encourage traditional family structures, limiting access for single mothers.

• Reproductive healthcare funding will be significantly reduced, reinforcing the sanctity of life and discouraging non-traditional family planning.

Section 4: Financial Oversight and Enforcement

• Government monitoring of women’s financial transactions will be expanded to ensure alignment with traditional family values.

• Restrictions will be placed on the purchase of contraceptives, travel without spousal approval, and independent business ownership for women outside of family enterprises.

It's all there - in print! --- and Margaret Atwood's "Handmaid Tale" (based on reality that either occurred or was occurring at some time/some place in the world) pointed the way.

I don't know about you, but there is no way I am going back to the "good old days" when I couldn't get a bank account, loan, credit card, own property without the signature of my husband/father. I've been there - done that - and will do everything in my power to raise consciousness about this reality that is coming like a giant tsunami.

But are they are NOT going to raise the minimum wage so a single earner can support a wife who can't find a job outside the home, much less a wife who is not allowed to access birth control. Y'all mouthbreathers who can't wait for the closest feeeeemale to be financially shackled to you? You really didn't read the fine print. You're gonna get screwed too when rent's due and wifey can't find a job because no one will hire your wife (but you'll still need to pay off her student loans and credit card debt, which are now your student loans and credit card debt, because you assumed complete financial control of her estate). And don't expect a real estate magnate to start federal programs to make rent affordable. Trump makes most of his money off property being valued as high as possible, and higher rent means higher property valuation. Trump won't lower rent. Ever. The fantasy that if you enact biblical law as federal law and everything will just fall into place as long as you're a good upstanding man with a good work ethic? Is just that-- A fantasy.

Also, your wife is 1000% going to poison your ass if she can't divorce you, just like in the good 'ol days. Or electrocute you. Or switch your meds around. Or cut your brake cables.

Unhappy Wife, Lose Your Life

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

New Orleans: Stop the Cuts! Emergency Rally

Saturday, March 29 - 2:00 p.m.

Canal & Elk Sts., New Orleans

Called by Louisiana Workers Councils

1.5 million people in Louisiana are on Medicaid. 59% are working, others are children, seniors, and disabled people. 72 million depend on Medicaid across the country.

Urban and rural clinics and hospitals will close without Medicaid. 58% of Louisiana rural children use Medicaid.

867,000 people in Louisiana get SNAP (food stamps). 86% are children, seniors and disabled people. 42 million people in the US depend on food stamps to feed their families. New Orleans has the highest rate of senior hunger in the US.

Trump, supported by Gov. Landry, wants to impoverish all Louisiana workers. Their end game is to make millions live in desperation so they can lower all workers’ wages. They lie about waste and fraud in government programs to convince workers not to support poorer workers and the unemployed.

Landry and his millionaire buddies refuse to raise the minimum wage, which has been $7.25 since 2009. Yet $2 billion of Louisiana's tax revenue is lost every year due to tax exemptions and subsidies to oil, gas, and other profit-making corporations.

We reject the billionaires' attempts to scapegoat immigrants and LGBTQ people. We reject the hideous expansion of prisons. Greedy billionaires are the problem. Across the country people are urgently organizing against these cuts. Join the fight!

Get involved, email us at LouisianaWorkersCouncils@gmail.com.

[acti-veg]

Promising that existing systems can be greened and that we can avoid uncomfortable discussions about issues like dietary change appeals to the strong status quo bias of the people holding the purse strings in national and global food and climate politics.

And, of course, the more the orthodox discourse about livestock emissions reduction embraces technological fixes—much like many climate mitigation models hold out hope of viable carbon capture technology—the more the meat industry can clamor for a seat at the climate table and the funding that comes with it.

Much as the U.S. government was convinced to shovel subsidies to the clean coal merchants, it now feeds grants to beef giants like Tyson Foods to support their allegedly lower-emissions beef through its Climate Smart Commodities program. Meanwhile, methane biodigesters have become less a climate-mitigation strategy and more a steady income stream—dubbed “brown gold”—for factory farms.

This, in turn, allows the industry to greenwash its products, promising consumers low-carbon, feel-good beef. And that, in turn, plays to consumers’ status quo bias and aversion to change: Beef and dairy might be fine after all!

[mariacallous]

Over the past few years, the United States has become the go-to location for companies seeking to suck carbon dioxide out of the sky. There are a handful of demonstration-scale direct air capture (DAC) plants dotted across the globe, but the facilities planned in Louisiana and Texas are of a different scale: They aim to capture millions of tons of carbon dioxide each year, rather than the dozens of tons or less captured by existing systems.

The US has a few things going for it when it comes to DAC: It has the right kind of geological formations that can store carbon dioxide pumped underground, it has an oil and gas industry that knows a lot about drilling into that ground, and it has federal grants and subsidies for the carbon capture industry. The projects in Louisiana and Texas are supported by up to $1.05 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) funds, and the projects will be eligible for tax credits of up to $180 per ton of carbon dioxide stored.

“It’s quite clear that the United States is the leader in policy to support this nascent sector,” says Jason Hochman, executive director at the Direct Air Capture Coalition, a nonprofit that works to accelerate the deployment of DAC technology. “At the same time, it’s nowhere near where it needs to be to get on track—to the scale we need to get to net zero.”

But support for carbon storage is far from guaranteed. Project 2025, the nearly thousand-page Heritage Foundation policy blueprint for a second Trump presidency, would dramatically roll back policies that support the DAC industry and carbon capture more generally. The Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership document proposes eliminating the DOE’s Office for Clean Energy Demonstrations, which provides funds for DAC facilities and carbon capture projects, and also calls out the 45Q tax credit that supports DAC as well as carbon capture, usage, and storage—filtering and storing carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and heavy industry. (The Heritage Foundation did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.)

Sucking carbon out of the sky is not uncontroversial—not least because of the oil and gas industry’s involvement in the sector—but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report says that using carbon dioxide removal to balance emissions from sectors like aviation and agriculture is unavoidable if we want to achieve net zero. Carbon dioxide removal can mean planting trees and sequestering carbon in soil, but a technology like DAC is attractive because it’s easy to measure how much carbon you’re sequestering, and stored carbon should stay locked up for a very long time, which isn’t necessarily the case with forests and soil.

As DAC technology is so new, and the facilities constructed so far are small, it’s still extremely expensive to remove carbon from the atmosphere this way. Estimated costs for extracting carbon go from hundreds of dollars per ton to in excess of $1,000—although Google just announced it is paying $100 for DAC removal credits for carbon that will be sequestered in the early 2030s. On top of that, large-scale DAC plants are likely to cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to build.

That’s why government support like the DOE Regional DAC Hubs program is so important, says Jack Andreasen at Breakthrough Energy, the Bill Gates–founded initiative to accelerate technology to reach net zero. “This gets projects built,” he says. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed in 2021 set aside $3.5 billion in federal funds to help the construction of four regional DAC hubs. This is the money that is going into the Louisiana and Texas projects.

Climeworks is one of the companies working on the Louisiana DAC hub, which is eligible for up to $550 million in federal funding. Eventually, the facility aims to capture more than 1 million tons of carbon dioxide each year and store it underground. “If you do want to build an industry, you cannot do it with demo projects. You have to put your money where your mouth is and say there are certain projects that should be eligible for a larger share of funding,” says Daniel Nathan, chief project development officer at Climeworks. When the hub starts sequestering carbon, it will be eligible to claim up to $180 for each ton of carbon stored, under tax credit 45Q, which was extended under the Inflation Reduction Act.

These tax credits are important because they provide long-term support for companies actually sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. “What you have is a guaranteed revenue stream of $180 per ton for a minimum of 12 years,” says Andreasen. It’s particularly critical given that the costs of capturing and storing a ton of carbon dioxide are likely to exceed the market rate of carbon credits for a long time. Other forms of carbon removal, notably planting forests, are much cheaper than DAC, and removal offsets also compete with offsets for renewable energy, which avoid emitting new emissions. Without a top-up from the government, it’s unlikely that a market for DAC sequestration would be able to sustain itself.

Most of the DAC industry experts WIRED spoke to thought there was little political appetite to reverse the 45Q tax credit—not least because it also allows firms to claim a tax credit for using carbon dioxide to physically extract more oil from existing reservoirs. They were more worried, however, about the prospect that existing DOE funds set aside for DAC and other projects might not be allocated under a future administration.

“I do think a slowing down of the DOE is a possibility,” says Andreasen. “That just means the money takes longer to get out, and that is not great.” Katie Lebling at the World Resources Institute, a sustainability nonprofit, agrees, saying there is a risk that unallocated funds could be slowed down and stalled if a new administration looked less favorably on carbon removal.

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t just doubt the carbon removal industry—it is openly skeptical about climate change, writing in one report that observed warming could only “theoretically” be due to the burning of fossil fuels, and that “this claim cannot be demonstrated through science.” In its Project 2025 plan, the foundation says the “government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market.”

But without government support, the private sector would never develop technologies like DAC, says Jonas Meckling, an associate professor at UC Berkeley and climate fellow at Harvard Business School. The same was true of the solar industry, Meckling says. “You cannot start an industry with a societal good in mind unless you get governments to take an active role,” says Nathan of Climeworks.

While there are some question marks over the future of DOE grants for DAC, the industry appeals to legislators on both sides of the aisle. The Texas DAC hub is being built by 1PointFive, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, and both DOE projects are located in firmly red states. When it was announced that DOE DAC hubs funding would be spent in Louisiana, Senator Bill Cassidy said: “Carbon capture opens a new era of energy and manufacturing dominance for Louisiana. It is the future of job creation and economic development for our state.”

In the long run, Nathan says, the aim is for DAC to be viable on its own economic terms. In time, he says, that will mean regulation that requires industries to pay for carbon removal—a stricter version of emissions-trading schemes that already exist in places like California and the European Union. Eventually, that should lead to a place where the direct air industry no longer requires government support to remove carbon from the atmosphere at scale. “I’m looking at the fundamentals, and those aren’t driven by who’s in office,” Nathan says.

[eretzyisrael]

by Adam Kredo

A U.S. district court rejected the Biden administration’s bid to dismiss a landmark lawsuit alleging it engaged in an "illegal and dangerous $1.5 billion terrorism subsidy program for the Palestinians."

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled on Friday that the lawsuit brought by victims of Palestinian terrorism can proceed, marking the second time the Biden administration’s motion to dismiss the case has been rejected. The court, in its latest decision, said there is evidence the Biden administration continued awarding taxpayer cash to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—the leading aid organization in Gaza—even after Congress blocked funding to that group due to its support for Hamas’s military infrastructure.

The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2022 by American victims of Palestinian terror attacks and Rep. Ronny Jackson (R., Texas), alleges the Biden administration violated federal law when it restarted aid to the Palestinians, including for programs in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. This money, they argue, subsidized terrorism and contributed to the Palestinian government’s "pay to slay" program, which provides imprisoned terrorists and their families with monthly stipends.

The latest decision paves the way for the case to "move forward, tearing away the veil from the Biden Administration’s illegal and dangerous $1.5 billion terrorism subsidy program for the Palestinians," America First Legal, a watchdog group handling the lawsuit on behalf of terror victims, said in a summary of the case provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

"This administration has been illegally funding terrorism by providing taxpayer dollars to Palestinian terrorists who want to bring harm to American and Israeli interests,"  said Rep. Jackson. "This critical decision will help to hold the Biden administration accountable and ensure that the national security of the United States and Israel is prioritized over the illegal funding of terrorism with American taxpayer dollars."

The court agreed that America First Legal provided sufficient evidence that the Biden administration’s financial support for UNRWA "is undiminished," even after Congress outlawed funding to the group following revelations its employees participated in Hamas’s Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel. UNRWA facilities have also been used as Hamas command centers, and weapons stockpiles have repeatedly been discovered in the agency’s buildings.

The Biden administration attempted to argue that the plaintiff’s use of "Trump policies" in its initial suit was "amorpheous [sic] or indeterminate," but the court also rejected this claim, saying the suit clearly demonstrates that aid to both the Palestinians and UNRWA was frozen during the previous administration and subsequently restarted when President Joe Biden took office.

The lawsuit "makes that distinction clear," the court determined, adding that the Biden administration’s "decision to resume those two sources of funding each constitute discrete and final agency actions."

Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal’s senior vice president, said the latest ruling indicates the Biden administration knew it was violating the law by sending aid to the Palestinians but moved forward with this policy anyway.

[attainnaharbristy78585]

Elon Musk’s Five-Pronged Approach to Reducing Government

Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), has long been vocal about his concerns regarding excessive government intervention. Whether it’s through regulatory pushback, decentralization efforts, or technological disruption, Musk is actively working to reduce government influence in five key ways.

Challenging Regulatory Overreach

Musk has repeatedly criticized government regulations that he believes stifle innovation. From Tesla’s battles with dealership laws to SpaceX’s friction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), he has frequently clashed with authorities over what he sees as unnecessary red tape. By publicly pushing back against these restrictions, he aims to set precedents that could lead to reduced regulatory burdens across industries.

Privatizing Space Exploration

NASA was once the sole player in space exploration, but SpaceX has shifted the industry toward privatization. By reducing dependence on government-funded programs and proving that private companies can outperform traditional bureaucratic models, Musk is driving a shift away from government monopolization of space travel.

Advocating for Free Speech and Decentralization

After acquiring Twitter (now X), Musk positioned himself as a champion of free speech, often criticizing government involvement in content moderation. He has also expressed support for decentralized social media and blockchain technologies, which could reduce reliance on centralized, government-regulated platforms.

Developing Alternative Energy and Infrastructure

Tesla’s push for electric vehicles and solar power indirectly challenges government-controlled energy industries. By promoting self-sufficient energy solutions, such as home battery storage and off-grid living, Musk is creating alternatives that reduce reliance on state-controlled utilities and fossil fuel subsidies.

Advancing AI and Automation to Limit Government’s Role

Musk has a complex stance on artificial intelligence (AI), both warning about its dangers and investing in its development through xAI. By accelerating automation, he envisions a future where technology reduces the need for bureaucratic inefficiencies, potentially shrinking government involvement in areas like labor regulation and public sector jobs.

Conclusion

Musk’s efforts to reduce government influence aren’t just theoretical; they manifest in tangible actions across multiple industries. Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen, but his impact is already reshaping the relationship between innovation and regulation.

Go To Website...

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Wajahat Ali at The Left Hook:

Elon Musk showed the world that buying the U.S. presidency only costs about $300 million. This is like shopping at The Dollar Store for the world’s richest man. I grudgingly tip my hat to Musk, an immigrant, who is an aficionado of Nazi salutes much like his Hitler-supporting grandparents who moved to South Africa because they were inspired by the Apartheid regime. Musk’s $290 million was a small risk with a massive return on investment. Money alone didn’t move the needle. He also bought Twitter at a loss so he could take over a major social media site and use it to promote misinformation, conspiracy theories, and platform white supremacists and hate-mongers like Tommy Robinson and Nick Fuentes.

He went all-in with Donald Trump after saying he wouldn’t donate to any candidate because he realized Trump is an unethical criminal who would treat the Oval Office like an ATM. It’s all quid pro quo. Donald has returned the favor by allowing Musk to roam free around Mar-a-Lago, join phone calls with world leaders, dine with tech billionaires who bent the knee, and he even publicly thanked him for helping with those “vote counting computers” in Pennsylvania. So far, whatever Musk wants, he gets. Musk decided to torpedo the bipartisan government spending deal via Twitter and Republicans almost shut down the government to appease him. Musk went all-in with H1B visas and referred to MAGA who criticized him as “contemptible fools” and “retards,” and Trump did a 180 on the issue and sided with him.

So, why be content with just the appetizers? Why not raid the fridge and grab everything, including the cake, the cookies, and all the crumbs? Musk has a voracious appetite and the United States of America as his “all you can eat” buffet. As Donald Trump yells at the clouds and threatens to make Canada the 51st state for balking at “the dumbest trade war in history,” Musk is busy gaining access to all of our financial data. On Friday, David Lebryk, a top civil servant at the Treasury Department, was pushed out of his job after he refused to give DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency headed by Musk, access to the system. Please note Musk is a private citizen and not a federal employee. We still don’t know the scope of DOGE’s role, its limits, its budget, its staff, or whether it will function as a department of the government or exist as an independent organization. What we do know is DOGE is behaving like a Trojan Horse and has allowed Elon Musk to gain access to the Treasury’s federal payment system, which includes every US taxpayer’s personal information. Through DOGE, Musk has promised to eliminate wasteful spending, which according to him includes ending DEI programs, “defanging” regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission and FTC which have investigated his businesses, privatizing the US postal service, “deleting” the IRS, and ending remote work. However, he wants to improve defense spending, so he will continue receiving government subsidies for his SpaceX which will produce rockets that explode in the sky and give Americans the most expensive fireworks.

Another target on his chopping block is eliminating humanitarian spending. He’s accomplishing that goal by attacking USAID, which provides life-saving support to marginalized communities around the world. But to Musk, who loves the pro-Nazi AfD party, USAID is an “evil” and “criminal organization” that deserves to die. As of Sunday, USAID’s X account and website are no longer available. People around the world, such as children in Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine, will die as a result of this cruel, unnecessary action, but, hey, none of that matters to the “pro-life” MAGA movement. On Saturday night, two top security officials from the agency were put on leave because they refused officials from DOGE access to private systems. Thanks to Musk’s interference, the head of the FAA was also forced to resign, which led to the United States being without an FAA chief during a preventable and tragic airline collision in DC that claimed nearly 70 lives. Musk didn’t appreciate Starlink being fined in 2022 for violations of safety protocols.

In two weeks’ time, the Co-”Presidency” of Elon Musk and Donald Trump has destroyed everything that made America great, as the broligarchy has taken over and plundered everything in sight.

See Also:

Let's Address This (Qasim Rashid): MAGAs 7 Deadly Sins—So Far—And How to Fight Back

America, America (Steven Beschloss): Bullies, Criminals and the Fight for America