Candidates
We are currently researching Mandeep Kaur’s political policies. Please check back soon.
If you are Mandeep Kaur, please use our candidate login process to verify your identity and manage this profile here.
Join in on the post popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH submitted…22hrs22H
The parents of former ISIS and al Qaeda hostages, and a former al Qaeda hostage, are backing President Donald Trump’s selection of Tulsi Gabbard to be his next Director of National Intelligence (DNI), writing in a letter first obtained by the Washington Reporter that “American hostage families know that Tulsi Gabbard has always been on our side.”The letter’s signatories are Carl and Marsha Mueller, the parents of Kayla Mueller, an aid worker who was taken hostage by ISIS and who was murdered by terrorists almost ten years ago, and Theo Padnos and his parents, Nancy Curtis and Michael Padnos. Theo was held hostage by al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate for almost two years.The group, which knows all too well the barbarism of ISIS and al Qaeda, wants the Senate to quickly confirm Gabbard. “Given the threat that has lately surfaced in New Orleans, we feel that the sooner the senate confirms Tulsi Gabbard the better, as the nation needs leadership that will keep Americans safe,” they wrote.The letter from the Mueller and Pados families is a boon to Gabbard, who has rolled out major backing — including a recent open letter of support signed by over 1,100 veterans. Gabbard, herself an Iraq War veteran who has spent over two decades in the Army and Army Reserves, has also been rolling out support from the senators she will need to confirm her.Gabbard’s time in the Middle East, the Mullers and Padnoses believe, “has given her an understanding of this phenomenon which other policy makers simply do not have. She has been compassionate towards terrorism’s victims. She has been a fierce advocate for bringing its practitioners to justice.”
▲ 135 replies
President Joe Biden announced a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the US coastline on Monday in a move designed to bolster his environmental and climate legacy as he prepares to leave office.The order will protect 625mn acres of ocean on the US east coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, as well as portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska, the White House said on Monday.“My decision reflects what the coastal communities, business and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said.The executive action will not prevent oil and gas companies obtaining leases in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico, areas that produce almost 15 per cent of the nation’s oil supplies. Nevertheless, the move is expected to complicate the policy agenda of incoming president Donald Trump, who has vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and boost US oil production, even though it is already at a record level.The Trump transition team said it was a disgraceful decision designed to exact “political revenge on the American people” and the incoming president said he would immediately “unban” Biden’s prohibition on new offshore drilling.“I have the right to unban it immediately . . . we can’t let that happen to our country. It’s our greatest, it’s really our greatest economic asset,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview on Monday.Biden’s action will probably be challenged by the oil industry in court and face pushback from Republicans in Congress. But overturning the order could prove challenging and may require an act of Congress, according to legal experts.Biden is using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, to protect the areas from drilling — the same mechanism which former president Barack Obama used previously to ban offshore drilling in some Arctic and Atlantic waters in 2016.In 2019, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by former president Donald Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.
▲ 199 replies
@ISIDEWITH submitted…2hrs2H
The U.S. government on Tuesday issued new rules to remove roughly $49 billion in unpaid medical debts from Americans’ credit reports, even as debt collectors and incoming Republican leaders have signaled they might try to overturn the policy entering the Trump administration.The new prohibition targets credit-reporting companies, including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, which assemble detailed dossiers about consumers that they furnish to banks, employers and landlords so that they can evaluate a person’s finances.Under the new policy, these credit reports can no longer include past-due medical bills, and companies that obtain a person’s credit history cannot evaluate their application based on outstanding medical debts. The regulation from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does not forgive any health-related debts.The agency estimated Tuesday that its rules would help about 15 million Americans, some of whom have been unable to obtain jobs, apartments, credit cards or mortgages if unavoidable medical debts appear as glaring, derogatory marks on their credit histories, lowering their scores.Many of these people carry medical debt despite having some form of health insurance. The CFPB said some of the past-due balances are actually erroneous, reflecting amounts already paid or greatly overstated totals compared to what a person actually owes.“People who get sick shouldn’t have their financial future upended,” Rohit Chopra, the agency’s director, said in a statement. “The CFPB’s final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe.”The CFPB rules are likely to draw sharp opposition from credit-reporting agencies and debt collectors, which blasted the agency last year when it first proposed the idea.
▲ 710 replies
@ISIDEWITH submitted…13hrs13H
The U.S. economy has added more than two million jobs over the past year. But more people who are out of work are having a hard time getting back in. As of November, more than seven million Americans were unemployed, meaning they didn’t have work and were trying to find it. More than 1.6 million of those jobless workers had been job hunting for at least six months, according to the Labor Department. The number of people searching for that long is up more than 50% since the end of 2022. On average, it now takes people about six months to find a job, roughly a month longer than it did during the postpandemic hiring boom in early 2023, according to the Labor Department. The pain is largely in high-paying white-collar jobs, including in tech, law and media, where businesses grew fast when the economy reopened from the pandemic but now have less need for new hires. A labor market that looks healthy in the headlines is, under the surface, weaker than it seems. The unemployment rate, at 4.2%, remains well below the average during the decade before the pandemic. But there is now just about one job posting per unemployed worker, down from two in early 2022. Strong hiring has narrowed to a thin set of industries. The government’s monthly jobs report on Friday will provide another snapshot of the market’s health. More people getting unemployment benefits are drawing on public aid longer. New data released last week from the Labor Department show that 1.8 million people continued to file for previously granted unemployment benefits as of late December, near the postpandemic high.Year-over-year wage growth has fallen to 4%, down from about 6% at the height of the early 2020s hiring spree. That’s a sign that many employers don’t have to jostle so hard to attract workers. To date, the labor market has been weakening primarily due to less hiring—not widespread layoffs. But once companies decide to reduce payrolls, job cuts often snowball quickly, which could spark a much faster jump in the unemployment rate, said Veronica Clark, a Citigroup economist.
▲ 129 replies
