Green New Deal
The Green New Deal was rolled out carelessly making it an easy target for ridicule. I wish this were not the case as climate change, unlike the other issues we spend approximately 1000% of our time debating, is an existential crisis. Our children may be irremediably cursed or we might be able to take meaningful action now to lessen the impact. I prefer finding and implementing remedies.
terp said:
This is a crazy, crazy document. I mean, it's unrealistic. Here's what I don't get. AOC is quoted on record as saying that we have 12 years to fix this. Let's say that there was an asteroid coming in 12 years. Would we really go and create some unrealistic jobs program as part of the effort to divert or destroy the asteroid?
But that's Washington. Reality just does not matter. I think this article is pretty dead on.
The most refreshing part of the Green New Deal’s proposals though is how honest and transparent the document is – a rarity for Washington. The proposal makes its own comparisons to military plans, stating its objective is “to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2” and remarking at the government’s past success of outperforming expectations when it comes to the manufacturing of war machines. It doesn’t try to downplay the revolutionary vision outlined in the brief, nor even try to act as if this is some sort of policy that will pay for itself, instead it explicitly advocates for it to be financed through the monetary magic of the Federal Reserve.
It is in her honesty in which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s true weakness as a politician lies.
After all, the very same class of political pundits and politicians – on both the left and right – that have decided it is safe to laugh at the freshman Congresswoman’s proposal are almost all guilty of promoting and supporting plans that are similarly absurd.
The article you linked is really stupid and ridiculous in its own right, and full of lies about the GND.
If you believe what scientists are telling us about global warming, then you must support remedial action. What the best actions are is something to be debated, but the need for action is not.
DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE GETTING HOUNDED BY VOTERS FOR SHYING AWAY FROM THE GREEN NEW DEAL
CALIFORNIA SEN. Dianne Feinstein may feel like she was treated unfairly by young activists who have hammered her for not backing the Green New Deal resolution, but she has plenty of company. In upstate New York, Utah, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, voters who feel a much greater sense of urgency than their elected officials have been reacting furiously to politicians who say that the attempt to turn the fossil fuel-based economy around in the next 12 years simply isn’t realistic.
The Intercept. Yeah I take their breathless headline at face value (not).
Look — climate change is a real thing that needs to be addressed.
But, any Dem who embraces the Green New Deal has no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
So, progressives, pick your poison. Stand firm on your principles and get a Trump second term. Or, support a candidate with a more incremental approach who can beat Trump, and fight for GND type stuff down the road.
Smedley said:
But, any Dem who embraces the Green New Deal has no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
I'm surprised that after 2016 anyone makes these kind of absolute pronouncements. Four years ago people were saying a washed up reality game show host had no chance to win the nomination much less the election.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:I'm surprised that after 2016 anyone makes these kind of absolute pronouncements. Four years ago people were saying a washed up reality game show host had no chance to win the nomination much less the election.
But, any Dem who embraces the Green New Deal has no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
Of course what I stated is my opinion but i feel strongly about it.
yahooyahoo said:
terp said:The article you linked is really stupid and ridiculous in its own right, and full of lies about the GND.
This is a crazy, crazy document. I mean, it's unrealistic. Here's what I don't get. AOC is quoted on record as saying that we have 12 years to fix this. Let's say that there was an asteroid coming in 12 years. Would we really go and create some unrealistic jobs program as part of the effort to divert or destroy the asteroid?
But that's Washington. Reality just does not matter. I think this article is pretty dead on.
The most refreshing part of the Green New Deal’s proposals though is how honest and transparent the document is – a rarity for Washington. The proposal makes its own comparisons to military plans, stating its objective is “to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2” and remarking at the government’s past success of outperforming expectations when it comes to the manufacturing of war machines. It doesn’t try to downplay the revolutionary vision outlined in the brief, nor even try to act as if this is some sort of policy that will pay for itself, instead it explicitly advocates for it to be financed through the monetary magic of the Federal Reserve.
It is in her honesty in which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s true weakness as a politician lies.
After all, the very same class of political pundits and politicians – on both the left and right – that have decided it is safe to laugh at the freshman Congresswoman’s proposal are almost all guilty of promoting and supporting plans that are similarly absurd.
How so?
considering that it's a statement of principles and doesn't include any specific policy proposals it "could" cost "as much as" 100 gazillion dollars. If that's what someone wants to believe.
terp said:
yahooyahoo said:How so?
The article you linked is really stupid and ridiculous in its own right, and full of lies about the GND.
It says that a call to eliminate combustible engines was met with widespread ridicule, and that this was unfortunate for Ocasio-Cortez.
You know what’s really unfortunate? A combustible engine.
terp said:
This is a crazy, crazy document. I mean, it's unrealistic. Here's what I don't get. AOC is quoted on record as saying that we have 12 years to fix this. Let's say that there was an asteroid coming in 12 years. Would we really go and create some unrealistic jobs program as part of the effort to divert or destroy the asteroid?
But that's Washington. Reality just does not matter. I think this article is pretty dead on.
Jeebus, if you think that piece of used toilet paper is "dead on"....
I’d name my combustible engine Rusty. I picture him in a pair of red overalls. And he and Tim the flying horsie would be best friends forever and ever.
ml1 said:
considering that it's a statement of principles and doesn't include any specific policy proposals it "could" cost "as much as" 100 gazillion dollars. If that's what someone wants to believe.
Then we should end all of the "Everyone's for it!!!", because everyone's for everything until they see the price tag. That's the science of running an empire with credit created by central banks.
drummerboy said:
Jeebus, if you think that piece of used toilet paper is "dead on"....
terp said:
This is a crazy, crazy document. I mean, it's unrealistic. Here's what I don't get. AOC is quoted on record as saying that we have 12 years to fix this. Let's say that there was an asteroid coming in 12 years. Would we really go and create some unrealistic jobs program as part of the effort to divert or destroy the asteroid?
But that's Washington. Reality just does not matter. I think this article is pretty dead on.
It is dead on. The "principles" are silly. And those in Washington ripping the document deserve nothing but derision.
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:It says that a call to eliminate combustible engines was met with widespread ridicule, and that this was unfortunate for Ocasio-Cortez.
yahooyahoo said:How so?
The article you linked is really stupid and ridiculous in its own right, and full of lies about the GND.
You know what’s really unfortunate? A combustible engine.
Fossil fuels have contributed to pulling billions out of poverty. What's unfortunate is those who fail to see that.
The concession that its just a statement of principles is progress. When I see people arguing, even sophisticated people, about whether "the plan" will work, I get this Emperor's New Clothes feeling. Like, what plan? The word "plan" should not be used in connection with that document. It's a list of utopian goals, nothing more.
terp said:
Fossil fuels have contributed to pulling billions out of poverty. What's unfortunate is those who fail to see that.
And whale oil played its role for a time. And hay powered NYC for a time. It's time to push forward with programs to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It obviously isn't going to happen overnight but it has to happen.
tjohn said:
terp said:And whale oil played its role for a time. And hay powered NYC for a time. It's time to push forward with programs to reduce our use of fossil fuels. It obviously isn't going to happen overnight but it has to happen.
Fossil fuels have contributed to pulling billions out of poverty. What's unfortunate is those who fail to see that.
Please remind me of the giant government program that moved humanity off of whale oil. Did those principles also guarantee everyone a job?
bub said:
The concession that its just a statement of principles is progress. When I see people arguing, even sophisticated people, about whether "the plan" will work, I get this Emperor's New Clothes feeling. Like, what plan? The word "plan" should not be used in connection with that document. It's a list of utopian goals, nothing more.
the people who want us to think it's any more than that are the ones who want to shut down any discussion of the merits of the broader ideas contained in it.
terp said:
ml1 said:Then we should end all of the "Everyone's for it!!!", because everyone's for everything until they see the price tag. That's the science of running an empire with credit created by central banks.
considering that it's a statement of principles and doesn't include any specific policy proposals it "could" cost "as much as" 100 gazillion dollars. If that's what someone wants to believe.
it makes a lot more sense to have an open mind about what the specific legislation is going to be than to reject it out of hand before knowing.
AFAICT, the people who are claiming its more than that are harassing members of Congress for not supporting it.
ml1 said:
terp said:it makes a lot more sense to have an open mind about what the specific legislation is going to be than to reject it out of hand before knowing.
ml1 said:Then we should end all of the "Everyone's for it!!!", because everyone's for everything until they see the price tag. That's the science of running an empire with credit created by central banks.
considering that it's a statement of principles and doesn't include any specific policy proposals it "could" cost "as much as" 100 gazillion dollars. If that's what someone wants to believe.
This is the Nancy Pelosi tactic? The devil is in the details. If you like your car, can you keep your car?
terp said:
AFAICT, the people who are claiming its more than that are harassing members of Congress for not supporting it.
are they claiming that the resolution is more than it is? where did you see that?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:Of course what I stated is my opinion but i feel strongly about it.
Smedley said:I'm surprised that after 2016 anyone makes these kind of absolute pronouncements. Four years ago people were saying a washed up reality game show host had no chance to win the nomination much less the election.
But, any Dem who embraces the Green New Deal has no chance to win the 2020 presidential election.
But given how the ideas in it generally poll with voters, and given that the GOP is already going to ridicule any Democratic candidate as an out of touch socialist coming to take your stuff away, I don't see that much downside. The people who are going to believe the silly scare stories about it are going to believe other silly scare stories about the Democrat.
Terp,
Here's the deal - not the GND. Is anthropomorphic global warming real? If you say no, end of discussion. If you say yes, what is your plan?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I’d like to ride to work on an electric carousel pony. That floats through the air. Like a butterfly. I’d name mine Tim. Tim the horsie. And he’d have a brown saddle.
And we could eat crinkle cut fries together every Sunday.