|
Post by prozyan on Feb 7, 2019 17:02:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2019 17:35:35 GMT -5
I'm looking through the proposal and I can't seem to find the section on harnessing unicorn magic...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 7, 2019 18:18:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2019 9:37:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Feb 8, 2019 10:42:25 GMT -5
I'm not offended or amused by it, really. I see the NGD as very aspirational, and since I agree with most of its (admittedly unrealistic) goals, I approve of aspiring towards them. Frankly, it's nice that someone's interested in preserving the environment and looking out for their fellow man, in contrast to the corruption-filled grifting lot we have in charge now.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 8, 2019 11:50:26 GMT -5
So AOC is 'looking out for her fellow man' by 1) obliterating the industries of other fuel sources and all the jobs in those sectors 2) obliterating the airlines and all the jobs in that sector 3) obliterating cattle ranching and dairy farms and all the livelihoods there 4) supporting people who are unwilling to work by taking from those who are 5) bankrupting the country OK, excellent. The best thing about the "Green Dream or Whatever They Call it" (LOL, Nancy - high five!) is that it will fracture the Democratic Party further and help Trump get re-elected in 2020. The Dem candidates seem to have no idea that a huge chunk of Democrats are moderate rather than progressive. news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspxMAGA!
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 8, 2019 12:19:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Feb 8, 2019 13:56:30 GMT -5
So AOC is 'looking out for her fellow man' by 1) obliterating the industries of other fuel sources and all the jobs in those sectors 2) obliterating the airlines and all the jobs in that sector 3) obliterating cattle ranching and dairy farms and all the livelihoods there 4) supporting people who are unwilling to work by taking from those who are 5) bankrupting the country OK, excellent. The best thing about the "Green Dream or Whatever They Call it" (LOL, Nancy - high five!) is that it will fracture the Democratic Party further and help Trump get re-elected in 2020. The Dem candidates seem to have no idea that a huge chunk of Democrats are moderate rather than progressive. news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspxMAGA!
Yes, big shock that would be the hysterical Faux News take on things.
Far better we keep electing crooked politicians and carry on the way we've been going, pretending climate change isn't a danger and then obliterating humanity. I mean, if we're being hysterical and all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2019 14:32:18 GMT -5
Oh come, Mark. The "Faux News take" is pretty consistent with the actual resolution. Read it. It's being called a "plan," but that's very generous, imo. Not only does the resolution blame most every conceivable Bad Thing on climate change, it also take it as a given that all of these can be fixed via government mandate. And if you look closely, its slips into the far right agenda--something that communism manifestos also did--at some moments by realigning things along a populist line. Look as section (4), paragraph K: But beyond all of that, it's really just a pipe dream, with no sense of "how," and--in some cases--serious questions of "why." It's catching flak--and rightly so, imo--because of these reasons, above all else.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Feb 8, 2019 15:38:06 GMT -5
Oh I'm not saying it's perfect, or even awesome. But it's not meant to be a step-by-step guide, at least the way I see it. I guess I see it more as a Sistine Chapel ceiling to aspire to. The bottom line for me isn't the specifics, but the idea that people are not just recognizing the climate change is happening and is potentially very dangerous, but also recognizing that if it's as serious as many think (and I know, Rob, historically you've had concerns those worries were overblown, and I understand why) then some pretty serious restructuring of our economy may actually be necessary. I think AOC is motivated by the right concerns, and is trying to move us in the right direction. Those who want, instead, to elect self-interested, crooked politicians only interested in lining their own pockets (and those of their rich buddies) can post all the laughing emojis they like. And then have their beach homes destroyed every hurricane season.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 8, 2019 16:25:07 GMT -5
But it's not meant to be a step-by-step guide, at least the way I see it. I disagree Mark. I think a step-by-step plan is exactly what it is supposed to be. A blueprint if nothing else. It is ridiculous, infeasible, unrealistic, outlandish, and no reasonable person can see it any other way. Even Pelosi, who has a very strong record for the environment, has mocked it.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2019 17:06:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 9, 2019 13:16:25 GMT -5
From an economic standpoint, let me just say that prozyan is being too kind by an order of magnitude, at least. What we have here is a blueprint for the final destruction of market economics and the boosting of the current crapitolist system on steroids. Not once does she address the question, "provided by whom?" And, it's as filled with lies as a Trump speech. "We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the world has ever seen." Pure bullshit. That "investment" was poured into pure destructive evil, as people here at home had virtually everything rationed and lived far poorer during the war than after. It wasn't until those massive government projects were wound down that the economy took off, as people were once again left free to pursue productive pursuits. AAMOF, government economists were warning that there would be a massive depression because of all the military men being "unemployed." The government economists were as full of crap as AOC. Oh, and for a greenie, I find this one absolutely hilarious!!!! "The Interstate Highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost." The Interstate Highway system is also largely responsible for the US being a massive carbon contributor. By destroying both long-distance and commuter mass transit, we ended up with individuals driving 2,000 pound behemoths to the corner store for a loaf of bread at 15mpg, and taking vacations in those same behemoths at 100 times the fuel cost of train travel. We ended up with millions of commuters sitting, alone, in idling cars for a sizeable fraction of their working lives, pumping carbon into the air the entire time. The damage to the environment from subsidizing trucks over trains has had similar environmental impacts. And a greenie is holding it up as an example of a good thing? W.T.F.? Oh, and I'd flunk this paper in an Econ 101 class.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 9, 2019 15:56:23 GMT -5
We could always rebuild the middle class like we did post WW2.
Ya know, bomb every other industrialized nation back to the stone age and stand alone as a world power.
Because the reality is that is how the middle class gained its strength following WW2.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 9, 2019 17:21:18 GMT -5
The government became the baddest around because the other countries had no where else to turn, true. And that led to some economic export activity, but the real driver of the economy was domestic. Don't confuse the government's position as a Superpower with the plight of the middle class.
Yeah, there was some export activity, but don't overstate it. The domestic economy was starving for production. Millions of men who needed jobs also needed houses, cars, furniture and food, and wanted to start families. Massive wartime production facilities were just waiting to be retooled. Hundreds of new technologies developed during wartime needed new uses. Boom, instant suburbs! Even the worst government policies would have had a hard time preventing an economic boom in those conditions. In Europe, by contrast, their infrastructure was almost totally destroyed; they couldn't build a domestic consumer economy until they rebuilt and retooled. That's one reason standards of living have always lagged behind the US. We were a decade or more ahead of the European consumer.
|
|