Green New Deal - General Discussion Discussion

It's a fantasy.

reply

I think that's the point. It's a big picture idea that gets us to think past every excruciating little detail. America used to be all about big ideas. Now we're a bunch of neurotic technophiles, little analyist bureocrats who can't get anything done. Before Trump, did you ever think it was possible for America to have a border wall? All we could do is drop bombs on poor people, research genders studies and talk about how bad the holocaust was. You know the green deal is coming because it's what the system demands. No more meat. No more cars.

How do you think progressives know what counts as progress?

reply

[–] tsrt (1091) 5 years ago

Not a fantasy. Germany is almost there.

reply

[–] Neckk (342) 5 years ago

" I don't lay awake worrying about it but do worry about the uninformed electing a critical mass of individuals that really don't know what they are doing."

Well said. Personally, I don't like the government telling me what Im supposed to drive, then taxing me in order for them to take away what I've worked hard for (gas guzzlers and whatnot). Its pretty ironic how pro-choice the left is, but only when it suits them. What about my choice to pick and choose if I want electric or gas? What about my choice to use a bump-stock (dammit Trump!)?

But I digress...it's not going to pass.

reply

[–] AlfredTheGreat (471) 5 years ago

It will not pass today or in 2020 but I do get somewhat concerned about down the road. There are a lot of younger people that are not invested literally or emotionally in how we do things today. An indifferent majority 20 years into the future will be the tripping point.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 5 years ago

It's a big fat farce. A large portion of it doesn't even have anything to do with "green energy." It would also put MILLIONS of people out of work, which would cause mass protests and rioting. Maybe even lynchings.

First off, almost nothing has been done to improve solar, wind, and other "clean" energy in the past 40 years. To this day, solar panels can only absorb visible light, whereas, if they could absorb other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum, then they could be just as useful at night to gather the energy we need. Ground-based windmills have also proven not to be reliable as sources of energy, because even in the windiest areas of the US, wind is not steady. A better solution would be those special balloons with fins on them and wires connecting them to a transformer station on the ground, and they can give off radio signals as well as have warning lights on them to steer small craft away. The wind at higher altitudes is MUCH steadier and could provide 3x as much energy as our ground-based wind farms produce.

As it is now, none of those sources produces the amount of electricity your average American uses in the US currently. In fact, our chief sources of electricity comes from nuclear, coal, and natural gas plants.

Cortez doesn't know anything about where the electricity for her darling, expensive apartment comes from, nor does she have a clue about economics, where much of our pollution comes from, how much we produce compared to other countries, or what the consequences of her stupid deal would bring about.

It was so absurd, it was laughed out of the House the moment it was presented. She even had to take it down from online and claim that Republican pranksters had been the ones to post it, she was so humiliated by people's reaction to it.

I can't wait for this moron to quit her job.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

AmeriGirl,

“I can't wait for this moron to quit her job.” Not happening anytime soon. She and the other moron, anti-Israel, anti-U.S.Omar (who should be kissing the American soil she’s walking on) are being very useful to Pelosi. Why? They are taking the heat off Pelosi. They love the limelight and the media loves them because they hate Trump. What is a rarity, far left Democrat Governor Coumo who just signed a pro-infanticide bill and bragging about it, blasted the inane Cortez’s animosity toward Amazon....well, sorta reminds me of rats on a sinking ship! Surprisingly, it’s the Republicans who usually eat their own.

We have three Democrat Virginia politicians who should be gone...aren’t. Rep. Steve King makes bigoted remarks and he’s raked over the coals! A Republican congressman sticks his hand under a men’s room stall wall and he’s ousted out of congress. The Dems had a Grand Wizard of the Klan in a leadership position. He wasn’t tarred and feathered! A Dem. Senator was responsible for the drowning death of an intern, but continued on as usual wearing a fake neck brace.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 5 years ago

On the other hand, AOC has been kind of a gift to the Republicans, despite the fact that she is supposed to be the Democraps' last hope. Everyone sees how dumb and delusional she is, and their opinions of her party sink so low that they are bound not only laugh at her and her party, but even less people will vote for them in the next elections.

I mean, who wants to vote for someone who steals jobs, thinks attorneys and lawyers are two separate types of people, can't even name the 3 branches of government, and thinks "farting cows" are the enemies of humanity?

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

I do hope you are correct, but folks voted for her. She has a big mouth that spews promises and ignorance. I hope Amazon stays away from her district. There are so many states who would welcome Amazon and the jobs. I live in Mississippi and we would celebrate Amazon’s move here. AOC not only lost those jobs, but the small businesses which would start up.

Ha!😂 I missed her remark about attorneys and lawyers being separate types of people! Also, didn’t we have a WW2?

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

"can't even name the 3 branches of government, and thinks "farting cows" are the enemies of humanity? "

She wasn't referring to the three branches, and mocking "farting cows" shows how little you understand. You just make fun because it sounds funny. Deliberate ignorance.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

these fascists are always talking to each other how stupid to spend trillions of dollars and lives about the lies but you never do anything for the public

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

It should be named “The Red New Deal”!

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

I hope you are right, because if we keep doing nothing and over half the world becomes uninhabitable and we've not prepared for it, it's going to be more chaos than trying to work towards it now.

I'm not saying that the Dems in the US are correct, I'm not American and I wish I didn't have your country's politics in my face everywhere I turn, but I am a human on this earth that thinks if globally we don't try to work together, we're all screwed. I do believe that even if humans aren't speeding up climate change, we need to do something about how we treat this planet, especially our oceans.

You've said that you do worry about the uninformed masses electing people who don't know what they are doing, and yet isn't that what you have now?

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

As to your last sentence: He must be doing something right. Economy is better, more people are working, fewer people on food stamps, steel mills up and running again, military is better, etc.

I agree the oceans are too full of garbage, and we may be one who needs to change. But, China is one of the big ones among so many others; we can’t control what other nations do.

If, and I mean if, half the world becomes uninhabitable, it won’t occur in your lifetime unless there is a nuclear blast....then it’s all over for everyone.

AOC is the last person to whom I would give credence. The woman is one french fry shy of a Happy Meal! She is one of the most ignorant people to hold a seat in Congress who got elected by not showing her true agenda. She shows her ignorance every time she opens that big mouth of hers. “The world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something about climate change because it will bring on WW2? One of the most inane statements ever uttered! Didn’t we have a WW2?

Free goodies for all, but too ignorant to know what she proposes will cost more than what the government takes in taxes! She despises big corporations and prooved it by driving Amazon away. The average salary was to be &150.00! Add to that all the small businesses which were being planned.

If you and other folks want to help clean the oceans see the following. I purchased a bracelet.

https://4ocean.com/

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

If the polar ice caps melt, I don't really think we know what will happen. One could compare the biblical flood to what might happen. I don't believe in god, but the story of the flood is in more than just Christianity. Drought could also render many areas uninhabitable.

Cortez did say that it would be her generations WWII not the worlds. Her point is that scientists keep telling us that we are in danger, but no one wants to listen because they can't see it. We all worry about what it will do to jobs, but instead of finding ways to create new jobs, or really invest in finding new cleaner energy, your president reopended coal mines? Lifting regulations for corporations does help with the economy, but what is it doing to the world? Westerners always point to China, and yet China is cleaning up. But the problem is always well why should I stop polluting if 'they' aren't? So no one does?

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

Well, what was “their generation’s” WWI? She’s a dipwad using examples that don’t make sense. Do you recall these same fear mongers 20 years ago were talking about another ice age? Coal is what keeps our energy costs lower. Also, clean coal mining is working. Many, many jobs were lost when Obama closed the mines. Those jobs are generational. Those blasted wind turbines are a blight in my humble opinion. I’m sure the birds feel the same way.

Finally, I could give a rat’s patootie what the alarmist scientists say as there are scientists who counter them. Our climate is cyclical, forever changing...therefore a natural phenomenon. You might be interested in the following article. Two sentences stand out:

“The severity of the current Climate Change “crisis” has been blamed almost exclusively on man-made carbon-dioxide emissions and that the change is permanent. A recent study conducted by several universities as well as NASA point to an “inconvenient truth” – that neither of these statements is true.

Antarctica’s climate was once warm enough to sustain substantial vegetation including trees. How warm? Some estimates place it at 20 degrees warmer than present day”

Edit: Sorry, my little yorkie needed attention. Here’s the info:

https://www.americaspace.com/2012/06/25/is-climate-change-cyclical-nasa-study-suggests-yes/

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

I think scientists can be paid to skew results for whoever is paying them. I honestly don't know how much faster we are heating up the earth. Coal and oil are just part of the problem. There is evidence that the great flood happened and it wiped out a lot of humanity. I don't know what I believe, I know that I would rather err on the side of caution than the dollar.

Corporations only care about money and money for the shareholders. I believe that if they could, they would replace every employee with automation. So I don't really consider holding on to jobs to be a reason for not cleaning up the environment. Even if climate shift is completely natural I don't see a lot being done to consider what it will do to food supply for the world.

I guess with you saying you don't care about what some statistics say is upwards of 90% (low stats that I've seen) of scientists have said about climate change because there are others who say that it's not true, just ends the conversation for you? I am not saying that you, or they, are wrong. Again, I would rather err on the side of caution. And it's frustrating because this has been said for decades now, that we have to do something, and nothing is done, and then still nothing is done. We are never going to do anything as long as corporations own our governments. We've had my whole life to adjust and make changes so that industries wouldn't collapse. and yet we have done nothing really. I really hope that you are right and this is just nothing, because if it isn't, we kinda deserve to be wiped out.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Regarding the biblical flood: An interesting scientific theory about it is that here used to be a canopy of water around the earth; an outer aquasphere, so to speak. It created a greenhouse effect globally and filtered much of the harmful rays of the sun. They posit this in an effort to explain the very long life spans noted in the pre-flood portion of the bible and say that the big flood was this layer collapsing down to the earth. The end of its green-house effect created drastic cooling which created the icecaps, thus taking the water mass up. A fascinating idea, at least.

Regarding man made climate change: I'm no scientist. I do know that scientists rely on grants and funding and are at high risk of losing that funding if they disagree with their patrons. So the scientific community is not exactly the trustworthy group we like to think. Empirical testing and peer revue are the tools we should believe. On that level, there seems to be trouble for both sides of the argument.
All I know is that the group trusted by presidents of both parties to actually measure the planet's temperature had it "staying statistically the same" for over a ten year period (not sure about last 3 years) which was right smacj dab in the middle of Climate frenzy. So, temperature goes up: global warming, raise taxes. Temperature goes down: climate change, raise taxes. Temperature stays the same: still climate change, raise taxes. So under what circumstances can we say that it is over and we fixed climate change and taxes go back down?
Again, note that I am neither a denier nor an advocate. I don't know enough. But I do observe enough to see that a cash grab is happening on the back of the issue.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

“So I don't really consider holding on to jobs to be a reason for not cleaning up the environment.“ You would if it was your job and the only type of work you know. It also affects the businesses and a town when a coal mine is shut down. Folks have trouble putting food on the table. With that said it should be clean coal mining.

There’s nothing we as humans can do because the climate is cyclical and natural. I choose to believe NASA and Joe Bastardi. What we can do is clean up the trash and garbage thrown into our oceans, lakes and rivers. Do away with the blasted styrofoam used in packaging items for shipment. Ban the plastic rings used to hold cans and bottles together which are hazardous to wildlife. I cut mine into pieces before trashing. Without a true study plastic straws are banned, but the landfills are full of poopy disposable diapers! Some find their way on a Wal-Mart parking lot. Ewww!🤢

I’m happy corporations care about the shareholders; after all without shareholders most companies wouldn’t exist. I’m sure you have a mobile phone, a computer?, a tablet? Without the shareholders investing in corporations you may not have those devices. I wish I had bought stock in Amazon and Apple! I laughed at the anti-corporations zealots protesting on Wall Street....all the while holding up their iPhones!

As far as replacing workers with automations, maybe if the employees would cease demanding the employers be their caretakers providing for all their wants.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

Please don't assume anything about me and my work. I live in a place where oil is the bread and butter and my family has our home and many of our assets because of oil, and we almost lost it all when oil when the lay offs happened during the downturn. Many of my friends and family have been hurting financially, and it's very difficult to get back on one's feet. We have had to adjust That doesn't mean that I can't care about the world I live in.

Like I said, I hope you are right, I don't know. I'm all fine with a disposable plastic ban, I would like to see waste drastically reduced. Especially in places that don't have places to dispose of garbage. I have traveled a lot and so many countries don't have proper waste disposal and it all ends up in our oceans.

When it comes to shareholders, my problem is that they are paid first. Trickle down economics don't work. I don't mind CEO's being paid more than employees, but the gap is ridiculous. I really don't know what you are talking about workers demanding employers be caretakers, but I think that employees deserve a fair wage. If you think that automation will stop if workers stop demanding things, I think you are wrong. Why would a company keep employees if they didn't have to? I'm not anti corporation per se but the loss of small mom and pop shops that paid many employees enough to live off of in the 60's and 70's are gone, and those large corporations don't seem to.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

I didn’t mean to assume anything about your life. If it came across that way, I’m sorry.

Think about when the tablets appeared at your table in restaurants. Or when cashiers disappeared and self check out began. We used to have a attendant pump our gas, check the oil, clean the windshield, etc. For most of those folks it was a first job, extra income, a part time job for high schoolers or college kids. Most of the gas stations were either franchised or a family business. Then the mandate for minimum wage came into effect. Owners could not afford to pay what the government mandated so self service came into being.

Back to the table tablets; when service workers bagan the “15.00” per hour wage increase, those jobs disappeared. Same with Wal-Mart. Every time I see a self service check out I think of a job lost. We used to frequent a Chili’s in my hometown. At one time there were many servers...now there is a tablet and the kitchen personnel brings the dinner. No hamburger flipper in a McDonald’s or Burger King deserves $15.00 per hr. Remember most are franchises owned by small business people.

I recall when OCare was passed a small businessman who was providing health insurance to his employees had a choice to make due to the 10 must cover items in the new OCare. His choice was to either lay off some good workers (last one hired, the first to go) or cease providing benefits. The employees preferred to retain their jobs and give up the benefits.

Shareholders should be paid first...they are a big asset in keeping the business afloat. If the shareholders decided to pull out, what would happen to the company and the jobs? I’ve witnessed big companies go bankrupt because they over reached, gave more to the employees to placate them, etc.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

I'm sorry, but after WWII my grandfather worked in a paint store. Supported a family of 4 on that one income. Can you tell me that a job like that would suffice today? No it wouldn't.

I'm not just talking about tablets at tables. I'm talking about the automation of almost all manufacturing, administration in offices. Even doctors can be replaced by machines. There really isn't any industry that is safe. Then what? Will this happen tomorrow? No, but it's coming, and if we don't prepare for it then it will be shit storm. Same with a world off of non renewable resources. We should be preparing.

I'm sorry to hear about OCare, but again, I'm not American and I live in a country with Universal Health Care so it's different here. Yes our employers provide benefits that cover things that government provided health care doesn't cover, but it's not as essential for us.

Should a company pay it's shareholders by taking money out of employee pension plans?? How is that right? I have a company and my employees are shareholders and although it has made profits a little smaller all of the employees make a decent wage. Shareholders are an asset to the company, but if all the employees pulled out what would happen to the company then? Both are essential.

Like I said I don't have an issue with management making more money than employees, but 1000% more? Even 100% more seems extreme to me. If they lowered the top's wages they could pay employees more. I don't see why someone working 40 hours a week at any job shouldn't be able to pay their rent or buy food. If $15/hr is what it takes for someone to live, then yes, someone working at McDonald's 40 hours a week should get paid that much. If a business cannot survive by paying the employees it has enough to survive then it shouldn't be in business.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

What I’m trying to explain is the low end fast food jobs weren’t meant for a livelihood. They are a starter, extra income jobs. I had many of them after high school. Some kids work 2 or 3 for college expenses, car payments, etc.

“If a business cannot survive by paying the employees it has enough to survive then it shouldn't be in business.”

That’s not fair. What if it’s a one person shop who needs assistance to get off the ground? Is it better to have a job with a small business learning the skills to achieve for a better job or perhaps starting on the bottom and working upwards...than not to have a job? If the owner is only able to pay a certain amount until the business gets off the ground, isn’t it up to the prospective employee to decide whether to take the job.

To say a person shouldn’t be in business because s/he can’t pay a living wage is appalling! I’m a capitalist...not a socialist! I once worked for a three person shop and didn’t get paid for a month! The orders had to be filled, I loved the type work, was aware they were desparate to get the company going so I did the work and received a nice, fat payment. I was an independent contractor and took work where I could find it. BTW, not all shareholders are employees.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

How can you say that they weren't meant for a livelihood? Career, no, but who said that they are worth so little? It is a service that the company cannot live without at the moment. If they are hiring full time staff as opposed to part time, then someone should be able to live off of what they make there. That's all it is. A minimum wage should be what one can afford rent and food with. That's all. They shouldn't be getting rich, but wouldn't you rather someone willing to work 40 hours a week get more than they would on welfare?

I stand by what I said about wages. Contractors are different than employees and if you have a contract to be paid when a deal is done that is one thing, but if you are an hourly or salaried employee you should be getting paid. If the company cannot afford to pay an employee a living wage, then they need to do something to fix that. Theories of capitalism work great, but then you get your monopolies like Walmart who put small businesses out of business because they manufacture in china and pay people peanuts to keep prices low. I've heard about people working for walmart that still need food stamps. Really? Walmart is not just an entry level job. It's unskilled, but that doesn't mean that someone working full time shouldn't be able to eat. It's not about being rich, getting rich, it's about just simply being able to live.

I own a business. I understand that not all shareholders are employees, I'm saying with my business I made all my employees shareholders. We didn't hire anyone until we knew that we could afford to pay them and it wouldn't hurt us.

I don't know what you think socialism is, but there are forms of it that are not communism. You can still have free market and privately owned companies. Yeah, taxes are a lot higher, but if you don't have to pay for your health care or education, it somewhat evens out. I want my country and it's business to be prosperous, and I want the people who live and work here to be taken care of.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

In a motel...finally! Hard day driving. Anyhow, most service jobs are not full time. At one time, before the minimum wage, folks got full time. Before the government stepped in demanding this and that grocery stores were full time, but no longer.

I graduated with a gal who was a cashier in a large grocery chain. She and I started together, but I left for greener pastures! She worked for over 30 yrs and was one of the very few with the chain who received benefits and retained them. For years now the hours are kept at 32hrs. I don’t know if Wal-Mart is a full 40 hr week, but if not a company that large should be paying more. I’m referring to the fast food industry. Those jobs aren’t meant to pay enough to live on. They are a supplement, a first job. Some kids started while in high school, stayed with the job, like McDonalds, then ended up getting a franchise or more.

I’ve worked as an employee for less than mininum wage. Why? Small business man who couldn’t afford to pay more. I liked the work and was happy to have the extra income.

Why should a small company pay a living wage if they can’t afford to do so? The employee can either accept it knowing there’s a possibility for advancement with an increase in wages, or they can go somewhere else. As I wrote before there used to be attendants as gas stations, but no longer because of the minimum wage mandate. Owners were forced to go self-service. Companies now are hiring 2 part timers instead of 1 full timer, therefore the pay is less.

Your statement: “We didn't hire anyone until we knew that we could afford to pay them and it wouldn't hurt us.” But, there are times when a business needs that extra help to get the company up and running or to keep it from folding. I would rather have a pay cut than to lose the job. My husband at one time started working for a start up one man shop. He later was offered a partnership.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

Who decided that a fast food job is just for teenagers? I don't know about where you are, but if I do go into a fast food place I don't see teenagers. I see adults. Would you rather these people be on welfare? How did we get to a place where a job shouldn't be enough to live on? Again, I'm not saying that anyone should be able to get rich, go on nice vacations or anything, but why should any job not be enough for basic necessities? By the way minimum wage was established in the US in 1938, so it's not like it's something recent. Fast food jobs and those of similar skill set used to be enough, so why not now?

You said that you were happy to work for less than minimum wage as it was extra income. So you didn't need that job to live? You also said that you would rather take a pay cut than see a company go under. Now, I ask you, if you were making the bare minimum you needed to keep a roof over your head, would you feel the same the way? It's easier to take a pay cut when you are doing okay, and sometimes that is what happens, but usually those taking a cut are not the ones making the bare minimum. Making a choice between part time and full time is one for an employee to make. If a small business needs some help then I totally understand getting someone just part time, but if that were my company I'd still be paying that person minimum wage per hour that they worked, so they would be able to work another job as well. That person would be the first to have a full time position when business picked up. If I wanted them 40 + hours a week but paid them less than a living wage, then I shouldn't be in business.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

Most of our fast food joints are have teenagers, college kids, extra income for some folks, etc.

“If I wanted them 40 + hours a week but paid them less than a living wage, then I shouldn't be in business.”

Some small businesses cannot aford to pay a living wage. Why shouldn’t you be in business if you can’t afford to pay a living wage? You offer what you can, then it’s up to the applicant to hire on or not. To say s/he shouldn’t be in business is judgemental not knowing the circumstances. Maybe the business is just getting off the ground.

I’ve known quite a few who were working 24/7 and decided they needed help. They couldn’t afford to pay themself let alone someone else a living wage. Every cent was going back into the business. I always say it’s up to the applicant to accept or not especially if the business has good prospects.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

You still haven't said why someone shouldn't deserve to have a living wage.

Maybe I seem judgmental to you, but I have said that small businesses can hire people part time. I get that it can be hard. I've owned a few small businesses in my lifetime, and you know what, some haven't done so well. But, as a business owner I would never hire someone full time for less than minimum wage. Number one it's against labour standard laws where I live, and secondly I want good people working for me.

Like I've said, if you can afford to go without a wage, good for you. I'm glad that you are that successful. There are a lot of people who aren't, and who can't go without a minimum wage, and those laws are in place to protect those who need protection.

reply

[–] kspkap (13025) 5 years ago

I believe the market should be the deciding factor. If a person doesn’t feel s/he is getting paid enough...go somewhere else. I’ve worked with people who worked 2-3 jobs. What is a living wage? It’s relative to where you live. As a business owner you are fortunate enough to be able to pay someone that “living wage”.

Other business owners may not be as fortunate, just getting started, downturn in the economy, etc. I recall a business man telling a reporter he was either going to let a few people go or cut their salaries. He let his employees make the decision. They voted unanimously for all to take a pay cut so no one lost their job! It’s better to have a job than none at all. This is where the part-time jobs come into play...to make up the difference in pay lost at their primary job.

I once had a neighbor who started his own business. He told me whoever starts a small business be prepared to not receive an income for at least a year. Every penney goes back into the business. But, the catch was he couldn’t handle the orders so he hired someone to assist him. He paid what he could, but he didn’t pay himself. Later when the business was up and running he rewarded that one person who took a chance and stayed with the owner. His wages increased, but the owner still didn’t take for himself. He and his wife scrimped, tighten their belts because the business was more important to maintain. It all worked out in the end.

reply

[–] sslssg (27625) 5 years ago

In my country minimum wage is set by where one lives, not nationally. I know all about downturn in the economy, and it's not generally people who make minimum wage that lose their jobs. Again, if you are making a comfortable wage it's easier to take a pay cut. Maybe you won't have a vacation or a second car. If a business owner can still keep a roof over his head and not take a wage for a year then he is in a better position than most people.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Coal power plants should be replaced when they get old by natural gas. It should be done with a reason in the cheaper cost over doing it for special interest reasons.