Reducing military spending is a no-brainer for your country. But like I said, you need people with brains in charge.
As is increasing military spending for yours. Theres a reason they get to plug more money into social policies rather than military spending. Denmark pledged to increase their contributions to NATO from 1.35% to 1.5% this year. . Canada spends 1.4%. Gee, thanks Denmark and Canada. We cant even get NATO member states to contribute to the agreed upon 2%. And by the way, the US only spends 3.5% as a % of GDP, our GDP just happens to be exponentially higher. And it looks likes the tolerance to increase spending for your own national defense is very thin. So, once other NATO member states start caring about self-preservation and not outsourcing it to the US, and the US actually passes a balanced budget amendment (see: never), then an increase in social safety net is something everyone can agree on. But if the first ideas out of the gate are ones like Obamacare, which was terrible, and the Green New Deal, which is a joke, its hard to take an increase in social democratic programs seriously. I dont particularly give a shit if Trump is personally an asshole. Just like I didnt give a shit that Obama was cool. If they arent actively trying to fuck up my life or take my money arbitrarily, then they have my vote. If the DNC doesnt destroy Biden's character during the primary and he gets the nomination I would probably vote for him. But fuck Bernie Sanders.
I don't get this line of thinking. Doing nothing about problems because the proposed solution isn't perfect seems more harmful than waiting for a silver bullet that may never be developed. Using your Obamacare example, is the ACA perfect? Of course it isn't. On the other hand, a boatload of taxpayers are still alive, paying premiums and buying medication. In a perfect world, that money would be spent paying working people more so they could spend it, which makes the fucking economy work. I haven't seen anything posted so far in this thread that details why the GND is a bad idea, other than the fact that some of you seem to virulently hate the person who wants to see it come to pass. Considering that climate change is already causing record setting weather and damage to homes and businesses, I fail to see why people are so against doing anything about it. JFK said in 1961 that he wanted a man on the moon before the decade was over, and what do you know, they did in 1969. America was able to do this in the midst of a Cold War, the Vietnam War, civil rights riots and desegregation. There isn't any reason why we can't take another, pardon the pun, moonshot, again. Millennials can either be known as the generation that saved the planet or doomed it. We owe it to future generations to do the hard work and make the hard decisions previous generations failed to make.
I mean, how hard did you look? A few people including me specifically posted points on why it’s a stupid idea in this thread, aside from thinking AOC is actually mentally retarded. The comparison to JFK wanting to land on the moon would be more apt if JFK wanted to aim for the moon but the Apollo 11 ship flew into the sun instead.
Honestly, I don't want to hear any criticism of the Green New Deal until and unless someone actually drafts a meaningful alternative.
Nuclear energy, carbon rebate/incentives, and not promising economic prosperity in an energy bill. What do I win?
I actually went back and looked at your posts. With the exception of the first post where a bunch of hyperbole was used, I didn't see anything substantive. So, I decided to read it myself. Here's the gist of it. Repairing and upgrading infrastructure, including requiring that any infrastructure spending bill addresses climate change impacts. Moving 100% of power generation to zero-emission sources Upgrading existing buildings to make them more energy efficient Investing in green manufacturing, sustainable farming, zero-emission vehicles including manufacturing/infrastructure, public transit and high speed rail Restoring natural ecosystems and protecting threatened ones. Acting as a leader against climate change by helping other countries clean their shit up. Creating jobs for those that are affected by these changes, like coal miners. Enacting labor protections to prevent jobs from leaving the country. How is anything on this list bad or otherwise unattainable? Edit Firstly, it's not an energy bill. It's a non-binding resolution to address climate change. Secondly, you're not going to be able to address climate change simply by saying it's bad and should be fixed. Money is going to make this work. Lastly, carbon rebates and incentives still allow for pollution. If the goal is to not pollute, I don't see how allowing people to pollute by paying a fee is going to address climate change.
Here, Ill start with just the first bullet and you tell me where Im wrong: You're quoting section 2.b.iv from the GND. Why did you exclude 2.e? Is it because it says this: "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification." Now estimates suggest there are 50 million single family homes in the US (After discounting apartments, etc.), 10 million industrial buildings and 10 million commercial ones. Thats 70 million buildings, which probably a low-end estimate. Whats the proposal to retrofit and renovate 70 million buildings in 10 years for green energy? How are you going to force home-owners/businesses to cooperate? What happens if they dont? Hell, assuming industrial buildings are built according to some sort of specific (even regulated) requirement according to their industry, who is going to draw up proposals, inspect and plan the upgrades for each and every one of them to ensure no loss of production? For commercial, where will displaced workers go when their buildings are being upgraded? I imagine that shipping and transporting supplies to upgrade buildings would be even more difficult when transportation systems are simultaneously being upgraded. So then why defend it like one?
It's not like we need to tear down and rebuild every building in the country. A lot of the upgrades will be relatively minor. Thinks like improved insulation and weather stripping. Swapping out certain gas appliances for electric ones. Redoing shoddy wiring or leaky plumbing. Things of that nature. Frankly if you price fossil fuels properly, a lot of this gets taken care of on its own by market forces, with some government assistance for the needy.
I don't know what it's like where you live, but in Seattle, the public utility provides subsidized weatherization, rebates for high efficiency appliances, etc. to incentivize people to make their homes energy efficient. I would imagine a government program would do this on steroids on a national scale. Maybe it could hire people like out of work coal miners and oil drillers after retraining them. Anyway, I'm not defending anything. I'm asking those that have been saying how dumb it is to tell me why it's dumb. Obviously, if you take things to an extreme like making everybody vegans, banning planes and cars, or forcing businesses to close so the government can make their buildings energy efficient, of course it sounds looney. But that's not what I'm reading. I'm reading goals that can be reached primarily through government investment. At this point, any action is better than no action.
The State of MA does too, through the Mass Save program. I used it on my house and it’s saved me a shitload of money and I got an interest free loan on a new energy efficient boiler. If that’s how you’re reading into it, then ok. I’m reading it as written, which is why I see it as a joke. If Congress passes some reasonable energy bill tomorrow I’ll gladly support it. But if it resembles the GND and all the silly grandiosity that comes with it, then I won’t.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH IT? IS IT GIVING DISPLACED WORKERS A CHANCE TO WORK A NEW JOB? IS IT REPLACING LEADED WATER MAINS? WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES YOU HATE THIS SO MUCH? Am I wrong in guessing that you're reading these things as if you're seeing "NON-COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN DEATH BY FIRING SQUAD SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM" at the end of everything? Honestly, I get the mindset behind wanting less government in my life and wanting to pay lower taxes. But this isn't that. It's a non-binding list of necessary and quite frankly, overdue objectives we should work towards for the continued existence of society. It is okay to listen or even like ideas from people that don't have the same political leanings that you do.
Now you’re just gaslighting. I quoted the exact text from the document, not an interpretation from Rush Limbaugh. Don’t be an asshole. You asked how it isn’t feasible, so I responded. You don’t get to say it’s something worth working toward and super important and then just dismiss it for (what it is) as a non-binding resolution when it’s challenged.
I wasn't trying to be an asshole and I'm not sure how me assuming how you think about ideas from a democratic socialist is gaslighting. I shouldn't have assumed, so I apologize for that. In any case, my position is that I think the contents of the GND is important. I am also cognizant that it's non-binding and that people have to decide to follow it's guidelines. What you think is dismissal on my part was an apparently misguided attempt to sell you on the idea that it wasn't going to be some big bad thing people would be forced to abide by.
For whom, exactly? I thought government contracts were so desirable that people have gone to prison to ensure they get them.
No problem. And I understand there’s value in a grandiose idea that draws a ton of attention to an important issue and the actual implementation is more measured. But I just think that for something like climate change, it doesn’t seem like the grandiosity strategy works. There are plenty of people that do take the “but muh socialism” position, because the GND has to assume a ton of nationalization as a starting point for any of it, for better or worse. We’ll see. I hope it gives birth to something that can be actually be considered rather than having it be dead on arrival due to excessive idealizing.