Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok, to pick up the topic from the Dem utopia thread.  I want to present this discussion without the inflammatory (mine) words I used previously and look at this more objectively.  

 

I do not want to dismiss an idea out of hand just because it is a progressive wish list.  The ideas expressed in the GND could be good for the USA IF  they (1) Don't bankrupt us (2) don't enslave us due to high taxes (3) don't limit liberty due to govt control and domination of our lives.  If they don't do these things, in the long run the ideas could/would be good for America and conservatives (true fiscal conservatives and not the fake GOP only ones) should work with progressive to make it work by helping to establish fiscal guidelines that will keep us out of the insolvency ditch. This may mean developing realistic time lines and priorities with 'real' funding models and not by just printing more money.  Hyper inflation we don't need.  But instead of spending money on pointless wars and wasted tax cuts, it would be better that we work together to invest in US - the USA. 

Quantitative leaps in society only happens as we follow big dreams and big dreamers.  Like JFK and Ronald Reagan and FDR and Lincoln.  JFK - challenged us to think of the possibliites of getting a man on the moon in 10 years.  He knew the drive would spin off all kinds of innovative new products that would benefit the society.   Reagan dreamed of an end to the arms race and a world not ruled by fear of nuclear destruction (no thanks to Trump who has now backed out of the INF treaty that Reagan and Gorby signed).  FDR dreamed of a world of financial equality. And of course Lincoln dreamed of a world of racial equality.   I don't want to be small minded. And conservatism should not be thought of as small minded.  Let the progressive dream and if the dreams advance society, then let conservatives find a way to make it happen fiscally and not be road blocks. 

 

First here is a link from  Data for Progress.  A progressive organization which goes into great depth regarding the GND.  I'll just copy their intro below. 

 

 

https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal/

Quote

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of progressive policies has been rising steadily since the 2016 Presidential Election season and has increasingly moved the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction. Mounting concern over economic inequality, injustice, and the threats of climate change are leading an increasing number of progressive candidates to call for more dramatic action. They propose an equitable transition to a 21st century economy and clean energy revolution that guarantees clean air and water,modernizes national infrastructure, and creates high-quality jobs.

FIRST

A Green New Deal is necessary to meet the scale and urgency of environmental challenges facing the United States, based on the best available research.

SECOND

A Green New Deal can bring job growth and economic opportunity, with particular focus on historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.

THIRD

A Green New Deal is popular among American voters and can mobilize them in 2018.

FOURTH

A Green New Deal can be executed in a way that is environmentally just and distributes benefits equitably.

FINALLY

A Green New Deal is financially feasible and necessary

 

Here is a conservative evaluation of the regulatory costs of enacting the GND. The evaluation is fair and goes into great detail. The evaluation is based on the information on the Data for Progress link provided above. Their summary follows the link

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-regulatory-impact-of-the-green-new-deal/

 

 

Quote

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • The Green New Deal, as proposed by the progressive group Data for Progress[1], calls for regulatory schemes that can be classified in four types.
  • These regulations would likely require at least $1 trillion in new regulatory costs, if not much more.
  • The timeline for implementing these regulations would be difficult to meet. Many of the regulations needed would have to be authorized by Congress, further casting into doubt the likelihood of swift enactment.

 

  •  
Quote

 

CONCLUSION

The Green New Deal has received a lot of attention for its grand promises. But digging in to the details of the regulations that would be required to implement such a plan reveals an unrealistic and extraordinarily expensive process (to say nothing of the non-regulatory components). It is difficult to imagine any scenario where the economic costs of regulation fail to top $1 trillion, and they could be multiples of that amount. Further, implementing the regulations on the timeline called for by the plan would require astonishing agreement and haste from Congress, federal and state governments, and the private sector.

[1] This analysis uses the Green New Deal report produced by Data for Progress in September 2018 because it includes more specific policies. The Green New Deal has been more closely associated with the organization the Sunrise Movement.

 


 

The summary document from my previous post:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

The articles which asks how will it be funded and other basic info.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-budget-1143084

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/green-new-deal-details/index.html

https://theweek.com/speedreads/822456/alexandria-ocasiocortez-wants-pay-green-new-deal-by-essentially-printing-more-money

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

That thing makes me feel good about my high school book report summaries....

How so??  Much " briefer"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

How so??  Much " briefer"??

 

It reads like a book report, which is hysterical.

 

I look forward to AOC's conversations with cattle farmers, and how to best eliminate cow farts. 

  • Haha 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It reads like a book report, which is hysterical.

 

I look forward to AOC's conversations with cattle farmers, and how to best eliminate cow farts. 

 

I think you know the answer to that.

 

To paraphrase an old mafia saying: "you don't eliminate the farts, you eliminate the cow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think you know the answer to that.

 

To paraphrase an old mafia saying: "you don't eliminate the farts, you eliminate the cow."

 

And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.

 

Having said all that, I'm not against "going green". My wife and I are avid about recycling, we participate in the "Adopt-A-Highway" program here in Missouri. But, I'll be the first to admit that if "going green" is going to get into my pockets, I'm less concerned with it. All of my company's equipment runs on fuel (obviously), we do some spraying, we treat lawns, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.

 

Having said all that, I'm not against "going green". My wife and I are avid about recycling, we participate in the "Adopt-A-Highway" program here in Missouri. But, I'll be the first to admit that if "going green" is going to get into my pockets, I'm less concerned with it. All of my company's equipment runs on fuel (obviously), we do some spraying, we treat lawns, etc.

And cows just like cars are a major source of green house gases. Auto companies are adapting. Those who raise cattle need to as well, lest they go the way of coal miners.

  • Haha 1
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZRod said:

And cows just like cars are a major source of green house gases. Auto companies are adapting. Those who raise cattle need to as well, lest they go the way of coal miners.

 

As long as the demand for beef is there, we won't have too.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can all talk about where we'd personally draw the line in a Green New Deal, but the premise is that we really don't have a choice. If climate change means heat, drought, and draining the aquifers, delicious cows will die without being eaten, and everyone is going to have their pockets cleaned. 

 

I don't think the Department of Energy, or NASA or the Manhattan Project ever operated with a vetted economic prospectus, but the pursuit of government funded theoretical research has yielded trillions of dollars worth of applied technology that is typically licensed to private enterprise for private profit. That's why the U.S. remains the dominant global economy, despite our loss of manufacturing over the decades. Green technology and practices are actually conservative, at least in the correct usage of the term. We could let the left do the tree-hugging and  let the right profit from the enterprise and it might not be such a radical idea at all.

 

Just curious: would it encourage more support if they called it The Green Manhattan Project? Because in some key aspects, that's more accurate. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

As long as the demand for beef is there, we won't have too.

You'll have to adapt. The world is changing. The EPA and DNRs already regulate you to protect the environment. It's more of the same on a much larger scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

You'll have to adapt. The world is changing. The EPA and DNRs already regulate you to protect the environment. It's more of the same on a much larger scale.

 

We'll see. There hasn't been a trace of push back on cattle farming.... None that I've heard, or noticed anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

We'll see. There hasn't been a trace of push back on cattle farming.... None that I've heard, or noticed anyhow.

Maybe not now. Lobbying is a powerful thing this country. Why else would a New Jersey Governor running for president care about pigs in Iowa? Eventually things will change, they have to.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here. Big picture, long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

And that's not going to go over well, nor should it. I run cattle myself, and while it's not my main source income, I know plenty of families that do rely on it to put food on the table. I would pay to see her show up in person to one of the town hall meetings in BFE America.

 

 

It actually should go over well. I love beef, so I'm a hypocrite here, but there are much more nutritious foods to eat that don't cause near the pollution and would feed a larger portion of the population. For pretty much every reason that matters a lot, we should consume less of it. The problem is, it tastes good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It actually should go over well. I love beef, so I'm a hypocrite here, but there are much more nutritious foods to eat that don't cause near the pollution and would feed a larger portion of the population. For pretty much every reason that matters a lot, we should consume less of it. The problem is, it tastes good.

 

The problem is that it's their livelihood.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.B. Hemingway said:

The problem is that it's their livelihood.

 

 

Sorry, I was thinking overall. Yes of course the people who only raise cattle are going to be pissed but so are coal miners. It's definitely not a reason to have less beef. I would think people who raise cattle would have at least slightly more opportunity to adapt than coal miners, though, since they own land. Although I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of people involved in the industry that don't own land, e.g. meat packing plants.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

Sorry, I was thinking overall. Yes of course the people who only raise cattle are going to be pissed but so are coal miners. It's definitely not a reason to have less beef. I would think people who raise cattle would have at least slightly more opportunity to adapt than coal miners, though, since they own land. Although I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of people involved in the industry that don't own land, e.g. meat packing plants.

 

Livestock farming is a significantly cheaper business venture than crop farming. So a national transition might apply to some, but definitely not all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Livestock farming is a significantly cheaper business venture than crop farming. So a national transition might apply to some, but definitely not all.

 

 

I would guess some of the land wouldn't be good for it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I would guess some of the land wouldn't be good for it either.

 

That was going to be my next point.

 

Such a transition, even if it's necessary, would royally F*** a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

The problem is that it's their livelihood.

 

Maybe people should start thinking of their kids and grandkids livelihood and we can finally get somewhere in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish these discussions weee with people who are actually knowledgeable on the subject. 

 

Ps.....I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about the national discussion with politicians. 

 

AOC doesn’t have a friggen clue what she’s talking about with agriculture and beef production. 

 

Pss....my filet I just finished at Gordon ramsey’s Steak house in Atlantic City was unbelievable. 

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Maybe people should start thinking of their kids and grandkids livelihood and we can finally get somewhere in this country.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's a lot easier to say, than to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I wish these discussions weee with people who are actually knowledgeable on the subject. 

 

Ps.....I’m not talking about here. I’m talking about the national discussion with politicians. 

 

AOC doesn’t have a friggen clue what she’s talking about with agriculture and beef production. 

 

Pss....my filet I just finished at Gordon ramsey’s Steak house in Atlantic City was unbelievable. 

Maybe she can be educated about the things she doesn't understand, and we can take notes on some of her ideas and how they would be beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

That was going to be my next point.

 

Such a transition, even if it's necessary, would royally F*** a lot of people.

I've mentioned this in another thread, but where is the fertilizer for agriculture going to come from? It currently comes from natural gas.

 

If we really want a green economy, we're going to have to mimic the natural eco system and find ways to make our inputs and our outputs match up. The most obvious way is to use the animals we're raising for meat to also produce the fertilizer as they have been doing for millennia. There were an estimated 60-80 million buffalo in North America before we killed them off, so it seems like we should be able to have a similar number of cows and be sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZRod said:

And cows just like cars are a major source of green house gases. Auto companies are adapting. Those who raise cattle need to as well, lest they go the way of coal miners.

 

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

As long as the demand for beef is there, we won't have too.

 

Demand for beef isn't enough to keep from having to adapt. There's a list longer than your arm of things beef producers (maybe not ranchers) have had to change and adapt to. And they've all increased the cost to consumers. Already, many places that handle cattle waste cover their wastewater lagoons with tarps, capture the methane gas and use it as an energy source. How long before somebody deems it time to do the same thing over where cattle are raised and capture their farts? Sure it will be cost prohibitive but if history is any guide, it will simply result in increased costs and decreased demand which will lead to less resistance and even more government intervention.

 

Sorry, just being realistic. I get a large portion of my income from the beef and dairy industries and I love eating beef. I just see it heading in that direction at some point. They'll talk about it enough and convince enough people that it's an emergency and voila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

We used to get precious fuel from whale blubber, and anvil salesmen could make a living. 

 

s#!t happens. 

 

This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production". Why is it that this "s#!t happens" approach is only used with opposition to liberal agendas?

 

My favorite part of the Environmental book report is that she found a way to include "economic relief for those unwilling (!) to work". :facepalm:

  • Plus1 2
  • Eyeroll 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production"....
 

My favorite part of the Environmental book report is that she found a way to include "economic relief for those unwilling (!) to work.:facepalm:

 

 

Why? If you're using an argument that it will hurt the people working in the industry, there's nothing wrong with to any obsolete thing where people lost their jobs, to show that people losing their jobs is not a good argument for not going away from it.

 

I can't find the part you're talking about with the 2nd sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why? If you're using an argument that it will hurt the people working in the industry, there's nothing wrong with to any obsolete thing where people lost their jobs, to show that people losing their jobs is not a good argument for not going away from it.

 

I can't find the part you're talking about with the 2nd sentence.

 

1st page in the  OP link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

1st page in the  OP link.

 

 

Which link?

I did a search on "work" and "unwilling" and couldn't find it. Maybe it was deleted ?

 

@B.B. Hemingway I've found it now, it's this link:
 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

 

 

But I can't find this version ANYWHERE else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TGHusker

 

What is the origination of this and why can't I find its source?

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

 

 

Ok what I'm reading is the FAQ page got taken down, heh.

 

Here it is on the way back machine:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq

 

 

 

That's the first version of it and it was posted today. There is no comment like that in the actual proposal that I can see (not that I've read the entire thing) but it does kind of show where her head is at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's a lot easier to say, than to do.

Depends how we frame it.  Do you currently set aside money for your kids' education and/or health expenses?

 

The whole argument for estate taxes it so we can pass down assets from generation to generation into eternity.  Why is it okay to make an argument one way and not they other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

This is disingenuous, comparing the market of beef production and anvil "production". Why is it that this "s#!t happens" approach is only used with opposition to liberal agendas?

 

Not really. At one point the horse-drawn carriage industry was probably pretty p#ssed about what Henry Ford was doing. Society moved forward anyway.

 

It's used now because all of modern science literally tells us that if we don't take steps to address climate change soon, we're literally going to damn ourselves to a horrible deadly future. We could spit in the face of all of modern science, but why risk it? As opposed to something like border control, where one party crafts their argument on the basis of feelings and beliefs. If we don't build a wall on the southern border, the earth isn't going to eventually succumb to natural disasters and doom our species to a fiery death. Immigration rates will just continue to fall.

 

Also, if you subscribe to the Overton window theory of politics in the U.S., it doesn't really matter if the leftists and environmentalists know what they're talking about. They're advocating for strongly pro-environment policy, which pushes the conversation in that direction, which IMO is sorely needed because one major party's solution to the problem is to literally ignore it because A) it's not real or B) it's too expensive (it's not - they just don't want to upset the Big Energy apple cart).

  • Plus1 5
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Not really. At one point the horse-drawn carriage industry was probably pretty p#ssed about what Henry Ford was doing. Society moved forward anyway.

 

It's used now because all of modern science literally tells us that if we don't take steps to address climate change soon, we're literally going to damn ourselves to a horrible deadly future. We could spit in the face of all of modern science, but why risk it? As opposed to something like border control, where one party crafts their argument on the basis of feelings and beliefs. If we don't build a wall on the southern border, the earth isn't going to eventually succumb to natural disasters and doom our species to a fiery death. Immigration rates will just continue to fall.

 

Also, if you subscribe to the Overton window theory of politics in the U.S., it doesn't really matter if the leftists and environmentalists know what they're talking about. They're advocating for strongly pro-environment policy, which pushes the conversation in that direction, which IMO is sorely needed because one major party's solution to the problem is to literally ignore it because A) it's not real or B) it's too expensive (it's not - they just don't want to upset the Big Energy apple cart).

 

I can see B.B. point. Food commodities are a little unique compared to other industries. There will always be a demand for food, but at the same time there are many kinds of food. And simply because a good is a necessity doesn't make it immune from needing improvements and adaptation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between the public choosing one product over the other due to preference....and the government choosing the winner and loser.

 

if the customers decide individually they prefer eating tofu over beef....fine. I have an issue with the government telling the public you have to eat tofu instead of beef.  

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZRod said:

 

I can see B.B. point. Food commodities are a little unique compared to other industries. There will always be a demand for food, but at the same time there are many kinds of food. And simply because a good is a necessity doesn't make it immune from needing improvements and adaptation. 

 

 

Yeah, I'd agree. Maybe it just wasn't the best analogy given how they're different beasts.

 

Anywho, good discussion in this thread. It's nice to hear a lot of different opinions about something that doesn't get the attention it should. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that we're going to have to continue transitioning to renewables (unless your livelihood is staked to fossil fuels, in which case I get the pushback) but disagree over how pressing the need is.

 

Like, RedDenver pointed out in another thread that nuclear energy is apparently not as cost-effective as renewables. I think it's definitely got cons but makes sense as a way to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewables as pushing too aggressively to shutter too many types of energy could alienate too many people and harm buy-in on this type of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

There is a difference between the public choosing one product over the other due to preference....and the government choosing the winner and loser.

 

if the customers decide individually they prefer eating tofu over beef....fine. I have an issue with the government telling the public you have to eat tofu instead of beef.  

 

 

The government should do the right thing regardless of whether it’s popular. Australia has restrictions on water. People don’t like to have their water restricted but it’s necessary for the good of the country. 

 

No, I’m not arguing that beef should be banned. Although it would help with climate change. I’m arguing with your assessment that the government shouldn’t tell people what to do, especially within the topic of preventing disaster.

  • Plus1 2
  • Eyeroll 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It actually should go over well. I love beef, so I'm a hypocrite here, but there are much more nutritious foods to eat that don't cause near the pollution and would feed a larger portion of the population. For pretty much every reason that matters a lot, we should consume less of it. The problem is, it tastes good.

Maybe they can do a GMO project in developing fish that tastes like beef.  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Maybe they can do a GMO project in developing fish that tastes like beef.  :blink:

 

They already have Impossible Beef (I haven't had it but I've seen it at restaurants): https://impossiblefoods.com/food/

 

100% plant-based

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

They already have Impossible Beef (I haven't had it but I've seen it at restaurants): https://impossiblefoods.com/food/

 

100% plant-based

Impossible Beef is quite frankly amazing! Tastes just like a real hamburger. But it only works for ground beef and not other beef like steaks or ribs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Maybe they can do a GMO project in developing fish that tastes like beef.  :blink:

 

You're assuming that fish poop won't be the next environmental disaster.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

But it only works for ground beef and not other beef like steaks or ribs.

 

For now!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of Axios articles on the NGD.  It appears that many inside the Trump Camp believe they have found the winning formula for 2020 - make socialism the enemy and pronounce the  GND as the socialist Trojan horse now within.    While in 2016 it was all about MEGA and border security - I'm thinking that 2020 will now about a rehash of Reagan's famous Goldwater speech from 1964  "A Time for Choosing" (google it - great speech that immediately put Reagan on the map for being 1st a governor of Calif and then president).  Trump will probably make the campaign all about choosing between socialism or democracy.  

 

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-trump-socialism-99832f50-2cc7-4b7a-a9d9-2b2c8ca55cdb.html

 

Quote


Democrats are flirting with socialism in ways they carefully and clearly ran away from in the past, handing President Trump a new way to unify Republicans — and to club his opponents.

 
  • It started with Democrats sitting silently as he railed against socialism in his State of the Union speech.
  • It intensified with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's release of a Green New Deal, a vague policy manifesto loaded with big-government policies.
  • The surge is unlikely to abate: Young, Twitter- and social-savvy Democrats favor socialism over capitalism. And no Democrat in politics today plays the social media game with more savvy than AOC. 

The White House, the Trump campaign — and the outside political advisers in Trump’s orbit — seem to be universally excited by the Green New Deal and many Democrats' embrace of socialism.

  • They've been far more optimistic about Trump's re-election chances this week than Swan has heard since the early days of Trump’s presidency.
  • And they're thrilled that so many of Trump’s potential 2020 opponents are endorsing the Green New Deal.

 

  •  

 

 

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-55e5dfcb-0155-4ad6-adf1-2973c7981829.html

 

 

Quote

 

Democrats just gave President Trump the socialism fight he's been spoiling for with the Green New Deal — which calls for a mammoth expansion of federal investments and market interventions — and the political and planetary stakes couldn't be higher.

Driving the news: Six top-tier Democratic presidential 2020 candidates — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders — are already co-sponsoring the non-binding resolution.

 

The big picture: The GND aims to reduce greenhouse gases to nearly zero, while also providing universal health care and a universal jobs guarantee. Among the objectives of the resolution:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TGHusker said:

Trump will probably make the campaign all about choosing between socialism or democracy.  

What? Those aren't mutually exclusive. They aren't even the same kinds of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if Trump and/or the Repubs run on anti-socialism, it'll be interesting to see if it actually works as they've been crying wolf on socialism for many years now. Spending 8+ years decrying Obama as a socialist (he's not at all) may have eroded the effectiveness of that attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

A couple of Axios articles on the NGD.  It appears that many inside the Trump Camp believe they have found the winning formula for 2020 - make socialism the enemy and pronounce the  GND as the socialist Trojan horse now within.    While in 2016 it was all about MEGA and border security - I'm thinking that 2020 will now about a rehash of Reagan's famous Goldwater speech from 1964  "A Time for Choosing" (google it - great speech that immediately put Reagan on the map for being 1st a governor of Calif and then president).  Trump will probably make the campaign all about choosing between socialism or democracy.   

  

https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-trump-socialism-99832f50-2cc7-4b7a-a9d9-2b2c8ca55cdb.html

 

  •  

 

 

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-55e5dfcb-0155-4ad6-adf1-2973c7981829.html

 

 

 

 

A lot will depend on what happens with the economy between now and then.

 

A lot of the reason people so strongly embraced the original New Deal was because fiscal austerity on the part of Herbert Hoover completely failed to improve lives during the Great Depression. People were ready for a big government that would throw its weight around for them again.

 

We're not likely headed for another depression, but we could be squarely in the middle of a recession when 2020 rolls around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

What? Those aren't mutually exclusive. They aren't even the same kinds of things.

What I'm saying - Trump will make it about Big regulatory govt vs limited govt.  Using socialistic economic principles vs free enterprise principles.  He will paint the GND as a step towards Venezuelan like socialism. 

 

Perhaps free enterprise might be the better phrase than democracy. 

Free Enterprise  an economic system in which private business operates in competition and largely free of state control.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Democracy:  a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

A lot will depend on what happens with the economy between now and then.

 

A lot of the reason people so strongly embraced the original New Deal was because fiscal austerity on the part of Herbert Hoover completely failed to improve lives during the Great Depression. People were ready for a big government that would throw its weight around for them again.

 

We're not likely headed for another depression, but we could be squarely in the middle of a recession when 2020 rolls around.

Middle and poor classes haven't had a real wage increase in decades. Couple that with rising healthcare costs, student loan debt, and the effects of the Great Recession, and it may not take a recession for people to start embracing big government again. (Or maybe government-for-the-people is a more friendly term.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

A lot will depend on what happens with the economy between now and then.

 

A lot of the reason people so strongly embraced the original New Deal was because fiscal austerity on the part of Herbert Hoover completely failed to improve lives during the Great Depression. People were ready for a big government that would throw its weight around for them again.

 

We're not likely headed for another depression, but we could be squarely in the middle of a recession when 2020 rolls around.

Yes, I think a recession is a good probability in 2020 which will affect votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×