Working class favor GOP by 58%

[MaggieMae]

If Republicans succeed in defunding Obamacare and killing any EPA energy policy or tax increases, that will go a long way to reinvigorating growth.

They may succeed in defunding certain parts of Obama care, but as far as killing any energy policy (I assume you meen green technology), forget it. Just where do you think new jobs are going to come from? We can't continue expecting "service" jobs to make up for loss of manufacturing. When will there be nothing left to "service" if there is no new major market on the horizon? Pretty damned soon.

Now we are linking health care and enviro-friendly jobs, 'created of saved?' Maggie, another shocker, I'm for Mother Earth. I want a great environment left for my children's childrens children. I am against littering, I recycle and have for years. Whenever possible I've composted and gardened. I plan my trips to waste less gas, both for money and environment.

Oh did you notice that many conservatives also think it's a good idea to feed the hungry?

What I have very little patience for are politicians that use well-meaning people's feelings to create sock puppets. Define green jobs and how do they save any aspect of the environment or money or time?

If you do so, your way ahead of the administration that's playing games with such from the beginning:

Obama team uses flimflammery to inflate job numbers | Washington Examiner

Obama team uses flimflammery to inflate job numbers
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 23, 2010
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis (AP)

Are you a financial adviser? You may not know it, but you've got a green job. Are you a wholesale buyer? You've got a green job, too. Or maybe you're a newspaper reporter. You, too, have a green job -- at least according to the Obama administration.

For months, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has been pushing the administration to substantiate its claims of having created nearly 200,000 green jobs. More fundamentally, Grassley has asked Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to state clearly what a green job is. So far, he hasn't gotten an answer.

Now, Grassley has learned that, in lieu of a settling on a straightforward definition of a green job, the administration has adopted an extraordinarily broad description of such jobs that could include not only financial advisers, wholesale buyers, and reporters, but also public relations specialists, marketing managers, and many more occupations that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.

If federal money has created any of those jobs, then the administration can claim to have created a green job...

If solar/wind could reduce energy consumption or costs significantly enough, don't you think people would pay the upfront costs? We know that nuclear plants will save the output of CO2 and use less resources, but can't get permits to build.

First of all, I only linked the two in response to the previous post (which mentioned both). Obviously the two are not connected.

That said, "green jobs" will indeed include everything from the CEO to the engineers to the administrative assistants to the janitors who clean the office and/or other facilities housing new companies involved in creating alternative energy.

Regarding obstructions (permits, startup costs), it's probably a given that it will be expensive, but that is still no reason to end the discussion and allow other superpowers to invest in startup operations so that eventually we'll fall so far behind that we'll be buying and using THEIR technology. In fact, Japan and China to an extent are already way ahead of us.

The biggest immediate hurdle is expansion of the power grid, because the existing grid does not have the capacity to handle transmission of all the potential energy alternatives once they are ready to go online.

 

[georgephillip]

Anecdotal evidence is fun to read but offers little else. Let me help you, because you clearly don't grasp the concept. Shays as the Spirit of 76 and Madison as the Spirit of 87. Do you get it now? Try arguing it that way.

What is it you "so clearly grasp" that Charles Beard (and Howard Zinn) did not?

"Another view of the Constitution was put forward early in the twentieth century by the historian Charles Beard (arousing anger and indignation, including a denunciatory editorial in the New York Times). He wrote in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:

"Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or they must themselves control the organs of government.

In short, Beard said, the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates."

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we're also required to support our facts.

A Kind of Revolution

So much for "WE THE PEOPLE"... And here I thought that meant me, too.

Of COURSE that means you, Maggie.

Just as soon as you bank your first billion$.

And get that first million$ off to the RNC (or DNC)

Stop thinking like a damn socialist, PLEASE!