Green New Deal

[baileyn45]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

 

[francoHFW]

Nationalizing institutions does not meant the countries economic system is socialism. The US has nationalized private posts, railroads, telephone companies, and electric power companies and has instituted price controls. That does make the US a socialist country.

The German Workers Party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers' Party in order to gain support of the trade unions which Hitler hated and later destroyed.

Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist”, which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum has long been a source of confusion. The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then they must have been actual socialists is naive and does not match the facts.

This is very good post.

Socialism inevitably leads to taking control of means of production by nationalization, because that is purpose of socialism. Although it's true that US throughout the history used nationalization of properties and businesses, it did it with different reasons.

During WWI, all US railroads were operated (not owned) by Railroad Administration as a wartime measure and were return to private control after war. The same happened with telephone systems that were under control of US government for about a year. Amtrak was created for the purpose of relieving privately own railroads of legal obligation to provide passenger service that was not profitable.

You said that German Worker Party changed name to gain support of trade unions. If that is only reason, and if they were not socialists, there wouldn't be a reason to keep "socialist" in their name after they had full control of the government beyond 1933.

Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level, Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. In order to prepare the country for the struggle he saw to coming, he nationalized much of the country's institutions but also leaving much of industry in private hands. He left in place capitalism when it served his needs. Hitler upheld ownership of private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. Hitler was certainly no socialist; a fascist, a right wing nationalist, and a dictator, yes.

You claim that Hitler kept ownership of private properties and companies in private hands. It sure appeared that way, but the German government, not the owners, exercised powers of ownership by deciding what is to be produced, in what quantities, how, and what were the prices of the products, and wages of the workers producing it. Most of the owners of those properties and companies were part of the German government, not by choice, but by necessity of their own survival.

You're overlooking another aspect of socialism, where common good comes before private good, and that individual exists as the means required by the state, in other words, individual is own by the state, and therefore individual's property as well. Just as it happened in Germany, it happened in every socialist country, since October revolution is Russia, until Venezuela, with the exactly the same outcome.

Germany rode to power under the guise of socialism but in truth it was fascism. The key tenants of socialism never really existed. There certainly was no classless society. Private ownership was never abolished. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. State owned industries were privatized after Hitler took power and trade unions were smashed. As the country moved closer to war, the Nazi government developed a partnerships with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encourage by the government in exchange for millions of marks transferred to the Reich by major industrialists in 1933. Hitler promised huge profits to the cartels in exchange for their support. Had the Nazis won the war, the group of 30 industrialist that had pledged their support would have been fabulously wealthy instead of being persecuted as war criminals.

Nazism like fascism were both far-right forms of government which was characterized by extreme nationalism, racial discrimination, promotion of violence and war, and an unapologetic hatred for socialism. The major commonality between Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism is government control. Government control is not the defining factor in any of the above eco-political systems.

Had Hitler understood anything about economic theory and that communism was just a subset of socialism, he would have thought twice about renaming of the party. However, once the party was renamed and he came to power, there was far too much invested in the Nazi trademark to rename the party again.

LOL, you're boxed into the binary paradigm.
Here, let me help.
What is this?

View attachment 245211

I'm sure you're trying to say something.

I'm sure your pride and partisanship will never let you out of that box.

I have this thing about truth and facts, super duper... Everything you know is wrong and garbage.

 

[Ambivalent1]

This is very good post.

Socialism inevitably leads to taking control of means of production by nationalization, because that is purpose of socialism. Although it's true that US throughout the history used nationalization of properties and businesses, it did it with different reasons.

During WWI, all US railroads were operated (not owned) by Railroad Administration as a wartime measure and were return to private control after war. The same happened with telephone systems that were under control of US government for about a year. Amtrak was created for the purpose of relieving privately own railroads of legal obligation to provide passenger service that was not profitable.

You said that German Worker Party changed name to gain support of trade unions. If that is only reason, and if they were not socialists, there wouldn't be a reason to keep "socialist" in their name after they had full control of the government beyond 1933.


You claim that Hitler kept ownership of private properties and companies in private hands. It sure appeared that way, but the German government, not the owners, exercised powers of ownership by deciding what is to be produced, in what quantities, how, and what were the prices of the products, and wages of the workers producing it. Most of the owners of those properties and companies were part of the German government, not by choice, but by necessity of their own survival.

You're overlooking another aspect of socialism, where common good comes before private good, and that individual exists as the means required by the state, in other words, individual is own by the state, and therefore individual's property as well. Just as it happened in Germany, it happened in every socialist country, since October revolution is Russia, until Venezuela, with the exactly the same outcome.

Germany rode to power under the guise of socialism but in truth it was fascism. The key tenants of socialism never really existed. There certainly was no classless society. Private ownership was never abolished. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. State owned industries were privatized after Hitler took power and trade unions were smashed. As the country moved closer to war, the Nazi government developed a partnerships with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encourage by the government in exchange for millions of marks transferred to the Reich by major industrialists in 1933. Hitler promised huge profits to the cartels in exchange for their support. Had the Nazis won the war, the group of 30 industrialist that had pledged their support would have been fabulously wealthy instead of being persecuted as war criminals.

Nazism like fascism were both far-right forms of government which was characterized by extreme nationalism, racial discrimination, promotion of violence and war, and an unapologetic hatred for socialism. The major commonality between Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism is government control. Government control is not the defining factor in any of the above eco-political systems.

Had Hitler understood anything about economic theory and that communism was just a subset of socialism, he would have thought twice about renaming of the party. However, once the party was renamed and he came to power, there was far too much invested in the Nazi trademark to rename the party again.

LOL, you're boxed into the binary paradigm.
Here, let me help.
What is this?

View attachment 245211

I'm sure you're trying to say something.

I'm sure your pride and partisanship will never let you out of that box.

I have this thing about truth and facts, super duper... Everything you know is wrong and garbage.

N you don't, you have a "thing" about "your" facts. Big diff there cowgirl.

 

[Ambivalent1]

You can't think independently franco, you can't. It's a dark little box in your head that you can't escape. Our system is a disgrace son, all of it. To claim the entire world agrees with you shows that you have no real self esteem and you need the affirmation of others to truly feel good about "you'.

Google any newspaper in the world not owned by Rupert Murdoch the scumbag, and you will find that none of them agree with your dumbass brainwashed idiocy. American rich people do not pay enough in taxes and we do not invest in America or Americans, and none of your phony scandals about the clintons or Obama or the FBI make it to the real world anywhere, you incredibly brainwashed fool. Perfect chump of the greedy idiot GOP rich thieves.

More with the need for affirmation. I feel sorry for you. You're a very lonely man.

You are a conspiracy nut job and fantasist like most GOP voters these days. Whatever you do don't change the channel or read a newspaper or use your computer for information child, you might find out something factual LOL.

You can't shake me and you're getting desperate. I don't read newspapers and I don't watch ANY of the MSM son. 6 corps own 90% of the media. Again, nothing you type speaks to an education. You are living a fantasy life on this board and pretending to be something you aren't . You are lonely, sad, and lost. Dupe, Derp, rube. It's all you have.

I am not typing I hate typing I am talking here. LOL. I am slumming here. I have also written a book and you people are perfect brainwashed functional idiots so people in the future can understand how we got so screwed up...

Son you're typing to see yourself type. You're foolish little man living an internet life.

 

[francoHFW]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

Of course you are misinformed. ocasio Cortez knows nothing about paying people who are not willing to work or trains across oceans etcetera etc, you know the usual garbage you people believe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU ******* don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

 

[francoHFW]

Nationalizing institutions does not meant the countries economic system is socialism. The US has nationalized private posts, railroads, telephone companies, and electric power companies and has instituted price controls. That does make the US a socialist country.

The German Workers Party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers' Party in order to gain support of the trade unions which Hitler hated and later destroyed.

Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist”, which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum has long been a source of confusion. The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then they must have been actual socialists is naive and does not match the facts.

This is very good post.

Socialism inevitably leads to taking control of means of production by nationalization, because that is purpose of socialism. Although it's true that US throughout the history used nationalization of properties and businesses, it did it with different reasons.

During WWI, all US railroads were operated (not owned) by Railroad Administration as a wartime measure and were return to private control after war. The same happened with telephone systems that were under control of US government for about a year. Amtrak was created for the purpose of relieving privately own railroads of legal obligation to provide passenger service that was not profitable.

You said that German Worker Party changed name to gain support of trade unions. If that is only reason, and if they were not socialists, there wouldn't be a reason to keep "socialist" in their name after they had full control of the government beyond 1933.

Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level, Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. In order to prepare the country for the struggle he saw to coming, he nationalized much of the country's institutions but also leaving much of industry in private hands. He left in place capitalism when it served his needs. Hitler upheld ownership of private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. Hitler was certainly no socialist; a fascist, a right wing nationalist, and a dictator, yes.

You claim that Hitler kept ownership of private properties and companies in private hands. It sure appeared that way, but the German government, not the owners, exercised powers of ownership by deciding what is to be produced, in what quantities, how, and what were the prices of the products, and wages of the workers producing it. Most of the owners of those properties and companies were part of the German government, not by choice, but by necessity of their own survival.

You're overlooking another aspect of socialism, where common good comes before private good, and that individual exists as the means required by the state, in other words, individual is own by the state, and therefore individual's property as well. Just as it happened in Germany, it happened in every socialist country, since October revolution is Russia, until Venezuela, with the exactly the same outcome.

Germany rode to power under the guise of socialism but in truth it was fascism. The key tenants of socialism never really existed. There certainly was no classless society. Private ownership was never abolished. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. State owned industries were privatized after Hitler took power and trade unions were smashed. As the country moved closer to war, the Nazi government developed a partnerships with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encourage by the government in exchange for millions of marks transferred to the Reich by major industrialists in 1933. Hitler promised huge profits to the cartels in exchange for their support. Had the Nazis won the war, the group of 30 industrialist that had pledged their support would have been fabulously wealthy instead of being persecuted as war criminals.

Nazism like fascism were both far-right forms of government which was characterized by extreme nationalism, racial discrimination, promotion of violence and war, and an unapologetic hatred for socialism. The major commonality between Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism is government control. Government control is not the defining factor in any of the above eco-political systems.

Had Hitler understood anything about economic theory and that communism was just a subset of socialism, he would have thought twice about renaming of the party. However, once the party was renamed and he came to power, there was far too much invested in the Nazi trademark to rename the party again.

And that is where you're wrong. National socialism is still a socialism. What takes it apart from communism is "national" part. Yes, Hitler hated communists, but not because he was far right, but because they were "globalists" of that time.

National socialism, vs. international socialism/communism.

Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia/USSR/eastern block? In either case, the government economic plan was supreme law of the land, and like in every socialist state it ends up with enormous inflation, black market, shortages of essential products, long waiting lines, etc. Read NSDAP party program, than read the Communist manifesto. I also recommend to read the Constitution of USSR or any other former eastern block country. The end goal of every socialist is to achieve full socialism. All he needed is war victory, and that's the only thing that stop him from getting it. On the other hand, Russians won, you know where they ended.

Congratulations 99% of the people in the world think you are insane LOL. Yes Hitler promised a lot but it was all a house of cards. That's how he got elected idiot. Communists and socialists hate aristocrats royalty and corporate executives, all of whom Hitler just loved.the only thing that is similar between socialists and Nazis under Hitler was full employment and all kinds of benefits. But Hitler was just about going to war.

 

[teddyearp]

To bring this thread back on topic and away from discussions of Hitler, etc.:

I'm going to expand on my post up thread somewhere about #1267 or so.

I'm watching "The Expanse" on Amazon Prime. It is a science fiction set two hundred years in our future where we have colonized our solar system, or at least much of it.

If we try to concentrate on solar and wind energy, there is now way in hell we'll make it there in 200 years. Just sayin'.

As I said, going to the moon in 1960 was pretty much the same scale as this series. If we REALLY want to advance beyond where we are now, we need to figure out much much more than getting cows to stop farting, lol.

 

[francoHFW]

Nationalizing institutions does not meant the countries economic system is socialism. The US has nationalized private posts, railroads, telephone companies, and electric power companies and has instituted price controls. That does make the US a socialist country.

The German Workers Party was renamed to the National Socialist German Workers' Party in order to gain support of the trade unions which Hitler hated and later destroyed.

Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist”, which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum has long been a source of confusion. The assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then they must have been actual socialists is naive and does not match the facts.

This is very good post.

Socialism inevitably leads to taking control of means of production by nationalization, because that is purpose of socialism. Although it's true that US throughout the history used nationalization of properties and businesses, it did it with different reasons.

During WWI, all US railroads were operated (not owned) by Railroad Administration as a wartime measure and were return to private control after war. The same happened with telephone systems that were under control of US government for about a year. Amtrak was created for the purpose of relieving privately own railroads of legal obligation to provide passenger service that was not profitable.

You said that German Worker Party changed name to gain support of trade unions. If that is only reason, and if they were not socialists, there wouldn't be a reason to keep "socialist" in their name after they had full control of the government beyond 1933.

Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal level, Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. In order to prepare the country for the struggle he saw to coming, he nationalized much of the country's institutions but also leaving much of industry in private hands. He left in place capitalism when it served his needs. Hitler upheld ownership of private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. Hitler was certainly no socialist; a fascist, a right wing nationalist, and a dictator, yes.

You claim that Hitler kept ownership of private properties and companies in private hands. It sure appeared that way, but the German government, not the owners, exercised powers of ownership by deciding what is to be produced, in what quantities, how, and what were the prices of the products, and wages of the workers producing it. Most of the owners of those properties and companies were part of the German government, not by choice, but by necessity of their own survival.

You're overlooking another aspect of socialism, where common good comes before private good, and that individual exists as the means required by the state, in other words, individual is own by the state, and therefore individual's property as well. Just as it happened in Germany, it happened in every socialist country, since October revolution is Russia, until Venezuela, with the exactly the same outcome.

Germany rode to power under the guise of socialism but in truth it was fascism. The key tenants of socialism never really existed. There certainly was no classless society. Private ownership was never abolished. Entrepreneurship was encouraged. State owned industries were privatized after Hitler took power and trade unions were smashed. As the country moved closer to war, the Nazi government developed a partnerships with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement. Cartels and monopolies were encourage by the government in exchange for millions of marks transferred to the Reich by major industrialists in 1933. Hitler promised huge profits to the cartels in exchange for their support. Had the Nazis won the war, the group of 30 industrialist that had pledged their support would have been fabulously wealthy instead of being persecuted as war criminals.

Nazism like fascism were both far-right forms of government which was characterized by extreme nationalism, racial discrimination, promotion of violence and war, and an unapologetic hatred for socialism. The major commonality between Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism is government control. Government control is not the defining factor in any of the above eco-political systems.

Had Hitler understood anything about economic theory and that communism was just a subset of socialism, he would have thought twice about renaming of the party. However, once the party was renamed and he came to power, there was far too much invested in the Nazi trademark to rename the party again.

And that is where you're wrong. National socialism is still a socialism. What takes it apart from communism is "national" part. Yes, Hitler hated communists, but not because he was far right, but because they were "globalists" of that time.

National socialism, vs. international socialism/communism.

Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia/USSR/eastern block? In either case, the government economic plan was supreme law of the land, and like in every socialist state it ends up with enormous inflation, black market, shortages of essential products, long waiting lines, etc. Read NSDAP party program, than read the Communist manifesto. I also recommend to read the Constitution of USSR or any other former eastern block country. The end goal of every socialist is to achieve full socialism. All he needed is war victory, and that's the only thing that stop him from getting it. On the other hand, Russians won, you know where they ended.

Congratulations 99% of the people in the world think you are insane LOL. Yes Hitler promised a lot but it was all a house of cards. That's how he got elected idiot. Communists and socialists hate aristocrats royalty and corporate executives, all of whom Hitler just loved.the only thing that is similar between socialists and Nazis under Hitler was full employment and all kinds of benefits. But Hitler was just about going to war.

Socialists and especially Communists hate royalty aristocrats the rich etc Hitler's pals LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

Unless they were getting massive payments from the government who pervert the market and hide the effectivity of such energy sources.....

 

[francoHFW]

Control can also mean regulation, dumbass dupe. Like every intelligent rich country in the world that doesn't have greedy idiot GOP dupes running things... Everywhere outside your bubble of stupid ignorance and garbage propaganda, socialism is defined as well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now!" --Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Guess what shithead dupe? Everyone in the world but you brainwashed jackasses who deny global warming and progressive taxation know what socialism is since people found out the USSR was a totalitarian scam. Most successful modern countries have socialist parties and none of them thinks socialism is communism. Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the brainwashed GOP morons...

No you ignorant and uneducated sot, socialism is not capitalism of any form.

Capitalism is based on a free market. Prices are determined by supply and demand. Now you're in my backyard. Arguing economics with me is very dumb, as you have found on dozens of occasions.

The issue we have is that you lack a grasp of the most basic and fundamental concepts. I speak of the market, but you have no idea what that means. Simply put, a market is an exchange of value for value. The seller will relinquish goods if the value of money offered is greater TO HIM than the value of his good. The buyer will offer cash if the goods are of greater value TO HIM than the cash. No one save the buyer and seller have input into what the value of the goods are. Price then follows the judgement of buyers and sellers.

I teach freshmen who grasp these concepts, but YOU ******* don't, regardless of how many times and how basic I explain it to you. Under socialism, the GOVERNMENT is the only entity that decides value. The market is perverted. Under Communism the market is eradicated. Any system where an entity other than the buyer or seller set the price of goods is NOT capitalism.

Funny how socialists around the world believe what I believe, while only Cold War dinosaur GOP dupes or Liars believe what you do. "We are all socialists now"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed. But we are still a greedy idiot Rich ripoff of a country, thanks to the GOP and its doops like you.

 

[baileyn45]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

Of course you are misinformed. ocasio Cortez knows nothing about paying people who are not willing to work or trains across oceans etcetera etc, you know the usual garbage you people believe.

The paying people unwilling to work was on the original screen shot and was later changed, the internet never forgets. Although I've said nothing about either point. She has however spoken of carbon free by 2030 which is what I have spoken of.

I can't figure out why the dems are so taken with her. I have yet to here anything particularly cogent out of her. The interview where she attempts to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was simply painful to watch. As a friend said "if she tried to find the middle east on a map she'd come in somewhere between Philly and Richmond". Her "we're all going to die in 12 yrs" was downright laugh out loud funny. To me she's been an endless source of amusement and I would suspect the repubs see her as a gift from God. If this is the bright shining star of the dems, the dems are in worse shape than I thought.

 

[basquebromance]

they want to eliminate cows. they're coming after our hamburgers!

leave my fries alone, leave my burgers alone, leave my soda alone, leave my cigar alone, LEAVE ME ALONE!

 

[Obejoekenobe]

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

You know what else was mind boggling? Building an atom bomb in 2 years to win WWII, and interstate system in 35 years that connected most of America and going to the moon in 10 years.

The greatest generation faced an existential threat in WWII and faced it down, sacrificing cause they knew what it would mean to lose.

Our generation faces an existential threat that IS going to effect our children and grandchildren, making life very difficult, if not impossible on our planet, and ***** and whine it’s impossible without explaining WHY it’s impossible.

All I hear is defeatism

1.) It’s not viable.

Well it is. Very much so.

2.) It’s mind boggling.

So are ever increasing fires that burn whole towns to ashes and floods that are starting to effect our coastal cities and droughts effecting our food supply.

3.) We can’t afford it.

Nonsense. Not only can we afford it but we have been subsidizing renewable energy!

And we can raise taxes on the wealthy. And no, it’s not a road to socialism. We’re not going to become Venezuela.

We had a 90% tax rate on the wealthy during Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy’s terms. Was that socialism then? Did we become Venezuela?

Not only did we build a highway system, go to the moon, fight a war, expand the middle class and built an education system second to none with the worlds highest education rates... we also balanced the budget while doing so!

To say removing our carbon footprint by 2030 is “silly" is abject nonsense.

That’s not an American concerned about their children or grandchildren future speaking.... that’s big oil wanting to keep the status quo when the status quo is starting to kill us and make our planet uninhabitable.

Excuse me..... but isn’t having a can do attitude part of MAGA? Not only do I think we can remove our carbon footprint in 12 years but can do so while expanding the economy, building a 21st century infrasructue and creating new jobs with livable wages.

I don’t know about you..... but in 10 or 20 years when my grandchildren are choking on smog and our water is polluted from fracking, I don’t want to have to explain to my grandkids that it was “silly” and “mind boggling” that we could do something about it besides setting on our asses while our country and planet becomes a cosmic shithole.

I’d rather follow the lead of our parents and grandparents and face that threat head on and make the sacrifices needed so that our children will have a VIABLE place to call home.

 

[basquebromance]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

 

[francoHFW]

If neither were viable, they wouldn’t be building solar and wind farms and renewable energy labor wouldn’t be the fastest growing job market.

Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.

You'll note that the article points to the private sector pushing this along. It's what many of us have said for years, keep the govt out of it. They'll just screw it up.

Has government screwed up the oil industry with subsidies?

The renewable industry has expanded with government subsidies. Same as the oil industry.

Talk to Ray from Cleveland.

Oh I agree that it's all subsidized but let's face it, the plans being put forth are hardly simple subsidies. Not to mention the silly notion of carbon free by 2030. In addition the current slate of renewables just won't do it. Wind and solar aren't going to keep my house livable when it's 10 deg outside and I haven't seen the sun in a month. It's a nice thought just not realistic. Not only the energy itself but the infrastructure is mind boggling. I keep hearing people compare this plan to the lunar mission or the interstate highway, those were minute projects compared to these proposals. I like bold audacious plans but this is just silly, I much prefer realistic.

Of course you are misinformed. ocasio Cortez knows nothing about paying people who are not willing to work or trains across oceans etcetera etc, you know the usual garbage you people believe.

The paying people unwilling to work was on the original screen shot and was later changed, the internet never forgets. Although I've said nothing about either point. She has however spoken of carbon free by 2030 which is what I have spoken of.

I can't figure out why the dems are so taken with her. I have yet to here anything particularly cogent out of her. The interview where she attempts to speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was simply painful to watch. As a friend said "if she tried to find the middle east on a map she'd come in somewhere between Philly and Richmond". Her "we're all going to die in 12 yrs" was downright laugh out loud funny. To me she's been an endless source of amusement and I would suspect the repubs see her as a gift from God. If this is the bright shining star of the dems, the dems are in worse shape than I thought.

She probably did not say that either...Millennials love her. Since you don't believe in global warming and the GOP is the only party that denies in the world oh, I don't give a s*** what you think people you people are all idiots. Brainwashed functional idiots.

 

[Obejoekenobe]

And Trumpies.

It’s not AOC you have to worry about.

It’s folks like me who think setting on our ass and doing nothing about the threat Global warming poses is a non starter.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And Trumpies.

It’s not AOC you have to worry about.

It’s folks like me who think setting on our ass and doing nothing about the threat Global warming imposes is a non starter.

It's folks like you who are ignorant and gullible?

Yep.

 

[francoHFW]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

I must say I do not understand why there has to be zero emissions by 2050. 0 seems to be a little extreme. LOL

 

[basquebromance]

global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050;
and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;

global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require— (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

I must say I do not understand why there has to be zero emissions by 2050. 0 seems to be a little extreme. LOL

ZERO EMISSIONS BY TWENTY FIFTY. DEAL WITH IT, *****