The catastrophic failure of progressive policy

[alang1216]

How is investing in poor investments “long-term sustainability”?

From your link:

For example, to reduce greenhouse gases, money managers have divested from traditional oil and gas companies, such as Exxon or Chevron. How has that worked out so far? Last year, those were two of the highest-performing stocks.​

So their short-term performance has been great. As countries move away from fossil fuels will their long-term performance remain as great?

How is hiring unqualified people simply because they are transvestites “long-term sustainability”?

How is doing the wrong thing in an attempt to signal to others like you that you’re with them, “long-term sustainability”?

Do leftists ever think before posting?

I guess you don't feel these private investment firms should have to compete in the free market? If people don't like what they're doing they can generally find another firm, like Vanguard, to move their money to.

 

[P@triot]

So their short-term performance has been great. As countries move away from fossil fuels will their long-term performance remain as great?

Why would nations "move away" from affordable, abundant, powerful energy?

By the way, the left has been claiming this would happen since Jimmy Carter was President in the 1970's. 50 years later and were no closer to "moving away" from it.

I guess you don't feel these private investment firms should have to compete in the free market? If people don't like what they're doing they can generally find another firm, like Vanguard, to move their money to.

Absolutely! That's the beauty of the free market. But government - when run by Democrats - will continue to tank the pension funds of employees by choosing to virtue-signal rather than choosing what is smart/prosperous.

 

[P@triot]

That whole "Defund the Police" thing is working out really well, Democrats

Black Homicide Rates Are Back at ’90s Levels. The Problem Isn’t Guns.

A study found gun homicide rates among black men have exploded. That coincided with the rise of the BLM and "defund the police" movements.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[alang1216]

Why would nations "move away" from affordable, abundant, powerful energy?

Because they're moving to more affordable, more abundant, cleaner energy.

By the way, the left has been claiming this would happen since Jimmy Carter was President in the 1970's. 50 years later and were no closer to "moving away" from it.

Untrue. 50 years ago, if you wanted a car you could only buy one powered by gas. Today we have hybrid and EV options.

 

[P@triot]

Because they're moving to more affordable, more abundant, cleaner energy.

No. They aren't. At all. Renewables make up a laughable 19% of energy in the US. If you quadrupled that output overnight, it wouldn't be enough to sustain current levels. Facts matter.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Untrue. 50 years ago, if you wanted a car you could only buy one powered by gas. Today we have hybrid and EV options.

50 years later and having the option of an "EV" that nobody can afford is "proof" in your mind that we have made progress in the liberal pipe dream? If you stretch any further, you're going to pull a muscle

 

[alang1216]

No. They aren't. At all. Renewables make up a laughable 19% of energy in the US. If you quadrupled that output overnight, it wouldn't be enough to sustain current levels. Facts matter.

They are 19% today, what were they 50 years ago?

50 years later and having the option of an "EV" that nobody can afford is "proof" in your mind that we have made progress in the liberal pipe dream? If you stretch any further, you're going to pull a muscle

My daughter just bought a hybrid and I know a number of people who already have them. Once the Biden EV tax break is finalized I will seriously look at an EV for my next car for in-town use.

Seems like progress to me even though you seem to be in a big hurry to declare them dead. Politically motivated are we?

 

[P@triot]

They are 19% today, what were they 50 years ago?

Like 9%. So it's taking about 2% per decade

And that's with government illegally throwing trillions of dollars at them over these past 50 years.

My daughter just bought a hybrid and I know a number of people who already have them. Once the Biden EV tax break is finalized I will seriously look at an EV for my next car for in-town use.

Liberalism: ideas so good, they have to be government-subsidized for regular people to afford them!

Also, had a friend who had to borrow their parents car because they had to drive out of state and they had two issues:

1. No where to stop and charge

2. Didn't want to sit for 8 hours even if they couldn't find a place charge

What a "great" concept

Seems like progress to me even though you seem to be in a big hurry to declare them dead. Politically motivated are we?

Politically motivated? No. Prosperity motivated? Yes. I'm sick of failed liberal policy setting us back a decade over and over.

 

[alang1216]

Like 9%. So it's taking about 2% per decade

And that's with government illegally throwing trillions of dollars at them over these past 50 years.

Not sure where the 9% number came from but I'm willing to accept it. The next line, not so much. I'm not sure who or what is throwing trillions and in what form but I'm sure there was nothing illegal about it.

Liberalism: ideas so good, they have to be government-subsidized for regular people to afford them!

When this country was new, if you wanted to travel by road, they were all privately owned toll roads. Roads were government-subsidized for regular people to afford them. Same for electricity in rural areas.

Also, had a friend who had to borrow their parents car because they had to drive out of state and they had two issues:

1. No where to stop and charge

2. Didn't want to sit for 8 hours even if they couldn't find a place charge

What a "great" concept

For in-town use EVs are superior to int. combut. but anything will fail if you use it in ways it wasn't intended and regardless of what anyone says, EVs are not ready for long-hauls.

 

[P@triot]

Not sure where the 9% number came from but I'm willing to accept it. The next line, not so much. I'm not sure who or what is throwing trillions and in what form but I'm sure there was nothing illegal about it.

The US Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 powers is illegal for the federal government to meddle in.

And guess what? Subsidizing energy isn’t one of those 18 enumerated powers. So yes, the federal government throwing trillions of dollars at it is egregiously illegal.

When this country was new, if you wanted to travel by road, they were all privately owned toll roads. Roads were government-subsidized for regular people to afford them.

Aside from simply not being true, the US Constitution allows for the federal government to fund postal roads.

It also persists states to fund any other kind of road. And states have traditionally paid for almost all roads (though sadly, the federal government continues to meddle more and more in roads).

…but anything will fail if you use it in ways it wasn't intended

Automobiles were intended to travel long distances. That’s literally the point of the automobile.

and regardless of what anyone says, EVs are not ready for long-hauls.

Exactly. One day it will be a viable option. But we are still many years away (possibly even decades). But the left continues to choose failed policies, failed concepts, etc. over prosperity.

 

[alang1216]

The US Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. Anything outside of those 18 powers is illegal for the federal government to meddle in.

And guess what? Subsidizing energy isn’t one of those 18 enumerated powers. So yes, the federal government throwing trillions of dollars at it is egregiously illegal.

Hmmm... Do I believe you or do I believe the SCOTUS? Tough choice.

Aside from simply not being true, the US Constitution allows for the federal government to fund postal roads.

It also persists states to fund any other kind of road. And states have traditionally paid for almost all roads (though sadly, the federal government continues to meddle more and more in roads).

After the American Revolution, the National Government began to realize the importance of westward expansion and trade in the development of the new Nation. As a result, an era of road building began. This period was marked by the development of turnpike companies, our earliest toll roads in the United States. In 1792, the first turnpike was chartered and became known as the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike in Pennsylvania. It was the first road in America covered with a layer of crushed stone. The boom in turnpike construction began, resulting in the incorporation of more than 50 turnpike companies in Connecticut, 67 in New York, and others in Massachusetts and around the country

Automobiles were intended to travel long distances. That’s literally the point of the automobile.

In 1903, cars were mostly driven in cities, where the roads were paved. Long haul driving was an adventure not a routine option for most people.

Exactly. One day it will be a viable option. But we are still many years away (possibly even decades). But the left continues to choose failed policies, failed concepts, etc. over prosperity.

Exactly, short term vs long term prosperity.

 

[Markle]

If you're correct, it seems the Right focuses on short term profit while the Left focuses on long-term sustainability.

How is this focusing on long-term sustainability?

 

[alang1216]

How is this focusing on long-term sustainability?

Does the Right want to get rid of SS and Medicare or are they bipartisan programs?

 

[Markle]

Does the Right want to get rid of SS and Medicare or are they bipartisan programs?

Do they not have to be radically changed? Kicking it down the road forever is not a solution.

 

[alang1216]

Do they not have to be radically changed? Kicking it down the road forever is not a solution.

Do they? The devil is in the details of course.

 

[P@triot]

Hmmm... Do I believe you or do I believe the SCOTUS? Tough choice.

How about you believe the US Constitution??

But of course, that would require you to take a whole 14 minutes out of your life to actually read it…and…well…we both know that’s never going to happen. For some bizarre reason, the left doesn’t believe in educating themselves.

 

[P@triot]

Well duh. Left-wing policy lowers the bar and results in poverty and misery every time.

5 'dirtiest' cities in America run by Democratic mayors, study says

The top five dirtiest cities in the country are run by Democrat mayors in Houston, Newark, San Bernardino, Detroit and Jersey City, new study says.

www.foxnews.com

 

[alang1216]

How about you believe the US Constitution??

But of course, that would require you to take a whole 14 minutes out of your life to actually read it…and…well…we both know that’s never going to happen. For some bizarre reason, the left doesn’t believe in educating themselves.

Pretty arrogant to believe you can read for 14 minutes and know exactly what is in the Constitution and how it relates to the world of today. Legal scholars spend years studying the Constitution and all have a slightly different interpretation of what it means yet you know better in just 14 minutes? Impressive!

 

[P@triot]

Pretty arrogant to believe you can read for 14 minutes and know exactly what is in the Constitution and how it relates to the world of today.

Psst…friend…the words of the U.S. Constitution do not change. Same words here in 2023 that they were in 1787.

Pretty ignorant to not understand that simple reality.

Legal scholars spend years studying the Constitution and all have a slightly different interpretation of what it means yet you know better in just 14 minutes? Impressive!

Well, I mean, unless you’re illiterate, it takes about 14 minutes. Words have meaning. You don’t get to “interpret” them. They mean what they mean. Let me give you a quick example here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The left (who hates liberty and lives for power over others), likes to “interpret” that it doesn’t say what it says. But it’s plain as day. The right of the people (not the militia - the people) to keep and bears arms (not muskets - arms) shall not be infringed.

See how easy that is? Again, if you’re even partially literate, should take you about a whopping 14 minutes to read and comprehend.

 

[alang1216]

Well, I mean, unless you’re illiterate, it takes about 14 minutes. Words have meaning. You don’t get to “interpret” them. They mean what they mean. Let me give you a quick example here:

The left (who hates liberty and lives for power over others), likes to “interpret” that it doesn’t say what it says. But it’s plain as day. The right of the people (not the militia - the people) to keep and bears arms (not muskets - arms) shall not be infringed.

See how easy that is? Again, if you’re even partially literate, should take you about a whopping 14 minutes to read and comprehend.

Not easy, just simple. Why are they combined into one sentence if they don't refer to the same idea? What 'arms' are they referring to? Cannons? Silencers? Armor piercing bullets? Does a 'well regulated Militia' mean gun controls or gun registration? The truth is even the founding fathers differed in their understandings.

 

[Markle]

Not easy, just simple. Why are they combined into one sentence if they don't refer to the same idea? What 'arms' are they referring to? Cannons? Silencers? Armor piercing bullets? Does a 'well regulated Militia' mean gun controls or gun registration? The truth is even the founding fathers differed in their understandings.

Wrong.

The founding fathers were very specific in their use of commas.