Let's look at the Green New Deal being presented in Congress

[Kenny'sID]

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution on a Green New Deal.pdf

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that 7 pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers 8 training and advancement opportunities, and 9 guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers 10 affected by the transition; 11 (H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical 13 leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to 14 all people of the United States;​

Sounds like Stepford, but we get to keep the original version of our women, and that's good...right?​

 

[Radagast]

Idealism wasn't what destroyed venezuela.

Venezuela was destroyed by Chavismo, which is idealism, of a kind.

 

[Nithavela]

Venezuela was destroyed by Chavismo, which is idealism, of a kind.

One could also call chavismo capitalism of a kind (state capitalism).

Should we abolish capitalism because of venezuela?

Look, we can play word games and guilt by association all day long. But I think as an australian, you should be able to appreciate the dangers of global warming right about now.

 

[Radagast]

One could also call chavismo capitalism of a kind (state capitalism).

Should we abolish capitalism because of venezuela?

You miss my point, which is that idealism divorced from reality is dangerous.

It is not enough that policies be well-intentioned, they must also work.

 

[Nithavela]

You miss my point, which is that idealism divorced from reality is dangerous.

It is not enough that policies be well-intentioned, they must also work.

Neither is it enough that something is practical when it is also insufficient.

I'd say that there are some good ideas in there, as well as some moon shots and some that will never work out. We could discuss how to implement some of those ideas, maybe in a more realistic level, instead of going "haha, look at this foolish woman that hasn't been jaded and tries to save the world".

Either that or we as a human species are declaring "Well, we could save ourselves, but it's too much of a hassle, so why bother?"

 

[Radagast]

I'd say that there are some good ideas in there, as well as some moon shots and some that will never work out.

The best quick indicator as to whether the ideas make sense is: "is anyone elsewhere in the world already doing this, with success?" (one naturally looks at Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.). And the follow-up question is "can the conditions that make that work also exist in America?"

And indeed, there are a several ideas there where the answers are "yes" and "maybe."

But the Democrats would have done themselves a huge favour had they pruned the list, or at least put it up for public debate, before making an official Congressional resolution. As a complete package, which is what the Congressional resolution is, it is stupid.

 

[Nithavela]

The best quick indicator as to whether the ideas make sense is: "is anyone elsewhere in the world already doing this, with success?" And the follow-up question is "can the conditions that make that work also exist in America?"

And indeed, there are a several ideas there where the answers are "yes" and "maybe."

But the Democrats would have done themselves a huge favour had they pruned the list, or at least put it up for public debate, before making an official Congressional resolution. As a Congressional resolution, it is stupid.

It's stupid anyway because even if the democrats suggested only things that the republicans once suggested themselves, the GOP would shut it down out of partisanship.

That's how politics work in the USA, sadly.

This document isn't written for congress, it's written for the public. They just introduced it into congress as a publicity stunt.

 

[Radagast]

It's stupid anyway because even if the democrats suggested only things that the republicans once suggested themselves, the GOP would shut it down out of partisanship.

I don't think that's true. The idea of building a national (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) fast rail grid, for example, is almost Trumpian, and would be of enormous economic benefit to the "red" states which are now called "flyover states." I'm not sure that the US could afford it, except perhaps as a public-private partnership, but it's intriguing, and would get support from many GOP senators.

Be that as it may, however, by packaging everything together, a GOP veto of the resolution is guaranteed.

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think that's true.

Why?

 

[camille70]

I don't think that's true. Be that as it may, however, by packaging everything together, a GOP veto is guaranteed.

She said in an interview that I linked to earlier that this is not legislation, it's basically a goal list or priorities they are interested in pursuing. It only needs to pass the house.

 

[Radagast]

Why?

I've edited my post to clarify.

 

[DanishLutheran]

Won't somebody think of the shareholders?!

Yes, socialism works out so well. Just look at North Korea, the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, Mao's China, Venezuela..........

In a perfect world, everyone could get everything they ever wanted and no one would have to do anything.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

This "green deal" is balls to the walls insanity.

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think that's true. The idea of building a national (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) fast rail grid, for example, is almost Trumpian, and would be of enormous economic benefit to the "red" states which are now called "flyover states." I'm not sure that the US could afford it, except perhaps as a public-private partnership, but it's intriguing, and would get support from many GOP senators.

Be that as it may, however, by packaging everything together, a GOP veto of the resolution is guaranteed.

Could you name me one example of the majority of the GOP (not just one or two rogues) supporting democrat legislation in the last decade?

 

[Radagast]

Could you name me one example of the majority of the GOP (not just one or two rogues) supporting democrat legislation in the last decade?

It wouldn't need to be the majority of the GOP, and the US has (by British or UK standards) almost nonexistent party discipline. Senators will vote on the basis of what their supporters back home want, even if it runs counter to party policy.

However, the Democrats will almost always include one or two clauses that discourage support by GOP senators -- possibly deliberately. It's very different from Europe, where compromise is a way of life.

 

[Nithavela]

It wouldn't need to be the majority of the GOP, and the US has (by British or UK standards) almost nonexistent party discipline. Senators will vote on the basis of what their supporters back home want, even if it runs counter to party policy.

However, the Democrats will almost always include one or two clauses that discourage support by GOP senators -- possibly deliberately. It's very different from Europe, where compromise is a way of life.

I'm taking that as a no.

 

[DanishLutheran]

Could you name me one example of the majority of the GOP (not just one or two rogues) supporting democrat legislation in the last decade?

Can you name one example of the opposite?
American politics is becoming increasingly radicalized from both sides of the political spectrum. Eight years of "progressive" trampling, led to the election of Trump. And now, Trump is fortunately using his senate majority to ensure that at least the next time "progressives" try something similar, they'll have the courts to worry about.

 

[Hammster]

Sure, I mean, that makes sense.

Can't argue with solid logic. If someone says some things I don't agree with I often just make up even sillier stuff about them and use it to criticize the points I don't agree with!

Glad to see that you admit her plan is silly.

 

[Hammster]

Here is a winner:

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water effi- ciency, safety, affordability, comfort, and dura-
bility, including through electrification;

Every building in the US upgraded in the next ten years.

That’s not silly, but giving everyone a house apparently is.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think that's true. The idea of building a national (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) fast rail grid, for example, is almost Trumpian, and would be of enormous economic benefit to the "red" states which are now called "flyover states." I'm not sure that the US could afford it, except perhaps as a public-private partnership, but it's intriguing, and would get support from many GOP senators.

Outside the northeast corridor, Republicans have zero love for national rail, no matter how fast.

 

[Nithavela]

Outside the northeast corridor, Republicans have zero love for national rail, no matter how fast.

That would fall under the bigger umbrella of infrastructure. How is the GOPs history with that?