Green New Deal to Get Senate Vote

[LDAHL]

If you were actually interested in the answer to the question you'd look to Bernie's platform in the last presidential election for a few clues.

His stance on immigration and trade were very similar to Trump’s, albeit for different stated reasons. He seemed to be interested in using the tax code as a redistributive mechanism. He looked to substantial increases in federal benefits, without acknowledging the additional tax burden they would put on the middle class; as it does in the oft-cited Nordic countries, there being an insufficient number of billionaires to fund it all. He looked for increased regulation of various industries without recognizing that the American business climate is by many measures already more restrictive than the oft-cited Nordic countries.

[LDAHL]

But back to the topic at hand:

https://www.businessinsider.com/alex...ns-poll-2019-2

Next, we polled seven ideas or components of the deal that would be linked to policy priorities, all of which are quite vague. Given the loose nature of the proposals, we asked respondents how important it was to implement these policy proposals, on a scale with five options running from "not at all important" to "extremely important."

• 87.6% of respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate-change-related disasters.
• 87.2% of poll respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources; 12.7% said this goal was either not so important or not at all important.
• 86% of those polled said it was important that the federal government enact policies aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).
• Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.
• And 87.5% of respondents said it's important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.
• The resolution's call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular, with 87.6% of those polled saying it's important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.

Yes, 87.5% of Americans want positive things if we leave the matter of paying the tab for later consideration.

[jp1]

Yes, 87.5% of Americans want positive things if we leave the matter of paying the tab for later consideration.

Exactly. Like leaving concern about how to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations for later consideration.

But back to my original point 20 posts ago. I don't especially see how senators voting in favor of the GND is going to play especially poorly among the voting populace when massive majorities support the general ideas in it. Sure, in a few places it will, so I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Joe Manchin vote against. And republican senators in red states will vote against it because it's more important to be against democrats than for being concerned about the environment.

[Teacher Terry]

Why some regular people see no problem with the rich and corporations getting enormous tax cuts while the little guys keep getting the shaft never ceases to amaze me.

[catherine]

So many comments are ridiculous. Other countries are doing a much better job than we are because they recognize it’s in everybody’s best interest for citizens to all have access to healthcare, housing, roads that aren’t falling apart, etc.

Exactly.

The employer-provided health insurance model is a anachronistic vestige of the 19th/early 20th century, and the only efficient thing to do is to follow what almost all other 1st world countries have done.

Great inequalities in wealth drives homelessness: the average person can't find places to live in some cities, like San Francisco, where the tech boom actually made housing inaccessible. Amazon has created a huge homelessness problem in Seattle.

Roads: Well, I guess we can all call ourselves socialists if we are in favor of good roads, unless you are only a proponent of good roads in your neighborhood. As for those in poorer neighborhoods--they can lift themselves up by their bootstraps and pay for their own damn roads.

[Teacher Terry]

Our homeless population is growing even among people with jobs. A 1 bedroom here rents for 1k and up. You can blame Tesla, Apple, etc who moved in. Also a developer bought most of the weekly motels downtown and destroyed them. He intends to put upscale apartments and condos for the wealthy retirees coming from California.

[iris lilies]

Our homeless population is growing even among people with jobs. A 1 bedroom here rents for 1k and up. You can blame Tesla, Apple, etc who moved in. Also a developer bought most of the weekly motels downtown and destroyed them. He intends to put upscale apartments and condos for the wealthy retirees coming from California.

see? It’s always the Californians.

[Alan]

Our homeless population is growing even among people with jobs. A 1 bedroom here rents for 1k and up. You can blame Tesla, Apple, etc who moved in. Also a developer bought most of the weekly motels downtown and destroyed them. He intends to put upscale apartments and condos for the wealthy retirees coming from California.

I guess if you're going to blame high costs of living on the well-to-do people moving in, it's only natural to make sure no one is too well to do once you've got them.

[LDAHL]

Our homeless population is growing even among people with jobs. A 1 bedroom here rents for 1k and up. You can blame Tesla, Apple, etc who moved in. Also a developer bought most of the weekly motels downtown and destroyed them. He intends to put upscale apartments and condos for the wealthy retirees coming from California.

Are they homeless because they’re being outbid for the existing housing stock or because the existing housing stock is limited by restrictions on adding new housing supply, keeping prices high?

[Teacher Terry]

We don’t have enough housing and the average family of 4 makes 45k with 2 workers. People can’t afford to buy houses. Landlords are raising rents. We overbuilt before the recession so builders are afraid to be too aggressively. Nextdoor a 84 yo woman lives in 900 sq ft. She now shares it with her adult son, small granddaughter, niece and daughter. The niece and son work full time. They all live there because they couldn’t afford their apartments anymore. One sleeps in the garage with a space heater. It’s cold here. There are houses to buy if you can afford them.