Green New Deal to Get Senate Vote

[LDAHL]

I see that Mitch McConnell wants to schedule a vote on the NGD resolution drafted by Reps Markey and Ocasio-Cortez. He wants to give senators the “chance to go on the record”. I think he provided a similar vote a couple of years ago for single payer health care, for similar political reasons.

[jp1]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.

[Alan]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.
Being exposed to "really out there" opinions is one of the things I love about these forums. Personally, I think Mitch is making a noble effort to save the Democrats from themselves, or maybe it's a less noble gesture to just save the rest of us from them. I'm good with either.

[jp1]

I suppose some people think the republican environmental plan of burning more coal is awesome.

[iris lilies]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.
Omg jp, you often make me laugh out loud.

I remember when GW didnt sign the Kyoto agreement and there was so much outrage and knashing of teeth. Enter President Obama and —no signature. Ummm? Did we hear the complaints on this website? Naw.

i remember when Senator Barak Obama was all huffily justified in voting for a balanced budget when his party didnt have a snowball’s chance to get any legislation thru.

switch to President O being in a position to actually trim if not balance the U.S. budget in his all powerful position of leadership. But where did that idea go? Nowheresville.

[Alan]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.



Omg jp, you often make me laugh out loud.

Me too!

Plus, being a long view kinda guy I appreciate the rabid lefts ability to regularly remind the middle just how rabid they can be.

[jp1]

I dunno. The middle seemed cool with the rabid left a few months ago. Other than a few more indictments not much has changed since then. With the exception that i wonder who trump is going to use to run the 2020 campaign since most of his last team seem to be having legal issies to worry about.

[LDAHL]

Me too!

Plus, being a long view kinda guy I appreciate the rabid lefts ability to regularly remind the middle just how rabid they can be.

I can’t figure out if AOC represents an existential threat to our way of life, God’s gift to the GOP or a sort of Paris Hilton phenomenon.

[Alan]

I can’t figure out if AOC represents an existential threat to our way of life, God’s gift to the GOP or a sort of Paris Hilton phenomenon.I'll take God's gift to the GOP for $100 Alex and follow up with Paris Hilton for the win.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.Interesting.....I was thinking along the same lines.......Rob

[LDAHL]

Sounds like a reasonable plan. Get the R's on the record as hating the planet.

So if Democrats abstain from voting on the resolution would that mean they hate the planet too? Or do they really have feelings for the planet, but just want to play it coy for now?

[Alan]

So if Democrats abstain from voting on the resolution would that mean they hate the planet too? Or do they really have feelings for the planet, but just want to play it coy for now?I think the current meme is that any Democrat politician not actively embracing Socialist ideology is actually a Republican.
If that were only true, I believe Republicans could have a veto proof majority in both houses forevermore.

[jp1]

I think the republican plan is to keep saying the scary word socialist over and over and over to distract from the fact that voters actually like a lot of the democrat's ideas and also distract from the fact that the republicans only big idea at this point is "SCARY BROWN PEOPLE ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!"

[LDAHL]

I think the current meme is that any Democrat politician not actively embracing Socialist ideology is actually a Republican.
If that were only true, I believe Republicans could have a veto proof majority in both houses forevermore.

I’m not clear on what the Democratic Socialists mean when they say “socialism”.

Is it a control of the means of production thing in the classic Marxist sense? Is it putting Jeff Bezos’ allowable net worth to a vote? Is it an attempt to take the capital out of capitalism through various regulatory measures? Is it a more robust Welfare State? Is it central planning of the economy? Is it redistribution? Is it roads, as I so often hear it claimed? Is it just a naughty word to shock the elderly who remember the body count accumulated in the last century by various regimes with “Socialist” in their names?

[Alan]

I think the republican plan is to keep saying the scary word socialist over and over and over to distract from the fact that voters actually like a lot of the democrat's ideas and also distract from the fact that the republicans only big idea at this point is "SCARY BROWN PEOPLE ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!"Says a representative of the only institutional remnant of the Confederacy not banned from the public square. Such is the power of delusion.

[catherine]

I’m not clear on what the Democratic Socialists mean when they say “socialism”.

Is it a control of the means of production thing in the classic Marxist sense? NO Is it putting Jeff Bezos’ allowable net worth to a vote? NO Is it an attempt to take the capital out of capitalism through various regulatory measures? SOMETIMES Is it a more robust Welfare State? DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY WELFAREIs it central planning of the economy? DON'T WE DO THAT NOW? Is it redistribution? IN A SENSE Is it roads, as I so often hear it claimed? SOMETIMES Is it just a naughty word to shock the elderly who remember the body count accumulated in the last century by various regimes with “Socialist” in their names? THAT WAS A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

Democratic socialism can be summed up by its egalitarianism. Again, it's not a black box. Many countries are already operating within a Democratic Socialism framework, and guess what--their citizens are happy and healthy (https://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11/worlds-happiest-countries-social-democracies).

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think the republican plan is to keep saying the scary word socialist over and over and over to distract from the fact that voters actually like a lot of the democrat's ideas and also distract from the fact that the republicans only big idea at this point is "SCARY BROWN PEOPLE ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!"

at this point more and more people are calling themselves socialists, some of who actually are for deep reasons (there are deep problems with the economic system afterall), but many just because they want things like a functional healthcare system.

But if that's socialism (don't become socialist like Canada and ever other developed country in the world!), and social security is socialism and etc. etc.. don't be surprised if you turn around and nearly everyone claims to be a socialist now. Well DUH.

Sane non-extreme responses to any social crisis have been off limits for so many decades that ..all many people know is that they actually want many of the saner policies that exist elsewhere and sometimes here but are under threat, and if that's called "socialism" then call them comrade.

[jp1]

I’m not clear on what the Democratic Socialists mean when they say “socialism”.



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.

[jp1]

But back to the topic at hand:

https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-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.

[Teacher Terry]

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.

[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/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-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.

[Teacher Terry]

No worries Alan we are such a low tax state which is one reason they move here. The answer is to build affordable housing. My property tax on s house worth 360k are 700 /year. No state tax.

[Teacher Terry]

We are one of the fastest growing states in the country. People move in from all over but California is number 1 and I don’t blame them for leaving.