Kansas Crimson

She's got some good ideas. More importantly I think she's genuine in that she cares about accomplishing positive things for our country...and that's more than I can say about the majority of our politicians.

I respect her for her passion for helping society even if I disagree with some of her methods.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:01 am there are good and reasonable parts of it, and there are some parts that have no chance in hell

No.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:01 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:01 am there are good and reasonable parts of it, and there are some parts that have no chance in hell

No.

lol...ok

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:02 am You tell me how the government can provide a guaranteed job to every citizen without having government take control of a large % of private business? I'll wait.


You tell me how the government can provide a livable level of income for those "UNWILLING" to work without taking control of a large % of private business? I'll wait.

Where does this money all come from? I'll wait.

Did you not have to take US History in high school or college. You should go do some research on the New Deal and learn the full extent of what it included.

We do not have a massive war effort to throw bajillions of dollars into but this Green New Deal is attempting to paint the fight against climate change in a similar light. Create jobs to upgrade infrastructure and transportation instead of to build tanks and planes.

My biggest worry about a similar effort is based on my personal impact from the original New Deal. In the original New Deal, they did not give a shit about the skill le el of workers or quality of the work they did. Anyone who could physically perform the work was given the job. That included building aircraft for our troops serving in WWII.

My mother's father was a fighter pilot tester and trainer and was engaged in test runs of rocket attacks on land targets in a PV-1 at Whidbey Island Rocket Range in Washington. Near the end of a test of 30 degree dive angke work, the wing off his plane tore off from the stress of the maneuver (no doubt aided by shoddy manufacturing by unskilled, poorly trained New Deal hires) and he and five crew members were all killed. My mom was 6 months old at the time of his death.

If this Green New Deal was actually put in and we reached full employment, a chunk of the folks that would finally find work would be all of the folks that do not have the skills and mental capability to learn a new profession today. What if they are the people that are assembling the new high speed mass transit train that I end up taking to work and we find out the hard way why they weren't able to find a job originally? I don't want my life in the hands of someone whose max skill level was digging coal in a mine in West Virginia or Kentucky.

Not everyone is employable at jobs that pay enough to support the shiny image of The American Dream.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:16 am Perhaps but most people are going to shut down at the complete inaneness of the parts that have no chance in hell. Wouldnt it be more productive to outline a more realistic plan? That is, of course, assuming we really want change and this isnt just a platform to use to fire up the extreme base?

Never set mediocre goals. The attainment of them isn't an accomplishment. We should aim very high, it gives lofty goals to take great pride in the pursuit of and it leaves wiggle room for compromise.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:45 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:02 am You tell me how the government can provide a guaranteed job to every citizen without having government take control of a large % of private business? I'll wait.


You tell me how the government can provide a livable level of income for those "UNWILLING" to work without taking control of a large % of private business? I'll wait.

Where does this money all come from? I'll wait.

Did you not have to take US History in high school or college. You should go do some research on the New Deal and learn the full extent of what it included.

We could also suggest that he read the actual economic studies that show that the New Deal likely prolonged the Great Depression by as many as 7 years. Or those that show that the second great collapse withing the Depression was, in fact, triggered by Roosevelt's overspending. Or even those -- written by former Obama economic advisers, nonetheless -- showing that the end of the Depression was mere happenstance for FDR, given that it resulted from the massive transfer of gold and other hard assets to the U.S. from Europe, as Europeans sought to protect their wealth from the statists in Germany and Italy.

Again, calling Illy a dumdum is good fun, but it doesn't solve the problem of historical ignorance.

Agreed. As a concept, I agree with the intention of the Green New Deal. But in reality it is a huge over reach frought with financial, legal and public safety disasters. I don't worry about our government "turning Communist" like the dum dums are worried about. I worry about a dum dum with no skills or training being the guy that hooked up the wiring on my new electric car on a government subsidized work contract.

I can just see a conversation happening a few millenia ago. A bunch of dudes identify that people defacating willy-nilly and near sources of drinking water and food may be making people sick. So, they come up a New Defacating Deal where the community would build one structure and everyone would defacate there, away from sources of water and food.

Illy: "Oh my God! That is Socialism! I shouldn't be defacating in a Govt building. I am perfectly happy defacating in the middle of my living room. Why would everyone need to follow this? Freedom! Defacate on the road, defacate in the river!! Don't let Commies tell me where to defacate"

DC: "Throckmorton Wingnutspanner has already published a treatise on why Defacation Buildings won't work! Marxism!!"

ok, that's kinda funny

Predictable circle jerk material.

Joke's on them. You just defecated in the room they're jerking off in.

zsn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:44 pm I can just see a conversation happening a few millenia ago. A bunch of dudes identify that people defacating willy-nilly and near sources of drinking water and food may be making people sick. So, they come up a New Defacating Deal where the community would build one structure and everyone would defacate there, away from sources of water and food.

Illy: "Oh my God! That is Socialism! I shouldn't be defacating in a Govt building. I am perfectly happy defacating in the middle of my living room. Why would everyone need to follow this? Freedom! Defacate on the road, defacate in the river!! Don't let Commies tell me where to defacate"

DC: "Throckmorton Wingnutspanner has already published a treatise on why Defacation Buildings won't work! Marxism!!"

tut-tut. "Anti-Marxism."

Do try to keep up.

zsn wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:22 pm

kubandalum wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:26 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:35 am why is no cars unrealistic?

maybe you should travel more, experience the world...

Oh, they didn’t say “no cars.” They said “replacing non-essential individual means of transport.” That means the government decides whose “individual means” is “essential.” I’ll admit I’ve only been to 7 foreign countries on 3 continents, but the only country I’ve even heard about like that is North Korea. And for a look at how government here decides what’s “essential,” look at concealed carry weapons permits before “may issue” became “shall issue.” Local sheriffs handed out permits to cronies, politicians, and donors, and refused permits to women who were being stalked by their ex-boyfriends. Of course the people who wrote the “Green New Deal” would probably decide only “woke” people would have “essential” need for “individual means of transport.”

Mass transit? Try googling “condition of subways New York.” And how is that California bullet train coming along?

Exactly this kind of thinking is why we can never make progress in public policy. Just because it can't be done in the USA doesn't mean it can't be done. It's in part due to the imbeciles who think like this (and incidentally also resulted in the Trump presidency - one headed by the greatest imbeciles of them all). This same logic prevents us from having the best healthcare and transportation systems. Knee-jerk response to everything seems to be "Oh my God, the Gubmint!". This is the reason the subway system in NY sucks, the California bullet train can't be built and we are at the mercy of insurance company bureaucrats.

I have been to over 25 countries on 3 continents and public transportation is waaaaay better than in the US in many of them (essentially non-existent in several - such as outside of Reykjavik in Iceland). Japan built the Shinkansen and launched it the year after I was born, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. On the SBB (Switzerland) the common wisdom is "if the train is supposed to be there at 8:12 and it's 8:13 on your watch and the train is not yet there the problem is with your watch". Swiss trains run exclusively on electricity for at least 70 years. So yes, it can be done. Spain (AVE) and Italy (Frecce) have done it quite recently.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/aoc-and-th ... choo-choo/

Actually has nice words for the trains you mention.

Columnist Megan McArdle shares some real-world experience on what it’s like to improve a house for energy efficiency, and relates that to one component of the GND.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0219/McArd ... c6Dl3XH.99

The problem with the article is that it fashions the GND as a blue print. It is a rough outline.

The problem with our climate issues is a matter of values and a willingness to sacrifice. We are not there yet.

Google and read “World War Two rations.” We can learn quite a bit. I live on a bus line and can walk everywhere I need. I live in a building with 6 families that live in 1100 square feet of space. Until we are willing to give up McMansions, and miles of driving, and not scoff at those who gave that up, it will be difficult to dig out of this crisis.

If you live in small town America, you get different rules.

1100 square feet of space?

Give up houses?

Sounds like communism..what's for dinner?

Leawood wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:58 pm The problem with the article is that it fashions the GND as a blue print. It is a rough outline.

“This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.”
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document ... w-Deal-FAQ

“...clear goals and a timeline” doesn’t sound like a rough outline to me.

It makes no difference what the issue is, the left’s goal always is to transform “society.” “Society” is the the left’s dollhouse, and other people’s lives are the doll furniture to be arranged and rearranged and rearranged.

Leawood wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 6:58 pm The problem with the article is that it fashions the GND as a blue print. It is a rough outline.

The problem with our climate issues is a matter of values and a willingness to sacrifice. We are not there yet.

Google and read “World War Two rations.” We can learn quite a bit. I live on a bus line and can walk everywhere I need. I live in a building with 6 families that live in 1100 square feet of space. Until we are willing to give up McMansions, and miles of driving, and not scoff at those who gave that up, it will be difficult to dig out of this crisis.

If you live in small town America, you get different rules.

To me that sounds awful. Ive lived that way for a short time. Will never again barring some unforeseen circumstances. I like my acreage, my livestock, my privacy. To me, acreage and the ability to live a rural style is part of the american dream. I dont envy tokyo and Beijing lifestyles. There are other ways to conserve without shoving people on top of each other.

If you have acreage and a rural style you are likely not consuming a whole lot (probably self-sustaining, at least net-net) and contributing mightily to feeding/clothing/housing supply for the rest of humanity. The Tokyo/Beijing lifestyles are likely helping you produce those supplies, by perhaps contributing to the production of the machinery use in your production etc. At least that is the principle.

However, a lot of waste and bloat has crept into the system. Do you really need a 6000-lb vehicle with a single occupant to commute 15 miles each way, 5 days a week? Ostensibly that vehicle is a "sport-utility-vehicle" and a vast majority of them have never been used for sport or utility! Do we really need to foul the environment, by extracting petroleum and converting them to petrochemicals, to make single-use plastic containers for drinking water? Does everyone need to eat red meat at every meal - one of the largest contributors to waste of natural resources and environmental pollution? If the answer is 'yes' then ask those who have that need to pay a "fair price", defined as reimbursing society for all the costs incurred, beginning with the cost of military might required to keep shipping lanes open and safe for transportation of oil and other resources. Amortize every penny spent into every ounce of beef but paid only by those who consume, not the all taxpayers. Whether or not the minutiae of the GND reflect this philosophy, it does/should as a broad principle. Reduce consumption, and have the "consumer" pay the cost/price.

I dont disagree with most of that zsn. Perhaos i misconstrued leawoods post when i assumed he was suggesting that we all needed to live like he does to be better humans. And yes, i would guess my carbon footprint is smaller than most city dwellers. Especially if you consider the open spaces could be considered somewhat of a carbon sink.