AsslickerGrizalltheway wrote:Ibanez wrote: Nailed it. There's a huge, monumental difference between going to the Moon in less than 10 years and this plan.
I like pie in the sky ideas. Shoot for them and do what you can. The overarching idea behind the Green Plan isn't bad. But the ideas are too dang crazy.
I read yesterday that an expert in renewables did a bar napkin estimate of just the land space needed to set up the amount of “renewables” needed to power this country (minus the nuclear that for some reason the New Green Deal wants to shut down)...Pwns wrote:So the "green new deal" is not only going to be a goodie bag of social justice pet causes, it's going to pledge to move away from objectively the safest form of energy in terms of deaths per megawatt hour of power and the largest carbon-neutral source there is. Is it any wonder why so many people see environmentalism as a cover for other agendas?
BTW, on the subject of nuclear power, check out this piece.
Germany spent $580 billion on renewables and its emissions have been flat for a decade. And all of that unreliable solar and wind has made Germany’s electricity the second most expensive in Europe.
Emissions in California rose after it closed one nuclear plant and will rise again if closes another. To the extent its emissions declined it was from the replacement of electricity from coal with electricity from cheaper and cleaner natural gas.
Bottom line? Had California and Germany spent on nuclear what they instead spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power.
Not lately, he's got a pretty serious gland issue going on.CAA Flagship wrote:AsslickerGrizalltheway wrote:
Grizalltheway wrote:Not lately, he's got a pretty serious gland issue going on.CAA Flagship wrote: Asslicker
Ibanez wrote:Nailed it. There's a huge, monumental difference between going to the Moon in less than 10 years and this plan.Col Hogan wrote:Progressives are trying to use the race to the moon as an example...recalling JFKs speech where he called on the country to come together to reach the moon by the end of the decade (1960s).
There is a very big difference between Kennedy’s call to arms to reach the moon, and this New Green Deal...
I like pie in the sky ideas. Shoot for them and do what you can. The overarching idea behind the Green Plan isn't bad. But the ideas are too dang crazy.
The overarching idea is as batshit crazy as the solutions..Well that wasn't clear and I'm not sure you can accurately state that the New Deal wouldn't have succeeded without war. There is no "illusion of success". The New Deal worked, regardless of WW2.Col Hogan wrote:If WWII had not happened, the New Deal would not have pulled this country out of the Depression...thus, “the illusion of success”...Ibanez wrote:
What? The New Deal created an "Illusion of success"? Are you implying that the TVA, FDIC, the SEC, Soil Conservation, Fannie Mae among many other programs were failures? Programs and agencies that still exist and do good work in 2019.
On their own, your named programs did not pull this country out of the Depression...I did not disparage them...
The idea of reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air and water is crazy?BDKJMU wrote:Ibanez wrote: Nailed it. There's a huge, monumental difference between going to the Moon in less than 10 years and this plan.
I like pie in the sky ideas. Shoot for them and do what you can. The overarching idea behind the Green Plan isn't bad. But the ideas are too dang crazy.
No. But the batshit crazy apocalyptic predictions of what will happen if we don't implement the batshit crazy ideas.Ibanez wrote:The idea of reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air and water is crazy?BDKJMU wrote:
I didn't say the predictions were good. That's not the idea of the New Green Plan.BDKJMU wrote:No. But the batshit crazy apocalyptic predictions of what will happen if we don't implement the batshit crazy ideas.Ibanez wrote: The idea of reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air and water is crazy?
We aren't, have not been, and will not be "doing nothing". But to do what the NGP suggests is tantamount to signing over 100% of our paychecks and 100% of our freedoms for the next 1,000 years...Ibanez wrote:I didn't say the predictions were good. That's not the idea of the New Green Plan.BDKJMU wrote: No. But the batshit crazy apocalyptic predictions of what will happen if we don't implement the batshit crazy ideas.
Those are the consequences if we do nothing.
Probably not.Ibanez wrote:I didn't say the predictions were good. That's not the idea of the New Green Plan.BDKJMU wrote: No. But the batshit crazy apocalyptic predictions of what will happen if we don't implement the batshit crazy ideas.
Those are the consequences if we do nothing.
Sure. It wasn't a perfect plan and not every idea worked or was a good idea. But there are parts of the New Deal that served us well for decades and even parts that are still benefiting us today. I didn't gloss over anything with the above statement.GannonFan wrote:Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.kalm wrote:
Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.
All of this is debatable.Col Hogan wrote:Add to that, it was WWII that ultimately pulled this country out of the Depression, and led to the creation of the huge middle class once it ended...GannonFan wrote:
Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.
So to conclude, the FDR New Deal did little other than create an illusion of success for today’s progressives to try and emulate...unless that have another world war planned that they are not telling us about...
Do I have to repeat that the NGP is a bad idea.AZGrizFan wrote:We aren't, have not been, and will not be "doing nothing". But to do what the NGP suggests is tantamount to signing over 100% of our paychecks and 100% of our freedoms for the next 1,000 years...Ibanez wrote: I didn't say the predictions were good. That's not the idea of the New Green Plan.
Those are the consequences if we do nothing.
To be fair, were all of those projects meant to last 10+ years?GannonFan wrote:Huh? A lot of the New Deal ideas didn't even last the decade that they were started in and plenty of people have argued that a good portion of the New Deal did nothing to solve the economic crises they were developed for and in some cases did make it worse. Obviously there were some good things that came out of the New Deal, and generally it was a very well intentioned path to take, but you seem to gloss over much of that.kalm wrote:
Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.
Again...you negotiate from a high point. You don't start in the middle. Is every goal realistic and achievable? Probably not. Are they all good ideas? Remains to be seen. In other words, the same goes for goals. Set moderate goals and achieve moderate results. This is a comprehensive, aim high, agenda similar to any candidates "on the issues" page or campaign platform.Col Hogan wrote:Progressives are trying to use the race to the moon as an example...recalling JFKs speech where he called on the country to come together to reach the moon by the end of the decade (1960s).
There is a very big difference between Kennedy’s call to arms to reach the moon, and this New Green Deal...
Kennedy gave the country a specific, narrowly focused goal...clearly defined...with a single agency charged with accomplishing it.
The New Green Deal is an amalgamation of every progressive idea out there...there is no single goal (maybe there is...pure socialism) with no clear definition of the mission at hand...and no single agency charged with guiding us to success...
And to put a 10 year “goal” on something that most people have to admit is near impossible is to do nothing but set us up for what we call in the military as “mission creep”...
Let’s take one example that we already have lots of data on...creating a high speed rail network...
California has been working on this since voters approved it in 2008...the latest estimate of completion of project has been a continuous moving target, now stretched out to after 2030...
Now, imagine expanding this project nation-wide...and this is just one “idea” in the New Green Deal...just the management over-head for this project and the needed materials will drain resources from any other project...The estimated cost to construct the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, pegged at $35 billion in 2009, has ballooned to $77.3 billion, according to the latest business plan by the High-Speed Rail Authority. The figure includes the initial segment through the Valley, which is estimated at $10.6 billion.
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/arti ... rylink=cpy
Are some of the ideas good goals??? Sure they are...
But to try and feed us everything is this “resolution” and feed the uneducated masses that it can be done in 10 years...that’s just plain stupid...
Serious question - do you ever think for yourself or do you just trust that what Rush and Fox say are the truth? Educated scientist have more weight on this subject than you.BDKJMU wrote:Probably not.Ibanez wrote: I didn't say the predictions were good. That's not the idea of the New Green Plan.
Those are the consequences if we do nothing.
You're so triggered by a 29 yr old. I thought you were a man.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Occasional Kotex parents
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.Ibanez wrote:Serious question - do you ever think for yourself or do you just trust that what Rush and Fox say are the truth? Educated scientist have more weight on this subject than you.BDKJMU wrote:
Probably not.
Environmental quality and climate change are and will become an increasingly important component of economics. If anything, they've been a neglected part of economic discussion for far too long.Ibanez wrote:Oh, really? I had no idea.kalm wrote:
Well you see, Ibanez, the New Deal was a package of progressive economic ideas pushed by FDR back in the 30’s that spun the US back into the dark ages for the next 50 years until Reagan came along and righted the ship.
How does "New," answer my question, " How is wage stagnation and the gender pay gap related to climate change?"
There are plenty of economic studies conducted since the Great Depression that have concluded that New Deal policies created and prolonged the GD. It only takes a little stupidity to turn a recession into a depression. The Federal Reserve must also share a great deal of blame.Ibanez wrote:Well that wasn't clear and I'm not sure you can accurately state that the New Deal wouldn't have succeeded without war. There is no "illusion of success". The New Deal worked, regardless of WW2.Col Hogan wrote:
If WWII had not happened, the New Deal would not have pulled this country out of the Depression...thus, “the illusion of success”...
On their own, your named programs did not pull this country out of the Depression...I did not disparage them...
We can go back and forth on the merits and negative impacts of the New Deal.
Not triggered just enjoying the fucking stupidity of #SlitlerIbanez wrote:You're so triggered by a 29 yr old. I thought you were a man.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Occasional Kotex parents
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Agreed, scientists are paid to control peopleBDKJMU wrote:And these scientists have a history of making predictions that turned out either flat out wrong, or far less worse than 1st predicted.Ibanez wrote: Serious question - do you ever think for yourself or do you just trust that what Rush and Fox say are the truth? Educated scientist have more weight on this subject than you.
