- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Green New Deal and poverty elimination
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:17 am
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:17 am
So I'll be the first to say that I haven't really dug too deep on the topic of the green new deal which is evidently getting some support from the far left politicians (Sanders, Booker, Cortez)
So this is one of the things that I ran into today
This is just pure unadulterated idiocy.
A transition to green energy won't be cheap but it certainly does have its positives. Trying to parlay that goal into some poverty reduction initiative is just foolish. It's a clear misunderstanding of poverty and the skills that will be required to implement this new technology on a wide scale.
If you have the skills/aptitude to be employed in this industry you aren't impoverished. And if you are impoverished it's severely likely that your career ceiling would prohibit you from contributing in any meaningful way to this movement.
What jobs (other than federally backed and created out of thin air with no purpose) do they see impoverished people doing in the clean energy sector?
So this is one of the things that I ran into today
quote:
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Friday became the second likely contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 to back the Green New Deal, the radical plan to zero out greenhouse gas emissions in a decade and reduce poverty with federally backed clean-energy jobs.
This is just pure unadulterated idiocy.
A transition to green energy won't be cheap but it certainly does have its positives. Trying to parlay that goal into some poverty reduction initiative is just foolish. It's a clear misunderstanding of poverty and the skills that will be required to implement this new technology on a wide scale.
If you have the skills/aptitude to be employed in this industry you aren't impoverished. And if you are impoverished it's severely likely that your career ceiling would prohibit you from contributing in any meaningful way to this movement.
What jobs (other than federally backed and created out of thin air with no purpose) do they see impoverished people doing in the clean energy sector?
16
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:18 am to Powerman
Liberalism is a mental disorder
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:19 am to Powerman
quote:
What jobs (other than federally backed and created out of thin air with no purpose) do they see impoverished people doing in the clean energy sector?
You seriously expect the folks pushing this shite to be able to answer that question?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:19 am to Powerman
Lyndon Baines Johnson ended poverty with the stroke of a pen in 1964.
What is this "poverty" you speak of?
What is this "poverty" you speak of?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:19 am to Powerman
To understand the climate change movement, you first have to understand or admit it's mostly an attempt at bringing a massive blow to capitalism. Raising taxes and regulations to unprecedented levels would pay for the government to hand out more money to our dregs, I suppose.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:20 am to Powerman
quote:While idiotic, it is two mints in one for the democrats. They can pimp their green energy and try to CONvince people that the working class would get a cushy fed job. Did they not learn from President Obama's Solyndra mistakes...or don't they care?
reduce poverty with federally backed clean-energy jobs.
This is just pure unadulterated idiocy.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:22 am to cajunangelle
quote:
While idiotic, it is two mints in one for the democrats. They can pimp their green energy and try to CONvince people that the working class would get a cushy fed job. Did they not learn from President Obama's Solyndra mistakes...or don't they care?
There are good jobs to be had by pushing for a green energy boost
They just won't be occupied by an impoverished underclass
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:22 am to cajunangelle
quote:
or don't they care?
They do not care OR they are so stupid they actually believe it...
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:25 am to Powerman
quote:and it's vaporware.
This is just pure unadulterated idiocy.
Just like when Obama said it in 08.
quote:And the only real way to do it, is by outlawing (or taxing into oblivion) the competing "dirty energy" jobs. . .which would just offset, at best.
A transition to green energy won't be cheap but it certainly does have its positives. Trying to parlay that goal into some poverty reduction initiative is just foolish. It's a clear misunderstanding of poverty and the skills that will be required to implement this new technology on a wide scale.
You create, for example, a successful wind/solar/etc energy industry. You are able to beat out, with gubmint help, the coal industry. What happens to the coal plant workers, the coal transporters, the coal miners, etc.
Even if the clean energy company hires enough to offset the loss, you haven't improved the employment situation. . .and therefore have not changed the poverty levels
And let's be clear, it is ludicrous to think a clean energy company could hire enough to account for the number of coal/oil/etc workers out there.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:31 am to Roaad
quote:
What happens to the coal plant workers, the coal transporters, the coal miners, etc.
they can work in west Virginia, cleaning up the ecological mess big coal made, tearing off mt tops and tossing the whole mess into creek valleys.
Your issue is identical to that of buggy whip manufacturers during the transition to cars.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:34 am to Powerman
There are already great green energy jobs that sit at a desk. Try calling your local power company to get solar panels for your home. Currently there is a no interest loan that few can afford after the cost of new construction. Blue collar jobs could surely be created through even small business; if we trend towards solar paneled self sufficient type homes. The overall cost of transition is overwhelming.
Politically speaking if the democrats would get out of the way, and solar paneled homes were presented to President Trump he would roll with it and create working class jobs doing it.
Politically speaking if the democrats would get out of the way, and solar paneled homes were presented to President Trump he would roll with it and create working class jobs doing it.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 8:41 am to Powerman
quote:
certainly does have its positives.
Only in lala land. There is no positive to this. The only way you get even close to the funding would be to tax the middle class at a ridiculous rate and have corporate tax at 70%. Then you would have to stop having people like Amazon only effectively pay an 8% tax rate. This would absolutely destroy the economy.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:12 am to nugget
Her GND would cost more than $18 trillion per year. Don’t take it seriously.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:54 am to Powerman
There hasn't been real poverty in this country in my lifetime. Some people live in poverty because of mental health problems or drug addictions but all the clean-energy jobs in the world aren't going to change that. You could have money stands where the government handed out $100 bills every day and there would still be people living on the streets. They're certainly not going to show up to do a job. If you're interested in working for a living and don't have major mental/physical limitations then you aren't impoverished.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:56 am to Powerman
They are framing it this way so that anyone that points out that it won't work will be accused of hating the poor and of being a racist.
They know it won't work but want the fed gov growth. Sooooo...they will just frame it so that everyone against it is bad.
It's typical prog tactics.
They know it won't work but want the fed gov growth. Sooooo...they will just frame it so that everyone against it is bad.
It's typical prog tactics.
This post was edited on 1/16/19 at 10:58 am
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:56 am to Powerman
quote:
What jobs (other than federally backed and created out of thin air with no purpose) do they see impoverished people doing in the clean energy sector?
Someone has to clean the solar panels
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:56 am to Powerman
Solyndra 5.0 is gonna work this time!!!
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:58 am to Powerman
Cortez said she was going to tax Wall Street. You can't tax a street. You can tax investment firms but they're already taxed. Does anyone know what the plan is?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:11 am to Zach
quote:
Does anyone know what the plan is?
According to the article I was reading earlier on Vox (which as I understand is a decidedly left wing publication) there is no plan.
quote:
If the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.
The Republican Party generally ignores or denies that problem. But the Democratic Party claims to accept and understand it.
It is odd, then, that Democrats do not have a plan to address climate change.
I put in bold because that was how it was presented in the article
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:12 am to nugget
quote:
Only in lala land. There is no positive to this.
Well there are positives to try to transition to cleaner energy sources
But the idea that we need the government to try to get us to zero emissions within a decade is absolute economic suicide
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News