News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Growing number of Democrats supporting 'Green New Deal' - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Growing number of Democrats supporting 'Green New Deal' Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   LongKnife 

  • Don't start none, won't be none.
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,998
  • Joined: 10-November 04

Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:07 PM

Growing number of 2020 Democrats supporting 'Green New Deal'
Fox News
Brooke Singman
January 10, 2019

A growing number of Democrats considering a presidential bid have signaled support for the sweeping "Green New Deal" pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal lawmakers, underscoring how the 2020 field is being pulled further left by the influential progressive wing.

An analysis by Fox News shows at least eight potential Democratic candidates have voiced support for or touted aspects of the proposal, which amounts to a drastic overhaul of the U.S. economy and government benefit system.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., 37, who says he is looking at a 2020 presidential run, told Fox News he was “excited” to support the proposal and be a part of the process.

“When it comes to climate change, we need to advance policies that don’t ask Americans to choose between their jobs and clean air and water,” Swalwell told Fox News this week. “We can do that by greening the grid with investments in renewable energy and a wage and skills guarantee for any displaced worker.”

He added: “It’s time to go big on this issue with bold solutions. I welcome a Green New Deal and am excited to offer additional ideas to create meaningful jobs and address the crisis of climate change.”

Higher-profile potential candidates ranging from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Sen. Cory Booker also have voiced support.

Fox News reached out to nearly two-dozen Democrats seen as potential 2020 candidates to ask about their position on the Green New Deal. Some voiced support for the plan or pointed Fox News to prior statements of support, though most did not respond to the requests for comment or declined to comment -- leaving open the possibility that more potential candidates could lend their support in the coming weeks.

The expansive Green New Deal proposal has floated in Democratic circles for years but was given new life by the Sunrise Movement and liberal lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez. The package would focus on income inequality and climate change, combining ideas incorporated in former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signature New Deal, and modern ideas like renewable energy and resource efficiency.


This sounds like a one-way ticket to economic hell for our country.

#2 User is offline   GrimV 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,758
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:24 PM

That’s exactly what we need, a complete reinvention of the economy by idiots who believe this nonsense: “I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

“Facts” are the tool of white supremacy.

#3 User is offline   Bubbajoebob 

  • M dwarf stars
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 10 January 2019 - 01:40 PM

I wonder how many are supporting things they wouldn't vote for if they had the senate and presidency. There's a pattern that seems to happen with both parties that they loudly proclaim they support some things that part of their base voters like when they know they can't get it (because the other side of congress and/or the president is from the other party) but then never do anything about it when they have both houses and the presidency. There are exceptions (Republicans did lower income tax and corporate tax rates this time, and democrats did force through Obamacare), but this seems to happen a lot. Republicans complain about deficit spending when they're not in power then continue the deficit spending even when the hold both houses and the presidency. Democrats say they're anti-war until they're in power then Obama drops more bombs than his predecessors. etc.

#4 User is offline   stick 

  • The 'Little Genius' giving thanks
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 16,566
  • Joined: 24-November 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:23 PM

View PostGrimV, on 10 January 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

That’s exactly what we need, a complete reinvention of the economy by idiots who believe this nonsense: “I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

“Facts” are the tool of white supremacy.

...and the Patriarchy.

#5 User is offline   Ben Cranklin 

  • Satiric Curmudgeon
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 7,094
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 02:39 PM

A sort of Five-Year Plan that will be a Great Leap Forward even if it requires a Cultural Revolution.

#6 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,312
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 07:34 PM

View PostBen Cranklin, on 10 January 2019 - 02:39 PM, said:

A sort of Five-Year Plan that will be a Great Leap Forward even if it requires a Cultural Revolution.

Which will kill the repatriation of manufacturing jobs to the United States and send them back to China and India (the world's #1 and #2 top polluters, respectively).

#7 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,102
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 07:51 PM

The new House is a damned joke.

#8 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,136
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 07:56 PM

When did Marxism become a "new deal"?

#9 User is offline   Gertie Keddle 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum
  • Posts: 21,468
  • Joined: 12-August 03

Posted 10 January 2019 - 07:59 PM

The Not-So-Pretty Fine Print of the ‘Green New Deal’
By Jim Geraghty

January 9, 2019 9:44 AM
National Review


A ‘Green New Deal’ Would Cut the Military in Half, End 87 Percent of U.S. Energy, and Ban Cars

Take some time to peruse the “Green New Deal” in writing.

The deal includes a plan to “cut military spending by at least half” and withdraw U.S. troops from overseas.

The United States military currently has 1.3 million active-duty troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, and 680,000 civilian employees. Green New Deal advocates haven’t laid out exactly how many fewer personnel the U.S. military would have if spending was cut in half, but a military that was half the size of the current one would leave about 1.4 million personnel out of work. And remember, advocates of the Green New Deal pledged to cut military spending in “at least half.”

When there are no U.S. forces stationed in Europe, South Korea, Japan, or the Middle East, how much safer do you think those places get? Do you think conflict is more likely or less likely once all U.S. military personnel leave? Do you think China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia become more aggressive or less aggressive? I thought warfare and explosions and firebombing generated a lot of carbon emissions, but maybe Green New Deal advocates think people being killed in a war on a massive scale would balance it out in the long run.

Under the Green New Deal, within eleven years, the United States would be required to eliminate not merely nuclear power — which does not directly produce any carbon dioxide or air pollution — but all natural gas. Natural gas currently provides about 32 percent of America’s energy, and nuclear power produces another 10 percent. The “Green New Deal” would also eliminate coal, which provides almost 18 percent of America’s energy, and liquid natural gas and oil, which generates another 28 percent.

In other words, within eleven years, the United States would need to replace about 88 percent of its current energy sources. This is not possible short of a societal collapse to agrarian subsistence. (At least the Renaissance fairs will remain the same.)

It would effectively nationalize the entire energy industry and shut down non-renewable energy companies, with workers given a vague promise to “provide resources to workers displaced from the fossil fuel industry.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, roughly 1.1 million work in coal, oil, and gas production; 2.3 million jobs in transmission, distribution, and storage; and 2.4 million workers in motor vehicles and component parts (not counting dealerships). The vast majority of these 5.8 million jobs would be eliminated under the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal calls for “replacing non-essential individual means of transport with high-quality and modern mass transit.” This is a wonky way of calling for a ban on cars. Who decides whether your car is a “non-essential individual means of transport”?
Stay Updated with NR Daily

The Green New Deal also declares, “along with these steps, it will be necessary to electrify everything else, including transport.”

Your gasoline-powered car would be banned. You would only be allowed an electric one, if you were allowed a car at all.

The Green New Deal calls for the federal government would become the “employer of last resort,” contending:

Other economists also estimate the cost of a program for the federal government as employer of last resort (ELR) would be relatively small, around 1-2% of GDP, because it corresponds with huge savings in unemployment insurance in a way that pays people to work rather than paying them to not work.

One percent of our $19.4 trillion GDP would be $194 billion; 2 percent would be $388 billion.

Let’s split that in half and say having the federal government hire everyone without a job would cost $291 billion. For perspective, all U.S. corporate taxes in one year generate $225 billion. (Remember we’re running close to trillion-dollar deficits now, in economic good times.)

Did you notice, by the way, that the Green New Deal would eliminate unemployment benefits? If you lost your job, your alternative would be to go to work for the government.

The Clean New Deal declares, “a British think tank recently put out a study saying that all fossil fuels could be eliminated in 10 years.”

But if you actually go and read that study, you’ll find near the end some glaring caveats:

The experience of tiny, affluent countries such as Denmark and Kuwait may be relevant for countries in a similar class (such as Belgium, Brunei, or Qatar), but less so for an India or Nigeria. Moreover, the sociocultural or political conditions behind transitions in Brazil and China, at the time military dictatorships and communist regimes (respectively), are incompatible with the governance norms espoused in modern democracies across Europe and North America. Furthermore, history seems to suggest that past transitions—including many of the case studies presented here—are based on discoveries of new, significant, and affordable forms of energy (usually carbon-intensive) or technology, leading to abundance. Yet in the future, it may be scarcity and “stranded assets,” rather than abundance, which influences decisions.

The fact that enacting these changes would probably require a dictatorship or other authoritarian regime to suppress resistance seems like a pretty important detail, don’t you think?


New headline for the OP: Growing number of 2020 Democrats lack logic, math, ethics and morality

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users