I have heard that there may be more than one version of the Green New Deal. Something about a version posted, (and pulled), from AOC's website, and another version that is somewhere in the legislative process. (Republicans trying to embarrass Democrats)
For a common reference point, I will use the official Green Party version of the Green New Deal. You can see it here: The GP's Green New Deal
To be clear, I do not support it - as formulated, but I do think it's listed points may be fodder for discussion - without the politics of association.
And just to steal the thunder from what I suspect may be the first responses to this. Here is their opening that I think would normally discredit whatever follows:
"The Green New Deal will convert the decaying fossil fuel economy into a new, green economy that is environmentally sustainable, economically secure and socially just. The Green New Deal starts with transitioning to 100% green renewable energy (no nukes or natural gas) by 2030. It would immediately halt any investment in fossil fuels (including natural gas) and related infrastructure. The Green New Deal will guarantee full employment and generate up to 20 million new, living-wage jobs, as well as make the government the employer of last resort with a much-needed major public jobs program."
Here is their first point, (of five):
"Invest in sustainable businesses including cooperatives and non-profits by providing grants and loans with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors."
What could be the objections to this? Couldn't this be done--productively--without getting onboard with the "socially just" stuff?
Hey, GA, I think it is only the United State that can oppose or favor the deal. The promised to create enough? employment is a cheap political point! Thank you.
I can only speak of one government program I know which did provide grants to local businesses, to help the buy local sell local initiative.
My experience was it created a cottage industry of people who appeared to have connections. You'd pay them to write grant applications, to ensure you got one.
I saw absolutely no evidence that it promoted sustained business ownership, no evidence that it helped. Most people I know who got the grants failed anyway. Because the local community didn't really support it. Most were more inclined to buy from chains. Convenience outweighed community.
Here is my take: while I am not an expert I don't know if there will be enough "green energy" to completely replace the demand for fossil fuels by 2030.
Biomass, solar and the myriads of others haven't given me the impression that they can do the "heavy lifting". But, if someone could perfect controlled nuclear fusion.... It is like a goal of a man on Mars by 2035, we can work in earnest toward the goal but there remains many obstacles to overcome. But I will certainly say that we as a society need to work toward those ends through grants, investment in research, etc. in (non fossil fuels) energy more intently than we have been and not stand still or go backwards.
That said, I am certainly for more investment and encouragement toward the development of green energy for all the reasons in the presentation: dwindling supplies and cutting the lifeline of the greedy few with their stranglehold on the world economy, highlighted by the U.S. and its military-industrial complex.
When I think of Venezuela about 2003, when the US was contemplating regime change just because the new "Socialist" government there dared to demand that U.S multinational oil firms pay a larger share of their profits to the country for the oil that they were taking. So, if we could move our military to attack a country because the rich and powerful could not get what they want, how much of the petropower do we actually need to rein in?
Cutting back on a wasteful military and the ambitious, imperialistic global objectives that it relates to has always been my objective, Green Energy or not.
As for the investing in sustainable business, as a contracting professional, we used Small Business Set Asides to justify awards of contracts to small business concerns. So, in a way, we are already doing that. I suppose that we could always do it better. Lets keep that up and, if anything, make it more intense.
Living wages are contrary to the principle behind Capitalism, I am not ready for that yet. But I am ready for an increase in the minimum wage to reflect the concept that the minimum wage always was designed to provide, sustenance from starvation. But, I am not here to subsidize the corporate class by having to pay higher taxes for entitlements because the wages they pay to their workers are too low. I don't always know where that balance is, but I know that there is one and we need to find it.
I think guaranteed jobs by the Government is a bit much, but a more modest approach was the stimulus idea put forth by Obama of providing funding to states to get needed infrastructure repairs on so many facilities that were crumbling, putting people back to work. My idea is to build the economy from the middle, not rely on the wealthy or money changers to toss a few crumbs from their table of bounty, by giveaways from our treasury.
Much of the socially just stuff, is just pandering and I hate pandering. The issues discussed in the Green New Deal go beyond race and class in of itself.
While I applaud the general direction of the Green New Deal, we go after too much, too quickly.
Hey, Credence2, thanks for weighing in. I am noting.
That was quite an effort Cred, thanks for weighing in. But ... as I read your comment I kept getting something like a nervous tic.
Maybe it was triggered as I encountered;
"... cutting the lifeline of the greedy few with their stranglehold ...,"
"... its military-industrial complex."
"... US was contemplating regime change..."
"... U.S multinational oil firms pay a larger share of their profits ..."
"... oil that they were taking."
"... because the rich and powerful could not get what they want...'
"... ambitious, imperialistic global objectives ..."
"... I am not here to subsidize the corporate class ..."
"... the wealthy or money changers to toss a few crumbs..."
I am sensing a theme here bud. I hope you can hang on to those GND exceptions you noted, I fear they might slip away from you. ;-)
"But, I am not here to subsidize the corporate class by having to pay higher taxes for entitlements because the wages they pay to their workers are too low. I don't always know where that balance is, but I know that there is one and we need to find it."
To address just one point (I agree with many of the others, particularly fusion power), I have to comment that this balance will never happen.
The reason I say that is because as soon as that mythical "living wage" is found, it is increased. It will never be enough - not until every person in the country "earns" the same amount (or at least is paid the same amount whether earned or not). I can detect no signs that unequal salaries will ever be accepted, nor that unequal wealth will.
"I will use the official Green Party version of the Green New Deal".
Point of order to the Chair!
While the general concept of a green new deal has been floating around since the mid 2000s, and has been part of the Green Party platform for a while, the "Green New Deal" referenced recently in the news mostly relates to the House and Senate resolutions (H.Res.109 and S. Res. 59 respectively) introduced by Democratic members of Congress.
There is a difference between discussing a web page by the Green Party about a Green New Deal, and discussing an actual Green New Deal resolution in Congress sponsored by Democrats.
There may be additions/ omissions in the resolutions that represent key differences between the respective interpretations of the Green New Deal concept.
As far as I'm aware these are the only resolutions explicitly referencing a "Green New Deal" that Congress (and therefore representatives of the people) are being asked to vote on. So any such differences are politically significant.
Therefore I think it makes more sense to reference the resolutions themselves as the Green New Deal proposal, rather than the content of a web page which may have been the inspiration for the resolutions, but is not specifically what Congress is being asked to vote on.
What I garner from both of those, but particularly the Senate version, is little but political rhetoric coupled with unreasonable, ruinous and impossible demands to change the country.
No actual plans, no suggestions, no proposed legislation; just rhetoric. I understand that it is nothing but a resolution, but anything of substance is completely lacking. A pretty speech, then, nothing more.
I completely agree with your comment Wilderness, but that wasn't the point of my OP.
It questions whether the GND, (Green New Deal), could be a starting point for beneficial discussions.
For instance, the first GND point I mentioned:
""Invest in sustainable businesses including cooperatives and non-profits by providing grants and loans with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors." (I think what I emphasized should be stricken as radical rhetoric)
What could be the objections to this? Couldn't this be done--productively--without getting onboard with the "socially just" stuff? And for real-world comparison, this is essentially what the Small Business Administration, (SBA),does now - but without the Utopian Co-op Commune idealism.
To be fair I was also being lazy picking that first point as a discussion starter. It too was "low fruit," and possibly the least unpalatable of the GND's goals.
It's important to note the Green New Deal resolution is a concurrent, non-binding resolution(1)(2).
Non-binding resolutions don't usually contain lots of implementation details. They have no force of law, and do not need presidential approval.
They are typically used by Congress as a kind of statement of intent, or to express the opinion of Congress (in the resolution it's referred to as "the sense" of the House/ Senate)
Even so, they do have political significance (as recent news coverage shows) because they indicate potential shifts in public policy that may be reflected in future changes in legislation.
The best way to read the GND resolution is as a wishlist, cum manifesto, cum agenda, with implementation details to follow later where applicable.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
(2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … on/59/text
That's what I said, or at least intended to say. It is political rhetoric, a pretty speech, but without anything of substance or value. In this particular case it is so far out of line with the real world as to simply make those voting for it look foolish rather than wise or far looking.
That is a fair point Don, it was late and I was lazy, so I just grabbed the low fruit.
I took a look at the text of H.Res.109 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal and then also a Washington Post Article comparing it to the GP's Green New Deal (specifically to the controversy of what AOC originally posted on her site)
I think the WaPo article did a good job explaining what was in HR 109, so I will go with it.
It seems to me and was also noted in the article that the main differences were the removal of a few of the GP's most hard-to-swallow statements like that now-infamous "... “unwilling to work...” part of the GP's guaranteed jobs goal, and others that you can see in the WaPo comparison.
However, In essence, the basics seem the same. Here is how the Post summarizes the goals of HR 109:
They are basically the same Don. The resolution just seems to be more politically smart in its word and phrase choices. Such as using "technologically feasible" instead of "... invent things that haven't even been invented yet."
Now with that point unanimously agreed, the panel can continue.
It is, at this time, "technologically feasible" to eliminate 100% of fossil fuels from transportation.
All it needs is to replace the 62 million vehicles with total electric and/or hydrogen fuel cells, along with building the infrastructure to service them. Planes can be replaced with trains, trains can be made all electric with millions of windmills to provide the power and millions of miles of electric cable strung along every train track. Trucks can be replaced with electric ones.
Farm tractors and harvesters can be converted to battery, with more power plants and wire to fuel them.
And all this can be done in 10 years...if we are lucky and if we devote the total production of the US to doing it. No food production, no schools, no government bureaucracies, nothing but total commitment to that goal.
Of course, that still leaves converting all coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants to renewable sources. And remodeling every building on the continent. And replacing the power grid over 4 million square miles. And building a mass transit system to cover every town and village in that 4 million square miles rather than just the metropolitan areas.
"technologically feasible" does NOT mean "economically feasible" or even "reasonable". It does not even mean "possible", given the time line proposed for this madness.
I suspected the high-level concepts would be pretty much the same.
The change in language is important though.
If the aim of your discussion is to take an objective look at some of the ideas in the GND resolution, filtering out some of those "hard-to-swallow" statements, will remove some barriers (some will dismiss it out of hand anyway on ideological grounds, so you still have a task ahead of you though).
Using the WaPo write up is a reasonable compromise.
I ask for that be submitted into the record
Hey, I am observing and noting all these. At the meantime, it would have been foolish of me to make an impact. I am a Nigerian and resident in Nigeria. The USA economy is foreign to me. I wish all a fruitful argument and a solution. Thank you all.
My purpose is to see what components of the GND may be realistically discussed. However, to keep the record straight, I think the GND, (speaking of HR 109 from here on), as a package is political balderdash. I think its purpose is as a vote-getter, not a discussion starter.
But, I do think there are parts of the GND that would be beneficial to realistically address. Without artificial timelines, political mandates, or ideological impetus.
The beneficial part of such discussions may be a prod, or beneficial only with respect to pointing out an absurdity.
For instance; the first point mentioned in the OP, the "jobs" point. It seems to essentially be asking for what the SBA, (Small Business Administration), is already trying to do. So what is that point really asking for?
"I think its purpose is as a vote-getter, not a discussion starter."
I think it's purpose is most likely a combination of both those things. Either way it certainly is starting discussions, as this thread demonstrates.
Is the resolution radical? Yes. Unrealistic? In parts. And if it were anything other than a non-binding resolution, I might hold that against it, but it's not.
It's essentially a statement of intent; a stake in the ground; a message (to other Democrats as much as anyone else) saying this is one of the key things we should be focusing on.
It's interesting that you mention one of the proposals is similar to what the SMA is already trying to do. I don't see that as a bad thing. If an idea is already part of an agencies strategic goals, clearly the idea is more than just rhetoric "without anything of substance. . ." as wilderness puts it.
Also some of the proposals considered most outlandish seem to be rooted in more than just wishful thinking.
For example, I don't think upgrading all existing buildings within the next ten years is reasonably practicable, but I've found there are very serious initiatives already afoot to ensure new buildings achieve maximum energy efficiency etc.
E.g. the 2030 challenge is a commitment to ensure all newly designed buildings are carbon neutral by 2030(1). It's endorsed by the American Institute of Architects(2), and was unanimously adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors(3).
I had no idea any of that was happening. I know it now because I started reading up on the subject following the GND resolution.
So I suspect some of the other more aspirational, or radical proposals in the GND resolution, contain nuggets of useful, practical, sensible ideas that have already been initiated. Sadly I'm not convinced many people will look beyond the level of "they're banning hamburgers!" Such is the world we currently live in.
(1) https://architecture2030.org/2030_chall … challenge/
(2) https://www.aia.org/resources/202041-th … commitment
Hey, there, I was observing for a while with few comments here and there. Politicians usually start a talk to win office. It may sooner or...be a trending discussion thread. And, there are both positive and negative sides to the talk. These are America and their America. Foreigners like me are actually still observing. What contributions can a Nigerian resident in his country contribute to the American economy or politics at the moment? Thank you all for understanding.
"Politicians usually start a talk to win office".
That's true. I have no doubt the GND resolution was written, in part, to play up to the base on the left. The trick is to be able to look past the populism for those nuggets of good ideas. Same applies to the other side of the political spectrum.
I was also unaware of the earlier existence of the 2030 Challenge Don, and I agree there are "nuggets of useful, practical, sensible ideas" in the package, but it is as a package and its purpose, (as I see it), that I have a problem with.
Of course, that doesn't mean portions of the GND aren't valid proposals It just means your final thought was also correct; "Such is the world we currently live in."
GA, I am noting and observing. The GND has its many advantages and disadvantages like any other things. The best thing is how to enhance the merits against the demerits. I hope this my suggestion can help. Many thanks for all your inputs.
In REALITY, we either adopt the "Green New Deal" to mitigate poison carbon heat accelerating emissions, or a similar global healing and salvaging agenda, or we simply forfeit our one and ONLY habitable planet called EARTH in the very near future: Talk about a "TOP Priority GENUINE Emergency" second ONLY to implementing a Health-CARE for ALL Law:
Pretty clear choice for the overwhelming majority of Americans who prefer to save our world and their children and grandchildren with immediate adoption of the "GND", the new generation is especially locked in on this aggressively creative idea:
Hey, Jake, which then is the best idea? Considering seriously that the earth must be saved at all cost. Thank you.
Hey Miebakagh: We need immediate action and we need to re-implement President Obama's "Carbon Tax" for industry, an idea which was realizing positive results, and then we need to re-implement the strict carbon emission standards for vehicles until we convert entirely to electric, once again, a regulation which president Obama implemented that was realizing positive results: Both of these critically important regulations are under ASSAULT by Bozo Trump and his Communist Russian Republicans in Congress:
Then, we need to work on the "Green New Deal" immediately, and make modifications, improvements and adjustments then implementation: I watched in astonishment and horror as FAKE Christian Jerry Falwell Junior talked aimlessly and absurdly I believe it was at that hate gathering called CPAC, about his cows which has absolutely nothing to do with saving our planet, it was nothing short of INSANITY and to think, this guy has a flock that sends him money: UNREAL:
Here is the first point of H.Res.109 - Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal as summarized by the Washington Post Article comparing it to the GP's Green New Deal.
“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
I find it difficult to realistically defined almost any part of this to even start a conversation.
How would a job be guaranteed? As I recall the GP's, (Green Party), and AOC's proposition was for a Federal job bank. That is a non-starter for me. It sounds like a permanent version of Roosevelt's WPA.
What about the " family-sustaining wage?" What qualifies as a family; wife, wife with one kid, or six kids? Wouldn't that insist on different wage values for the same job? $10 p/hr for a single guy, $15 for a guy with a wife, $20 for a guy with a wife and two kids ....?
What is retirement security? The Social Security program we have now? Most folks realize, (although many have to try), that retirement solely on Social Security is certainly not retirement security.
If the GNP is intended as a framework and discussion point, what would be the starting point for this particular goal?
"What about the " family-sustaining wage?"
Isn't the number of children somewhere around 2.3? The family is thus 4.3 - call it 5 or the half a kid starves. The family sustaining wage wage is thus around $50,000.
But. Then we have the spouse working, also earning $50,000, leaving the second job as pure spending money (wish I'd had 50 grand/year to play with during my life). Unfortunately, that will give rise to large amounts of luxuries; luxuries the poor do not have.
So the "poverty level" will rise, and everyone can have a new cadillac each year (paid for by the "rich"). And that $50,000 job is suddenly bottom of the line; any decent job will pay twice that, and the requirement will rise proportionally. So will prices, of course, cranking up another series of demands and raises.
I am hopeful some GNP supporters will jump in Wilderness, otherwise, we will get bored just supplementing each other's responses.
Looking for the source of your $50,000 number I found an MIT Living Wage Calculator, and since the tone I get from the GNP suggests that is what their "family-sustaining wage" might be, I looked at their numbers.
For your family example my state and county, (Maryland/Wicomico), it would be $29 p/hr, ($58,000 p/yr), and for Orange County/California it would be $38 p/hr, ($76,000 p/yr)
Before arguing those numbers, or their reality, another question must be answered. How would that work with a single man and that family man working side-by-side at the grill?
For now, I am more interested in developing the questions about how such things would work in reality. Whether it be this "family-sustaining wage" point or the one about guaranteed jobs.
From a GND perspective, how can paying different wages for the same job be justified? The single guy's living wage is claimed to be $15 p/hr, and the family guy of our example has a living wage of $38 p/hr.
What employer would hire anyone but single folks under those guidelines?
I think the way that the GND is worded is poison for Democrats. There's probably some way to discuss conversion to green energy and a more equitable society without going off the deep end. The GND is not that and it's likely to scare a whole lot of people over to another Trump-like figure.
Most people in this country are middle-of-the-road and pretty reasonable, but our politicians seems to be swinging wildly from one end of political silliness to the other. It's pretty frustrating.
If you're a liberal and you watch your own people trying to scare everyone back to the right, it's not encouraging.
I wish I could agree, but I don't. This pie-in-the-sky plan for an unreachable utopia will speak loudly to the half our population already dependent on government largess. Those people, that already are convinced that govt. is a unlimited supply of money for them, will jump on the bandwagon creating even more demonization anyone willing to do what is necessary to support themselves and, ultimately, further enriching the elite at the top of the pile. Politicians, promising what they cannot deliver, and the ultra rich controlling the politicians, will be the only ones to gain.
I agree with you crankalicious. As I read the GND I saw several points that I think are worthy of discussion, but unfortunately, and to use your description - those points were "poisoned" by what surrounded them, and by the thrust of the GND as a package.
And to see smart politicians like Warren getting on board only serves to reinforce my belief that it is being used as just a vote-getting tool. Otherwise, I think folks like Warren would be saying, "yeah, but..."
I understand Booker did do that - offered a qualification of what he supported.
Pure politics and rather sad because I like Warren. However, she knows that her bread and butter is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, so if she doesn't support the GND, she'll lose her base. Sad. And if I'm Trump, I tear that thing apart non-stop. It's the only thing Trump should talk about from now until the election.
He's got good job numbers right now. Just talk about how the GND will destroy the economy. Over and over.
Perhaps everyone must earn that family supporting wage, regardless of family size. That was never mentioned, after all.
And the simple solution, then, is simply to tax anyone with a smaller family an equivalent amount so that they take home only what the government wants them to. This would work with the two earner family as well; simply tax the family at 60% or so and all is well; the family gets to keep slightly less than what is needed to live, making them dependent on government largess, and government gains control over massive amounts of money.
Hey, GA, I do not think that paying different wages to two different persons on the basis of married and single is worthwhile. How then do you pay a married woman working in the same place as her husband?
In other words, how do you pay a single woman doing the same job with a married woman? I mean the married woman doing the same job as her husband. Three different persons doing the same work, and each is being paid differing wages? We do not do that in Nigeria. Thank you.
I agree with your comment Miebakagh57, and that was my point.
As proposed, the stated goal is to establish programs, policies, or laws "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage..."
I would like to hear any proposals to accomplish this that didn't run into the questions in my earlier response.
I always enjoy watching the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot (more like the head). How do they not see that discussing guaranteed jobs is going to drive people into the arms of their opponents?
If only they proposed an extensive worker's training program instead. For instance, coal workers really need to be retrained to do something else. They've been hoodwinked by Trump to believe that their jobs are coming back when they're not. The counter to Trump's lie is a retraining program to help them develop the skills they need to change careers.
If the left-wing Democrats jettison the basic principles of capitalism, they're going to find their time in the spotlight very, very short.
Hey, GA, I appreciated your inputs. Thank you.
[Correction, I previously said the GND resolution was a concurrent resolution. That's wrong. It's a simple resolution. It expresses the opinion of Congress as I said, but it does that via the House and Senate separately, not jointly or concurrently]
As a non-binding resolution with no force of law, the GND resolution is an expression of the sentiment of the House and/or the Senate.
Before I get to the point of why I'm repeating that, indulge me by looking at these examples of other simple resolutions for comparison:
H.Res.179 - Recognizing the importance of vaccinations and immunizations in the United States (1)
H.Res.1154 - Affirming the importance of the Orphan Drug Act, applauding its lifesaving contributions over its 35-year history, and recognizing the need to continue supporting research and development for rare diseases.(2)
H.Res.1033 - Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages(3).
These types of resolution are clearly not intended to be detailed policy plans. They are expressions of the House or Senate's opinion on a policy area.
The GND resolution essentially expresses three sentiments: the threat of climate change is significant; the federal government has a duty to address it; addressing climate change and pursuing economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive.
So those three short statements (or words to that effect) preceded by the preamble giving context, would have been enough for a typical simple resolution.
Instead, the authors of the resolution chose to take us on a meandering journey down every highway and byway directly and indirectly related to the subject.
So, if anything, the issue is that the GND resolution goes into too much detail, for the type of resolution it is.
Even so, that fact doesn't change what it is: a simple resolution. So our expectations about the minimum level of detail shouldn't change either.
If this were a proposed law, then I'd expect more detail for everything in it, including a full review of the economic impact by the CBO at some stage. But it's not. It's just a simple resolution with delusions of grandeur.
So I don't agree with your criticism that it lacks detail. I think a more accurate criticism would be that it is too broad in scope and has too much detail for a simple resolution. Yet it's nowhere near developed or detailed enough to be a proposed law.
In short, it's a simple resolution with pretensions of being a law, resulting in it not being a good example of either.
To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the three sentiments I think the resolution expresses, albeit badly. It's just the way those sentiments have been expressed leaves a lot to be desired. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "supporter" of the resolution or not. I guess I support the spirit of the resolution, if not the letter of it.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … =3&s=1
(2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … 6&r=18
(3) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … 6&r=76
"The GND resolution essentially expresses three sentiments: the threat of climate change is significant; the federal government has a duty to address it; addressing climate change and pursuing economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive."
You left out the sentiment that we must rebuild our entire power grid, building thousands of new production plants, to save the world.
You left out the sentiment that we must remodel every building in the country in order to save the world.
You left out the sentiment that we must (somehow) provide luxury level living standards, and the jobs to accomplish that, to every person in the country.
It is these sentiments that reasonable people wonder about; it appears that our leaders have put on their tin foil hats, dived into their imaginary utopia, and come up with these "feelings" (sentiments) about what we must do. Only political rhetoric can possibly be that stupid, and when it is the leaders of our country exhibiting it we all have to wonder.
Hello, wilderness, if the GND is going to impact nations of the whole world positively, it is a welcomed entity. But the way it has to be implemented via, the United States is a serious question mark.
However, itis entirely an American Affair. Thank you.
Certainly the madness of the GND is entirely American.
But any warming of the earth goes way beyond American borders, and will affect everyone on the planet, even if it amounts to only a few degrees.
"You left out the sentiment that we must rebuild our entire power grid . . . remodel every building in the country . . . provide luxury level living standards, and the jobs to accomplish that"
I think "building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity"(1) is a great idea. Lots of potential benefit. I'd like to see details of those benefits and costs laid out though, so I can decide if it's feasible or not. I wouldn't expect to see that level of detail in a resolution like this though.
I also think "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency . . . "(2) is a great idea. Unlikely to be achievable in 10 years, but I'd like to see a detailed proposal so I can understand exactly how the sponsors think it could be achieved. Again, those details are not something I'd expect to see in a resolution like this.
And what's not to love about the idea of guaranteed jobs ". . . with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security . . ."? But again I'd need to see details of how the sponsors think all that could be achieved. Again, that level of detail wouldn't typically be in a resolution like this.
So do you object to these ideas because 1) you think they are impractical, 2) they don't fit your ideology (too "socialist"), or 3) because you simply deny human caused global warming is real? Or perhaps all of the above? If it's mainly 3, let's face it, you're not going to like any resolution with actions to address global warming. If it's 2, that's just ideological entrenchment. If it's 1, then I sympathize, but it wouldn't be appropriate to put the level of detail needed to address that into this type of resolution.
It's the work of Congressional Committees to establish if sentiments and "political rhetoric" can be translated into actual, meaningful legislation that benefits society. They do that by gathering further information, hearing from experts in academia, industry etc. This resolution has been referred to no fewer than 11 Congressional Committees(4). I hope it leads to some kind of National Environment Strategy that enables sensible people in Congress who accept humans are causing global warming, to take action to address it.
Either way, I prefer policy decisions to be based on factual information, not ideological objections, or unreasonable denial of scientific knowledge, or even impractical, overly idealistic ideas that can't be translated into feasible actions. At this stage I don't have enough detail about how the sponsors of the resolution propose to translate it's sentiments into meaningful actions. So I look forward to seeing more details.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text (Section 2, subsection D)
(2) ibid (Section 2, subsection E)
(3) ibid (Section 4, subsection H)
(4) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … committees
Sure, remodeling all buildings to be energy is a great idea. We can't do it and still have an economy, but it's a great idea. Which is kind of the point - the GND is a pie in the sky vision of utopia that won't be realized for a hundred years at a minimum.
"Impractical" is not the word I would use for such grandiose plans; if I had to choose one word as most descriptive it is "impossible".
"Either way, I prefer policy decisions to be based on factual information, not ideological objections, or unreasonable denial of scientific knowledge, or even impractical, overly idealistic ideas that can't be translated into feasible actions."
If you like this impossible dream, to become reality in 10 years, you obviously like ideas that can't be translated into feasible actions. Now if she had used a timeline of a century I'd be on board (except for the quaint idea that everyone can earn a "family" wage), but then I would expect it to pretty much happen without any help from congressional rhetoric. Compare our electric grid of 100 years ago to today's, or the energy standard buildings are using vs what it was in the past.
"We can't do it and still have an economy"
You're entitled to your opinion. I'd still like a detailed proposal, so I can understand exactly how the sponsors of the resolution think it could be achieved.
"If you like this impossible dream, to become reality in 10 years, you obviously like ideas that can't be translated into feasible actions."
There's no "if" about it. I'd love for that proposal to become reality in 10 years. Whether it can or not is a different story. Personally, I don't think it can, but again I'd like to see some details about how the sponsors of the resolution propose achieving it. Those details will either reinforce my opinion, or change it.
If it's not achievable in that timeframe, then for me that just raises the question, what is? Global warming caused by humans needs to be addressed. Saying it's all just too hard isn't a sensible option.
Don, your [CORRECTION], explanation, and examples were a lot of work for a point I thought I had already ceded, but if not, I readily do so now.
Also, although it may be read that way, my responses weren't intended to criticize the resolution for a lack of details. As previously mentioned I am trying to find points for discussion.
My last response; the critique of not being able to define even a starting point for the guaranteed jobs goal, wasn't intended to criticize a lack of detail, but to note a proposal that was so ambiguous as to be almost undiscussable as stated.
To continue with my previous point I will stick with addressing that particular resolution goal. As you note, it is merely a statement of opinion, (or position), or even of ideological stance. That's great, why not include a wish for world peace?
My perception is that the GND is being presented, and adopted, as an agreed upon direction for future efforts. Great again. As a precept, who can argue against such lofty goals? Hell, that is why I started the thread - I think there are points in the GND that should be seriously discussed, instead of just being dismissed because they are part of the GND.
But, and this is my criticism, HR Res. 109 is, as stated, no more than a piece of meat tossed to those of the Left that hold similar opinions. It's a tool to gather votes - nothing more, (of course that is my opinion). No matter how worthy some of the goals might be, as a package, they are no more than a Left's version of "Mexico will pay for the wall."
Trump supporters get beat-up for accepting that, and I think GND supporters should get beat-up for the same reason. It is pure political BS.
It seems obvious that our political ideologies differ, but on this issue, even as we both agree there are points of the GND that are worthy of discussion, I am hopeful that you would not be a supporter of the Resolution--much less the GP's GND--because of my perception that it is purely a political vote-getting tool.
Were you a conservative Republican, our exchanges would not have led me to believe the "Mexico will pay for the wall" declarations would be something you would accept or support. By the same thought, I do not believe you would be a GND supporter.
Your comments seem to affirm that thought. Now we will see which of the Democratic candidates will be smart, (and strong), enough to say as much to the bases they are trying to build.
I am not a Cory Booker fan, but he does seem to be the first candidate to do so, so far.
I am for world peace too, because of the negative impacts the GND will impact the earth with. Like the global warming phenomenon, any serious repercussions, in the long run, will destroy future generations. Thank you, and enjoy the day!
I like your comparison to Mexico paying for the wall; pure rhetoric to garner votes and that's what this is as well.
But congress members not voting for it - not going to happen. This is an opportunity for legislators, from both sides, to shout out that they want the same things we do - great paying jobs, clean air and all the rest of it without ever bothering to discuss (or vote) real life actualities. To fail to do so will spark fear that votes will be lost rather than gained - inconceivable to allow that to happen.
Think how Trump has been accused of, not just not caring but actually wanting dirty water and air. How he was accused of racism and being anti-muslim because he limited travel from "terrorist countries". Not voting for the GND will inevitably be spun and twisted into the same sort of nonsense.
"Not voting for the GND will inevitably be spun and twisted into the same sort of nonsense."
I can agree with that. And here is a thought... I expect we might see some GND revelations in the Democrat primary as they try to outdo each other.
Could be. Perhaps something a little more specific; "We'll build 10,000 windmills", for instance. Or more likely "We'll shut down 50 coal generating plants" without any replacement mention.
Rather doubt we'll see anything about costs, though, unless it's more of the "Mexico" style.
Consider me triggered. I may have to retreat to a place where people totally agree with me!
Suffice it to say, I think comparisons between the GND resolution and claims about "the wall" are a false equivalence, and indicative of not fully appreciating the extent of the current situation in relation to climate change.
Most factual information I'm aware of indicates the "border crisis" has been largely manufactured to energize Trump's base. Claims about who pays for the wall are therefore claims about who pays for a solution to a fake crisis.
In contrast, the proposals in the GND resolution address the very real issue of anthropogenic global warming, for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence and support(1).
That's an important difference, but it doesn't address your main point head-on: is H. Res 109 "no more than a piece of meat tossed to those of the Left that hold similar opinions"?
Depends on what level of appreciation you have for the severity and scale of the problem facing the country. Thankfully we don't have to speculate about that.
Under the Global Change Research Act 1990, a National Climate Assessment report must be delivered to Congress and the President every four years(1). The report goes through an external peer review process, and a technical review by a Federal Steering Group consisting of 13 different federal agencies. The review process itself is then reviewed externally by the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine(2).
The last report was published in 2018. Here are some excerpts from the summary, in no particular order:
"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century"(3).
"Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality"(4).
"While mitigation and adaptation efforts have expanded substantially in the last four years, they do not yet approach the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades"(5).
" . . . the continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts . . . "(6).
". . . this assessment shows that more immediate and substantial global greenhouse gas emissions reductions, as well as regional adaptation efforts, would be needed to avoid the most severe consequences in the long term"(7).
"Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts"(8).
"without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and regional adaptation measures, many coastal regions will be transformed by the latter part of this century, with impacts affecting other regions and sectors"(9).
This is from volume II of two. I urge you to read as much as you can, or even just the summary which is also in web page format (volume I contains the science data underpinning volume II)(10).
In light of such clear, unambiguous information from reliable sources, can we really claim the GND resolution represents "no more than a piece of meat tossed to those of the Left"? Or does it in fact represent a response that's appropriate to the level of threat presented by 13 of the current administration's own agencies, plus external subject matter experts?
I suggest it's the latter. I also suggest that many people think the GND resolution is just liberal crowd-pleasing because they don't recognize the full extent and severity of the problem (as I myself didn't until now).
It is the agencies and organizations that represent the relevant fields, who are saying that substantial and sustained efforts are needed on a large scale to avoid "substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades", not the sponsors of the GND resolution.
The GND resolution is simply the response to what those agencies and organizations are saying.
So while I don't think your criticism amounts to shooting the messenger exactly (it's more akin to giving them a nasty look) I still don't think it's deserved.
In fact, I'm now at the point where I consider my own mild criticism of H. Res 109 to be unfounded. In a situation where subject matter experts in every relevant field are saying significant effort is needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, why wouldn't Congress propose a plan to "mobilize" the country's resources, talent and ingenuity to address the issue?
And what is the alternative? Do you know of a better legislative effort that lays out a plan to address the threat of climate change? Do you know of any other legislative effort that does so? I don't.
The current administration's position (and that of it's Republican enablers) on human caused global warming is literally a denial of reality. They have essentially abdicated responsibility on the issue.
So not only do I think that the GND resolution wasn't written merely as a liberal crowd pleaser, I also think it shouldn't only appeal to the Left anyway. It should appeal to centrists and sensible people on the Right too (yes I'm implying that people who deny AGW are not sensible people).
Anyone with an appreciation of facts, as relayed by the relevant subject matter experts, will be relieved that someone in Congress is finally trying to do something about this issue.
So I have had a change of heart. As I've read up on this, I no longer see H. Res 109 as an ill-conceived expression of the Sponsor's sentiments on climate change. Instead, in light of what I've read, I see it as a clarion call.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto was (mis)quoted as saying: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve".
I now see H. Res 109 as an attempt to rouse the sleeping giant, and fill her with a resolve to address one of the most significant threats the country has ever faced. That should not be a message that appeals only to the Left. It should be a message that appeals to everyone who has not abandoned reason.
If you consider such a call to action to be "no more than a piece of meat tossed to those of the Left", so be it. But now please do tell how you propose to address the threat outlined in the National Climate Assessment.
(1)(2) https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapte … ter-about/
Hello, wilderness, you are very much welcomed. Whether the idea is impractical or impossible, one thing stands out that I had in mind. Save the earth from the GND. Thank you.
GND = sugar-coated Government Control.
If anything, is is pre-suasion;
("Priming the pump," as Trump might say. )
"The author of the legendary bestseller Influence, social psychologist Robert Cialdini shines a light on effective persuasion and reveals that the secret doesn’t lie in the message itself, but in the key moment before that message is delivered.
What separates effective communicators from truly successful persuaders? Using the same combination of rigorous scientific research and accessibility that made his Influence an iconic bestseller, Robert Cialdini explains how to capitalize on the essential window of time before you deliver an important message. This “privileged moment for change” prepares people to be receptive to a message before they experience it. Optimal persuasion is achieved only through optimal pre-suasion. In other words, to change 'minds' a pre-suader must also change 'states of mind.' "
Hells bells Don, when you get "triggered" you really get triggered. No half-stepping here is there?
First, my comments hadn't even reached the point of addressing the "green" part of the GND, but, those are the aspects you have homed in on, so I will too.
Next, let's get to my comparison between the "Mexico will pay for the wall" and the GND HR Res. 109. I stand by it. I don't think any reasonable person believed the claim that Mexico would pay for the wall, just as I don't think any reasonable person would believe in the reality of a program to reach the GND's goals in 10 years. Both were red meat for the base. Just to different bases.
Regardless of the validity of either claim, even the reality of the climate change issue doesn't change my mind on that. Consider me non-triggered, but keeping my powder dry.
Once again using that Washington Post summary of HR Res. 109, there were 10 goals. It may be described as "curious" to note that the first three goals had nothing to do with climate change. Maybe that means nothing, or maybe it illustrates the idea that the GND is primarily a vote-getting tool.
Before we hear about climate change solutions, we hear about guaranteed family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, paid vacations, retirement security, high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States. etc. etc.
All hooks to pull in public support. (all "Mexico will pay" red meat equivalents). And, all prior to the goals of addressing climate change. And even when the climate change goals come into play, they are, (by my thinking), unattainable in the 10-year time frame emphasized.
Addressing the rest of your points--even the "current administration ones--wouldn't alter my thought that you are focusing on the climate change aspects of the GND because separate from the GND they are legitimate, but as expressed and defined in the GND they certainly appear to be in the same league as "Mexico will pay."
It is as if the GND were saying we will take care of you, and the climate too, but your defense of it is as if it said we will take care of the climate, and you too. I think that the order of presentation makes a difference in the purpose of the GND. I will stick with my perception that is is a red meat vote-getter more than a sincere effort to address climate change.
Am I wrong? Is it a realistic thought to mobilize to retrofit all buildings in the nation in just 10 years? How about changing 100% of the power demand in 10 years, is that realistic? They are both worthy goals to work towards, efforts that I would support, but I place no more credence in that 10-year time frame than I did in candidate Trump's claim that Mexico would pay for the wall.
And even worse... all that effort to support the concept of AGW when we have had that discussion already. And I agreed with your perspective.
I think that only a partisan would use AGW to validate HR Res. 109 as is presented. Even the Democrat candidates aren't united in support of it as proposed.
I don't think we are really that far apart on AGW Don, but when you double down to support the validity of the GND as an honest proposal we are miles apart.
"It may be described as "curious" to note that the first three goals had nothing to do with climate change. Maybe that means nothing or maybe it illustrates the idea that the GND is primarily a vote-getting tool"
I pulled out what I think is the crux of your criticism.
The crux of my issue with that criticism is that it entirely misses a third option: maybe those three goals were included because the interlink between poverty, economic inequality etc. and climate resilience is a well-established part of the discussion about climate change among subject matter experts, so a resolution addressing climate change would naturally need to address that.
If that were the case, we would expect to see the social aspects raised in H. Res 109, also raised in studies and reports about climate change from reliable sources outside of H. Res 109, and outside the political arena.
Again, we don't need to speculate on whether that's the case.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released five Assessment Reports and several Special Reports since it was founded in 1988. Here are excerpts from the last Special Report it published in 2018:
"A large and rapidly growing body of knowledge explores the connections between climate change and poverty. Climatic variability and climate change are widely recognized as factors that may exacerbate poverty, particularly in countries and regions where poverty levels are high (Leichenko and Silva, 2014)"(1)
"This report assesses the role of poverty and its eradication in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change and sustainable development"(2).
"In modelled pathways, sustainable development, eradicating poverty and reducing inequality can support limiting warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)"(3)
"[Climate adaptation] is more likely to contribute to sustainable development when policies align with mitigation and poverty eradication goals"(4)
". . . to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement associates the principle of equity with the broader goals of poverty eradication and sustainable development . . ."(5).
The fifth IPCC climate assessment report published in 2015 includes:
"Climate change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries"(6).
"Limiting the effects of climate change is necessary to achieve sustainable development and equity, including poverty eradication"(7).
"Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty (high confidence)."(8)
"Mitigation and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice and fairness and are necessary to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication"(9).
From the government's own National Climate Assessment:
"Urban populations experiencing socioeconomic inequality or health problems have greater exposure and susceptibility to climate change. Climate susceptibility varies by neighborhood, housing situation, age, occupation, and daily activities"(10).
"Climate change can exacerbate existing challenges to urban quality of life, including social inequality, aging and deteriorating infrastructure, and stressed ecosystems (high confidence)"(11)
"Residents in rural communities often have limited capacity to respond to climate change
impacts, due to poverty and limitations in community resources"(12)
"The social,economic, and institutional contexts in which these vulnerable populations are embedded can further influence their individual vulnerabilities and collective capacity to communicate, cooperate, and cope with a climate disturbance event . . ."(13)
These reports represent the work of multiple subject matter experts at international and domestic level. So addressing poverty, economic inequality, etc. is not so much liberal flag waving, as simply addressing the issues presented by the relevant subject matter experts.
When I first read the resolution I wondered why it included proposals related to poverty, inequality etc. In light of what I've been reading, I'm now asking why a resolution about climate change wouldn't include proposals that address those things?
Likewise the idea of a ten year time-frame. Most of the literature I've read on the subject suggests the window for successfully halting the rise in global temperatures and avoiding the worst consequences of climate change, has gone, or we're very close to it. That's not a publicity stunt by the Left to catch votes. They're facts, as published in reliable sources. Again, when the world's subject matter experts are saying this, why wouldn't it prompt a very ambitious time-frame?
So sure, the social aspects of climate change relate to key liberal social policy areas like inequality, poverty etc. Does that mean proposals addressing those things should have been left out to avoid accusations of liberal flag waving? I don't think so.
I think the sponsors of H. Res 109 should be applauded for addressing all the reported aspects of climate change, rather than worrying about the optics and inevitable hcharge of populism.
Also, I don't think it's reasonable to be critical of the Left just because mitigations for climate change, identified by subject matter experts, happen to align with liberal social policy. The sponsors of the resolution haven't engineered that just so they can throw some crowd-pleasers into their resolution. It's just reality.
I don't think reality cares about appealing to the base.
(1) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … ow_Res.pdf (p.55, Eradication of Poverty)
(3) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … one_LR.pdf (p.21, D.4.2)
(4) ibid (p.51, Executive Summary)
(6) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … L_full.pdf (p. 73)
(7) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … L_full.pdf (p.17, SPM 3.1)
(8) ibid (p.54, 1.5 Exposure and vulnerability)
(9) ibid (p. 76, Foundations of decision-making about climate change)
(10) https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downlo … Report.pdf
(11) ibid (p.456, Key Message 1)
(12) ibid (p.393 Key Message 4)
Impressive research Don. To argue with your supportive quotes would be like answering "No" to the question of; "Would you like to see a world where everyone can achieve financial, health, and life security?" Who would say no to that? (keyword being "achieve")
However, as I followed your logic, read your quotes, and explored some of your links; even though I could see the validity of the statements in the sources, I was left with a nagging perception that I wasn't finding the connective tissue that would legitimize their rebuttal to my contention concerning the first three goals of HR Res. 109.
Your sources can connect poverty issues with global warming issues, but that seems like one of those "Duh!" things.
"Urban populations experiencing socioeconomic inequality or health problems have greater exposure and susceptibility to climate change. Climate susceptibility varies by neighborhood, housing situation, age, occupation, and daily activities"
(*Even as a scan, that (#10) citation was a helluva long read)
Of course, poor folks will be more impacted by negative change than more financially secure folks, but wouldn't that be the case for any negative life-change? Where is the connective tissue that links this truth to the scope or presentation of the goals in question?
Even if such a linkage was acknowledged, (a hypothetical), I still contend that beyond just the scope of the listed goals, their order of presentation is important, calculated, and purposeful.
As you have mentioned for yourself, I also discovered--through your links--many aspects of this issue that I hadn't considered. Of course, I would not answer "No" to the first question posed in my reply. And I will also not deny the validity of the poverty-connection you have supported with your quoted sources. But I have found nothing in your supportive sources that invalidate my contention that HR Fes. 109, as offered is a demographic-targeted vote-getter.
Your support of its goals are valid, but I think HR Res. 109 is nothing more than a Kumbaya manifesto intended more to draw votes than to motivate climate change actions.
Your criticism relates to the motivation of the authors of H. Res 109.
You contend that proposals addressing social issues in that resolution are "no more than a piece of meat tossed to those of the Left that hold similar opinions".
I contend that the existence of a significant number of peer-reviewed studies and reports that raise the same social issues, belies your suggestion that the main motivation for their inclusion in H. Res 109 is political.
It doesn't matter if the link between those issues and climate change is obvious, or what the merits of that discussion are. The fact these issues are raised and discussed in the climate change research community, means a resolution about climate change would be incomplete without addressing them.
I think that pushes the needle away from political shenanigans as the motivation, and towards addressing current thinking on the subject. Granted that would inevitably appeal to a liberal base, but that's more of an added bonus.
If the only criticism left is about the order they put the proposals, then I won't quibble.
If you want to better appreciate why the scale of the proposals in the resolution are such as they are, I recommend you continue reviewing the literature, though it makes for bleak reading. A preview:
"Under emissions in line with current pledges under the Paris Agreement . . . global warming is expected to surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, even if these pledges are supplemented with very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of mitigation after 2030 (high confidence). This increased action would need to achieve net zero CO2 emissions in less than 15 years"(1).
I'll leave you to discover the consequences of not remaining below a rise of 1.5c. Suffice it to say, the scale of all the proposals reflect the scale of the problem.
(1) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads … ow_Res.pdf (p.95, The Chances of Limiting Warming to 1.5°C and the Requirements for Urgent Action)
I see you are still defending the legitimacy of climate change, but I don't understand why.
I will agree that your data shows that the poor will be disproportionately affected by the negative effects of climate change. I agree that addressing that issue would also be a part of addressing the effects of climate change. But I think it should be a secondary issue. Focus on the important issue first - climate change. The "Green" in Green New Deal.
So we address climate change; tackle emissions control, try to get away from fossil fuels and work towards the other GND climate control issues
Priorities are usually the lead ...
"The resolution in Congress from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) calls for a “10-year national mobilization” that would include:
“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
“Providing all people of the United States with — (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”
“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”
That is the lead as summarized by the Washington Post, a summary you agreed was credible.
Only then does the Res. address the actual climate change goals.
I agree that " a resolution about climate change would be incomplete without addressing them," (those poverty issues). We just differ on the perspective of how that resolution addresses them.
So yes, my criticism does relate to the motivation of the authors of H. Res 109 - that is what I have been saying all along, and yes the order does make a difference to my perception of the purpose of the Res.
There is no hide left on this horse Don.
But that is not the order. Also, those points are not included in the "10 years mobilization" (2). Those are part of the goals and projects to achieve that mobilization. (4:C,H,O)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text
I think IslandBites' post invalidates the basis of your criticism entirely and makes our discussion moot.
To repeat what she has pointed out:
Although the WaPo article lists the content of the proposals, it doesn't accurately reflect the order of them. The three proposals listed first in the article, are listed in the last section of the resolution(1).
Likewise, those three proposals are not part of the "10-year national mobilization". They are described as goals and projects required to achieve that mobilization.
No hide left on this horse? I think IslandBites just took the horse away from us GA, preventing any further mistreatment.
(1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … n/109/text (Section 4)
Time for attack plan B. "But what about Hillary?"
Spanish. Nice touch!
Good discussion, btw.
by Credence2 23 months ago
I saw an article's recently about protesters bringing down the statue to Francis Scott Key in San Francisco.They said that he was a slave holder and a slavery advocate, but let's face it, everybody who was anybody during the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries owned slaves.If this is the...
by shazz01109 12 years ago
After all of the bailouts, TARP, etc., it seems that Obama and Congress are just spending $ that we don't have like drunken sailors. Shouldn't there be more focus on creating jobs, and improving the economy?
by Cholee Clay 8 years ago
My husband thinks it would be a great idea if I started looking into creating my own bakery. I do love to bake, and I create some crazy delicious cookies however I'm not sure I would be cut out for the baking industry. My family loves my baking, but I'm not sure I would be good enough for complete...
by kerryg 11 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle...
by Sharlee 12 months ago
It's obvious gas prices are soaring, and we are about to see taxes go up, which has an excellent chance of increasing just about everything we purchase. And the border crisis is making history in regard to numbers. 20 thousand children thus far in US custody, children continue to pour in...
by Kathryn L Hill 10 months ago
The earth is so huge. And people are so small. Are we really contributing to the build-up of C02 in the upper atmosphere(s) by:1. Burning fossil fuels, 2. Cutting down forests 3. Farming livestock.https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/ … l-warming/"Fossil fuels produce large quantities...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|