Rick Perry wants to talk with AOC about GND

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

A bizarre accusation from a proponent of Reaganomics.

Milton Friedman is one of the most brilliant economists ever (Reaganomics real name is Friedmanian Economics)

Um, no?

Well the success of the 1980s and 1990s proves Friedman right

You mean after that upper income tax hike--a fundamental sin under his theories--that Friedman and his acolytes all swore would devastate the economy, rather than resulting in a budget surplus as actually happened?

Literally not worth additional discussion.

Clinton cut taxes too , including ones Reagan raised. Reagan raised the Capital Gains Tax Rate from 20% to 28% while Clinton dropped it from 28% to 20%. Clinton also deregulated the economy more than Reagan did .


Reagan also de facto raised taxes on people in real estate by getting rid of the ability to use passive losses to offset taxable income

Cutting the capital gains tax very likely contributed to the technology bubble of 2000 and the housing bubble of 2007/2008.  

Tech Bubble I agree, Housing Bubble I would say removing glass Stegall and I believe Greenspan decision to inflate the housing bubble had more to do with it

[Karpatsky]

The problem with the GND isn't the concepts per se, it's that it isn't policy. In its current form, it's a wishlist, with little to no implementation.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I completely forgot Rick Perry was even in the administration.  He's flown so under the radar.

The problem with the GND isn't the concepts per se, it's that it isn't policy. In its current form, it's a wishlist, with little to no implementation.

That's both its major problem and simultaneously the reason why it is so stupid to fear-monger about. "The Democrats want to ban hamberders!"

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I would also like to... "talk" with AOC. If you catch my drift. Game respects game, Rick.

[T'Chenka]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

A bizarre accusation from a proponent of Reaganomics.

Milton Friedman is one of the most brilliant economists ever (Reaganomics real name is Friedmanian Economics)

Um, no?

Well the success of the 1980s and 1990s proves Friedman right .

You can thank Jimmy Carter for the early 80's. Trickle down economics is a Trump Unversity type con job.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

A bizarre accusation from a proponent of Reaganomics.

Milton Friedman is one of the most brilliant economists ever (Reaganomics real name is Friedmanian Economics)

Um, no?

Well the success of the 1980s and 1990s proves Friedman right .

You can thank Jimmy Carter for the early 80's. Trickle down economics is a Trump Unversity type con job.

LMAO  keep listening to TYT and by the way you know when the economy started to improve: 1983 not 1981. 1983 was the year Reagan's economic policies started to go fully into effect (1982 was the transition year) and the economy roared after that and aside for a couple years in the early 90s the economy had the best 18 year stretch in American History(1983-2001).

Also do you know why Carter's policies failed, it was because there was no way Keynesian Economics
would work against that type of recession because it was caused by a supply shock. Supply Side Economics was the cure for it because it directly addressed the economic problems facing us then.

[GoTfan]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

A bizarre accusation from a proponent of Reaganomics.

Milton Friedman is one of the most brilliant economists ever (Reaganomics real name is Friedmanian Economics)

Um, no?

Well the success of the 1980s and 1990s proves Friedman right .

You can thank Jimmy Carter for the early 80's. Trickle down economics is a Trump Unversity type con job.

LMAO  keep listening to TYT and by the way you know when the economy started to improve: 1983 not 1981. 1983 was the year Reagan's economic policies started to go fully into effect (1982 was the transition year) and the economy roared after that and aside for a couple years in the early 90s the economy had the best 18 year stretch in American History(1983-2001).

Also do you know why Carter's policies failed, it was because there was no way Keynesian Economics
would work against that type of recession because it was caused by a supply shock. Supply Side Economics was the cure for it because it directly addressed the economic problems facing us then.

If we used your measurements, FDR was the worst President of all time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

A bizarre accusation from a proponent of Reaganomics.

Milton Friedman is one of the most brilliant economists ever (Reaganomics real name is Friedmanian Economics)

Um, no?

Well the success of the 1980s and 1990s proves Friedman right .

You can thank Jimmy Carter for the early 80's. Trickle down economics is a Trump Unversity type con job.

LMAO  keep listening to TYT and by the way you know when the economy started to improve: 1983 not 1981. 1983 was the year Reagan's economic policies started to go fully into effect (1982 was the transition year) and the economy roared after that and aside for a couple years in the early 90s the economy had the best 18 year stretch in American History(1983-2001).

Also do you know why Carter's policies failed, it was because there was no way Keynesian Economics
would work against that type of recession because it was caused by a supply shock. Supply Side Economics was the cure for it because it directly addressed the economic problems facing us then.

If we used your measurements, FDR was the worst President of all time.

The Depression wasnt caused by a supply shock so its not comparable to the 70s and early 80s stagflation.


Also in FDR's first 4 years unemployment dropped by 50% , GDP nearly doubled, and he had passed boatload of legislation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon. 

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

[junior chįmp]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

Both the New Deal and Reaganomics didnt work but the voters are idiots who dont care about policy and indirectly give politicians free reign to do what they want once a realignment calcifies and puts certain politicical priorities into place.

[GoTfan]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

Both the New Deal and Reaganomics didnt work but the voters are idiots who dont care about policy and indirectly give politicians free reign to do what they want once a realignment calcifies and puts certain politicical priorities into place.

The New Deal didn't work?

[GoTfan]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

Remind me, what happened in Fukishima again?

[Continential]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

Both the New Deal and Reaganomics didnt work but the voters are idiots who dont care about policy and indirectly give politicians free reign to do what they want once a realignment calcifies and puts certain politicical priorities into place.

I agree with you on Voodoo Economics but the New Deal made millions of people have jobs again.

[7,052,770]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

[img]

Remind me, what happened in Fukishima again?

Basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the impact of climate change. Or was that your point?

[junior chįmp]

The Green New Deal is a total joke that shouldnt be even considered by Congress. It defies basic economics, math and reality in general.

Both the New Deal and Reaganomics didnt work but the voters are idiots who dont care about policy and indirectly give politicians free reign to do what they want once a realignment calcifies and puts certain politicical priorities into place.

I just wanted to say the picture in your signature of the cat cake looks real good

Heres what the NEOLIB Dems want to do with the Med4all cat:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/b1zv3s/you_wouldnt_believe_me_even_if_i_told_youthose/

"Thats right....get back in there. Were gonna look at increasing cost sharing subsidies and strengthening the individual mandate instead"

[GoTfan]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

[img]

Remind me, what happened in Fukishima again?

Basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the impact of climate change. Or was that your point?

Oh no. Just three meltdowns, a few hydrogen-air explosions and the spread of radioactive material and a 30-40 year clean-up.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Harry’s argument is based on the following;

1.  Climate change (global warming) is a dire and lurking, if immediate threat to society and the biosphere.

2.  Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydro power cannot feasibly, or perhaps not even possibly provide even the minimum amount of energy in the short and medium term to prevent societal breakdown or collapse.  So risks have to be taken.

3.  Compared to the rapid collapse of the biosphere caused by extreme warming, building nuclear power plants to provide large amounts of relatively cheap, low risk (but high danger) power as a bridge to better renewable substitutes in the future, is not actually that risky and even if several more fukushimas happened, would still be better off for the planet.

While I disagree with Harry about the extent and severity of future greenhouse warming, it is clear he has thought this through and did his homework.

If you think we can decarbonize even in the next 50 years with current renewables...be prepared to cover land areas the size of New England completely with windmills and solar panels.  That’s the USA alone.  Where will Europe find the wind or sun to power their industry, transport, and electricity needs?

Imagine a zone the size of New England relegated to being a complete biological dead zone on the ground and in the air because of windmills and solar panels blocking the sun from thr ground.  At least irradiated animals can still live.

[PSOL]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

[img]

Remind me, what happened in Fukishima again?

Basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the impact of climate change. Or was that your point?

Oh no. Just three meltdowns, a few hydrogen-air explosions and the spread of radioactive material and a 30-40 year clean-up.

That was due to building a cost-cutting reactor in an active earthquake-prone area. It is possible to build a reactor that returns costs put into it, safe and efficient for use, and minimizes nuclear waste. The problem is politicians complaining about short-term tax dollars than long-term prosperity.

[emailking]

I have no idea what Perry might say to AOC.

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon. 

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

The clean, renewable substitute to fossil fuels has existed for generations but AOC and her allies oppose it on ideological grounds.

We should probably do more nuclear, but it's only going to help offset a portion of the energy we get from fossil fuels. And while it's debatable how much uranium can actually be mined, it's definitely not renewable.

The only way we can completely replace fossil fuels is to use a lot less energy.

[T'Chenka]

If you think we can decarbonize even in the next 50 years with current renewables...be prepared to cover land areas the size of New England completely with windmills and solar panels.  That’s the USA alone.  Where will Europe find the wind or sun to power their industry, transport, and electricity needs?

Imagine a zone the size of New England relegated to being a complete biological dead zone on the ground and in the air because of windmills and solar panels blocking the sun from thr ground.  At least irradiated animals can still live.

That's all based on CURRENT green technologies. The GND wants to start moving to decarbonization, while at the same time heavily incentivizing green energy research and innovation.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

When it comes to the Green New Deal, there are two important concepts in conflict.  One concept is the idea that Global Warming is caused in part by human behavior, and there are things humans can do to reduce, and even reverse, the effects.  The other concept is the idea that, at the present time, we have ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuels, but no SUBSTITUTE for fossil fuels, and a SUBSTITUTE is not in the offing anytime soon.  

How do we balance the danger of burning stuff to have energy with the idea that only by burning stuff at the levels we currently do will we maintain our current living standards?  If you can figure this out, you'll be a rich, rich person.

If you think we can decarbonize even in the next 50 years with current renewables...be prepared to cover land areas the size of New England completely with windmills and solar panels.  That’s the USA alone.  Where will Europe find the wind or sun to power their industry, transport, and electricity needs?

Imagine a zone the size of New England relegated to being a complete biological dead zone on the ground and in the air because of windmills and solar panels blocking the sun from thr ground.  At least irradiated animals can still live.

The answer to both of these questions is improvement in battery technology. One of the major problems with intermittent energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, wave) is that they can be episodic, overproducing at some point and underproducing at others. The solution right now that would have the largest improvement here is to improve the capabilities of batteries to store a lot of energy. Then, when intermittent sources are overproducing the excess energy can be stored and distributed (at long distances) when the sources are underproducing.

Of course the technology we currently have is insufficient for solving the problems that will be most pressing in 2050, just like the computers of 1990 were insufficient for doing the computational modeling and processing we rely on today. Any serious energy scholar or expert would say that storage technology is the key bottleneck. It requires a lot of additional R&D but it is certainly attainable within the next couple of decades. However, federal subsidies would be great for helping to support the research infrastructure that could speed up or improve the development of these products. This is of course why dismissing fighting climate change out of hand because of the insufficiency of current technologies is bad.

[T'Chenka]

Of course the technology we currently have is insufficient for solving the problems that will be most pressing in 2050, just like the computers of 1990 were insufficient for doing the computational modeling and processing we rely on today. Any serious energy scholar or expert would say that storage technology is the key bottleneck. It requires a lot of additional R&D but it is certainly attainable within the next couple of decades. However, federal subsidies would be great for helping to support the research infrastructure that could speed up or improve the development of these products. This is of course why dismissing fighting climate change out of hand because of the insufficiency of current technologies is bad.

Attacking AOC and the GND is like attacking JFK in the early 60s for saying America was going to go to the moon. We set a goal, we work our butts off, we somehow reach the goal one way or another and the entire world is much better off afterwards.

Trump supporters think the moon is made of cheese, basically.

[emailking]

Any serious energy scholar or expert would say that storage technology is the key bottleneck. It requires a lot of additional R&D but it is certainly attainable within the next couple of decades.

That's a pretty big assumption. Just because technology has advanced a lot in the last century does not mean it will continue to do so. The technology does not exist. We don't even know if it's technically possible to ramp up storage that much. And if it is, we don't know what resources it will depend upon and in what quantities. It may be infeasible or even impossible given the resources on Earth. And even if it's possible and feasible, we definitely don't know how long it will take us to figure it out. Could be a breakthrough tomorrow, or a long hard slog that takes 100 years. No way to know.