US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1778

On August 28 2019 01:02 JimmiC wrote:
Here is a pretty long article about Bernie's Green deal the impacts, I enjoy how he asks if people "want a revolution". I think it will be pretty interesting to see how people react to how bold his plan is. I for one am for this revolution and love how aggressive it is. Some quick points are no more combustion engine cars sold after 2030, including bus's and heavy trucks!

It is also interesting that it doubles government spending back up to around WW2 levels. I have read multiple papers that have concluded that it would take a WW2 effort to fight climate change and so I see that as a positive while others I'm sure do not.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/27/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-analysis/index.html

On August 28 2019 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:
I like things like the aggressive no combustion engines by 2030 but, and I know GH is going to jump and down at this, how do you plan to pay for increasing federal spending by upwards of 50%?

(and i'm not counting healthcare cause in theory cost control measures could make universal healthcare actually save the government money based on the US already paying more per capita then other nations)

On August 28 2019 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't care about spending. The MMT folks will give you one explanation for why that's generally good enough for me and we're heading for total ecological collapse anyway, there's going to be a global war for resources and habitable land before any of these accounts get settled. So to that end, at least the US is well prepared.

or you can pick this argument:

Bernie's not going to lay it out, but the US military by itself is a larger polluter than most/many countries. A lot of that pollution is from bases around the world "protecting and stabilizing" the oil supply for which the US military is a primary consumer.

Reducing and redirecting military spending towards renewables is a positive feedback loop

On August 28 2019 01:37 Gorsameth wrote:
And I completely agree with reducing spending on the US military but the ENTIRE military budget barely covers half of Bernie's planned yearly expenses on his green deal.

On August 28 2019 01:37 Gorsameth wrote:
And I completely agree with reducing spending on the US military but the ENTIRE military budget barely covers half of Bernie's planned yearly expenses on his green deal.

The most significant, at an estimated $6.4 trillion, would come from revenue generated by the sale of clean energy -- which will be administered by publicly owned utilities -- between 2023 and 2035.

Sanders would cut military spending used to protect global energy interests by more than $1.2 trillion while hitting up fossil fuel companies for more than $3 trillion in "litigation (against polluters), fees, and taxes." An additional $2.3 trillion, the campaign says, would be raised from the taxes paid on the 20 million new jobs it promises to create.

On August 28 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:

The government can spend the same dollars multiple times though because their spending drives economic activity which returns to them through tax dollars. There’s a multiplier there.

On August 28 2019 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


Reading the article, links in it:



Besides, Bush, Reagan, Obama, Trump all ran huge deficits, it's little more than a conservative talking point they promptly ignore when given any responsibility to deal with it imo.

On August 28 2019 01:53 JimmiC wrote:


I agree with GH;s points on the costs, I'd also like to add that the US was doing well economically during ww2, which is when the last time government spending was this high. So it is misleading to say that it will crush the economy, it will drastically change it, but that does not mean crush it.

Also, while I'd prefer medicade for all, if they want to do it at a reasonable price they need to be more drastic and make it a public system, for profit hospitals, schools, and prisons are all very bad ideas for society.

On August 28 2019 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I have little to no faith in 'we will pay for this by the millions of job's / economic spending' justifications. Especially when your destroying jobs in polluting sectors as fast as your adding new jobs to green sectors (which in itself is not a bad trade)

And 'lol others have huge deficits so why should we care' can just as easily be applied to the environment.
But we do care about the environment, so lets also care about deficits for once. Tho I am sure the complete economic collapse of the US will be beneficent for the environment (and yes that's a hyperbole, sue me).

On August 28 2019 01:53 Gorsameth wrote:
Sure there is, but it that modifier big enough?

On August 28 2019 04:17 RvB wrote:

Not necessarily. Fiscal multipliers are generally only bigger than 1 when there's a lack of demand from the private sector such as in an economic crisis. In a period of economic expansion it will crowd out private investment instead. In addition in the long run a debt financed fiscal expansion will reduce savings (investment) reducing future growth.

Bernie's economic policy is as much Voodoo economics as 'trickle down (for a lack of a better word)' economics.

On August 28 2019 12:25 Aesthetician wrote:
If you ban ICE's, do you really think an efficient alternative resource will be available? I don't want smoke and mirrors. Tell me how many watts of power we will get from where, and how we will develop battery technology for all those EV's you want to make without strip mining for lithium. Also, what will you say to all of the rural people whose method of transportation you've just banned? And what about the fact that the entire economy is dependent on trucks? The idea of banning ICE's outright seems almost comical to me when you look at the effects it will have on people's everyday lives, regardless of how it helps reduce carbon emissions. I would far prefer we reduce our population than reduce our quality of life, it seems like the easier solution.