The New Green Deal and Jobs

Route 66

Slapped Upside-da-Head Member
Hey, I understand that West Virginia now has the most robust economy and highest standard of living of any state in our great nation now that all those coal mines are back up and running at a full head of steam.

Congratulations, West Virginia!!!
“Country roads take me home, to the place I belong....”

Now to get them switchboard and elevator operators and TV repairmen and Western Union messengers asses back to work.
And then we’ll bring back Fotomat and Blockbuster! MAGA, baby, MAGA!!!
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I covered one of Trump’s public speaking events some time back for a local independent paper.

Those folk’s perception of reality is deeply rooted in an era where high paying manufacturing jobs were the norm, and they truly believe that the new NAFTA (GM announced more operations moving south before the ink was dry) and deals like Foxconn (you know manufacturing is dead when you can’t make a go of it with a multi-billion dollar subsidy) will return them to a prosperous state.

I certainly wouldn’t profess to have all the answers, but feeding those that are susceptible to demagoguery a steady diet of false hope and nostalgic nonsense isn’t doing this country a bit of good.

Yep. Hillbilly Elegy is the best book I've ever read on this phenomenon. I highly recommend it. The people you speak of hate the government, but expect the government to provide high-paying jobs, go to church, but don't follow Christianity, and profess bootstrapping ideals of working hard and getting ahead. But, when it comes time to make the effort and maybe go to college or move away from the coal mine, they won't do it.

Enter one orange demagogue who will gladly tell them what they want to hear.
 

Route 66

Slapped Upside-da-Head Member
Two Lies (by Hanky Wadsworth Shortfellow)

Donny tells two lies in the morning
and he tells two lies at night
He tells two lies in the afternoon
and it makes him feel alright

He tells two lies in times of peace
and two in times of war
He tells two lies - before he tells two lies
........and then he tells two more
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Yep. Hillbilly Elegy is the best book I've ever read on this phenomenon. I highly recommend it. The people you speak of hate the government, but expect the government to provide high-paying jobs, go to church, but don't follow Christianity, and profess bootstrapping ideals of working hard and getting ahead. But, when it comes time to make the effort and maybe go to college or move away from the coal mine, they won't do it.

Enter one orange demagogue who will gladly tell them what they want to hear.

These are the people who were used to justify LBJ's War on Poverty. They were told that they weren't responsible for their lot, that society had neglected and ignored them. They were told that the government was going to dump a bunch of money in those areas in order to create sustainability and eradicate poverty. Fifty years later the programs made nary a dent of progress in those areas and not much has changed.

I'm not defending the culture there (it's ridiculous and always has been), but people of your political stripe didn't have a problem with these people (and their culture) until they eventually ceased being a guaranteed block of blue votes.
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
I take these people seriously. They truly believe air travel should go away. How to reach that end might kill many jobs, especially those in the overnight business. One way would be to tax it out of the market.
That isn't even true. If people can travel by rail in about the same amount of time, when counting security check in, baggage check and claim, travelling to an airport that HAS to be located away from city centers, in the long term, rail makes more sense. No where in the plan is ANYTHING about eliminating air travel.

Do you just believe everything you hear????? Did you even read the plan????? Probably not because that would mean you are just outright lying, instead of just uneducated about it.

The plan is to replace are travel where it makes sense and is technologically feasible. And even airline fuel can be replaced with renewable fuels. I have even seen where truly uneducated people claim that the plan includes building rails under the ocean. IF it was possible to send overnight packages across the country by train, it would be cheaper than air
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
These are the people who were used to justify LBJ's War on Poverty. They were told that they weren't responsible for their lot, that society had neglected and ignored them. They were told that the government was going to dump a bunch of money in those areas in order to create sustainability and eradicate poverty. Fifty years later the programs made nary a dent of progress in those areas and not much has changed.

I'm not defending the culture there (it's ridiculous and always has been), but people of your political stripe didn't have a problem with these people (and their culture) until they eventually ceased being a guaranteed block of blue votes.

It has taken some time, but the inner cities are NOTHING even close to as bad as they were in the 60s. You NEVER see poor children with the distended bellies of malnutrition that were common back then. Saying there is no progress is proving your lack of knowledge. Schools are better, and more and more disadvantaged have made it out of that situation over time. Minority college enrollment is multiple times higher than it was back then as is minority home ownership rates, along with higher high school graduation rate. Sounds like you ONLY listen to FOX news, and ignore your own eyes. There are pockets and areas that still need some help to get on track, but the war on poverty is a long term success if you look how far we've come. even if the cost is higher than you like.
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
What's fake? Part of the platform is to replace aviation. If that happens, or taxes are applied to curtail it, jobs are effected.
The plan is to replace where it makes sense, and how will people and goods travelling on rail reduce jobs???? Even if the trains are 100% automated, there will be people involved in building them, and maintaining them and building and maintaining the rails. And a train can carry 50 times the cargo with the same fuel as an airplane.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
That isn't even true. If people can travel by rail in about the same amount of time, when counting security check in, baggage check and claim, travelling to an airport that HAS to be located away from city centers, in the long term, rail makes more sense. No where in the plan is ANYTHING about eliminating air travel.

Do you just believe everything you hear????? Did you even read the plan????? Probably not because that would mean you are just outright lying, instead of just uneducated about it.

The plan is to replace are travel where it makes sense and is technologically feasible. And even airline fuel can be replaced with renewable fuels. I have even seen where truly uneducated people claim that the plan includes building rails under the ocean. IF it was possible to send overnight packages across the country by train, it would be cheaper than air
If a private company want to build a railroad, go for it. The government building it, nope.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
It has taken some time, but the inner cities are NOTHING even close to as bad as they were in the 60s. You NEVER see poor children with the distended bellies of malnutrition that were common back then.

Well, I was speaking about Appalachia (comprehension was never your strong point), but okay, here we go... Hunger in the inner cities was eradicated and replaced with violent crime. CONGRATULATIONS!!

Saying there is no progress is proving your lack of knowledge. Schools are better, and more and more disadvantaged have made it out of that situation over time. Minority college enrollment is multiple times higher than it was back then as is minority home ownership rates, along with higher high school graduation rate. Sounds like you ONLY listen to FOX news, and ignore your own eyes. There are pockets and areas that still need some help to get on track, but the war on poverty is a long term success if you look how far we've come. even if the cost is higher than you like.

The program was designed to eliminate poverty. Didn't work. The poverty rate was around 15% when the first components of the WoP were launched, and poverty has bounced around between 11% and 15% in the 50 years since at a cost that is in the trillions. CONGRATULATIONS!!!
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
If a private company want to build a railroad, go for it. The government building it, nope.

That seems ignorant to me. If your taxes go up $5 to pay fot it, but it saves you $10, only a fool would oppose it, unless all you want is to take money out of working peopels' pockets and put it into those who would be doing the building.
 

dmac1

Well-Known Member
Well, I was speaking about Appalachia (comprehension was never your strong point), but okay, here we go... Hunger in the inner cities was eradicated and replaced with violent crime. CONGRATULATIONS!!



The program was designed to eliminate poverty. Didn't work. The poverty rate was around 15% when the first components of the WoP were launched, and poverty has bounced around between 11% and 15% in the 50 years since at a cost that is in the trillions. CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Again, you are either intentionally ignoring, or possibly just ignorant of the fact that how poverty is measured today versus 50 years ago is different. Even completely destitute people today can at least get food, and 50 years ago had to hope for charity. Today, owning a refrigerator doesn't remove you from being counted as being in poverty and housing laws have made it a requirement that landlords provide a higher minimum standard of housing. By any consistent standard of measure, the poor of today are much better off than the poor of 50 years ago.

And the programs aren't over, yet, so you can't say they didn't work to eliminate poverty. And crime is LOWER now nationally than it was 50 years ago. You are just more aware of it now because communications are better now. 50 years ago, you didn't hear about every crime across the country- now a shooting in Idaho gets on the national news.
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
That seems ignorant to me. If your taxes go up $5 to pay fot it, but it saves you $10, only a fool would oppose it, unless all you want is to take money out of working peopels' pockets and put it into those who would be doing the building.
Initial cost doesn’t guarantee a bargain. Government entities are notorious for inflating, or ignoring, maintenance costs.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
That seems ignorant to me. If your taxes go up $5 to pay fot it, but it saves you $10, only a fool would oppose it, unless all you want is to take money out of working peopels' pockets and put it into those who would be doing the building.
Won't save anything. Look at Amtrak.
 

Route 66

Slapped Upside-da-Head Member
50 years ago, you didn't hear about every crime across the country- now a shooting in Idaho gets on the national news.
well, it would pretty much have to be a mass shooting in order to receive national media attention. There are hundreds of shootings every single day across America (with approximately 100 being fatal)
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
Again, you are either intentionally ignoring, or possibly just ignorant of the fact that how poverty is measured today versus 50 years ago is different. Even completely destitute people today can at least get food, and 50 years ago had to hope for charity. Today, owning a refrigerator doesn't remove you from being counted as being in poverty and housing laws have made it a requirement that landlords provide a higher minimum standard of housing. By any consistent standard of measure, the poor of today are much better off than the poor of 50 years ago.

In that case, the "progress" is nothing more than making poverty and dependency more comfortable than it was in the past without actually alleviating it. And telling mothers and children that fathers aren't needed, and setting those kids up for prison.

And the programs aren't over, yet, so you can't say they didn't work to eliminate poverty.

LOL.

And crime is LOWER now nationally than it was 50 years ago. You are just more aware of it now because communications are better now. 50 years ago, you didn't hear about every crime across the country- now a shooting in Idaho gets on the national news.

Interesting. Doesn't explain why crime is so high where there are high concentrations of poor people and so low in areas where there are high concentrations of middle class people.
 

Wally

BrownCafe Innovator & King of Puns
I wonder what impact President Obama could of had if his mantra was, stay in school, study, and no babies until you are older and ready.
 

59 Dano

I just want to make friends!
I wonder what impact President Obama could of had if his mantra was, stay in school, study, and no babies until you are older and ready.

People would have applauded, and rightfully so, but it wouldn't have changed anything.
 
Top