• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financing the Green New Deal

EMNofSeattle said:
The bailout was not necessary, investors would’ve purchased GMs assets and some people would’ve been let go and union contracts renegotiated which would’ve resulted in GM being far more competitive globally. Instead we bailed out the unions and GM will bankrupt again once the next recession happens
Click to expand...
GM tried selling assets and there were no takers in the middle of the Great Recession. In the meantime, resources, both capital and labor were idle and a drain on the country.

Next...
 
MTAtech said:
GM tried selling them and there were no takers in the middle of the Great Recession. In the meantime, resources, both capital and labor were idle and a drain on the country.

Next...
Click to expand...

The factory would be mothballed and after the recession someone would’ve bought it, or not, the workers would find different jobs and the country would move on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fletch said:
I understand. Statist loons arent interested in liberty or Constitutional constraints, you are interested only in state power. And people like me who believe in human liberty and individual rights just get in your way. Well, too bad.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the liberty of driving on our highways and using the internet, then. I'll be in the corner, plotting on how to take over the world via lowering carbon emissions.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The factory would be mothballed and after the recession someone would’ve bought it, or not, the workers would find different jobs and the country would move on
Click to expand...

Of course, because the private sector has been so terrific at supplying lots and lots of jobs for everyone.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
A government's job is to make life better for its citizens, not to turn a profit. Bailing out GM saved a ton of jobs, and it was far cheaper for the government than allowing those jobs to vanish, which would require more spending to keep those people alive.
Click to expand...

What Bull ****

The fact is GM should have be let to fail. There was a line up to buy GM in part to advance their own production. Fact is there was not going to be one less car built due to demand. GM would have been split up and those employes would we be employed by other companies and by the new owners of the split of GM. The supply lines would not even slow down.

You believe that if GM shut down all those cars that GM made would not be made by other companies and by the new owners of the split up of GM. And that those employees would not ever build another car again. What bull ****. Have you not ever heard of a company in bankruptcy that was purchased by a different company and never miss a beat. The making of all the GM cars would be made by their competitors and the new owners of the splits of GM. The demand of the amount of GM cars would not go away. They would just be made by different companies. The cars would still be made, employees of GM would still be working but under a different name and all the supplies would keep on clicking.

Yeah you don't have to answer, because I'll get some BS about millions of jobs lost.
Click to expand...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The factory would be mothballed and after the recession someone would’ve bought it, or not, the workers would find different jobs and the country would move on.
Click to expand...
Rebuilding GM and reversing unemployment was a means to get out of the recession.

I understand the libertarian folk-law that in the long run the market system corrects. The problem is that in the long run we're all dead.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Enjoy the liberty of driving on our highways and using the internet, then. I'll be in the corner, plotting on how to take over the world via lowering carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

The GND isnt about lowering carbon emissions, its about ending them. Its about the state controlling all energy creation and its usage. Why dont you run your plan by Xi? Thats the sort of thing that Commies love to impose upon their subjects.
 
Fletch said:
The GND isnt about lowering carbon emissions, its about ending them. Its about the state controlling all energy creation and its usage. Why dont you run your plan by Xi? Thats the sort of thing that Commies love to impose upon their subjects.
Click to expand...

Ah, the dirty Commie argument. Nice.

Is the Libertarian political page down or something?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I would ask you the same thing, minus the textbook and education parts. What does running a business have to do with understanding federal finance? The country is not a business. Anybody that runs a hot dog stand can claim to be a successful businessman; that doesn't make them qualified to work at the Fed or the Treasury.

My guess is that if Conservative was picked to run the Fed, we'd be in a whole lot of trouble.
Click to expand...

Running a business requires understanding of a financial statement and the cost of doing business. There is no question about it you have no understanding of how anything like this will benefit the American people. If it is so great let the private sector do it and that is something you can invest in, why should the taxpayers with a 21 trillion dollar debt fund programs like these? where does the money come from to fund these kind of programs?
 
MrWonka;1069680825]It provides clean renewable energy. Eliminates are dependence on foreign oil, and creates thousands and thousands of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
Click to expand...

If it is so good why does the federal taxpayers have to fund it? Where does the money come from to create these kind of programs and we already have renewable energy companies, let them do it


Less than the War in Iraq I would guess. Did you ask how much that was going to cost? At least with the GND, it's not a sunken cost, it's an investment that pays off long term.
Click to expand...

You guess says a lot!! Your claim that it is an investment that will pay off, if it is so good the private sector would be doing it


over the course of 10-20 years. The same way we fund pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

Name for me any federal program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost and where does money come from for the ongoing expenses


If you'd actually have read the article you'd see it that it doesn't actually cost us anything we could easily just print the money for it. So long as that money is invested here in America on infrastructure and jobs for low income and middle class workers it really isn't a cost at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry AOC and not one liberal here has ever posted a resume showing that they have a clue how much this is going to cost or how to implement it


No more electric bills, No more paying to put gas in your car, A massive reduction in pollution, Massive job creation, the destabilization of our climate... Yeah, these are all major benefits.
Click to expand...

LOL, finally that liberal utopia where someone else funds your personal responsibility issues. that is typical leftwing pie in the sky rhetoric


Because in the short term burning fossil fuels is cheaper even though it's harmful. Try learning what a Nash Equilibrium is.
Click to expand...

Harmful to whom?? Keep buying that leftwing bull**** and watch the left destroy our economy and this country
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Ah, the dirty Commie argument. Nice.

Is the Libertarian political page down or something?
Click to expand...

Boy, you central planners just hate to have your despotic dreams challenged. Sorry, but this nation was built upon the concept of human liberty. That you are so contemptuous of it only demonstrates how it is you who is out of place here. There are plenty of place on this globe where you can impose your will on others. Here, you are going to run into that pesky notion that people are actually free
 
Conservative said:
Running a business requires understanding of a financial statement and the cost of doing business. There is no question about it you have no understanding of how anything like this will benefit the American people. If it is so great let the private sector do it and that is something you can invest in, why should the taxpayers with a 21 trillion dollar debt fund programs like these? where does the money come from to fund these kind of programs?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
Fletch said:
Boy, you central planners just hate to have your despotic dreams challenged. Sorry, but this nation was built upon the concept of human liberty. That you are so contemptuous of it only demonstrates how it is you who is out of place here. There are plenty of place on this globe where you can impose your will on others. Here, you are going to run into that pesky notion that people are actually free
Click to expand...
Your idea of history is at odds with actual history.

The government built canals 150 years ago to spur growth. Why didn't the private market build them? Because it was for the collective good and no builder would make money from it.
The government built the interstate highway system. Same reason as above.

Fortunately, when those were built there weren't as many free-market zealots around. Back then, they were dismissed as kooks. Now, they have online accounts.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It also would’ve been built anyway. Plenty of highways were built before the interstates. We’d just have a Turnpike network instead of a free highway. And in any event you make the mistake of saying that the government “investment” was the best course of action. There were many towns and business destroyed by the highway system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You cannot prove whether or not it would've been built anyway. That is a mere assumption. But the fact is the government did built the interstate highway system, and our economy heavily relies upon that system.
 
Conservative said:
If this is such a viable program let the private sector do it, why should it be taxpayer funded? The current 21 trillion dollar debt shows exactly how successful the gov't is at doing anything but keep throwing money at projected solutions to perceived problems all by people have never run anything successfully. AOC is a nutcase with zero management or executive experience totally clueless about economics and finance almost like she is from California

Seems to me a better use of money in your state would be to clean up your social problems

california homeless pictures - Google Search
Click to expand...
Another deflection. One more chance: please point to a specific provision of the Green New Deal you take issue with.
 
MTAtech said:
Your idea of history is at odds with actual history.

The government built canals 150 years ago to spur growth. Why didn't the private market build them? Because it was for the collective good and no builder would make money from it.
The government built the interstate highway system. Same reason as above.

Fortunately, when those were built there weren't as many free-market zealots around. Back then, they were dismissed as kooks. Now, they have online accounts.
Click to expand...

There is a BIG difference between government aiding industry and government controlling and dictating to it. The government providing grants to aid the production of clean energy alternatives is altogether different from demanding an end to all fossil fuels in ten years. But liberals love being told what to do and how to live. I dont know why, but you do.

And your history is crap as well. There were far more 'free market zealots' around 70 years ago.
 
Born Free said:
We are independent of foreign oil.
Click to expand...
FACT ALERT: The United States actually imports more oil than we export. 33% of which comes from OPEC, by the way. So we are actually quite dependent on foreign oil. You are completely and absolutely wrong.
 
Fletch said:
There is a BIG difference between government aiding industry and government controlling and dictating to it. The government providing grants to aid the production of clean energy alternatives is altogether different from demanding an end to all fossil fuels in ten years. But liberals love being told what to do and how to live. I dont know why, but you do.
Click to expand...

What happens when the government tries to play nice is that whoever stands to lose out just buys enough votes, interference, and/or misinformation to get their way and impede progress.

When auto companies worked to sink public transportation, was that your idea of "freedom"? When companies choose to increase their profit margins by polluting instead of being responsible, is that your idea of "freedom"?

You don't have freedom. You just have a different boss, one you didn't even elect, and you don't even realize it.

Take your libertarian talking points elsewhere. They are not relevant to this thread.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
What happens when the government tries to play nice is that whoever stands to lose out just buys enough votes, interference, and/or misinformation to get their way and impede progress.

When auto companies worked to sink public transportation, was that your idea of "freedom"? When companies choose to increase their profit margins by polluting instead of being responsible, is that your idea of "freedom"?

You don't have freedom. You just have a different boss, one you didn't even elect, and you don't even realize it.

Take your libertarian talking points elsewhere. They are not relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...

They are relevant and I will post wherever I like. Control those totalitarian impulses of yours a bit.
 
Reverse the massive tax cuts on the rich (and make them pay it for a change), reduce unnecessary military spending - especially lengthy foreign occupations; cut other forms of waste, stimulate the economy by raising minimum wage and getting more tax revenue, stop subsidizing dead industries and transfer those resources to up-and-comers instead. Look it's still going to be expensive, but so is running the country as it is. It's simply a matter of changing priorities.
 
Lakryte said:
FACT ALERT: The United States actually imports more oil than we export. 33% of which comes from OPEC, by the way. So we are actually quite dependent on foreign oil. You are completely and absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

Why don't you libs bone up before you speak.

We are the largest producer of Oil and Natural Gas in the world, YES that is a fact. Thus if we wanted we don't have to buy oil or natural gas from foreign countries but there are many reasons that we would buy oil from foreign countries. One would be to keep our inventories up, if the price range is fairly equal then buy from them to keep our oil in the ground. And by shipping some to other countries could be we're getting a better price that would warrant selling some of our oil.

United States remains the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

No problem, glad we came to an understanding you don't have a fricken clue how to pay for these liberal utopian programs that sound great but aren't feasible. typical liberal spending someone else's money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom