(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

The bolded is exactly what Trump is doing, so we are in agreement there.

But your Hoover
Dam analogy falls short. Try building 1,000 Hoover Dams while completely changing over every power plant in America from coal or natural gas to solar/wind while bringing every building in america up to a new stricter code while while bringing up all our infrastructure while converting the population to travel by light rail while cutting emissions from agriculture while (and so on). Then set a 10 year goal to complete it. We could throw the whole GNP at it and it would not be enough to do all those things simultaneously in that time frame...a minor detail to her.

Converting power plants from coal/NG to solar/wind - a good goal and maybe doable in 25-40 years with new technology. To do it in ten while powering the building of rail lines, converting buildings, etc....pipe dream.

Doing one good thing is good. Trying to do 10 good things at once, all of which have a cost to them...chaos.

Gotta go now. have a good day.

Power companies are currently scrapping future coal plants because the cost of clean energy generating systems are becoming cheaper to construct and operate. So I don’t think a time frame shorter than 20-45 years is undoable.

Again, it’s an outline - if your biggest criticism is there are too many goals, I don’t think that’s so awful.