AFL-CIO comes out against the Green New Deal

[Chris-]

Few weeks old, but I didn't recall seeing it posted.

 

Good luck on your continued quest to re-write the Democratic Party, lefties. 

[Jason]

[SilentWorld]

I’m pretty sure they’re pretty much a wing of the Republican Party at this point. 

[Chris-]

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

[PaladinSolo]

Their members aren't really democratic voters anymore, and union membership is sinking.

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

Their members aren't really democratic voters anymore.

 

Right, but it is still problematic given that organized labor is an important cause for the Democratic Party (especially the left). My point isn't that the party should be overly concerned about what the AFL-CIO thinks, it's that this type of friction is inherent to the party, which turns the smug attitude about liberal ineffectiveness into rich schadenfreude. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Quote

The Green New Deal resolution, as proposed by Markey and Ocasio-Cortez, calls for the federal government to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions with a “fair and just transition” for all communities and workers, including by creating millions of high-wage jobs, health care and housing for all, a sustainable environment and enormous infrastructure investments.

The proposal would make sweeping changes and expand the government’s reach into the economy, and it almost certainly would require tax increases or large-scale deficit spending.

But also!

Quote

In their letter to Markey and Ocasio-Cortez, Roberts and Stephenson called the Green New Deal “not achievable or realistic.” They urged the lawmakers to include labor in conversations related to climate change, but they said such work shouldn’t impinge on other priorities such as infrastructure.

Some dumb mother fuckers here. But it sounds more like a messaging issue that this needs to be communicated and actually sell the gnd to people other than presidential hopefuls

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Make no mistake though. This will, by design, eliminate good paying blue collar jobs from the oil supermajors and their contractors/subsidiaries, fracking companies, and miners, and fossil fuel power plant operators. some are good Union jobs. So there needs to be a place for these people to land, just like coal miners and mining towns in Appalachia.

[mclumber1]

The Green New Deal was dead in the water regardless.  Come support the carbon dividend with me and rule the world!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Carbon tax without a massive infrastructure spend is an insane unfunded mandate from the feds to every single state and local government in the country, who mostly can't deficit spend for infrastructure. 

[mclumber1]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Carbon tax without a massive infrastructure spend is an insane unfunded mandate from the feds to every single state and local government in the country, who mostly can't deficit spend for infrastructure. 

 

The government (federal, state, and local) don't receive any of the tax proceeds from the carbon dividend - the entire sum, minus administrative costs, is given back to all citizens and legal residents.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

15 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The government (federal, state, and local) don't receive any of the tax proceeds from the carbon dividend - the entire sum, minus administrative costs, is given back to all citizens and legal residents.

(Not that the gnd precludes a carbon tax) Those dividends are used to defray the increased cost of fossil fuels, or use that money to help invest in ways to eliminate carbon use. Local Governments will still get a higher bill(and may have debt obligations because they're the natural gas monopoly for example) but no way to defray the cost to their own buildings and vehicles, and they largely don't have the ability to invest in things to help reduce these costs OR help their citizens (increased&cleaner mass transit, bike lanes/trails, sidewalks, getting something other than natural gas for winter heating, increased urban tree cover, etc) make changes to reduce emissions without reducing or eliminating their already existing commitments to their communities. And city budgets are severely constrained depending on the state so there's not a lot of wiggle room for localities to act. This isn't even considering the costs for adaptation to the climate change that is *already baked in* let alone adaptation for future warming if emissions aren't curbed soon, and quickly.

 

Add in a healthy dose of "consequences be damned, we need this to fail" mantra of the Republican party, local government will need direct help from the feds for money to help with these things, and bypass the largely Republican state governments.

[osxmatt]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, osxmatt said:

 

English motherfucker

 

Also who are the Dems who voted against it. They gotta go. I'm assuming manchin but who else? Jones? Sienima(AZ)?

[mclumber1]

12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

English motherfucker

 

Also who are the Dems who voted against it. They gotta go. I'm assuming manchin but who else? Jones? Sienima(AZ)?

 

You should only vote for realistic bills.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

You should only vote for realistic bills.

That is beside the point here because, again, the green new deal does not preclude a carbon tax with dividend. The Dems who voted against this will NEVER vote for carbon reducing legislation