RealGM

Ok, for transparency, here are some policies I hate of politicians I love:

AOC:
WTH does a job guarantee have to do with climate change, wtf
(most everything else in the GND I actually like. I don't care how much everything costs, the GOP has already pooped themselves on that issue, we are now in emergency crisis management mode. The opportunity to impose only moderately expensive responses to climate change is past. I'm very intrigued by the idea of environmental justice - it's true that climate change impacts will primarily hit the poor

Warren:
There was a Warren policy I hated the other day, which was actually why I was going to write this post, but I can't remember it now. Feel free to jog my memory. I nevertheless love that Warren puts all her ideas out there, even the awful ones.

Zonkerbl wrote:Ok, for transparency, here are some policies I hate of politicians I love:

AOC:
WTH does a job guarantee have to do with climate change, wtf
(most everything else in the GND I actually like. I don't care how much everything costs, the GOP has already pooped themselves on that issue, we are now in emergency crisis management mode. The opportunity to impose only moderately expensive responses to climate change is past. I'm very intrigued by the idea of environmental justice - it's true that climate change impacts will primarily hit the poor

Warren:
There was a Warren policy I hated the other day, which was actually why I was going to write this post, but I can't remember it now. Feel free to jog my memory. I nevertheless love that Warren puts all her ideas out there, even the awful ones.

She's got another PLAN!

Honorable mention:
I hate *hate* HATE rent control as a response to lack of affordable housing. Almost as stupid as arming teachers to address gun violence. Rent control *restricts* supply of affordable housing and benefits wealthy incumbent homeowners. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I bet a Republican came up with it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rent/california-approves-statewide-rent-control-to-deal-with-housing-crunch-idUSKCN1VX00H

Forbidding politicians from lobbying in areas they've spent a career accumulating expertise in will just ensure that politicians can't push back against bad faith arguments from lobbyists, because you're being penalized for accumulating knowledge as a politician. Terrible idea. Conflict of interest rules for Presidential Appointees need to be tightened up however. Current practice of letting lobbyists run agencies charged with regulating them is FLAGRANTLY ILLEGAL, don't know why they're getting away with it.

Zonkerbl wrote:Forbidding politicians from lobbying in areas they've spent a career accumulating expertise in will just ensure that politicians can't push back against bad faith arguments from lobbyists, because you're being penalized for accumulating knowledge as a politician.

This seems like a stretch to me. If financial incentives are what drive the accrual of knowledge then we should pay public servants more instead of encouraging them to become lobbyists after they retire.

And how many former politicians are now using their "expertise" to improve society in a discernible way? John Boehner is now like the lead CBD lobbyist - what did that have to do with his career?

Politicians giving speeches to banks at $100k a pop is not actually about the speech or their "expertise" or the words coming out of their mouthes btw...it's how they're being repaid for whatever corrupt favors they did while in office. This should be obvious.

But for everyday peons like me, why should I be punished for accumulating expertise in modeling the international competitiveness impacts of EPA regulations by forbidding me from working for a non-government anti-regulation lobbying group? Granted I'm a civil servant and not a politician but the rules still apply to me. Also the way you get paid more as a government worker is you go to the private sector and establish a history of getting paid a certain salary, which the HR office can than use to justify offering you a higher salary if/when you go back into the govt. Rules that put obstacles in the way of working in the private sector in your field of expertise serves to depress government wages.

Trump thinks he's doing the private sector a favor by rolling back all environmental regulations ever, but of course the first thing Warren is going to do on January 20th is reinstate all those rules, so what he's really doing is injecting a lot of uncertainty and risk about regulations into businesses' future planning process.

Anyone who has read the entirety of the text of the GND (both original and modified) know it is a piece of junk.

The document and bill starts with premises that aren't founded in logic or facts. That we could meet the timeframes propsed or that climate change isn't going to happen if implemented are false premises. If you then build on those untruths - well, the document takes you on the fairly tale that won't actually get us where we need to be on climate change.

Add to that it doesn't have a meaningful plan with respects to mitigation (resiliency) or CCUS funding. Then tie that back into Bernie's bill and you have the makings of an epic disaster.

One more thing - it is a wedge driver - those that hate trump might also not vote for a candidate that supports this very stupid idea.

There are some good ideas floating out there from Yang, Buttigieg and Beto. And slightly lesser ones from Warren via Inslee.

Anything is possible with time/money, as my DOC contractor used to say. I think anyone who reads the GND and doesn't get anything useful from it is going in with very severe, blinding prejudices.

Here's a question for you: In climate change mitigation negotiations, how do we convince negotiation partners to commit to emissions reductions if we're not willing to commit to significant reductions ourselves? To blow off the GND because it doesn't unilaterally solve climate change is criminally negligent and ignorant of the game theory of international negotiations.

Fool's question: In climate change mitigation negotiations, how do we convince negotiation partners to commit to emissions reductions if we're not willing to commit to significant reductions ourselves.

A: We can't and shouldn't expect meaningful outcomes to those reductions. Please look at where those that signed onto the Paris accords are at...

We should commit to and do significant reductions and have our plan in place. But we shouldn't expect (rationally) that any other country is going to follow our lead - we don't have the moral authority to do so anymore. In short - there aren't negotiations. And having watched what happened in France (yellow-vests) and Brazil - it is irrational to start with this premise.

Furthermore - to read the GND and not drift into the realm of fiction means that the reader isn't reading critically. The timeframes proposed and the assumption that other countries will do the same are false premises which begin both the bill and documents.

A logical approach would be around CO2 reduction, Mitigation (resilience) and CCUS building in a bit of game theory to allocate funding. Probably mitigation should be the number #1 allocation with CCUS #2 and CO2 reductions number #3. But looking at the allocations of Bernie's expansion of the bill - it is none of the 3.

Sorry, the GND sucks rotten lemons. You might be able to make rotten lemonade out of it - but that is the best I can give it.

BTW, we will get nowhere on climate change until Trump is gone. He doesn't believe climate change is happening. What is interesting is that 2/3's of moderate republicans now believe that climate change is happening. That the don't believe that it is anthropomorphic is besides the fact - they will at least get on board with mitigation (resilience).

But we also need to keep the other denialists in check - those that believe 2.5 could be stopped. It can't. And we need to develop a plan in accordance to this fact.

I like that Warren is proposing raising the cap on taxable earnings subject to the SS tax.
For one thing, it's the most broadly popular proposal for addressing the long term shortfall.

His minions won't be swayed by this but yet another SMH story from the most ethical one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/09/09/president-trump-accidentally-tweeted-an-insult-pastor-heres-how-pastor-responded/?fbclid=IwAR3EHdaBaZjkDJPXzvEDqjnN6bz0OovfXHu6yHzdT5R0d0jqAxMEew41OPc

I feel pretty discouraged on the whole. The GOP, an ever diminishing minority, has done an
effective job in gaming the system to insure continued minority rule. See NC.
These people are only about power and nothing else.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article234962017.html

ROFL I thought the Mueller report was supposed to be the facts and basis for Trump impeachment. Now she's talking about not having the facts?

LOL the resistance is pathetic.

dckingsfan wrote:Fool's question: In climate change mitigation negotiations, how do we convince negotiation partners to commit to emissions reductions if we're not willing to commit to significant reductions ourselves.

A: We can't and shouldn't expect meaningful outcomes to those reductions. Please look at where those that signed onto the Paris accords are at...

We should commit to and do significant reductions and have our plan in place. But we shouldn't expect (rationally) that any other country is going to follow our lead - we don't have the moral authority to do so anymore. In short - there aren't negotiations. And having watched what happened in France (yellow-vests) and Brazil - it is irrational to start with this premise.

Furthermore - to read the GND and not drift into the realm of fiction means that the reader isn't reading critically. The timeframes proposed and the assumption that other countries will do the same are false premises which begin both the bill and documents.

A logical approach would be around CO2 reduction, Mitigation (resilience) and CCUS building in a bit of game theory to allocate funding. Probably mitigation should be the number #1 allocation with CCUS #2 and CO2 reductions number #3. But looking at the allocations of Bernie's expansion of the bill - it is none of the 3.

Sorry, the GND sucks rotten lemons. You might be able to make rotten lemonade out of it - but that is the best I can give it.

We are the only country that was expected to make significant emissions reductions because the GOP refused to participate seriously in the negotiations, so the countries that *did* participate volunteered us for the only binding reductions, which we then didn't sign up for, thus making the whole exercise moot. I wouldn't look to the Paris accord as any kind of serious climate change negotiation *outcome.* It's what happens when the major participants aren't taking it seriously.

Kind of what the GOP did with the tax giveaway to the rich. They had no negotiating partner so the outcome was the absurd opening bid that you normally never even hear about.

dckingsfan wrote:Fool's question: In climate change mitigation negotiations, how do we convince negotiation partners to commit to emissions reductions if we're not willing to commit to significant reductions ourselves.

A: We can't and shouldn't expect meaningful outcomes to those reductions. Please look at where those that signed onto the Paris accords are at...

We should commit to and do significant reductions and have our plan in place. But we shouldn't expect (rationally) that any other country is going to follow our lead - we don't have the moral authority to do so anymore. In short - there aren't negotiations. And having watched what happened in France (yellow-vests) and Brazil - it is irrational to start with this premise.

Furthermore - to read the GND and not drift into the realm of fiction means that the reader isn't reading critically. The timeframes proposed and the assumption that other countries will do the same are false premises which begin both the bill and documents.

A logical approach would be around CO2 reduction, Mitigation (resilience) and CCUS building in a bit of game theory to allocate funding. Probably mitigation should be the number #1 allocation with CCUS #2 and CO2 reductions number #3. But looking at the allocations of Bernie's expansion of the bill - it is none of the 3.

Sorry, the GND sucks rotten lemons. You might be able to make rotten lemonade out of it - but that is the best I can give it.

It's hard to take you seriously when you intentionally misinterpret the document. The timeframes proposed aren't *premises.* They are emissions reductions scientists believe is necessary to pull us back from the brink of extinction, if we can get everyone else to make similar commitments. If *we* don't commit to our share of those reductions, we can't *possibly* expect our negotiating partners to take us seriously. The less we commit to, the closer to extinction we end up at. Why would the GND propose anything less than what the scientists propose we aim for?

Sorry, your analysis sucks lemons.

Zonkerbl wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:Fool's question: In climate change mitigation negotiations, how do we convince negotiation partners to commit to emissions reductions if we're not willing to commit to significant reductions ourselves.

A: We can't and shouldn't expect meaningful outcomes to those reductions. Please look at where those that signed onto the Paris accords are at...

We should commit to and do significant reductions and have our plan in place. But we shouldn't expect (rationally) that any other country is going to follow our lead - we don't have the moral authority to do so anymore. In short - there aren't negotiations. And having watched what happened in France (yellow-vests) and Brazil - it is irrational to start with this premise.

Furthermore - to read the GND and not drift into the realm of fiction means that the reader isn't reading critically. The timeframes proposed and the assumption that other countries will do the same are false premises which begin both the bill and documents.

A logical approach would be around CO2 reduction, Mitigation (resilience) and CCUS building in a bit of game theory to allocate funding. Probably mitigation should be the number #1 allocation with CCUS #2 and CO2 reductions number #3. But looking at the allocations of Bernie's expansion of the bill - it is none of the 3.

Sorry, the GND sucks rotten lemons. You might be able to make rotten lemonade out of it - but that is the best I can give it.

The timeframes proposed aren't *premises.* They are emissions reductions scientists believe is necessary to pull us back from the brink of extinction, if we can get everyone else to make similar commitments. If *we* don't commit to our share of those reductions, we can't *possibly* expect our negotiating partners to take us seriously. The less we commit to, the closer to extinction we end up at. Why would the GND propose anything less than what the scientists propose we aim for?

Sorry, your analysis sucks lemons.

So, if you make a proposal that isn't possible that's okay as long as a scientist said that's what the outcome needs to be?

Please reread the document and tell me how we meet those timeframes? Logic problem #1 (of many) with the document.

If we know we can't meet the period (you can't stop other countries from producing CO2 - well, you could but then you would have also sorts of other problems (see Trump)) - then you need to take that into account. Problem #2 (of many) with the document.

The document is a moldy old avocado mixed up with rotten lemonade. Yeah, they tossed lots of sugar in the premise still stands on faulty premises.

Zonkerbl wrote:Ok, for transparency, here are some policies I hate of politicians I love:

Warren:
There was a Warren policy I hated the other day, which was actually why I was going to write this post, but I can't remember it now. Feel free to jog my memory. I nevertheless love that Warren puts all her ideas out there, even the awful ones.

That is why we have 3 branches of government. A bad idea by a president, won't get based by Congress. Although with Moscow Mitch as Senate Majority leader only the worst pro-rich legislation will pass.

Zonkerbl wrote:Ok, for transparency, here are some policies I hate of politicians I love:

AOC:
WTH does a job guarantee have to do with climate change, wtf
(most everything else in the GND I actually like. I don't care how much everything costs, the GOP has already pooped themselves on that issue, we are now in emergency crisis management mode. The opportunity to impose only moderately expensive responses to climate change is past. I'm very intrigued by the idea of environmental justice - it's true that climate change impacts will primarily hit the poor

Warren:
There was a Warren policy I hated the other day, which was actually why I was going to write this post, but I can't remember it now. Feel free to jog my memory. I nevertheless love that Warren puts all her ideas out there, even the awful ones.

The job guarantee is actually smart piece of policy to get the GND through. You’ll have to convince oil workers, coal workers and a number of people who will be put out of work with the transition to the green economy. So guaranteeing that people who are displaced will have a job in either the green energy industry or receive some type of skill building job. The GND doesn’t insult the intelligence of the people who will benefit or are affected. I think the jobs guarantee is one of the least problematic areas of the GND.

Thoughts on the debate?

was hanging out with running buddies at one of their houses last night.
The host was channel surfing between various games and the debate.
The other guy is a rightie. Seems to me he has a serious problem with
denial trying to claim Trump's not a racist. There is a big heaping pile
of rationalizations that one needs to believe that. He also tried to
claim that Trump's immigration policy was in favor of reform beyond
getting more Norwegians (code for white people) to come to the this country.
I guess people know that racism is a bad ugly thing and have to
do these these rationalizations in order to maintain self respect.
This is where tribalism has brought us.