Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel

by Maddog Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:00 pm

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) today introduced a House resolution outlining her long-awaited Green New Deal. The resolution, as Reason's Ron Bailey reported earlier today, cites climate change concerns as justification for a plan that would remake the U.S. economy over the next 10 years.

The resolution's aims include "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and 19 greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible." According to an overview of the resolution, this will be accomplished, in part, by "build[ing] out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."

In other words, the Green New Deal wants to make commercial air travel obsolete. Is this in any way feasible? The short answer is no. "It's actually probably even dumber than it seems," says Baruch Feigenbaum, assistant director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.

Paul Blair, director of strategic initiatives at Americans for Tax Reform, was even blunter. "The Green New Deal reads like word vomit from a 13-year-old child asked to scribble out their bold new thoughts for a radically different America than we have today," Blair said in a email to Reason. "This includes the phasing out of American air travel."

In fact, there are more than 5,000 public airports in the U.S. It's hard to imagine the planning and money that would go into connecting even half of them with high-speed rail lines, or serving the hundreds of millions of people who fly in the U.S. each year. "To suggest that it's even remotely possible to transition our transportation system in this way, to handle not only the capacity of air travel but get near its efficiency is a pipe dream," says Blair.

Considering that California officials have proven themselves incompetent when it comes to constructing a high-speed line through that state, a similar project on a much larger scale would probably be disastrous. The California rail is "a waste of money" that's "ruining farms and highways, and will never work," Blair explains.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal

This poor girl is so hurt, that Pelosi laughed her off today.

by 'Wolfie Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:20 pm

What the fuck's a "Democrat socialist" ???

The American Democrats are a centre-right 'free market'-oriented political party..

The faux-journo' who wrote that story is obviously a clueless right-wing fuckwit, not knowing what a "socialist" is to begin with, but simply using the term as another right-wing bogeyman scare word.

by Original Quill Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:20 am

Wolfie wrote:What the fuck's a "Democrat socialist" ???

You are quoting from a RW knuckledragger trying to find a name for someone on the other side of the middle line.

For years knuckledraggers have been trying to malign socialists, borrowing on the Cold War. Anything that was socialist was...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel 1363015401

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel 1363015401

Now that the Cold War is over, we see how weak the Cold War Zeitgiest was. A few stragglers still ring the bell. Most of us are like... Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:37 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

What the fuck's a "Democrat socialist" ???

The American Democrats are a centre-right 'free market'-oriented political party..

The faux-journo' who wrote that story is obviously a clueless right-wing fuckwit, not knowing what a "socialist" is to begin with, but simply using the term as another right-wing bogeyman scare word.

AOC calls herself a democratic socialist. Same as Bernie Sanders.

Maybe you should Google their platform, not that it's really relevant, but so you understand.

And simmer down.

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:41 am

The Bronx native was sworn into Congress in January and has become a bit of an obsession for conservatives.
She's a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and is a self-described socialist.

https://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6

For Wolfie. Smile

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:11 am

http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-ocasio-cortez-tlaib-Democratic-Socialists-state-level.html

And one for Quill.

So, about this banning air travel in the next 10 years. Its going to be a long boat ride for Brits to take their kids to Disney World. Wink

by Ben Reilly Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:11 am

She's obviously not talking about eliminating all air travel, but eliminating inter- and intra-state air travel.

You can't have an honest discussion of someone's proposal unless you're honest about what it is.

by 'Wolfie Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:10 pm

A smarter proposition on her part might have been to suggest that more attention be paid to improving rail travel -- including interstate amd cross-continental/transnational "Very Fast Train" services -- over the next decade or two...

Otherwise, if pressure isn't taken off the ever-increasing expansion of air travel over the next few years -- there will be so many domestic air flights by the end of the century, along with the accompanying pollution, that Norf Amerika will be well-and-truly "stuffed" before then..

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:19 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:She's obviously not talking about eliminating all air travel, but eliminating inter- and intra-state air travel.

You can't have an honest discussion of someone's proposal unless you're honest about what it is.

I can be honest. How many millions of acres of land would need to be confiscated to link all of the cities in the US that are served by airports? Its idiotic to move people on land, when you can fly them over that land.

Her proposal is written like something a teenager would say. Never a mention how anything is paid for or the impact on the economy when you start paying for it.

Even Pelosi has already dismissed her and her silly idea.

Let's not forget the part that says people who dont want to work won't have to either. I'm guessing they will be free to ride on high speed trains all day though.

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:22 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

A smarter proposition on her part might have been to suggest that more attention be paid to improving rail travel -- including interstate amd cross-continental/transnational "Very Fast Train" services -- over the next decade or two...

Otherwise, if pressure isn't taken off the ever-increasing expansion of air travel over the next few years -- there will be so many domestic air flights by the end of the century, along with the accompanying pollution, that Norf Amerika will be well-and-truly "stuffed" before then..

We move 2.6 million people a day in the air.

Trains will never be able to take up that slack.

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:43 pm

An overview circulated by proponents states the plan seeks a "massive transformation of our society" that could rid the country of fossil fuels and "create millions of family supporting-wage [sic] union jobs."
But for those not interested in working, there's something in the plan as well.

The overview notes that [url=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/aoc-just-updated-her-massive-green-new-deal--heres-whats-in-it.html?&qsearchterm=green new deal]the Green New Deal[/url] aims to provide "economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:45 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

A smarter proposition on her part might have been to suggest that more attention be paid to improving rail travel -- including interstate amd cross-continental/transnational "Very Fast Train" services -- over the next decade or two...

Otherwise, if pressure isn't taken off the ever-increasing expansion of air travel over the next few years -- there will be so many domestic air flights by the end of the century, along with the accompanying pollution, that Norf Amerika will be well-and-truly "stuffed" before then..

I'm guessing you figured out what a democratic socialist is.

by Original Quill Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:00 pm

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

A smarter proposition on her part might have been to suggest that more attention be paid to improving rail travel -- including interstate amd cross-continental/transnational "Very Fast Train" services -- over the next decade or two...

Otherwise, if pressure isn't taken off the ever-increasing expansion of air travel over the next few years -- there will be so many domestic air flights by the end of the century, along with the accompanying pollution, that Norf Amerika will be well-and-truly "stuffed" before then..

We move 2.6 million people a day in the air.

Trains will never be able to take up that slack.

Why? Commuter trains move some 1,000-1,200 people per train. If you improve the system and increase the speed, you could be commuting New York to Miami, San Francisco to San Diego, same as Westport to Manhattan now.

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

We move 2.6 million people a day in the air.

Trains will never be able to take up that slack.

Why? Commuter trains move some 1,000-1,200 people per train. If you improve the system and increase the speed, you could be commuting New York to Miami, San Francisco to San Diego, same as Westport to Manhattan now.

It would require the use of too much land. Trains and airports require stations on each end. Trains also require a strip of land between those two stations. Land already owned by someone who may not want a train running through their property.

Who pays for the millions of miles of new land and tracks? We dont have a single passenger train that makes money now.

by Maddog Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:16 pm

by 'Wolfie Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:35 am

Maddog wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:She's obviously not talking about eliminating all air travel, but eliminating inter- and intra-state air travel.

You can't have an honest discussion of someone's proposal unless you're honest about what it is.

I can be honest. How many millions of acres of land would need to be confiscated to link all of the cities in the US that are served by airports? Its idiotic to move people on land, when you can fly them over that land.

Her proposal is written like something a teenager would say. Never a mention how anything is paid for or the impact on the economy when you start paying for it.

Even Pelosi has already dismissed her and her silly idea.

Let's not forget the part that says people who dont want to work won't have to either. I'm guessing they will be free to ride on high speed trains all day though.

When people who "know their stuff" talk about 'Very Fast Train' services being introduced over long distances in biggish countries like the USA, Canada, Russia, Australia and Brazil, the original proposal usually has a single long "transport corridor" with only a handful of stops being at stations located just outside of major centres (e.g. the USA could have a couple : one across the top following that RAAM race route, and maybe Seattle -- LA -- Dallas(?) -- ? -- ? -- Baltimore ; here in Oz it might go Melbourne -- Canberra/Goulburn -- Sydney -- Maitland/Newcastle -- Northern Rivers/Gold Coast -- Brisbane..) -- and then feeding the passengers from there onto local rail and bus routes (like major domestic airports already do..).

IF the VFT stations/interchanges are located just outside of "big enough" cities, many times they can run alongside existing highways, rail corrodors, national parks and state-owned forests -- minimising the amount of private land acquisitions.

Unfortunately, once the original proposals are announced, the ideas are usually hijacked from both sides -- the carpetbaggers, land developers, industrialists and profiteers on the one hand who only look to the potential $$$$$ they can grab in the short term -- and the dreamers, watermelons, Young Turks and self-declared "futurists" who start exaggerating both the possibilities and critical needs, without thinking about 'practicalities'..

AND, projects like this do need to be addressed at a national level -- like when the railways and telegraph systems were originally introduced into the USA-- and not left to individual states on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis...

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:58 am

The land acquisition is not a big problem. Chicago and Berlin do quite well with elevated rail, and New York and London do equally well with underground.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:42 am

Original Quill wrote:The land acquisition is not a big problem. Chicago and Berlin do quite well with elevated rail, and New York and London do equally well with underground.

Were not talking about commuter rail. We are talking about riding from San Diego to Des Moines. Seattle to Atlanta.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:45 am

And airlines make a profit. High speed rail needs subsidies. California's high speed rail is a good example of what a disaster this would be. And per as usual, no one knows where they money will come from.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:46 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The land acquisition is not a big problem. Chicago and Berlin do quite well with elevated rail, and New York and London do equally well with underground.
Were not talking about commuter rail. We are talking about riding from San Diego to Des Moines. Seattle to Atlanta.

Yeah, like a commuter railway, only longer. Think like a liberal problem-solver. Anything is possible.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Were not talking about commuter rail. We are talking about riding from San Diego to Des Moines. Seattle to Atlanta.

Yeah, like a commuter railway, only longer. Think like a liberal problem-solver. Anything is possible.

OK.

I'll confiscate and borrow money.

That was easy.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Were not talking about commuter rail. We are talking about riding from San Diego to Des Moines. Seattle to Atlanta.

Yeah, like a commuter railway, only longer. Think like a liberal problem-solver. Anything is possible.

BTW, how is that high speed train going in California?

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:52 pm

Maddog wrote:And airlines make a profit. High speed rail needs subsidies. California's high speed rail is a good example of what a disaster this would be. And per as usual, no one knows where they money will come from.

Not to worry...the Defense budget is always available.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Aims to Eliminate Air Travel 27434658_s

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:55 pm

In 2008, California voters approved a bond for a high-speed rail line connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles with the fast-growing cities in the state’s Central Valley. With trains running at 220 miles per hour on dedicated tracks, California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) would be the first true high-speed rail line in the U.S. The project’s backers, including Governor Jerry Brown, promised that CAHSR would cost just $33 billion and be finished by 2022, including extensions to Sacramento and San Diego. It would whisk passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes—fast enough, if European experience is a guide, to convince most air travelers on that route to take the train instead.

Ten years later, supporters have ample cause to reconsider. CAHSR’s costs have severely escalated: the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) now estimates that the train’s core segment alone, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, will cost from $77 billion to $98 billion. Promises that private investors would cover most of the costs have fallen through. Forecasts for the project’s completion date and travel times have also slipped. The fastest trains in the CHSRA’s current business plan have a running time of over three hours, and the first segment of the line—San Jose to Bakersfield, almost 200 miles short of completion—won’t open until 2029.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:58 pm

A 100 billion for one line in one state.

Multiply that by 100 to even begin to cover the country.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:37 pm

Maddog wrote:A 100 billion for one line in one state.

Multiply that by 100 to even begin to cover the country.

But the second most traveled commute in the nation (New York to Miami is the first). I get less excited about Des Moines to St. Louis.

The word is that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is employing Elon Musk's boring machine & company, to speed up the process as well as lower costs. The leg along the San Jaoquin Valley is mostly farmland, and that part is easy. It's when they get into the Los Angeles basin and the Bay Area that real estate is expensive and things get dicey.

The use of Musk's faculties will improve timing and cost.

Wired wrote:Elon Musk's Boring Company has completed the first 'segment' of a tunnel in LA

It all started with a tweet. Elon Musk proclaimed at the start of the year that his new venture, a tunnel boring machine, would start digging "in a month or so" – and he's already made good on his word.

In fact, Godot, which is Musk's name for the giant tunneller, has started digging in Los Angeles. In a tweet, the entrepreneur said the "first segment" of a tunnel has been completed in the state.

So far, he hasn't revealed details of how long the tunnel is, where exactly it's located, or how deep the machine has dug. But the first stage of digging in LA does follow "promising conversations" with the local Mayor Eric Garcetti. Garcetti has suggested that tunnel digging tech improvements, including those being created by the Boring company, could make it possible to create an express line to LAX airport from LA’s Union Station central ground transit hub. These express links would fall in line with Musk's vision for the project.

Musk followed the announcement with a series of tweets professing his love for tunnels.

The digging in LA follows a report from the start of the year saying excavators working for the entrepreneur have dug a "test trench" measuring 30ft wide, 50ft long, and 15ft deep at SpaceX's headquarters.

In April, images from an employee's Instagram account revealed the Boring Company took a significant step towards tunnel building – buying a machine. The instagram picture, spotted by Business Insider, revealed a large tunnel digger with the company logo and caption: "Just another boring day at work."

While the post and accompanying pun have since been taken down, the slip-up gave an unofficial insight into the level of preparedness of Musk's company to build his tunnels. While there has been no official comment regarding the Instagram post, as yet, such a behemoth digger is clearly built for purpose – and proves the company's dedication to the project.

The idea behind Musk's tunnels is to relieve traffic on roads by creating an underground network. He told WIRED: “If you think of tunnels going 10, 20, 30 layers deep (or more), it is obvious that going 3D down will encompass the needs of any city’s transport of arbitrary size."

He said it isn't possible for everyone to be using a "2D road network" but if you want to create more space you have to go up or down – with down being his preferred option. His comparisons are akin to flat 2D platform games versus 3D worlds.

Creating networks of underground tunnels isn't easy. Cities already have complex structures underneath them; think building foundations, the London Underground, and carparks, all of which provide obstacles if you're digging down.

Musk's initial digging is taking place on private land but if the project gets to a stage where it expands, permissions will be needed from planning authorities. That seems to be a long way off, though. For now, he is focusing on what the potential impact may be: “Better tunnelling tech improves everything: road, subway, Hyperloop".

The SpaceX and Tesla CEO initially announced his plans for the boring machine and business via Twitter. The claims were met with scepticism and doubt, but the billionaire has consistently insisted he's serious.

The original series of tweets began with Musk bemoaning the traffic in LA. “Traffic is driving me nuts. Am going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging...” he said, before adding: “I am actually going to do this.”

Musk then changed his Twitter bio to include: “Tunnels (yes, tunnels)” alongside the other companies he runs.

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are used to carve out underground routes and have been used extensively as part of London’s Crossrail project. For three years, from 2012 to 2015, eight 150 metre-long TBMs (working in pairs) dug 21km of tube routes, to connect London’s East and West.

Each Crossrail TBM cost £10 million and required a team of 20 to operate the machine 24 hours a day. If Musk does move forward with this project, one thing is for certain: it is going to be expensive and need a lot of man power.

If Musk is serious about running a boring company, it would help make his Hyperloop idea a reality. Proposed as an alternative to California’s high-speed rail project, the levitating pods would travel in near-vacuum tubes at almost the speed of sound. The hyperloop could connect Los Angeles to San Francisco in 36 minutes.

As well as the technology needed to build the hyperloop, the two companies vying to create it, Hyperloop One and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, need the land space to build it. The projects have already been hit with delays, legal battles and more. WIRED recently exposed some of the behind-the-scenes drama in the race to build the transport system.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-tunnel-boring

The only regret I have is it will probably doom Amtrak's elegant Coast Starlight, which runs from Seattle to Los Angeles along the Pacific Ocean. I have taken it many times, and worked doing it. A tip to the porter will get you a seat with an electric outlet, and you can plug in your computer and enjoy views while working on the motion for summary judgement. Wink

https://wi-images.condecdn.net/image/kgGLKxb81aj/crop/810/f/boring.jpg

by Guest Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:06 pm

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:A 100 billion for one line in one state.

Multiply that by 100 to even begin to cover the country.

But the second most traveled commute in the nation (New York to Miami is the first). I get less excited about Des Moines to St. Louis.

The word is that the California High-Speed Rail Authority is employing Elon Musk's boring machine & company, to speed up the process as well as lower costs. The leg along the San Jaoquin Valley is mostly farmland, and that part is easy. It's when they get into the Los Angeles basin and the Bay Area that real estate is expensive and things get dicey.

The use of Musk's faculties will improve timing and cost.

Wired wrote:Elon Musk's Boring Company has completed the first 'segment' of a tunnel in LA

It all started with a tweet. Elon Musk proclaimed at the start of the year that his new venture, a tunnel boring machine, would start digging "in a month or so" – and he's already made good on his word.

In fact, Godot, which is Musk's name for the giant tunneller, has started digging in Los Angeles. In a tweet, the entrepreneur said the "first segment" of a tunnel has been completed in the state.

So far, he hasn't revealed details of how long the tunnel is, where exactly it's located, or how deep the machine has dug. But the first stage of digging in LA does follow "promising conversations" with the local Mayor Eric Garcetti. Garcetti has suggested that tunnel digging tech improvements, including those being created by the Boring company, could make it possible to create an express line to LAX airport from LA’s Union Station central ground transit hub. These express links would fall in line with Musk's vision for the project.

Musk followed the announcement with a series of tweets professing his love for tunnels.

The digging in LA follows a report from the start of the year saying excavators working for the entrepreneur have dug a "test trench" measuring 30ft wide, 50ft long, and 15ft deep at SpaceX's headquarters.

In April, images from an employee's Instagram account revealed the Boring Company took a significant step towards tunnel building – buying a machine. The instagram picture, spotted by Business Insider, revealed a large tunnel digger with the company logo and caption: "Just another boring day at work."

While the post and accompanying pun have since been taken down, the slip-up gave an unofficial insight into the level of preparedness of Musk's company to build his tunnels. While there has been no official comment regarding the Instagram post, as yet, such a behemoth digger is clearly built for purpose – and proves the company's dedication to the project.

The idea behind Musk's tunnels is to relieve traffic on roads by creating an underground network. He told WIRED: “If you think of tunnels going 10, 20, 30 layers deep (or more), it is obvious that going 3D down will encompass the needs of any city’s transport of arbitrary size."

He said it isn't possible for everyone to be using a "2D road network" but if you want to create more space you have to go up or down – with down being his preferred option. His comparisons are akin to flat 2D platform games versus 3D worlds.

Creating networks of underground tunnels isn't easy. Cities already have complex structures underneath them; think building foundations, the London Underground, and carparks, all of which provide obstacles if you're digging down.

Musk's initial digging is taking place on private land but if the project gets to a stage where it expands, permissions will be needed from planning authorities. That seems to be a long way off, though. For now, he is focusing on what the potential impact may be: “Better tunnelling tech improves everything: road, subway, Hyperloop".

The SpaceX and Tesla CEO initially announced his plans for the boring machine and business via Twitter. The claims were met with scepticism and doubt, but the billionaire has consistently insisted he's serious.

The original series of tweets began with Musk bemoaning the traffic in LA. “Traffic is driving me nuts. Am going to build a tunnel boring machine and just start digging...” he said, before adding: “I am actually going to do this.”

Musk then changed his Twitter bio to include: “Tunnels (yes, tunnels)” alongside the other companies he runs.

Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) are used to carve out underground routes and have been used extensively as part of London’s Crossrail project. For three years, from 2012 to 2015, eight 150 metre-long TBMs (working in pairs) dug 21km of tube routes, to connect London’s East and West.

Each Crossrail TBM cost £10 million and required a team of 20 to operate the machine 24 hours a day. If Musk does move forward with this project, one thing is for certain: it is going to be expensive and need a lot of man power.

If Musk is serious about running a boring company, it would help make his Hyperloop idea a reality. Proposed as an alternative to California’s high-speed rail project, the levitating pods would travel in near-vacuum tubes at almost the speed of sound. The hyperloop could connect Los Angeles to San Francisco in 36 minutes.

As well as the technology needed to build the hyperloop, the two companies vying to create it, Hyperloop One and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, need the land space to build it. The projects have already been hit with delays, legal battles and more. WIRED recently exposed some of the behind-the-scenes drama in the race to build the transport system.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-tunnel-boring

The only regret I have is it will probably doom Amtrak's elegant Coast Starlight, which runs from Seattle to Los Angeles along the Pacific Ocean. I have taken it many times, and worked doing it. A tip to the porter will get you a seat with an electric outlet, and you can plug in your computer and enjoy views while working on the motion for summary judgement.

https://wi-images.condecdn.net/image/kgGLKxb81aj/crop/810/f/boring.jpg

Do you care what anything costs?

by Guest Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:25 pm

What gets me here is how she thinks trains can be energy saving, to the environment.

This is the problem with Middle Class champagne socialists.

They have not learnt a damn clue from past wrongs, with such dumb ideas

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:43 pm

Maddog wrote:Do you care what anything costs?

Absolutely. That is why I'm always railing on the Department of Defense for reckless wars and needless toys.

It's really not the absolute of cost of anything. It's the relative utility that we receive for the money. If names have any meaning, it's called the Department of Defense:

defense[dih-fens or especially for 7, 9, dee-fens]

1. resistance against attack; protection:
Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2, something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication: eg, This fort was once the main defense of the island.

What has the defense money been used for? We haven't had to defend the US since the Japanese invaded Attu Island, Alaska in June of 1942. $1-trillion for the F-35 program is outrageous. I have heard a nickname the defense budget, Toys for Generals. Or, $30-billion for a vanity project like Trump's southern border wall. I ask you: "Does America care what anything costs?"

That is why I look at the defense budget as a source for alternative spending, healthcare being the prime example.

It makes sense. Isn't the mission of the Defense Department to protect the people from attack? Don't disease and ailments attack the people? Merge the Department of Health with the Department of Defense. Plenty of money to go around.

Now, that's caring.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Do you care what anything costs?

Absolutely. That is why I'm always railing on the Department of Defense for reckless wars and needless toys.

It's really not the absolute of cost of anything. It's the relative utility that we receive for the money. If names have any meaning, it's called the Department of Defense:

defense[dih-fens or especially for 7, 9, dee-fens]

1. resistance against attack; protection:
Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2, something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication: eg, This fort was once the main defense of the island.

What has the defense money been used for? We haven't had to defend the US since the Japanese invaded Attu Island, Alaska in June of 1942. $1-trillion for the F-35 program is outrageous. I have heard a nickname the defense budget, Toys for Generals. Or, $30-billion for a vanity project like Trump's southern border wall. I ask you: "Does America care what anything costs?"

That is why I look at the defense budget as a source for alternative spending, healthcare being the prime example.

It makes sense. Isn't the mission of the Defense
Department to protect the people from attack? Don't disease and ailments attack the people? Merge the Department of Health with the Department of Defense. Plenty of money to go around.

Now, that's caring.

So you care what one thing costs.

Congratulations.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:48 pm

Maddog wrote:So you care what one thing costs.

Congratulation.

Thank you. I might add, it's the biggest toss-away on the planet...the defense department budget. Total fookin' waste of resources.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:So you care what one thing costs.

Congratulation.

Thank you. I might add, it's the biggest toss-away on the planet...the defense department budget. Total fookin' waste of resources.

That's government for you.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:38 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Thank you. I might add, it's the biggest toss-away on the planet...the defense department budget. Total fookin' waste of resources.

That's government for you.

Bad government. Government gone wrong. In short, Republican government.

Only the left is motivated by serious-problem solving. The right is motivated by greed and selfishness of old, white men.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

That's government for you.

Bad government. Government gone wrong. In short, Republican government.

Only the left is motivated by serious-problem solving. The right is motivated by greed and selfishness of old, white men.

All government want's other people's money. It's all about greed. tongue

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:56 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Bad government. Government gone wrong. In short, Republican government.

Only the left is motivated by serious-problem solving. The right is motivated by greed and selfishness of old, white men.

All government want's other people's money. It's all about greed.

That's a rightist interpretation, because that is a rightist's own personal view. It's projective thinking.

The core value of the left is interactive self-improvement. The core value of the right is selfishness, on the theory that he who helps himself, helps all. The rightist theory has failed. Selfishness does not transform.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

All government want's other people's money. It's all about greed.

That's a rightist interpretation, because that is a rightist's own personal view. It's projective thinking.

The core value of the left is interactive self-improvement. The core value of the right is selfishness, on the theory that he who helps himself, helps all. The rightist theory has failed. Selfishness does not transform.

So don't be selfish.

Voluntarily help your fellow man.

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:07 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

That's government for you.

Bad government. Government gone wrong. In short, Republican government.

Only the left is motivated by serious-problem solving. The right is motivated by greed and selfishness of old, white men.

All government want's other people's money. It's all about greed.

That's why the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. has dropped from 90 percent in the 1950s to whatever ridiculous number Trump has it at now (what, like 32 percent tops?)

They don't get to keep our taxes and their salaries are set. They don't get bonuses. That claim is ludicrous.

You know what is all about greed? Charging high prices while paying workers the lowest wages possible. No reason to do that besides greed, unless your business is about to fail.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:10 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Maddog wrote:

All government want's other people's money. It's all about greed.

That's why the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. has dropped from 90 percent in the 1950s to whatever ridiculous number Trump has it at now (what, like 32 percent tops?)

They don't get to keep our taxes and their salaries are set. They don't get bonuses. That claim is ludicrous.

You know what is all about greed? Charging high prices while paying workers the lowest wages possible. No reason to do that besides greed, unless your business is about to fail.

Yet the amount of money collected always goes up. That's the funny thing about those rates, no one paid them.

I have an option to engage with someone who charges too much.

I don't have that option with government, and their greed is never satiated.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:14 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's a rightist interpretation, because that is a rightist's own personal view. It's projective thinking.

The core value of the left is interactive self-improvement. The core value of the right is selfishness, on the theory that he who helps himself, helps all. The rightist theory has failed. Selfishness does not transform.

So don't be selfish.

Voluntarily help your fellow man.

Voluntarism is the rich man's escape from his obligation. It's at best, like a birthday card...I meant to help, but here's a card expressing my regards. It's the government's obligation to provide a satisfactory response.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So don't be selfish.

Voluntarily help your fellow man.

Voluntarism is the rich man's escape from his obligation. It's at best, like a birthday card...I meant to help, but here's a card expressing my regards. It's the government's obligation to provide a satisfactory response.

If you don't actually do anything, you are not volunteering.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Voluntarism is the rich man's escape from his obligation. It's at best, like a birthday card...I meant to help, but here's a card expressing my regards. It's the government's obligation to provide a satisfactory response.

If you don't actually do anything, you are not volunteering.

Quite. It's a deception. It's called appearing to be what one is not. One is, in effect, lying.

It was invented by the privileged and wealthy to create appearance that are not real.

Donald Trump, for example, has a charitable trust, through which he pays his son's tuition or other personal obligations. Appearances.

by Maddog Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

If you don't actually do anything, you are not volunteering.

Quite. It's a deception. It's called appearing to be what one is not. One is, in effect, lying.

It was invented by the privileged and wealthy to create appearance that are not real.

Donald Trump, for example, has a charitable trust, through which he pays his son's tuition or other personal obligations. Appearances.

I'm talking about actually doing something. I won't address your deceptions that you like to pull.

by Original Quill Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:15 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Quite. It's a deception. It's called appearing to be what one is not. One is, in effect, lying.

It was invented by the privileged and wealthy to create appearance that are not real.

Donald Trump, for example, has a charitable trust, through which he pays his son's tuition or other personal obligations. Appearances.

I'm talking about actually doing something. I won't address your deceptions that you like to pull.

No you're not. You are trying to equate volunteerism to social programs put on by government, and say that the former could replace the latter.

Let's go back to what I said: "It's a deception. It's called appearing to be what one is not. One is, in effect, lying." To wit: there is no such thing charitable giving in any on-going fashion. It's a ruse. Volunteerism is a lie because it has neither the breath, depth, nor the longevity to replace governmental social programs. It's too little, too late.

The same people who suggest that voluntarism could work, are the people who are trying to suppress minimum wages, lower income for the middle class, and withhold healthcare from the masses. All of their instincts are geared toward denial.

And you think they are prone to charity? Dream on...

by Guest Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:22 am

by 'Wolfie Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:54 am

"Timcast" is a clueless dick...

by Guest Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:57 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"Timcast" is a clueless dick...

He is center left Laughing

by eddie Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:32 pm

It’s not a terrible idea per se, to eliminate air travel - though I don’t know how much using a train compared to a plane is going to help global warming.

In any case, she does sound a little naive and I’d like to know how’s much money will be spent on making these very very very long train lines.

by Maddog Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:38 pm

eddie wrote:It’s not a terrible idea per se, to eliminate air travel - tough I don’t know how much using a train compared to a plane is going to help global warming.

In any case, she does sound a little naive and I’d like to know how’s much money will be spent on making these very very very long train lines.

Well, California is building one now. It's way past budget and the line from LA to San Francisco will cost 100 billion. That is one line, in one state. Now start trying to connect 100s of cities throughout the country, currently served by airlines and the cost would be 10 times our current budget.

BTW, her proposal has been pulled. The ridicule got a little intense I guess. Or she left off the part about free unicorn petting zoo's.

by Maddog Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:38 pm

eddie wrote:It’s not a terrible idea per se, to eliminate air travel - tough I don’t know how much using a train compared to a plane is going to help global warming.

In any case, she does sound a little naive and I’d like to know how’s much money will be spent on making these very very very long train lines.

Well, California is building one now. It's way past budget and the line from LA to San Francisco will cost 100 billion. That is one line, in one state. Now start trying to connect 100s of cities throughout the country, currently served by airlines and the cost would be 10 times our current budget.

BTW, her proposal has been pulled. The ridicule got a little intense I guess. Or she left off the part about free unicorn petting zoo's.

by Sponsored content