NY Times Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag On How Costly The Green New Deal Would Be

As Senator Dianne Feinstein was throwing shadethrowing shade at a bunch of school kids telling her we need the GND (and certainly put up to this by their teachers and parents. Dianne should have asked the kids to explain the deal), the NY Times was throwing cold water on the deal

From the link

President Trump derided the Green New Deal as a “high school term paper that got a low mark.” Congressional Republicans mocked it as “zany.” Even Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, called the proposal a “green dream,” and some of the party’s 2020 candidates are starting to describe it as merely aspirational.

Yet, despite that disdain, the goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility, several energy experts and economists said in recent interviews.

Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs. It certainly could not be accomplished within the 10-year time frame that supporters say is necessary, according to these experts.

The Green New Deal, in other words, is an exciting idea for many liberals and an enticing political target for conservatives. But, most of all, it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand. (snip)

Replacing [fossil fuels] with sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses will cost trillions of dollars; potentially increase energy costs for millions of families; and entail federal intervention in swaths of the economy, like transportation, where there is already a mixed record of government success. Republican critics gleefully noted last week that California’s Democratic governor scaled back a state-owned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles because of costs. (snip)

The plan does not include a cost estimate, though it presumably would require massive new government spending and disrupt existing jobs and industries.

So, unsustainable levels of spending, which will necessitate an enormous increase in taxes, coupled with a massive increase in the size of Government, with citizens losing huge amounts of liberty, not too mention the government taking over huge amounts of the economy. Which would cause massive economic trouble, including job losses, which will supposedly be replaced by new jobs. Or the whole “government will pay you if you don’t want to work thing.”

But environmental activists said the details and hurdles are less important than the broad ambition of the plan, which proposes a national mobilization with the scale and urgency of the original New Deal.

Wishful thinking is not a plan. You may be able to get away with not having a plan when you go shopping, but having nothing more that some feelings for the GND, which would be incredibly more intrusive than Obamacare is a recipe for a disaster. Well, it’s a recipe even before you get to thinking about “how will they do this?”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “NY Times Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag On How Costly The Green New Deal Would Be”

  1. StillAlive says:

    They got a dose of reality when Bill Gates went on a talk show and was just railing at the simple over riding factor at -play.

    There IS NOTHING TO REPLACE CARBON FUEL. AOC in her idiocy is clueless. But more importantly the document was the communist manifesto put into ink and penned as a NEW DEAL FOR THE POOR FAILING, MISERABLE, CAPITALIST DOG of a country.

    BILL GATES was railing against the sheer stupidity of the Green NEW DEAL as are many on the left. The problem is the people who are running for presidency need that 20-30 percent of their base to win the primary so they are paying lip service to it. No different for the right who has certain bones they have to throw to their base.

    What sets trump apart is he didnt just throw them a bone he has lived up to his promises.

    However I was listening to Glen beck the other night and he is no longer the far rightie he used to be. He is conservative but certainly a moderate and at first a never Trumper.

    He was saying we are one election away from the end of the constitution in America. Europe is going into meltdown mode and their collapse would have far reaching economic consequences in the United States. The only reason people tolerate Trump right now is the economy and when or if that melts down Trump will be removed from office with the 25th amendment or if the Democrats take back control of the Senate in 2020.

    Just imagine that in 2019 the economy is the best it has been in 50 years. People are feeling more money in their pockets for the first time since 1972. IF during the time when the unemployment rate of blacks and Hispanics and WOMEN is at an all time historical low……

    IF during all this we are flirting openly and honestly with communism in America. What then will happen when the economy TANKS IF say the EU implodes over the nationalist populist movement in Europe????

    That guy or gal loves us and has compassion. They offer free food, free jobs, free money, free college, free everything. We just have to turn our country over to the authoritarian left who will in their grand wisdom shred a document they already hate.

    This will lead to the cessation of many midwestern states including TEXAS and much of the south. ZACH the other day said why would you want to isolate your selves. Hardly happening with a dozen states resting on the Gulf and Atlantic oceans with ports. Pipelines sweeping through the Midwest. Most of the oil and natural gas and coal in red states.

    This country has ONE election left. 2020. No matter who wins its going to be ripped apart as the democrats continue down the road of communism.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Here’s a bit of a backgrounder:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html?module=inline

    Speaking of plans… what’s the GOP plan to address global warming? Is it similar to their health care plan (Total plan = tRump saying “cheaper and better” over and over).

    GOPhers feel that the 2020 election is their Alamo and will do anything (anything!) to retain their power. For decades they’ve been successfully gerrymandering districts, suppressing voters, installing presidents who lose the popular vote. Now they’re actively working with foreign governments to influence US elections. Con Men claim the US is not a democracy because in their minds it isn’t. And Democrats are communists!

    • StillAlive says:

      The GOP plan is to continue pumping fossil fuels from the ground. Why? Because AGW is a scam.

      Again you use the Assumed close that AGW is real. There is no question their are more molecules of co2 in the air than before but that does not mean the planet is dying. IN FACT the planet DOES BETTER WHEN IT IS WARMER, NOT COLDER.

      AGAIN you assume too much.

      What is the Democrats plan? Tax, tax, tax and then spend the money on universal health care and free college.

      WHY free college? Because leftist lunatics have taken over the college and we know brainwashing and indoctrination is key to the GREEN NEW DEAL…hell it even says so in the document.

      What is the GOP’s plan? to protect liberty and the constution and the United States of America from communism run amuck on the left of this country.

      thats their plan.

    • formwiz says:

      Global warming is a Commie farce. So the answer is none, just like we don’t want the NHS here.

      GOPhers feel that the 2020 election is their Alamo and will do anything (anything!) to retain their power. For decades they’ve been successfully gerrymandering districts, suppressing voters, installing presidents who lose the popular vote. Now they’re actively working with foreign governments to influence US elections.

      First, we don’t have to. The Demos are handing it to us.

      Second, you’re describing Democrats, but you know that. I wonder if Epson has Bugs under contract as a projection consultant?

      And finally, collusion is dead. Even Commie News Net is trying to soften the blow.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        A major correction on your terminology.

        The NHS (National Health Service) is the UK system of universal healthcare. Most of the medical professionals are employees. I’ve heard no Dems suggest the US adopt the British system.

        The proposals for the US are to have a regulated system of gov’t sponsored health insurance, similar to Medicare. The system could even include private insurance companies similar to France.

        US citizens average approx. $10,000 per person on healthcare (private + public). Other advanced nations pay considerably less per person than we do, and have better or equivalent quality. We pay some $3.2 trillion total. Even a 33% improvement would save working class Americans $1 trillion a YEAR! But would cost the healthcare providers about $1 trillion. But if that trillion doesn’t provide better care it’s really just a built-in subsidy to the wealthy. Americans pay more for drugs, see specialists more often, have more tests run, pay doctors much more than other nations, suppress the number of doctors (keeping pay up!), pay much more in administrative costs (some major medical systems have as many insurance admins as beds!! – they have to determine who pays what and how much) – Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance.

        B

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          That is the biggest collection of our right lies and obfuscation that you have put together yet. Are you aware that the Feds assign the price that doctors can charge? Likely you do but prefer to lie. Are you aware that a doctor can go to jail for giving free care of charging too little? If you think that doctors don’t provide adequate quality of care you are partially right but most of that is at the VA and other socialist styled programs. Then a good bit is the care by FMGs , I know that from my efforts as an expert witness. As to capping the numbers of doctors, that is a major lie. But again you exposed your stupidity in assuming that high level professional services follow the normal market rules. Look it up idiot. And once again you have the government setting prices for all doctors. You will then begin blubbering about the government only controls Medicare which is not true as all insurance is indexed in Medicare.

          This follows all your comments as all you do is lie and try to get people mad. One thing to compare is our educational system which has produced a situation in which 75% of black males in California can not read or write. A good example of me well the government works.

        • formwiz says:

          The NHS (National Health Service) is the UK system of universal healthcare. Most of the medical professionals are employees. I’ve heard no Dems suggest the US adopt the British system.

          Liar.

          Daniel Berwick, was one of the major consultants on IdiotCare and proclaimed himself an admirer of the NHS. “I love it”. He also said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open”.

          And I never heard of any Demo who criticized or objected to that opinion.

          The proposals for the US are to have a regulated system of gov’t sponsored health insurance, similar to Medicare. The system could even include private insurance companies similar to France.

          For now, of course. The goal is still single payer. Harvey is talking about Medicare For All, which puts him in the same boat as Bernie and Occasional Cortex. Which would be wildly expensive and would collapse.

          US citizens average approx. $10,000 per person on healthcare (private + public). Other advanced nations pay considerably less per person than we do, and have better or equivalent quality.

          Lie. My wife, nurse of 43 years’ experience, has had numerous encounters with people who came in from overseas to get our health care because it was so much better. “Why do you want to give it up?”, they would ask and, of course, we didn’t.

          We had it imposed on us like all of Crusader Rabbit’s other pet causes nobody in his right mind wants.

          Even a 33% improvement would save working class Americans $1 trillion a YEAR!

          Not the middle class. Not all Americans. Not the poor. Take a look at health in Cooba or Venezuela and ask how the poor are doing.

          Note, of course, no citation. You really do pull all of this out of your ass, don’t you?

          Americans pay more for drugs

          FDA, makes suire ours work and don’t hurt us.

          see specialists more often

          Socialized medicine patients wait years to see specialists.

          If they live that long. Think the VA under Zippy and Pegleg Shinseki.

          have more tests run

          Ditto.

          pay doctors much more than other nations

          Because our doctors are better.

          suppress the number of doctors (keeping pay up!)

          Moslems and guys from Uganda because the smart people avoid medicine like the plague.

          You want somebody as smart as Jessica here treating your heart attack?

          pay much more in administrative costs (some major medical systems have as many insurance admins as beds!! – they have to determine who pays what and how much) – Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance.

          They pay more because the government demands all that paperwork, you moron.

          Take the Feds out of medicine and you’ll cut health costs by a ton.

          • david7134 says:

            For wiz,
            Good reply. But the jerk never learns, just like all liberals. If they took the government out of health, the medical cost would drop 30 to 50%. If you allowed people to buy drugs without a doctor the cost would decrease even more.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            dave,

            Is the FDA even needed? Isn’t it a drag on free markets?

            If someone wants to sell something as curing cancer shouldn’t they be able to without the feds sticking their nose in? After a few hundred patients die from not using effective regimens, the market for the fake drug will dry up. Would you have the feds block patients/victims from suing those who sold harmful drugs?

    • Jl says:

      “Suppressing voters..”. As usual, J is misinformed. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25522

Bad Behavior has blocked 6423 access attempts in the last 7 days.

%d bloggers like this: