Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Democrats. They are talking to you.

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

You do not know what I think. Next.

You call your republican mob of racist criminals, illiterates and felons, "people"?

More like terrorists.

I am not going to answer such a stupid statement.

You really should try, because he's got your number hands-down.

You do realize biden's
lead is holding steady. We the people have had enough of trump.

Yes, the lying deceitful media told that lie in 2016 as well, theybwere wrong then and they are wrong now.

You do love false history don't you.

Plans to replace fossil fuels with renewables and replace old clunkers with more fuel-efficient vehicles ultimately resulted in higher overall emissions from energy and motor vehicle traffic.

Why? Because the people took the economic growth stimulated by the 'hope and change' and used it to revive and stoke the status quo where waste is promoted for the economic transactions it engenders.

You can either replace fossil fuels with renewables and reduce overall vehicle emissions by also reducing energy use and traffic overall OR you can justify having MORE energy use and MORE overall traffic because of innovation.

The economy did the latter, i.e. failed to cut down overall energy use and traffic and as a result the gains of innovation were lost to overall waste-growth.

To have a good, sustainable economy; you can't just invent new technologies and power sources and then further stoke growth with them. You also have to reform existing economic practices to reduce economic activity and waste overall, so that net reductions in greenhouse gases, energy use, and traffic generally are achieved.

When economic activity decreases relative to overall prosperity, you can achieve sustainability, but whenever economic activity increases, it causes a corresponding increase in waste due to inefficiencies and dependencies throughout the economy. Basically people just need to stay home more, do less overall, and do more things to be happy that don't involve driving and/or shopping.

And Obama did all of that in spite of a racist republican congress bought off by the fossil fuel industry and doing everything in their power to try and make him fail.

That's not the point. The point is that what was supposed to be a green economic revolution ended up increasing fossil fuel use and motor-vehicle traffic because the money they spread around promoted the waste economy, not the reformed economy they were envisioning.

To have green reform, you need the majority of people to cut back their spending and economic activity. That doesn't happen when you keep redistributing growth back to the middle class, who doesn't ultimately think they are the ones responsible for the effects caused by their spending.

Consumers might think a carbon tax would solve the climate threat, but then they will just go on buying gasoline and driving as much as they want. They might think that subsidies for renewable energy are going to save the planet from fossil fuel, but they'll just go on cranking up their heating and cooling systems and go shopping in big heated/cooled stores, airports, etc.

So the Democrats just say one thing and do something else because they think they can have their cake and eat it too. You can't keep industrial-consumerism cranking away and just make it green by switching out the cars for EVs and coal power plants for gas, nuclear, windmills, and solar.

You need conservation, infrastructure/sprawl reduction, and generally people have to make do with less and inflation has to be brought down so it's not a constant threat pushing people to always make more money because their savings are going to be worthless in a couple decades.

Democrats keep deluding themselves that you can just keep borrowing more money to pay off your old loans instead of reducing your overall debt levels. To reduce overall debt, you have to reduce overall spending, and doing that is going to cut into GDP growth and that is going to mean people are going to have to deal with making less money and thus living and finding happiness by driving less, working less, and shopping less; which is also what's going to achieve climate sustainability.

Democrats are somehow going to have to come to terms with the contradiction between closing the gap between rich and poor and achieving green reform. For green reform to occur, everyone has to make and spend less money, and that doesn't happen if you stoke economic growth with spending policies that raise taxes on the rich.

The republicans blocked the democrats because of their control of the house and senate.

Remember?

So blame the democrats and Obama?

How stupid can stupid get?

Do i need to post a list of the bills that the republican senate rejected???

Trump is undoing all of the environmental safeguards as we speak! Will you blame the democrats for that too?!!!

The Democrats were supposed to continue with green reform, but they were supposed to work within Republican budget hawk fiscal discipline.

Basically, they were supposed to reform sustainability reform to be more cost-efficient and thus phase out subsidies.

Idk if it was Republicans generally or something deeper in the global social-economic growthism that blocks real fiscal conservation from ever happening at levels that cut down global growth, but these economic forces insist that everything generate more spending and growth and whenever a future is in sight where we can achieve more with less spending and growth across the board, they want to undermine that because more money is their only real objective.

I blame the Democrats/unions because they are the ones that set wage-minimums and set contracts so employees always get step-raises and their salaries/jobs are protected, etc. so basically the economy is always forced to grow because everyone can't just cut down how much money they make and spend by working less and consuming/driving less.

If you read Marx, he wrote that people are supposed to give according to ability and only take according to need. Democrats are not real Marxists because they just want to take more because richer people are taking more and they just want more equality with richer people. So they have the same redistribution ethic of Marxism, but without the discipline it takes to make the economy sustainable and create a standard of living that can actually be expanded to the global poor without harming global resources.

If Democrats truly embraced the Marxian ethics, they would support Republican tax cuts and stop worrying about taxing the rich, because they would see the rich as a bank to freeze saved money out of circulation where it would only cause more inflation and waste. They don't really want anything but more money to spend, though, because they just envy richer people and they just always want more and feel entitled to it because of all the ideological propaganda that circulates to make them feel like they deserve more because of how great they are, or social injustice that has held them back, or whatever; and they never see that all that ideological propaganda is just a marketing scam to promote more spending and growth for the benefit of those who make the most money, either because they own the most stock or because they have the most privileged high-paying union jobs/pensions/benefits.

You have to ask?

11.6 part time or contract temporary jobs. That is a fact. 93% of the jobs he created were the a fore mentioned. I have posted articles proving it.

Healthcare for 15 million? How many millions lost the insurance they were happy with? A much larger number. And Obamacare caused many to lose full time work, as employers cut their hours to save money because of Obamacare.

Defeated Ebola and H1N1? Obama just taking credit for others hard work.

Solyndra is a fine example of solar power. Over 500 million down the drain.

Your meme is for low information voters with the memory of goldfish.

Once again you blather on, oblivious to the damage your party has done to America...

Blame yourself...

More people should work less hours so more people can have jobs without creating more economic waste. Republicans want people to work instead of collecting benefits without working, so they should appreciate the concept of splitting up jobs into more people working less hours for lower total pay each. That is what creates more jobs while reducing inflationary pressure.

ACA promoted more jobs with less hours and lower costs by giving employers the ability to not provide health insurance to part timers, but then people ruined it by taking two (or more) jobs instead of just working less and being more frugal. Also, by allowing employers to choose certain favored employees to hire full time and insure, health care costs and insurance were left intact and stoked so that those without insurance would not experience greater access to health care at more competitive prices for uninsured people.

Basically the uninsured were excluded all the more from affordable healthcare, as usual, with the traditional effect of stimulating more desperation to appease managers as thus get picked for a precious full time position with benefits.


In a truly free market, there would be no 'full time jobs with benefits.' That is a construction invented by corporations and unions to structure competition and submission in the economy. A free market of free citizens in a republic is supposed to basically be where everyone is an independent contractor and yet costs of living are affordable for us all to afford because we all manage our own economic participation in a way that is responsible and allows everyone affordable access to needed goods and services.


Right, they subsidize new market offerings and thus keep the prices up above what people are paying for existing mass-produced products (in this case energy). Without subsidies, solar manufacturing can't grow to profitable levels; but with subsidies, corruption ensues to avert market expansion. I suspect it's all market manipulation to protect the status quo from competition/change.

Think about it: what needs to happen for sustainability is that people have to use less energy AND get that energy using solar panels, etc. but as long as consumers prefer to buy energy in the high quantities they are used to getting it, they can't afford the amount of solar power and batteries needed to satisfy their expectations and existing energy interests exploit consumer expectations by pointing out how alternative energy isn't sufficient to satisfy current demand.

The bottom line is the fossil fuel powered culture established throughout the 20th century has set standards of per capita energy use that are unsustainable, but people don't want to accept that we have become energy junkies and start weening ourselves down voluntarily. If we embraced that energy reduction ethic voluntarily, liberty would achieve the goal without regulation; but because the people reject the ethic, liberty doesn't work, and then regulation gets abused by people trying to manipulate advantage and prevent actual per capita energy use from falling to sustainable levels.

I meant to address that post to the original poster. Sorry.