Green New Deal

MattinBama said:

You never said bill. However I stand by my statement that your wording is a mischaracterization of what happened in this case.

Click to expand...

I said bill. You are correct, she did put it up as a Simple Resolution.

If I change the wording from Bill to Simple Resolution, I am not sure that there is any marked difference.

From the Bills & Resolutions page on house.gov:

Official Explanation on the Bills & Resolutions Page said:

Simple ResolutionsA matter concerning the operation of either the House of Representatives or Senate alone is initiated by a simple resolution. A resolution affecting the House of Representatives is designated “H.Res.” followed by its number. They are not presented to the President for action.

Click to expand...

What McConnell did was to present that same resolution as a Joint Resolution in the Senate.

From Bills & Resolutions on senate.gov:

Bills & Resolutions on senate.gov said:

Joint Resolution: Designated "S. J. Res." and numbered consecutively upon introduction, with one exception it requires the approval of both chambers and is submitted (just as a bill) to the president for possible signature into law. The one exception is that joint resolutions are used to propose constitutional amendments. These resolutions require a two-thirds affirmative vote in each house but are not submitted to the president; they become effective when ratified by three-quarters of the States.

Click to expand...

I get it, the simple resolution doesn't have nearly the weight of the joint resolution, which can be placed on the presidents desk for signature. I understand that what McConnell did was political theater. I am just not sure that it is any more political theater than what AOC and the Democrats did with putting up a simple resolution, realizing that those same people who are having problems parsing the difference between a bill and a resolution (myself included) are probably the same types of people who have trouble parsing the difference between a simple resolution in the house and a joint resolution in the Senate.

At the end of the day, two people put up two different types of resolutions in two different bodies of Congress knowing that neither would get a vote.

I absolutely loathe McConnell, and what he does and represents is abhorrent to me. But I just don't think saying that "THOSE GUYS ARE SO DIRTY" in this case just seems like a failure to recognize that politics is all about appearances. McConnell just intercepted the Hail Mary, ran it back, and planted the flag in the other teams logo at center field. They got outplayed.

Edit: For the record I don't think that the GND is bad. I also do think that it should be of utmost priority. But to be willfully ignorant of the situation in Washington just because McConnell is a big meanie isn't going to do me or the left any good. They need to get just as savvy at managing public perception. The GOP is a master of messaging. The Democrats have sucked at it and continually get wrecked.

crimsonaudio said:

Not sure this is factually correct?

In the 116th Congress, it is a pair of resolutions, H. Res. 109 and S. Res. 59, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). Markey's resolution was voted on March 25, 2019 with a result of a 57-0 loss as many Democrats voted "present."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59

Cosponsored by 12 dems who wouldn't even vote for it? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/59/cosponsors

Click to expand...

It looks as if the initial article that you posted was worded in a way that sounded as if McConnell did this unilaterally. Which he sort of did but not in the manner that I thought.

Looking a little deeper it appears that Markey & she did put this forward with the intention that it would receive a hearing or be placed in committee to work on details. Not be rushed directly to the floor in an attempt to embarrass the Dems - which is why even Markey did not vote in favor for it.

My apologies for getting that part incorrect & apologies to chanson/NT17 on that front as well even though this is still Republican gamesmanship rather than taking a serious issue seriously.

https://twitter.com/abc/status/https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1110666127644991493

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1110666127644991493 <---working link

https://twitter.com/abc/status/https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1110632516619247616

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1110632516619247616 <---working link

Direct link to the Vox article shown in the tweet above going into more detail about what happened and why- https://www.vox.com/2019/3/26/18281323/green-new-deal-democrats-vote

crimsonaudio said:

And here's what they actually voted on - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/8

"S.J.Res.8 - A joint resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."

So not one repub or dem thinks that there should be a recognition of the duty of the FedGov to create a GND? It didn't even have specifics that had to be met, it was merely showing the intention of doing something, and not one senator voted for it - even the 12 who cosponsored it.

They're all up there playing games, that's all.

Click to expand...

The Vox article I edited in above explains some of the reasoning behind why McConnell did it and why the Democrats didn't entertain it.

The "GREEN" part of the deal is ambitious but necessary to consider for the health of the earths climate.

• building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
• upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
• removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
• cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
• ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition

The part that tries to correct economic inequality should be removed. They are two separate issues. mho

• establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
• promoting justice and equality.
• providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

IMALOYAL1 said:

The "GREEN" part of the deal is ambitious but necessary to consider for the health of the earths climate.

The part that tries to correct economic inequality should be removed. They are two separate issues. mho

Click to expand...

I kinda pointed out this earlier, I think the work needed is big enough that it can be used to that end in part due to the huge TVA type projects needed across the country.

Furthermore, I think the very necessity of modern capital is destructive and exploitative of the environment without much respect or consideration given to the human environmental impact. In a world where quarter to quarter growth is prioritized over sustainability, you undoubtedly get the geo-hellworld we've been creating.

MattinBama said:

You never said bill. However I stand by my statement that your wording is a mischaracterization of what happened in this case.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure with whom you have me mixed up but I never mischaracterized AOC's proposal. You may disagree with the way I see it but your "if you disagree with me you're wrong" position is getting old.

NationalTitles17 said:

I'm not sure with whom you have me mixed up but I never mischaracterized AOC's proposal. You may disagree with the way I see it but your "if you disagree with me you're wrong" position is getting old.

Click to expand...

I apologized to you on the last page for the misunderstanding.

MattinBama said:

I apologized to you on the last page for the misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I haven't been able to go back and I won't, but I will take your word that I missed it and apologize for doing so. I've been on the road for most of today and last night.

NationalTitles17 said:

I haven't been able to go back and I won't

Click to expand...