• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

News Flash! Another Democrat tells the Truth.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,564
Basic Beliefs
---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
“The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicles.”

-- Pete Buttigieg, in speech to promote alternative transportation (during record-high heat waves in the U.S. and Europe), and to promote subsidies to electric vehicles


This quote was publicized more by the Right-wing media than the Left or Mainline media. It's actually difficult to find the quote, and might have gone unnoticed if Fox News and Sean Hannity had not picked up on it and used it to bash Demos and blame Biden for high gas prices, which Demos deny, insisting that they want lower gas prices and are doing everything possible, even begging the Saudis (and whining to Venezuela and Iran) to step up production. Demos mostly disagree with Buttigieg and agree with Republicans and climate-change deniers that the priority is to keep gas prices low to preserve America's God-given right to cheap gasoline which is killing millions and will kill millions more in the future, even tens or hundreds of millions in 3rd-World countries in the coming decades. But these hordes of humans who will starve don't matter because America's right to instant gratification today is more important, according to Biden and Democrats generally who agree with Trumpsters and Fox on America's entitlement to cheap gas.

(One could argue that the EV subsidies are not an ideal alternative, because some other alternatives might be better, and EVs require electricity which comes mostly from burning coal, plus also the manufacture of batteries requires heavy fossil fuel consumption. However, the real truth of the Buttigieg quote is the need for any alternatives to gasoline, whatever these might be, and imposing higher cost onto gasoline will give encouragement to whatever are the best alternatives.)


The earlier notable Demo quote on this topic was that of Barrack Obama, in 2008:


“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

www.politico.com

Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama

“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama said in 2008.
www.politico.com
(earlier post on this topic: https://iidb.org/threads/new-need-for-gas-tax-increase.26282/ )

In reality Obama did not follow through on this, in his 8 years. But at least he spoke the truth in saying we need higher electricity rates (for energy produced by coal).


And here's a third example of a Demo gaff (where a Democrat told the Truth for once and got in trouble for it):

"I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country," she said. "Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."

Hillary Clinton, 2016 campaign

So she later regrets having said it. But basically she did tell the truth, because essentially she pointed out that we need to reduce coal consumption, which means also reducing coal production through a coal tax passed on to consumers, as would be a necessary way to reducing coal, as Obama truthfully pointed out.

So when Democrats tell the truth on this, they offend both crybaby Republicans who deny there is any climate change (because they put today's instant gratification ahead of the future), but also crybaby Democrats who not only want cheap fossil-fuel energy, but also want to preserve their "jobs! jobs! jobs!" religion (or try to outdo Trump in the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" demagoguery).

Is there any way to get Democrats to stop backing down like cowards when they accidently tell the truth? How soon will it take for Pete Buttigieg to back down and say he didn't really mean it? Why is it that the crybabies always have to win and force the truth-tellers to back down?
 
Where did these Dems "Back down?" Buttigieg hasn't backed down and he's the only one of the three who is probably running for office. Obama didn't back down. Obama's bill passed the house, but died in the senate, and he was re-elected. And Clinton didn't back down. She doesn't regret her policy, only that she didn't spin it better.
 
This quote was publicized more by the Right-wing media than the Left or Mainline media. It's actually difficult to find the quote,
Probably because finding Pete Buttigieg promoting alternative transportation and energy sources is utterly unnewsworthy. And being accurate on the subject.

He said this in the context of boosting access to the type of vehicles which will result in a long-term reduction in gas prices. This is a point you seem to have overlooked.

And I couldn't help but notice some dodgy stats further down, claiming that hybrid/electric cars don't save enough money to be worth the inconvenience. It started by saying that the average price of an electric car is $60K. Probably true with all the Tesla cars out there. But my local Toyota dealer has brand new Prius for $26K. Repeat their math, shaving $34K off the purchase price and you'll get a profoundly different answer.
Tom
 
Spinning data sheets is no way to get an already uninterested public to focus on data. As long as we are more interested in making our opponents look bad than promoting an informed society we're all fucked.
 
Bradley Cortright’s commentary in the first linked article, in most instances takes worst case scenarios to fit his narrative. I say most instances because he did not do his homework when it came to home chargers. There is so much disparity in what one homeowner will pay from the next that it is disingenuous to even quote an average: Age of the house, current load on the service panel (gas or electric dryer/oven), is the garage attached to the house, is there available slots for a 50 amp cb, possible upgrade of wire servicing the house, possible sub panel, possible upgrade of conduit for wire servicing the house. And that’s just to get you to the point of running a 50 amp circuit.

And his cost comparison can’t possibly work going forward. That a vehicle with one tenth the moving parts of another is going to have anywhere near the maintenance cost. No. It’s like he’s comparing a EV Tesla to an ICE Toyota. Yeah, you can probably get close in this comparison. Others are coming into the market. They’ll eat Elon’s lunch if he doesn’t get his shit in one sock and start making reliable vehicles.
It hasn’t been easy for the large vehicle manufacturers to build both ICE and EV vehicles. But they are coming around now and the prices are coming down with them.

And WTF is he talking about the availability of charging stations? Get a map, dude.

Yes, towing takes energy. What a shock. Did you also know you can power your house during an outage with your vehicle?
 
All of the above is why I wish Mayor Pete - or someone of his intellectual and oratory level - was president.
 
Everyone agrees that carbon tax is the solution, but also that it's off the table:
(move forward in the video to 7:40)

_____________________________________________ 7:40 __________________________________________

David Brooks: . . . the way to address climate change is to make carbon more expensive. So, carbon taxes. That is a political non-starter. People will not pay for it and Clinton suffered for it.
Not precisely correct. What people will not do is vote for any candidate who tells the truth about this. Or what they will do is vote against any who tell the truth. But if the tax is enacted, they will pay it and reduce their consumption if the tax is very high.

Number 2, which is what Biden tried to do, is to make renewables less expensive . . . and it was a very plausible, I think a very good agenda, which is still sitting out there some day for maybe some future Senate.

No, the fallacy here is the term "renewables" -- WHICH renewables? and which form of delivering them to consumers?

But also, it's not only RENEWABLES we need, but ALL ALTERNATIVES, which includes conservation -- consuming less, reducing energy in some cases, reducing demand. So we not only need renewables, but also Conservation, or reduced energy consumption, as also a way to reduce carbon.

And further, we're already subsidizing alternatives and renewables -- we've been subsidizing renewables for decades, and it's obviously not working. How much more corporate welfare will it take to finally get results? And what about all the renewables and alternatives which are NOT being subsidized? All these other alternatives would also be promoted with a carbon tax.

To arbitrarily select out a few corporate giants to subsidize -- which ones? who are the lucky few to get this bailout at the expense of taxpayers and consumers? -- this has been done again and again, to enrich a few large donors to Republican and Democrat political campaigns -- how has this politics-as-usual approach served us so far?

Obviously this is not the answer -- or rather, it falls way short and is doomed if we don't get serious about the real answer (higher carbon tax) and ask how to promote the truth, how to force ourselves in this direction at a time when the need is so urgent, when there's still some time to make a difference, millions of lives are at stake, and the consequences of our misbehavior so far are becoming more and more obvious (record heat waves and other damage).

Pro-lifers complain about so many thousand babies aborted, and anti-gun crusaders complain about mass shootings etc., but these deaths are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions already dying, and far more millions in the future. How can you pretend to care about a few thousands killed by gun violence and by abortion doctors, when those killed by climate change are already a larger number, and this number will multiply manyfold in the coming decades?

Steps could be taken, despite the ignorant mindless mob demanding their cheap energy. More could be done to promote science education about climate change, to refute the deniers, to force the public to acknowledge the huge disasters which are beginning to happen and will get much worse. It's not true that we have to surrender to the mindless mob and the demagogues preaching at them what they want to hear.

There are ways to promote the rare truth-telling by politicians who gaffed -- Obama, Clinton, Buttigieg -- occasionally some truth comes out. Maybe it can happen without the usual apologies and retractions later. At least some of the non-elected pundits ought to be willing to say the truth. Why must everyone who tells the truth be forced to resign or recant?

Why can't there be a strategy to promote a carbon tax against the stampeding mob?

Who can tell people (the mindless mob) the truth they don't want to hear?

There is one "ism" today which does say the truth about this: Neoliberalism.

2 basic points in the Neoliberal agenda are: Austerity and Carbon tax. Both of these are a prescription to do what has to be done even though the populist mob fanatics are against it. Austerity requires higher taxes and reduced spending in order to keep down the deficits -- counter to the populist instinct to run up spending and cut taxes. And the carbon tax (higher gas tax and higher utility bills) is opposed by the mob which demands its entitlement to cheap energy.

So one step in the right direction is to stop slandering Neoliberalism and admit that this "ism" is one which has the integrity to stand up against the mindless stampeding mob being whipped into a frenzy by Progressives and Conservatives, who know only how to find scapegoats rather than solutions to anything.

But in the meantime, why don't we try to do things that we can do in our political climate . . . we could really reinvest in the new modular nukes which are smaller and emission-free, much safer, and we could extend the leases on a lot of the nuclear plants which are still there, so we could rely a lot more on nuclear, we could convert coal plants which are super-polluting to natural gas power plants which are much less polluting, some people want to plant a million trees -- nobody's against trees -- so you can do things that don't immediately arouse partisan fury . . .

Most of these are already being done (with marginal, if any, success), or they are disputed as even doing more harm than good. But a carbon tax is absolutely guaranteed to force reduction in carbon emissions.
 
Seriously? You think the biggest obstacle to a carbon tax is Democrats?
No. Democrats are leading Republicans 3-0 (in truth-telling) -----

# of times Demos have told the truth: 3

# of times Repubs have told the truth: 0



However, you also have to keep in mind the hypocrisy score. Dems preach less carbon consumption, and yet Al Gore and John Kerry continue to travel to Climate-Change events and other elitist gatherings, in their private jets spewing out carbons.

So the Hypocrisy score is at least 2-0 ---------

Dem hypocrits: 2

Repub hypocrits: 0

(And actually it's much higher than 2-0, because of all the other rich Demos who travel in their private jets.)


It's true that Repub elitists also spew out carbons in their private jets, but you can't accuse them of hypocrisy when they deny the science by claiming there's no harm from the carbon emissions. And it's possible Democrats could push through some kind of special jet fuel tax, or private jet fuel tax, for the rich elitists, to answer Right-wing pundits like Hannity who keep bashing Gore and Kerry for their hypocrisy.

What would be wrong with such a special jet-fuel tax? (at least for private jets?) That would not affect gas prices for the average consumer. What's the Democrats' excuse for not going after the rich who burn fossil fuels unnecessarily like this?

So yes, the Democrats are an obstacle, because those who can do something but refuse to do it are more to blame. Maybe more than Republicans who are more dependent on support from fossil fuel tycoons and also whose base disbelieves the science.

(In the EU it appears that there is no extra tax on private jets and yachts, but that they are only just beginning to end some exemptions of these. I.e., up until recently there was exemption of yachts and private jets from a carbon tax. So it looks like Progressives in both Europe and the U.S. posing as environmentalists have many years of hypocrisy and phoniness to make up for.)
 
Last edited:
Okay babe. You keep fighting the good fight and make sure the blame lands on the people who deserve it the most - those pesky DemonRats!
 
I admit that OP confuses me. With a few exceptions most of us on this board are "anti-carbon", if that term isn't too weird. That politicians are mostly uninterested in carbon taxes has been well known since Jimmy Carter's term.

So I am befuddled. Patooka's sarcasm summarizes my reaction to OP:
Okay babe. You keep fighting the good fight and make sure the blame lands on the people who deserve it the most - those pesky DemonRats!

:cool:

Mr. Proletariat(?) seems to approve of "Neo-liberals." Is this term even used in the U.S.A.? Who are the U.S. politicians who are "Neo-Liberal" and meet with Lumpen's approval?
 
However, you also have to keep in mind the hypocrisy score. Dems preach less carbon consumption, and yet Al Gore and John Kerry continue to travel to Climate-Change events and other elitist gatherings, in their private jets spewing out carbons.
Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore own private jets.
 
and EVs require electricity which comes mostly from burning coal,
GIGO....per the . . .
correction: which comes mostly from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is this: If your electricity source is coal, your electric bill should double, over about a year, above what you pay now (in most areas), and double again in another 4 or 5 years.

But if your electricity source is natural gas, your electric bill should increase by about half that.

That's a good rough estimate as to the change that's needed. The important point is not the exact numbers, but the need to greatly increase the tax on electricity (or impose such a tax) in order to compel consumers to change to non-carbon sources for energy.

Also the point is that switching to EVs doesn't fix much of the problem if the electric source for the batteries comes from fossil fuel.

. . . per the below government site, coal provides about 22% of US electricity production.

Ref: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
It's a much higher % in other countries, but the point is not to quibble over the exact numbers, but to recognize the need to impose costs onto consumers who don't change to non-carbon energy. The Populist alternative of cheap-energy instant-gratification such as we're doing now leads us to vastly greater damage in future decades due to worse climate change. This damage is in the form of millions (tens/hundreds of millions) more lives to be lost, and also increased suffering to those who survive. Of course you can make the argument that it doesn't matter because most of that damage will be in the 3rd World countries.
 
Back
Top Bottom