AOC: The Green New Deal

[nofear]

Originally Posted by Kip

How would this even work?

Originally Posted by Le3

What? How would this be even theoretically, technically feasible?

How will she pay for it?

Once all genders are aligned and toxic masculinity is seen for the evil we know it to be, then the means will become apparent. Our society will come together as one, we will stop labelling everyone, and there will be no more white privilege or evil white men taking all your money.

It's quite clear if you have the intelligence to just open your eyes.

Originally Posted by Sharky

We should just give away free money to everyone too! Let's just do away with the need to actually work and have a job! Work sucks!

See? Sharky gets it!

[/sarcasm]

[Keganswar]

She is dangerous. She is young good looking and a vessel to promote socialism and global warming. No one cares how its going to be paid for because that is a mute point. She will keep pushing socialism and global warming until more independents are comfortable with it and its not fringe anymore (this is already happening). How will it be paid for? Like everywhere else that socialism has been tried. Tyranny. Once power is established it wont matter how many "cow farts" exist. The end goal is power.

Conservatives need to stop with the how will it be paid for argument.... yuk yuk yuk look at the idiot stuff (this is not directed at site members but media talking heads). We just print money anyway so the American public as a whole does not care were the money comes from or has been desensitized to that. This is evident by the over 20 trillion in debt we are in yet ALL of our social programs still exist with no cuts.

She is a liberal GOD propped up by the liberal media. Conservatives are out matched when it comes to media and messaging. The liberals have hollweird and most entertainers as well. We would be better served drawing contrasts between government oppression and the loss of freedoms all the down sides of socialism. Venezuela should be live streamed 24/7.

We should be saying nothing but term limits as a counter to the socialism nonsense since that's a very easy low information voter concept to message and get behind. And the economy.

[KimberChick]

Originally Posted by Keganswar

She is dangerous. She is young good looking and a vessel to promote socialism and global warming. No one cares how its going to be paid for because that is a mute point. She will keep pushing socialism and global warming until more independents are comfortable with it and its not fringe anymore (this is already happening). How will it be paid for? Like everywhere else that socialism has been tried. Tyranny. Once power is established it wont matter how many "cow farts" exist. The end goal is power.

Conservatives need to stop with the how will it be paid for argument.... yuk yuk yuk look at the idiot stuff (this is not directed at site members but media talking heads). We just print money anyway so the American public as a whole does not care were the money comes from or has been desensitized to that. This is evident by the over 20 trillion in debt we are in yet ALL of our social programs still exist with no cuts.

She is a liberal GOD propped up by the liberal media. Conservatives are out matched when it comes to media and messaging. The liberals have hollweird and most entertainers as well. We would be better served drawing contrasts between government oppression and the loss of freedoms all the down sides of socialism. Venezuela should be live streamed 24/7.

We should be saying nothing but term limits as a counter to the socialism nonsense since that's a very easy low information voter concept to message and get behind. And the economy.

Yuck, really? She has crazy eyes, for G-d sake!

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by KimberChick

Yuck, really? She has crazy eyes, for G-d sake!

That, and give her 5 years. She'll age terribly.

[Streck-Fu]

Even the WaPo is calling her unrealistic.

A pedestrian example: Many people could do better, salary-wise, if they simply negotiated harder with potential employers. But few of them could do better by opening with a pugnacious demand for $1 million a year. Wild demands, unmoored from reality, don’t increase what you ultimately take away from a negotiation; they are much more likely to end the negotiation abruptly when the other party concludes that you’re crazy.

The Green New Deal is nice vision of where the United States might try to go someday. But as an actual blueprint for the immediate future, it’s lunatic. And no matter how technically or morally sound your goals may be, as an opening political message, “We’re nuts!” is neither efficient, nor state-of-the-art.

[Sharky]

Originally Posted by KimberChick

Yuck, really? She has crazy eyes, for G-d sake!

Everybody knows that crazy chicks are far better in bed than sane ones. The trick is escaping the trap the next morning and leaving no trace for her to track you down.

[Box]

I remember learning something about not underestimating our enemies...

Before people write AOC off as a petulant bartender that got lucky in some heat of the moment local election - she has BA from Boston University in International Affairs and Economics.
...to the blind liberal elite and uneducated leftist masses - that is all the "smart-cred" she needs.

International Relations and Economics -arguably, two of the most important talents that a politician must master. It doesn't matter that her head is stuck up her ass most of the time. It doesnt matter that "newspapers" are calling her policies unrealist - as long as 'BuzzFeed' is good to her and TMZ doesn't run a hit piece on her - her base will follow her off a cliff without questioning her motives. She has a degree from B.U. a prestigious liberal mecca in the North East. Home to Nobel laureates, Pulitzer prize winners, and more importantly - Academy Award winning entertainers !!!

She defeated a TEN TERM career bureaucrat that Chaired the Democratic Caucus and served on the House Ways-and-Means Committee.
...her opponent had more than enough connections and resources to protect and preserve his political power but somehow he was trounced by petulant bartender that wasn't even born when he started his journey through New York politics.

But hey - no need to worry about her - she's crazy - no one will listen to her

[TennesseeDave]

Pelosi thinks so highly of this deal that she left AOC off the new house climate change committee.

What I find funny is that Booker, Harris, Warren and Gillibrand all endorsed this deal when it was released. I wonder if they even read it.

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by Box

She defeated a TEN TERM career bureaucrat that Chaired the Democratic Caucus and served on the House Ways-and-Means Committee.

Box,

I don't know sir, she beat him by ~5k votes in a 11.8% turnout which Crowley barely campaigned since he hasn't been challenge since 04.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Steve83

Box,

I don't know sir, she beat him by ~5k votes in a 11.8% turnout which Crowley barely campaigned since he hasn't been challenge since 04.

11.8% turn-out? How many in that district actually knew she was running? Let's see if she gets re-elected in a couple years.

[Keganswar]

Originally Posted by KimberChick

Yuck, really? She has crazy eyes, for G-d sake!

LOL can't say you are wrong! But you put AOC up against Pelosi or Warren.....

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

11.8% turn-out? How many in that district actually knew she was running? Let's see if she gets re-elected in a couple years.

Well, she's got a lot of free publicity now, thanks to the fact that people take her so seriously. But the fact of the matter is she'll cause a schism in the Democratic party. The donor class can't afford her. The moderates will rebel, hard. Why? Because every 2 years there's elections. State, National, Local, etc. It takes money to do this. A Lot of Money. Corporate and donor money will go to either Rs or more moderate Dems. If it goes to the former, it's a problem for the Ds. If it goes to the latter, it's a problem for the progressive Ds.

Look, I'm pretty staunch conservative, but not every Dem is a brain dead economic-illiterate. Some of them know this crap would cost them dearly. People are buying into the idea that she'll be a problem for the Rs or America. No. She'll be a problem for the Democrats. She wants to take the ideas that you stump for to get elected as a Dem, then, once in power, you throw to the wayside and say you addressed them incrementally due to pressure from the other political side. Instead, she actually wants to try to enforce them. Pipe dreams lead to sewers.

Lastly, if I'm wrong... then we balkanize and the country goes its separate ways. DirtyDog's ready, are you?

[btq96r]

Originally Posted by Keganswar

How will it be paid for?

They're kind of right in that it *could* be paid for...

How will you pay for it?

The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment.

I get the counter argument, we don't have the money, federal debt payments are already too high, ect. But AOC and crew are right when they say we paid for other things in the past based on consensus of priority by decision makers, cost be damned. That argument will be out there until the system collapses under it's own weight, they just want a turn at the spigot while it's still flowing, I guess.


This last part is why it's not going to happen, though. We've already gone too far at letting unwilling be interpreted as unable.

Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:

• A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
• High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
• Clean air and water and access to nature
• Healthy food
• High-quality health care
• Safe, affordable, adequate housing
• Economic environment free of monopolies
• Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

[DC]

Originally Posted by Keganswar

Conservatives need to stop with the how will it be paid for argument.... yuk yuk yuk look at the idiot stuff (this is not directed at site members but media talking heads).

This is a great point. The counter argument is that it is the exact opposite of the principals of our country and, at its core, is evil due to its coercive nature and reliance on literally stealing from others.

We lost the argument once we started talking spreadsheets.

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by btq96r

They're kind of right in that it *could* be paid for...

You're going to get tired carrying that water.

No, extending credit to financial institutions, in a time of crisis, as much as I disagreed with it, is much much much different than anything they are proposing. By far.

[ET1/ss nuke]

Originally Posted by Steve83

No, extending credit to financial institutions, in a time of crisis, as much as I disagreed with it, is much much much different than anything they are proposing. By far.

Even though you're right, btqr has a point in that a highly motivated electorate unschooled in macroeconomics could still make self-destructive nonsense into policy, and it wouldn't be the first time.

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by ET1/ss nuke

Even though you're right, btqr has a point in that a highly motivated electorate unschooled in macroeconomics could still make self-destructive nonsense into policy, and it wouldn't be the first time.

I have to disagree. Information and capital both move too fast now.

[Keganswar]

Originally Posted by btq96r

They're kind of right in that it *could* be paid for...



I get the counter argument, we don't have the money, federal debt payments are already too high, ect. But AOC and crew are right when they say we paid for other things in the past based on consensus of priority by decision makers, cost be damned. That argument will be out there until the system collapses under it's own weight, they just want a turn at the spigot while it's still flowing, I guess.


This last part is why it's not going to happen, though. We've already gone too far at letting unwilling be interpreted as unable.

This is true and why they can make the argument seem tempting and not fringe. This is also why she is dangerous. She is like the liberal version of Trump she DGAF what she says or who she says it too. She wants the fight.

[btq96r]

Originally Posted by Steve83

You're going to get tired carrying that water.

No, extending credit to financial institutions, in a time of crisis, as much as I disagreed with it, is much much much different than anything they are proposing. By far.

It's simply making the money available through legislation with congressional authorization (and don't think they're above changing the Fed's mandate), then putting in the people who will disperse it as intended while entrenching the bureaucracy around it. I get the bank bailouts are an apples to oranges comparison, but this isn't a logic question, it's a shell game.

I'm not advocating for this, I'm just saying the "we can't pay for it" argument has never been sufficient to stop government initiatives, so why would we assume it would work here?

[Steve83]

Originally Posted by btq96r

I'm not advocating for this, I'm just saying the "we can't pay for it" argument has never been sufficient to stop government initiatives, so why would we assume it would work here?

Fair enough.