Green New Deal - AOC and Ed Markey version


anatess2
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... if the wealthy are the cause of climate change... why don't we just put them on a table, make them comfortable... while we decide if we should abort them?

Whoa now... 

 

The cause of climate change is clearly cow toots. 

 

The cost, however, for my liberal colleagues to get re-elected and live like kings on governmental expenditures is extensive and requires rich people taxation to fund it. 

 

This results in greater socialism, which results in a worse economy, which means less money for people to be able to afford food, which leads to less cows, and thereby less cow tooting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tyme said:

I take it you don’t believe in climate change, living wage and healthcare. Her ideas are to help the poor and middle class. This is something new because normally politicians work for the filthy rich.

The very first draft had reference to the basic living wage being for people who were unwilling to work as well as those who were unable. 

Suffice to say that once people found out about that the bit in bold disappeared quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Colirio said:

Whoa now... 

 

The cause of climate change is clearly cow toots. 

 

The cost, however, for my liberal colleagues to get re-elected and live like kings on governmental expenditures is extensive and requires rich people taxation to fund it. 

 

This results in greater socialism, which results in a worse economy, which means less money for people to be able to afford food, which leads to less cows, and thereby less cow tooting. 

 

OOOOHHH... Now THAT's an idea.

It's almost better than the government printing money to pay for a transpacific-to-transcarribean high speed rail connecting Hawaii and the Bahamas to mainland USA running across the southern border ON TOP OF A 20-ft WALL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The very first draft had reference to the basic living wage being for people who were unwilling to work as well as those who were unable. 

Suffice to say that once people found out about that the bit in bold disappeared quickly. 

Actually, it didn't.  The whole document/FAQs/etc disappeared quickly... well, as much as it can disappear off the internet.  The mad scramble for excuses ranged from the Republicans doctoring the document to a draft got mistakenly published to somebody made a mistake in the communications department.  If they would have just said "the dog ate the homework" it would have been more believable.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Actually, it didn't.  The whole document/FAQs/etc disappeared quickly... well, as much as it can disappear off the internet.  The mad scramble for excuses ranged from the Republicans doctoring the document to a draft got mistakenly published to somebody made a mistake in the communications department.  If they would have just said "the dog ate the homework" it would have been more believable.

Either way, the whole thing makes it very, very clear that AOC is well divorced from reality.

I've even heard rumors that the Democrats in her home state are looking to redistrict her district out of existence so that they can justify getting rid of her. 

Edited by Ironhold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of it was really concern for the environment, there's nothing stopping them from reducing their own impact without needing any legislation.  Forcing others to do it isn't about the environment; it's about power.  Same for helping anyone; their millions/billions won't be available to feed or clothe or "provide a minimum standard of living" for anyone.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/12/green-new-deal-simply-delusional-excuse-seize-power/

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind as we think about AOC and her "affordable housing for everybody" platform:

Poor people not allowed in AOC's luxury apartment complex

Quote

Ocasio-Cortez’s new building — built by leading D.C. developer WC Smith — is part of a luxury complex whose owners specifically do not offer affordable units under Washington, D.C.’s Affordable Dwelling Units program. The Washington Examiner is not naming the building or complex.

In 2018, a civil rights attorney sued the Washington, D.C. government for allegedly discriminatory gentrification policies, claiming that development in Navy Yard area and other parts of southeast D.C. encouraged an influx of affluent “millennial creatives” who displaced minority residents.
...
Her new apartment complex — which boasts on its website that it vows to take "luxury apartment living" to a higher level — offers over 100,000 square feet of amenities for its residents.

These include: two private massage rooms with state-of-the-art hydrotherapy beds; men’s and women’s saunas; a full-scale demonstration kitchen with wood-fired pizza oven; a 25-meter indoor lap pool; a rooftop infinity pool with panoramic views of the Capitol; a Peloton cycling studio with over a dozen bikes; and a fireside lounge featuring a Steinway & Sons player piano.

Also included is a PGA-grade golf simulation lounge with a wrap-around screen and viewing bar that allows residents to play virtually at dozens of the world’s most exclusive golf courses with the touch of a button. Last week, Democrats mocked President Trump for installing a new golf simulator at the White House — updating with his own money one originally installed by former President Barack Obama.

Apartments in the building currently start at $1,840 per month for a 440 square foot studio, and range up to $5,200 for a three-bedroom. The average rent in Washington D.C. is $1,340 for a one-bedroom apartment and $1,550 for a two-bedroom, according to the most recent data from Apartment List.

One wonders why she's not practicing what she preaches.  (Well, I don't wonder, I have some guesses.  *cough-coughAlGore-cough-cough*  But yeah, we ought to know this stuff.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something to keep in mind as we think about AOC and her "affordable housing for everybody" platform:

Poor people not allowed in AOC's luxury apartment complex

One wonders why she's not practicing what she preaches.  (Well, I don't wonder, I have some guesses.  But yeah, we ought to know this stuff.)

And how about her putting her boyfriend on the Congressional payroll? 

Oh wait... I guess that's in line with Socialist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@unixknight @SpiritDragon, this is actually a great thread to relate vaccination law with Climate Change law in Green New Deal.

The same premise is present - a problem that affects the entire populace with a solution handed over to the government that has the power over the entire populace.

So, I'll paste my opinion on vaccination here from that other thread so we can relate it to Climate Change:

Quote

My default position as a classic liberal (which equates to conservative in the USA) is that governments may tell me I can't do something but governments SHOULD NOT tell me I HAVE to do something.  This is what made Obamacare egregious - this is the first time a government forced a populace to buy something instead of just banning something from sale.  My position on the vaccination issue, therefore, goes against my classic liberal principles.  I allow this exception because of the dire consequences of contagious diseases on the populace and how the solution to the problem is best administered by an institution that has power over the entire populace.  This is in the same vein as the concept of National Defense where a government-run military, with the government having the power over the entire populace, is the best solution to eliminating the threat of invasion.  Now, if this need to solve contagious diseases changes - that is, eradication of the plague can be achieved through Private Enterprise rather than government, then that is where my support will naturally flow.

So, when it comes to Climate Change - the reason I am pro-vaccine law but anti Climate Change law is because I do not believe that 1.)  Climate Change needs to be stopped, 2.) The stated government actions will stop Climate Change.  Whereas, I know for a fact - through historical and personal experience - that vaccinations eradicate diseases.

And I think that's where you guys and I have the difference.  You don't believe that herd immunity is necessary to eradicate contagions or that it is even effective in doing so.  I can understand the position.  I just don't believe it... I can be convinced, of course, but it's hard to do so with the way things are in the Philippines.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So hey, what happened to that friend you sent God-Emperor Trump to?

Oh I thought I'd come back and updated... He actually didn't freak out as I thought he would.  He joked about how "Now Trump has ruined this too" but it didn't feel like an actual rant.  I  guess since the artist who designed the float seemed to have vaguely anti-Trump ideas, it was more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something to keep in mind as we think about AOC and her "affordable housing for everybody" platform:

Poor people not allowed in AOC's luxury apartment complex

One wonders why she's not practicing what she preaches.  (Well, I don't wonder, I have some guesses.  *cough-coughAlGore-cough-cough*  But yeah, we ought to know this stuff.)

Whoa, whoa, WHOA!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Navy Yard is the NICE part of DC now??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@unixknight @SpiritDragon, this is actually a great thread to relate vaccination law with Climate Change law in Green New Deal.

The same premise is present - a problem that affects the entire populace with a solution handed over to the government that has the power over the entire populace.

So, I'll paste my opinion on vaccination here from that other thread so we can relate it to Climate Change:

So, when it comes to Climate Change - the reason I am pro-vaccine law but anti Climate Change law is because I do not believe that 1.)  Climate Change needs to be stopped, 2.) The stated government actions will stop Climate Change.  Whereas, I know for a fact - through historical and personal experience - that vaccinations eradicate diseases.

And I think that's where you guys and I have the difference.  You don't believe that herd immunity is necessary to eradicate contagions or that it is even effective in doing so.  I can understand the position.  I just don't believe it... I can be convinced, of course, but it's hard to do so with the way things are in the Philippines.

From my perspective it's all government over-reach and leads to the erosion of belief in science across the board because things get churned out with clear political or corporate bias, probably largely based on who is in power when requests for funding studies take place. 

It's important to realize that studies that turn out unfavourable results don't have to be published which creates biases in the literature.

Consider:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-drugs-studies/unfavorable-drug-studies-dont-get-into-print-report-idUSN1663594120080117

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/17/medical-trial-results-withheld-mps-report

It doesn't really take a conspiracy theorist to start to doubt the integrity of scientific findings when that which is unfavorable can be withheld and destroyed. This leaves us with missing information when doing reviews and leads to ongoing inaccuracies. If it happens with drugs, it's not a stretch to imagine it happens with vaccines, climate change and any other issue that may gain political favour by having "science" back it up or may be hurt by "science" disagreeing.

Just as I believe that vaccines do help reduce the diseases they are designed to protect against, I do believe climate change is real, and I do believe that eating more veggies and less processed food and less meat is protective against disease, I don't believe the government has any business making decisions about what I put in my body or my family's bodies. I believe carbon taxes and targets are a pathetic attempt to increase taxes by finding something that rallies a particular base, but will do little to change climate patterns. I don't believe people should lose their agency even in the light of scientific consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm late to this party... but here's another brilliant move by AOC.  

What's even so mind-mindbogglingly idiotic about this is... after AOC managed to "defeat" Amazon, she turned around and told her supporters that now "we can spend the $3 billion dollars we saved on infrastructure projects!".  She is beyond stupid.  The $3B TAX BREAK that Amazon was gonna get after they pay $27B in taxes... is now a "savings" for New York that they can spend somewhere else instead of paying TO Amazon.  Can you imagine the mental gymnastic necessary to come up with that brilliant math???  This is beyond stupid.  This is... I don't know if there's a word for it.

And guess what... there's rumors that Bernie Sanders is going to pick her as his running mate. 

 

aoc-billboard.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, I'm late to this party... but here's another brilliant move by AOC.  

What's even so mind-mindbogglingly idiotic about this is... after AOC managed to "defeat" Amazon, she turned around and told her supporters that now "we can spend the $3 billion dollars we saved on infrastructure projects!".  She is beyond stupid.  The $3B TAX BREAK that Amazon was gonna get after they pay $27B in taxes... is now a "savings" for New York that they can spend somewhere else instead of paying TO Amazon.  Can you imagine the mental gymnastic necessary to come up with that brilliant math???  This is beyond stupid.  This is... I don't know if there's a word for it.

And guess what... there's rumors that Bernie Sanders is going to pick her as his running mate. 

 

aoc-billboard.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

I agree that driving amazon away was shortsighted and stupid. The return would have been much greater than the costs.

It’s also stupid that cities have to pay coropirate welfare for a corporation valued at a trillion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
2 hours ago, Tyme said:

I agree that driving amazon away was shortsighted and stupid. The return would have been much greater than the costs.

I'm torn on this. Yes, Amazon could have had a huge positive impact on the local economy. But so could plenty of smaller homegrown companies that the city could invest in. This is something that turned into a debate in my industry several years ago when Asheville, NC started giving tax incentives to large Colorado/Cali breweries wanting to build second brewing facilities in their city. The discussion quickly turned to "What about our homegrown Asheville breweries?" Ultimately, it boils down to whether you want Amazon to create jobs in your city or if you want to give local innovators the chance to become the next Amazon and create jobs in your city. San Antonio took a hard stance on the latter. We'll see how that works out. NYC isn't San Antonio. Maybe they could have used the extra jobs. They probably don't need more gentrification though, and I think that was one of the big concerns. 

2 hours ago, Tyme said:

It’s also stupid that cities have to pay coropirate welfare for a corporation valued at a trillion.

Agreed. And I think this is my biggest beef with Amazon. I don't like the idea of local governments kissing the ring of a huge corporate entity that shouldn't be owed anything simply for choosing to exist in a given space. Yet there are people in this country who won't blink an eye at massive corporate tax breaks, but god forbid a single mother applies for food stamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s so much sound and fury, that it seems hard to know whether Amazon left because they weren’t getting enough corporate welfare or whether they left because they saw the beginnings of rent-seeking from local politicos who saw them first and foremost as a cash cow.  If the former—good for NYC for refusing to engage in that sort of corruption.  If the latter—good for Amazon, for refusing to engage in that sort of corruption.  

But the notion expressed by some that Amazon represents “the wrong kind of jobs”, or objections over “gentrification”, are difficult for me to sympathize with.  The odds of any single startup providing 25,000 jobs of any sort—or the likelihood that such a hypothetical startup cannot coexist within an x mile radius of an Amazon warehouse—are infinitesimal; and (all other things being equal) getting 25,000 new jobs is certainly better than getting *no* new jobs.  And “gentrification” strikes me as 90% Newspeak for “people are getting richer (darnit!!!)”

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazon was simply looking for the place which offered the most benefits to their new center in a few limited locations.  NY originally offered them a great more and better incentives than other places.  With the growing anger and distaste from NYC, it probably became apparent that even though the incentives looked favorable previously, they were looking less and less favorable in contrast to the negative attitude, political situation, and other aspects they would be facing there.  Better to withdraw sooner than later and avoid spending that can't be used elsewhere.

Smart choice by Amazon.

A SMARTER choice I think would to have not been so limited in their selection.  I would have probably gone to Iowa and started a headquarters in the middle of nowhere. 

Why?

Land is cheap there.  You can build what you want in many places without the political hassle.  Iowa would probably WELCOME something like that.  You could create from a clean slate whatever you want to.  Taxes are probably LOWER than anything you'll get in most major cities (definitely cheaper than NYC) AND, be more affordable.

The biggest problems would be access to airports and other forms of transportation.  You would basically need to create that from scratch.  Once built, it would be there though.  In addition, the city would build AROUND you, thus making you FAR more important to the politics and economy of the area.

I'd go with Iowa (or some other similar place) instead of where they went.  You go to America's Heartland and you get America's Heart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tyme said:

It’s also stupid that cities have to pay coropirate welfare for a corporation valued at a trillion.

 

10 hours ago, Godless said:

but god forbid a single mother applies for food stamps.

And no wonder AOC thinks she has "saved' NY $3B that they can now spend on infrastructure....  "Cities PAY..." and equating tax incentives with mothers applying for food stamps.  Geez lueeez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And guess what... there's rumors that Bernie Sanders is going to pick her as his running mate. 

Not constitutionally possible.  Minimum age for President is 35, AOC is 29 or 30.  (Well, maybe she could technically be VP, I’d have to look it up; but if something happened to President Bernie she’s be ineligible to succeed him.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not constitutionally possible.  Minimum age for President is 35, AOC is 29 or 30.  (Well, maybe she could technically be VP, I’d have to look it up; but if something happened to President Bernie she’s be ineligible to succeed him.)

 

...because Democrats are known for their diehard support of the Constitution... 

 

😏

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share