The Green New Deal Would Spend the U.S. Into Oblivion

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Also we are $22 trillion in debt.

Someone explain what “oblivion” looks like in that regard.

 

[the cac mamba]

so it sounds like that piece of shyt mcconnel just embarrassed the dems on this hes bringing it to a vote but they're like "well..uhh..maybe some of it shouldn't really be....real "

 

[storyteller]

so it sounds like that piece of shyt mcconnel just embarrassed the dems on this hes bringing it to a vote but they're like "well..uhh..maybe some of it shouldn't really be....real "

That's not at all what they said, they said he's rushing it to a vote to avoid giving everyone time to discuss the resolution and consult experts. It's just going to be votes based on preconceived notions instead of an actual robust discussion about the ideas in the bill.

 

[the cac mamba]

That's not at all what they said, they said he's rushing it to a vote to avoid giving everyone time to discuss the resolution and consult experts. It's just going to be votes based on preconceived notions instead of an actual robust discussion about the ideas in the bill.

ok, but we know that some of what's in there is fukking retarded

 

[storyteller]

ok, but we know that some of what's in there is fukking retarded

The entire point of Mcconnell doing this is so that people with zero expertise can look at a vague list of goals, ignore that they haven't seen any models to know if the goals are attainable, and then dismiss the entire document. As the Dems discussed what is and isn't attainable within that vague list of promises, we'd get to see models and analysis that might make us realize something we took for granted as dumb is actually plausible (think the Fight for Fifteen, marijuana legalization or Universal Healthcare for examples of this happening in our recent history). The GND probably is too pie in the sky, but rushing to a vote makes sure you never differentiate which portions were reaches and which portions could be folded into a national platform for 2020.

 

[Serious]

@Barnett114 was right. Most of you dudes are running around low key like republicans

lowkey?

OGC is a known conservative from Sohh

 

[the cac mamba]

The entire point of Mcconnell doing this is so that people with zero expertise can look at a vague list of goals, ignore that they haven't seen any models to know if the goals are attainable, and then dismiss the entire document. As the Dems discussed what is and isn't attainable within that vague list of promises, we'd get to see models and analysis that might make us realize something we took for granted as dumb is actually plausible (think the Fight for Fifteen, marijuana legalization or Universal Healthcare for examples of this happening in our recent history). The GND probably is too pie in the sky, but rushing to a vote makes sure you never differentiate which portions were reaches and which portions could be folded into a national platform for 2020.

would you agree it's a bad look to write a bill and then complain when the majority leader allows a vote on your bill

 

[storyteller]

would you agree it's a bad look to write a Non-binding Resolution and then complain when the majority leader allows a vote on your Non-binding Resolution

Touched that up for you for accuracy. I'd agree that to a person who didn't follow this closely, that this situation would be a bad look. If you know that this was intended as a non-binding framework of goals and targets for supporters to design legislation around though; then this just looks like political theater aimed at fooling people who pay more attention to headlines than context. Just to be clear here, this isn't revisionist in any way either, here's what was said upon the release of the resolution.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just released her massive Green New Deal — here's what's in it

The resolution being introduced by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey clarifies the scope and scale of the Green New Deal and paves the way for legislation that would lay out explicit projects and policies. Ocasio-Cortez plans to begin crafting that legislation immediately.

Energy researchers and policymakers previously told CNBC that trying to achieve the climate goals in 10 years could create unintended consequences that undermine progress towards decarbonization. Some of the revisions released on Thursday appear to acknowledge the potential complications from a rapid energy transition.

Ocasio-Cortez also clarified that under the plan, the U.S. will not invest in new nuclear power plants, but existing generation stations would be allowed to continue operating at the end of the 10-year time frame. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's electric power and 63 percent of its zero-carbon power.

"The goal is to use the expansion of renewable energy sources to fully meet 100% of our nation's power demand through only renewable sources in 10 years, but since no one has yet created a full plan to hit that goal, we are currently unsure if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant that fast," Ocasio-Cortez's office said in an FAQ.

They were pretty clear about the goals of this whole concept out the gate.

 

[the cac mamba]

Touched that up for you for accuracy. I'd agree that to a person who didn't follow this closely, that this situation would be a bad look. If you know that this was intended as a non-binding framework of goals and targets for supporters to design legislation around though; then this just looks like political theater aimed at fooling people who pay more attention to headlines than context. Just to be clear here, this isn't revisionist in any way either, here's what was said upon the release of the resolution.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just released her massive Green New Deal — here's what's in it





They were pretty clear about the goals of this whole concept out the gate.

i still don't see the problem

maybe it's things like getting every building in america up to new code in ten years that could present problems

 

[storyteller]

i still don't see the problem

maybe it's things like getting every building in america up to new code in ten years that could present problems

The idea was to lay out goals and then get people crafting legislation toward that end. Maybe 100% infrastructure overhaul is problematic over such a short span, but when we see the models on paper we might realize that a 100% overhaul under a more extended timeline actually makes complete sense...again, that was literally part of the concept to begin with. Again

AOC: "The goal is to use the expansion of renewable energy sources to fully meet 100% of our nation's power demand through only renewable sources in 10 years, but since no one has yet created a full plan to hit that goal, we are currently unsure if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant that fast," Ocasio-Cortez's office said in an FAQ.

This is fairly blatant. We're setting goals but until we construct models and build plans, we can't be certain whether they're all attainable, which are and aren't attainable, or which would be attainable on a longer timeline...in order to find out, we need to actually sit down and craft legislation aiming toward those goals. But if the GOP can get people to just play "gotcha" games with it and take a dismissive attitude, then they don't have to worry about researchers coming across data that suggests we can accomplish more than we assume.

 

[Shogun]

Mitch making the Senate vote on this

Dems like

 

[FAH1223]

 

[BoBurnz]

There are multiple things being ignored there.

For example, current health care spending is $3.5 trillion a year. If Medicare for all is $3.2 trillion, that's a $300 billion savings. Thus you'd actually SAVE money off of current health care spending. In fact, with improved health/productivity, the savings would increase.

A jobs guarantee would lead to increased tax payments and increasing consumer spending, leading to even more taxes.

Infrastructure changes to achieve carbon neutrality could be expensive. But every study shows that responding to climate change is more expensive than preventing it. So what's the game-plan if you're not going to do that, avoid paying a lot now but pay far more later?

The funniest thing is complaining about deficit spending. Wake me up when deficit spending on the military and rich people's tax breaks finally becomes a concern for the right and center.

Half the fukking deficit is from government issued savings bonds and other investitures too, it's like people just hear the word debt and freak out without realizing that to have debt, that means someone or something else has the money.

You could wipe out 50% of the deficit overnight by just divesting all savings bonds, which will destroy the public savings.

 

[Perfectson]

Isn't the entire article ignoring the fact that people will be working, paying taxes, and therefore keeping inflation down?

Paying what taxes , MMT my friends MMT

 

[Perfectson]

The entire point of Mcconnell doing this is so that people with zero expertise can look at a vague list of goals, ignore that they haven't seen any models to know if the goals are attainable, and then dismiss the entire document. As the Dems discussed what is and isn't attainable within that vague list of promises, we'd get to see models and analysis that might make us realize something we took for granted as dumb is actually plausible (think the Fight for Fifteen, marijuana legalization or Universal Healthcare for examples of this happening in our recent history). The GND probably is too pie in the sky, but rushing to a vote makes sure you never differentiate which portions were reaches and which portions could be folded into a national platform for 2020.

Damn you're such a goal post mover.

If this is such a great deal, everyone has had months to look at the tenants and now have had weeks to look at the proposal. It doesn't take that long to get expert opinions if this is such a dire situation and a massively good resolution. You guys are using it in every battle cry and now it's being out to a vote and you're like

This is AOC and socialists getting called out on their shyt again, same thing amazon did. You can't run on this platform and tell everyone it's a do or die situation and then when someone says okay let's vote on it you start double speaking, which is exactly what you're doing.

Don't market a whole system like a new deal, when only one or two things are actually plausible.

Your first line is hilarious because that is exactly what AOC has been doing marketing a resolution that she herself hasn't done any research on and has put that as her #1 agenda and touted it to anyone who would listen. You have people signing on without even knowing what it is . Bring it to vote!!