Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

Apr 15, 2018
1,885
2,063
230
You should read more about green energy, you have a really pessimist view. Green technology is evolving fast. Giant batteries, for example, are now used to store green energy and put it on the grid when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/renewable-energy-competition-market

Where I live we run on 98% clean electricity, and our grid is really solid. Transport is more problematic, but we are getting there.

With that thinking of yours we would move around with horses and coal trains. Of course it's a transition but the market is moving in the right direction. The faster the better. The cost of doing nothing and keep fossil fuels will be terrible.
All that progress we have made, we've dopne so with stupid policy proposals like what is on offer here.

Again, we are talking about the the united states of America, one of if not the leader in green technology. This idea that we "must" do this or else it's back "to horse drawn carriages" is just insane.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,315
5,062
465
I don't know. Ask Trump supporters. Because he is certainly not competent and yet I see excuses and defenses for him all the time.
I wasn't aware this was a discussion about Trump, we're talking AOC here. Also, where have I made excuses for Trump? Considering that the guy doesn't even know how CFCs and aerosols work he's just as dumb as AOC. You don't fight populism with more populism through an irrational race to the bottom.

Your whataboutism is misplaced.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Mar 5, 2007
9,144
119
925
we really could just pay for all of this by actually taxing the billionaires and reducing our defense funding to a sane and reasonable level for once.
This is not at all true though.

We could confiscate 100% of the wealth of every billionaire and it wouldn't come close to paying for this. It would barely cover 2 years of the current budget deficits, much less actually provide funding for new expenditures. That's not even counting the massive loss of valuation that would be caused by the government expropriating Amazon from Bezos or Tesla from Musk, for example. A large portion of the valuation of those companies is based on the founders involvement, so the government would be lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar after confiscating them.

People really don't understand the scale of federal government in relation to how many super rich people there are. You can't fund massive government programs via a tax on the rich, there is the reason European countries rely heavily on regressive VAT taxes.

Though if you read the list of goals literally, there is literally not enough wealth in the entire country to pay for all of that, possibly not in the entire world. We are talking a project to rebuild basically the entire infrastructure of the nation in a decade. That's tens of trillions of dollars of assets built up over the last 100 or so years being replaced in 10 years. It's not even physically possible, much less economically. Not even getting into the 'guaranteed job' nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Likes: gunslikewhoa
Oct 1, 2006
3,050
2,361
1,090
we really could just pay for all of this by actually taxing the billionaires and reducing our defense funding to a sane and reasonable level for once.
How do you pay for tens of trillions with fractions of billions (from the rich, the single digit wealthiest of which are barely billionaires) or even hundreds of billions (cutting defense, yearly budget around $600B).

This is ten trillion dollars:

$10,000,000,000,000

This is taxing billionaires:

$10,000,000 (because billionaires don't actually make billions of dollars - they make $10Ms to $100Ms a year)

How many of the latter do you need for the former?
 
Oct 1, 2006
3,050
2,361
1,090
Obviously all this is not feasible anytime soon but we should definately be working towards this future. The sooner we get all the way off fossil fuels and go renewable the better off we will be.
Renewable is literal junk tech. All that money should go to nuclear, if anywhere. All "green" energy does is raise prices and cause brownouts.
 
Likes: Musky_Cheese

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
I don't know. Ask Trump supporters. Because he is certainly not competent and yet I see excuses and defenses for him all the time.


Hell for the better part of a year when he first took office him being new was a widely used excuse to hand wave his faults and shortcomings. Yet curiously I don't see AOC getting that same treatment.


I wonder why.....:unsure::unsure::unsure:
You hate him because of his personality. Other than his wall, he has been quite effective at achieving the things he campaigned on. Whether you or I like those things is irrelevant.
 
Oct 14, 2012
1,477
8
515
Portland, OR
How do you pay for tens of trillions with fractions of billions (from the rich, the single digit wealthiest of which are barely billionaires) or even hundreds of billions (cutting defense, yearly budget around $600B).

This is ten trillion dollars:

$10,000,000,000,000

This is taxing billionaires:

$10,000,000 (because billionaires don't actually make billions of dollars - they make $10Ms to $100Ms a year)

How many of the latter do you need for the former?
nice hyperbole there. also how long did you work on those mental gymnastics? It would cost nowhere near that amount and you know it.
 
Mar 5, 2007
9,144
119
925
nice hyperbole there. also how long did you work on those mental gymnastics? It would cost nowhere near that amount and you know it.
Rebuilding or refurbishing every house in the country and replacing the entire transportation infrastructure of the country?

I'd say his figures are likely an order of magnitude too low.

Especially if you take the 10 year time frame seriously, just getting the resources needed for that level of construction project will require so many new steel and concrete plants, new mines for iron ore(not to mention the lithium and cobalt for all the batteries) that it will make a mockery of the 'green' aspect.

Unless somehow you think there's a way to build tens of thousands of miles of high speed rail(at the least) in 10 years without steel and concrete.

The value of the US housing stock is over $30 trillion by itself, and somehow we are supposed to be able to rebuild it all for less than $10 trillion, plus the infrastructure, plus the jobs program?

I don't think you are properly visualizing the scale of such a project. I mean we are already looking at ~100 billion for a somewhat non-high speed rail line in California(which also isn't going to be done in anywhere like 10 years), and we would need hundreds of projects on that scale to achieve what this plan calls for.

It is physically, economically, fiscally, and in every other respect impossible.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,519
7,671
825
Australia
Rebuilding or refurbishing every house in the country and replacing the entire transportation infrastructure of the country?

I'd say his figures are likely an order of magnitude too low.

Especially if you take the 10 year time frame seriously, just getting the resources needed for that level of construction project will require so many new steel and concrete plants, new mines for iron ore(not to mention the lithium and cobalt for all the batteries) that it will make a mockery of the 'green' aspect.

Unless somehow you think there's a way to build tens of thousands of miles of high speed rail(at the least) in 10 years without steel and concrete.

The value of the US housing stock is over $30 trillion by itself, and somehow we are supposed to be able to rebuild it all for less than $10 trillion, plus the infrastructure, plus the jobs program?

I don't think you are properly visualizing the scale of such a project. I mean we are already looking at ~100 billion for a somewhat non-high speed rail line in California(which also isn't going to be done in anywhere like 10 years), and we would need hundreds of projects on that scale to achieve what this plan calls for.

It is physically, economically, fiscally, and in every other respect impossible.
Duhhhh just import the coal-free green steel from China
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
I too support ensuring economic stability for those who are "unwilling to work".

What could possibly go wrong?

Both documents are staggeringly stupid and misguided.

Doesn't anyone remember Obama's Solyndra scandal? Billions of taxpayer dollars flushed, many [maybe even all at this point] companies involved are now bankrupt. But yeah, let's force retrofitting or rebuilding every building in the country while getting rid of air travel and paying those unwilling to work.

It's a fucking dumpster fire. It's a 6th grader's dear diary entry on how to save the world. Its not even a good conversation starter, it's just the punchline at the end of a joke.
 
Likes: gunslikewhoa
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
You could do everything she asks for, it would just need to be paid for by rich people.

The problem is that she's a fringe candidate so none of this will really even matter.

Wait until Biden comes out.

Then we'll really know where the country is headed.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
You could do everything she asks for, it would just need to be paid for by rich people.

The problem is that she's a fringe candidate so none of this will really even matter.

Wait until Biden comes out.

Then we'll really know where the country is headed.
No no no no no. How much money do you think this will cost and how much do you believe "rich people" have?
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,116
4,939
335
nice hyperbole there. also how long did you work on those mental gymnastics? It would cost nowhere near that amount and you know it.
If you want to go by her paying for the unwilling to work part alone that would be already BILLLIONS

Lets see. The US has 325 Million people right? 75 million of them are under 18 so lets cut them.

there are still 250 Million left.

Lets say you need like 1000 for living. In some states and cities like Seattle it is much more. but lets go with 1000$ to make it easier.

250 Million times 1000$ = 250. 000. 000. 000

That is 250 BILLION $ already. And this is just ONE of her points. She is fucking insane and has NO fucking idea how the real world works.

PS: If you have something like that. Than you really need to protect your Borders.
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
No no no no no. How much money do you think this will cost and how much do you believe "rich people" have?
It will cost less than Trump's tax cuts which did nothing to reduce the debt.

In this case you're actually investing in infrastructure which has been proven to benefit the economy, unlike tinkle down.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
6,116
4,939
335
It will cost less than Trump's tax cuts which did nothing to reduce the debt.

In this case you're actually investing in infrastructure which has been proven to benefit the economy, unlike tinkle down.
How much were these Tax cuts?

Again her first proposal would be easy 250 Billion already. What do you think free healthcare would cost? Or renewing the complete infrastructure. Then the Climate changes etc. Seriously get a grip of reality. This is not even funny anymore. This is just sad.
 
Likes: oagboghi2
Jun 12, 2009
4,311
252
800
How much were these Tax cuts?

Again her first proposal would be easy 250 Billion already. What do you think free healthcare would cost? Or renewing the complete infrastructure. Then the Climate changes etc. Seriously get a grip of reality. This is not even funny anymore. This is just sad.
It's not sad.

Just expensive.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,116
4,939
335
It's not sad.

Just expensive.
No you thinking this is doable is sad. That it is expensive I know already.

Overall we would talk about a couple of Trillion $ each year. I love how people like you think that free healthcare is easy to archive with 325 Million people. Even if you tax the rich people by 90% it will not be enough. Furthermore Rich people would fucking leave the country and take their jobs with them. Taxing rich people would have worked in the 60 and 70s but we are now global. Companies rather build their factories in China. Why do they want to to live in America? There is no reason to stay here. To believe that rich people who are responsible for millions of jobs will just sit there and pay is utterly naive and stupid. Sorry to say so.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,939
487
305
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
It will cost less than Trump's tax cuts which did nothing to reduce the debt.

In this case you're actually investing in infrastructure which has been proven to benefit the economy, unlike tinkle down.
This is so wildly incorrect it makes my head spin. Like, spreading misinformation this completely removed from reality is irresponsible.

Were talking retrofitting or rebuilding every building in the country.

Were talking about creating a high speed rail system so efficient that we eliminate air travel. This alone makes no sense. Osaka to Tokyo is like 2.5 hours. We'd need to cover 3,000 miles just for a single coast to coast solution.. The trip itself would take a day, meaning they'd need to be sleeper cars. We'd need these everywhere.

Healthcare for all. Economic security for all, even those unwilling to work. Education.

Oh, also, get rid of every gas powered car within 10 years. Shutter massive industries [power, air, etc] with a empty promise of free jobs for all.

We are talking 10s of trillions of dollars, and that's even ignoring idiotic statements like paying those unwilling to work.

Hell, don't take my word for it.
Her own document reads:

"The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient."

Darn, right?

But wait,there's more.

"Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time."

yes, you're reading that right . By her own words even if the entire resources of all the billionaires and companies were forced to stop making all the products they currently make and dedicated themselves entirely to her plan... that's still not enough. Those are her words.

So how does she suggest paying for it? Print money [aka hyper inflation, devaluing the dollar, destroying our economy]

But even that isn't enough.

Because "the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver."


There it is in plain text. Even if every billionaire and Company dedicate themselves to her plan 100% , it's not enough. The government must be in control of these resources in order for it to work. And not just the rich, and not just companies. "Every actor." That's your resources.

That's a direct call for state communism.

She Wants It All because she knows better. And she wants us to give it all to someone with a plan this stupid.

This plan is a fucking pile of horse manure. It's pipe dreams and hyperinflation. It's bad math and cow farts. It's pure idiocy that will have millions of Americans starving to death when the economy implodes. It's pissing in the mouth of the willfully ignorant.

Every democratic presidential candidate that signed onto this should moonwalk the fuck out of politics.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
1,885
2,063
230
This is so wildly incorrect it makes my head spin. Like, spreading misinformation this completely removed from reality is irresponsible.

Were talking retrofitting or rebuilding every building in the country.

Were talking about creating a high speed rail system so efficient that we eliminate air travel. This alone makes no sense. Osaka to Tokyo is like 2.5 hours. We'd need to cover 3,000 miles just for a single coast to coast solution.. The trip itself would take a day, meaning they'd need to be sleeper cars. We'd need these everywhere.

Healthcare for all. Economic security for all, even those unwilling to work. Education.

Oh, also, get rid of every gas powered car within 10 years. Shutter massive industries [power, air, etc] with a empty promise of free jobs for all.

We are talking 10s of trillions of dollars, and that's even ignoring idiotic statements like paying those unwilling to work.

Hell, don't take my word for it.
Her own document reads:

"The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient."

Darn, right?

But wait,there's more.

"Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time."

yes, you're reading that right . By her own words even if the entire resources of all the billionaires and companies were forced to stop making all the products they currently make and dedicated themselves entirely to her plan... that's still not enough. Those are her words.

So how does she suggest paying for it? Print money [aka hyper inflation, devaluing the dollar, destroying our economy]

But even that isn't enough.

Because "the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver."


There it is in plain text. Even if every billionaire and Company dedicate themselves to her plan 100% , it's not enough. The government must be in control of these resources in order for it to work.

That's a direct call for state communism.

This plan is a fucking pile of horse manure. It's pipe dreams and hyperinflation. It's bad math and cow farts. It's pipe dreams and millions of Americans starving to death when the economy implodes. It's pissing in the mouth of the willfully ignorant.

Every democratic presidential candidate that signed onto this should moonwalk the fuck out of politics.
I think a lot of people supporting this either haven't read it,or are so ignorant (dragonfart) that they don't really understand what they are fighting for. It just has a lot of buzzwords
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,156
1,429
835
I think a lot of people supporting this either haven't read it,or are so ignorant (dragonfart) that they don't really understand what they are fighting for. It just has a lot of buzzwords
It doesn't really matter where it starts, this is the idealized best case scenario version imo not based a lot on reality.

There's two years to make legislation of this, and it's more like an idealized action plan. What will actually become of it is about story.

For example we can't accomplish high speed rail, the U.S. simply can't do it inexpensively.

On infrastructure we'd be bringing old federal and state buildings up to standard, and offering tax incentives towards upgrading your home windows or something (this has been done before).

Airplanes are a non-starter other than pushing R&D of new tech.

What we hope to achieve in 10 years is an aggressive plan bordering around implemtation towards carbon free emissions by 2030 (oh shit lol, that's close). 2050 then.

Things like that.
 
Last edited:
Feb 25, 2017
280
265
210
I too support ensuring economic stability for those who are "unwilling to work".

What could possibly go wrong?

Both documents are staggeringly stupid and misguided.

Doesn't anyone remember Obama's Solyndra scandal? Billions of taxpayer dollars flushed, many [maybe even all at this point] companies involved are now bankrupt. But yeah, let's force retrofitting or rebuilding every building in the country while getting rid of air travel and paying those unwilling to work.

It's a fucking dumpster fire. It's a 6th grader's dear diary entry on how to save the world. Its not even a good conversation starter, it's just the punchline at the end of a joke.
It reads more like an 8th grader's essay on how to solve world problems without the awareness and understanding of how the real world works.
 
Dec 6, 2008
6,599
308
815
TX
It's interesting that there's finally a Democrat who uses Trump like tactics (effectively) to maneuver an agenda. It's also interesting that a lot of Trump fans don't recognize those tactics when used by the "other side".
How many times have the Trumpkins lectured everyone on how he asks for something outlandish knowing it will be negotiated down to something reasonable? Is this one of those "rules for thee" situations I see bandied about around here so often?
 
Feb 25, 2017
280
265
210
It's interesting that there's finally a Democrat who uses Trump like tactics (effectively) to maneuver an agenda. It's also interesting that a lot of Trump fans don't recognize those tactics when used by the "other side".
What Trump tactics? He was merely tapping into people's anxiety and fear while speaking without a filter. In other words, he was just saying what the majority of Americans where thinking about the state and direction the country was heading.

This AOC is not saying what people are thinking. People aren't thinking about going with less electricity, a complete lifestyle change, or higher taxes. She is telling the radical left how to think, which direction the country should head into, and mostly, I would presume, to a minority and fringe element even in her party.

Most people with common sense can see this, but the Trump derangement syndrome is real.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
How many times have the Trumpkins lectured everyone on how he asks for something outlandish knowing it will be negotiated down to something reasonable? Is this one of those "rules for thee" situations I see bandied about around here so often?
This guy gets it.
What Trump tactics? He was merely tapping into people's anxiety and fear while speaking without a filter. In other words, he was just saying what the majority of Americans where thinking about the state and direction the country was heading.

This AOC is not saying what people are thinking. People aren't thinking about going with less electricity, a complete lifestyle change, or higher taxes. She is telling the radical left how to think, which direction the country should head into, and mostly, I would presume, to a minority and fringe element even in her party.

Most people with common sense can see this, but the Trump derangement syndrome is real.
This guy doesn't.
 
Likes: dragonfart28

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Interesting that some commentators seem to be ok with employment of wholly unrealistic "Tactics" so long as the person matching the preferred identity politics is the one employing them.

Not quite the 'gotcha' they think it is.
Does that mean you were totally okie dokie with President Trump's "ban all Muslims" identity based political policy suggestion?
 

rorepmE

Neo Member
Jan 20, 2019
25
7
85
Republic of Val Verde
How many times have the Trumpkins lectured everyone on how he asks for something outlandish knowing it will be negotiated down to something reasonable? Is this one of those "rules for thee" situations I see bandied about around here so often?
You could combine the dollar cost of *all* of Trump's "outlandish" proposals in their raw form, non-negotiated and they wouldn't touch the outlandish shit coming from AOC even if you negotiated her plan down to 1/8th the cost. It's not a moonshot, it's a Plutoshot that can be negotiated to a Saturnshot.

Does that mean you were totally okie dokie with President Trump's "ban all Muslims" identity based political policy suggestion?
Travel ban for 7 countries, 1 of them Catholic (I assume), 1 of them "atheist'. So 5 out of 50 Muslim majority countries = Muslim ban.

Gotcha.

And even *IF* it was a Muslim ban, what's so outlandish about that other than offending your snowflake senses?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
Dec 15, 2011
1,968
2,870
530
Does that mean you were totally okie dokie with President Trump's "ban all Muslims" identity based political policy suggestion?
I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth - or to make large assumptions about what my position is.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Deflections and distractions change nothing.
Is asking for consistency too much? Or did I misrepresent you?
Oh, you are egregiously consistent.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
35,104
597
1,135
Best Coast
I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth - or to make large assumptions about what my position is.
You're welcome! That's why my response was in the form of a question; am glad you recognize I wasn't trying to assume your position. So... What's the answer?

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Deflections and distractions change nothing.
What, precisely, is the hypocrisy you're concerned with here?
 
Last edited:
May 12, 2007
6,375
166
985
Texaa
You should read more about green energy, you have a really pessimist view. Green technology is evolving fast. Giant batteries, for example, are now used to store green energy and put it on the grid when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/renewable-energy-competition-market

Where I live we run on 98% clean electricity, and our grid is really solid. Transport is more problematic, but we are getting there.

With that thinking of yours we would move around with horses and coal trains. Of course it's a transition but the market is moving in the right direction. The faster the better. The cost of doing nothing and keep fossil fuels will be terrible.
Bullshit. Every past historical energy revolution went from a lower energy density to a higher and did not require government subsidies to supplant the prio
This is an exceptionally stupid way to quantify the government's contribution to the GDP though.

Every government worker pays taxes, and spends money within the economy. When the government needs to build infrastructure they hire contractors who have to purchase capital goods to build things, which in turn employs people to build the equipment. Those workers also pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Government spending isn't lighting money on fire and burning it, like what those on the right think it is. It is economic contribution no different than private industry.
What is opportunity cost, Alex?
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
I think a lot of people supporting this either haven't read it,or are so ignorant (dragonfart) that they don't really understand what they are fighting for. It just has a lot of buzzwords
Well, he clearly has skin in the game and shouldn't be trusted. Removing all cow farts will result in an upswing in dragonfart prices on the flatulence market. Maybe he's even a lobbyist for this nonsense.
 
Likes: matt404au
Aug 30, 2014
6,337
646
385
It doesn't really matter where it starts, this is the idealized best case scenario version imo not based a lot on reality.

There's two years to make legislation of this, and it's more like an idealized9 action plan. What will actually become of it is about story.
Oh, I see. This craptastic document is just like every hate crime hoax- no, its not real, why you mad, she's just trying to start a conversation. Besides, TRUMP!

No. This plan is so dumb it likely will knock politicians out of the running. It is so astronomically Ill thought out that the kindest thing I can hope for any defender is that they haven't actually read it.

But hey, it sounds moral because it makes wild claims like it will "promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);"

And sometimes its better to be AOCs definition of moral than be factually correct, right? So let's all go undermine this thriving economy and go starve in the gutters together in the name of state ownership.

And dont worry, the pollution from China and developing nations will still more than cover for us.

Take the L on this piece of trash. It's not a moral proposal. It's a completely immoral call for state communism that uses so called 'moral' buzzwords to lie to you about its intentions.
 
Last edited:
Nov 3, 2018
265
141
180
Canada
Wouldn't this mean that they'd have to confiscate all current vehicles in the US?
Also, what are they gonna do about planes traveling to or from the US? Or do those not count?
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,788
3,484
460
What is opportunity cost, Alex?
What opportunity cost exists when companies horde cash to do stock buy backs? The government can do things that private industry is scared to try. Do you think we would have a space industry if the government didn't start it? How about Airlines? Aerospace development came from government investment. There is huge opportunity cost with private investment as well.