Jump to content

Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'


wescobrk
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the "unwilling to work" part, but the overview document, released by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office, does include the "unwilling" language

 

Probably a negotiating tactic but baloney nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the details and I don't usually post political stuff, but this doesn't sound good:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

 

It’s part of her branding. She needs to put out extreme and unrealistic statements to gain and keep mindshare and appear in the news. It’s sort of the Trump way of dealing with the media. Better to be known as notorious than not be known at all. like it or hate it doesn’t matter as long as people talk about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She want to end airline travel:

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal

which will cost trillions.

 

And she wants to basically print money to pay for it based on Modern Monetary Theory:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-17/modern-monetary-theory-would-sink-u-s-in-debt

 

MMT is a financial weapon of mass fiscal destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that the members of this board would be VERY alarmed by this talk...

 

If the "Green New Deal" takes effect...we might as well kiss the economy good bye.  Unemployment would be in the hundreds of millions.  Inflation would simply be out of control.  Those are probably the "good" things. 

 

As for bad things, I am sure there would be mass arrests & "re-education camps" for those that would not comply, or not comply quickly enough.

 

What would happen to the stock market?  I would guess that it would go down.  The P/E ratio of the market would probably have to be about 1.  Cap rates would collapse down to about one or less. 

 

What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?

 

Propose something simply CRAZY and then you can sneak in other things that never would have been acceptable previously.  A carbon tax doesn't sound that bad compared to the "Green New Deal"!

 

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that the members of this board would be VERY alarmed by this talk...

 

If the "Green New Deal" takes effect...we might as well kiss the economy good bye.  Unemployment would be in the hundreds of millions.  Inflation would simply be out of control.  Those are probably the "good" things. 

 

As for bad things, I am sure there would be mass arrests & "re-education camps" for those that would not comply, or not comply quickly enough.

 

What would happen to the stock market?  I would guess that it would go down.  The P/E ratio of the market would probably have to be about 1.  Cap rates would collapse down to about one or less. 

 

What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?

 

Propose something simply CRAZY and then you can sneak in other things that never would have been acceptable previously.  A carbon tax doesn't sound that bad compared to the "Green New Deal"!

 

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

 

But it's the liberal mindset - free everything for everybody, illegals included - don't be a racist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

 

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect LC to shut this down. LOL!

 

"What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?"

 

You nailed it and you see LC is now already talking about some middle ground. To him middle ground is to bring you closer to this crazy shit from current reality. Never would it be allowed that middle ground is where we are right now.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cardboard,  you are mis-characterizing me. The worst part is you avoid specifics - is there a particular policy you would like me to state my opinion on? If you had asked you would have found out I am against all this "crazy shit".

 

Maybe ask that question as opposed to generic statements about wanting to "bringing us closer to crazy shit".

 

Its rude, annoying, and disingenuous. But what can I expect when your username describes your brain composition. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

 

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

 

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

 

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

 

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

 

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

 

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

 

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

 

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

 

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

 

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...

 

Totally right on.

 

Why in the world even the liberals (not to mention reasonable Democrats) would not distance themselves from this lunacy

is beyond me.  Ocasio-Cortez make the party look totally nuts.

 

To say it's an attempt to get to a middle ground is not enough - this supposed attempt from Ocasio-Cortez is a

total waste of everyone's time because it shows NO understanding of reality. And any politician that even mildly supports

looks stupid.

 

We should all be frightened that the "left" is slowing gaining control of the Democratic Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This girl is probably, as Curt Schilling said, the dumbest person to ever be elected to Congress. You can tell her plans aren't really hers. They are that of a think tank or team of strategists. Its a dead give away when she tweets or puts in in writing but then when asked in person to elaborate looks and sounds like some twisted mish mash of an 80's valley girl meets Brooklyn hipster with a sprinkle of learning disorder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

 

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

 

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

 

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

 

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

 

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...

Well, I'll tell you why I said that. Your post is reactionary because (1) you are assuming the consequences of these potential policies - for example you claim 100s of millions of unemployed people, but this is an unjustified assumption, and (2) you are not recognizing that the Green New deal is itself a reactionary response to trends we are seeing and have discussed on this board, such as the erosion of democratic voting rights (globally too, not just USA), increased income inequality, climate change, political divisiveness, etc.

 

Hence my post about "not shouting at each other from corners of the stadium" - which frankly it seems like you are still doing (and I myself have been guilty of as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

 

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

 

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

 

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

 

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

 

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...

Well, I'll tell you why I said that. Your post is reactionary because (1) you are assuming the consequences of these potential policies - for example you claim 100s of millions of unemployed people, but this is an unjustified assumption, and (2) you are not recognizing that the Green New deal is itself a reactionary response to trends we are seeing and have discussed on this board, such as the erosion of democratic voting rights (globally too, not just USA), increased income inequality, climate change, political divisiveness, etc.

 

Hence my post about "not shouting at each other from corners of the stadium" - which frankly it seems like you are still doing (and I myself have been guilty of as well).

 

The New Green Deal isn't a reaction. It's a ramp up of an already failed path the country is taking. It's not addressing the right issues and honestly looks quite a lot like trying to dig your way out of a hole. "You are assuming the consequences of these potential policies." The consequences are not assumed. They are proven and shown all throughout history. The issue is we have seen increased regulation and government involvement since the 1930's.

 

Milton Friedman (someone whom I respect greatly) talked a lot about freedom.

 

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

 

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

 

"capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom. But it is a necessary condition for freedom. I did not say wherever you have capitalism you have freedom.

I said wherever you have freedom you have capitalism." - Milton Friedman

 

And one more from Thoreau

 

"If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my house with a conscious design of doing me good. I shall run for my life."

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

But one thing Friedman also talked about that many people never discuss is his ability to see the world in the terms it exists. Many politicians make these plans based on ideal conditions in terms of markets, social standings, political environment, etc. In other words, Friedman recognized change takes time, and that some of the steps to achieve the goal might not be something he loves.

 

Probably the best example of this for Friedman was his idea for a negative income tax. Many people argue this is simply UBI (which to an extent it is) but there are differences which I will not get into now. Anyways under ideal market and economical conditions a negative income tax would not be something Friedman would support. But his goal in this is to facilitate change towards that ideal condition of a total laissez faire market. But most people hesitation to things like this is the fact that no entitlement has ever gone away.

 

As Ben Franklin said (at least it's attributed to him) "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

 

So yes, it's all well and dandy to want to help people. But doing so in a way that does not permanently damage the country is near impossible. Friedman and the founding fathers recognized this dilemma. And this goes back to Friedman's quote “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” We will never have totality of either because humans are flawed creatures.

 

So when people like AOC (side note: She had a decent speech this past week on presidential power) propose these wild ideas like the New Green Deal i find it blatantly obvious to be the wrong direction. I mean Anderson Cooper and Jake Trapper even asked "How will you pay for it?!" 40+ trillion? really? That is not a solution and a middle ground is still not the right direction. 20 trillion is not a middle ground.

 

We shouldn't be focused on trying to find the middle ground. We should be focused on finding the correct path forward. And in no shape of form is spending 20-40 trillion dollars in 12 years the correct path.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at some of the comments on here.  For example, if we're going to have a policy that discourages CO2 emissions, isn't a carbon tax by far the best way to do it?  The alternatives -- like subsidies -- appear to rely on exactly the type of central planning that doesn't work, e.g., subsidies presume that governments and bureaucrats can correctly identify what to subsidize. 

 

Similarly, $20-$40 trillion over 10 years does seem quite steep.  But can we really not do a "middle ground" of $10 trillion over 20 years (just at the federal level)?  Haven't we already committed something close to that to Iraq/Afghanistan? [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/27/donald-trump/did-us-spend-6-trillion-middle-east-wars/]  And I suspect that building infrastructure in the United States would have a higher GDP multiplier than warring in Iraq.  So, we obviously could do quite a lot if we wanted to. 

 

I think zero emissions in 10 years is pie-in-the-sky stuff.  But if we really had to, we could do quite a lot without the economy falling apart.  But the reality is that there's no political consensus in the US that CO2 emissions are even a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AOC is mentally ill. The Green New Deal is disastrous, no it will never pass, but like someone above said - it sets a bad standard/precedent of what should be accepted in normal dialogue vs. what shouldn't be given the light of day.

 

She's the Trump of the left. The Dem senators running in 2020 all threw their support behind "Green New Deal". Much like much of the GOP have thrown their weight behind Trump.

 

What has this country come to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AOC is mentally ill. The Green New Deal is disastrous, no it will never pass, but like someone above said - it sets a bad standard/precedent of what should be accepted in normal dialogue vs. what shouldn't be given the light of day.

 

She's the Trump of the left. The Dem senators running in 2020 all threw their support behind "Green New Deal". Much like much of the GOP have thrown their weight behind Trump.

 

What has this country come to?

Perhaps the answer lies within the passionate moderates. :)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/trump-moderates-bipartisanship-truth.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you could cut back on emissions without all the government spend. They are just looking for an excuse to hand out money to their base. 

 

You could set regulatuons on car emissions, home insulation standards, mandate competing private high speed trains.  You could help people pay for it by lowering taxes.

 

Just like the new deal its just a way to grow government.

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.

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.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...