Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

[Objective Voice]

The New Green Steal will destroy the economy.

How do you figure? Have you actually read what she's proposing? Granted, some of it is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but much of it is simply a rehash of what GWBush, Obama and Trump has even proposed, i.e., infrastructure improvements and new technology development through science and research. I think what scares off alot of people (moreso those on the right) is those buzz words, i.e., public investments, union jobs with fair wages, sustainable renewable energy that could compete with or take over legacy energy sources (i.e., oil, coal, natural gas), environmental protections and anti-land grab enforcement. It's that kind of stuff that has many (conservative) Republicans saying :stop:......:thumbdown...rejecting it without really giving her proposed any due consideration. You just :stop: at the buzz words and don't want any part of it despite the fact that the proposal has lots of stuff Trump would even like, i.e., nationalism (i.e., America-first trade deals).

 

[Objective Voice]

:lamo...while we're at it we can solve the origins of the universe, build Star Trek's USS Enterprise, give everyone a million dollars cash, and cure cancer....This is truly bat **** crazy.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Don't be knocking the Star Trek universe.

The communicator = today's cellphone

Universal Translator = any language app

Tri-corder = Apple Watch, FitBit

Replicator = 3-D Printing (...still a work in-progress, but it's still progress)

Those sliding doors = motion sensor (See the doors at your local grocery store open like magic!)

Isolinear Chips = USB drives

The onboard computer = Alexia Echo/Dot (or Seri if you prefer)

Don't knock the Star Trek universe. It's here; we just haven't put it all together yet.

 

[Objective Voice]

When's the last time we elected a poor president?

This horse**** has nothing to do with upgrading infrastructure. It's about more control of the private sector and lining politicians and yes, rich peoples's pockets.

I like rich people. They have the money to help the ideas of poor people come true. :mrgreen: Ever heard of philanthropy?

 

[Objective Voice]

Plans are stupid. Just say whatever and promise others will pay. Is she a politician or what?

We've moved a looooooong way from the days of Vanderbilt. Today, investors and/or donors contribute to many public works projects. Ever heard of municipal bonds?

 

[Objective Voice]

Our government framework itself is inherently broken and needs a major overhaul. I do this type of stuff for a living in the tech sector. I'm freaking tired of seeing measly 3% tax deals (loaded w/ lobbyist pork) nobody ever reads. The outline is now out there. If passed we'll have decades to figure it out and that's 100X better than relying on lobbyists b/c people like her and people like me who know that our system is broken will be elected in order to help figure it out and straighten out the mess.

The only way that truly happens is the veil has to be lifted on the corruption by politicians IN BOTH PARTIES and more common, every day citizens will have to run for public office. People like AOC who may be uncompromising in her beliefs but is certainly "principle-centered". (Am I wrong, but isn't the right suppose to love people like that...folks who are principle-centered? )

 

[ecofarm]

We've moved a looooooong way from the days of Vanderbilt. Today, investors and/or donors contribute to many public works projects. Ever heard of municipal bonds?

"Investors"? In government projects? No one is that stupid. Government projects are for milking not investing.

 

[Objective Voice]

If she truly wanted to reduce emissions and understood the problem, show would be advocating
streamlining solar grid attachment laws to something good for both the homeowner and the electrical utility,
as well as advocating development of power to liquid fuel plans.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/power-to-liquids/
A path to increased solar, will cause massive seasonal electricity surpluses, which could be converted to carbon neutral fuels for existing demands.
No new vehicles, no new service stations needed, fast and very direct results, by turning a problem we know is coming, into a solution.

That would come under subparagraph (4)(D):

making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

 

[Objective Voice]

Okay, well, you enjoy your trip to disney land. Two quick points, though, this never gets taken seriously by anyone who could possibly pass it and you don't have decades when she sets a deadline of all buildings in the country of 340 million people to be upgraded to carbon neutral by 2030.

Anyway, if this floats your boat, more power to ya. I prefer to focus on things that involve sanity.

Trump ran on three basic platforms:

1) America first
2) Domestic job growth (mostly by pulling jobs back from overseas)
3) Wealth creation (with a little trickle-down economics thrown in, i.e., higher wages and higher tax returns for the middle-class)

Is AOC's New Green Deal that much different? When you peal it back, she's also advocating "invest in America" only her ideals go against the grain of the pure capitalist mind-set. No return to unions, collective bargaining and the like for those folks...NO WAY! They've worked to hard to bust up private unions and erase collective bargaining from the social conscienceless of the modern American. Can't go back to that. But...

Investing in infrastructure...can we do that?

Investing in new technology for energy independence...can we do that?

Investing in local communities to increase job growth and reduce crime in local/urban neighborhoods...can we do that?

Ensuring fair trade and fostering level playing fields where technology is shared, not stolen...can we do that?

There's alot to like about AOC's New Green Deal IF people would simply take off the partisan long enough to see which parts each side can compromise on.

 

[Objective Voice]

"Investors"? In government projects? No one is that stupid. Government projects are for milking not investing.

Do they have to be government projects though? You'd know the answer to that if you'd actually read AOC's proposal.

Subparagraph (4)(A):

providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investments, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State and local government agencies and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

The green projects don't have to originate with the federal government, nor would they be the only financier.

 

[ecofarm]

Do they have to be government projects though? You'd know the answer to that if you'd actually read AOC's proposal.

Subparagraph (4)(A):



The green projects don't have to originate with the federal government, nor would they be the only financier.

A grand plan, surely.

My point is no one invests in government projects. People milk government projects. Because government projects never turn a profit.

 

[Objective Voice]

A grand plan, surely.

My point is no one invests in government projects. People milk government projects. Because government projects never turn a profit.

And my point was none of these green jobs have to originate with the government. Any and all of them could easily spring from private sector concepts that simply need federal investment dollars (among many other forms of capitalization as I've just outlined above). The Small Business Administration with micro-loans, for example, has been great for small businesses throughout the country. People have secured federal grants for all types of businesses from start-up concepts to non-profit organizations that eventually turned into a profitable business venture. Local and state governments still offer municipal bonds for fund local public works projects - some of which include renewable energy projects (i.e., solar panels in small communities). None of it has to be fostered by a central-government. The private sector from commercial/investment banks to venture capitalist could put their money to work as well. Is it a risk? Certainly, but as the saying goes, "No risk, no reward".

 

[ecofarm]

And my point was none of these green jobs have to originate with the government. Any and all of them could easily spring from private sector concepts that simply need federal investment dollars (among many other forms of capitalization as I've just outlined above).

As a fiscal conservative and environmentalist, that sounds great. But let's remember it's a freshman politician making promises.

 

[apdst]

I like rich people. They have the money to help the ideas of poor people come true. :mrgreen: Ever heard of philanthropy?

I'm all for it.

 

[apdst]

How do you figure? Have you actually read what she's proposing? Granted, some of it is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but much of it is simply a rehash of what GWBush, Obama and Trump has even proposed, i.e., infrastructure improvements and new technology development through science and research. I think what scares off alot of people (moreso those on the right) is those buzz words, i.e., public investments, union jobs with fair wages, sustainable renewable energy that could compete with or take over legacy energy sources (i.e., oil, coal, natural gas), environmental protections and anti-land grab enforcement. It's that kind of stuff that has many (conservative) Republicans saying :stop:......:thumbdown...rejecting it without really giving her proposed any due consideration. You just :stop: at the buzz words and don't want any part of it despite the fact that the proposal has lots of stuff Trump would even like, i.e., nationalism (i.e., America-first trade deals).

It'll destroy millions of jobs, is how.

I have read it. Lots of people have read it and considered it. The plan is so cocked up, her team removed it from her website.

Version of Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' scrubbed from website

Then, one of her staffers lied about what it actually said.

AOC advisor lies his ass off about what the Green New Deal fact sheet on her website said

 

[apdst]

And my point was none of these green jobs have to originate with the government. Any and all of them could easily spring from private sector concepts that simply need federal investment dollars (among many other forms of capitalization as I've just outlined above). The Small Business Administration with micro-loans, for example, has been great for small businesses throughout the country. People have secured federal grants for all types of businesses from start-up concepts to non-profit organizations that eventually turned into a profitable business venture. Local and state governments still offer municipal bonds for fund local public works projects - some of which include renewable energy projects (i.e., solar panels in small communities). None of it has to be fostered by a central-government. The private sector from commercial/investment banks to venture capitalist could put their money to work as well. Is it a risk? Certainly, but as the saying goes, "No risk, no reward".

How about those green energy companies use private capital and compete on the open market?

 

[longview]

That would come under subparagraph (4)(D):

Actually the statement,
"making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; "
is way too vague to result in the outcomes needed.

 

[Objective Voice]

How about those green energy companies use private capital and compete on the open market?

And I suppose you feel this same way about every private company that issues stock? Private capital can mean several different things, but if you're intending it to mean "use your own money, not taxpayer dollars", I've got a shocker for you. Private companies rely on federal dollars more often than you think, i.e., tax deductions and credits, federal grants, SBA loans. It's not all "daddy's money" that adds liquidity to a business.

 

[Objective Voice]

It'll destroy millions of jobs, is how.

I have read it. Lots of people have read it and considered it. The plan is so cocked up, her team removed it from her website.

Version of Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal' scrubbed from website

Then, one of her staffers lied about what it actually said.

AOC advisor lies his ass off about what the Green New Deal fact sheet on her website said

Try again...

It wasn't her actual New Green Deal proposal that got scrubbed from the Internet. It was a blog post that proclaimed to outline her proposal (fact-sheet) which contained false and misleading information that got scrubbed. As to the lie about what the fact-sheet contained, I really can't speak to that since I haven't read the fact-sheet. I can tell you that in my reading of the proposal, it doesn't contain the language Tucker Carlson complained about.

New Green Deal, Page 5, subparagraph (1)(B):

to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

So, clearly somebody put out misinformation. The question is who? Frankly, I would've taken down the fact-sheet, too, if what it contained was inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong!

 

[Objective Voice]

Actually the statement,
"making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; "
is way too vague to result in the outcomes needed.

What's vague about that? If someone has an idea about a new, renewable energy source that has the potential to be viable, I'd welcome the research, testing and development of this new technology especially if it has the potential of being cheap and sustainable.

 

[longview]

What's vague about that? If someone has an idea about a new, renewable energy source that has the potential to be viable, I'd welcome the research, testing and development of this new technology especially if it has the potential of being cheap and sustainable.

The statement does not address the existing problems with alternate energy.
To replace the hydrocarbon fuels in use today will require massive amounts of new alternate energy sources.
The current laws are an impediment to rapidly expanding grid tied home power generation.
Before we can repackage the energy, we have to have the energy available first,
and to do that we need to laws to change.
A good step would be a single federal rule for grid attachment, that would not harm ether the homeowner or the utility.

 

[apdst]

Try again...

It wasn't her actual New Green Deal proposal that got scrubbed from the Internet. It was a blog post that proclaimed to outline her proposal (fact-sheet) which contained false and misleading information that got scrubbed. As to the lie about what the fact-sheet contained, I really can't speak to that since I haven't read the fact-sheet. I can tell you that in my reading of the proposal, it doesn't contain the language Tucker Carlson complained about.

New Green Deal, Page 5, subparagraph (1)(B):



So, clearly somebody put out misinformation. The question is who? Frankly, I would've taken down the fact-sheet, too, if what it contained was inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong!

You're going with the lie? You people will believe, literally, anything you're told.

 

[apdst]

And I suppose you feel this same way about every private company that issues stock? Private capital can mean several different things, but if you're intending it to mean "use your own money, not taxpayer dollars", I've got a shocker for you. Private companies rely on federal dollars more often than you think, i.e., tax deductions and credits, federal grants, SBA loans. It's not all "daddy's money" that adds liquidity to a business.

Private capital means the money didn't come from the government.

Tax deductions aren't subsidies. Loans aren't subsidies.

 

[Objective Voice]

You're going with the lie? You people will believe, literally, anything you're told.

First off, I didn't bring up the issue of the "lie" behind the explanation concerning the fact sheet on AOC's NGD proposal. You did!

Second, I've made it clear I couldn't comment on the viability of the "lie" since I hadn't read the fact sheet.

Third, I posted you the exact wording from the NGD proposal to prove that the language being attributed to it from the Right isn't true.

So, instead of you acknowledging that guys like Tucker Carlson didn't do any fact checking himself, he and other GOP pundits just went with whatever slander they found to denounce the proposal on its face. Moreover, you go right back to the "lie" in an effort to prove me wrong despite the Tweets you've posted make it clear that the fact sheet that was leaked was a "work in-progress" and wasn't intended to be released at the time it was drafted.

You really need to stop while you're behind.

 

[Bodi]

Welcome to the new age of politics, everybody:

Although it's just an outline it's a huge step forward to move the conversation in the right direction. Yes there are some problems, but I agree with about 90% of this proposal and if all you do is nit-pick it, then I assume you agree with 90% of it too! :mrgreen:



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline


If she just gets some of this passed and conventional thinking says she just might pull it off. She'll be on equal playing field with the President of the United States in terms of legislative deals. Trump's comprehensive tax reform plan is the only thing even remotely comparable to this that he's done or thought of.

Because those are all new, innovative ideas... :lol:

 

[Objective Voice]

And I suppose you feel this same way about every private company that issues stock? Private capital can mean several different things, but if you're intending it to mean "use your own money, not taxpayer dollars", I've got a shocker for you. Private companies rely on federal dollars more often than you think, i.e., tax deductions and credits, federal grants, SBA loans. It's not all "daddy's money" that adds liquidity to a business.

Private capital means the money didn't come from the government.

Tax deductions aren't subsidies. Loans aren't subsidies.

Okay, upon further review I clearly convoluted the two. That wasn't my intention. What I was trying to say was private capital doesn't have to be personal cash. Such money (investments) can come from a wide variety of sources. However, private companies don't always rely on private capital alone to finance their business. Many use a mixture of private/public funding sources to remain liquid. Now, you may not like the fact that taxpayer dollars are used to fund private companies, but if you truly believed that you'd be out protesting all the subsidies big oil receives from taxpayer funding.