Jump to content
TennesseeTuxedo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “New Green Deal”

Recommended Posts

Downtown   
6 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

Ignorance is bliss.

Sad that you’d rather be ignorant than informed. This explains a lot of your beliefs. 

 

Do you not understand the history and even more so the religious history of the word generosity and its existence as a virtue in multiple faiths?!? 

 

I mean for fucks sake, LIBERAL is listed as a Synonym for the word generous in the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generous

 

Choose the Right Synonym for generous

LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given.  a teacher liberal with her praise .

 

Generosity is further defined as a “liberality of giving.”  on dictionary.com and “the willingness to give time or money to others in need” in Cambridge. 

 

The core concept of Conservatism is literally a counter-response to generosity as a historical concept in religion and politics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GOAT9 said:

You cant be fucking serious. Deficits under the Obama administration are the largest of any administration by far. The only time the government has been fiscally responsible in modern history is the turn of the millennia and that was short lived. 

 

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1960_2021USb_XXs2li111mcn_G0f

 

 

Deficits were up under Obama because the economy had been hit with the worst recession since the Great Depression. That’s how things work. 

 

And no, the government was reasonably fiscally responsible following WW2 up until Reagan fucked us with Reaganomics.

Edited by Starkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

 

Why didn't you ask for the study that says libs have more empathy?   Answer: you are a dumbass libtard that lives in a hole filled with leftist propaganda.

Aside from the fact that this isn’t a scientific study about generosity, it doesn’t remotely show what you claim. It only says that poor people give a higher percentage of their income than rich people. Thus why so many poorer red states give more on average.

 

And as I don’t consider giving to churches to be charitable, especially when required to tithe like Mormans are, I refute the basis of this entire report.

 

Also, among the most generous cities are Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, and Nashville, arguably the 4 most liberal locations in all of the South. If anything only points to liberals being more generous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 'Nator said:

 

Don’t worry, it’s not as if the Constitution specifically grants only Congress the right to decide what gets funded...

 

The Constitution that resulted, however, contained broad provisions that established that all of Congress would ultimately play a part in the federal budget, including spending and taxes. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 contains two clauses: The Appropriations Clause and the Statement and Accounts Clause: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogue   

Reading the actual plan, it's got good ideas, but extremely lofty and difficult to sell. 

 

But, it should be a starting point for discussions in Congress.  For instance, instead of a broad plan to maximize efficiency of every building, why not invest in technology that is easier to help efficiency via simple modifications and give a tax break for those that use it?  

 

Instead of charging stations everywhere, what about the ability to swap batteries at the gas station?  I read this suggested years ago and thought it was a great idea.  For some reason, it did not gain ground.  Hell, we change batteries every day.  Why not apply the same concept to cars to eliminate the need for charge time?  

 

I'm all for renewable energy. I really don't know why such an idea is not embraced by everyone.  The only reason I can see is big money being against it.  Then we should incentivise big money to invest.  We should also invest in tech that maximizes efficiency of renewables.  

 

I still don't know why we have not invested in high speed rail.  I love to fly, but a train really allows you to see the country side.  It's just currently slow.  

 

Mass public transit.  Not much of a way around it other than to spend the money.  But this is a very efficient way of getting people around.  Now, I am a driving enthusiast and would be if the last holdouts to drive, but the majority of people don't give a shit about it.  Mass transit just needs to be made convenient and efficient.  

 

Whether or not you believe climate change is largely responsible by human activity, you should embrace alternative and renewable sources of energy.  Why not?  The first country that pulls it off WILL spark the rest of the world to do so.  Instead of lagging, why not be the leader?  

 

I disagree with not investing into more nuclear power.  Yeah, when things go wrong, it is really bad.  But we have a good track record of keeping it under control.  Invest in safety and default mechanisms to keep it under control.  Invest in means of dealing with waste.  We're not stupid, we can make it happen. 

 

Instead of making up drinking piss water, why not actually have a discussion into these ideas?  We can't because the people demand we do not have these discussions.

 

There's ground to work from here, but the political divide will not allow it.  It's flat out dumbfounding to me energy independence is not embraced by everyone.  Safe power that does not pollute the environment.   Why is this not something everyone can embrace?  Because Democrat vs Republican?  Is there a more dumber argument? 

 

 

Edited by Rogue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GOAT9   
3 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Deficits were up under Obama because the economy had been hit with the worst recession since the Great Depression. That’s how things work. 

 

And no, the government was reasonably fiscally responsible following WW2 up until Reagan fucked us with Reaganomics.

Horse shit. We ran a budget surplus in 29' and 30' during the depression and even after that, the deficit only reached barely half the rate it did during the Obama administration. Literally the only other time in American history the deficit has reached rates as high as the Obama admin was the World Wars (both Democrats as well but at least excusable.) No recession has ever necessitated such things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG53   
2 minutes ago, GOAT9 said:

Horse shit. We ran a budget surplus in 29' and 30' during the depression and even after that, the deficit only reached barely half the rate it did during the Obama administration. Literally the only other time in American history the deficit has reached rates as high as the Obama admin was the World Wars (both Democrats as well but at least excusable.) No recession has ever necessitated such things. 

Totally his fault that the bailouts from Bush's administration went into affect his first year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GOAT9   
1 hour ago, Rogue said:

Reading the actual plan, it's got good ideas, but extremely lofty and difficult to sell. 

 

But, it should be a starting point for discussions in Congress.  For instance, instead of a broad plan to maximize efficiency of every building, why not invest in technology that is easier to help efficiency via simple modifications and give a tax break for those that use it?  

 

Instead of charging stations everywhere, what about the ability to swap batteries at the gas station?  I read this suggested years ago and thought it was a great idea.  For some reason, it did not gain ground.  Hell, we change batteries every day.  Why not apply the same concept to cars to eliminate the need for charge time?  

 

I'm all for renewable energy. I really don't know why such an idea is not embraced by everyone.  The only reason I can see is big money being against it.  Then we should incentivise big money to invest.  We should also invest in tech that maximizes efficiency of renewables.  

 

I still don't know why we have not invested in high speed rail.  I love to fly, but a train really allows you to see the country side.  It's just currently slow.  

 

Mass public transit.  Not much of a way around it other than to spend the money.  But this is a very efficient way of getting people around.  Now, I am a driving enthusiast and would be if the last holdouts to drive, but the majority of people don't give a shit about it.  Mass transit just needs to be made convenient and efficient.  

 

Whether or not you believe climate change is largely responsible by human activity, you should embrace alternative and renewable sources of energy.  Why not?  The first country that pulls it off WILL spark the rest of the world to do so.  Instead of lagging, why not be the leader?  

 

I disagree with not investing into more nuclear power.  Yeah, when things go wrong, it is really bad.  But we have a good track record of keeping it under control.  Invest in safety and default mechanisms to keep it under control.  Invest in means of dealing with waste.  We're not stupid, we can make it happen. 

 

Instead of making up drinking piss water, why not actually have a discussion into these ideas?  We can't because the people demand we do not have these discussions.

 

There's ground to work from here, but the political divide will not allow it.  It's flat out dumbfounding to me energy independence is not embraced by everyone.  Safe power that does not pollute the environment.   Why is this not something everyone can embrace?  Because Democrat vs Republican?  Is there a more dumber argument? 

 

 

I only want to touch on the idea of changing a battery and EVs in general. 3 points really

 

1)The battery packs in EVs are not the same as your typical car battery. For example, the battery packs in Teslas take up the entire undercarriage of the vehicle. Also, they aren't just 12 volts. Try more like 200+ volts. A quick and easy way to die for someone messing with them who doesn't know what they are doing. 

 

image.png.b3031dbf24a044bcc7d36448aa87344a.png

 

2) Lithium Ion batteries use rare alloys/metals that are far more difficult to obtain than oil. Cobalt perhaps being the major one. More than half of the worlds Cobalt deposits are in Congo, a country engulfed in corruption, instability, and civil war. How exactly do people plan on obtaining enough of these materials to supply demand? We just going to invade these countries? Cobalt hasn't been mined in the US in like half a century. 

 

3) How exactly is being energy efficient solving any problem? As gay as driving an EV may be, I still doubt it stops the human population from growing. There is still going to be water shortages. There is still going to be deforestation, agricultural run-off, increasing erosion. The only benefit I see from driving an EV is that Urban areas would have cleaner air, which will have positive health effects. It most certainly isn't cost effective. I don't see it solving environmental problems. The real environmental problem is an out of control human population which I don't see being addressed at all. (Except for Thanos in the Marvel Movies). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Downtown   
26 minutes ago, WG53 said:

Totally his fault that the bailouts from Bush's administration went into affect his first year.

Not to mention that above all the wars, the bailouts, and other things needed to keep our industries from collapsing, it was actually the continuation of the Bush Tax cuts DURING a recession that is the largest financial sum against the debt during the Obama presidency. Do I think it was necessary? Of course. But it’s completely disingenuous of anyone to specifically try and paint the Obama administration’s policies as the ones responsible for the debt increase during those years. 

 

The Trump tax cuts took Bush’s tax cuts and raised the level of financial stupidity. What a shitty businessman to cut revenues and not address your overhead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, GOAT9 said:

Horse shit. We ran a budget surplus in 29' and 30' during the depression and even after that, the deficit only reached barely half the rate it did during the Obama administration.

WTF does that have to do with anything? The Depression didn’t start until '29 and Hoover didn’t do anything effective to stop it. As it continued to get worse over years, where were those surpluses then? 

 

 Also, this doesn’t have shit to do with a modern budget? You are talking about nearly a century ago. The world was totally different. 

 

 

Quote

Literally the only other time in American history the deficit has reached rates as high as the Obama admin was the World Wars (both Democrats as well but at least excusable.) No recession has ever necessitated such things. 

There was no other recession that large since the Great Depression. And it was only through massive government spending that the Depression ended. Obama (and the Fed) used a similar strategy to end the Great Recession. It worked.

 

spacer.png

 

As for our federal debt, you can plainly see that it was reasonably under control up until Reagan got into office. Reaganomics fucked this country hard. The blame for our debt falls overwhelmingly on the GOP side of the aisle with their massive tax cuts and deficit spending. Democrats certainly have no compunctions about spending money, but at least they want to pay for it.

Edited by Starkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GOAT9   
19 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

WTF does that have to do with anything? The Depression didn’t start until '29 and Hoover didn’t do anything effective to stop it. As it continued to get worse over years, where were those surpluses then? 

 

 Also, this doesn’t have shit to do with a modern budget? You are talking about nearly a century ago. The world was totally different. 

 

 

There was no other recession that large since the Great Depression. And it was only through massive government spending that the Depression ended. Obama (and the Fed) used a similar strategy to end the Great Recession. It worked.

 

spacer.png

 

As for our federal debt, you can plainly see that it was reasonably under control up until Reagan got into office. Reaganomics fucked this country hard. The blame for our debt falls overwhelmingly on the GOP side of the aisle with their massive tax cuts and deficit spending. Democrats certainly have no compunctions about spending money, but at least they want to pay for it.

You are the one who brought up the Great Depression dumbass. If you don't want it to matter then don't insert it into the equation. 

 

In what way was the 08 recession "that large since the Great Depression." Was it the longest? No, the 73 recession was longer and the 81 was just as long. Was it the largest contraction? No the postwar recession saw contraction 6x the 08. Unemployment or inflation? Nope. By what measure? The federal stimulus has already been determined to be ineffective by most people educated on the subject. Feel free to get informed. https://nypost.com/2012/01/29/how-the-800b-stimulus-failed/

 

You are using that chart in the most abusive way any person can. It doesn't demonstrate anything other than you attempting to push skewed info. Your chart makes it look like the deficit was greatly increased in 1933. The deficit in 33 was 3 billion, the same as it was in 32. GDP just contracted by 12% and there sits the difference. The deficit rate sat steady at 4.5%. The Obama admin deficits reached as high as 9.8%. Again these kinds of rates were only achieved during the world wars (Which a person can understand FDR and Wilsons deficits). 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...