The Green New Deal is out; most Orwellian Socialist garbage I have ever seen

a reply to: TonyS

I watched the video.

So yeah, to build a building in that district you have to meet certain green standards.

that is a far cry from saying no fossil fuel usage in 10 years, or race based economics controlled by the government, or universal income.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ElGoobero
I always thought of this young woman as a sort of comedy relief harmless kook.

but she is in congress and has actual power and influence.

if her district keeps re-electing her--which is what usually happens--imagine what she could do when she gets seniority.
imagine her becoming Speaker in a few years.
imagine her getting the democrat nomination for POTUS. any fool has at least a 50% chance of winning as a democrat.
I believe she's around thirty, so she could have forty more years to do this stuff!

please God don't let her be the wave of the future.

I think the only positive sign is that even the media seem to realize she's bad news. They do do fluff pieces about her sometimes (of course, she's a Democrat) but they also highlight her stupidity sometimes. I don't think they really like her. Dem leadership is looking for someone the media likes enough to dutifully crawl up their ass and stay there like they did with Obama. I don't the AOC is what they're looking for.

AOC is a naïve child who thinks she can wave a magic wand and change the word. Anyone over the age of ~30 realizes that she's doesn't know much about anything, so it's pretty hard for the media to take her seriously.

Talking about replacing lost jobs, consider that technology is on the verge of eliminating entire sectors of the economy as it is. Autonomous vehicles will render truck drivers, couriers (like the FedEx guy) and taxi drivers obsolete. If you've been in a McDonalds recently, you've no doubt spotted the new kiosks where you can order food without talking to a cashier. Any idiot can figure out what McDonalds is hoping to accomplish: they want to eliminate cashiers, because a bank of touch screens with credit card readers doesn't need to be paid. Pretty much every supermarket now has self-scan lanes. The human-operated registers are still there, but at least in my area most of them are now always closed, with maybe 1 or 2 staffed lanes and the rest abandoned.

My point is, we're going to be facing a severe shortage of employment as it is. We can't afford to destroy most of our economy as collateral damage to the green agenda.

a reply to: Grambler

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars

That's precisely what her generation and her demographic DEMAND! Total government control of resources, expenditures to rebuild the infrastructure paid for by way of confiscatory taxation that beggars both the productive and the wealthy/unproductive elements of society. In a sense, its the ultimate reparations scheme.

Like it or not, the future has a face and AOC is wearing it!

a reply to: TonyS

No what "fogeys" like I understand is that transitions will be gradual and occur at a pace that tech makes for a smooth tranosion in markets, and mandating the government come take control over all of that, in addition top the crazy other things this deal suggests the government taking over; will crush that natural and effective transition.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TonyS

I watched the video.

So yeah, to build a building in that district you have to meet certain green standards.

that is a far cry from saying no fossil fuel usage in 10 years, or race based economics controlled by the government, or universal income.

Actually..........no, its not. Its a "start" and the "start" is with carbon neutral standards. Again, watch the "Paris to Pittsburgh" documentary and you will learn, among other things that even in Iowa, "Farmers Electric Co-ops" are going 100% Solar and wind to provide electricity to their customers and big Farming operations, Poultry Farms and Dairy for example are expending the sums to offset 50~100% of their electricity usage with solar production set up on their farms.

IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!
Cali just past laws mandating that all new residential construction incorporate solar panels on each unit built!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars

That's precisely what her generation and her demographic DEMAND! Total government control of resources, expenditures to rebuild the infrastructure paid for by way of confiscatory taxation that beggars both the productive and the wealthy/unproductive elements of society. In a sense, its the ultimate reparations scheme.

Like it or not, the future has a face and AOC is wearing it!

Yes that future is unnatainable and authortarian, and has been tried before on the past, in places like Maos china.

So people like me will point out why it is such a bad idea.

Also, Gen z seems to be rejecting these millenial ideas from some things I have read, and are rebelling against SJW progressive attitudes.

a reply to: Grambler

The "transition" is upon you!

www.autoblog.com...
cleantechnica.com...

www.imsinfo.com...

a reply to: Grambler

Also, Gen z seems to be rejecting these millenial ideas from some things I have read, and are rebelling against SJW progressive attitudes.

It will be 20 years before Gen Z has any impact; the changes will already be in place!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Grambler

Also, Gen z seems to be rejecting these millenial ideas from some things I have read, and are rebelling against SJW progressive attitudes.

It will be 20 years before Gen Z has any impact; the changes will already be in place!

I have no idea what you are trying to sbay.

Lets take one part of her plan.

Shopw me unioversal income and health care being enforced by muni[palities on a grand scale.

Show me emmisoons not being allowed in cars within ten years.

yes, there our gradual changes comiong, some municplaities more forceful than others.

Nothing near what this plan is.

I have articlulated what a disaster her plan would be.

Do you agree or disagree, or are you merely saying we should just pass it because its inevitable?

originally posted by: Grambler
... with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.

Well that is quite terrifying - we should not only be the leader, but be responsible for helping other countries completely transition to green energy only. I have no problem with setting a goal for renewable energy sources - I am all for clean energy as the ultimate goal. However, the suggestion here seems to indicate that we should be entirely responsible for other countries. Welfare for the world, courtesy of USA!

Trying to ramrod something like this through within 10 years proves that the individuals who wrote this bill understand nothing about electricity, how it is generated, how it is distributed, or the current efficiency of renewable sources such as solar and wind. Not to mention money and how that works (hint: No, you can't just keep printing it out of thin air to pay for stuff).

Can it be done eventually? Yes!
Can it be done 100% across the board within 10 years? No.

originally posted by: Grambler
There will never be a system ever that will virtually eliminate poverty.

Agreed, anyone who thinks we can do that has some naivete to overcome.
J man spoke truth.

“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me" - Jesus

An unfortunate fact about this fallen world / current age of humanity is that there will always be poor - whether by their own choice or someone else's.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Wayfarer

No she is saying no emissions in ten years.

The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed with the objective of reaching the following outcomes within the target window of 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:

Here is just part one of this asinine proposal.

Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources;

That means no fossil fuel usage in our power grid in ten years. She admits this will require entirely renewing the energy grid which has taken over s century to build, and even goes so far as to say all buildings, even residential such as houses with be updated by the government for comfort.

Show me any reasonable engineer or scientist that thinks this is remotely possible.

And even the parts you quote say eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within ten years. Not lowering; eliminating. Show me how we will all have vehicles with no emissions in ten years.

You say electric cars. Where will we get the electricty for the cars without using fossil fuels? Already the entire grid has tio eliminate fossiul fuels and be completely redone, but now it needs to fuel all vehicles as well withion ten years?

Again, show me one engineer saying this is even remotely possible.

And that is just small parts of the plan.

We also have univeral health care and income within ten years, guarnteeing equality of outcomes based on gender, race, etc., and many more utopian government controls of freedom into life that would cost trillions of dollars and be impossible tio implement in ten years on their own.

She specifies the parts she's aiming at eliminating greenhouse gasses from. I've already said that we have the technology now to do it, yet you seem to infer that getting rid of vehicle/factory emissions implies ALL emissions forever and ever amen.

Second, its not the grid that requires complete overhaul, but rather the energy generation sources/powerplants. I can accept that the 10 year goal is quite lofty (and as I mentioned earlier I suspect more of a bargaining position point than a realistic expectation), but the US is indeed capable of achieving the goal with existing technology, and further advancements only further serve to make the enterprise even more feasible.

Electric Cars already exist. Wind/Solar/Geothermal/etc powerplants already exist. What we lack is the political will to invest the capitol to make it happen.

I am sorry I heavily disagree.

Saying because techh exists means its doable is like saying we could have said when the first cars were made "Ok no horse and uggies in ten years time"

The scale is what is important. Show me the elevctric airplane that exists? That is transportation, which she says will have no emissions in ten years.

Show me any egnoinerer saying anythong like this is rmeotely possible anywhere close to ten years.

And that ognores all of the social justice equality of outcome based on race, universal income and helathcare, government jobs for everyone, refitting everyone single house for comfort, etc.

Lets go back to my example of selling a house.

Sure its a great idea to list my $50000 house at 5 billion, after all, we knnow tech exists that could make a house worth 5 billion!

Or no, thats a horrible idea.

Her plan amounts to total government control of the energy and economy of the countnry, race and gender based social justice policies, and all sorts of other gorvenment intrusions that have lead to the destruction of countries everytime they have been suggested on a massive scale like she is promoting.

You don't have to be sorry you disagree dude we're both enjoying each-others debate (I'm not hanging out in threads with folks that agree with me)

I've already posited the 10 year target is a lofty strategy number and likely not realistic, so you don't need to keep bringing it back up.

My argument is the tech exists, the capability is there, and the timeframe is (in my opinion) a strategic bargaining chip shifted on the extreme end of the spectrum for reasons I've already mentioned.

As I understand it the social justice/equality aspects are merely to formally codify that these elements are to be kept at the forefront of decision making while undertaking the endeavor.

Your final statement about these kind of endeavors ending in miserable failures is contradicted by Iceland.

a reply to: Grambler

Do you agree or disagree, or are you merely saying we should just pass it because its inevitable?

I disagree with much of her plan, and of course Municipalities can't engineer Government Healthcare on their own.

But in a sense I understand that the core ideas and principles she espouses are already beginning to come to fruition. With a Democrat House and before long a Democrat POTUS, a disabled Rhino Republican party and a weird Senate, its altogether imaginable that many of her proposed ideas will come to fruition.

One of the Dems already signaled that Obamacare was just a first step to Medicare for All; socialized government run healthcare.

I've demonstrated what the Cities are already pursuing with regard to Environmental Initiatives. GM recently announced they are changing focus to build all EV cars and light trucks. Look at the initiatives going forward in Europe!

So yea............a whole lot of this is just inevitable. I mean, really, this isn't the time to be trying to build a career as a Lobbyist for the Buggy Whip industry.

Just read agenda 21

a reply to: Grambler
What this will accomplish is the exodus of wealthy individuals out of the country. Once the money moves out we will be a Venezuela. Thank you New York!!! You have struck the match that will burn this country down. You should be proud of yourselves. When those of us that have worked hard and made money move out and you are here starving your butts off, I will spit in your beggars cup for your intelligent choice.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

I already offered a counter-point. Unless they can demonstrate this is achievable in the US, it's pointless. I doubt it is.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

I already offered a counter-point. Unless they can demonstrate this is achievable in the US, it's pointless. I doubt it is.

How pray tell would they demonstrate it if Conservative legislators are insistent it wouldn't work and wouldn't let them try?

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: Grambler
What this will accomplish is the exodus of wealthy individuals out of the country. Once the money moves out we will be a Venezuela. Thank you New York!!! You have struck the match that will burn this country down. You should be proud of yourselves. When those of us that have worked hard and made money move out and you are here starving your butts off, I will spit in your beggars cup for your intelligent choice.

I highly doubt you're mega wealthy dude

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: Grambler

anything in her proposal about the 'other' green?

would be nice

All of that will be taxed to death because of emissions.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: face23785
I couldn't even finish reading all of it it's so absurd. It's clear the idiots who drafted this have done approximately zero research into how any of this could be accomplished or how much it would cost.

I could posit that aiming at some unreasonably/impossibly high standard/goal is a good starting place with the expectation that negotiation among legislators is likely to severely dilute all of the prerogatives.

It is not a good starting place. It is a draconian measure seeking to remake our country into a socialist paradise, by claiming unattainable utopian ideals.

Should we have children right bills next that say lets all fly cars on the power of wishes so that they can negoitiate down to a more reasonable solution?

First its your opinion that its draconian (not fact). That being said, I am in fact interested in your opinion/thoughts as to how/which parts you believe are farcical or exclusive to socialism.


I believe there is ample evidence currently in other nations that these measures are achievable in some fashion (if not in totality).


Second, you don't address the strategic value in beginning bargaining for something with the maximum divide so as to achieve a middle ground as close to one's prerogatives as possible. Do you disagree with my aforementioned statement?

Second, although there can be strategy in overshooting to bargain, shooting for such impossible, abusive polices as your starting point is absurd and counter productive, as it shows just what an authoritarian they are and how pragmatic they are.



For example, lets say I am selling a house that objectively is worth about 50 thousand dollars.

So I put it on the market for 500 billion dollars, thinking I can use that to get a middle ground.

You think that is a strategically sound approach?

Can't watch vids with sound at work, so I'll take your word for it and watch it later tonight.

Regarding your example, what you're using is hyperbole because from your vantage her recommendations are 500 billion absurd (in part I suspect founded from your own personal political opinions on renewables), whereas from my vantage (and previous mention of other nations achieving similar goals to what she's stated already) its really not that far-fetched.

Just because another nation did something doesn't mean it's feasible for the United States to do it, or vice versa. For example, some smaller nations couldn't possibly put out the GNP we do in a year. They're not large enough and don't have the population or the resources to do it. I know that's not the same thing, it's just an example of how a country's ability to do x, y or z can be impacted by many factors. It doesn't mean those countries are lazy or lack the will to do it.

Sure, this is a valid point, and I'm not so brazen as to imply we're identical to any other country. Merely the fact that it has been done though is a datapoint in her favor when assessing the feasibility of her New Green Deal.

When you yourself acknowledge that just because another country did it doesn't mean we can do it, that's not very positive for her. It's a hair more solid than "I think we can do this".

Now you're just being obtuse without offering a counter-argument. All I acknowledged was that you are correct insomuch as all nations are unique in their own ways. The point you misconstrued was the fact that it has been done means it is possible, not that because its been done in other countries its still silly (because the US isn't other countries).

I already offered a counter-point. Unless they can demonstrate this is achievable in the US, it's pointless. I doubt it is.

How pray tell would they demonstrate it if Conservative legislators are insistent it wouldn't work and wouldn't let them try?

Kalifornia.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Having worked in the power sector for several years, albeit in a cyber security function, all these handy new green energy initiatives have one thing in common, they're connected to damn near everything. That by itself isn't bad on its own, but presents some unique challenges. That being said, yes the generating capacity technology exists, what doesn't exist as far as I know is the storage capability (i.e. batteries) that is capable of working with even renewable energy grid designs. A buddy and I have spoken several times on how that will be the next big innovation in the energy sector, not just at a power company level, but also at a building level.

I'll admit to understanding the technology behind it at just above a layperson level, and that's only due to my job functions of interacting with system owners and operators and being a naturally curious kinda person. I will say that every single transmission and switchgear person I speak with has told me of some interesting headaches that come with folks who either use the grid to supplement their power needs, or who want to sell energy back to the utility.

I would say that 20-30 years is the more likely target, considering the state the current grid is in, and the marketplace itself as providers will only invest so much of their bottom line on improving their products and services. Also if they do make that investment, your utility bill will go higher, which is why I'm building my house as a 100% off grid system from the get-go. Saves me money in the long run, although I'm sure that when this becomes the norm they'll find some way to tax the sun, wind, and water.