New Green Deal Proposal

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2019, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  That completely ignores that the current system is responsible for creating the most powerful and wealthy nation the world has ever known.

It is not that simple.  The United States is not the only capitalist country in the world, and there was a lot more than capitalism that contributed to our success.  We had massive amounts of natural resources to exploit, and through most of our history we have been insulated from our serious enemies.

As far as I know not even AOC is calling for the means of production to be controlled by the government.  Is that what you think is happening?

[Millhouse]

(02-13-2019, 05:27 AM)treee Wrote: The rich benefit from the society they use, I don't think it's stealing to require they use their abundant resources to help maintain it.

We all here benefit from society, regardless of what jobs we have.

As Hillary said, the wealthy should pay their fair share, which I agree with. These proposed tax %'s by the radical left goes beyond what is a fair share, as a fair share shouldnt be much more %-wise than the upper middle class. 

As Ron Swanson once said "Capitalism: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor" Though that's tongue and cheek from one of my favorite tv characters of all time, why should there be excessive penalties for those that got wealthy through hard work and being smart, especially those that earned it as they weren't born into it? That's not what the 'American dream' is about.

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2019, 01:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Why should there be excessive penalties for those that got wealthy through hard work and being smart, especially those that earned it as they weren't born into it? 

So why do you oppose a high estate tax?

In the United States intergenerational wealth elasticity is higher than any other country on Earth.  That means that the richer your parents are the more likely you are to be rich.  There are dozens of reasons for this.  Wealthy children get better schools, have better health care, have access to more educational experiences like travel and special training facilities, have more stable home learning environments.  They come out of college with less debt to hold them back. And most importantly they have better contacts in the upper echelon to get better jobs.

Without a more progressive tax rate (and better management of government resources) the gap between the wealthy and the middle class will continue to grow.  And it has much less to do with "hard work" than the benefits of being born into wealth.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 01:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You are absolutely correct.  That is exactly how we ended up with Trump as President.  He ran on the claim that he hated the current state of the nation and we had to elect him to tear it down and rebuild it to "make it great again".

A specious analogy at best especially given the post you were responding to.  Just your simple reiteration of the "Make America great again" points out that he believes, at least superficially, in the greatness of the nation as founded.  This being the case your point falls utterly flat.

(02-13-2019, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not that simple.  The United States is not the only capitalist country in the world, and there was a lot more than capitalism that contributed to our success.  We had massive amounts of natural resources to exploit, and through most of our history we have been insulated from our serious enemies.

While I appreciate your attempt at an in depth analysis you overlook the obvious point, that being that the nation is capitalist as are all other western democracies.  So, as there is a wide variety in natural resource access and proximity to hostile powers among them, the fact that all these capitalist countries are a success rather makes my point for me. 

Quote:As far as I know not even AOC is calling for the means of production to be controlled by the government.  Is that what you think is happening?

Is that what I said?

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2019, 01:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: We all here benefit from society, regardless of what jobs we have.

As Hillary said, the wealthy should pay their fair share, which I agree with. These proposed tax %'s by the radical left goes beyond what is a fair share, as a fair share shouldnt be much more %-wise than the upper middle class. 

As Ron Swanson once said "Capitalism: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor" Though that's tongue and cheek from one of my favorite tv characters of all time, why should there be excessive penalties for those that got wealthy through hard work and being smart, especially those that earned it as they weren't born into it? That's not what the 'American dream' is about.

Right now, the American dream is a pipe dream. The main reason that we should be taxing the wealthy and using those funds to support programs that help the rest of Americans is because we are ind anger of losing our democracy. Our government is not set up to be robust against the class struggles because the framers did not envision a country that had so much socioeconomic inequality among its citizenry. That's what made our government unique: we didn't have anything in place to account for class differences. The more the middle-class shrinks and the lower-class grows at the expense of the upper-class, the less our government works for the people and the more likely we are to see a revolution.

I, personally, prefer a revolution by ballot box. That's the real difference between the radical left and the folks that prefer social democracy. There is a lot of talk in here about the radical left, and believe me when I tell you that y'all have no idea. There are some radical leftist hillbillies around these parts that are ready to take up arms against the bourgeois.

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2019, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As far as I know not even AOC is calling for the means of production to be controlled by the government.  Is that what you think is happening?

(02-13-2019, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is that what I said?

I am not sure.  That is why I asked the question.

You acknowledged that European countries that are as much as 35% socialist are viable but claim that what AOC suggests has never worked anywhere anytime. 

So what exactly do you think she is proposing?  How is it different from other capitalist/socialist hybrid economies functioning around the world today?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not sure.  That is why I asked the question.

Rereading the post in question should be of great benefit to you then.

Quote:You acknowledged that European countries that are as much as 35% socialist are viable but claim that what AOC suggests has never worked anywhere anytime. 

An estimate.  Still, being significantly minority socialist would not be indicative of socialism working, it just shows that it can work when propped up by a system that is at least 30% more capitalist. 

Quote:So what exactly do you think she is proposing?

 
I don't have to think anything, I'm able to read what she proposed.

Quote:How is it different from other capitalist/socialist hybrid economies functioning around the world today?

You tell me.  Is there any country that has renovated or rebuilt every single building in the nation?  Is there any country that will support citizens who are able but flat out refuse to work?  Is there any country that has proposed to become zero net emissions in ten years? 

[Belsnickel]

I think the biggest problem is that there has been a lot of discussion about a Green New Deal for some time now, and it is something many people can get behind. The issue is that people are letting AOC spearhead this thing. Honestly, this is just doing harm to the movement and the idea. I'm not saying AOC shouldn't be in Congress or even that she isn't a bright person. I don't know much about her. But she isn't a seasoned policymaker who understands how these things work. The GND is something that needs to come out of a group, like FDR's brain trust. It's going to take a lot of effort to put something feasible together.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 04:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the biggest problem is that there has been a lot of discussion about a Green New Deal for some time now, and it is something many people can get behind. The issue is that people are letting AOC spearhead this thing. Honestly, this is just doing harm to the movement and the idea.

Absolutely.  However, this was done intentionally as they like the media coverage and "star power" that she brings to the table.

Quote:I'm not saying AOC shouldn't be in Congress or even that she isn't a bright person.

I agree with the former and have seen no evidence of the latter.

Quote:I don't know much about her. But she isn't a seasoned policymaker who understands how these things work. The GND is something that needs to come out of a group, like FDR's brain trust. It's going to take a lot of effort to put something feasible together.

She definitely isn't as already perfectly illustrated by her FAQ gaffe, which her people then lied about on TV.  A bi-partisan "brain trust" would be ideal, I just don't see a bi-partisan anything being possible right now.

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2019, 04:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You tell me.  Is there any country that has renovated or rebuilt every single building in the nation?  Is there any country that will support citizens who are able but flat out refuse to work?  Is there any country that has proposed to become zero net emissions in ten years? 

Those are not the tenants of socialism (other than pay for everyone).  It seemed to me you were railing against socialism instead of these specific parts of her plan.

The United Sates went through a phase when every building was rebuilt or renovated to account for electricity and/or indoor plumbing.  That is all she is suggesting regarding renewable energy.  So "yes" it has happened before.

The United Sates was also the first country to announce they would put a man on the moon within ten years, and people called Kennedy a hero for it.  So I don't see anything wrong with some ambition.

But it seems you are getting away from bashing socialism and instead bashing specific parts of her plan.  I don't see anywhere that she has called for the entire capitalist system to be "torn down and rebuilt from scratch".  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-13-2019, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Those are not the tenants of socialism (other than pay for everyone).  It seemed to me you were railing against socialism instead of these specific parts of her plan.

Yeah, aside from paying for everyone, which isn't a big deal at all, the whole plan isn't 100% socialist.  Of course, I pointed out, in posts you've commented on, that we're on a sliding scale.  It's not all or nothing, it's moving down the scale.  But anyone not trying to twist posts, which you're not known for at all, is aware of this.

Quote:The United Sates went through a phase when every building was rebuilt or renovated to account for electricity and/or indoor plumbing.  That is all she is suggesting regarding renewable energy.  So "yes" it has happened before.

Really?  Are you aware of the time frame of this occurrence?  Was this all paid for by the government? 

Quote:The United Sates was also the first country to announce they would put a man on the moon within ten years, and people called Kennedy a hero for it.  So I don't see anything wrong with some ambition.

Oh my, someone swallowed that talking point whole.

Quote:But it seems you are getting away from bashing socialism and instead bashing specific parts of her plan.  I don't see anywhere that she has called for the entire capitalist system to be "torn down and rebuilt from scratch".  

Nope, still bashing socialism (or rather this degree of it), which a large part of this plan is composed of.

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2019, 04:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   It's not all or nothing, it's moving down the scale.  But anyone not trying to twist posts, which you're not known for at all, is aware of this.

Not trying to twist anything.  It just seemed from some of your comments that you were suggesting it was all or nothing.

(02-12-2019, 07:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  this proposal is essentially advocating that we destroy the fabric of the nation down to it's foundation and rebuild it into something that's never worked in human history. 

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To suddenly act as if this is a corrupt, untenable, system and that we must change it from the ground up is laughable. 

If you disagree, point out a socialist nation that actually worked.

(02-13-2019, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The answer to current woes, however, is not to tear it all down and start from scratch.  

You talk about countries on a "sliding scale" that are still viable, but when you talk about AOC's plan you talk about something that has never worked in history.  So it seemed you thought her plan was not on any sliding scale.


Maybe you just got a little carried away with the hyperbolic right wing talking points.

[GMDino]

Couple things:

I don't see an issue with shooting for the moon (if you will) if you can acknowledge that you will have to scale back and it might take longer than your dream time frame.  Obama didn't get all he wanted in the ACA, Trump didn't get all he wanted with the wall...but both promised/asked for a heck of a lot to start with.

Secondly I don't have a problem with the US being a world leader in something like green energy that has the potential to benefit not only our own citizens (and the environment) but also people worldwide.

Lastly, it seems (again) that the two many opposition talking points are "it will cost a lot/how are you going to pay for it" (something we don't take into consideration for things like missiles and planes and walls) and "how do we know we can believe the science" (usually from people who start sentences with "I'm not a scientist but...")

Those on the right opposing this out of hand (and it mostly those on the right) can't play the debt card anymore and over time more and more science will continue to add up.

[fredtoast]

Just to reiterate something I said earlier.

Her plan is a bit overly broad, but the idea is sound. Renewable energy is the future. If we let the fossil fuel lobby keep us from investing toward and developing renewable energy we will be miles behind the rest of the world when renewable energy takes over.

China is spending 50 times what the US is on developing solar power. We will end up being dependent on them for technology instead instead of the other way around like it has been for decades.

[hollodero]

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: but I would remind you that the US leads the world in quality of medical services and pharmaceutical research.  When someone needs an important operation they come to the US.  There's a Syrian girl in Germany that's trying to get to the US for a surgery.  Why can't they do it in Germany?  Because they lack the means.

That's not entirely true. Sure, the US is a big country full of brilliant people and brilliant doctors and there are specialists on many fields there, ones that maybe can't be found elsewhere. But you're not really ahead of western Europe in terms of high-quality medicine, and there are specialists also in Germany and other countries you won't find anywhere else either. And that the US has a lot of high-quality care and people wouldn't change through healthcare for all. There's also still money to be made even with universal healthcare. Ask Bayer.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now, when I say an attack on the foundations of the nation I am not engaging in hyperbole.

I respectfully disagree :)

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Capitalism built everything we have in this nation, and most (all?) of the conveniences you enjoy.  You wouldn't have the computer you type on, the internet you post on or your smart phone.  While certainly given to excesses, like any system (and I do believe we are in the midst of one such period of time), it has fueled the world's most successful nation.  To suddenly act as if this is a corrupt, untenable, system and that we must change it from the ground up is laughable.  Eliminate air travel?  Give money to people unwilling to work?  Giving the masses free stuff is an easy way to win votes, hell even Republicans aren't immune to this, e.g. W's "everyone gets $500 if I win" blatant bribe.  The problem is it's not sustainable.  If you disagree, point out a socialist nation that actually worked.

Again, Europe. Scandinavia, Germany, hell my own country was dominated by a socialist party for a long time and we are wealthy, our quality of life is deemed higher - and at least not lower - than in the US, we have less crime, we have roaring economies too, we invent stuff, we do top-notch research too, we are quite smiilar to the US in almost every aspect and are capitalist nations as well.
But we would give money to people in grim economic situations so they can get back on their feet, we grant everyone a little break through that means and sure, there are elements here and there that take advantage (that can keep a very modest lifestyle for a couple of months, but there is mounting pressure within time and these things run out too) - but these generally are folks that wouldn't exactly boost econmic output if they were forced to work unmotivated through their beginning burn-out, their depression, their lack of impetus, an economic downtime for their profession or whatever else.
And sure, our countries are not perfect either, i wouldn't even dare to say they are obviously better than US policies, although in some aspects they certainly and measurably are (in others, not so much). I'm not saying you need to implement our policies - but don't call them "dangerous". Your way of life is not fundamentally threatened by universal healthcare.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are correct, the fringe of the right is just as scary, in a different way, as that of the left.  However they are not in ascendancy at the moment and AOC and her type are.

You got to be kidding me. Not in ascendancy? How much more in ascendancy could they be except for occupying the white house and attacking institutions, judges and indeed the very foundations of your nation, including intelligence (the one and the other), the FBI, your alliances... Trump gets cheered on when he wants a presidency for lifetime, when he calls for jailing political opponents, he had the Breitbart boss as advisor (the one that calls himself a Leninist) and basically made the radical elements of FOX his advisory board. Nah, there could be one milion additional points and you know that.
And 85% or so of republicans just love it! You are fringe within conservative circles now, not those folks.
Not in ascendancy?

On the other hand, you have 1.000 democrats running for office and as of now I don't see any AOC amongst them. The most radical thing they have is Bernie, the outsider.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be sure, but I think you're underestimating how much people are buying into AOC's particular brand of horseshit.  The media anointed her the minute she won her primary and she's been on a role ever since.

You know who reports the most about her? Breitbart. It's more the right-wing media that made her a phenomenon, and it's more these sites that talk about her in length.
Also, climate change is a necessary step and not "horseshit". The rest of the proposal has no visible endorsement by anyone really influential. AOC is not that within the democratic party.
And if she were one day? Well, that's democracy, right.

(02-13-2019, 09:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One is forced to ask why this is.  Is it because she's young, female or hispanic?  Is it all three?  Is it because of her radical views?  Whatever the answer she has been deemed the face of the Democratic party right now

Again, by the right. I'm sure all presidential candidates, and Pelosi and Schumer, and probably many others beg to differ on that assumption. The only one calling her the face of the party is you and other conservatives. It really is so.
The democrats simply let her do her thing and don't throw her out of Congress.

[hollodero]

(02-13-2019, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Is the point that this thread and my comments are about her proposal that difficult to grab. 

No, but you take it a bit far. Someone said throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I didn't know that expression existed in English as well, but that's what I feel you're doing.

(02-13-2019, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And you'll have to excuse me if I'm willing to look at the pros and cons of combating climate change. I also don't vote solely on one issue. If I pulled the lever for Hills because I liked her stances on foreign affairs would it be fair to say you vote for student loan forgiveness?

Yes. For better or worse, you would have voted for that, just as a matter of fact. I've been there too, I vote for a lot of stuff I don't like as well. The thing is, I don't then try to defend those things I don't like because I want to be a good advocate for the party of my choice.
Eg. you not only voted for ignoring climate change, you alse do everything to defend that stance. You say a lot of "you don't know my opinion on that", and that's true, because you don't commit, and it appears that's because of partisanry. Endorsing things through a vote is one thing (it's hard to avoid one way or another), defending your choice, albeit through non-committal and ridiculing those that call the urgent threat an urgent threat, is another.

[hollodero]

(02-13-2019, 01:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: As Ron Swanson once said "Capitalism: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor" Though that's tongue and cheek from one of my favorite tv characters of all time, why should there be excessive penalties for those that got wealthy through hard work and being smart, especially those that earned it as they weren't born into it?

What about teachers? Policemen? Public servants? All kings of decent folks doing important jobs? Are they not working hard? Are these people not smart?

What is "fair"?

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2019, 01:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not that simple.  The United States is not the only capitalist country in the world, and there was a lot more than capitalism that contributed to our success.  We had massive amounts of natural resources to exploit, and through most of our history we have been insulated from our serious enemies.

As far as I know not even AOC is calling for the means of production to be controlled by the government.  Is that what you think is happening?

How did we exploit those massive amounts of natural resources..............wait for it.........here it comes...............

Capitalism

How have we isolated ourselves from our serious enemies..........wait for it..........here it comes...........

A strong military. 

[Benton]

(02-14-2019, 01:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How did we exploit those massive amounts of natural resources..............wait for it.........here it comes...............

Slavery, war profiteering, capitalism and a network of government programs that benefited industries key to the industrial revolution, like government paid for infrastructure. 

How have we isolated ourselves from our serious enemies..........wait for it..........here it comes...........

Geography. Like thousands of miles of ocean. That's been the relevant factor for most of our history. The times it wasn't? Mexico beat us and Canada burnt the $&@#ing white house to the ground. Yeah, we beat the crap out of England... When they had to cross the Atlantic to fight us.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2019, 01:41 AM)Benton Wrote:

I've heard altering folk's threads to make it appear they typed something they did not is frowned upon by moderation. 

We can address the actual point made if you wish.