• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ocasio-Cortez Wants to Spend $40T on Progressive Programs. Free Health Care for All?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,759
2,867
126
One of the few topics that disallow rational examination and debate. I'll let people toss sticks in the bicycle spokes.
I don't see why not. It all sounds fine and dandy, we just need to figure out how to pay for it. I'd be happy to kick in a few thousand.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,062
869
126
Her election is proof that someone as dumb as a box of rocks can win, with no apparent qualifications, but her racial and gender identities, as well as having a cool sounding name. Can't find any other basis for why enough people would have voted for her, except they don't understand how things work either. Pure emotionally driven people with no logic involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlowSpyder

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
His election is proof that someone as dumb as a box of rocks can win, with no apparent qualifications, but his racial and gender identities, as well as having a cool sounding name. Can't find any other basis for why enough people would have voted for him, except they don't understand how things work either. Pure emotionally driven people with no logic involved.


I agree. Trump voters are stupid. lol.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,680
9,843
136
Am I wrong?
You're complaining about certain costs while ignoring other costs. So maybe not wrong, but certainly not right.
For example, it was already pointed out early in this thread that we are already paying as much if not more than that $40 trillion figure for our existing 'private' health care system.
So your question, how are we going to pay for it? can be answered by, we're already paying for it. And the same can be applied to every other issue you brought up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD and Sunburn74

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,362
3,037
136
Do you disagree fossil fuels aqre not the most efficient?
That matters on just what your definition of efficient is. They pack a lot of energy per gram and are easy to acquire making them cheap up front but we have discovered that they have a hell of a lot of back-end expenses in how they destroy the environment. Most everyone that has looked into it has determined that if you factor in the long term costs of fossil fuels the are one of the least efficient fuels possible.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
That matters on just what your definition of efficient is. They pack a lot of energy per gram and are easy to acquire making them cheap up front but we have discovered that they have a hell of a lot of back-end expenses in how they destroy the environment. Most everyone that has looked into it has determined that if you factor in the long term costs of fossil fuels the are one of the least efficient fuels possible.
I wonder if it even makes sense to engage arguments like this with sincere responses. I don't mean this as a criticism, I honestly just don't know. Fossil fuel extractionists have presumably looked at the evidence and are aware of the problems but have either decided that they don't believe in them or they just don't care. My guess is in most cases its the latter.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,362
3,037
136
I wonder if it even makes sense to engage arguments like this with sincere responses. I don't mean this as a criticism, I honestly just don't know. Fossil fuel extractionists have presumably looked at the evidence and are aware of the problems but have either decided that they don't believe in them or they just don't care. My guess is in most cases its the latter.
I don't engage with this for the posters benefit, but for anyone else that might be reading it. The problem is that such statements sound reasonable on the surface, fossil fuel certainly seems to be a highly efficient fuel source and until relatively recently was the only reasonable choice to operate a large portion of our infrastructure, and if that is all that is said most people will not think about it past the end of the sentence. So, I counter that whenever I can by stating the counter argument, which makes (at least some) people engage critical thinking and not just accept the surface level argument.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,759
2,867
126
Her election is proof that someone as dumb as a box of rocks can win, with no apparent qualifications, but her racial and gender identities, as well as having a cool sounding name. Can't find any other basis for why enough people would have voted for her, except they don't understand how things work either. Pure emotionally driven people with no logic involved.
A lot of people want what she's offering. Think about it, the state is guaranteeing you a good life. No stress over housing cost or health care, no worries about keeping your job, no need to save for the future, or sweat over sending your kids to school. It's just like living with your parents, except you have to do your own laundry. A life without worry or struggle, no pressure, no stress. And always a benevolent government watching to make sure you don't make any mistakes. That's utopia my friend. That's a life where you can coast along and your single biggest worry is paying for the newest iphone.
That it's all a lie never enters the equation.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I don't engage with this for the posters benefit, but for anyone else that might be reading it. The problem is that such statements sound reasonable on the surface, fossil fuel certainly seems to be a highly efficient fuel source and until relatively recently was the only reasonable choice to operate a large portion of our infrastructure, and if that is all that is said most people will not think about it past the end of the sentence. So, I counter that whenever I can by stating the counter argument, which makes (at least some) people engage critical thinking and not just accept the surface level argument.
I think the crux of the problem is this, until we find another source of energy that is as dense as fossil fuel, we are stuck. We know the damage caused, and we are attempting to reduce it. The problem is that we need energy to support the amount of people we have. Not doing so would mean millions if not billions of deaths.

We either need a new source, and or, some technology to reduce the impact of what we already have. Nuclear was thought to be the new source, but, is all but impossible now in the US due to safety regulations.

Solar seems like an obvious choice, but, would be massively expensive right now. We would also need to build a better electrical network.

Carbon dioxide scurbbers is also another option, but, I would bet that the general public would not like those.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,362
3,037
136
I think the crux of the problem is this, until we find another source of energy that is as dense as fossil fuel, we are stuck. We know the damage caused, and we are attempting to reduce it. The problem is that we need energy to support the amount of people we have. Not doing so would mean millions if not billions of deaths.

We either need a new source, and or, some technology to reduce the impact of what we already have. Nuclear was thought to be the new source, but, is all but impossible now in the US due to safety regulations.

Solar seems like an obvious choice, but, would be massively expensive right now. We would also need to build a better electrical network.

Carbon dioxide scurbbers is also another option, but, I would bet that the general public would not like those.
I agree that there is a lot of our infrastructure that we simple can not run without fossil fuels, for now. But there is a lot of it that we can run off renewable energy. The technology to be 100% renewable is not there right now, but we are all but certain that we are going to get there in the not too distant future. So our policies should be aimed at getting us ready for that day, at easing the transition so we don't have to make large investments that we might not be able to afford when we hit the crisis point.

Right now we need to be investing in the infrastructure that we will be able to use with those systems, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels as we can, both because it represents an investment in more research on renewable energy and because it has better long term outcomes, and finally directly spending public money investing in research into alternative energy sources.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,513
1,824
136
A lot of people want what she's offering. Think about it, the state is guaranteeing you a good life. No stress over housing cost or health care, no worries about keeping your job, no need to save for the future, or sweat over sending your kids to school. It's just like living with your parents, except you have to do your own laundry. A life without worry or struggle, no pressure, no stress. And always a benevolent government watching to make sure you don't make any mistakes. That's utopia my friend. That's a life where you can coast along and your single biggest worry is paying for the newest iphone.
That it's all a lie never enters the equation.
I don't think so. This has been debated before. Which job would most people take if forced: you can work as a toll booth operator for 10 hours a day with no human interaction or thought required at 100k per year or you can make 75k per year but work in a creative field doing something you think is meaningful.

The idea that if you give people some income to support themselves they will suddenly turn into lambs that do nothing but sleep and play video games is unfounded. There's a reason why Freud said work and love are the cornerstones of human happiness. The desire to work is so strong that people literally risk life and limb for it and have done so since the beginning of time. It's why high school kids get summer jobs cutting lawns and etc even when Mom and day say they will pay for everything if they just stay home.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I agree that there is a lot of our infrastructure that we simple can not run without fossil fuels, for now. But there is a lot of it that we can run off renewable energy. The technology to be 100% renewable is not there right now, but we are all but certain that we are going to get there in the not too distant future. So our policies should be aimed at getting us ready for that day, at easing the transition so we don't have to make large investments that we might not be able to afford when we hit the crisis point.

Right now we need to be investing in the infrastructure that we will be able to use with those systems, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels as we can, both because it represents an investment in more research on renewable energy and because it has better long term outcomes, and finally directly spending public money investing in research into alternative energy sources.
I think at the very least we could update our power grid. That would also help reduce lots of wasted energy. I think Tesla home batteries would also do a big service to smoothing out our energy demands. Battery technology needs to improve, but, it looks to be cost effective in a lot of areas right now. I know many utilities are working on doing their own batteries for the same goal.

That only addresses part of our energy problem though. The ability to transport liquid to just about anywhere to supply power is something that is not going to be easily overcome. Its just too useful to take that liquid energy source around vs batteries that discharge their power when not being used.

Electric cars are a thing now, so, if we can improve batteries then we can make some big inroads to this problem. Their efficiencies are so much better when you do not factor in cost of manufacturing. If we can get that cost down, and again here is where Tesla has helped, we can get more of those cars on the road.

None of that addressed what has already been done though, and we need to find ways to get carbon out of their air and ocean. There are some things that are being looked at, such as dumping iron into the ocean.

This is fun btw.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
A lot of people want what she's offering. Think about it, the state is guaranteeing you a good life. No stress over housing cost or health care, no worries about keeping your job, no need to save for the future, or sweat over sending your kids to school. It's just like living with your parents, except you have to do your own laundry. A life without worry or struggle, no pressure, no stress. And always a benevolent government watching to make sure you don't make any mistakes. That's utopia my friend. That's a life where you can coast along and your single biggest worry is paying for the newest iphone.
That it's all a lie never enters the equation.
Do you honestly think that's what she's offering? Do you really believe that's an accurate representation of her policies?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,362
3,037
136
None of that addressed what has already been done though, and we need to find ways to get carbon out of their air and ocean. There are some things that are being looked at, such as dumping iron into the ocean.

This is fun btw.
I agree with everything you have said. We have been digging ourselves into a hole since the industrial revolution and have not bothered to look up to see how deep it is getting until recently. We have to do something to get out of this hole or we are going to get buried in it.

This whole thing is a super complex issue. Even the battery solution is problematic because as of right now we are using rare earth metals to make these batteries and then just tossing them in the landfill when the devices they are in breaks. This is not sustainable even short term. We need to change not just the technologies that we use but how we interact with them. We need more than a technology change, we need a paradigm change. I'm not sure that capitalism can answer this problem.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I agree with everything you have said. We have been digging ourselves into a hole since the industrial revolution and have not bothered to look up to see how deep it is getting until recently. We have to do something to get out of this hole or we are going to get buried in it.

This whole thing is a super complex issue. Even the battery solution is problematic because as of right now we are using rare earth metals to make these batteries and then just tossing them in the landfill when the devices they are in breaks. This is not sustainable even short term. We need to change not just the technologies that we use but how we interact with them. We need more than a technology change, we need a paradigm change. I'm not sure that capitalism can answer this problem.
Capitalism can if we can include the cost in the price of what we buy. Tax is one way to do that, but, politics gets in the way.

As for batteries, I know Tesla is moving away from current technology and looking for more sustainable materials. That is putting some competition into a market that we all benefit from.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,679
126
A lot of people want what she's offering. Think about it, the state is guaranteeing you a good life. No stress over housing cost or health care, no worries about keeping your job, no need to save for the future, or sweat over sending your kids to school. It's just like living with your parents, except you have to do your own laundry. A life without worry or struggle, no pressure, no stress. And always a benevolent government watching to make sure you don't make any mistakes. That's utopia my friend. That's a life where you can coast along and your single biggest worry is paying for the newest iphone.
That it's all a lie never enters the equation.
Someone should tell the people living in Scandinavia that they're living a lie. I'm sure they'll be surprised to learn that their societies can't possibly exist.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Someone should tell the people living in Scandinavia that they're living a lie. I'm sure they'll be surprised to learn that their societies can't possibly exist.
It would be nice if people would stop talking about the reforms US progressives want as being utopian nonsense that can’t exist.

It literally exists today, in multiple other countries of similar development to ours and has for a long time.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,244
9,810
136
A lot of people want what she's offering. Think about it, the state is guaranteeing you a good life. No stress over housing cost or health care, no worries about keeping your job, no need to save for the future, or sweat over sending your kids to school. It's just like living with your parents, except you have to do your own laundry. A life without worry or struggle, no pressure, no stress. And always a benevolent government watching to make sure you don't make any mistakes. That's utopia my friend. That's a life where you can coast along and your single biggest worry is paying for the newest iphone.
That it's all a lie never enters the equation.
It's strange, but in Europe, where they have much more robust safety nets, they save money better than we do. They don't have a car and a phone for every member of every household. According to your logic, they should be spending it recklessly.

I think we need safety nets even more than they do there because we're conditioned to spend all our money. We can't encourage people to buy stuff they don't need, because it's good for the economy, then say we're not going to have safety nets because it will encourage more irresponsible spending.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,625
5,920
126
Her election is proof that someone as dumb as a box of rocks can win, with no apparent qualifications, but her racial and gender identities, as well as having a cool sounding name. Can't find any other basis for why enough people would have voted for her, except they don't understand how things work either. Pure emotionally driven people with no logic involved.
oh irony
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
33,939
12,738
146
Her election is proof that someone as dumb as a box of rocks can win, with no apparent qualifications, but her racial and gender identities, as well as having a cool sounding name. Can't find any other basis for why enough people would have voted for her, except they don't understand how things work either. Pure emotionally driven people with no logic involved.
Trump proved that years ago. Burn it down, bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,759
2,867
126
I don't think so. This has been debated before. Which job would most people take if forced: you can work as a toll booth operator for 10 hours a day with no human interaction or thought required at 100k per year or you can make 75k per year but work in a creative field doing something you think is meaningful.

The idea that if you give people some income to support themselves they will suddenly turn into lambs that do nothing but sleep and play video games is unfounded. There's a reason why Freud said work and love are the cornerstones of human happiness. The desire to work is so strong that people literally risk life and limb for it and have done so since the beginning of time. It's why high school kids get summer jobs cutting lawns and etc even when Mom and day say they will pay for everything if they just stay home.
Excellent point. Perhaps my view of the average person is to cynical.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,405
422
136
It would be nice if people would stop talking about the reforms US progressives want as being utopian nonsense that can’t exist.

It literally exists today, in multiple other countries of similar development to ours and has for a long time.
Always hilarious when conservatives state that any progressive plan will be a horrific failure and results in gulags, when much more radical systems exists and functions in dozen of countries already. But on the other hand the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist system many of them advocate ("get rid of public schools and roads!" etc) has never been tested and doesn't exists anywhere (for good reason?)
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,840
6,607
136
Always hilarious when conservatives state that any progressive plan will be a horrific failure and results in gulags, when much more radical systems exists and functions in dozen of countries already. But on the other hand the libertarian, anarcho-capitalist system many of them advocate ("get rid of public schools and roads!" etc) has never been tested and doesn't exists anywhere (for good reason?)
1%'ers and 0.1%'ers cant have masses believe this kind of crap, look at what a 0.1%'er grosses in a "socialist" country in europe compared to the US. Are you kidding me, that would cut directly into Murdoch's money pit.. cant have that. Thats why he created Fox. To brainwash taj and slow and co. Mission accomplished. "FYGM" is a disease.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY