The real derangement syndrome, AOCDS

[Greenman]

To my understanding it’s all a set of goals or principles it is meant to be something to talk about.
Obviously it’s going to cost money to clean, pickup and filter all the shit that’s been churning around.

It was my understanding that this was to become a series of bills to fundamentally change the US. If that's incorrect and it's simply a list of talking points then I'm all done. We don't need more pie in the sky bullshit, we need better energy storage and better solar collectors.

 

[ewdotson]

OK lets take the low end 51Trillion over 10 years. At current levels, the IRS will take in 33.33 Trillion in 10 years. Wheres the extra 18Trillion going to come from?

You're missing my point if you're expecting me to come up with actual numbers. I'm trying to say that "how do we pay for it" would be part and parcel of deciding "what exactly is it we're going to do". No one's done that yet, so any sort of speculation is pretty much a futile exercise.

It's particularly difficult given the (likely) largest single item on the list is true universal health care. There are long, hard talks that need to happen as to what exactly the American take on such a system would be and how exactly the transition would be worked. A significant part of the average employed person's compensation is currently their employers contribution to the health care plan. In the long run, one assumes that would get transferred to helping pay for the national health care system. That's not something that simple federal income tax calculations is really going to capture accurately.

But very few people seem to really want to have that conversation. As much as a hate faux centrism, "Medicare-for-All" is often used as more of a slogan than an actual plan, which isn't really all that much more helpful than screeching about socialism.

All that said, it's probably important to not lose sight of the "New Deal" part of the "Green New Deal". I think it's reasonable to expect that one way or the other, taxes would go up across the board. I certainly don't have any disagreement with the idea that we could have everything for everyone purely through increasing taxes on the rich. It's just that again, one can't really answer the "how much" part without deciding on the "what".

 

[blackangst1]

Hm...

I daresay that describes one of us here in our interactions today rather better than the other. Food for thought.

Oh like you lashing out at me for info, and after providing it you decide you dont have time for that? I guess troll would be a better word for you.

 

[blackangst1]

Has AOC ever said that she has a plan other than the bullet points she produced? That's what I'm waiting for.
I think the 9.3 trillion a year number is every bit as nebulous as the outline.

No but she did cry like a little girl when asked about it

Ocasio-Cortez's response: "Some people are like, 'Oh, it's unrealistic, oh it's fake, oh it doesn't address this little minute thing. And I'm like, 'You try! You do it.' 'Cause you're not. 'Cause you're not. So, until you do it, I'm the boss. How 'bout that?"

 

[blackangst1]

You're missing my point if you're expecting me to come up with actual numbers. I'm trying to say that "how do we pay for it" would be part and parcel of deciding "what exactly is it we're going to do". No one's done that yet, so any sort of speculation is pretty much a futile exercise.

It's particularly difficult given the (likely) largest single item on the list is true universal health care. There are long, hard talks that need to happen as to what exactly the American take on such a system would be and how exactly the transition would be worked. A significant part of the average employed person's compensation is currently their employers contribution to the health care plan. In the long run, one assumes that would get transferred to helping pay for the national health care system. That's not something that simple federal income tax calculations is really going to capture accurately.

But very few people seem to really want to have that conversation. As much as a hate faux centrism, "Medicare-for-All" is often used as more of a slogan than an actual plan, which isn't really all that much more helpful than screeching about socialism.

All that said, it's probably important to not lose sight of the "New Deal" part of the "Green New Deal". I think it's reasonable to expect that one way or the other, taxes would go up across the board. I certainly don't have any disagreement with the idea that we could have everything for everyone purely through increasing taxes on the rich. It's just that again, one can't really answer the "how much" part without deciding on the "what".

Honest question. You really think the largest expense would be Medicare for all? More than eliminating fossil fuels?

 

[nakedfrog]

Oh like you lashing out at me for info, and after providing it you decide you dont have time for that? I guess troll would be a better word for you.

I don't think any reasonable person would consider the statement "This 93 trillion number, is that a per-year value?" to be "lashing out".

 

[blackangst1]

It was my understanding that this was to become a series of bills to fundamentally change the US. If that's incorrect and it's simply a list of talking points then I'm all done. We don't need more pie in the sky bullshit, we need better energy storage and better solar collectors.

Obviously it will take numerous, likely dozens, of bills to get it done. As well as how to fund it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Which part?

This quote?


He's asserting the analysis done was based on assumptions and policies, when in fact if you read the analysis is based on legislation and law already in the books. If Markey is calling out the analysis the burdenis on him to prove it. All he did is tweet.

I must've missed the part where the Green New Deal legislation was already on the books.

Sounds like he's right.

 

[ewdotson]

Honest question. You really think the largest expense would be Medicare for all? More than eliminating fossil fuels?

Oh, I was just going by their chart. They were rating "Low-carbon Electricity Grid" at $5.4T and "Net Zero Emissions Transportation System" at $1.3-2.7T vs "Universal Health Care" at $36T.

In practice - hell if I know. It does seem unlikely, even as expensive as health care has gotten, doesn't it?

 

[blackangst1]

I don't think any reasonable person would consider the statement "This 93 trillion number, is that a per-year value?" to be "lashing out".

This would be:

I'm just going to ignore it, because it's based on speculation versus any actual concrete legislation that's been written. But you have fun with your rage, Frothy.

 

[nakedfrog]

This would be:

I think that's a fair response to "Read the fucking link I posted asshat.", and still not reasonably considered "lashing out".

 

[blackangst1]

I think that's a fair response to "Read the fucking link I posted asshat.", and still not reasonably considered "lashing out".

OK. I lashed out also. Guess thats my response to you asking for validation of what I posted, me providing it, then you saying you dont want to think about it.

 

[HomerJS]

I just listened to AOCs questioning of Cohen at the hearing. For being a big dummy like you righties allege, she sounds 10x as articulate as Trump

 

[Genx87]

Wow, and you honestly think shit attitudes like yours somehow should be taken seriously? Talk about low hanging fruit, you seem to be nourished solely on the dingleberries of conservatives. You honestly didn't offer anything I couldn't get more concisely from watching any right wing politician or news source (but I do like how you think you're superior to seemingly everyone).

I think its telling that you seem to associate blowing your nose with brain matter as that would certainly explain some things. I'm guessing you have pretty serious allergies?

You sound triggered. I dont care if you take my attitude seriously. You are a nobody on a msgboard.

 

[Genx87]

Humor me, whom do you find to be a well educated & smart Representative or Senator?

Justin Amash

 

[Genx87]

The so called "low hanging fruit" exists because Fox News and the right ring are teaching you just to hate her. When you have members of the GOP walking around the halls of Congress taking pictures of her ass and complaining about her clothes, that's the low bar. Because the righties have turned her into the devil the other networks get attention just covering her and the cycle starts to self feed.

I don't watch Foxnews nor follow right winged idiots. I watch her attempt to formulate an answer and cringe. I dont care what she wears or where she lives. And as I said in my response above. I dont particularily care about her. But I find her annoying more than anything. You may not have noticed. This dimwit has been in congress for the better part of a month. Was elected in Nov and on the trail for months before that. I dont recall me saying much of anything about her until this thread.

I dont disagree about your description of the cycle.

 

[ElFenix]

I don't watch Foxnews nor follow right winged idiots. I watch her attempt to formulate an answer and cringe. I dont care what she wears or where she lives. And as I said in my response above. I dont particularily care about her. But I find her annoying more than anything. You may not have noticed. This dimwit has been in congress for the better part of a month. Was elected in Nov and on the trail for months before that. I dont recall me saying much of anything about her until this thread.

I dont disagree about your description of the cycle.

this post didn't age well at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, gosh, that almost sounds like a downright reasonable statement right there.

Well, yeh, but conservatives don't want to be reasonable. They want to kill it in the crib.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

this post didn't age well at all.

What about his post "didn't age well"?

 

[darkswordsman17]

When Reagan and the GOP fundamentally changed the USA, leading us to the proverbial economic shithole that nearly any GOP voter will claim that we are in right now, why was that not a horrific proposition?

NO, AOC's goal is to restore the USA to what it was when it was fundamentally great, which was prior to the appearance of that prolapsed rectum, Ronald Reagan, in the national GOP sphere.

Hey, Ronnie was pretty awful, but he wasn't prolapsed asshole. He was more of an overly tanned Hollywood asscheeck (which I just realized why Republicans can so readily celebrate him but also hate on him). Turmp is the prolapsed asshole.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I just listened to AOCs questioning of Cohen at the hearing. For being a big dummy like you righties allege, she sounds 10x as articulate as Trump

She could just make fart noises and it'd be more articulate than Turmp, so that honestly comes off more as damning praise than a vote of confidence. But she's definitely not at all what the raging "OMG a woman that talks back, she's a witch/demon/socialist/nazi/commie/etc" morons try to portray her as.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Well, yeh, but conservatives don't want to be reasonable. They want to kill it in the crib.

Nah, they're full on trying to force an abortion here.

 

[darkswordsman17]

You sound triggered. I dont care if you take my attitude seriously. You are a nobody on a msgboard.

Haha, yes, I'm the one that was triggered, not you and your insane mouth frothing rant about AOC (I know you conservative dumbfucks like to be incredibly hypocritical and do exactly what you're trying to insult other people for allegedly doing, but damn, I really thought you were smarter than the regular Republican puppets). I do like how you've reinforced just how full of shit you were through your further posts in this thread. You clearly do or you wouldn't be posting your dumb shit on a messageboard to supposed nobodies. I guess its the only place you thought your "I'm smarter than everybody" routine would work outside of your own mind?

 

[darkswordsman17]

What about his post "didn't age well"?

Generally you kinda reveal yourself to be full of shit if you claim you "don't care about them" but can't stop going out of your way to try and insult them and tell people how awful they are. He's clearly trying to convince himself more than anyone that he "doesn't care about AOC" yet he wants to be taken seriously in his regurgitation of typical right wing smears towards her. He's literally provided nothing other than that for his reason why people should think she's an idiot. It also shows he's full of shit that he "doesn't follow right wing idiots", although I suppose its possible that he just naturally is one on his own and somehow just happened to end up in perfect lockstep with their rhetoric, but that's obviously just more bullshit. I guarantee that he consumes a good chunk of, if not almost entirely, right wing media. I don't know if you morons really can't discern the many many many tells that reveal how full of shit you are, or if you really think you're convincing anyone with your routines, but its laughably absurd how blatantly obvious it is. All, the, time.

You don't need to answer for yourself, I'm already aware that you really are just that stupid, as you've made it clear by "its just 4Chan" Pepe argument. Oh, and so, why don't you just fuck off back to 4Chan since you seem to be such a fan? Have to ask as I'm kinda curious what drives people to into becoming "btards", Is it the kiddie porn, the racism, the sexism, or just the general dipshittery that appeals to you about there? Oops, I forgot, they tried to shove the kiddie porn and "not just trolling" white supremacists over to 8Chan. How upset were you over that? Did they ruin your pure forums?

 

[jackstar7]

What about his post "didn't age well"?

Did you watch her question Cohen today?