Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey to unveil 'Green New Deal' bill

[Starlight]

That is essentially socialism starlight.

It's not all necessarily socialistic. But

Source: CNN

"guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States"

© Copyright Original Source

If this isn't socialism, it's as close to it as you can get w/o being socialism.

For one, your ideas of what makes something "socialism" are really, really messed up. Not only is that not socialism, it isn't remotely close to being socialism.

Secondly, that was a bit of a throwaway line in the document. 99% of the Resolution is about climate change and carbon emissions. While I am sure the democrats would like to do some other good stuff too, like having America stop being close to the only country in the world that doesn't guarantee paid maternity leave, etc. Things like that will end up being split out as separate issues and discussed and passed (or not) quite independently of climate change issues.

And honestly, I don't see how you could actually implement that without it being or becoming socialism. You can't force people to get hired by independent companies, so you have to provide jobs for these people. But where are you going to get the money to fund the endeavors that provide those jobs?

You know that America and most other countries have social security or similar for people who don't have jobs right? So the money is already being found and used to pay people who don't have jobs. A Job Guarantee policy would effectively just mean that instead of just giving them the social security check, those people would be contributing productive labor in exchange for that check. If that productive labor were organised in such a way to create revenue like it would in an ordinary company, that would be net positive for the governments finances as compared to the existing policy of just giving those same people a check without them doing the work.

Source: CNN

Public ownership
"providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization"

© Copyright Original Source

'not socialism' ?!?!

Indeed that is not socialism.

I don't really know what to say... you seem like someone who's pointing to blue things and black things and saying "their color is red"... they just aren't and your statement leaves me scratching my head. I'm a democratic socialist. I've read books about Marx and books about socialism through the centuries. I enjoy reading and learning about different kinds of socialism and different strands of political thought. My favorite daily podcast is a socialist one whose hosts span the socialist spectrum. But the things you're talking about here just aren't socialism.

[Sparko]

It doesn't do any of that.

I know conservatives on this site find reading comprehension really difficult, but the Resolution text is mostly bullet points and only a dozen pages or so, so even you should be able to read it.

They say the same thing they said in the FAQ, but worded it more vaguely.

Such as in the FAQ:
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

Resolution:
(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

They just took out the phrase 'unable or unwilling to work.' But if we are talking about economic security for ALL people of the USA, it would entail for those unwilling to work, ipso facto.

Same for the rest of the document.

[One Bad Pig]

It's interesting that they're not trying the Obamacare trick of ramming it though before anybody has a chance to read it.

Not really. Current party leadership is against it - and even if Pelosi, et al. supported it, they could only get it through one chamber of Congress, so there's no point.

[Sparko]

You know that America and most other countries have social security or similar for people who don't have jobs right? So the money is already being found and used to pay people who don't have jobs.

That's now how "social security" works Star. It is funded by workers having money taken out of their paycheck. It is not government money being distributed, it is a retirement fund paid for by workers. You are talking about welfare. Or maybe unemployment insurance but that is paid for by the employers.

[Mountain Man]

And now she says:

Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, Is it okay to still have children?

Cortez is a moron.

[Mountain Man]

A study conducted by the American Action Forum estimates that the "Green New Deal" could cost as much as $93 trillion to implement!

This "new deal" is sounding more and more like a raw deal.

[Cow Poke]

And now she says:

Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, Is it okay to still have children?

Cortez is a moron.

Carpe thinks her only problem is that she takes bad pictures.

[Cow Poke]

Once again, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez misses the point and facts

“There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”

— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

You know how people say, “There’s no such thing as a dumb question?”

AOC just proved them wrong.

“Is it OK to still have children” is an idiotic inquiry on every level. It’s based on a false premise, unsupported by any facts and, if taken to its logical conclusion, would literally destroy American society.

So expect it to become part of the official Democratic Party platform in 2020.

There’s a media meme being promoted by the left that it’s somehow unfair to fact-check Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. The Bomb-Throwing Bartender from the Bronx should be, like Donald Trump, “taken seriously but not literally.”

As Shadi Hamid of the left-leaning Brookings Institution has written of AOC’s other big idea — a 70 percent top income tax rate — “it probably doesn’t matter whether it is a good idea, or whether it would ‘work.’ ” The point is that it’s an insane, envy-driven, economically idiotic idea that loony Cambridge liberals really love.

So to hell with math — we win!

But is a society where couples are convinced they can’t have kids really #Winning? Is fear over climate change a “legitimate” reason to question your morality for wanting to start a family?

At the risk of being accused of “mansplaining” (aka “doing basic math”), here’s why the answer is no:

Start with the false claim about a “scientific consensus” that your kids’ lives are going to be lousy. That’s simply not true.

A child born today is less likely to be poor than at any time in human existence. When AOC was born in 1989, nearly 40 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Thanks to capitalism’s spread, that number’s now below 10 percent.

And those kids are more likely to live in a democracy, too. In 1989, less than half the world’s population lived under a democratic government. Today, nearly two-thirds of the human race is governed by some form of representative government — with or without Russian bots.

Parents who ignore AOC’s parenting advice are more likely than ever to have healthy children, children who are less likely to go hungry, more likely to attend school and will almost certainly live longer than any other generation in human history.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, AOC.

[Sparko]

Once again, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez misses the point and facts

[box]“There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”

— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

You know how people say, “There’s no such thing as a dumb question?”

AOC just proved them wrong.

“Is it OK to still have children” is an idiotic inquiry on every level. It’s based on a false premise, unsupported by any facts and, if taken to its logical conclusion, would literally destroy American society.

So expect it to become part of the official Democratic Party platform in 2020.

It already is.

It's called the Pro-Choice platform. This is merely another rationalization for promoting abortion. "well we can't let children grow up in a post apocalyptic world, so we should just abort them now!"

[Mountain Man]

Let's hope liberals follow Cortez's advice and stop having children while we conservatives continue to bear offspring. We could have this country fixed within a generation.

[lilpixieofterror]

Once again, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez misses the point and facts

“There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”

— Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

You know how people say, “There’s no such thing as a dumb question?”

AOC just proved them wrong.

“Is it OK to still have children” is an idiotic inquiry on every level. It’s based on a false premise, unsupported by any facts and, if taken to its logical conclusion, would literally destroy American society.

So expect it to become part of the official Democratic Party platform in 2020.

There’s a media meme being promoted by the left that it’s somehow unfair to fact-check Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. The Bomb-Throwing Bartender from the Bronx should be, like Donald Trump, “taken seriously but not literally.”

As Shadi Hamid of the left-leaning Brookings Institution has written of AOC’s other big idea — a 70 percent top income tax rate — “it probably doesn’t matter whether it is a good idea, or whether it would ‘work.’ ” The point is that it’s an insane, envy-driven, economically idiotic idea that loony Cambridge liberals really love.

So to hell with math — we win!

But is a society where couples are convinced they can’t have kids really #Winning? Is fear over climate change a “legitimate” reason to question your morality for wanting to start a family?

At the risk of being accused of “mansplaining” (aka “doing basic math”), here’s why the answer is no:

Start with the false claim about a “scientific consensus” that your kids’ lives are going to be lousy. That’s simply not true.

A child born today is less likely to be poor than at any time in human existence. When AOC was born in 1989, nearly 40 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Thanks to capitalism’s spread, that number’s now below 10 percent.

And those kids are more likely to live in a democracy, too. In 1989, less than half the world’s population lived under a democratic government. Today, nearly two-thirds of the human race is governed by some form of representative government — with or without Russian bots.

Parents who ignore AOC’s parenting advice are more likely than ever to have healthy children, children who are less likely to go hungry, more likely to attend school and will almost certainly live longer than any other generation in human history.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, AOC.

Guess the plus is the crazies will stop having children and pretty much hand the future over to those they hate.

[One Bad Pig]

Guess the plus is the crazies will stop having children and pretty much hand the future over to those they hate.

...except public schooling has gotten adept at turning the children of others into progressives. Even conservatives tend to spend so little time with their children compared to how much time they spend in school/with their friends that their views don't get transmitted very well. I've seen that in my own extended family.

[lilpixieofterror]

...except public schooling has gotten adept at turning the children of others into progressives. Even conservatives tend to spend so little time with their children compared to how much time they spend in school/with their friends that their views don't get transmitted very well. I've seen that in my own extended family.

I did alright, despite public schools. I tend to find the whole idea of taxing the ‘rich’ sounds great when you’re working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds, but doesn’t sound so great when you start moving beyond those lower wage jobs. A cold splash of reality does wonders for many, but not all.

[Mountain Man]

...except public schooling has gotten adept at turning the children of others into progressives. Even conservatives tend to spend so little time with their children compared to how much time they spend in school/with their friends that their views don't get transmitted very well. I've seen that in my own extended family.

It just means parents need to be proactive, talking with their kids and keeping them grounded in the church. Plant the seed, keep it watered, and trust God to make it grow.

[One Bad Pig]

It just means parents need to be proactive, talking with their kids and keeping them grounded in the church. Plant the seed, keep it watered, and trust God to make it grow.

Given how many children depart from the faith after they go off to college, parents aren't doing a very good job. At all.