Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

The Green New Deal

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk
9 hours ago, Setton said:

Re. Bold: can you make up your mind whether you think this is socialism or communism?

Then there might be a worthwhile discussion to be had. 

So what's the real difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive
5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Suicide Stewie Family Guy 08022019204521.jpg

 

FB_IMG_1548269715684.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I think citizens and the government can gain if they pay for  a valuable service at a fair price.  Do we want a wall or not?  Is it something we are willing to pay for? Then we might as well pay American citizens to do it instead of drawing unemployment.

Not the point I responded to.  I think the CCC and WPA were valuable and somewhat necessary at the time they were in use.  That said, they were never sold as ways to make the country more revenue.  The truth is, I think most of those who are receiving a government check would raise hell if told they had to inconvenience themselves, let alone work, physically, for that payment.  It's a different world, Tat.  I happen to believe that the value of that sense of "being needed" is crucial to all human beings and that we atrophy spiritually at a minimum if we lack it for long.  I wouldn't have a problem with requiring even the physically disabled to put in community service a few hours a week within their abilities.  Think of the pool of life experiences that could be shared by millions of volunteers and mentors.  It would require teaching a whole generation a new set of values, however.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

OoooKAY. 

Just to indicate how credible Alexander Occassio Cortez's Green New Deal is..... she has removed it from her website. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I am not against Capitalism. I am against completely unregulated Capitalism. I'm a Social Democrat, which means that I'm in favor of a mixed market economy, with one part Capitalism, and one part Socialism (aka, social programs).

For the best picture of what I'm talking about, think off our current system as we have now - and simply tweak a few things with it. There isn't a single policy that I'm in favor of implementing that doesn't already exist here in the US, just in a much lesser extent.

There is no such thing as a mixed market.  There are only two basic forms of government.  Those that grant rights to the people and the other that protects the rights of the individual.  Capitalism refers to the means of production (economy).  The term usually implies free market in a Republic and the means of production is controlled by individuals.  When it is under Socialism, ultimately it is the state that controls the means of production.  Socialism must control government, economy, and society.  That’s not true Capitalism.  True Capitalism works without government infringement, at least with minimal, common sense regulation.  The individual drives the free market by following their self-interest.  Socialism is anti-self-interest.  Without incentive, wealth is not accumulated and without wealth, the state does not last.

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:
  • We already have free public school from grades K-12, I want to extend that to at least 4 years public college.
  • We already have Medicare for people ages 65+, I want to expand Medicare to include everyone.
  • We already have a national minimum wage of roughly $7, I want to increase that to $15.

The list could go on...

And who is going to pay for all of that?  Even if you could take 110% of what the wealthy make, that is not going to be enough, especially with open borders.  You’ve just pulled the plug out of fiscal responsibility, there will never be enough.  Inflation will go rampant and then the identity politics with implode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no such thing as a mixed market.  There are only two basic forms of government.  Those that grant rights to the people and the other that protects the rights of the individual.  Capitalism refers to the means of production (economy).  The term usually implies free market in a Republic and the means of production is controlled by individuals.  When it is under Socialism, ultimately it is the state that controls the means of production.  Socialism must control government, economy, and society.  That’s not true Capitalism.  True Capitalism works without government infringement, at least with minimal, common sense regulation.  The individual drives the free market by following their self-interest.  Socialism is anti-self-interest.  Without incentive, wealth is not accumulated and without wealth, the state does not last.

And who is going to pay for all of that?  Even if you could take 110% of what the wealthy make, that is not going to be enough, especially with open borders.  You’ve just pulled the plug out of fiscal responsibility, there will never be enough.  Inflation will go rampant and then the identity politics with implode.

Every single thing in the quote above has already been debunked an innumerable number of times. Not just by me, but my many other posters on this forum. As well as the countless other people across the internet, easily accessible via a simple Google search. In fact most of this response is not debunked by left-wing debunkers, or rational arguments from the left, but by simple objective facts, scientific studies, polls, and data. You are wrong about everything.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, not just now, but ever. You are completely and totally demonstrably wrong on just about everything you post in this forum, and yet you think you know it all.

You never post any links, never cite any sources, never use any logical arguments, and never use anything to back up any of your claims. All you ever do is give long-winded diatribes littered with blanket baseless assertions, along with misinformation if not outright lies. You ignore all objective facts, in favor of opinions with seemingly no regard for reality.

You have shown absolutely no attempts to understand alternative viewpoints. You have never attempted to put yourself in other person's shoes. You have a complete and total lack of empathy and compassion for anyone, and you take pride in this supposed 'facts (which are never actually facts, just baseless assertions) over feelings' mentality. You are so confident that everything you say is correct, despite  simultaneously never backing up a single thing that you ever say.

You have absolutely no idea just how wrong you are. It would be one thing if you were just wrong, but no. You're worse than wrong. You are so wrong that you aren't just wrong, and you don't just not know that you're wrong; I believe that you are so wrong that you are literally incapable of seeing your own wrongness.

You are the textbook definition of The Dunning Kruger Effect.

Quote

The Dunning-Kruger effect (also known as Mount Stupid[1]or Smug Snake[2]), named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimation of themselves. In simple words it's "people who are too ignorant to know how ignorant they are".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

None of what I've posted here will in any way change your thoughts or behaviors here. Nor will it likely convince many other people reading this just how wrong you truly are. Nonetheless, I simply felt it my duty to point it out.

0_l7ND_jARApJbnrvy.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not looking to completely overrun the American political system.

Thanks for responding with such detail.  Fine.  We're good.  No problem.

But you are not in Washington making Laws for the rest of America.  Ocasia Cortez is!  And she most definitely IS looking to completely overrun the American Political System.  She IS looking for complete, unabashed, total Socialism. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I’m fairness some of the things in this I have been wishing for for years. Mostly to do with eliminating corruption. I’m glad I read it all the way through instead of dismissing it completely after the first couple paragraphs (which were horrific). There is a little common ground here. A little. 

And don’t get me wrong, it would be great if everyone could get Medicaid, and free education, utilities etc, but it’s just not realistic. This is another attempt at utopia, taking proven failed steps back to do it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I haven't researched the origin of insurance, but I'd say it started as all private businesses do. They see a demand for a product, so they create a company that provides said product for a price that they can profit from. Again, it's just that simple.

Okay here is how insurance started....a long, long, loooooooooong time ago....

The setting is a coffee shop in England.  Rich guys set around and conversed about rich guy stuff.  One interesting item of discussion was the New World.  Ships had begun sailing back and forth between England and the New World.  Some rich guys saw a way to profit in the New World.  They saw a 'need' for things like nails, and other supplies people in the New World might need.  And they discussed alot how to get them there.  How much it would cost them and how much they might profit for their efforts.  One huge unknown was the trip itself.

That is the setting.  So...Rich Guy Bob says, You know, I have a lot of nails I want to take to this New World.  I think I can do it and make a handsome profit.  People over their need nails.  Rich Guy Dave says, You'll probably sink before you get half way there.  Bob says, No, I have a pretty sound ship  to carry my nails.  Dave says, I bet you $1000 you don't make it!  Bob says, Well, I'm not interested in betting you Dave...I am interested though in how much it is going to set me back if the ship does sink.  I will lose, not only the nails, but the ship itself, and the men on board...I'll lose everything.  I don't know if it's worth it or not.  Then...drum roll please....Dave says, I'll tell you what Bob...I know you, I know your ship, I know your men.  I think you can make it...so...instead of betting you don't make it...I'm going to bet that you do.  I figure if you lost the ship and the men and the nails...you are looking at $50,000....that's a pretty heavy loss.  So...take me up on my bet...except...you give me $5000 free and clear.  If you make it...fine...you spent $5000 more than you had planned....but...if you don't make it...if you lose the ship and the men and the nails....I will give you $50,000.

Bob said he thought that was a good deal.  So, Dave writes it on the wall behind their table.  Dave took the $5000 and Bob sent his ship to the New World with the assurance that if it sunk he lost nothing.  That is how the whole Insurance Game got started.  Oh, and the name of the coffee shop where all of this happened...Lloyds.  Before long, Dave had a whole new business venture he was investing in.  Everyone wanted to insure their ships in case of catastrophe.  One day Charlie came in and said, Hey Dave...I will give you $5000 to insure my ship makes it.  Dave says, Charlie...I can almost guarantee you that the bucket of nails you call a ship will NOT make it.  But I'll tell you what....you give me $40,000 and we can do business.  Charlie says, Damn Dave, you only charged Bob $5000.  Dave says, Well Chuck...there wasn't that much risk involved...you however are a risky investment.  And Lloyds of London was born.

:)

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Well it looks to me like this should be the end of AOC. Seems she has become the laughing stock of her own party over this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
14 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Well it looks to me like this should be the end of AOC. Seems she has become the laughing stock of her own party over this.

And, imo, that's one of the reasons it was given to her to present. She's now "the face" of a ridiculed, bad idea.  It makes people see just how unrealistic these propositions are and also exposes her as naive and inexperienced. I was wondering how long it would take. They don't mind someone bringing attention to "stars " upcoming in the party but they don't want them eclipsing everyone else and limiting their own moments in the spotlight. Pelosi likes those bright shiny lights and the sound of her own voice too much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lakeview rud

Sorry folks, looks like somebody is just throwing out the word "socialism" to support the Donald who made a big deal out of it in his SOTU speech.  That seems to be his new word for the next election.  His old words like "No collusion" and "witch hunt" have gotten stale.  I do like the "Lock her (him) up!" one.  Seems like we'll be getting into the 40's with that one. A responsible elected Congress will always keep us free of those two hated words, Communism and Socialism.  Elect good people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
13 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Firstly, I had just gotten done with a long ass response when my tablet glitched out and I lost everything, so forgive the long wait here... <_<

Anyway, what's there really to talk about? I think it's awesome. Wholestop.

Every single one of these right-wing talking points has already been debunked a thousand times by numerous independent studies. I feel no need to debunk them myself yet again when it already has been.

There are literally 44 million Americans who are uninsured, 8 out of 10 of which are employed. This is easily obtainable information by doing a simple Google search.

The fact that you'd even ask that question despite it being so blatantly obvious to anyone who cares enough to find out speaks volumes...

If it didn't work then why not just eliminate the minimum wage entirely? Why not just abolish all public schools, as well as any and all social programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. while we're at it? Get rid of any and all social programs and see how far people go. Should be blatantly obvious what the results would be.

I say that of course facetiously, but knowing my luck there'd probably be some anarcho-capitalist nut job come in here and read this and get a hard on over a proposal like that... :blink:

Sorry, like most people when I'm flooded with 50 links I don't read them :lol: (referring to what happens after clicking your one link)

But if you find me acouple studies that you count as high quality then I promise I'll read them, and vise versa I'll give you some against universal healthcare to read, deal?

 

In the second part I misspoke alittle, my main point was why do people not have health insurance, you get it for being poor, elderly, working full-time, University's typically make students buy the school's insurance if uninsured, or by being a married. So for these 44 million, why? Are they just not wanting to buy any, only work part time? I've had medical issues and have had no problems with my insurance.

If it's because you don't want to buy any or get a full time job then why should I be obligated to pay for it? 

 

You didn't answer my question on the minimum wage, if it works why not legislate $50 an hour for everyone and call it a day? Redistribute the wealth lol.

And I would be fine with abolishing the minimum wage because it does nonething. It makes people feel good and is a good talking point but in practical terms accomplishes nonething. Cost of living rises.

To comp for increases wages that a company does not want to pay it will raise prices, lay people off, or have mostly part time employees. 

It hurts small businesses because they normally can't deal with a spike in expenses like the corporations can.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
8 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

OoooKAY. 

Just to indicate how credible Alexander Occassio Cortez's Green New Deal is..... she has removed it from her website. 

Is this true? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

One of the big problems I see with a lot of what was proposed is, 1 out of every  29 people in America is here illegally. Some of those do draw assistance payed for by tax payers. Welfare needs to be reigned in fraud wise from those that purely abuse the system and If you are able to work and make a fair enough wage to sustain your household you should not be able to draw welfare. There are plenty of illegals working in this country so jobs should be plentiful. Medicaid fraud needs reigned in also. There are too many people who know how to abuse the system and make themselves rich at the tax payer expense. Systems within this country just don't work as they truly should. And I'm not against free medical or giving food or assistance to the truly needy. It is fraud and greed that need to be bought under control within the systems we have now before proposing new ones, unless those new systems would eliminate fraud, greed and general abuse.

Edited by South Alabam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

One of the big problems I see with a lot of what was proposed is, 1 out of every  29 people in America is here illegally. Some of those do draw assistance payed for by tax payers. Welfare needs to be reigned in fraud wise from those that purely abuse the system and If you are able to work and make a fair enough wage to sustain your household you should not be able to draw welfare. There are plenty of illegals working in this country so jobs should be plentiful. Medicaid fraud needs reigned in also. There are too many people who know how to abuse the system and make themselves rich at the tax payer expense. Systems within this country just don't work as they truly should. And I'm not against free medical or giving food or assistance to the truly needy. It is fraud and greed that need to be bought under control within the systems we have now before proposing new ones, unless those new systems would eliminate fraud, greed and general abuse.

I said somewhere the next thing Pres Trump should do is bring in 50,000 accountants and just start finding the waste.  Both the types you just suggested and the pork thrown into so many bills we're drowning in it. There needs to be some kind of criteria followed before allowing any expenditures beyond running the system. Does Pelosi need her own plane? I'd be okay with her flying 1st class to save money. Let's clean house!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
17 minutes ago, skliss said:

I said somewhere the next thing Pres Trump should do is bring in 50,000 accountants and just start finding the waste.  Both the types you just suggested and the pork thrown into so many bills we're drowning in it. There needs to be some kind of criteria followed before allowing any expenditures beyond running the system. Does Pelosi need her own plane? I'd be okay with her flying 1st class to save money. Let's clean house!

Some things are purely ridiculous. Within the Military each unit is given a set amount to operate on every quarter. Example unit X gets $1,000,000 per quarter for operating expenses. If they only spend $745,345.24 in a quarter, they get $745,345.24 the next quarter to operate with. They are forced to spend the full amount or receive less. And operational commitments vary from quarter to quarter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
4 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Some things are purely ridiculous. Within the Military each unit is given a set amount to operate on every quarter. Example unit X gets $1,000,000 per quarter for operating expenses. If they only spend $745,345.24 in a quarter, they get $745,345.24 the next quarter to operate with. They are forced to spend the full amount or receive less. And operational commitments vary from quarter to quarter.

And that's true all up and down the govt, big to little, not just military.  Even small town have that same requirement.  What they need are incentives to save rather than spend. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
12 hours ago, and then said:

Not the point I responded to.  I think the CCC and WPA were valuable and somewhat necessary at the time they were in use.  That said, they were never sold as ways to make the country more revenue.  The truth is, I think most of those who are receiving a government check would raise hell if told they had to inconvenience themselves, let alone work, physically, for that payment.  It's a different world, Tat.  I happen to believe that the value of that sense of "being needed" is crucial to all human beings and that we atrophy spiritually at a minimum if we lack it for long.  I wouldn't have a problem with requiring even the physically disabled to put in community service a few hours a week within their abilities.  Think of the pool of life experiences that could be shared by millions of volunteers and mentors.  It would require teaching a whole generation a new set of values, however.

Sorry if I diverged, but I really like your response.  Yeah, maybe I am stuck in a different age.  I like to think I am empathetic and charitable and willing to help my neighbors, but I don't have sympathy for those that want a convenient, effortless free ride. So yeah,  I don't care if they raise hell.  You are so right about that sense of being needed.  Until I gave you post a good think, I would have probably exempted disabled people from that requirement and maybe single parents with small children.  I think you are spot on.  It takes a lot more work and caring on our part to pull people back into society by helping them integrate and feel some self respect  than it does to hand them a check, turn our backs and forget about them.  Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
14 hours ago, and then said:

Not the point I responded to.  I think the CCC and WPA were valuable and somewhat necessary at the time they were in use.  That said, they were never sold as ways to make the country more revenue.  The truth is, I think most of those who are receiving a government check would raise hell if told they had to inconvenience themselves, let alone work, physically, for that payment.  It's a different world, Tat.  I happen to believe that the value of that sense of "being needed" is crucial to all human beings and that we atrophy spiritually at a minimum if we lack it for long.  I wouldn't have a problem with requiring even the physically disabled to put in community service a few hours a week within their abilities.  Think of the pool of life experiences that could be shared by millions of volunteers and mentors.  It would require teaching a whole generation a new set of values, however.

And Then, I think your particular comment about the physically disabled doing some sort of community service within their abilities for a couple of hours a day, to feel needed does sound like a good idea  from a psychological point of view. And in some states I do believe they do that with people on SS disability or really, they are aloud to work for so many hours in a week/month, that’s if they feel or really can do it.

But here’s the thing and I’m just being sincere when I tell you this - the reason why most people are put on disability in the first place was because their doctor and the judge advocate in their case, determined they couldn’t work for various reasons in the first place. Also, and this something you and @Tatetopa might not know (I don’t know if both of you do or not, I’m just wondering) - when you go to see the judge advocate with your lawyer for a disability claim, the judge advocate looks through a long list of jobs that you are unable to do versus the few that you might be able to do with your disability. And this is based on your education and the availability of those few jobs that you might be able to do in your living area. But nine times out ten, the few jobs you might be able to do are either not available in your living area or you don’t meet the specific education requirements for those few jobs you might be able to do. So that’s a large part of what the judge advocate will base his decision on whether you get the disability award, and also based on what kind of disability you have.

This seems like something a lot of people in this country don’t know until they face a judge advocate themselves for a disability claim. Or maybe lawyers don’t explain that process of claiming disability, while a client is trying to claim disability. But anyway, the only reason I know this is because my ex-wife had to go on disability because of a bad car wreck she was in. Based on her physical disabilities and education (K12 graduate only) the judge advocate couldn’t find any of the few job occupations, that she could do within her limited ability, in the area we lived in at the time. Actually it was the whole state according to him.

Edited by Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
9 minutes ago, acidhead said:

 

This literally just as stupid as dismissing climate change cause it's cold outside...

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
5 hours ago, skliss said:

I said somewhere the next thing Pres Trump should do is bring in 50,000 accountants and just start finding the waste.  Both the types you just suggested and the pork thrown into so many bills we're drowning in it. There needs to be some kind of criteria followed before allowing any expenditures beyond running the system. Does Pelosi need her own plane? I'd be okay with her flying 1st class to save money. Let's clean house!

It doesn't matter if they find the waste or not.  Congress has it set up so it is a Gravy Train for them.  If the Prez doesn't like the pork, his only option is to veto the bill.  Reagan wanted the Line Veto...where he could strike out parts of the bill...but they wouldn't give up that much power.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Gunn said:

But here’s the thing and I’m just being sincere when I tell you this - the reason why most people are put on disability in the first place was because their doctor and the judge advocate in their case, determined they couldn’t work for various reasons in the first place. Also, and this something you and @Tatetopa might not know (I don’t know if both of you do or not, I’m just wondering) - when you go to see the judge advocate with your lawyer for a disability claim, the judge advocate looks through a long list of jobs that you are unable to do versus the few that you might be able to do with your disability. And this is based on your education and the availability of those few jobs that you might be able to do in your living area. But nine times out ten, the few jobs you might be able to do are either not available in your living area or you don’t meet the specific education requirements for those few jobs you might be able to do. So that’s a large part of what the judge advocate will base his decision on whether you get the disability award, and also based on what kind of disability you have.

They also consider age.  The rules change at age 55.  In my case I interpreted the judge's ruling as saying that I was too lame for a standing job, too dumb for a sit down job and too old to learn new tricks.  

It's probably just me but I'm not too sure about requiring work so people feel needed.  There are plenty of opportunities for volunteering if that's important to you.  Personally, I don't want to feel needed.  I haven't been needed for so long the shock might be too much to bear.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
6 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

They also consider age.  The rules change at age 55.  In my case I interpreted the judge's ruling as saying that I was too lame for a standing job, too dumb for a sit down job and too old to learn new tricks.  

It's probably just me but I'm not too sure about requiring work so people feel needed.  There are plenty of opportunities for volunteering if that's important to you.  Personally, I don't want to feel needed.  I haven't been needed for so long the shock might be too much to bear.

Laughing with you there. No offense. You have a very colorful posting style sometimes. I think having a purpose sounds a little better than wanting to feel needed.

My dad got hosed on disability a couple years ago. He quit work at 60 due to health issues and shortly after had an open heart surgery. During that time he developed chronic pain in one of his feet. After a long time of trying to get a diagnosis he began recommended surgeries. At that point he applied for disabilty. Was instantly denied and so appealed with a lawyer. After almost a 2 year process, banking on backpay as he seen no reason to be denied, the judge denied him. The final statement in the decision, after going on at length about what my dad couldn't do,  the judge concluded that quote "he could probably do something" and was completely denied. Talk about burned. He we are a few years after that and my dads foot is still in bad shape 2 surgeries later and constantly in a boot and a cain with everlasting chronic pain. Contrary to the judges inclination, he is still unable to work and has aged considerably because of this over the last 5 years. Maybe he should've just claimed to be an alcholic. He'd have probably gotten it.

Not sure  how we landed on this subject but I just wanted to rant against the system for my old man.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.