Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline

[MTAtech]

I have already refuted her nonsense.
so why should i do it again?

1. The switch to green energy is a fraud. most green energy companies have crashed and burned.
2. Switching every building over to green energy would cost bulding owners millions of dollars and some simply do not have.
also there some buldings that are so old that it would be impossible to retrofit them and if you could the owner has 0 reason
to as he would never re-coup his money.

the most absurd if attempting to make airline obsolete.
we just saw the failure of the high speed rail in CA. high speed rail failed in FL as well.
it would cost people billions of dollars in time. I couldn't do my job as i have to travel overseas at times
in order to work. I travel all over the US as well. I can't be traveling 3 or 4 days on a train.

Let just not even get into paying people to do nothing. that is the worst lunacy i have heard of.

In the early years of automobiles, most of those companies crashed and burned. The list is long. By your logic, automobiles are unviable. We should have stuck with the horse.

Today, renewable energy is not only growing but is profitable. There are ten times more solar jobs than coal jobs, in the US.

By your comments, it's clear that your views come from detractors, not the actual plan. Nobody has suggested "attempting to make airline obsolete." What the plan recognizes is that in the U.S. we rely upon inefficient air travel to move relatively short distances because we have substandard rail service. Now, before you dismiss this as a pipe dream, recognize that in Europe nobody flies to nearby cities because of their expansive and efficient rail service.

 

[ludin]

In the early years of automobiles, most of those companies crashed and burned. The list is long. By your logic, automobiles are unviable. We should have stuck with the horse.

Today, renewable energy is not only growing but is profitable. There are ten times more solar jobs than coal jobs, in the US.

It is only profitable because there are only a few companies left doing it. most of the companies went out of business.
This green energy plan will cost trillions of dollars and cost millions of jobs.

replacing air travel is not going to happen, and will cost billions for the economy in lost time. I couldn't do my job if i couldn't fly and i don't have
days to waste sitting on a train to go somewhere.

By your comments, it's clear that your views come from detractors, not the actual plan. Nobody has suggested "attempting to make airline obsolete." What the plan recognizes is that in the U.S. we rely upon inefficient air travel to move relatively short distances because we have substandard rail service. Now, before you dismiss this as a pipe dream, recognize that in Europe nobody flies to nearby cities because of their expansive and efficient rail service.

She did in her proposal. It is right in there as that is what they want to do and build these stupid high speed rail systems that are a bust.
Air travel is the most effective measure of flight. in 8 hours i can go anywhere in the country. in 10 hours i can get to Europe.

In Europe most of the towns are already close by and there is short distances. most of the countries in europe are the size of 1 of our states.
so rail makes sense. knowing logistics and geography helps here.

rail doesn't make sense when it comes to going from NY to CA does it?
if i am in a state and want to go somewhere i get in a car and drive.

no my views come from logic and reason. which is why her arguments and points fail.

 

[MTAtech]

It is only profitable because there are only a few companies left doing it. most of the companies went out of business.
This green energy plan will cost trillions of dollars and cost millions of jobs.

replacing air travel is not going to happen, and will cost billions for the economy in lost time. I couldn't do my job if i couldn't fly and i don't have
days to waste sitting on a train to go somewhere.



She did in her proposal. It is right in there as that is what they want to do and build these stupid high speed rail systems that are a bust.
Air travel is the most effective measure of flight. in 8 hours i can go anywhere in the country. in 10 hours i can get to Europe.

In Europe most of the towns are already close by and there is short distances. most of the countries in europe are the size of 1 of our states.
so rail makes sense. knowing logistics and geography helps here.

rail doesn't make sense when it comes to going from NY to CA does it?
if i am in a state and want to go somewhere i get in a car and drive.

no my views come from logic and reason. which is why her arguments and points fail.

Most businesspeople in NYC doing business in Albany, NY fly the 150 miles. While it may not be practical for NY-> LA rail, NY -> Chicago can take less overall time, considering getting to airports and security.

Again, this isn't impossible if other countries are already doing it. It's just the will to do it standing in the way. Innovation is a positive for the economy, not a drag.

 

[ludin]

Most businesspeople in NYC doing business in Albany, NY fly the 150 miles. While it may not be practical for NY-> LA rail, NY -> Chicago can take less overall time, considering getting to airports and security.

Again, this isn't impossible if other countries are already doing it. It's just the will to do it standing in the way. Innovation is a positive for the economy, not a drag.

it is impossible because as we saw in CA the cost of building said high speed rail it stupid expensive.
they shuttered the program. they shuttered the program in FL too. it didn't even get off the ground.

there was supposed to be a high speed rail between Orlando and Tampa i do believe that would then connect to miami.
the cost vs revenue was stupid bad. i do believe the ROI was negative.

by 150 mile unless the traffic was bad i would simply drive. not worth waiting at the airport when i could simply be there
in the same amount of time driving.

 

[Sandokan]

Ocasio-Cortez “Green New Deal” sets a goal of shifting the nation to 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, within 10 years.” Her office released a document that said that “The Green New Deal will not include investing in new nuclear power plants and will transition away from nuclear to renewable power sources only.”

One hundred percent renewable power sources only within 10 years is a pie in the sky technological fantasy.

From 1970 to 1990, France and Sweden built nuclear plants that replace coal and oil burning ones to produce clean electricity. Germany will spent over $580 billion by 2025 on renewable, while shutting down its nuclear plants. Germany big shift to renewable has resulted so far in 50% increase in electricity prices and no reduction of emissions (Bloomberg - Are you a robot?).

France obtain about 72% of its electricity from nuclear energy and is the world larger exporter of electricity due to the low cost of nuclear power generation. In December 2017 the French President stated that nuclear is “the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables.” A new nuclear plant will start operation in May 2019 (Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association).

Sweden has three operational nuclear power plants, which produce about 40% of the country's electricity. More electricity is produced per capita by nuclear reactors in Sweden that any other country in the world.

The Sweden Democrats and Liberal Party are in favor of expanding Sweden’s nuclear power to combat climate change. The Conservative Party and Christians Democrats are in favor of keeping nuclear power and the Social Democrats want to phase it out. If nuclear power plants era faced out Sweden would be heavily dependent on fossil fuels. In 2016 the Sweden government decided to build up to 10 new reactors in the coming years to replace old reactors which will been phased out.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Notice how the presidential candidates on the left jump right aboard this mindless bandwagon because they lack the courage to call this plan what it really is--childish and dumb.

What is childish about it? It will only cost 97 Trillion dollars and we only need to tear down every building in the U.S. and rebuild them with construction equipment that runs on sunshine!

 

[Fletch]

What is childish about it? It will only cost 97 Trillion dollars and we only need to tear down every building in the U.S. and rebuild them with construction equipment that runs on sunshine!

Very true. But if youre going to spend $97 trillion, why not go the final mile, spend $100 trillion and invent a Star Trek style transporter beam and eliminate cars, trains and trucks from the Earth completely? Windmills? Solar panels? Whats next? The 8 track tape? What about Dilithium Crystals? This woman is so against mining that she completely ignores the vast potential of this mineral. She cant be taken seriously.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Very true. But if youre going to spend $97 trillion, why not go the final mile, spend $100 trillion and invent a Star Trek style transporter beam and eliminate cars, trains and trucks from the Earth completely? Windmills? Solar panels? Whats next? The 8 track tape? What about Dilithium Crystals? This woman is so against mining that she completely ignores the vast potential of this mineral. She cant be taken seriously.

hahah so true, a 100 trillion could get us a starship that could transport us to a new planet. Right now a lefty is reading this and thinking a starship is crazy......but not AOC. That to me is fascinating.

 

[Sandokan]

Sweden has three operational nuclear power plants, which produce about 40% of the country's electricity. More electricity is produced per capita by nuclear reactors in Sweden that any other country in the world.

The Sweden Democrats and Liberal Party are in favor of expanding Sweden’s nuclear power to combat climate change. The Conservative Party and Christians Democrats are in favor of keeping nuclear power and the Social Democrats want to phase it out. If nuclear power plants era faced out Sweden would be heavily dependent on fossil fuels. In 2016 the Sweden government decided to build up to 10 new reactors in the coming years to replace old reactors which will been phased out.

What is childish about it? It will only cost 97 Trillion dollars and we only need to tear down every building in the U.S. and rebuild them with construction equipment that runs on sunshine!

Very true. But if youre going to spend $97 trillion, why not go the final mile, spend $100 trillion and invent a Star Trek style transporter beam and eliminate cars, trains and trucks from the Earth completely? Windmills? Solar panels? Whats next? The 8 track tape? What about Dilithium Crystals? This woman is so against mining that she completely ignores the vast potential of this mineral. She cant be taken seriously.

hahah so true, a 100 trillion could get us a starship that could transport us to a new planet. Right now a lefty is reading this and thinking a starship is crazy......but not AOC. That to me is fascinating.

Nuclear power plants emits zero greenhouse gas, and operate 24 hours, seven day a week without stopping for refuel. Nuclear energy is the safes and cleanest than other forms of power generation. Nuclear energy generate about 20% of U.S. electricity, making it the largest source of clean energy in the country. Beside, nuclear technology powers deep-space exploration. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low, as demonstrated by evidence over the last 60 years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.

Nuclear Fusion Power (Nuclear Fusion : WNA - World Nuclear Association)

Fusion is the process by which the sun and other stars generate light and heat. There have also been significant developments in research into inertial fusion energy (IFE). Construction of the $7 billion National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration, was completed in March 2009.

Unlike current nuclear power plants that creates a large amount of toxic nuclear wastes, a fusion-powered plant practically create almost none. According MIT scientists nuclear fusion is on the brink of being realized. Fusion power will be commercially available on the grid within 15 years. (Nuclear fusion on brink of being realised, say MIT scientists | Environment | The Guardian)

 

[Sandokan]

In March 30, 1961, Ronald Reagan said that: “Before his visit to this country, Nikita Khrushchev said, we can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism until one day they will awaken to find they have communism.”

Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, said that Khrushchev, when he visited the U.S., made the following statement during a one-on-one discussion the two had in September 1959: “You Americans are so gullible. No you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and you find you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like over-ripe fruit into our hands.”

Now the doses have been increased. Socialism is the road well-traveled to Communism. Communism does not work anywhere, history have proved it.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Welcome to the new age of politics, everybody:

Although it's just an outline it's a huge step forward to move the conversation in the right direction. Yes there are some problems, but I agree with about 90% of this proposal and if all you do is nit-pick it, then I assume you agree with 90% of it too! :mrgreen:



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline


If she just gets some of this passed and conventional thinking says she just might pull it off. She'll be on equal playing field with the President of the United States in terms of legislative deals. Trump's comprehensive tax reform plan is the only thing even remotely comparable to this that he's done or thought of.

So...do you agree or disagree with all the identitarian stuff in there?

 

[Sandokan]

In March 30, 1961, Ronald Reagan said that: “Before his visit to this country, Nikita Khrushchev said, we can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism until one day they will awaken to find they have communism.”

Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower, said that Khrushchev, when he visited the U.S., made the following statement during a one-on-one discussion the two had in September 1959: “You Americans are so gullible. No you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and you find you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like over-ripe fruit into our hands.”

Now the doses have been increased. Socialism is the road well-traveled to Communism. Communism does not work anywhere, history have proved it.

In reality the Progressives are actually Regressives. They defend the “rights” of illegal immigrants over the safety of American citizens; use intimidation and mob violence, screaming insults and obscenities. They want to erase the past, pulling down statues of Confederate officers and crusading to change the names of towns, buildings and streets.

Karl Marx: “The easiest way to kill capitalism is by taxes, taxes and more taxes."