The list of proposals centers around two key concept: economic justice and reduced emission production. The first of these is antithetical to the libertarians among us, people who believe that we should be more responsible about choosing where we are born and who our parents are.
It’s good to see you’re honest about this; most of your fellow travelers are not. Like Roger Nash Baldwin and Angela Davis, you admit that the solution to whatever form of inequality you wish to address is to eliminate liberty.
Gated communities are spared from having to breathe noxious fumes and small particulates, leaving asthma-inducing atmosphere to places like East St. Louis.
Not seeing how a street gate keeps air from moving around, but whatever.
Water pipes in affluent neighborhoods deliver water, while those in Flint, Michigan add lead to the mixture.
Flint is a city. Every neighborhood in the city has the same water problem. Water systems do not discriminate.
And people who are able to afford their own cars find that well stocked grocery stores are much more conveniently located for them than for people who have to rely on public transportation.
Legitimate issue, although it’s important not to blow it out of proportion. Finding healthy food is not as convenient, if you live in a low income area and don’t have a car, but it’s rarely impossible.
The Republican mythology is that one’s economic status is the result of one’s choices — hard work vs. lounging about being the key decision. Personal decisions do affect the outcomes in our lives
Yes, they do. It’s been well proven through actual research that most people who are perennially “stuck” in the low income quintile have one or more bad personal decisions in common, namely (a) they’ve committed a felony, (b) they dropped out of high school, and/or (c ) they have substance abuse problems.
, but the right-wing position ignores the relevant factors. To use sports analogies, if you are born on third base or if you can run a race without having to carry a fifty pound backpack, you have an advantage over those who are not so fortunate. Your bootstraps have less to do the lighter you are to start with.
Now seeing how one person’s advantages force others to commit a felony, drop out, or abuse drugs, but…OK.
The second aspect of the Green New Deal also comes under attack for its goal of revising our economy into sustainability.
Everyone is OK with sustainability. What sane people are not OK with is having to give the government authoritarian control over the economy to make it so. Government doesn’t have a particularly good track record in this regard.
Ocasio-Cortez’s identification as a democratic socialist makes right wingers believe that the real goal is to transfer the means of production into the control of the proletariat, though why that would be a bad idea is often left unstated.
I’ll state it: History shows that it’s unachievable.
When the proletariat gains control of the means of production, production declines, because the proletariat starts making decisions based on social matters that run contrary to economic growth. The businesses start to lose in their competition with capitalist-run endeavors from other nations, and if those don’t exist, they start losing to the black markets for those goods and services.
That’s when the socialist ideologues start bringing out the guns and building gulags. It’s either force compliance or admit the capitalists were right all along.
requiring, for example, that carbon dioxide emissions go down does not negate the ability of corporations owned by stockholders to produce vehicles for sale to consumers.
True. But it COULD negate the ability of the corporation to do so at a profit. And without a profit, the doors close, and now you’re worse off than when you started.
The promotion of high speed rail in the Green New Deal gets mocked, and for some reason, despite air travel these days being a combination of the experiences of prison intake, renewal one’s driving license, and purchase of the last bottle of taco sauce at Walmart on game day, for some reason, my antagonists insist on an anticipatory nostalgia for planes over trains.
Well, let’s then provide the reasoning, which happens to be devoid of nostalgia:
High speed trains get mocked because in the US, except for a small limited number of urban corridors where the cities are both (a) close together and (b) have flat land in between, said urban centers are much farther apart than in Europe; and unless you have straight flat track, your “high speed train” isn’t high speed at all, due to the laws of physics. So, there’s very few places where a business traveler (and that’s who you need to keep the system afloat) is going to take a train.
(And that’s putting aside the huge cost, difficulty, and legal challenges that would face such a monumental use of eminent domain.)
And contrary to the narrative of the fossil fuel party, wind and solar power are steadily increasing in the percentage of electricity generated in even this country.
Nobody is seriously opposed to the increasing use of renewables, provided that the increase is accomplished without the government having to put their thumbs on the scales in favor of renewables in the form of subsidies.
One attack was nothing but a schoolyard taunt, the claim that the Green New Deal includes a provision to provide economic security for people who are unwilling to work. That was an error in an early draft of a Frequently Asked Questions document, not something that appears in the House resolution.
Hmmm. So, what you’re telling me is that nobody who was involved in the drafting of that part of the document really believes that horrendous nonsense that was written?
Sorry. Not born yesterday.
As an author, I know all too well how dangerous the send button is, and I find it interesting to note how many people who will excuse Trump’s many absurdities and illiteracies have leapt in to criticize a typo in an opponent’s proposal. May we all be spared from imperfect documents.
Nice try, but that inclusion has nothing to do with Trump’s nonsense. (It’s quite easy to believe that both Trump AND AOC and her staff are both fools, IOW.)
The fact that was exposed is that there is a person in the office of an elected official who believes that people shouldn’t have to work unless they’re in the mood to do so. If that doesn’t send shivers up YOUR spine, then you’re not a credible commentator on anything.
The Green New Deal is an outline of how to reverse the damage. The fact that we must wait for at least two years to gain a Senate and president who will go along illustrates the irrationality that we have allowed to infect our political system.
The Green New Deal is a part of that irrationality. It’s a utopian document, and utopianism is not a reliable form of governance.