American Politics

[Real ale Madrid]

A bit of a spin off regarding the Fox news references in other current affairs threads

So, if Fox news are 'at it' again - post it here so we can all laugh.

I'll start with an interview that never made it to air this week on Tucker Carlson with a prominent Dutch journalist called Rutger Bregman.

Now the Dutch people have a history of being blunt but Mr Bregman took it to a new level and gained some notoriety a few weeks back when he made a mad point about Taxing the mega rich at an appropriate level. He made this point at Davos 2019 of all places which didn't go down too well with the Billionaires present! This 'discussion' with ole Tucker went down a predictable line when he repeated his opinion. Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/6_nFI2Zb7qE

[The Fly]

Apologies for taking the thread on a tangent with the first reply but...

Is Rutger Bregman a journalist, and what's the 'appropriate level' of taxation he's advocating?

[SkStu]

RAM - why limit our appreciation to Fox News? For every Tucker Carlson we have to enjoy, there is an equally entertaining Don Lemon. :)



Apologies for taking the thread on a tangent with the first reply but...

Is Rutger Bregman a journalist, and what's the 'appropriate level' of taxation he's advocating?

Never heard of him before RAM's post but his Wikipedia says it all really.


Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World promotes a more productive and equitable life based an three core ideas which include a universal and unconditional basic income paid to everybody, a short workweek of fifteen hours, and open borders worldwide with the free exchange of citizens between all nations. It was originally written as articles in Dutch for the online journal De Correspondent.

[Real ale Madrid]

Is Rutger Bregman a journalist, and what's the 'appropriate level' of taxation he's advocating?

Dutch Journalist / Historian - you will have to look at up yourself regarding his taxing policies - unfortunately Carlson didn't get too into specifics with him his brain was too small etc

Interesting that your default position is to discredit the source!


RAM - why limit our appreciation to Fox News? For every Tucker Carlson we have to enjoy, there is an equally entertaining Don Lemon. :)
.

Start your own thread you :cool:

[The Fly]

Dutch Journalist / Historian - you will have to look at up yourself regarding his taxing policies - unfortunately Carlson didn't get too into specifics with him his brain was too small etc

Interesting that your default position is to discredit the source!

Eh? Enquiring about a person's credentials is not 'discrediting the source'.

You said he made a point about wanting to tax the mega rich at an appropriate level. I then asked if he also stated what this appropriate level should be and you didn't know the answer...which is fair enough as that's not the main thrust of the thread.

Given what Stu just posted though I'd seriously question whether this 'appropriate level' maximises the tax revenue collected from these mega rich people.



Never heard of him before RAM's post but his Wikipedia says it all really.


Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World promotes a more productive and equitable life based an three core ideas which include a universal and unconditional basic income paid to everybody, a short workweek of fifteen hours, and open borders worldwide with the free exchange of citizens between all nations. It was originally written as articles in Dutch for the online journal De Correspondent.

Neither had I, and that sounds very realistic indeed.

[Real ale Madrid]

Given what Stu just posted though I'd seriously question whether this 'appropriate level' maximises the tax revenue collected from these mega rich people.

SkStu has clipped a small section of the text to make this highly respected author, historian and journalist look like a lunatic - I suggest you read the work referred to in the quote to get a full picture of what he is talking about. He is talking about aspirations for society in contrast to the fears that people like to promote. He's a fascinating author and the book that SkStu refers to is well worth a read even though you won't agree with any or all of it.

[SkStu]

Look, I don't know anything about this chap other than I would probably disagree with 95% of his book (Id likely agree to the details on the publishing page, table of contents and page count :D ), but I simply - honestly - copied what was the (likely his own) wiki summary of his most famous work/beliefs. It is not my faults these words make his beliefs out to be a lunatic (your words, not mine!).

But look, in my opinion, anyone who is for completely open borders deserves their place on the lunatic fringe of public discourse (edit: the Tucker Carlson show!).

[The Fly]

SkStu has clipped a small section of the text to make this highly respected author, historian and journalist look like a lunatic - I suggest you read the work referred to in the quote to get a full picture of what he is talking about. He is talking about aspirations for society in contrast to the fears that people like to promote. He's a fascinating author and the book that SkStu refers to is well worth a read even though you won't agree with any or all of it.

I may do but when the title refers to 'utopia' and 'an ideal world' I'm already getting a certain kind of flavour from it, which the Wiki snippet from Stu tends to confirm.

You've referred to him as prominent; highly respected and fascinating and then gone on to praise the book. I'm assuming then that you agree with his outlook and have read the book. If so, does he lay out the appropriate level of taxation?

Sorry for derailing your thread RAM. :o

[Real ale Madrid]

Sorry for derailing your thread RAM. :o

Era its grand - I tend to reply to everything or reply to nothing. I'm sure Fox news will be along with some fresh material soon.....

[pineapple stu]

But look, in my opinion, anyone who is for completely open borders deserves their place on the lunatic fringe of public discourse (edit: the Tucker Carlson show!).
Absolutely seconded. Look at the damage Merkel did when basically announcing Germany was "Open Gates"; a million economic migrants tramping across Europe, breaking national resources beyond coping point. Imagine if 100 million people converged on Europe? You'd have famine, mass starvation, destruction of national cultures, war and petty violence (including an inevitable proliferation of ISIS and the likes), breakdown of law and order, people likely getting dragged out of their homes so others could occupy them instead. It's the only logical conclusion of something happening for which society is quite simply unprepared for.

(Often the people who propose stuff like this are big advocates of diversity - not bothering about the fact that Europe has never been less diverse than it is now, and that mass immigration can only make it utterly uniform.)

Then of course if you've open borders, you've no countries really - so how do you tax people? How do you tax the mega-rich at an appropriate level? They'll just move to another tax jurisdiction. It's why Gerard Depardieu is Russian now. Taxing the mega-rich is always an easy populist agenda item because so few of us are mega-rich - but if you look at where tax contributions actually come from, it's massively skewed towards the mega-rich anyway. I don't see figures for Ireland - I presume a brief google will show them - but in America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States_income_tax#Tax_burd en_by_income_bracket), the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all income taxes, while the bottom 60% paid 1.3% of income taxes. So the 60% are already in effect leeching off the rest.

The 15-hour week is similarly populist but impractical. The tax burden would be one issue - some very important services are required 24 hours a day, particularly hospitals and the gardaí, and to restrict working hours to 15 hours a week would mean you need three times as many people to do the same work. How do you fund that? Then there's the issue of people who want to work more than 15 hours a week - they'd steal a huge march on the 15-hour-a-week plebs. Are you going to regulate against that?

And finally, of course, our capitalist society is based on an ever-increasing provision of goods - this is obviously a huge problem as "ever-increasing" is basically calling for a perpetual motion machine, but to put in place such a drastic change as a 15-hour week could only cause the financial system to collapse and we'd likely enter a Great Depression period - which would cause people to work more hours.

I've never heard of the fella, but if those are two of those views are as prominent in his workings as they appear to be, then yeah, the guy's a lunatic.

[The Fly]

pineapple stu likes things in the long grass, except this stuff. ^

[pineapple stu]

I don't think you know what "In the long grass" means...

Anyway, over to the pro side for a cogent argument as to why this guy isn't a loony. "Have you read his book?" doesn't count

[The Fly]

I don't think you know what "In the long grass" means...


I should've been more specific. I'm referring to the migration and open borders stuff.

[peadar1987]

Absolutely seconded. Look at the damage Merkel did when basically announcing Germany was "Open Gates"; a million economic migrants tramping across Europe, breaking national resources beyond coping point. Imagine if 100 million people converged on Europe? You'd have famine, mass starvation, destruction of national cultures, war and petty violence (including an inevitable proliferation of ISIS and the likes), breakdown of law and order, people likely getting dragged out of their homes so others could occupy them instead. It's the only logical conclusion of something happening for which society is quite simply unprepared for.


I don't think it's fair to call Syrian, Afghan and Libyan refugees "economic migrants". I'm not in favour of completely open borders, but I think we have a moral obligation to help people whose lives have been destroyed by war, and I only wish other nations had been as generous as the Germans.

[pineapple stu]

Much of the evidence is that they are economic refugees though. If you look at documentaries which look at migrants, even in passing - Simon Reeve's Greece or Mediterranean, Michael Palin's Sahara, or Levison Wood's Walking the Americas for example, where they come across random migrants and talk to them about their stories - they're almost exclusively economic refugees. Escaping war is rarely mentioned.

I think we do have a duty to help - but the German way of doing it is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. First off, we've seen how encouraging migration can snowball out of control. It can also destabilise regions, leading to a further impetus to emigrate. There is no thought whatsoever about overrunning native cultures - there's always some nonsense spoken about how the native culture has a duty to bend immigrants to help them integrate, but in practice this doesn't happen, and in any event, this can only lead to native cultures being obliterated in the long run. Also, putting boats in the Med to rescue illegal migrants and bring them to their destination is a particularly daft thing to do as, again, it can only encourage more migration. Then when they arrive, most migrants are utterly unprepared for a western society - most prominently in the case of gender equality, but also in terms of getting jobs (high unemployment among illegal migrants), cultural integration, etc. In a matter of a couple of generations, you can only fundamentally change the diverse European landscape - literally what it means to be Dutch, Irish, French, etc, which will all morph closer and closer to being the same, all in the name of "diversity".

And there's also a high economic cost of all this, which is effectively a waste of money (if you ignore the virtue-signalling benefit, which by definition isn't really a benefit at all)

All of this is the exact opposite of what we want to do. We need to be encouraging stability in these regions, not destabilising them. German actions are the equivalent of giving a man a fish - you've fed him for a day, you feel a bit better yourself, but you've done nothing to help the root issue. And the next day, you'll have twice as many people looking to be given a fish.

We need to be teaching these people to fish instead - stop stymieing national economies, stop destablising areas politically in the way that the US in particular specialises in, stop strangling economies with unrepayable national debt, allow African and Middle Eastern economies in particular to grow. That's the only way to stability.

[SkStu]

Much of the evidence is that they are economic refugees though. If you look at documentaries which look at migrants, even in passing - Simon Reeve's Greece or Mediterranean, Michael Palin's Sahara, or Levison Wood's Walking the Americas for example, where they come across random migrants and talk to them about their stories - they're almost exclusively economic refugees. Escaping war is rarely mentioned.

I think we do have a duty to help - but the German way of doing it is absolutely the wrong way of doing it. First off, we've seen how encouraging migration can snowball out of control. It can also destabilise regions, leading to a further impetus to emigrate. There is no thought whatsoever about overrunning native cultures - there's always some nonsense spoken about how the native culture has a duty to bend immigrants to help them integrate, but in practice this doesn't happen, and in any event, this can only lead to native cultures being obliterated in the long run. Also, putting boats in the Med to rescue illegal migrants and bring them to their destination is a particularly daft thing to do as, again, it can only encourage more migration. Then when they arrive, most migrants are utterly unprepared for a western society - most prominently in the case of gender equality, but also in terms of getting jobs (high unemployment among illegal migrants), cultural integration, etc. In a matter of a couple of generations, you can only fundamentally change the diverse European landscape - literally what it means to be Dutch, Irish, French, etc, which will all morph closer and closer to being the same, all in the name of "diversity".

And there's also a high economic cost of all this, which is effectively a waste of money (if you ignore the virtue-signalling benefit, which by definition isn't really a benefit at all)

All of this is the exact opposite of what we want to do. We need to be encouraging stability in these regions, not destabilising them. German actions are the equivalent of giving a man a fish - you've fed him for a day, you feel a bit better yourself, but you've done nothing to help the root issue. And the next day, you'll have twice as many people looking to be given a fish.

We need to be teaching these people to fish instead - stop stymieing national economies, stop destablising areas politically in the way that the US in particular specialises in, stop strangling economies with unrepayable national debt, allow African and Middle Eastern economies in particular to grow. That's the only way to stability.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this post, Stu. In particular the last two paragraphs.

One of the things that I liked about the current POTUS' election campaign was a stated/suggested policy of non-intervention which he has had some level of success adhering to although it seems he has stuck his boot in on Maduro/Venezuela which annoys me - even if it is somewhat deserved - and has been encouraging populist revolt and regime change in Iran. His successes (stabilizing the Korean peninsula and Syria/Iraq and associated withdrawals) are notable too, however.

For 2020, Tulsi Gabbard would be a no-brainer for me if I was a left- or right-leaning voter: moderate economically, moderate socially, anti-interventionist foreign policy. But... her position on regime change is often cited by left leaning commentators as her biggest sin and therefore she has zero support amongst the DNC because well.... we know why. There are not many on either side of the aisle that really, truly want peace in the middle east.

[Real ale Madrid]

I don't think you know what "In the long grass" means...

Anyway, over to the pro side for a cogent argument as to why this guy isn't a loony. "Have you read his book?" doesn't count

You have fundamentally misinterpreted his work completly during that diatribe. He spoke of an 'utopia', an ideal the society can work towards. For example nowhere does he say that we could move from a 40 hr week to a 15 hr week overnight. it's more of an ideal society thing. Could we move to a 35 hour week? 4 day working week? Can society move towards positive ideals when the trend moves towards so much negativity these days with the Orange leader, Brexit etc etc. Open borders isn't ideal but wouldnt it be great if that was possible? How could a path for that be set out? In the current state of the world it's impossible but who's to say we couldn't work towards it over a generation even multiple generations. I find him interesting anyway. I have no doubt the self styled 'realists' or right wing will dismiss him as looney. Its almost reassuring.

[pineapple stu]

In general, how are we going to move to a 15-hour-week though? Bear in mind my point about 24-hour service providers in healthcare and policing. How are you going to treble the number of staff required there? How are you going to counter people who want to work 35 hours, and who will necessarily earn more money than those who work 15 hours?

I don't agree open borders would be great at all. Certainly not on a permanent basis. Visas on arrival or whatever, fine - but if you have open borders, then you will eliminate all the fascinating diversity in the world today; all its cultures and languages and ways of life will be eroded away to a boring sameness. We're already starting to see this with Americanisation. This doesn't sound great at all. Maybe you want the whole world to look the exact same? Or maybe you just haven't thought it through?

To dismiss my post as a diatribe while not responding to a single part of it is a bit daft to be honest.

[Real ale Madrid]

To dismiss my post as a diatribe while not responding to a single part of it is a bit daft to be honest.

It was a complete diatribe because it was fundamentally wrong. You are going off on the practicalities of 15 hour working week and open borders etc and missing the point completly.

Thanks The Fly - you've ruined this! :)

[pineapple stu]

The practicalities of something are really important.

You've also not addressed any of the points I've made.

[Real ale Madrid]

The practicalities of something are really important.

You've also not addressed any of the points I've made.

Why would you discuss the practicalities of something that's not going to happen? Nobody is saying that we should go to a 15 hour week. What's the point in discussing the practicalities of it. It's an ideal to work toward, nothing else. What is more relevant is the practicalities of a 35 hour week or a 3 day weekend perhaps. Can or should society work towards those type of ideals?

I'm not going to be drawn into your negative discussion to be honest. If you want to discuss the original subject matter then grand.

[pineapple stu]

How can you work towards something without knowing what it is?

[Real ale Madrid]

How can you work towards something without knowing what it is?

So you are saying that we shouldn't reduce our working week as an example because an ideal is impractical? I'd probably agree with that I guess. But I like the idea of an ideal to inspire. We should be inspiring society with ideals I think. We may not get there but we could improve the quality of our lives in the process. The book is a reaction to modern society which has become dragged down in negativity drawn out of the disenfranchised. The reasons large swathes of society are disenfranchised are no doubt varied and we would probably disagree on that too but the premise of inspiration to drag people out of that is a decent ideal I think. You are right at some stage, 'lunatics' like Bregman will have to get down to the practicalities (and he does a bit) but let's not sit around and discuss 15 hour weeks and totally open borders as if that is relevant to what's happening out there now.

[SkStu]

Why are these things considered ideals?

Who says that 15 hours work week is the ideal and why?

Who says that completely open borders are the ideal and why?


Why would you discuss the practicalities of something that's not going to happen? Nobody is saying that we should go to a 15 hour week. What's the point in discussing the practicalities of it. It's an ideal to work toward, nothing else.

This doesn’t make sense to me. My take is that by putting a 15 hour work week out there in a book as an ideal is saying, precisely, that we should “go to” it. Or get to it at some point.

Why set something out as an ideal to work towards without considering the practicalities of it, the establishment of which would determine whether it actually is an ideal or not. Ideals by definition have to be practical, no?

[Real ale Madrid]

Why are these things considered ideals?

Who says that 15 hours work week is the ideal and why?

Who says that completely open borders are the ideal and why?



This doesn’t make sense to me. My take is that by putting a 15 hour work week out there in a book as an ideal is saying, precisely, that we should “go to” it. Or get to it at some point.

Why set something out as an ideal to work towards without considering the practicalities of it, the establishment of which would determine whether it actually is an ideal or not. Ideals by definition have to be practical, no?

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal. I did 60 hours last week, including travel. Would it not be better if 2 people did 30 hours each? Is it an ideal we want? At the moment it makes more sense for a company to employ 10 people and give them 20 hours overtime per week on top of a 40 hour working week rather than employ 20 people and give them 30 hours of work per week, due to PRSI taxes etc. The theory is that people who work less are happier and live better fuller lives. There needs to be a political and societal will for change anyway which may not even be there.

150 years ago the average working week was 60-70 hours and the idea of a 5 day working week was viewed by some as the death of productivity.

[SkStu]

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal.

On your question there, two posts ago you said you probably agreed that it wasn’t practical.

And again, why is it an ideal? And why 15 hours and not 20 or 10? Is there science behind 15 hours being optimal? I was at my most miserable and unhealthiest when I wasn’t working or not working enough. That’s just me, I know. But I’m just an average joe.

And the other ideals mentioned, I’m still no clearer why we should consider them ideals. And I still have seen nothing to convince me that practicality shouldn’t be one of the first hurdles that an idea needs to clear in order to become an ideal.

[Real ale Madrid]

On your question there, two posts ago you said you probably agreed that it wasn’t practical.

And again, why is it an ideal? And why 15 hours and not 20 or 10? Is there science behind 15 hours being optimal? I was at my most miserable and unhealthiest when I wasn’t working or not working enough. That’s just me, I know. But I’m just an average joe.

And the other ideals mentioned, I’m still no clearer why we should consider them ideals. And I still have seen nothing to convince me that practicality shouldn’t be one of the first hurdles that an idea needs to clear in order to become an ideal.

No one is trying to convince you of anything. I was just putting forward some of my thoughts in response to earlier posts. I'm done now. I'm not brilliant at articulating my thoughts. In any case I'd highly recommend the book to read to gain the perspective you are looking for. It is genuinely good stuff.

[SkStu]

Fair enough. Yeah I didn’t mean to suggest that you are obliged to try and convince me either, just a turn of phrase more than anything.

I probably won’t check out the book but it doesn’t hurt for us all to throw ideas out on here and kick them around a bit. Cheers

[mark12345]

Why isn't a 15 hour week practical anyway? Might be a step too far alright, bit again it's the ideal. I did 60 hours last week, including travel. Would it not be better if 2 people did 30 hours each? Is it an ideal we want? At the moment it makes more sense for a company to employ 10 people and give them 20 hours overtime per week on top of a 40 hour working week rather than employ 20 people and give them 30 hours of work per week, due to PRSI taxes etc. The theory is that people who work less are happier and live better fuller lives. There needs to be a political and societal will for change anyway which may not even be there.

150 years ago the average working week was 60-70 hours and the idea of a 5 day working week was viewed by some as the death of productivity.

15 hour week, no problem. Why not just stay home and get paid for doing nothing.
That's what the socialist Democrats in America are espousing at present (I'm guessing everyone would get paid in Cryptocurrency?).
Work ethic is really taking a beating lately. You can bet your bottom dollar there's an ulterior motive.

[peadar1987]

15 hour week, no problem. Why not just stay home and get paid for doing nothing.
That's what the socialist Democrats in America are espousing at present (I'm guessing everyone would get paid in Cryptocurrency?).
Work ethic is really taking a beating lately. You can bet your bottom dollar there's an ulterior motive.

Are there any prominent democrats who support paying people to stay home and do nothing (over and above jobseeker's allowance)?

[SkStu]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed "Green New Deal" advocates a guaranteed living income to those who are unwilling to work.

[Real ale Madrid]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed "Green New Deal" advocates a guaranteed living income to those who are unwilling to work.

I thought it advocated paying people enough money so that they could live (A mad thought by US standards alright)

Apparently Yale researchers say 81% of those polled broadly agree with 'GND'

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/the-green-new-deal-has-strong-bipartisan-support/

I'm guessing you are in the Ivanka Trump corner Skstu - who thinks that Americans should 'earn' what they get paid. Whatever that means coming from the grand-daughter of a billionaire.

[Real ale Madrid]

15 hour week, no problem. Why not just stay home and get paid for doing nothing.
That's what the socialist Democrats in America are espousing at present (I'm guessing everyone would get paid in Cryptocurrency?).
Work ethic is really taking a beating lately. You can bet your bottom dollar there's an ulterior motive.

You living in the states ?

[SkStu]

I thought it advocated paying people enough money so that they could live (A mad thought by US standards alright)

It advocated that those who were unable and/or unwilling to work should be paid a guaranteed living income.

I don’t know enough about the spat between the two at this point but I believe that most people want to have the opportunity to earn a living and have their time valued fairly. If that is what the story there is about.

[mark12345]

Are there any prominent democrats who support paying people to stay home and do nothing (over and above jobseeker's allowance)?

Ocasio-Cortez

[mark12345]

You living in the states ?

Yes sir

[SkStu]

I'm guessing you are in the Ivanka Trump corner Skstu - who thinks that Americans should 'earn' what they get paid. Whatever that means coming from the grand-daughter of a billionaire.

Is this what you’re referencing?

https://twitter.com/ivankatrump/status/1100521555090726912?s=21

[Real ale Madrid]

Is this what you’re referencing?

https://twitter.com/ivankatrump/status/1100521555090726912?s=21

Yeah, well it was this interview I was referring to - she clarified her comments in the tweet, badly.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ivanka-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-053750357.html


During an interview with Fox News, Trump, 37, who serves as a senior White House adviser, was asked about Ocasio-Cortez’s manifesto and how she feels about people who may be sold on the proposal’s to ensure jobs provide a wage which can sustain a family.

“I don’t think most Americans in their heart want to be given something,” Trump said.

“I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get, so I think this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want.”

“They want the ability to be able to secure a job. They want the ability to live in a country where there’s potential for upward mobility.”

Her lack of self awareness is staggering - even for a Trump!

The interview was on Fox news - so we staying on topic in a roundabout way anyway!

[Real ale Madrid]

Yes sir

I was just wondering. Your comments earlier about work ethic ring hollow.

There are 20 million Americans living under the poverty line.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html

80% of US workers live "paycheck to paycheck"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/us-economy-workers-paycheck-robert-reich

So while polititican's over there try and hatch a plan to try and eradicate some of this in some way - all you can take out of it is "Work Ethic is really taking a beating lately"

[mark12345]

I was just wondering. Your comments earlier about work ethic ring hollow.

There are 20 million Americans living under the poverty line.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html

80% of US workers live "paycheck to paycheck"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/us-economy-workers-paycheck-robert-reich

So while polititican's over there try and hatch a plan to try and eradicate some of this in some way - all you can take out of it is "Work Ethic is really taking a beating lately"

From your previous posts, I can see that you and I have polar opposite viewpoints on current affairs in America.
My idea of America (and this is likely shared by the tens of thousands queing up to get into the country) is that it is the land of opportunity.
I have seen several Irish lads become millionaires over the last couple of decades, but unfortunately the 'land of opportunity' is quickly running out of opportunities.
You mention politicians trying to eradicate poverty. Politicians over here are - well, how can I say it?
I'm sure you were told as a youngster that politicians will promise you the world to get your vote, and once they get it they forget all about their promises.
It seems to be the way of it the world over, and it's no different here in America.
So, to answer your question, there are many 'plans' to eradicate poverty, but which of them are genuine, when you're dealing with said politicans.

There is one prominent figure, who is clearly not a politican, and I believe I'm right in saying, he holds just as much disdain for his own Republican party as he does for the Dems (after all they gave him the princely sum of zero dollars for his campaign). Not hard to figure out - he was in Vietnam yesterday. Truth is he is beaten from pillar to post here by the media every day, despite doing a multitude of good things for America.

Regarding Ocasio-Cortez. Her ideas are quite scary. This Green New Deal will end all fossil fuel dependency in the next 12 years. It also calls for every building in the US to be retrofitted with energy saving light bulbs etc (I think someone estimated the cost to be in the billions for NYC alone). And she is seeking to end air travel in the US in the next ten years, to be replaced by high speed trains.
And what will China be doing while America is consumed with this green deal?

[Real ale Madrid]

Regarding Ocasio-Cortez. Her ideas are quite scary. This Green New Deal will end all fossil fuel dependency in the next 12 years. It also calls for every building in the US to be retrofitted with energy saving light bulbs etc (I think someone estimated the cost to be in the billions for NYC alone). And she is seeking to end air travel in the US in the next ten years, to be replaced by high speed trains.
And what will China be doing while America is consumed with this green deal?

You forgot cows - Democrats want to kill all the cows according to Ted Cruz
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101567946214854658

GOP President Ronna McDaniel took it a step further - Democrats want us to live on Dog Food, like people in Venezuela.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101145319226642434


That whole Aaron Rupar (Vox journo) Thread on twitter chronicling the Conservative American Union conference over the weekend is amazing stuff - starts here:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101115494587867136

Highlights/Lowlights (Delete as appropriate) include:
-Stalin dreamed about taking away people's hamburgers
-Jokes about the assassination of Kim Jong Un
-Freedom not socialism ended slavery & WWII (Nope, me either)
-Mocking the ghost of John McCain
-Cow killers / Dog Food & Democrats
-Trump hugs an American Flag
-Trump mocks Jeff Sessions' accent
-Trump lauds technology (Tivo) invented nearly 15 years ago
-A Train to Hawaii
-"I'm in the White House and I was lonely. I said, 'let's go to Iraq!''

[mark12345]

You forgot cows - Democrats want to kill all the cows according to Ted Cruz
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101567946214854658

GOP President Ronna McDaniel took it a step further - Democrats want us to live on Dog Food, like people in Venezuela.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101145319226642434


That whole Aaron Rupar (Vox journo) Thread on twitter chronicling the Conservative American Union conference over the weekend is amazing stuff - starts here:
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1101115494587867136

Highlights/Lowlights (Delete as appropriate) include:
-Stalin dreamed about taking away people's hamburgers
-Jokes about the assassination of Kim Jong Un
-Freedom not socialism ended slavery & WWII (Nope, me either)
-Mocking the ghost of John McCain
-Cow killers / Dog Food & Democrats
-Trump hugs an American Flag
-Trump mocks Jeff Sessions' accent
-Trump lauds technology (Tivo) invented nearly 15 years ago
-A Train to Hawaii
-"I'm in the White House and I was lonely. I said, 'let's go to Iraq!''

Don't get the whole cow flatulence thing? Cows have been around forever, but for some reason they are now a problem for Democrats. It is a hard one to get your head around.
John McCain - he deserved credit for his service to America and enduring the torture that he did, but he became quite crazy ideologically speaking towards the end. Media could not stand him for years, but then loved him once he opposed Trump.
Jeff Sessions - not much to be gained by mocking his accent. But he should be mocked for his complete uselessness while in the job of Attorney General (pretty sure a story will emerge there one day).
Train to Hawaii - Or a train to Europe. Take your pick. That apparently is what the Democrats are thinking. They want to end all air travel within ten years. How does one get to Asia or Europe?
Trump hugging the flag - That's fine with me

[samhaydenjr]

Regarding Ocasio-Cortez. Her ideas are quite scary. This Green New Deal will end all fossil fuel dependency in the next 12 years. It also calls for every building in the US to be retrofitted with energy saving light bulbs etc (I think someone estimated the cost to be in the billions for NYC alone). And she is seeking to end air travel in the US in the next ten years, to be replaced by high speed trains.

ENDING FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCY!!!??? OH THE HORROR!!!??? BTW, onshore wind power and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity bar none - Texas(!) gets about 16% of its electricity from windpower already, and they haven't even scratched the surface of their solar potential. Hell, if the US is still dependent on fossil fuels in 2030, it's a sign you're really getting ripped off by the industry special interests (like that lovely Robert E. Murray).

And the cost of energy savings light bulbs will be in the billions for NYC? You mean more than one billion? Like, maybe 2 billion? Over 12 years? So... roughly the same cost as one and a half F35s per year. Of course that's assuming that figure you quoted is in any way accurate and is net of the normal cost of replacing lightbulbs in NYC over 12 years.

And what will China be doing while America is consumed with this green deal?

Trying to maintain the competitive advantage they've established in the production of solar panels, I'm guessing. Oh, if only the rest of the country had listened to Schwarzenegger, you'd be ahead of the game on that.


Don't get the whole cow flatulence thing? Cows have been around forever, but for some reason they are now a problem for Democrats. It is a hard one to get your head around.


You're kidding right? The impact of cows on the greenhouse effect has been known for thirty years - and it's a triple threat:
i) The destruction of carbon sink forests to make way for pasture land
ii) The levels of energy that goes into cattle-breeding (which is for more than other meats)
iii) The belching and flatulence, which produces methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas - this can be mitigated through breeding and diet (or you could just have a falafel every now and again... it won't kill ya)

[Real ale Madrid]

It is a hard one to get your head around.


You can say that again.

[mark12345]

ENDING FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCY!!!??? OH THE HORROR!!!??? BTW, onshore wind power and solar are now the cheapest sources of electricity bar none - Texas(!) gets about 16% of its electricity from windpower already, and they haven't even scratched the surface of their solar potential. Hell, if the US is still dependent on fossil fuels in 2030, it's a sign you're really getting ripped off by the industry special interests (like that lovely Robert E. Murray).

And the cost of energy savings light bulbs will be in the billions for NYC? You mean more than one billion? Like, maybe 2 billion? Over 12 years? So... roughly the same cost as one and a half F35s per year. Of course that's assuming that figure you quoted is in any way accurate and is net of the normal cost of replacing lightbulbs in NYC over 12 years.


Trying to maintain the competitive advantage they've established in the production of solar panels, I'm guessing. Oh, if only the rest of the country had listened to Schwarzenegger, you'd be ahead of the game on that.



You're kidding right? The impact of cows on the greenhouse effect has been known for thirty years - and it's a triple threat:
i) The destruction of carbon sink forests to make way for pasture land
ii) The levels of energy that goes into cattle-breeding (which is for more than other meats)
iii) The belching and flatulence, which produces methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas - this can be mitigated through breeding and diet (or you could just have a falafel every now and again... it won't kill ya)

I really didn't know that about cows. Being serious. Are there other animals we need to worry about?
You're a little off on the numbers for the energy savings.
Just heard an estimate today of 9 trillion for the whole country (I did mention NYC, but this is a proposed national program by Cortez).
Has Ireland adopted a similar change over policy to energy saving lights? It must have been quite an undertaking?
And about China, you are absolutely correct, they will be trying to maintain their competitive advantage. It should be pretty easy for them by then given that the progressive wing of the Dem party is
embracing full blown socialism and is gaining support, it appears, every day. China are also the number one polluters in the world (taking over from the US recently) and are quite adept at taking other countries' intellectual property. So I'd say they'll be well and truly in the drivers seat economically in ten years time if trends continue.
One can only hope that certain people here, and the media who support them, will come to their senses

[mark12345]

You can say that again.

That's what I love about you, you're always genuine.

[samhaydenjr]

I really didn't know that about cows. Being serious. Are there other animals we need to worry about?
Sheep aren't great, I think pigs are better and fowl are relatively low. All-in-all GHG emissions from livestock globally make up about the same amount as transportation. One important difference to note - while methane is actually a more potent GHG than CO2, it stays in the atmosphere for only about 15 years, as opposed to 100 for CO2. So the best option is to go more plant-based (now I'm not vegetarian myself, but I'm not freaked out by the idea of eating more plant-based products)


You're a little off on the numbers for the energy savings.
Just heard an estimate today of 9 trillion for the whole country (I did mention NYC, but this is a proposed national program by Cortez).
Has Ireland adopted a similar change over policy to energy saving lights? It must have been quite an undertaking?
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of huge numbers thrown out without context over the next couple of months, as though there's going to be no cost to not doing this and no benefit from having improved rail/electrical infrastructure and no plans for spending money on anything. The reality is the cost to inaction will be immense and is already beginning (I see that Ireland is looking like Canada again for the second year in a row-an unthinkable scenario before I left Cork in 1999, not to mention the direct hit from a hurricane in 2017-this costs lots of money to deal with). Much of the cost will be taken on through private investment if the right incentives are made through subsidies (giving out and removing) and taxes. Also, if the MAGA people could stop acting in a manner that increases emissions just to spite Democrats, that would probably reduce emissions by a fair percentage for a really low cost, and would be nice.
This is a potentially existential crisis for humanity with the potential for massive snowball effects - even President Trump's pet "crisis" of immigration will be larger by orders of magnitude if we don't deal with it fast - it's not as though anybody wants climate change to be happening... but it is. When you think about it that way, even if the $9 Trillion figure you mention over 12 years is correct (roughly the same as US Military spending BTW), then that's a worthwhile investment.

[Eminence Grise]

Just heard an estimate today of 9 trillion for the whole country (I did mention NYC, but this is a proposed national program by Cortez).
Has Ireland adopted a similar change over policy to energy saving lights? It must have been quite an undertaking?

Incandescent bulbs have been banned for about a decade now. It was a phasing out: old stock in shops could be sold off, but all new stock had to be energy saving. It meant you could just replace each bulb at home as it blew if you didn't want want to replace them all at once - they were a bit pricey at the time. For new buildings, energy efficient became the standard because you couldn't buy anything else.

[Real ale Madrid]

It should be pretty easy for them by then given that the progressive wing of the Dem party is
embracing full blown socialism and is gaining support, it appears, every day.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism Mark - the idea that if you get sick; you get treatment, the idea that if you end up out of work; you don't end up destitute, the idea that you have a few extra bob in your pocket from the state when you retire are things that are not going to dis-improve US society to any great degree apart from a small initial adjustment. It works practically everywhere else in the world. What I was trying to highlight earlier with the CPAC thread was the Republicans putting the fear of God into people by lying about what the Democrats are doing and people swallow it whole. There are plenty legitimate ways to attack Democratic policy without resorting to this nonsense and Trump has normalized this type of behavior to such an extent that its possibly irreversible. I mean - who is to say another Donald Trump type character won't get elected next?

[SkStu]

Sheep aren't great, I think pigs are better and fowl are relatively low. All-in-all GHG emissions from livestock globally make up about the same amount as transportation. One important difference to note - while methane is actually a more potent GHG than CO2, it stays in the atmosphere for only about 15 years, as opposed to 100 for CO2. So the best option is to go more plant-based (now I'm not vegetarian myself, but I'm not freaked out by the idea of eating more plant-based products)


I'm sure there's going to be a lot of huge numbers thrown out without context over the next couple of months, as though there's going to be no cost to not doing this and no benefit from having improved rail/electrical infrastructure and no plans for spending money on anything. The reality is the cost to inaction will be immense and is already beginning (I see that Ireland is looking like Canada again for the second year in a row-an unthinkable scenario before I left Cork in 1999, not to mention the direct hit from a hurricane in 2017-this costs lots of money to deal with). Much of the cost will be taken on through private investment if the right incentives are made through subsidies (giving out and removing) and taxes. Also, if the MAGA people could stop acting in a manner that increases emissions just to spite Democrats, that would probably reduce emissions by a fair percentage for a really low cost, and would be nice.
This is a potentially existential crisis for humanity with the potential for massive snowball effects - even President Trump's pet "crisis" of immigration will be larger by orders of magnitude if we don't deal with it fast - it's not as though anybody wants climate change to be happening... but it is. When you think about it that way, even if the $9 Trillion figure you mention over 12 years is correct (roughly the same as US Military spending BTW), then that's a worthwhile investment.

I think it’s funny that you (and RAM) are taking time to defend the Green New Deal when the majority of AOC’s colleagues have swerved sharply to avoid being associated with it. It has been criticized as completely unworkable by quite a few senior ranking members of the DNC.

From my perspective it’s not that we shouldn’t be doing something to combat the causes of man-made climate change but let’s be realistic about it! In addition the USA is leading the way globally in terms of reduction of co2 emissions from energy consumption, by huge amounts. In 2017 they reduced their emissions by 40m tons. China, by comparison, increased their emissions that year by 120m tons. The EU increased emissions in 2017 by over 40m tons. The hypocrisy is astounding when you think about it.