Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Of course, that would likely lead to some of her supporters decrying her as a sell-out or something.
And if you think that's unrealistic, keep in mind that we have people in this very thread who were eager to call the Democratic Party spineless appeasers for getting a better budget deal just because it didn't erase border money entirely.
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 1:34:14 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedEdited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 1:39:52 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedMe, I wonder how much of that spending returns into government coffers. 16 trillion dollars do not simply disappear into the economy, after all, a lot of that extra money will be taxed and thus become government revenue again.
Also, given that the Trump tax cuts have demonstrated that nobody actually cares about deficits except lip service, perhaps it has also worn out its credibility as an argument in general. See the paygo debacle a few weeks back.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
Oh people do still care. It's just that a lot of them care more about getting tax cuts and fucking over poor people and minorities.
And the paygo thing may have been due to the Democratic Party not wanting to alienate people who voted for Democratic candidates who used the argument "unlike the GOP candidate I actually do care about sound fiscal policy".
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:20:01 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedA bit further on these two claims about the GND:
- This one is claiming that AOC wants to pay for that project by printing money and that will lead to inflation
. Yeah, big two catches there. One, the op-ed (?) does not cite any evidence of that. Two, claims that increased government spending lead to inflation are usually wrong, empirically.
- The Bloomberg source
does draw a distinction between the "green" part of the deal - which costs less than half a trillion dollars, only about twice-thrice as much as the Trump tax cuts when ignoring accelerator effects and about half
of the revenue from some of AOC's tax ideas - and the "social" one which is the real driver of the price tag ... but the conservation of mass (i.e the effects on revenue) that such a huge spending hike would have are totally ignored.
The whole approach is a non sequitur. Cortez and her ilk live in an alternate universe where they can have their cake and eat it too- doesn't work out like that in reality.
I feel like I should emphasize the MMT point again. She has repeatedly come out in favor of that theory,
which finds support in no respected economist working today (hence, why it's heterodox). It's the modern descendant of chartalism.
In any case, I feel like you missed my point. Pie in the sky plans to restructure the economy have nothing to do with supposedly common sense environmental policy. Conflating them only hurts good-faith attempts at the latter because people will (correctly) suspect that the whole thing is just a plot to get more unpopular far left policies (again: this nation is so allergic to any sort of tax increase, even actually sensible ones like a small increase of income tax on the 1% only to fund health care, that such a policy got nearly 40% opposition in friggin' California). Why do you think Mitch Mcconnel is so eager to have this called to vote? The smug smirking turtle knows it'll make the Democrats look bad.
And AOC, the dolt, is playing right into his hands.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:28:05 AM
![]()
A big part of the Bloomberg op-ed's concerns involve that now deleted FAQ. The writer seems to be worried that the FAQ shows AOC's actual ultimate goals.
Here's the deleted FAQ in question (isn't web archive great?)
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:26:01 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedI see we're back to making stupid claims about what constitutes far left.
It must be Tuesday.
Oh wait, it's Thursday.
![]()
It's easy to forget that California is not a Blue monolith. Plenty of areas are Red and conservative.
Personally I don't think she counts as far left either. My own issues with AOC have always been about her being a self-proclaimed populist, with all that entails.
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 2:38:38 AM
Disgusted, but not surprised
x5 ... billionaires flying private jets have a bigger carbon footprint than thousands of poor people. So do American corporations deliberately refusing to improve their practices. There’s literally like 500 people and companies making the biggest impact. So, wanna try again as to why regulating their behavior won’t fix anything?
You never did answer my question about how the campaigning and fundraising on that referendum went. And 60% backed the increase. And California has plenty of rich people and republicans.
I’d also like to note that your consistent dismissal of AOC as a “dolt” and your unsubstantiated claims about her supposed incompetence are getting very grating. No one is saying she’s perfect or doesn’t have room to learn and improve, but the level of vitriol is real unnecessary.
Edited by wisewillow on Feb 13th 2019 at 1:39:35 PM
This buck-passing line of thinking is dangerously naive. It leads people on a certain end of the political spectrum to believe that companies are the ones producing CO 2, not people, and especially not they themselves. This is of course hogwash since companies don't produce CO 2 for shits and giggles, but rather because it is a side effect of the production of the products people buy, in other words an externality. To rub this in further: the largest source of greenhouses gases is transportation
, and 60% of those emissions come from the light duty vehicles that you drive.
Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 13th 2019 at 10:57:40 AM
While I don't necessarily agree with all of the criticisms of AOC (despite not being an AOC supporter myself), I do take issue with the idea that we can't insult her here. We are all pretty quick to insult public figures we don't like here, so why should AOC be the exception? I certainly don't go easy with my language when talking about people like Trump, Gabbard, etc. whom I have described as awful soulless wastes of carbon and such on multiple occasions.
Edited by M84 on Feb 14th 2019 at 3:07:28 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedWell, I do think that Sanders and AOC are similar in policy terms to a degree but then I have to dispute some of Kamiccolo's assertions:
- Carbon taxes being regressive is part of the reason why they raise concerns. That's probably the reason why AOC isn't going with it. That would make it a rational decision.
- The Forbes article is citing only a few states and a congressional election result that doesn't tell me whether taxes actually mattered to the outcome. Plus, "they are unduly regressive" is a concern that applies to some of these tax rises that were rejected.
- I also think that leaving off that a prominent economist endorses AOC's tax ideas
makes your claim that all your claims are "substantiated" a little questionable.
- Why are you making assumptions about other tropers' vehicle uses? I don't have a driving license.

Even if we accept as true that the deal as is is untenable, I doubt AOC is so naive as to believe it would go through the process without any revision. Start pie-in-the-sky, then talk it down to something that is still progress.