Conversely if democrats had unilateral power they’d pass some version of the green new deal. The one AOC talked about would cost anywhere between 50-100 trillion or 600,000 per household making the wall cost look like buying an ice cream cone.

Considering it was a set of goals and not actual policy any number assigned to the cost is dishonest.

No sane person disputes that achieving the goals and implementing the policies listed in the GND would cost trillions of dollars. There is a lot of uncertainty, we dont know if the costs would be "absolutely gigantic" or "completely unimaginable", but we know quite clearly that "absolutely gigantic" is a lower bound on the price tag of the GND. Six billion or so for Trump's wall is absolute peanuts in comparison.

Ahhh yes the entirely unconstitutional requirement for all americans to buy electric cars, cities and states they dont control to buy electric buses, airline companies they dont control to stop offering flights, etc.

fear of the green new deal is about as low information as you can get when it comes to governance. it was just scare tactic bait, you're taking it.

at worst we'd be looking at some kind of increased legislation on emissions limits, probably some kind of tax for certain industries. and an increased clean air and water bill. gasp, the horror.

also Biden is a fairly centrist moderate corporatist. so the idea that he'd enact a massive overreaching package of bills is silly.



u seem lost as well, no laws that would make the goals happen would be constitutional OR pass. it was pandering from the fringe left as bait and the center left allowed it because of how much it made right wingers mad.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 12 2020 07:50am

To reach those goals it costs money. How is it dishonest estimate that cost?



Biden has a plan to kick it into action with a 2 trillion dollar plan over the next 4 years. This isn't pie in the sky. He's going to take bite size pieces but we all know that 2 trillion will turn into 3 then 5 then 10 given a decade or two.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 12 2020 07:53am

Real climate change legislation will definitely cost more than 6 billion because it's a much bigger project and a much bigger problem, that also has significant up sides.

It's just a shitty comparison all around, and void should probably feel dumb for making it.



Because there aren't specific actions outlined, so when they say "get Americans better jobs in green fields" people have been assuming the government is paying all wages and benefits for those workers.

The "it will cost tens of trillions" makes very poor assumptions about the content which aren't there.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2020 07:52am

If that's the standard, then snipa's argument is just as dumb since Trump wasting 6 or so billion on a useless wall wouldnt even make the top 10 of the most irresponsible and ineffectual government projects of our lifetimes. The wall sucks as evidence for Trump's alleged fiscal irresponsibility, his tax bill is a much better argument for that.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 12 2020 07:54am

The cost calculation made by conservatives was done by literally saying "If we were to force every American to do X, what would that cost? Okay add that to the bill" over and over and over again. In reality, you'd be looking at higher taxes on gas/diesel vehicles and tax rebates on green tech for utilities and cars.

Not really, because steps taken under the GND would actually be effective, whereas everybody even remotely informed knows the wall will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration.

In reality that's not what's being asked for because green subsidies are already here and higher taxes on gas/diesel are a fairly small detail in the grand scheme of the plans. You want to look at what a realistic ask is in the short term? Look at California's ban on sale of gasoline vehicles by 2035. These are some of the minimal asks in the short-medium term and this is only the start.