Posted on 03/29/2019 6:36:10 AM PDT by cowpoke
Both fans and foes of the so-called Green New Deal (GND) agree that it is a wildly ambitious set of proposals, which—by design—will involve the federal government spending boatloads of money. In fact, the GND is so expensive that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has cited the inflationary doctrine of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to deflect the issue; we don’t need to worry about the cost of the Green New Deal, so the argument goes, because the Federal Reserve can create an unlimited number of dollars.
Even so, more sober-minded policymakers, as well as the general public, should be aware of just how ludicrously expensive the GND really is. A recent analysis by the American Action Forum puts the initial 10-year cost at a staggering $93 trillion. Although the reader might understandably assume that this is an inflated figure designed to discredit the GND, it actually rests on a few conservative assumptions. The figure of $93 trillion is admittedly absurd, but that’s only because the planks of the GND are absurdly expensive. The American Action Forum estimate is entirely fair.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
And...... As ‘sandy O’ so aptly put it, “Just pay for it.”
This is all well and good to point this out however, the hardship on everyday life and the climate hoax needs to be sold too.
Thorium energy. Safe, clean, reliable, abundant, very inexpensive.
The Party that embraces Th will control the future of the country.
And the free world.
Did you ever think the US would live out the movie FOR REAL..?
AOC PLANS:
-Making air transport illegal, building bridges to Europe and Hawaii
-Destroying and re-building EVERY structure in the USA using green tech
-Doing away with concrete as a construction input
-Saving money for socialized medicine via fewer funerals
-Eliminating beef-eating pets
-Cross-breeding humans and rabbit so we can all become vegans
She is a 10 year old dressed up in costume, as an adult suit, pretending to know all the answers
Click The Pic To Learn More
How about a New Deal for Black America?
They voted it down, didn’t they?
“They voted it down, didn’t they?”
They voted Present so as to avoid being placed on the record.
L
Remember the eclipse of 2016? The orbital paths are well know so they could predict, and predict correctly, where the eclipse would occur and exactly when the eclipse would occur in different locations. Now that’s understanding!
To make me believe in global warming they’ll have to demonstrate similar understanding but I’ll even give them a little bit of leeway. “A category 3 hurricane will make landfall between Palm Bay and Vero Beach, Florida on or about August 3, 2019”, and then have that come true. That’s understanding, and that’s what it will take to make me a believer that they know what they’re talking about.
I’m looking forward to 2031 (if I live that long) to see the world end... seas would have to rise 2600’ and then I’d have shore front property on my on island !!
They must think the utopian Star Trek cities,vehicles, transporters and synthesisers can be a reality within 10 years, maybe in 100 if the world gets rid of Islamic domination.
“New Deals” for anybody have never been all that new. The Romans, and I am sure both the Persians and Chinese, have come up with schemes for “bread and circuses” over the ages, and it is all a bid to gain “popular” support for whatever oligarchy is in charge of things at the time. In the end, it comes down to command-and-control, a most cynical kind of governance that only gives the illusion that it could ever be changed or the little guy gets an honest shake of the dice. Cronyism, whether in the form of a fake kind of “capitalism” in which the winners and losers are pre-selected, or the most brutal kind of military dictatorship, is the chokehold on power until it reaches a bursting point.
And burst it shall, sometimes sooner than later.
Pretty much same thing. It’s dead in the water.
No problem. We can print that in a day.
Yeah, but like AOC explained, “That $93 Trillion is mostly zeros.”
Yeah, but like AOC explained, “That $93 Trillion is mostly zeros.”
Agreed. The author does touch on hardships in a couple of places, for instance, “Also, although the AAF analysis gives an estimate that electric bills will rise by 22 percent in the scenario they study, a glance at the original table shows that this cost to households—in the form of higher electricity prices—is not included in the headline estimates. In other words, when the quoted “cost” of $5.4 trillion is just capturing the out-of-pocket expenditure necessary to build the new plants to replace the capacity currently provided by coal- and natural gas-fired plants. The figure does not include the opportunity cost to the economy as a whole, from relying on less convenient forms of energy. Making energy more expensive for families and businesses “costs” a lot: not just conventionally in the form of foregone opportunities, but also in social discord owing to government-mandated energy price increases. The ongoing weekly riots in Paris initiated by opposition to a modest carbon tax illustrate the phenomenon.” His primary argument, though, is cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
