Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez…, yes…, you are an idiot.

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of the environmentalist group “Greenpeace,” ripped into New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend, calling her a “pompous little twit,” and saying the Green New Deal plan she’s advocating is “completely crazy.”

aoc

This is a damning statement coming from someone who is a legit and historically important environmentalist.

For nearly 50 years, Greenpeace has been sailing the world’s oceans protecting our planet and fighting for environmental justice.  From obstructing nuclear tests in the Pacific, to documenting plastics in our oceans; from conducting research into the effects of climate change in the Arctic, to stopping shiploads of illegal timber leaving the Amazon; from bringing humanitarian relief to communities devastated by extreme weather to collaborating with local authorities to arrest illegal fishing operations.

According to Alex Pappas of Fox News, “In a series of tweets, Moore argued Ocasio-Cortez, who has called for drastically reducing fossil fuel production, doesn’t realize what would happen across the world if the radical plan were implemented.”

‘“If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating,’ Moore said in a tweet Saturday directed at Ocasio-Cortez. ‘You would bring about mass death.’”

“Referring to the New York Democrat as a ‘pompous little twit,’ Moore said, ‘You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities.’”

“Moore also unloaded on her for calling climate change ‘“Our World War II.’”

‘“It’s her @GND [Green New Deal] that would be worse than WW2,” he said. ‘Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.’”

“In another tweet, Moore called the Green New Deal ‘so completely crazy it is bound to be rejected in the end.’”

“He also referred to Ocasio-Cortez as a ‘garden-variety hypocrite,’ in response to a New York Post story that said the democrat frequently used gas-guzzling Uber and Lyft rides during her 2018 campaign instead of taking the subway station near her campaign office.”

‘“You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know,’ Moore said.”

“Ocasio-Cortez responded to that story over the weekend saying she’s ‘living in the world as it is.’ But she said that shouldn’t be ‘an argument against working towards a better future.’”

aoc 2

It’s all a matter of perspective I guess.

Nobody is opposed to working towards a better future, unless your method of doing that destroys our future!

‘“The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy,’ she said.”

Is there anything stopping the development of new technologies now?

Is there anything stopping the building of new infrastructure now?

The sticking point is that last one about “getting us to 100% renewable energy.”  It’s just not realistic.  Especially when she wants the United States to be “emissions free” in 10 years.

This is because she is predicting “our world will end in 12 years if we don’t change our ways.”

Her plan of course doesn’t take into consideration any other country on our planet…, just the United States, and we are already one of the best performing countries in the world regarding pollution and emissions.

I would agree with Patrick Moore that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has no basis for her claims and no common sense regarding her “Green New Deal” demands.

Why the democrats would allow a “know nothing” idiot like Ocasio-Cortez to drive their environmental and economic agenda is beyond me.

On the other hand, I guess that’s just the way the democrats are doing business these days.  They are choosing to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

“We should never underestimate the capacity for peoples’ stupidness.” – MREricksonRules.

aoc 3

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the very bottom of this page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

So, what the heck is this “Green New Deal” anyway?

Well, first of all it’s NOT a law.  It’s more like a “game plan” or a “road map” to follow.

It’s a liberal/socialist/environmentalist manifesto in the same vein as the Communist Manifesto.

Yes…, that’s exactly what it is.

Let me be your guide about something you will be hearing about non-stop for a long time. The “biased, liberal, fake news media” will be getting their propaganda machine cranked up into overdrive for this one.

The people that put this “Green New Deal” resolution together were either high on drugs, extremely naive, extremely confused, stupid, or some combination of all of the above, in my opinion.

So…, let’s see exactly what we have here.

This resolution validates all of its proposed actions based on the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming [of 1.5 degrees centigrade]” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report.

If the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed, humanity has just over a decade to get carbon emissions under control before catastrophic climate change impacts become unavoidable.

At the rate our government works, I guess we should all start planning our funerals, or preparing to live underground, and stockpiling food and water, because nothing is going to happen over the next ten years to fix our environment, if in fact it is broken, and if in fact it is our fault.

The United States is already the most environmentally friendly country, among major industrialized nations in the world by the way.  You sure wouldn’t know this by the way the “biased, liberal, fake news media” demonizes the USA on a daily basis.  Is China, Russia, India, Germany, The United Kingdom or Japan on board with any of this?  Because we surely cannot effect global climate change without global participation.

If the Paris Climate Agreement is any indication of the level of global participation we could expect, we’re in trouble!

In the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump wisely backed the U.S. out of, all of these other countries pledged their support with flowery environmental words and swore to meet the new pollution regulations AFTER the U.S. had piloted the proposed pollution levels for the first 10-20 years of the agreement!

Such determination!

Such support!

Such disingenuousness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14 projects, and 15 requirements. The preamble establishes that there are two crises, a climate crisis and an economic crisis of wage stagnation and growing inequality.

The goals are: achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean air and water.

The projects are things like: decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and industry, restoring ecosystems, and upgrading buildings and electricity grids.

Our liberal/socialist/environmentalist friends have managed to incorporate virtually all aspects of our society, economy, employment, racial issues, gender issues and government into their “end all, be all” “primary directive.”

The document itself is not even 14 pages long, so please, read it for yourself if you get the chance.

In the meantime, let’s take a look at some excerpts taken directly from the resolution:

“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’); Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States…”

Say what?

Are you starting to get the point?

This new Raw Deal…, I mean Green Deal, is your typical “bleeding heart” bunch of politically correct mumbo jumbo.

Here are some of the more detailed goals taken directly from the resolution:

“Upgrade all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”

Well gee…, that doesn’t sound expensive at all.

“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”

What exactly is meant by “spurring?”  I’m guessing it means spending more money.

“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible…”

“Working collaboratively” mean dictating unmanageable pollution standards.

“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

“Overhauling transportation systems” sounds like a lot of money…, again.

“A Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses…”

This last part is just a bunch concepts that sound good, but will never actually happen.  Just like with The Affordable Care Act legislation, there will be nothing inclusive or transparent about it.

“To achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects:”

“Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”

“Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries; directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”

Mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level; ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”

“Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers” means only selected “enlightened” liberal individuals and groups will dictate to all of the rest of us “knuckle-draggers” what to think.

“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

In the government world “Guaranteeing” something means there will be no budgetary concerns.

“Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment; strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”

“Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections, to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

Hasn’t President Trump already pretty much taken care of this one?

“Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”

This means eminent domain will be abused.

“Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people.”

Here’s your “bone” Native-Americans!

“Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and providing all people of the United States with: high-quality health care; affordable, safe, and adequate housing; economic security; and access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This last section, and the last section of the resolution, is kind of a catch-all.

According to David Roberts for Vox.com, “The question of how to pay for the many public investments called for in the GND [Green New Deal] is still a bit of a political minefield. There are centrist Democrats who still believe in the old PAYGO rules, keeping a “balanced budget” within a 10-year window. There are Democrats who think deficit fears have been exaggerated and there’s nothing wrong with running a deficit to drive an economic transition. And there are Democrats who have gone full Modern Monetary Theory, which is way too complicated to explain here but amounts to the notion that, short of inflation, the level of the deficit is effectively irrelevant, as long as we’re getting the economy we want.  That discussion is just getting underway, and the better part of valor is to do what the GND resolution does: say nothing about it. Leave it for later.”

Just in case you’re keeping score at home, the Green New Deal includes a “federal job guarantee,” the right to unionize, liberal trade and monopoly policies, and universal housing and health care.

In other words, “Hello Socialism…, here we come!”

Some of this stuff is even too far left for Nancy Pelosi!  She is actually coming under some attack for even having the slightest bit of skepticism about some of the goals in the Green New Deal!

Remember the name Rhiana Gunn-Wright.  She has apparently been tabbed to be the architect of any official policy platforms developed from the Green New Deal resolution.

“Obviously, figuring out how to fundamentally transform the world’s largest economy is a lot for one person to take on. When Gunn-Wright was asked if she knows what she’s gotten into, she laughs. “It’s really exciting!”

Do you mind if I ask if this person has ever really done anything regarding any of this stuff, or is she just working from a theoretical stand point?  Has she ever had a non-political job?  Does she really know anything about economics?

“If you have more money or access to power, you can either opt out or pay to make it simpler,” she says. “The people who will have to go through all the mess are generally poorer people, with the least access to power.”

So it’ll be just like usual…, with the rich liberal entertainers, athletes, businessmen and politicians being exempt or being able to “buy” their way out of the policies the rest of us are forced to deal with.  Again…, “do as I say not as I do.”

David Roberts for Vox.com Thinks, “Gunn-Wright’s command of the issues, coupled with her unapologetic belief in the public sector to “shape markets and direct innovation,” coupled with her evident concern for the low-income and working classes, make me excited to see what New Consensus produces.”

So…, apparently Mr. Roberts is just as clueless as the authors of the resolution, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Gunn-Wright and all of their partners in crime.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for 100 percent renewable electricity within 10 years, but very few policy experts believe that is possible.

By their own admission, the top three challenges facing the GND are paying for it, convincing the public, and winning over Democrats.

Roberts adds, “In the real world, if the GND looks like it has any chance of becoming a reality, it will face a giant right-wing smear campaign, coordinated across conservative media, think tanks, and politicians, funded by effectively unlimited fossil fuel wealth. The right will rush to define the GND as a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

That’s because, Mr. Roberts, the Green New Deal IS “a silly, ridiculous, naive, unaffordable government boondoggle meant to destroy your way of life and funnel your taxpayer money to Democratic constituencies like illegal immigrants.”

Trumpeting the truth about this foolishness is not a “right-wing smear campaign,” it’s just a matter of combating the propaganda of the “biased, liberal, fake news media” and the rest of “the swamp.”

Well, there you have it.  I hope this helped.

Like I said…, we’re not going to stop hearing about the Green New Deal anytime soon.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

ocasio-cortez inventions

 

How should taxes be ideally collected?  

I believe that no taxes should be taken out of our paychecks.

None.

I believe that taxing based on whether you get a paycheck or not is discriminatory.

I believe the tax rates and certain tax considerations are discriminatory as well.

All money should be collected from national and state sales taxes, along with some other usage taxes and fees.

Things would cost a little more, but we’d have more money to spend as well.

These taxes would be inherently fair because those who spent more money would pay more taxes, and those who liked doing certain things would pay for those things.

Also, people hiding from income taxes, like illegal workers and “cash” workers, would now be paying their fair share.

Corporations and “the rich” would not have to worry about finding “loop holes” anymore, because there wouldn’t be any!

There would be no need for filing tax returns because there would be no deductions, and there would be no more redistribution of wealth via the tax system.  There would be no more getting a tax refund or owing taxes.  Whatever you pay in sales tax is what you pay.

Items deemed to be “necessities” would not be taxed or taxed at a lesser rate.

The only people that could possibly have a problem with this system are those wanting to rip-off our current system, those actually ripping-off our current system now, and those not paying their fair share of taxes or any taxes at all, leaving the rest of us poor honest slobs to pick-up the whole tab.

Other usage taxes would also be employed.  For example, the fuel tax would in turn pay for all things transportation related.  The more fuel you purchase, the more you use the roads, so the more you pay.  Get it?

People who participate in activities or use certain places, pay for those activities and places with associated fees.

Anything that is not self-sustainable would become unavailable.

Funding for our government, military, social security, and other essential services would come from the base sales tax and would be appropriated as they currently are.

Also, by collecting taxes this way, we are all invested in the process.  If you don’t pay any taxes you’re not really concerned with how high they are or how the taxes are being spent.

I understand that this is not a completely original idea, but the concept here as a whole is, I believe.

I’m not holding my breath for this method of tax collection to go into effect, but someday…, maybe.

Please give me some feedback and let me know what you think!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

income tax

 

 

“A person with options is a person with power!”

“A person with the option to take ownership of something is much richer when they decide to invest in that option of their own free will. – Mr. Erickson

What is politics in America basically about?

Politics in America is basically about people fighting to decide who will have the power to decide what we spend our money on, among other things, of course, but primarily that.

What if we took some of that power out of the equation for our politicians?

What if they were only charged with supplying the options, not the actual funding in a lot of cases?

What if we gave some of that power back to the people who are footing the bill?

You might say that could never work because how could you formulate a budget operating that way?

Well, my answer would be that the politicians have not operated within a budget for a long time anyway.  And I would be right.  The last time the Congress even passed a budget was in 2006.

Some types of basic levels of funding would have to exist for the military, government operations, etc., but the lion’s share of the spending could be deemed discretionary, and those levels determined by the desires of the taxpayers.

For example, in my state, when filling out my tax return form, I can select an amount to go towards any of the following causes: Endangered resources, Military family relief, Cancer research, Second Harvest/Feeding Americans, Veterans trust fund, Red Cross Disaster Relief, Multiple sclerosis, of the Special Olympics.

Why can’t the federal government help to fund different projects or causes the same way?

If people really want something they’ll kick-in money for it, and if they don’t, they won’t.

Why couldn’t we have the option to give additional money to a “Border wall building fund?”

Or to NASA?

Or to a “School Security” fund?

Or to a “Climate change protection fund?”

Or to a “Help the homeless fund?”

Or to an “Education improvement fund?

Think about all of the possibilities and all of the opportunities.

I feel like this would be a more productive way of spending our money.

Instead of these lobbyists wasting money on politicians, they could just directly fund their own cause.

Instead of private citizens wasting their money on supporting politicians, they could just directly fund their own favorite causes.

If you are worried about climate change, then put your money where your mouth is.

If you want a border wall built on our southern border, open up your wallet and chip in.

Having choices is good.

Being forced to pay for programs you don’t support is not good.

Let’s try doing what’s good.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

income tax before 1913

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑