now it seems that some Democrats just seem to be against whatever AOC is for.

Was told by someone here that they didn't give a shit about any climate change plan, because Biden is the only one that can beat Trump. And this was after I talked about how much his stance has improved (his plan lifted passages word for word from the "Green New Deal" proposal). Not going to convince anyone by refusing to talk about this kind of stuff.

and their children and their children's children will inherit, I stand with AOC and Bernie on this one. It is URGENT that we aggressively mitigate climate change.

But yeah, since AOC had the temerity to criticize Democratic leadership, a lot of people have turned on her. Problem is, she might be right on this one, and the Democratic leadership not so much. Time will tell.

...

Because what I do know is this. When she was elected to the House, she didn't have appropriate clothing and couldn't afford it until she got her first paycheck.

Like me, and many on this site she has worked hard, hard, hard all her life. She doesn't care if she's reelected again, and went into office fearless, with the ideas she's been talking about. Mitigating climate change. Healthcare. A less regressive tax policy (higher tax rates for the very wealthy).

The right wing has constantly put out memes that have her saying stupid stuff, but those are fact checked and proven to be wrong - like the daylight savings one. Truth is she's smarter than most, if not all, of her detractors. That shows me and ought to show you, how frightened they are of her. Because the first thing that happens when you speak truth to power is that they ridicule you. Call you stupid, call you a crackpot.

Then, if that doesn't work, they throw mud at the wall and try to involve you in baseless 'scandals.'

If that doesn't work, it gets rough.

This young lady, who could be the daughter of many on here, gets a dozen credible death threats a day from right wing whack jobs who have been utterly propagandized to let shit-bags like McConnell systematically wipe out the treasury and transfer all that wealth to a few billionaire parasites. And AOC is right about billionaires - they represent a failure in policy. We don't need them. No one needs to hoard that much wealth.

In fact she is right about a whole boat load of things and that makes the establishment feel uncomfortable.

But don't you dare come here and spout Fox News talking points. Don't you dare! A super PAC hired her boyfriend, who is a web developer, and paid him the HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE sum of $6K.

Let's put that in perspective, shall we? The dirt-bag McConnell, since he married Elaine Chao, whose daddy is a shipping magnate with close ties to the Chinese government, has increased his net worth to $29 million.

So back off on the Fox news stuff.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-hired-agent-and-explored-a-book-deal?ref=scroll

She is monetizing her position in congress. That is a fact.

And why is this so very very very wrong in the first place?

I mean, what do people want from her?

What can she possibly do or change that makes her OK?

Should she stay poor? Stop talking? Just sit back and be a freshman and don't make trouble? Don't rock the boat?

With the situation we have now, we're beyond not rocking the boat, don't you think? To me, AOC has inestimable value, because like Bernie, she's driving the dialog. Making us talk about stuff.

Because, you know, I'm not content to just trust Congress any more to not do too much damage to me. When we pack it with Dems in 2020, I'm going to be quite critical if they aren't making some good progress. Same-old, same-old is no longer good enough because we're in a pit. The EPA has been gutted and Trump has done so much damage it will take decades to fix it.

Not to mention the utter criminal negligence of the GOP in fiscal policy - passing that giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations in 2017 was the very height of fiscal irresponsibility. Oh, they told us it would trickle down. They did. They said that the income tax paid by the people working in all those new jobs that would be created would more than make up for the tax cuts for corporations and billionaires. But of course that was a lie. Trickle down has never, does not now, and will never work. I know. I'm an economist.

The result - our national debt has reached Brobdingnagian proportions, and is now unsustainable. Just in time for the recession that Moody's and the Fed are both predicting between-the-lines later this year or in 2020 latest. And when that bottom falls out and bankers call austerity on us, you will see and live the reality of what happens when the 8 of 10 Americans who can't even deal with a $400 emergency expense and live from paycheck to paycheck suddenly don't have enough food, begin losing their houses and their cars. Think about the horror of that for a minute.

So, no, I probably overreacted to your barb. I understand that not everyone likes AOC. The problem is she is right. Everything that she's advocating we can do. There is plenty of money - it is just in too few hands.

And I still stand by my statement that hiring an agent for a potential book deal isn't the same as hiring a 'Hollywood consultant,' whatever that is. Anyway, AOC is quite dynamic enough without some consultant telling her what to say. She tells it like it is, which is why I like her so much. Her and those other freshman women in the House. They are just what the Democratic party needs - a big thorn in the side, constantly prodding to more aggressive action. Because what has been happening is no longer sustainable, and snail-like progress toward things like healthcare and mitigating climate change is no longer good enough.

is rejected by the mainstream and will help reelect Trump.

Speak to some people in NY's 14th Congressional District, they're the people who should be most important to the Congresswoman.

What they want from her is for her to do the job to which she was elected, not vote against the interests of the 49% Hispanics in the district, not vote against keeping the government closed and keeping the largest employer in the District, LaGuardia Airport closed, give them a realistic avenue in which to communicate with their Member of Congress, not a recording telling them to go to "the web", not campaign against a development that would have brought thousands of jobs into the District, which would have benefited all the local businesses - grocery stores, restaurants, retailers, etc.

I've spoken to a number of people in the district, THAT is what "people want from her".

I have some pretty substantial background in economic development, George, and I will tell you that NY has too often given away the farm when it comes to incentives for incoming businesses. Also, you do get more 'bang for the buck' in ED when you help small businesses grow and existing businesses expand. But don't rely on my words alone. Here's what Bob Bryan of Business Insider wrote in February 2019.

As to keeping the government closed, she objected to some of the earmarks in the stopgap spending measure, particularly ICE funding. According to a statement she issues, her community "felt strongly about not funding that.”

But here's my final point, George. Right now this fight going on in the House has escalated because of the $733 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill the Republicans are putting out for vote. Supposedly it enjoys bipartisan support, but consider this:

Effective January 2018, the giant tax cut for billionaires, Republican donors and corporations caused an estimated $1.1 trillion deficit in 2018 alone, and the national debt is up to $22 trillion.

Now, it is one thing, George, if you are a person who genuinely believes, like many of those in power, that the ONLY legitimate role of the federal government is 'defense.' I know you don't believe that. But what has happened is that our debt has reached unsustainable proportions at the same time as the Republicans want to spend nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars on 'defense.'

To put this in perspective, in 2000 the defense budget was $429.4 billion, so this year's proposed $733 billion is not only a 70% increase over 19 years, a CAGR of just over 3% per year, but it endangers all the safety net programs people need.

Doesn't that bother you? It does me, and certainly AOC and her allies are balking. Because where is the job training budget? Unemployment insurance? Other safety nets? Social Security? Everything is getting crowded out of the non-military discretionary budget pot - the pot of funds people like you and I and AOC's constituents depend on if there is a downturn in the economy, which Moody's and the Fed are projecting later this year or 2020 at the outside.

So, with all due respect, it really is possible for AOC to be right sometimes, and for Pelosi and the Democratic leadership at times to be wrong. Everybody's got 20/20 hindsight, but no one knows what the future will bring. All we can do is follow our own lights. I like AOC a lot because she a) doesn't care if she's reelected, b) speaks truth to power fearlessly, and c) isn't afraid of not being liked. Perhaps the fact she's become a thorn-in-the-side for the Democratic Party leadership isn't entirely bad thing.

God knows, we need some aggressive action on a number of fronts. Like healthcare, climate change and eliminating student debt. Silly me, I'd rather have healthcare, stronger Social Security and a serious climate change mitigation plan than a space force, which is written into this NDAA.

...most of the "giveaways" as they were called months ago, were rebates to already paid taxes each year based on performance criteria.

There was an initial "giveaway" that was relatively trivial compared to the overall magnitude of the benefits, but that was it.

On the other hand, if a certain number of jobs were created, and portion of the taxes Amazon would have already paid (remember, these are taxes that now will NEVER be paid) would be given back. If the second jobs milestone was reached some more would be given back.

So, just throwing some numbers out (which are for example, not exact), Amazon pays the State and City say $100M in taxes. Let's assume the first jobs milestone is 10,000 jobs. If that's reached, they get $20M BACK. If not reached they get nothing back. The next milestone is 20,000 jobs and another $20M rebate. If not reached, no rebate. And so on.

This is just for Amazon. Now, think of those 10,000 or 20,000 jobs. Each employee would be paying State and City income tax, sales tax on everything they bought in Queens (like gas to get to work, lunch, dinner if they stayed in the neighborhood after work, etc.) The economic benefit to the neighborhood, City, and State would have been immeasurable.

Further the infrastructure would have been improved, upgrades would be made to the feeding mass transit, roads, etc.

It was a huge loss to the city, and people in the District are not very pleased with that.

Now, as far as this:

The fact is that the bill in question contained NO funding for ICE, zero, and that was her primary, if not only reason for voting against it. Sure, "her community" felt strongly about not funding ICE, but that's a moot point since ICE funding wasn't included. However, what voting against it really meant is that one of the largest employers in the District, LaGuardia Airport, would have remained closed as would the ancillary businesses in the airport and neighborhood (restaurants, snack bars, parking garages, shuttle bus operators, taxicabs, etc.)

That no vote was not clearly thought out, and if for the reason given, was a huge mistake.

I'm probably going to be making heavy use of my ignore list this go round. Not worth getting aggravated and dragged down by people who won't talk about beyond "Vote for Biden or Trump is going to win!"

Quite frankly, if Joe Biden is the only person in this party who can beat Donald Trump, we're screwed, because that is absolutely pathetic.

the defining issue of our liftime and our leaders have no intrest in leading on it. But who cares huh? The wealthy and powerful will be fine, and that a fucking fact.

Just a wish list

Wish lists are not "plans" and are certainly not "policies."

This is why they Hollywood is just a show and not reality. AOC and her Hollywood consultants are putting on a show.

Seriously do an OP on her Hollywood connections. It will do you a world of good!

what did I miss?

Just can't play nice.

Third Way Democrats?

Thanks for the post Uncle Joe.

have a PLAN. Slogans galore with no way to get to anything.

Oh.. but AOC has a plan on how to become a celebrity -- she has been meeting Hollywood consultants!!

No fundamental changes. Gee that's soo much better.

Do you call it a hoax?


Thanks for bumping the thread, if we time our responses we can help prevent this important topic from getting lost downstream with all the petty bickering posts.

in expectation of George's response.

but Bernie and AOC still have no actual workable plan.

It is just slogans and publicity stunts.

Oh right, never mind.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287139983#top

Oops... never mind. Sounds like a riff of the GND.

Hell, I still remember when all a candidate had to say was "public option" and people would stand up and applaud his realism.

How times have changed since last month.

and I'll applaud as well.

Obama's and Bill Clinton's "Hope" and "Change" were backed up by thousands of pages of policies and plans. Not just political stunts.

Democratic primary voters overwhelmingly prefer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal to Joe Biden's climate plan
Eliza Relman and Walt Hickey Jun. 21, 2019, 4:40 PM
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


https://www.businessinsider.com/democratic-primary-voters-prefer-green-new-deal-over-bidens-plan-2019-6

Do you know of any candidate that has issued a detailed completed plan for addressing climate change?

Would you have a link to share?

....their (non) plan or introduce their non-plan on the floor of the House or Senate. None of the other candidates have orchestrated demonstrations in the halls of the House office building.

As I've told people throughout my working career of 50 years, if you want something to "change" you'd better be prepared with something better and HAVE a plan to implement it before you start to make waves. That's not what has been happening over the last eight or nine months.

It's basically a case of:

"We have to do something."
"What should we do?"
"I don't know, get back to me early next year."

stuff came up.

Only the GND is preferred over his.

....say it won't be completed for a year or more.

Yes, complicated issues need real attention and planning, don't you think?

Does anyone expect to fit a detailed plan for climate change on a bumper sticker?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=190503

There is still time to tackle climate change, but it will require an unprecedented effort from all sectors of society. To boost ambition and accelerate actions to implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, UN Secretary-General António Guterres will host the 2019 Climate Action Summit on 23 September to meet the climate challenge. The Summit will showcase a leap in collective national political ambition and it will demonstrate massive movements in the real economy in support of the agenda. Together, these developments will send strong market and political signals and inject momentum in the “race to the top” among countries, companies, cities and civil society that is needed to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/

Please try to stay on the topic of complicated plans, the type pf plans we need to address climate change.

You disparaged the GND, saying it's not done and might not be done for a year or more. Of course, it will take time to finish. Just like it took more than a year to plan Social Security and Medicare, two other complicated issues.

....written yet so we don't know yet whether it's going to be complicated or not.

Both leadership and innovation are essential for climate action, Secretary-General António Guterres said in his keynote address to the global gathering, known as the R20 Austrian World Summit – a long-term initiative to help regions, States and cities implement the Sustainable Development Goals and meet the Paris Agreement targets.
Mr. Guterres spelled out: “We must use all our resources to build a sense of urgency”, to raise ambition, while keeping temperature rises in the years ahead, as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1009782

But the GND IS a complicated plan, did anyone expect it to be on a post-it note or something?


Hey, look at the thread!

Many more posts about climate change instead of one liners belittling plans to address climate change.

Let's discuss it when it actually is a plan, okay?

maybe we should discuss the non-binding resolution instead, with the understanding that non-binding resolutions don't usually have plans in them. Ok?

threat. So is the possibility of war in the Mideast, Kim Jun Un, and many other geo-political situations that could lead to a Third World War. In fact, experts have said we have never been more at peril of s nuclear war than now.

Biden is the only candidate with knowledge and experience in foreign policy and relations, He is also the only candidate with any stature on the world stage. Sorely needed now especially with respect to Iran.

His vote on the IWR should disqualify him.

"But advocates say similar efforts in Canada and the United Kingdom have served as a leverage point, highlighting the hypocrisy between the government position that the situation is an emergency and individual decisions that would exacerbate the problem."

New Consensus, the group charged with fleshing out the plan, doesn’t aim to publish policy specifics until early next year.

ROBINSON MEYER
JUN 12, 2019

Almost seven months have passed since the November day when a few hundred young people, associated with a new climate-activism group called the Sunrise Movement, crammed into Nancy Pelosi’s office. America’s youngest congresswoman-elect ever joined them.

(snip....)

Yet it remains unclear what would actually be in a Green New Deal. While a handful of candidates have released their own attempts at a Green New Deal, the tight network of progressives most closely linked to the plan have offered little new detail. In particular, the think tank known as New Consensus—ostensibly in charge of turning the Green New Deal into real policy—has published almost nothing substantial about it.

“I think they’ve done a pretty good job of compiling the scope, the scale, and the goals of the Green New Deal,” Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, told me. “I think we’re still in the process of getting people to imagine what we’re talking about.” But in the current informational vacuum, the plan’s supporters have sometimes faltered, allowing pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians to rush in and define the Green New Deal’s terms. “One reasonable summary of what has happened is that everybody except the people who say they are doing the Green New Deal are doing the Green New Deal,” said an activist who asked not to be named to avoid damaging relationships with New Consensus.

(more....)

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/whats-green-new-deal-nobody-knows/591391/

reason has been explained many times.

Calls for aggressive change make people in power uncomfortable.

But here's the thing: in terms of the group dynamic, it is changing with these freshman House members, because they are storming.

Remember the stages are forming, storming, norming and performing. People such as me, and certainly my family members, simply want action.

Honestly, though I would prefer medicare for all, I'd be quite OK with reversing the Republican sabotage on the ACA, allowing the government to negotiate price, and adding a public option. But there HAS TO BE action.

As to climate change, I would prefer a massive New Deal style infrastructure effort to mitigate and then reverse climate change. But I would be OK with us getting back in the Paris accords, reversing Trump's feckless deregulation, beefing up the EPA, and offering more tax incentives and rebates at both manufacturing and consumer levels. But there HAS TO BE action.

Student loans? I'd prefer to forgive them, because I think the whining refrain of, "it's not FAIR because I had to pay mine, why should we forgive yours?" is EXTREMELY short sighted and unproductive. I would also prefer a massive effort to subsidize degree programs in public institutions. But I'd be OK with increased Pell funding, increased Perkins funding, and adjustments of financial aid guidelines so the benefits reach deeper up into the middle class. But there HAS TO BE action.

And taxes? I don't want a tax cut. I am willing to take a substantial increase for the sake of healthcare, climate change, stronger Social Security, better education subsidies - all the stuff we need. And I would certainly prefer stiff tax increases for the wealthy, for corporations and confiscatory taxes imposed on billionaires. But I'd be ok with a repeal of the giant 2017 tax cut for billionaires and corporations. That would be a great start. But there HAS TO BE action.

We have to move forward, and it is clear the Republicans are NOT willing to work across the aisle. So our job as voters is to get them out, and get people in who are committed to actually TRYING to govern us and make forward progress.

So, those of you reading this post who are in party leadership roles, and certainly those on the staffs of those running for office, and the candidates themselves - you are all ON NOTICE. The people that are voting you into office aren't going to be OK with snail-like progress on important stuff. We expect results, and when elected, you will need to deliver.

debate just about the climate issue.

We need to be in the streets. Great that some congress critters are doing their part. Not surprised Sanders is ON this.

Did AOC's Hollywood consultants suggest it? She has been meeting Hollywood consultants for suggestions lately to hone her celebrity image on twitter without offering any substance.

Merkley want in on this “publicity stunt” as some call it.

It has 33 original co-sponsors.

Because it is a concurrent resolution that originated in the House, its only name will be "H.Con.Res.52".

Here's to you, Congressman!

https://bit.ly/2Lgp6uG

Last edited Wed Jul 10, 2019, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287195996

I think you don't really care about this passing anyway no matter whose name is on it, just a means to create division.

Thanks lapucelle, thanks Congressman Blumenauer. I thought someone else was supposed to introduce it, at least according to some.

Here's the complete list of co-sponsors and the date they signed on as co-sponsors:

Rep. Barragan, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]* 07/09/2019
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-3]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Haaland, Debra A. [D-NM-1]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Heck, Denny [D-WA-10]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Higgins, Brian [D-NY-26]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Levin, Andy [D-MI-9]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-17]* 07/09/2019
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [D-CA-32]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Sherman, Brad [D-CA-30]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Smith, Adam [D-WA-9]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]* 07/09/2019
Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]* 07/09/2019

Pfft

It's good to know that members of the Progressive Caucus are focused and motivated to keep climate action at the center of public politics.

Haters are gonna hate. Leaders speak out and lead. Thanks, AOC and Bernie!

… this will not be approved by McConnell or Crooked Donald.

but it's still worth doing.