AOC's Green New Deal would cost $70K-
plus per household in first year: Study
Washington Times,
by
Valerie Richardson
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
7/30/2019 11:42:25 AM
In its first year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would cost more than $70,000 per household in five states for higher costs for energy, housing, transportation and shipping, according to a study released Tuesday. In five model states—Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Pennsylvania—the ambitious resolution aimed at achieving net-zero emissions by 2030 would come at a high price to consumers, said researchers at the free-market groups Power for the Future and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Economists and experts have been warning us for months about the devastating effects of the Green New Deal, and now we have the numbers
Reply 1 - Posted by:
tsquare 7/30/2019 1:07:27 PM (No. 138030)
Duh, like we just raise minimum wage by $50 per hour. I was a bartender, and I know that works. Easy peasy...AOC
0 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Muguy 7/30/2019 1:18:46 PM (No. 138040)
What about getting rid of the internal combustion engine, and tearing down and rebuilding all the homes and businesses while at the same time giving housing to EVERYONE one???
0 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Nimby 7/30/2019 1:30:27 PM (No. 138059)
2.5 houses can be made "GREEN" with her salary
1 person likes this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Strike3 7/30/2019 1:36:36 PM (No. 138069)
That should cover the tab for tearing everything down but the rebuilding is beyond our ability to pay. Better get yourself a nice tent from Cabella's before there is a run on them. Make sure it has a 12 year warranty because that's all the longer you're going to need it.
4 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
JRook 7/30/2019 1:38:54 PM (No. 138070)
Of course as another example of the Heritage Foundation, ALEC, conservative circle jerk... folks here will actually repeat this garbage over and over again. Think about it people, how is that even remotely possible. And this author is a great example of dangerous folks such as Rush Limbaugh, a truly sad individual, who neglects to point out over what length of time and of course no offset for the costs of not doing anything different. Kinda like the stupidity when Rush talks about the energy costs of building electric cars as somehow being higher than those of any other car. And of course Rush always assumes in his crooked analysis that the electrical power for those cars is generated by coal. What are all you lemmings going to say in 20 years when climate change impacts start costing $ trillions? Oh let me guess, say it some kind of punishment from god?
0 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
JRook 7/30/2019 1:43:00 PM (No. 138074)
Duh, like we just raise minimum wage by $50 per hour. .... I believe most individuals would be happy if the minimum wage was merely adjusted to inflation, which would set it at about $13. But of course no one wants to talk about that because it would reveal that the US economy hasn't grown in real terms for decades and certainly hasn't benefited manufacturing, construction and most other workers. Wake up people, China didn't come over here and steal people's jobs. The top 1% and their buddies on Wall Street sent them over there so the wealthy could suck as much money out of the US citizens as possible. Recent polls show that 50% of american households can't absorb a $1,000 unexpected expense. If you think that is a sign of a good economy, then perhaps you should pray for some insight.
0 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
zoidberg 7/30/2019 2:16:33 PM (No. 138128)
The Green New Deal is so unpopular that even its Senate cosponsors voted against it.
3 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Wary American 7/30/2019 2:18:13 PM (No. 138130)
Come on PEOPLE.
IT
AIN'T
GONNA
HAPPEN...
E V E R.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
bad-hair 7/30/2019 2:38:50 PM (No. 138152)
Well, at least it will make for a nice increase in the cost of living adjustment to my social security check, and everyone else's. I wonder if Occasionally-Cognizant added that into her cost calculations.
1 person likes this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Wendybird 7/30/2019 3:15:21 PM (No. 138186)
That's hardly anything to the average republican, because they are all wealthy. However, the hard working average democrat, liberal or socialist would need a supplement to contribute, which should by all rights be donated to them by republicans. If this will save even one child, it would be worth it.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
padiva 7/30/2019 4:14:52 PM (No. 138238)
Great comment, OP.
We don't know what the weather will be later today. How can we predict what the weather/climate will be in 12 years?
There is a difference between ecology and 'climate scare.'
0 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
RenoVet68 7/30/2019 4:27:08 PM (No. 138249)
First there was dumb. Then came dumber. Now with AOC we have dumbest.
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
watlines 7/30/2019 5:11:06 PM (No. 138285)
Her loony idea is DOA and anyone who supports it is dumber than she is.
Does anyone really believe that sentient adults in America would accept and implement the ideas of an ignorant bartender?
Remember the lines at gas stations in the 1970s during the Arab oil embargo?
Now try imaging daily life in America with no gas at all: sheer insanity.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Cost? It's an investment, with details formulated by a tip-stealing barmaid who claims to have a degree in economics, yet has no grasp on basic reality. Won't someone think of the children?