When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?
The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.
where do I sign up to invest?!
Resolution Summary
Created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental community, environmental justice community, and labor community
Ooooohhhb that’s where the NGD came from. Not energy policy experts, but rather environmentalists and unions.
“$93 Trillion Dollars or $600K per household Over a 10 Years period.”
According to a new study, The Green New Deal (GND) as it is currently set forth, will cost tax payers approximately $60,000 per year for every household for the next 10 years or $9.3 Trillion per year over the same period.
The study was headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin. While Fox News notes that the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office was head of a “non-partisan” entity, it should further clarified that the American Action Forum is a self described “Center-Right” institution and is consistent with its sister agency (American Action Network) who also espouses right-oriented ideals and economics.
A considerable portion of the GND’s cost is directly attributed to Universal Health Care ($36 Trillion) and a difficult to narrow down “Guaranteed Jobs” program ranging from ($6.8-44 Trillion).
The AAF authors found it difficult to make the range of values more concise due issues with the resolution itself but did find a comparable Health Care cost of $30 Trillion with George Washington University’s Mercatus Center study.
While proponents of the NGD, write the resolution off as a “feasible” and “common sense” aim others see it as a “dream” that offers direction.
Opponents on the other hand find the NGD to be far-fetched. This new study will likely add to their case.
For reference sake, the GDP of the world combined economies in 2017 totaled $75-80 Trillion Dollars. The current US Federal budget sits at $4.4 Trillion (2019).
(Dead babies), yeah, that whose situation is being distorted pretty badly by the supercon crowd. The bill had nothing to do with infanticide. It sought to criminalize doctors who failed to provide a high standard of medical care for aborted fetuses which didn't quite die.
Not, put yourself into the shoes of a person who accidentally got delivered while in the process of being aborted. You've got severe physical damage, brain damage, and of course you're premature, so figure on a high chance of blindness and lung damage. And, of course, the fact that your parents don't want you in the first place. Do you think that forcing a doctor to revive you so that you can live out the rest of your life in suffering was in your best interest?
In terms of things that matter: I find it really interesting... the amount of passionate anger and determination towards unseating the President.
I mean, the only presidential impeachment which took place during my life involved allegations of receiving a blow-job, which seems fairly tame as compared to the allegations which Michael Cohen is purportedly making to Congress this week.
For those who were of adulting-age during the Nixon administration, was the actual level of fervor comparable then? From historical information, it seems that the public weren't really all that emotionally-invested in the matter, and the press seemed to be handling the matter with a fair degree of objectivity.
UPDATE: VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT MADURO DETAINED TV CREW FOR SHOWING HIM VIDEO OF VENEZUELANS EATING OUT OF GARBAGE TRUCK
by Kevin Ryan
Univision journalist Jorge Ramos and his TV crew were briefly detained against their will in Venezuela yesterday after interviewing President Nicolas Maduro. They say Maduro became angered after they showed him this video of Venezuelans eating food out of the back of a garbage truck.
Maduro has refused to acknowledge that his country’s economy is in crisis, even blocking international food aid from entering the country. This despite widespread hunger and crippling poverty in the once wealthy nation.
Jorge Ramos Once Called Trump a Dictator. Now He’s Met a Real One in the Flesh.
“We didn’t know what was going to happen to us.”
Univision reporter Jorge Ramos’ public sparring last May with President Donald Trump earned him notoriety as a staunch critic of the Trumpadministration. During the 2016 presidential campaign, the veteran journalist even went as far as to compare the president to a dictator.
This week, the famed reporter got a first hand glimpse into how real dictators operate when Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro detained him and his crew in the presidential palace. Ramos initially thought he would be able to freely question the embattled president in a one-on-one interview. After Maduro was shown footage of Venezuelan children eating out of a garbage truck, Ramos learned how wrong he was.
A few hours later, reporters were finally allowed to leave the palace, giving Ramos a chance to recount the experience on camera.
...
“They took me into a security room, with producer Maria Guzman and they asked for our cellphones. I didn’t want to give them my cellphone. So they turned off the light of the room and a group of agents came in,” Ramos said. “They took forcefully my backpack, my cellphone, they did the same thing with Maria’s, and they forced us to give them our pass codes for the cellphones. We didn’t know what was going to happen to us.”
Not only was the reporter unable to get his belongings returned to him, but footage from the interview was confiscated as well.
“He just couldn’t stand it. He didn’t want to continue the interview. He tried to close my iPad where I showed him the video and then he said the interview was over,” Ramos said.
(Dead babies), yeah, that whose situation is being distorted pretty badly by the supercon crowd. The bill had nothing to do with infanticide. It sought to criminalize doctors who failed to provide a high standard of medical care for aborted fetuses which didn't quite die.
Not, put yourself into the shoes of a person who accidentally got delivered while in the process of being aborted. You've got severe physical damage, brain damage, and of course you're premature, so figure on a high chance of blindness and lung damage. And, of course, the fact that your parents don't want you in the first place. Do you think that forcing a doctor to revive you so that you can live out the rest of your life in suffering was in your best interest?
It would be interesting to hear why the Dems voted no, in their own words.
Also, I suspect that this law would have at least encouraged the child murderer (abortionist) to do his job right the first time; which, I presume, would be more humane to the child.
A Maryland lawmaker apologized Tuesday for using a racial slur to describe a majority-black county in suburban Washington.
Del. Mary Ann Lisanti (D-Harford), who is white, allegedly told a white colleague late last month at an Annapolis cigar bar that campaigning in Prince George’s County on behalf of another candidate amounted to door-knocking in a “------ district,” reported The Washington Post.
Prince George’s County, with a population that is 65 percent black, is one of the most affluent majority-black counties in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau. Harford is 80 percent white.
Lisanti apologized for her “word choice several weeks ago.”
“I am sickened that a word that is not in my vocabulary came out of my mouth,” she said in a statement. “It does not represent my belief system, my life’s work or what is my heart.”
Lisanti also apologized to the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland on Monday. She said she did not recall using the slur and offered an “inadequate” apology, the caucus said in a statement on Tuesday.
“It is clear Delegate Lisanti is unsuited to continue in a position of leadership in the Maryland General Assembly,” the black caucus statement said. “The use of a derogatory term exhibits that she does not hold the requisite contrition to be entrusted in a leadership role moving forward.”
It would be interesting to hear why the Dems voted no, in their own words.
Also, I suspect that this law would have at least encouraged the child murderer (abortionist) to do his job right the first time; which, I presume, would be more humane to the child.
But what’s frustrating even more than that, is that in a nation of good conscience that we would be debating having a conversation about a child who is born sitting there alive, separated from her mother. And and there would be a question of whether or not that child should be able to continue to live.
There cannot be a side about life separated from the mother, whether or not that life should continue to live. This is common sense. This is human decency. This is not an issue of being pro-life or pro-choice. This is being pro-child which we all should be.
(Dead babies), yeah, that whose situation is being distorted pretty badly by the supercon crowd. The bill had nothing to do with infanticide. It sought to criminalize doctors who failed to provide a high standard of medical care for aborted fetuses which didn't quite die.
Not, put yourself into the shoes of a person who accidentally got delivered while in the process of being aborted. You've got severe physical damage, brain damage, and of course you're premature, so figure on a high chance of blindness and lung damage. And, of course, the fact that your parents don't want you in the first place. Do you think that forcing a doctor to revive you so that you can live out the rest of your life in suffering was in your best interest?
Not specifically. Google produced an exchange-traded security, a French king, a superbowl, an a Final Fantasy game.
I assume you're following this closely, and will soon be asking "So, how is any of that relevant to Russian collusion?" as though colluding with Russia is the only crime which it is possible to commit.
The bill would cap annual rent increases to 7 percent plus inflation throughout the state. It exempts new construction for 15 years, and landlords would be free to raise rent without any cap if renters leave of their own accord. Subsidized rent would also be exempt.
...
Studies have found those policies can be effective in reducing displacement of current tenants but result in a reduction in rental housing units and higher rents for new renters.
...
“With the growing cost of our property taxes, insurance and maintenance, the incentive to add rentals will decrease,” said Rep. Jack Zika, R-Redmond. He suggested it’s likely the restrictions would increased once in place, and that prospect could further drive disinvestment. “Why would anyone invest in a state if the Legislature is prone to tighten restrictions?”
...
Senate Bill 608 also would require most landlords to cite a cause, such as failure to pay rent or other lease violation, when evicting renters after the first year of tenancy.
Some “landlord-based” for-cause evictions would be allowed, including the landlord moving in or a major renovation. In those cases, landlords would have to provide 90 days’ notice and pay one month’s rent to the tenant, though landlords with four or fewer units would be exempt from the payment.
Ultimately, what the bill would do is protect infants born-alive after botched abortions by being given appropriate medical care and penalize doctors who neglect to save the baby. IIRC, it was an older bill that was put up for vote recently due to my Governor's recent comments on the matter.
Under current law, these born-alive babies are recognized as human babies and with full rights-to-life, however this version of the law would be more explicit about not smothering live babies and getting away with -- what many consider -- murder as doctors in these cases currently do.
food/thought: only 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks, and even less still at 22 weeks -- NY just happened to pass a bill that technically allows it to 24 weeks. "my body, my choice" is getting dangerously close becoming "from my body, my choice" -- it also desensitizes us to death panels and other leftist tools to creating misery/death.
Being able to post a link, and actually understanding the subject matter, are two different things.
This bill was feel-good grandstanding, brought up at a strategically relevant time, to steer the political discourse. It's been successful in that regard.
Nobody is smothering babies right now, so this bill is useless.
Worse than useless, actually. All it would have done would be to make a criminal out of the doctor who induces early labor in a pregnancy whereby the fetus is not yet dead, but has such severe deformities that it will not survive, in order to allow the mother to hold her child in her arms for a few minutes before it dies.
Republicans: the party of not allowing mothers to hold their children in peace.
In many countries, abortion is legal in various circumstances at or after week 20 of pregnancy. It is not rare for children to be born alive in these cases, since according to the World Health Organisation, the limit of viability for premature babies is week 22 of pregnancy or 500 grams in weight.
If children are born alive after one of these abortions —known as an abortion survivors— they are usually left in the operating theatre until they die; if not, their life is ended by lethal injection or by suffocating them. The remains are then disposed of as medical waste (European Centre for Law & Justice. Late term abortion and neonatal infanticide in Europe. Petition to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, June 2015). Data on the number of abortion survivors
According to data from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (114; 639-642, 2007), around 10% of children survive abortions at 23 weeks of pregnancy, so it is not uncommon for the abovementioned events to occur.
In Canada, 662 children were born alive after failed abortions between 2000 and 2011 (“Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn”). In the United States between 2001 and 2010, this figure was 362.000.
In 12 late abortions carried out In Norway between 2010 and 2011, some of the babies were born alive (http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/...erm-abortions/). As a result of the findings, Norway prohibited abortion after 22 weeks.
I dunno if it's happening in the US, but the amount of babies born-alive after fail abortions in the US is a bit staggering...
Why are we a nation of abortions? cant we be a nation of birth control, or is that simply too much personal-responsibility?
Damn. I thought that was a typo just to do 3 zeros after the decimal point. Then I realized he meant 362k.
From a post high up - the more disturbing thing is that the viewpoint has changed. If anything, we've been sensitized to the conversation. The OLD argument, dare I say original argument, is that life begins at conception. And then from that point in time, it has been extended and extended and extended. I would have thought, there would have been a "no brainer" stop at 20 weeks. That's ~4.5 months into the pregnancy. But here we are arguing about 7-9 months into the pregnancy. If you were going to have an abortion, for the love of God (or whatever you believe in) - figure out what you want before 20 weeks. At some point, we as a people need to come to a damn agreement, all the way from neocon to neolib...when LIFE begins.
It's almost (I'd like to hear why) baffling to even need to argue/discuss why it's ok to have a bill that allows abortion up until the day of birth (9 months). And if an abortion FAILED, shouldn't that be a data point that the minimum time for life is at LEAST that?
Brain I agree with you, I'm old school - and am hopeful I can still pass that on to my kids... but sex has consequences. And one of those consequences is life. If you're not ready for that consequence - no matter how many protections you put on yourself...then you shouldn't do it. We've lost the value of life.
02-25-2019, 05:13 PM
where do I sign up to invest?!
0
