Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has a challenger for her seat.

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
In intellectual terms you are correct, she is a nobody. In terms of organizing
other weak minded persons she is problematic.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if you believe the science or not. The rest of the world does and is moving forward in technology while you would have us ignore a global market.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if you believe the science or not. The rest of the world does and is moving forward in technology while you would have us ignore a global market.
It may be a global market, the US is currently the big guy on the block, it is the attempt to bust us, a country (in their mind) conceived in racism and people of "no color." It's time to even the score and make us all "equal." That is their pervasive view on every front.
Just my opinion.
Oil is the driver of all, there is nothing to replace it currently and maintain the status of living in any nation, developed or undeveloped.
My opinion once again.
In the future maybe an equal, or better replacement will be developed, you don't cut yourself off at the knees to force change, the market should dictate, not political ideology however.
Just my opinion once again.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
With a cost over $90 Trillion it would definitely fall.
The sky is falling? So does this mean that the 3 trillion the new spending bill which the White House championed and took credit for is projected to add to the national debt is only going create overcast skies? So if you're so worried about the federal debt how come you've never spoken a word about the additional 3 trillion? And this is assuming that the economy will remain strong and federal receipts will meet projections.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
It may be a global market, the US is currently the big guy on the block, it is the attempt to bust us, a country (in their mind) conceived in racism and people of "no color." It's time to even the score and make us all "equal." That is their pervasive view on every front.
Just my opinion.
Oil is the driver of all, there is nothing to replace it currently and maintain the status of living in any nation, developed or undeveloped.
My opinion once again.
In the future maybe an equal, or better replacement will be developed, you don't cut yourself off at the knees to force change, the market should dictate, not political ideology however.
Just my opinion once again.
It would appear that we have two choices. Spend the money and begin the transition to cleaner burning fuel or give the Corp of Engineers and FEMA a bus load of money to go around buying up houses and move the people back, much further back from the shorelines.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
The sky is falling? So does this mean that the 3 trillion the new spending bill which the White House championed and took credit for is projected to add to the national debt is only going create overcast skies? So if you're so worried about the federal debt how come you've never spoken a word about the additional 3 trillion? And this is assuming that the economy will remain strong and federal receipts will meet projections.
I'm not thrilled about it either, but do you equate $9 Trillion a year with $3 Trillion?
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
I'm not thrilled about it either, but do you equate $9 Trillion a year with $3 Trillion?
It's either get after the problem now or start buying up and demolishing some of the most expensive shoreline properties located in some of the most densely populated regions of the nation. Imagine what that could do to local tax bases.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
It's either get after the problem now or start buying up and demolishing some of the most expensive shoreline properties located in some of the most densely populated regions of the nation. Imagine what that could do to local tax bases.
Build a seawall to save rich folks homes. We simply can't handle $90 Trillion. By the way read the other day that the mining of lithium, etc and manufacturing batteries for electric cars will have the opposite effect intended. Will actually put more CO2 into the air than diesel cars. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
The sky is falling? So does this mean that the 3 trillion the new spending bill which the White House championed and took credit for is projected to add to the national debt is only going create overcast skies? So if you're so worried about the federal debt how come you've never spoken a word about the additional 3 trillion? And this is assuming that the economy will remain strong and federal receipts will meet projections.

you're making an argument for spending 90 trillion by pointing out a 3 trillion spending bill?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
How come adding 3 trillion to the national debt is suddenly a nonissue to the Repugs?
It's a $3 Trillion spending bill, not $3 Trillion to the debt. Your logic is hard to follow: if we're going to spend $3 Trillion might as well spend $9 Trillion a year for the next 10? And that's just what she wants to spend to "save" the planet.
 
Top