(07-16-2019 08:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 11:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 10:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Can you run through the policy proposals in the Green New Deal and why those specific proposals aren’t things that someone who understand finance would propose?

I’ll definitely agree with your comment about the starry eyed idealist.

Some of the individual proposals are feasible, but not all at once in a 12-year plan. Others just are not feasible at all.

I am going out of town, and cannot take the time to go over each proposal with you. I suggest you read it, and ask yourself HOW these things can all be done at the same time. You're an engineer, tell us HOW. In some cases, Task A needs to be completed before Task B can be started, and some of these tasks will require a lot more than 12 years. And Task C must wait on Task B. And task D is impossible to begin with. And so forth. The GND is why I call her an idealist. She focuses on what she thinks SHOULD be done, with no idea of the cost or logistics of doing it.

I've read it. The reason I was asking is that the Green New Deal doesn't actually propose anything, since it is a resolution that outlines goals that should be attempted to be completed within the next 10 years - a sort of moon shot, if you will. There are many people that actually think it contains concrete proposals and details, which it doesn't (see stop cows from farting).

That's why I agree that she is a starry-eyed idealist. And that is definitely not an issue I have with her. I have no problem with someone goal setting, building a consensus on the goals, and then working through the details of how to achieve them. Almost no big project starts with all of the details worked out - they start with saying I want to do X, Y, and Z, and then figuring out how to make it work.

It's not a long read - if you haven't read it fully, there are probably some parts you agree with: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1...s109ih.pdf

So we will revamp transportation and infrastructure and every building the US and eliminate pollution from our energy production and revamp agriculture and manufacturing while guaranteeing a job to every person (why would they want or need one, anyway?)while building light rail everywhere and, and and.

Some of these thing are good 50 year projects. Some are feasible if taken alone. But to do it all at once - to go from where we are today to Utopia in 10 years - yes, it is idealistic to the nth degree. Isn't this where a critical eye should be employed?

Her plan sounds more like a 5th grader's plan. All puppies and kitten. Yes, it would be nice is everybody could be nice and eat healthy and smile, and, and, and. If you want to spend your time on working out how to meet these goals, fine. Tell us when you know how to do it, and at a cost that is supportable.

I’m sure the actual New Deal’s goals sounded the same way - think of the fact that the Hoover Dam was designed and built in the 30s. We’ve lost the ability to set ambitious goals on a large scale and attempt to achieve them.

I’d rather our leaders set ambitious goals, attempt to achieve them, and perhaps fall short, then not set goals at all. The entirety of the resolution is not impossible to achieve - so let’s identify key areas we agree need to be addressed, and address them. But there is a ton of misinformation floating around about the GND, and it has become a conservative boogeyman.

The Hoover Dam and the Apollo project were led by people who understood that to turn an idea into reality required them to do the hard work of assembling the right team of experts to work the details, while campaigning tirelessly for buy-in and funding.

Leaders like that are rare now. They've been replaced by magical thinkers, who define leadership as being able to articulate their vision in an inspirational way, believing that if they can do that, then what they envision will happen. Magical thinking is the scourge of modern business and political leadership. I'd say that AOC isn't so much an idealist as a magical thinker.