DiscussMormonism.com

...is green because its moldy and rotten, a.k.a. "trash":

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D., Mass.) introduced a Green New Deal bill Thursday that, in addition to transitioning the U.S. entirely to renewable energy in ten years, promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”

unwilling to work but guaranteed economic security*? does someone have the numbers on how this is accomplished?

It is stated in their "1st Pillar" of the GND, which goes on to offer little gems like:

2. Worker's rights including the right to a living wage, to a safe workplace, to fair trade, and to organize a union at work without fear of firing or reprisal.

which to a Democrat probably sounds great...but it begs the question, if, by Right, you have a living wage, safe workplace, and fair trade....why would you need a Union?

I mean we have a right to "public safety" but not a right to organize as vigilantes...that is what Police are for...so why does these labor rights need privatized and for-fee enforcement?

*economic security = A situation of having a stable source of financial income that allows for the on-going maintenance of one's standard of living currently and in the near future.

The ability to negotiate the terms of employment as you see fit, which includes by choosing to negotiate as a collective or not, is a matter of economic liberty. There are things other than bare living wage, workplace safety, and fair trade that a person might want to negotiate for. There's a whole range of things related to workplace conditions and demands not on that list even if you ignore the fact that people may want more than a living wage. Perhaps you've negotiated for some of those things in your job, but even if you haven't, that's something people should be at liberty to do.

Of course, since you're not an economic conservative so much as a lackey for entrenched wealthy interests, the whole notion of actual free market activity as a virtue is lost on you, but there you have it.

EAllusion wrote:The ability to negotiate the terms of employment as you see fit, which includes by choosing to negotiate as a collective or not, is a matter of economic liberty. There are things other than bare living wage, workplace safety, and fair trade that a person might want to negotiate for. There's a whole range of things related to workplace conditions and demands not on that list even if you ignore the fact that people may want more than a living wage. Perhaps you've negotiated for some of those things in your job, but even if you haven't, that's something people should be at liberty to do.

Of course, since you're not an economic conservative so much as a lackey for entrenched wealthy interests, the whole notion of actual free market activity as a virtue is lost on you, but there you have it.

Ah, your math of free market=more government is interesting but how is the right to "negotiate how one sees fit" manifest by the specific mention of "Union"? If your alleged reasoning is sound then the clause should mention negotiation in a broader term.
But that's cool, the organized "unwilling to work" lodge has some sweet negotiation leverage coming its way.

The "green new deal" is yet more complete insanity that is becoming common place from the leftists.

All I can say is vote Trump in 2020 and vote often. America hangs in the balance.

... promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”

Interesting. CFR?

ETA: I found this line, in the GND FAQ. Unless that’s a typo (the same statement is not part of the GND web page, which states that it seeks employment for all “willing and able”) then I’d expect to see some details on how that would work. Nothing else on the FAQ or from the web page backs up this one line.

subgenius wrote:Ah, your math of free market=more government is interesting but how is the right to "negotiate how one sees fit" manifest by the specific mention of "Union"? If your alleged reasoning is sound then the clause should mention negotiation in a broader term.

Since you don't believe in free market capitalism, this is probably a foreign concept to you, but free market capitalism is dependent on government enforcement of transaction rules.

Forbidding unions from negotiating the terms of contract by artificially limiting their collective bargaining power is "more government." The ability to say to a prospective employer that you'll only work for them if they only hire people who belong to an organization you belong to on their terms is fundamentally an economic liberty that can only be taken away, not granted. If an employer doesn't like that, they of course can decline to employ you. We call those organizations "unions." They are highly regulated by the government to limit their capacity by law to negotiate on their terms. This is a situation you seem to prefer because, again, you don't believe in free market capitalism. But proposals to loosen and/or modify those regulations to open up union power to something closer to a state of nature without government interference isn't "more government."

canpakes wrote:

... promises to provide “economic security for those unable or unwilling to work.”

Interesting. CFR?

apart from just about all the major news outlets these past few days, try something refreshing and new...like checking the link in the OP.

which you will need to see archives becsuse it has since OP been edited due to subsequent embarassment.

subgenius wrote:

Interesting. CFR?

apart from just about all the major news outlets these past few days, try something refreshing and new...like checking the link in the OP.

Your link does not have this phrase within it.

I had to search elsewhere to find something that matched it. So far, only a FAQ release. That’s why I’m wondering if your hair fire is all about a typo.

Otherwise, can you point to where this phrase shows up in the GP or GND official pages?

subgenius wrote:which you will need to see archives becsuse it has since OP been edited due to subsequent embarassment.

Aha. Now you’re catching up.

So, your hair fire was all about a typo. Cool.

Ceeboo wrote:All I can say is vote Trump in 2020 and vote often. America hangs in the balance.

If you want to lose your freedom keep voting for Trump. It amazes me how completely stupid people have to be to have voted for Trump the first time. You had a number of decent conservatives to vote for and you went bat crap crazy for a guy who was an obvious train wreck.