You pick AOC and Bernie as examples of people fighting for the middle class. AOC's Green New Deal would've destroyed the middle class. She probably means well, but she really is just a useful idiot.
I am sort of confused by this. There was never even any actual concrete legislation to pass.
AOC introduced a resolution (text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio...) which if passed, would have basically just affirmed (in a non-binding way) the interest of the house to create a "Green New Deal". The actual legislation itself would, if the house agreed to do so, need to then be created, debated, and voted on before being passed.
"House resolutions are not binding law, but rather express the collective sentiment of the House on a particular issue, person, or event."
The actual resolution itself is pretty short, and I find most of the statements and goals in it pretty tame and agreeable. But again, it is not as if this resolution being passed means that all of those things necessarily must end up in the actual Green New Deal to be passed or even that it gets created at all.
Could you elaborate on how this would destroy the middle class? I might have missed something but there was never even any policy proposed, because the Green New Deal was never created to be voted on. I don't understand how you can make an evaluation like that without examining the actual policies to go into effect.
- assume my "filters" are wrong. A difference of opinions doesn't mean my filters are wrong. It simply means I made different conclusions. If you want to support AOC and her policies, go for it. I won't partake.
- believe I'm in a bubble. Right. That's why I'm on HN; because I'm in a bubble and you think exactly as I do?
- Now I believe in a flat earth. That's just a wasted comment.
- Pointing to the "New Deal" that "saved the middle class". It's highly debatable if the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression or not. While it helped many Americans keep food on the table, no doubt, it didn't stop the Great Depression. Regardless, I can turn around and say, I want the "____ New Deal", and it must be good because that's what I called it? That's a laughable concept.
By your measure, healthcare actually became more affordable after the Affordable Healthcare Act became law - because that's the title of the law?
Regardless, I agree that the infrastructure can be improved. My state is already doing it. They've rebuilt an interchange in record time because a bridge wall collapsed. What is your state doing?
Stating that everyone should have access to "high-quality health care" or "economic security" isn't an olive branch. Obviously no one disagrees with that. The discussion is "how", and that's the only important discussion to have.
But, if you want to stick with mudslinging and belittling those who disagree with you, go for it.
AOC introduced a resolution (text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolutio...) which if passed, would have basically just affirmed (in a non-binding way) the interest of the house to create a "Green New Deal". The actual legislation itself would, if the house agreed to do so, need to then be created, debated, and voted on before being passed.
"House resolutions are not binding law, but rather express the collective sentiment of the House on a particular issue, person, or event."
The actual resolution itself is pretty short, and I find most of the statements and goals in it pretty tame and agreeable. But again, it is not as if this resolution being passed means that all of those things necessarily must end up in the actual Green New Deal to be passed or even that it gets created at all.
Could you elaborate on how this would destroy the middle class? I might have missed something but there was never even any policy proposed, because the Green New Deal was never created to be voted on. I don't understand how you can make an evaluation like that without examining the actual policies to go into effect.