Need some concise refutation points and positive points regarding the

[sprinkleeninow]

New Green Deal.

Replying to an email from 'a senator'.

This business of 'costing every taxpayer or person $65k over the next ten years'. I read refutation and valid counters to that which I guess repubs are throwing around. But I can't re-gather what I read or where.

I gave him some heavy words already about improper use of military funds, raiding those funds to bankroll 'wall of stupid'.

I need à point statements. Neutral, but truthful. I don't want to totally bum him out. They already have knowledge I'm not of them.

Ever so grateful. 😊

[EveHammond13]

1. he already knows his talking points are lies

I'd suggest replying "eat shit" or something like that.

[sprinkleeninow]

3. It's a senator. I need to show decorum on my end. 😊

[Make7]

2. I haven't looked into cost details of the GND, but do remember the Medicare-For-All cost debate.

The right wing press took a Koch funded study to blare the headlines that it would cost $32 trillion over ten years. Which sounds impossible to fund, but that study actually estimated that Medicare-For-All would reduce the total amount spent compared to the current health care system by $2 trillion.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf#page=7

If Medicare-For-All would end up costing less overall, how can it be impossible to pay for? Americans are already paying more for the current healthcare system. Of course Medicare-For-All could be paid for.
___

Let's take a quick look at the fantasized $94 trillion price tag for the Green New Deal:

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-green-new-deal-scope-scale-and-implications/

That uses the the highest estimate in each category to arrive at that cost figure. I propose using the lowest estimate for each category - which seems just as valid as choosing to use the highest. That would bring the fantasy price down to $53 trillion.

Then the largest single item in the fantasized $94 trillion price tag for the Green New Deal is universal healthcare. They priced it at $36 trillion. It would probably save money overall, but let's just say it will cost the same as what we are paying for the current system (while covering tens of millions of more people and also reducing out of pocket expenses), so we can reduce their GND price tag to $17 trillion.

I reduced their "estimated" cost for a Green New Deal by over 80% in just a few minutes. Their price estimate can't be taken seriously if someone can do that so quickly.

The range for their estimate is so large because the Green New Deal is not a piece of legislation that you can attach concrete numbers to - it is more of values and goals to aspire to. An actual debate would require discussing the merits and cost/benefits of each of the major parts of the proposal - not just estimating the largest price tag possible to paint it all as impossible with one big broad brush.

The talking points about the GND banning cows and airplanes is completely disingenuous - anyone spouting that nonsense isn't worth engaging. That $94 trillion price guesstimate isn't much better.

Keep in mind, these numbers are coming from the people that say tax cuts will pay for themselves. Federal revenues are actually down for last year - after the tax cut. It's hard to argue with people that believe in magical numbers.

[sprinkleeninow]

4. Thanx for this. I know--your last paragraph. That's a given that I thought of

in my response to the email the senator sent regarding the cost per capita of this New Green Deal.

He's 'one of them', but not nearly obnoxious as some others. Not that my words will have a strong impact. Just doing my part letting him know my sentiments as one of his constituents.

No mention of cow and airplane banning. I can't visualize him as being so off the wall to put that rubbish into an email.

I may ask him to provide any actuarial evidence/data to support his statement.