A true source doesn’t make a fake one more valid regardless of where someone’s heart being in the right place. The only difference at stake is the difference between verifiable news and fake information that is clearly meant to confuse and cause anger at certain politicians.

This is very different - and Representatives get to some direct federal grants in their district

Representatives aren’t allowed to receive speaking fees or sponsorships - also try looking up this ‘article’ or finding evidence that it did happen.

Nope it is fake news - speaking fees and sponsorships are good flags of that

This is fake post - please don’t report obviously fake material

Why you can immediately spot this as fake news

It is fake news

They aren’t - this is fake news

Too bad it is fake news

This is fake news - please don’t fall for obvious bs

Nope - it is fake news

This is fake news - AOC (or any politician) doesn’t collect speaking fees or sponsorship fees.

If you are going for MMM type of argument - then you misunderstand MMM. One of the main results from MMM is that the primary use of taxation is to reduce the inflationary effects of government spending rather than raising revenue.

The greater efficiency of spending would also prob grow the economy and lead to much higher levels of consumption — yet with much lower emissions.

We prob wouldn’t consume less even if there was a massive shift to non-auto transport. We would just substitute to consuming goods/services are far less emissions intensive (and prob bring us much greater happiness per dollar).

Also if we want to end the use of coal - we are going to have to produce a ton of solar, wind, ect infrastructure

Consuming less physical goods - probably yes - but that doesn’t mean total consumption, incomes, or GDP has to fall

If we were actually concerned abt fire safety we would have sprinklers mandated in every new home and ban super long double loaded corridors instead of banning single stair buildings.

Everything you describe happens when we prevent housing from being built where people want to live - our failure to build new housing near jobs, transit, and in walkable communities means more sprawl, more wildlife destroyed, and more driving for longer and longer commutes.

If you double people’s income and don’t build any more housing - housing costs will likely just double. Back when people were able to afford housing, we were building ~ twice the number of relative units.

A lot of those things can’t just be converted into housing.

Tons of room in Pacifica CA. Also we could make it easy/legal to do a tear down and replace the sfh with a duplex.

Housing is still gonna be expensive.

This! More homes = landlords compete over tenants instead of tenants competing with one another

So in some cities landlords are less greedy than in others?

When there is a lack of supply - who ends up getting that limited supply, the people who have a ton of money. Should we instead allocate housing by lottery or just build more housing so there isn’t a shortage where people want to live.

How is that any different than mom and pop landlords who own 12 single family homes.

Unemployment

If transit was free and nothing else changed - people would still set aside a large fraction of their income towards transportation because the time cost of transit is too high. Spending $$ on improving service goes a lot father towards reducing peoples transportation costs than on free fares.

It is a way bigger cost than the transit fare ever is