Yes, doom is implicit in those statements
Well, I read the whole thing and I'm not feeling particularly doomed, either from anything in the proposal, or your reaction to it.
The information used as a basis for their position is largely accurate and well supported, rather than exaggerated portents of doom. Their stated goals are generally laudable, but varying degrees of impractical, especially with regard to the timeline, while the means for attaining those goals are left quite vague.
I suspect they are quite consciously asking for more than they expect to get, so they don't have to compromise too far to get something workable. The devil will be in the details we don't yet have, but it's hard to imagine that they'll ultimately amount to economic disaster, or even wind up costing more in the long run than doing nothing. Of course, it would be prudent for anyone with a vested interest in the outcome to make sure their interests are represented, which will be difficult to do without understanding what's going on and where this stuff is coming from.
As to your last point; the lunatic over reaction and bizarrely harmful policy prescriptions in the making could be said to be doing the same.
Doing the same what? Driving people toward, or away from, supporting their forthcoming legislation?
No, I discuss the things you guys say, but interject my own counterpoints which you fail to grasp which is a completely different thing.
Many of your counterpoints are directed at points that no one was trying to make...which makes them tangents, at best, rather than counterpoints.