Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's tax plan

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by doug_328d

True. But they have a place in a grid best served with a variety of sources.

So I'm no expert but I gather that the ability for wind and solar to power everything is so far from being a reality that even if we got off of fossil fuel we'd still need nukes and a hell of a lot more capacity than we have now.

[arkie6]

Originally Posted by ScarecrowBoat

It is literally not real. Read the actual plan or the FAQ she posted and not some fake news from a Trump dick sucking site.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/medi...n-new-deal-faq

"Page Not Found" I guess they took it down.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by arkie6

"Page Not Found" I guess they took it down.

I know, but I'm confused about who's dick is getting sucked.....might be the rum talking.

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by arkie6

"Page Not Found" I guess they took it down.

https://t.co/57xNzzcSKr?amp=1

That's the archive.

Love this part.

*Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Delta0311

https://t.co/57xNzzcSKr?amp=1

That's the archive.

Love this part.

*Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

As I've stated in another thread, "Will the last person in the room of our soon-to-be former republic please turn off the lights and close the door when they leave."

WTF?!?!!!

[******]

..

[WestRace]

The democrats is somewhat a contradiction. Obama was always for the little people but he nominated Yellen whose QE probably hurts the poors more than anything else. I never liked QE, but I guess he got a lot of stuffs from the banks and the banks don't do stuffs out of charity.

A lot of people pointed to the Constitution as the reasons for America stability. Well I think they probably got it only half right. Half of it is the people who live within it and agree to abide by it.

The mistake the left makes is that they assume the Constitution comes first before the people, but I think it's better making policies assuming the other way around.

[WestRace]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oc...ral-2019-02-10

Not to knock on her or anything but I don't think it's that easy just as it's not that easy with her Green New Deal. Hopefully she'll learn life is not as academic as she think it is. Something telling me most of her followers are similar to the Kardashian crowds. They sort of see things on the surface without knowing the actual details.

As for the anti corporation mentality, for better or worse, the corporations are what made this country. Is it perfect? Probably not, but choosing between corporations and bureaucracy red tapes? Hopefully it is not an either or kind of thing, but more like a percentage of each. I'd say 70% corporation 30% government.

[Delta0311]

Point to ponder. Same lefties that protest gas pipelines because they will cross indigenous lands and might disrupt the local ecosystem, are perfectly ok with building high speed rail networks across the US. Apparently those rails won't pass through indigenous lands or affect the ecosystem.

Green New Deal; welcome to your first taste of communism, America. And at this point they are not even being very subtle about it.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by doug_328d

Green New Deal is a fairly vague, although polarizing, outline at this point.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtez-ed-markey

If most recent IPCC reports are correct, we face trillions in costs as a nation dealing with the consequences of climate change. Seems like some ideas from GND mixed with ideas from conservatives could strike a balance between protecting our economy while reducing long term risk. Conservatives and progressive both want their grandchildren to have healthy lives.

Given how slow governments move, nobody will be taking our BMW keys anytime soon. And I'm looking forward to more electric motors and next gen battery packs in our vehicles, especially if we get Tesla roadster performance.

1) If most recent IPCC reports are correct.

That is a lot of money to spend on an "if".

2) we face trillions in costs as a nation dealing with the consequences of climate change.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is no consensus that man is a major cause of climate change or if the current trends will even continue. Again, why spend trillions now to have the government try and fix a problem that may or may not exist and with plans that may or may not work, but absolutely take control of various items away from the private market and put them in the hands of politicians that rarely have the interests of anyone other than themselves in mind?

3) Conservatives and progressive both want their grandchildren to have healthy lives.

Of course they do, but why does the answer for so many progressives have to be "more government control"? That is the beef. All these programs want to essentially take my money and distribute it on horrendously expensive programs that have no history of working and are trying to solve a problem that might or might not be real.

4) Given how slow governments move, nobody will be taking our BMW keys anytime soon.

Anytime soon? Probably not, but one thing I've learned is that if you give any type of government officials an inch of rope - sooner than you think, they have managed to convince you to give them more and more and eventually, it is enough to hang you with.

[arkie6]

The only "green" in the Green New Deal is money to be fleeced from consumers and taxpayers.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by arkie6

The only "green" in the Green New Deal is money to be fleeced from consumers and taxpayers.

Yessir - a couple of other points to note:

First - an article in the journal "Nature Climate Change” assessed 117 climate predictions from the 1990s and found that only three had been accurate. The other 114 studies all overestimated the amount of warming, with predictions averaging twice the actual increase. Now, when I see a failure rate of 97.4%, that is not something I am excited to spend my money on. Just sayin'.....

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate...20estimate.pdf
https://www.foxnews.com/science/clim...ng-study-finds


Also, I noticed some specifics in the 'Green New Deal' that are so egrareous, that I have to basically call them outright lies.

1) AOC states in the proposal that "The cost in lost annual economic output in the United States could be more than $500 billion annually by the year 2100."

This number is pulled from last fall’s congressionally-mandated Fourth National Climate Assessment. It is the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) most extreme estimate, which assumes that temperatures will rise by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100. The Democrats’ Green New Deal proposal claims that warming is already at least 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrialized levels. The USGCRP bases its claims on a report which anticipates much smaller GDP loss in the event of more mild warming. If temperatures rise by 2 degrees Celsius instead of 8 degrees, the loss in GDP would only be about one-fourth as large. Instead of $500 billion, the annual predicted cost would be about $125 billion.

That is still a lot of money, but it’s not really as much as it sounds. One billion dollars 80 years from now is worth a lot less than a billion dollars today. With an interest rate of just 2% above inflation, $99 million in the bank today will be worth $500 billion in 2100. $25 million will get you $125 billion. So $25 million in lost economic output....for 153 million working adults. That comes out to 16 cents per person. Wow - whatever will we do??? And this is for the "WORST CASE SCENARIO".

2) Another gigantic number in the report is “risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States.”

A trillion dollars is a lot of money, but a “risk” is hardly certain. Even with the most extreme temperature estimates, what damage might occur is many decades away. AOC claims, "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” But AOC's cost estimates are for 80 years from now, belying her own apocalyptic hyperbole. We have only fairly recently emerged from the Little Ice Age, which existed from approximately 1300 to 1870. A few degrees increase from this cold baseline hardly seems catastrophic.

Supposedly, the push for a clean economy “will require”: public ownership of much of the economy, government-run healthcare, "family sustainable" wages, “family farming,” paid family leave, unionization of workers, and "affordable" housing. Global warming seems to justify every program that Democrats have ever wanted. This brings me to number 3, the socialization of medical care.

3) To AOC, socialistic entitlements are more than a right. They are a moral obligation. Americans support charity and caring for the less fortunate. But if it truly is a “right” and a “moral” obligation to ensure the health of all, that obligation doesn’t stop at our borders. If the top 1% of Americans should pay 70% marginal tax rates, why shouldn't the top 1% of the world?

The “top 1%” of the world’s rich must be an exclusive club with money to spare. According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2018, the top 1% of adults account for more than 47% of household wealth globally. But surprisingly, The Global Rich List indicates that an income of a mere $32,400 a year puts you in the top 1% worldwide.

If Americans in the top 1% worldwide had to pay 70% of their income to meet the moral obligation of providing universal healthcare, the attractiveness of “free healthcare for all” would lose its luster.

Okay rant over - TLDR: This is a fraud. Promising “free” anything is always popular in campaigns. As George Bernard Shaw quipped, “When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.” If Democrats even partially get their way, we will be leaving a much, much poorer country to our children.

[Schwarzschild Radius]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

I know, but I'm confused about who's dick is getting sucked.....might be the rum talking.

Did you bring enough for everyone?

[arkie6]

It is nothing more than socialism disguised as environmentalism.

This article from Charles Krauthammer 11 years ago is just as relevant today:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...socialism.html

[WestRace]

I don't think the real target is AOC. There may be an agenda and she's just the messenger. Attacking her could just be an act of self indulging in your own prejudice.

[arkie6]

The main driver behind the Green New Deal is nothing but a fraud.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/...ous-socialism/

“…they created the problem, created the proof of the problem, then offered the solution. This is what was done with the AGW claim. They assumed, incorrectly, that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They then provided proof by programming computer models in which a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. They ran the model(s) by doubling CO2, ceteris paribus. The results showed a temperature increase, which proved their claim. Now they could use CO2 as the lever for all their political objectives … Science became the basis of blind faith.”

[2000cs]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

Did you bring enough for everyone?

I hope you’re referring to the rum.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

"Attacking her could just be an act of self indulging in your own prejudice."

Okay, so seriously, exactly what does that mean?

[WestRace]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

I'd take that lol's.

[Schwarzschild Radius]

Originally Posted by arkie6

It is nothing more than socialism disguised as environmentalism.

This article from Charles Krauthammer 11 years ago is just as relevant today:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...socialism.html

I liked Krauthammer:


".......A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.

And in 2017, he wrote that he had been convinced that Donald Trump Jr.’s emails regarding a meeting between the Trump campaign and a “Russian government attorney” — in which the president’s son replied “I love it” to the prospect of receiving potentially damaging information regarding Clinton — constituted collusion.

Once you’ve said “I’m in,” it makes no difference that the meeting was a bust, that the intermediary brought no such goods. What matters is what Donald Jr. thought going into the meeting, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who were forwarded the correspondence, invited to the meeting, and attended. ... There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor

[glennQNYC]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

I liked Krauthammer:


".......A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it's a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I've explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.

And in 2017, he wrote that he had been convinced that Donald Trump Jr.'s emails regarding a meeting between the Trump campaign and a "Russian government attorney" — in which the president's son replied "I love it" to the prospect of receiving potentially damaging information regarding Clinton — constituted collusion.

Once you've said "I'm in," it makes no difference that the meeting was a bust, that the intermediary brought no such goods. What matters is what Donald Jr. thought going into the meeting, as well as Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who were forwarded the correspondence, invited to the meeting, and attended. ... There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor

I also was a Krauthammer fan, but he and I disagreed on Trump. Perhaps he was too much part of the establishment-wing of the Republican Party. 🤔

Putting my personal feelings aside... if receiving damaging information from a foreign source is deemed illegal, then a LOT of current and former politicians should start worrying... First of whom is Hillary Clinton. Remember, the Steel Dossier fits this exact definition... and the Clinton Campaign paid for it!

My theory is the Trump Tower meeting will never become a real issue, because it would be exposed for the setup/frame job it was.

[arkie6]

Originally Posted by arkie6

"Page Not Found" I guess they took it down.

Sometimes, something is just so over-the-top stupid, that you have to disappear it.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/...-the-internet/