Ocasio-Cortez suggests 70% tax for wealthy to fund climate change plan

Well, that's an important point to think about. I agree with you that businesses will invent whatever is needed to solve the problem--given time. But I feel very strongly we should work toward elimination of fossil fuel use ASAP, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal seems a reasonable & thoughtful & ambitious way to get started.

 

It sounds fine and happy and wonderful, but is literally impossible. The numbers don't work out. It would wreck our economy and in turn destroy the world, since if we go, everyone goes. She's insane or just figures stupid people will think, no big deal...money is free

 

I agree! So, go into competition with these 'wealthiest families' and take their market place and their sales away from them. Then YOU can be the multi-billionaire who decides how things are going to go... right? And when they come to tax YOU to death and confiscate nearly everything you've accumulated, YOU won't mind... right?

Ah, "Hypocrite, they name is Democrat!" I know you've heard of "Fat Cat Republicans"... now, have you ever heard of "Limousine Liberals"...?! No? Why the hell doesn't THAT surprise me....

"Now get this -- my people are working on a car that runs on dried cow turds! At three bucks a turd, that's money in the bank...."

.

 

I agree with you that a fusion reactor would be the ultimate solution for our current problems regarding CO2 in the atmosphere. Dr Steven Greer MD, is pushing a zero-point energy source similar to that envisioned & possibly invented by the late Nicola Tesla. While I do support rapid conversion to new green energy sources, I also support increasing research into both potential energy sources just mentioned. I also agree with Tesla that those new energy sources be made available to everyone either free, or at cost, or with legal limits on profit margins imposed by government & kept at no more than 10%. I say this because we live in an economic environment where company attention to profits dictates availability of energy resources made available to the public. Energy is crucial to society, and making it expensive for company profits, damages that society and the country that houses it. The needs of the society should outweigh the greed of the companies involved.

 

While I do agree with you in principle, I honestly don't know that it is possible to arbitrarily dictate a profit margin's upper threshold for the initial R&D required for hydrogen fusion. How much is too much? How much is 'sufficient' for successful development and deployment throughout the world? I can't answer those questions.

I do know this -- initial startup costs for nearly anything of any great importance are staggering! Then, after acceptance, ubiquitous usage, and the passing of time, the costs decelerate remarkably. But government involvement is a two-edged sword! It WAS necessary, especially during World War II, for the government to become very heavily involved in the development of thermonuclear reactors for instance... but, on the other hand, look at the rotten, corrupt, inept mess government made of the whole Solyndra debacle.

The ironic thing is that the Chinese will probably be the first to master hydrogen fusion, if only because they are the ones who are in the greatest need for vast amounts of energy production with greatly reduced pollution as a by-product.

 

Complete horseshit, no one is making that argument.

But this, on the other hand, is interesting:

Popular Science‏Verified account @PopSci


Great tits are killing birds and eating their brains. Climate change may be to blame. http://pops.ci/killertits


11:32 AM - 10 Jan 2019

 

We did make progress during the Obama years, but Trump is actively trying to reverse that. We should be a world leader in reversing global warming.

 

She's neither stupid nor insane. She has a degree in economics and another in international relations. She's a bright, resourceful, energetic, dedicated public servant, and hopefully, a national leader into the coming decades.

 

I don't want promote more "competition" with the existing super-wealthy. Competition rewards a small minority of "winners" while creating a cesspool filled with "losers." Competition is NOT the answer. A system of economics that includes sharing a sizable percentage of the profits with the workers who made those profits possible, is a better way. Capitalism as we know it, and have practiced it for generations, must be reformed. Some sort of profit-sharing system must be devised and adopted nationally. The shrinking middle class must be revived. THAT would make America "great again."

 

Still are but TDS doesn’t allow rational thought.

 

The lack of rational thought afflicts both sides of the political spectrum. I don't see much in the way of rational thought among Trump enthusiasts. But, of course, that connects to the fact that Trump himself is seldom capable of such thought. Birds of a feather. . .I guess.

 

And yet, he whipped your asses!

AOC stiffed campaign staff on workers’ comp?



Also: Stiffed on tax-writing committee assignment.

 

Yeah, and look at what we all have in the Oval Office.

 

He doubled GDP growth. Democrats want to rob our freedoms with Socialism

Karl Marx And The Great Socialist Revival

"Regardless of Marx’s intentions, his doctrines spurred perpetual dread in hundreds of millions of victims... Two hundred years after Marx’s birth, never forget that a philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation..."

Socialism’s popularity is reviving in America. A self-proclaimed socialist won the Democratic nomination for a congressional seat in the Bronx, and Democratic Socialist candidates are thriving in many areas of the nation. The Washington Post reported in July that it’s “been a good summer for the Democratic Socialists of America,” who have “never had more adherents or more clout.” The Democratic Socialists of America openly calls for the abolition of capitalism.



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-11/karl-marx-and-great-socialist-revival

Cortez is the future of the Democrat party

 

A degree means absolutely nothing when you spout off economic policy that would cripple us. She obviously wasted her money. Are you being paid for this glowing endorsement?

 

Although I cannot help but sympathize with some aspects of your socialistic, egalitarian viewpoint, I would remind you that for at least the past 5,000 years, a person EARNS what he/she is WORTH on the human labor market, based on what a person can produce, what a person knows, and what that person represents as VALUE to potential customers-at-large, or, to an employer.

A 'brain surgeon' may be worth several million dollars per year. A 'ditch-digger' may be worth minimum wage. A corporation's CEO that increases the value of its shareholders may be worth many millions of dollars per year. Some drug-addicted, drunk, homeless bum illegally camping, where he pisses, craps, and vomits in a waterway that flows through a city park may be worth absolutely nothing, but gets multiple kinds of welfare, 'subsidies', and 'services' anyway....

Put it another way -- look at that computer you're using right now. The computers of twenty years ago were absolutely PRIMITIVE by comparison, and cost maybe three or four times more? What made the computers 'better'? What made the price of the computers decrease sharply? COMPETITION! Now... you can extend that same kind comparison to many other product sectors as well....

Who improves the quality of life for human civilization more -- the 'greedy, rich' corporation CEO, or, the drug-addicted, drunk homeless bum. At least, please give it some thought... and maybe ask yourself, "What am I worth to the world?" And if you aren't being compensated fairly -- go in business for yourself, or, get a different job!

 

Dems always love taxing other people. They love making other people play, thy however rarely ever want to pay

 

Dems ask: How do you solve a problem like Alexandria?

"How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?"

 

LOL now its a negative to assume a lease agreemnt? Your opinion gets stranger by the post.

Which is exactly my response to you.

And yet you have no evidence she wouldn't have signed into the lease agreement. Its hysterical watching you fall backward into hypocrisy so easily.

Tell me, why would anyone be stupid enough to have a stranger room with them and not have them liable with the owner of the property for anything they do while living there? Can you explain the stupidity in that assumption of yours?

And just because you were never smart enough to do so doesn't make you right either.

ROFLOL Such delicious hyporacy and you still can't even see yourself doing it.

and it doesn't mean it does either Wanna keep up this dance?

Then the law is enforced. So simple a Canadian can get it.

Considering the holes in your argument its no surprise.

And I've invited you to find anywhere it said in the advertisement she wouldn't and you can't. We got that.

Actually that's exactly what you said.

OMG Cubed. You have to have this explained as well? A lease is specifically for housing providers aka the owners of a property entering a contract with those who wish to lease protecting the owner and the tenant rights.

Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse or are you really so uneducated on the subject?

Look I get it. You made a false assumption and now you want to backtrack. Its ok I expected nothing less from you. You lost the moment I asked you to provide the wording from the advertisement that she would not have to sign into the lease because its the only way you could possibly be right and you couldn't do it.

Thanks for staying predictable. And thanks for walking about your claim I've run from multiple threads. Listen next time don't let your emotions overtake your judgement and you will be able to stay in the game longer

 

Here's more:

 

Yes actually. Now your catching on. Took you a bit.

So prove there was a lease agreement. I'll wait.

You want me to explain why people do stupid things? Because people are stupid.

I mean, there are people who literally chew into tide pods to get YouTube famous.

I commend your positive assumptions about the human race, but unfortunately reality doesn't agree with you.

Actually, when the question is "do people rent a room without a lease agreement", then yes, it actually does make me right (intelligence of the decision aside)

Delicious eh? Man you really get off on this whole "arguing on the internet" thing eh? Sounds kind of narcissistic to be honest.

Well I don't need evidence to say there is no agreement, and you do need evidence to say there is....so that would mean that your the lead partner and it seems you forgot the dance steps.

Except no law was enforced here. Remember? You said so yourself that she didn't want a lawsuit....

"So focused on the sliver in your brother's eye, that you ignored the log in your own"

And again, when their is no evidence of such, it's assumed their is none until some is presented.

So present away. Again, I'll wait.

I know you are but what am I?

Yes, and lease agreements are struck by people all the time.

Unfortunately for you, to not fall under the exception of the 1977 DC law, you have to be a "licensed" housing provider. Having a lease agreement doesn't automatically grant you such status.

And it's the fact that you seem to think that I have to provide that evidence that their was going to be an agreement that makes this so laughable.

Maybe it's because your so used to it being a LW individual in situations where they have to prove a crime occurred, that you have forgotten the basic principle that you who makes the claim carries the burden of proof.

It is you arguing that she was discriminated against therefore it is on you to provide the evidence (that a lease agreement with a licensed housing provider) exists to prove the discrimination.

Again, I'll wait for this evidence.

Says the guy who was given at least one link and still ignores it and fails to acknowledge that he was wrong in his claim that I didn't support the study.

 

It's pretty interesting with millenials when they say they are "for" something it's not the same as when we say we are for something. Millennials are not inclined to take small personal actions like recycle, ditch plastic water bottles, and adjust the thermostat to save energy. 60% Of Millennials Willing To Give Just $10 Or Less To Fight Global Warming.

Oh, not that they won't loudly virtue signal.

https://whatsgoodly.com/survey/123/

They claim it's the biggest threat to humankind.

• A third (33%) said they'd give zero dollars;
• 27% said they would give only $10 a year; and
• 22% were willing to give $100.

Altogether a total of 82% were unwilling to give more than $100 to combat "mankind's greatest threat."

A Massive Winter Storm Buries Parts Of The US, Kills Seven

The storm had shifted over the Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore region, where 4 to 7 inches of snow is on the ground.

 

1. Trump increased the GDP right along with our exploding deficit. Conservative Republicans used to be concerned about deficits, but never mention them now except under Democratic Presidents. Trump's deficit breaks all past records. But the worst part of Trump's economic policies is that with all that growth, only the wealthy & super-wealthy benefit from it. The middle classes & poor don't. It's sad that voters in the lower classes were misled to believe Trump would help their situation. Trump helps only himself & his fellow upper classes.
2. Many of the most successful countries in W Europe are "Democratic Socialist" countries, and I can vouch for the fact that they enjoy more in the way of personal freedoms than we do here in the U.S. Democratic Socialists are deeply committed to the idea of human rights, & protecting them. Your post indicates you are confusing socialism & communism, but they are not even similar. Communism took away human rights; socialism advances & protects them.
3. Again the confusion. Karl Marx was an advocate of communism. Democratic Socialists are NOT Marxists.
4. Democratic Socialism IS growing in popularity for two reasons: they believe in & protect human rights, and they believe economic benefits of any society should be enjoyed by all--not just the wealthy. Capitalism in America (as elsewhere) is an economic system designed to serve the wealthy classes only. Today's America has reached the intensely uncomfortable point of having <2% of our wealthiest families owning & controlling >98% of our nation's wealth. That is far too extreme to be stable over time, and Americans are very uncomfortable with it, and increasingly looking for something that will improve it. Unfortunately, they thought Trump might be a fixer, but he's only another rich man serving himself & his wealthy class. Yes, Democratic Socialists see capitalism as an extremely unfair system, and either want it modified to spread the wealth, or replaced by Democratic Socialism itself.
5. While Cortez is a newby to Congress, and has to learn the job, a growing number of Americans agree with her on many of the issues facing America today. Hopefully she will be a leader in the Democratic party along with many more new ones like her for a long time.

 

Nice red herring you have there.

Are you ignorant of the fact this is not true, or did you choose make a claim you know to be false?

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

A degree simply implies someone has knowledge of the subject matter. She's not stupid. American capitalism has been remarkably successful in terms of creating wealth, but a dismal failure at allowing that wealth to impact middle & lower class families. America capitalism has been gradually evolving into a wealth for wealthy only system, to the point of absurdity. AOC recognizes this, and promotes policies to correct this incredulous imbalance in America. I agree with her. Our current situation where <2% of our wealthiest families own & control >98% of our nation's wealth, is both wrong morally and destabilizing socially & politically. A growing number of Americans are becoming increasingly aware and disenchanted with our current economic state of affairs where such a small portion of our country enjoys all the benefits of wealth while the rest of us compete over the leftover scraps.