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

And most of that has to do with business pass throughs. Here's the question, at what point do you tax a business? Gross revenue? Gross profits? Net income? Remember you can have a lot of revenue and still lose money, how do you tax a business that loses money and why?

 

I speak for myself thank you and you are in no position to add your self-serving interpretations. I've just chased to many blackholes and long diatribes trying to figure out the point the person was trying to make. If you can't make your point here on the board then don't respond. Give me your point, what are you refuting and with what, copy what in your cite supports you and then we can go at it head to head. But no more blind links. If you will check my post numbers to yours you will find I have LOTS of experience actually debating subjects and giving MY opinion, not just posting blind links, and I don't have to engage in the invective to do so.

Make your point, state your case.

 

a lot folk seem to want to ignore the FACTS that deforestation, urbanization, poor disposal and/or recycling of waste products, coupled with industrial waste in our water and air COSTS us via health related problems, forest fires, massive mud slides, increase in frequency and intensity of foul weather (property damage). It's sheer idiocy to ignore such, but for the sake of the god of profit, many willfully become idiots.

AOC is on target.

 

Try READING CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY as to what I was responding to. Precisely. Then stay on target.

AOC at least has the cojones to publically cop to her gaffs. The Orange Oaf has been lying his butt off for the past two years....a matter of history, a matter of fact...and yet this willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn supporters make all types of excuses for him...some flat out state they don't care so long as they (think they're) get what was promised to them. Pathetic.

 

Sorry I have interest in just trading insults for lack of debate.

 

I don't suppose that you understand that the result of ms AOC's policy is more urbanization, unforeseen issues because of greater density, etc,.. did it? Your litany of woes doesn't seem to respond to the actual need for the power that could sustain all of the density that you believe in. but hey, candles burning in the dark is really the goal... right?

 

Seems like there was a bit of a problem with AOC’s “Green Dream” rollout:

Naturally conservatives reacted quite adversely. From a conservative perspective there’s plenty of objectionable stuff in the massive AOC proposal, but those three (banning air travel, getting rid of cows and the free money) were quickly denounced and ridiculed by the right).

Well that’s ok, one would expect conservatives to oppose whatever a socialist proposed, no? This is normal, what isn’t so “normal” is that AOC has presented this plan as a formal (though non-binding) Congressional Resolution, and that despite the numerous carefully enumerated, but quite ridiculous provisions -a bevy of leading Democrats running for president have quickly endorsed the bill.

AOC reacted to the uproar from critics of her Green Dream trying to do some “damage control”:

She was just kidding about the “free money”? Evil Trump minions are duping the media with distortions and disinformation, they’re circulating a fake ecofreaky agenda attributing it to darling AOC?

Here is what Ocasio-Cortez’s own FAQ says about eliminating “air travel” (and even “cows”). Does this sound as though anyone is at all interested in offering you optionality…?

 

You shouldn't suppose when obviously you don't/refuse to understand. Explain to the reading audience just how YOU determine what exactly she has said that lends to the postulated insanity you state. I'll wait.

 

Carlson Tucker, Breitbart....documented liars and right wing propagandist with a serious case of intellectual myopia.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/green-new-deal-recycle-urine/

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/

 

What you or I think of Carlson Tucker is irrelevant, I posted an excerpt of his interview with AOC's advisor, those were his questions and her advisor's answers. The advisor said AOC "never said anything like that" (that "the GND would ensure “economic security” to those “unwilling to work”") but the GND's FAQ did so state. Her advisor said AOC "tweeted it out for a laugh", hence my query; "She was just kidding about the “free money”?" (et sequitur). Carlson also noted “the Green New Deal would totally overhaul transportation and that would mean,” quote, “building out high speed rail to a scale to where air travel would stop becoming necessary.” and AOC's advisor said this was "misunderstood. We’re talking about expanding optionality."

AOC's proposal didn't mention anything about recycling pee, don't know why you cite Snopes on that, didn't see anything on this in AOC's proposal.

Factcheck gets into the difference between banning nuclear energy and tolerating its continuance, which ought to be an issue since demand for energy in continuous and the apparent preferred alternatives in the GND are not, despite the fact nuclear energy does not generate CO2.

 

At least four energy usage studies from prog think tanks. I'll cite them if you really need it.

 

you posted an excerpt from those particular sources because you considered it relevant and important...so your opening statement is a contradiction to your actions. Bottom line: you didn't read my links. Also, you just follow the lead right wing media dogs in going nuts over every misstep and gaff AOC makes. Carry on.

 

Quit stalling and do it then.