Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

Conservative said:

Any idea what the role of the state and local government is and with term limits why this isn't a better area to focus your attention and for actual positive results vs. a bureaucrat in D.C.? With term limits you have an opportunity to change the state and local governments and get one that will do what you want but instead you prefer delegating responsibility to the federal bureaucrats over whom you have very little control

Click to expand...

Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.

MTAtech said:

Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.

Click to expand...

Conservative is setting up a fallacy. Let him, and every other conservative, who insists the reason liberals/moderates who want higher taxes on rich folks, insist "It has to be because you're jealous."

Cling to it, and shatter the fallacy of their entire argument.

MTAtech said:

Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.

Click to expand...

Nice diversion from reality, I am not talking SS and Medicare as those are forced contributions to the Federal Govt. The truth is you still want to delegate your personal responsibility issues to a federal bureaucrat even though that federal bureaucrat contributed to the current 21 trillion dollar debt, never solved a social problem, doesn't have term limits all because it makes you feel good to say, "see I care because I am sending money to D.C."

Address the issue raised why the focus on the evil rich and not the approximately 50% of income earnings not paying anything in Federal Income Taxes? Seems you want to blame your inability to get your agenda through a state legislature that has term limits and want to delegate to the federal govt. that doesn't. That speaks volumes about you and your ideology

MTAtech said:

Ah, so the state and local governments should have the responsibility, not the federal government, according to you. The reason the federal government intervened is history. The state and local governments failed at that responsibility, as we know from Upton Sinclair, who wrote in "The Jungle," of the appalling sanitary and working conditions in the meat-packing industry that state and local governments failed to remedy. That's why we have federal standards and federal anti-trust laws. States are just not up to the task, as history shows.

It's also a matter of practicality. Why have 50 states administering 50 Social Security programs, 50 Medicare programs and the such. Moreover, poor states just can't afford these programs on their own.

Click to expand...

By the way you can tout the higher tax rates in the past until hell freezes over yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time. It is what people actually pay that matters not what the rate is. Further those evil rich people in the top 1% currently pay 40% of the federal income taxes whereas approximately 50% of the income earning Americans people Zero. In the liberal world is that fair and why isn't that an issue for you.

The reality is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite nor enough money from the rich to even come close to making a difference

A note to some of our more partisan members; using terms like "It must be because you're jealous of rich folks" is not an argument. It's a logical fallacy. It's called an argument from ignorance fallacy.

It could be a whole slew of reasons why someone would want to tax the rich, jealousy being only one of a myriad of potential outcomes.

Claiming the jealousy line is nonsense.

Obscurity said:

Conservative is setting up a fallacy. Let him, and every other conservative, who insists the reason liberals/moderates who want higher taxes on rich folks, insist "It has to be because you're jealous."

Cling to it, and shatter the fallacy of their entire argument.

Click to expand...

It reminds me of the discussion Bill Maher had with Frank Luntz a few years ago. Now ind you, Maher is quite rich.



"The difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans is that rich Democrats don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country."

MTAtech said:

"The difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans is that rich Democrats don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country."

Click to expand...

Except they both pay the same. So very strange.

U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

Conservative said:

By the way you can tout the higher tax rates in the past until hell freezes over yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time. It is what people actually pay that matters not what the rate is. Further those evil rich people in the top 1% currently pay 40% of the federal income taxes whereas approximately 50% of the income earning Americans people Zero. In the liberal world is that fair and why isn't that an issue for you.

The reality is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite nor enough money from the rich to even come close to making a difference

Click to expand...

Instead of giving me a homework assignment, if you think the effective tax rate was much lower, why don't YOU produce that data, since it is YOUR argument?

MTAtech said:

It reminds me of the discussion Bill Maher had with Frank Luntz a few years ago. Now ind you, Maher is quite rich.



"The difference between rich Democrats and rich Republicans is that rich Democrats don't mind paying higher taxes for the good of the country."

Click to expand...

The problem with the republican assertion is that it's ingrained now as part of their dogma. The same as the SJW types on college campuses shutting down discussion. It's simply designed to detract and deflect; sort of like playing the race card or calling someone anti-semitic.

No, I am not jealous of their wealth. I simply believe more money in the hands of more individuals means more purchasing power and thus more consumption and demand. The rich make out anyway - they own the production so every widget sold increases their profits. Tax cuts don't reduce prices and the savings is never shifted to consumers, as evidenced by the trump cuts.

So those poor poor taxed rich folks get to stay rich simply on the merit more folks will be consuming.

This argument is -never- debated with republicans/libertarians, because it shows the fallacious thinking they employ and the lies they use to sell their plans to the public.

MTAtech said:

Instead of giving me a homework assignment, if you think the effective tax rate was much lower, why don't YOU produce that data, since it is YOUR argument?

Click to expand...

Actual data has absolutely no place in that liberal mind of yours nor does reality and common sense. Keep running from the issue of what taxes we pay and their purpose along with the true role of Federal income taxes in funding the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. You want effective rates here they are fro 1979

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

this couple with the reality that the top 1% pay 40% of the federal income taxes and approximately 50% of income earning Americans pay zero destroys your narrative. You also have a very poor understanding of the line items in the budget and what taxes fund them for example, SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes not FIT. Infrastructure is funded by Excise taxes NOT FIT. Please learn what FIT was designed to fund and stop the false narrative you are promoting

Conservative said:

Actual data has absolutely no place in that liberal mind of yours nor does reality and common sense. Keep running from the issue of what taxes we pay and their purpose along with the true role of Federal income taxes in funding the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. You want effective rates here they are fro 1979

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

this couple with the reality that the top 1% pay 40% of the federal income taxes and approximately 50% of income earning Americans pay zero destroys your narrative. You also have a very poor understanding of the line items in the budget and what taxes fund them for example, SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes not FIT. Infrastructure is funded by Excise taxes NOT FIT. Please learn what FIT was designed to fund and stop the false narrative you are promoting

Click to expand...

You're changing the subject.

You asserted "yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time." The onus is on you to prove that during times of 70% upper-marginal rates the effective tax was the same, not me. Instead, you change the subject.

MTAtech said:

You're changing the subject.

You asserted "yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time." The onus is on you to prove that during times of 70% upper-marginal rates the effective tax was the same, not me. Instead, you change the subject.

Click to expand...

No it is you changing the subject and diverting from the reality that the top 1% already pay 40% of FIT whereas approximately 50% of income earners pay nothing. Keep promoting class envy and class jealousy showing what your true ideology is. There never will be enough money to fund your liberal spending appetite and desire to delegate state and local responsibilities to a federal bureaucrat

Conservative said:

Actual data has absolutely no place in that liberal mind of yours nor does reality and common sense. Keep running from the issue of what taxes we pay and their purpose along with the true role of Federal income taxes in funding the daily operating expenses of the federal govt. You want effective rates here they are fro 1979

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

this couple with the reality that the top 1% pay 40% of the federal income taxes and approximately 50% of income earning Americans pay zero destroys your narrative. You also have a very poor understanding of the line items in the budget and what taxes fund them for example, SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes not FIT. Infrastructure is funded by Excise taxes NOT FIT. Please learn what FIT was designed to fund and stop the false narrative you are promoting

Click to expand...

FIT, like all taxes, prevents the drift of all the money to the few. The current rates are obviously inadequate to prevent this. A 70% tax rate on earnings over ten million dollars a year seems a reasonable method of preventing imbalance without impairing incentive.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rich

Manc Skipper said:

FIT, like all taxes, prevents the drift of all the money to the few. The current rates are obviously inadequate to prevent this. A 70% tax rate on earnings over ten million dollars a year seems a reasonable method of preventing imbalance without impairing incentive.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-rich

Click to expand...

Please explain to us all why all INCOME EARNING AMERICANS aren't paying SOMETHING in Federal Income taxes before going after the top 1% who pay 40% now?

Questions:

-Who did Ocasio-Cortez sleep with to get her economics degree?

-Who did she sleep with to get into college?

-Who did she sleep with to get her high school diploma?

-Who did she sleep with to get into high school?

-Who did she sleep with to even move into the 8th grade?

-Who did she sleep with to be a candidate for the 2018 midterms?

-Who did she sleep with to win her nomination for her party?

-Who did she sleep with in order to win her district race?

I mean, my God, it is literally impossible for a woman, or ANYONE for that matter, like this to make it on their own merit. Forget politics for a moment. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young, beautiful, charming, and full of energy. I'm sure that got her great tips while she was working as a bartender. She probably would be a ton of fun to hang around if all you're doing is just hanging out. However, there comes a time when someone likes this opens their mouth and the things that come out (not in, I'm sure other things went in there), the stupidity is so rampant it hurts that you just have to cut ties with the person. How about some of the stupid $#!* to try to make a point? Videos on social media displaying you don't know the 3 branches of government? A freakin' DANCE video to promote a big tax!? What college educated person does that? I'd be critical of people on my side that do that.

I'm not saying Ocasio-Cortez is the dumbest person in Congress (that honor belongs to Hank Johnson after his comments of Guam tipping over and capsizing if you put a lot of people on one side of that place), but she is a strong 2nd. For someone to say a 70% tax increase is good has to be stupid. And for her to get to where she's at today, well, she had to do a lot of "convincing" to get the right people on board to get what she wanted. That would be the ONLY intelligent thing she did. Or her daddy had to do the "convincing." I just don't see how she would have got to where she's at today on her ideas.

MTAtech said:

You're changing the subject.

You asserted "yet never address what the effective tax rate is during that same period of time." The onus is on you to prove that during times of 70% upper-marginal rates the effective tax was the same, not me. Instead, you change the subject.

Click to expand...

Here is what you radicals want to ignore, the line items in the budget and what was created to fund them. Note the FIT items that approximately 50% of income earners aren't paying for. Try and justify that to anyone

National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Transportation-EXCISE
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Medicare-FICA
Income security-FIT
Social security-FICA
Veterans benefits and services-FIT
Administration of justice-FIT
General Government-FIT
Net interest-FIT

Herkamer63 said:

Questions:

-Who did Ocasio-Cortez sleep with to get her economics degree?

-Who did she sleep with to get into college?

-Who did she sleep with to get her high school diploma?

-Who did she sleep with to get into high school?

-Who did she sleep with to even move into the 8th grade?

-Who did she sleep with to be a candidate for the 2018 midterms?

-Who did she sleep with to win her nomination for her party?

-Who did she sleep with in order to win her district race?

I mean, my God, it is literally impossible for a woman, or ANYONE for that matter, like this to make it on their own merit. Forget politics for a moment. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young, beautiful, charming, and full of energy. I'm sure that got her great tips while she was working as a bartender. She probably would be a ton of fun to hang around if all you're doing is just hanging out. However, there comes a time when someone likes this opens their mouth and the things that come out (not in, I'm sure other things went in there), the stupidity is so rampant it hurts that you just have to cut ties with the person. How about some of the stupid $#!* to try to make a point? Videos on social media displaying you don't know the 3 branches of government? A freakin' DANCE video to promote a big tax!? What college educated person does that? I'd be critical of people on my side that do that.

I'm not saying Ocasio-Cortez is the dumbest person in Congress (that honor belongs to Hank Johnson after his comments of Guam tipping over and capsizing if you put a lot of people on one side of that place), but she is a strong 2nd. For someone to say a 70% tax increase is good has to be stupid. And for her to get to where she's at today, well, she had to do a lot of "convincing" to get the right people on board to get what she wanted. That would be the ONLY intelligent thing she did. Or her daddy had to do the "convincing." I just don't see how she would have got to where she's at today on her ideas.

Click to expand...

Seems that the left attracts a lot of dumb people including Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cortez, Pelosi, Hank Johnson, Rashida Tlaib, Brad Sherman and Ilhan Omar, and yet the minions continue to vote for them

iguanaman said:

Yes those lucky stiffs that don't make enough to afford taxes. I bet you dream of being poor and living from paycheck to paycheck like nearly half of us. There's nothing like the feeling of working harder and making less than your parents or even their parents. But it's all worth it so 5% of us can live like kings and still sock away more money in a year than we make in our lives.

Click to expand...

This isn't an "all or nothing" issue, the question is whether doubling the tax rate on the most affluent to fund something of dubious benefit is a good idea. Without getting into the dubious benefits of this Green New Deal, I'd figure those who won't see any change in their fiscal contributions couldn't care less.

I'm not in the 1%, nobody here is, most of us are probably not struggling to survive, and I'd expect there's a range, we pay some taxes and would prefer our contributions be gainfully applied, but if AOC has some amazing proposal that's unlikely to accomplish anything and is going to require double the contribution of 1% of the population, we're completely indifferent. I just wish that AOC was proposing a New Deal that was more likely to benefit more of us.

Plus Ultra said:

This isn't an "all or nothing" issue, the question is whether doubling the tax rate on the most affluent to fund something of dubious benefit is a good idea. Without getting into the dubious benefits of this Green New Deal, I'd figure those who won't see any change in their fiscal contributions couldn't care less.

I'm not in the 1%, nobody here is, most of us are probably not struggling to survive, and I'd expect there's a range, we pay some taxes and would prefer our contributions be gainfully applied, but if AOC has some amazing proposal that's unlikely to accomplish anything and is going to require double the contribution of 1% of the population, we're completely indifferent. I just wish that AOC was proposing a New Deal that was more likely to benefit more of us.

Click to expand...

An Earth we can still live on is a pretty big benefit if you ask me.

Plus Ultra said:

This isn't an "all or nothing" issue, the question is whether doubling the tax rate on the most affluent to fund something of dubious benefit is a good idea. Without getting into the dubious benefits of this Green New Deal, I'd figure those who won't see any change in their fiscal contributions couldn't care less.

I'm not in the 1%, nobody here is, most of us are probably not struggling to survive, and I'd expect there's a range, we pay some taxes and would prefer our contributions be gainfully applied, but if AOC has some amazing proposal that's unlikely to accomplish anything and is going to require double the contribution of 1% of the population, we're completely indifferent. I just wish that AOC was proposing a New Deal that was more likely to benefit more of us.

Click to expand...

https://themindunleashed.com/2018/03/saltwater-fish-may-go-extinct-as-soon-as-2048-says-study.html

**** like the above is why it's not of "dubious benefit."

As a fisherman in my spare time, I've seen a direct impact of AGW on our waters. It's not fake. It's not a liberal hoax. It's a real ****ing problem. Moreover;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

This is -not- an isolated issue. These collapses are due to overfishing, a misunderstanding of ecological data, and pro market policies that do not consider the impact our consumption has on marine eco systems.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/30/uk-cod-collapse-overfishing

Again, it's not isolated.

The principal issue for me is that I see resistance to the narrative surrounding scientific data that points to human causation for climate change - is a religious one. And I mean that in a literal sense. The republican party and conservative base is by and large more evangelical than the democratic party is. Genesis 1:26 gives humans "dominion" over the seas and air and land animals. Gensis 1:28 cements it.

Now. Not -everything- the republican party or its constituency does is related to biblical pretext. However, evangelicals are overwhelmingly republican and republican legislators are overwhelmingly christian. Since this "dominion" is established, religious folks have an inherent, blatant and absurd predisposition to presume our actions are both santioned by heaven but principally moral, since God gave us dominion over things.

I posit that this evangelical domination of conservative politics is the principal reason the anti-AGW types have the slant they do; I also posit that this evangelical domination of conservative politics has a hedged bet that requires AGW to be challenged, because science as a whole has undermined the authority of the evangelical belief system through principally natural means.

Conservative said:

Seems that the left attracts a lot of dumb people including Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cortez, Pelosi, Hank Johnson, Rashida Tlaib, Brad Sherman and Ilhan Omar, and yet the minions continue to vote for them

Click to expand...

Exactly. I would add they attract insane people as well. The whole ideology as a whole is ran by people who have mental problems. What sane person would say that a 70% tax increase is a good idea? I guess I can say, to her credit, she hasn't said (yet) that Guam would tip over capsize due to a lot of people being on one side of the island (thank you Hank Johnson for the laughs and showing us who the lunatic fringe Democrat voting base likes).

MTAtech said:

I never "complained" that libertarians were not honest. I never mentioned it at all. My view on libertarianism is that a belief that the economy works better and that people's needs are satisfied better when there is a weak government is an archaic belief that has been completely discredited by history. When government is weak, we breed monopolies; corporations exploit workers and the needs of people are not satisfied -- except for the needs of those who have the monopoly power.

Government regulations and laws didn't pop-up from nowhere. Officials didn't wake up one day and decide, 'I'm going to regulate XXX industry.' Regulations came about due to market failures -- tainted food was sold to consumers; harmful drugs made it to market without proper testing -- to name two examples. Libertarianism presumes that we'd be better without regulations and taxes, which is nonsense.

Click to expand...

You said, "hardly anyone is willing to make the libertarian argument against progressive taxes honestly". Well those that won't present it it "honestly" must be some of those doing it dishonestly, correct?. Who is it that is being willingly dishonest other than libertarians...non-libertarians? Or did you add the word "honestly" needlessly and misspoke?

Anyway, the libertarian belief has nothing to do with weak or strong government, it has to do with a government that is effective in preserving the rights and blessings of liberty through a system of justice and managing the commons for its citizens (e.g. national defense) - you know, those "archaic" thoughts found in the "archaic" Constitution that just one post ago you were claiming to be in defense of your "Americanist" ideals.

And when government is limited to its role, it does not "breed monopolies". It "breeds" monopolies when it grants licenses and charters to the few to protect them from competition, e.g.; the US post office, the local sanitation company, the water company, taxi services, gas and electric companies, the former telephone companies, and the biggest monopoly of all … the US government. There are few natural monopolies and those that are, usually without much question, eligible for regulation.

Moreover, a proper government understands that the needs/wants of the people are served when the blessings of liberty are protected - there is no higher expression of satisfying what people individually need and want than in the marketplace - free market capitalism in the production and distribution of goods and services is the most efficient form of social production known. Compare that, if you will, to principles behind what you espouse - government as the sovereign running society's parts as if it were a monopoly owner of the nation's capital and labor. Perhaps you need examples: the Soviet Union, Communist Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia Tito-ist Communism, Maoist Chinese Communism, Cuban "socialism", Venezuelan Bolivarian Socialism, Vietnam's communist-socialism - in every one of these examples state authority and economic control was absolute, and all of it done to "meet the needs of the people". Wanna guess how that turned out?

You're correct, "government regulations and laws didn't pop-up from nowhere." Regulations came about because of folks much like you perceive "a need" to start ordering the parts of society they want changed to comply with their wishes, as well as because those regulated wanted to exclude competition and set price fixing for "the good" of the industry. Dairy supports, farm subsidies, acreage set asides, wage and price controls, interstate transportation regulation, land grants to railroads, etc. were all a part of the disastrous attack on free trade on behalf of "general welfare".

Finally, libertarians and classical liberals usually have no objection to justice in transaction; anyone who knowingly creates and sells tainted meat or harmful drugs to anyone is guilty of fraud, or worse. Moreover, it is generally recognized that the market works best under perfect information - to that end, a government that supports such is desirable. However it is highly dubious that most of regulations created to prevent dangerous food products are necessary, or that government testing is a substitute for liability law and truth in advertising.

So the "archaic" idea of freedom, living in a free society, has not been disproven by history - it has been confirmed by history, which is one reason Europe in general and its English emigre dominated colonies became far more prosperous and advanced than those societies who had no respect for human rights.

JMaximus said:

Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal



Underfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; homeless people starving in droves on the streets of this country's wealthiest cities; and a million other real problems and this useless sack of bones wants to take what would amount to one of the most expansive and progressive wealth taxes ever and use it to buy Teslas and Priuses for her yuppie peers.

Where's the liberalism, here? Where is the genuine caring about the human condition and how it can be improved?

Instead, with her focus on money-pit pet projects and buzzwording Ocasio-Cortez looks more and more like just another swamp creature.

Pitiful...

Click to expand...

The most important thing for the human condition we can do is address climate change.

A 70% marginal tax rate is probably not high enough, if less means we can't.

MrWonka said:

False. There are plenty of things we can do to temporarily increase the funding for social security and Medicare. Increased taxes on the wealthy are one option, but reductions in military spending would be fine. Also, not stifling immigration would be a nice solution as well. There are millions of young healthy people who would love to come to America and work. Immigrants, even the illegal kind generally pay into SS even though they don't collect.

Click to expand...

LOL, see that bold. The issue isn't the temporary. It's 20 years out that's the problem. Raising taxes won't fix it. It'd still leave a 75% funding gap. Reduction is military spending wouldn't either. Immigration isn't being stifled. Illegal Immigration is and nobody that's illegal pays into Social Security and if they are illegal and do it means they are using a stolen identity because Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to obtain a Social Security number. So the DACA people (are documented, the H1-B visa folks are documented) but illegals are not and the law is being broken.

MrWonka said:

The truth is that if we were still operating under President Obama's tax brackets today there's a very good chance that we would be running a budget surplus at this point. A few years of that would not only help ensure we can afford the increased funding of SS down the road, but it would likely prevent a more disastrous economic downturn in the short term.

Click to expand...

Not true. Tax Revenue is UP (in nominal) according to IRS and Treasury with Trump's taxes then under Obama's. There is 3.7% unemployment. Haven't had that in 50 years. But it's not increased funding in Social Security, its actually paying back the "promise" made to the American people.

MrWonka said:

Nonsensical garbage. Investments in green technology are already showing a radical decline in its cost. Already there are countries out there who are getting the majority of their energy from green sources. All throughout history massive investments by the government in the Military and Nasa for communications, war, and space travel have to lead to amazing technologies being developed that otherwise may never have or at the very least would have taken far longer.

A green new deal would be no different. We're already seeing today the benefits of the relatively modest investments that President Obama made just one decade ago.

Sorry pal, but you are the one who is very ignorant of reality, not AOC.

Click to expand...

So this is fantasy. As Green energy has come on line and being increasing used by power companies, the cost the Consumer has risen. Lion Hirth wrote this.. and I've even stated this on the forum long before I read his paper. Solar and Wind are only cheap when demand is lacking.

You do realize the largest advancements in history haven't come from Government funding, right? Printing Press was private or Understanding of shock (blood loss) which in the 20th and 21st century has reduced the deaths from War. OECD did a report a few years ago and found it's not Government that funds innovation or inventions in a new technology but rather Government funds a new idea which benefits only them after the fact as Science catches up with innovation. No invention of Telephone, no communications (which was privately funded). Space travel wasn't a Government funding but basically 200 years idea that didn't become a technology reality until the 1940s when a Goddard and Potočnik works were done.

When Government gets involved.. like they did in GPS, Communications, and so on... its takes decades for the Civilian population to gain from it. GPS was a 1957 thing. Wasnt til 1990s that it became common.. in fact what the taxpayer gets is 1/10th of Governments ability.

It is Trump that represent extreme policies. Take for example that he wants to spend billions of dollars per year propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Ignoring his own federal agencies that warns about the devastating effects of climate change.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

While also ignoring the American people. That two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Trump also want to abolish emissions rules that have prevented 11,000 premature deaths each year and a dramatically reduced mercury pollution,

https://www.lung.org/about-us/media/press-releases/mercury-and-air-toxics.html