Financing the Green New Deal

[Integrityrespec]

Your argument for Opportunity Cost is ok but you fail to disguss the fact that opportunity cost exist and would exist regardless of what was done with any accumulated funds that were not totally put back into trying to stimulate the economy. So no savings, no safety net, and better yet not allowing for investing in reasonably sound business ventures but just reinvesting all funds in any opportunity.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why do you dodge like this? You claim it's because you have a different belief, but that's false. You're simply not being honest and reasonable. Why is that Opportunity Cost?

How about you discuss the ****ing topic and quit insulting me.

 

[Mach]

How about you discuss the ****ing topic and quit insulting me.

I'm appealing to your better side...I see there is not much there to appeal to though

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm appealing to your better side...I see there is not much there to appeal to though

You don't want to recognize that progressive policies are not always helpful for income inequality and can make it worse. You are actively avoiding discussing that. Whenever you are ready to discuss that, we can.

 

[Lakryte]

Oh so you have no proof that the US is not energy independent. Just what I thought. And to make matters worse you rely on people's opinion.

Have a good day.

I literally linked you to the actual data about petroleum consumption and production in the United States. The United States consumes more petroleum than it produces, and meets demand via imports. That is a fact. The U.S. remains dependent on foreign oil. Your willful ignorance of reality doesn't change it.

 

[Born Free]

I literally linked you to the actual data about petroleum consumption and production in the United States. The United States consumes more petroleum than it produces, and meets demand via imports. That is a fact. The U.S. remains dependent on foreign oil. Your willful ignorance of reality doesn't change it.

With that link you proved nothing. I've already pointed that out.

Using opinions are not facts. Try again

 

[MrWonka]

This is your quote:
"No more electric bills, No more paying to put gas in your car, A massive reduction in pollution, Massive job creation, the destabilization of our climate... Yeah, these are all major benefits."

You said no more electric bills, now you say maintaining the grid, windmills, solar, and all the other stuff that goes along with providing electricity to homes and factories is now going to be charged a flat fee. So the "no more electric bills" was a lie.

You're desperately trying to split hairs here to try and make anything I said sound inaccurate. You know what I said, and it was 100% accurate. You would not be getting a regular electric bill as you do today. Just because I have to do maintenance on my car every once in a blue moon does not mean I have a car payment. Your dishonest warping of my words will not make you sound correct.

Now give me an amount that flat fee is going to be and how often you're going to have to raise that flat fee.

In your current gas and electric bills, you already have a cost associated with the maintenance of the equipment necessary to obtain fossil fuels and convert it into energy.

I'm glad you said "your reality is just fine" because it sure does not measure up to reality.

Please. You're only deluding yourself.

Very close my ass.

I don't particularly want to know what your ass looks like, but yeah Norway and a number of other Scandinavian nations are doing very well for themselves.

As for the price of oil, it's low because of production which we made more possible because of our output of oil, as the largest producer of oil and natural gas. And because of the low oil prices, SUVs and Trucks are in demand more than ever.

Our production has certainly helped, but it is not the primary reason why OPEC voluntarily increased their own. Even still this only lasts until the next major oil crisis and it's right back up again. Oh and those SUVs and Trucks you're referring to? The bigger reason that they're becoming more popular again is because of admission standards put in place by Obama as well as foreign competition is making auto manufacturers invest much more heavily on the type of R&D necessary to make them not guzzle so much gas. Even a modern Ford F-150 has the functionality to turn itself off at a stop light.

 

[Born Free]

You're desperately trying to split hairs here to try and make anything I said sound inaccurate.

What you said was a lie. Period

You would not be getting a regular electric bill as you do today.

Another lie

Just because I have to do maintenance on my car every once in a blue moon does not mean I have a car payment. Your dishonest warping of my words will not make you sound correct.

You must live on a planet of bull ****. Christ, haven't you ever seen the massive crews who are on call 24/7 keeping up what it takes to keep everything running properly. Plus the massive crews and capital to just keep up with demand. New installations.

In your current gas and electric bills, you already have a cost associated with the maintenance of the equipment necessary to obtain fossil fuels and convert it into energy.

Of course and you have the same cost associated with the maintenance of the equipment necessary and the cost of new installations to obtain, wind, solar or whatever your converting into energy.

Quote: "No more electric bills"

A damn lie

 

[Moderate Right]

No, it's simply taking the time and effort to understand how and where money flows.

I already said that I don't begrudge Bill his fortune. I just wish he would plow most of it back into the economy, the way conservatives always claim rich people do.

And you are jealous because rich people are rich.

 

[Moderate Right]

All that for a "but Obama"? When are you gonna take reality seriously Opportunity Cost? I want you to be reasonable, but you refuse. It's unfortunate.

Democrats had six years under Obama to reverse income inequality with their liberal policies. They were utter failures. The only real way to combat income inequality is through socialism and socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.

 

[Moderate Right]

Deflecting the fact doesn't dispute it. If progressive Democrat policies are so good for wealth inequality, why did they get so much worse under him?

Don't spout whataboutism, actually examine the policies and why they did not work.

Democrats say the rich should be taxed more and yet when the recent tax cuts capped SALT, Democrats cried foul because the rich had to pay more in taxes.

 

[Moderate Right]

How about you discuss the ****ing topic and quit insulting me.

They know they can't win discussing the topic. Whenever the waters get rough, out come the insults.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Democrats say the rich should be taxed more and yet when the recent tax cuts capped SALT, Democrats cried foul because the rich had to pay more in taxes.

Those weren't just the rich. The elimination of those deductions hit a bunch of rank-and-file earners and homeowners very hard. And it was a political move aimed at high-tax states that are solidly blue.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

You don't want to recognize that progressive policies are not always helpful for income inequality and can make it worse. You are actively avoiding discussing that. Whenever you are ready to discuss that, we can.

There weren't a lot of progressive ideas put into action during the Obama years. Even if he wanted to go progressive, which isn't at all clear, Republicans were hell-bent on stopping anything he tried to do.

 

[OpportunityCost]

There weren't a lot of progressive ideas put into action during the Obama years. Even if he wanted to go progressive, which isn't at all clear, Republicans were hell-bent on stopping anything he tried to do.

You think Obamacare isn't progressive? How about the regulatory environment? He implemented what he could and what he could made the gulf larger. You aren't discussing it, you are denying it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Those weren't just the rich. The elimination of those deductions hit a bunch of rank-and-file earners and homeowners very hard. And it was a political move aimed at high-tax states that are solidly blue.

On its face false. In California, your house has be valued over $1 million dollars to hit the $10k cap. Its not hitting rank and file earners. That's a talking point and you didn't even bother to verify it. Besides, I thought you were against subsidies for the rich?

 

[Mach]

Democrats had six years under Obama to reverse income inequality with their liberal policies. They were utter failures. The only real way to combat income inequality is through socialism and socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.

Lies. They had 2 years before Republicans took the House, and some time later, also the Senate. 2009-2010.

And what did they do with that time? They were reeling from the ****ing Bush Wars and Great Recession "Moderate" Trump fanatic.

That's right Moderates Right, he was busy trying to ****ing stabilize the (world) economy. Wait, what's that? He still was able to pass the Fair Pay Act (inequality), CHIP (inequality), and Health Care reform (inequality).
Wall Street Reforms (ala great Recession).

Oh no, did Republicnas push tax extensions for the wealthy (extension of Bush tax cuts), and Obama pushed to raise theirs and keep middle/lower income lower? (effectively addressing inequality again?)

Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year, while Congressional Republicans wanted a total extension of the tax cuts, and refused to support any bill that did not extend tax cuts for top earners

Oh ****! He did that too.

By the time immigration, which isn't a ****ing crisis like the great ****ing recession - Republican Tea Party nutters were in full obstruction mode.

Have fun with re-imagining history so that you can somehow make you aren't tragically wrong in every meaningful way on politics.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

On its face false. In California, your house has be valued over $1 million dollars to hit the $10k cap. Its not hitting rank and file earners. That's a talking point and you didn't even bother to verify it. Besides, I thought you were against subsidies for the rich?

Do you even file a tax return?

Under this tax reform bill, which was signed into law in December 2017, taxpayers are allowed to deduct a maximum of $10,000 ($5,000 for married taxpayer filing a separate return) for all state and local taxes paid in a tax year — including property taxes, and income taxes or sales taxes. This cap is in effect from 2018 until Dec. 31, 2025.

source

That means a $10K cap on property taxes + state taxes + local taxes. That hits a lot of middle class families.

 

[Lakryte]

With that link you proved nothing. I've already pointed that out.

Using opinions are not facts. Try again

It is a fact that the United States consumes more petroleum than it produces. Period.

 

[Lakryte]

Do you even file a tax return?

source

That means a $10K cap on property taxes + state taxes + local taxes. That hits a lot of middle class families.

He doesn't even understand the tax bill he supports. I imagine many trump loyalists are in the same boat. If only they knew boats with holes are bound to sink.

 

[OpportunityCost]

He doesn't even understand the tax bill he supports. I imagine many trump loyalists are in the same boat. If only they knew boats with holes are bound to sink.

I wont come close to the cap in Illinois, in large part due to the real estate values downstate. It does not matter to me. The tax law was designed to allow the fed to quit subsidizing progressive tax rates.

So just to be clear you ARE for tax subsidies, so long as you get to chose where the line is drawn, right?

 

[Lakryte]

I wont come close to the cap in Illinois, in large part due to the real estate values downstate. It does not matter to me. The tax law was designed to allow the fed to quit subsidizing progressive tax rates.

So just to be clear you ARE for tax subsidies, so long as you get to chose where the line is drawn, right?

When the options are (1) subsidize the middle class vs. (2) subsidize corporations, I choose (1).

 

[Born Free]

It is a fact that the United States consumes more petroleum than it produces. Period.

I have no problem agreeing with you, once you prove it. Telling me your opinion and all the other opinions out there is not proof. Period

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I wont come close to the cap in Illinois, in large part due to the real estate values downstate. It does not matter to me. The tax law was designed to allow the fed to quit subsidizing progressive tax rates.

So just to be clear you ARE for tax subsidies, so long as you get to chose where the line is drawn, right?

So just to be clear, you didn't understand the tax cut you were debating about?

The tax law was designed to punish residents of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California. It was also designed to buy off poor goomers (Trump's base) with a higher standard deduction.

So you guys don't want to punish the really, really rich, because getting rich is the American Dream, and you don't want to be overtaxed when you get there someday. But screw the upper middle class, the segment you actually have a shot of joining.

 

[Moderate Right]

Those weren't just the rich. The elimination of those deductions hit a bunch of rank-and-file earners and homeowners very hard. And it was a political move aimed at high-tax states that are solidly blue.

Let's face it, if you've got over 10K in SALT deductions, then you're not doing too badly. Not many burger flippers in that group. Funny though how these highly taxed Democratic states think the federal government should subsidize their desire to have high taxes. Joe and Jane Smith should be pissed at their high taxed states, not Republicans. If these high taxed blue states think that high taxes are the solution to social problems then go it alone and don't pass the buck onto the federal government. Own up to the fact that you think high taxes are what solve public problems.

By the way, AOC is a stupid ass bitch for chasing 25,000 high paying jobs away from her constituents. I really don't understand liberals. I really don't. You'd think liberals would want 25,000 jobs that pay way more than a living wage. But, their crusade means more to them than that. They would rather force Walmart and McDonald's to pay $15 per hour rather than have those 25,000 jobs at Amazon that pay around 115K per year.