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

[Bullseye]

Those were new yachts. No need for mechanics to repair them right? Why do you hate yacht mechanics that fix yachts?

Uh, yachts need maintenance and upkeep from the moment they hit the water.

 

[Mr Person]

It's not a hoax. It's a wrong turn in science. I'm sure don't believe me, and that discussion is for another time anyway. The point here is that even on the terms the believers themselves would choose, the Paris Accords will have a negligible effect on the climate of 2100.

Ah, you see there lies a fundamental problem: knowing full well that science is fallible but almost always progresses in a positive fashion and also gets caught when it does not, I have no reason to listen to any armchair expert. And to be clear, for that reason, I'm not claiming I've applied the training and experience necessary to analyzing the data and considering the earlier conclusions.

Given how many systems are involved - and yes, they don't know entirely how - this situation presents real trouble. On the one hand, one might want to wait until it's fully understood. On the other hand, the other thing's main thesis has generally proved true over time though specific predictions have always been off.

Unrelated, there are all sorts of other reasons for getting away from the fossil fuels that fuel this.











PS: The "paris accord" wasn't presented as The Solution.

Look don't worry. You'll get your way. As long as its a problem that the grandkids can deal with, meh....so no merry-go posting-round for me.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ah, you see there lies a fundamental problem: knowing full well that science is fallible but almost always progresses in a positive fashion and also gets caught when it does not, I have no reason to listen to any armchair expert. And to be clear, for that reason, I'm not claiming I've applied the training and experience necessary to analyzing the data and considering the earlier conclusions.

Given how many systems are involved - and yes, they don't know entirely how - this situation presents real trouble. On the one hand, one might want to wait until it's fully understood. On the other hand, the other thing's main thesis has generally proved true over time though specific predictions have always been off.

Unrelated, there are all sorts of other reasons for getting away from the fossil fuels that fuel this.











PS: The "paris accord" wasn't presented as The Solution.

Look don't worry. You'll get your way. As long as its a problem that the grandkids can deal with, meh....so no merry-go posting-round for me.

1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
2. Fossil fuels have been the basis of the greatest improvement in history in living standards, wealth, health and life expectancy.

 

[Tom Horn]

1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
2. Fossil fuels have been the basis of the greatest improvement in history in living standards, wealth, health and life expectancy.

Remember when they demanded we capture natural gas because it was fuel efficiant? Now they wish to stop its use entirely.

 

[Jack Hays]

Remember when they demanded we capture natural gas because it was fuel efficant? Now they wish to stop its use entirely.

Stop use of natural gas?

 

[Tom Horn]

Stop use of natural gas?

That’s what theyre wishing for. Total banishment of fossil fuels.

 

[Tom Horn]

You give these pinkos a ****ing inch and they demand an entire mile.

 

[Jack Hays]

That’s what theyre wishing for. Total banishment of fossil fuels.

Ah. I see your point. I don't think their wish will come true.

 

[Tom Horn]

Ah. I see your point. I don't think their wish will come true.

The earthquakes in OKL are only from the arbuckle formation and only due to water injection. But now the regulations against saltwater disposal wells runs far more than just water injection.

 

[Mr Person]

Sure as long as some on your side admit how completely bats**** crazy some of the so called fixes are.


See it's not that many on my side are opposed to green energy or being good stewards to our planet, it's that you lose us with solutions that will do little to nothing to solve the problem and only hurt our economy and us. I mean how did some of you think we'd react when you wanted to tax us $500 billion a year to give away to underfunded, notoriously corrupt countries in the hope they might use it to curb carbon emissions?

bat****?

If you'd listened twenty years ago, we'd be well ahead on renewables. Europe and other countries are far ahead and in position to sell it to us, with the only counters people like Elon Musk who despite his unpredictability is actually pretty ****ing good, thank you "free market".

The longer you ignore a problem - especially if you name it hoax - the worse it gets, and thus the more expensive it gets to fix.

Bottom line: if you really think that, then at the least get behind massive investment in turning renewables into a profitable replacement. Fossils are bad. Period. We need to make this happen, even if it gets too late.




Here's my prediction: we punt it and then we cannot fix it even with expense. The results indirectly lead to strife, wars, and lots of death. But rich Americans generally get by, then say "meh". To the extent the human race has a future, it learns the wrong lesson.

It's not a hoax. It's a wrong turn in science. I'm sure don't believe me, and that discussion is for another time anyway. The point here is that even on the terms the believers themselves would choose, the Paris Accords will have a negligible effect on the climate of 2100.

Ah, you see there lies a fundamental problem: knowing full well that science is fallible but almost always progresses in a positive fashion and also gets caught when it does not, I have no reason to listen to any armchair expert. And to be clear, for that reason, I'm not claiming I've applied the training and experience necessary to analyzing the data and considering the earlier conclusions.

Given how many systems are involved - and yes, they don't know entirely how - this situation presents real trouble. On the one hand, one might want to wait until it's fully understood. On the other hand, the other thing's main thesis has generally proved true over time though specific predictions have always been off.

Unrelated, there are all sorts of other reasons for getting away from the fossil fuels that fuel this.

PS: The "paris accord" wasn't presented as The Solution.

Look don't worry. You'll get your way. As long as its a problem that the grandkids can deal with, meh....so no merry-go posting-round for me.

1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
2. Fossil fuels have been the basis of the greatest improvement in history in living standards, wealth, health and life expectancy.

On the basis of "what the hell does #2 have to do with the subject we were just on", I have to ask what the hell #1 is allegedly about. Should I google it at least?

In other words, unless the title is very misleading the second book sounds like it's about how awesome past developments were, which would not have happened without use of fossil fuels. That is true and irrelevant. Those improvements happened as we worked out how to use it.



But anyway, apart from that, why aren't these "experts" opinions argued in peer-reviewed papers? Conspiracy?

Look, I know how the AGW thing goes round and round on this forum. I'm doing round and round, especially when each response addresses a different subject. You ignored the key statements about the thing you ignored: that regardless of AGW, fossil fuels are bad and should be replaced. Secondly, that it would have been better if we were the ones selling cleaner tech to other countries, not the other way around. It's more of an iceberg on the cake that the few lone non-published nuts insist they're right and there's a conspiracy to silence them. Scientists thrive on proving each other wrong, or if not wrong to add to a theory.

 

[Mycroft]

You'll have to forgive those of us who don't believe you have a clue as to how taxes works or what any given tax rate would do to the country today. :lol:

shrug...

Oh, I always forgive you when you have nothing for rebuttal except snide remarks.

However, forgiving you doesn't mean that I won't dismiss you.

Toodles...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've seen numerous people in the past refer to the 80%+ tax brackets in post-WWII, but as always, there never is any evidence that those tax rates were ever reached/paid by anyone.

Whether this cutoff is 10 million a year or 1 million a year, having an obscene tax rate guarantees it would never be collected.

That's because these tax rates have always been "marginal".
Do a search on how "marginal tax rates" work. The IRS does not confiscate 70-80 - or 92 percent of your wealth.
That 92 was the highest marginal rate in the 1950's.

If you reinvest your wealth in jobs, for instance, you get a break on that high rate. Marginal tax rates are implemented to incentive wealthy persons to invest in the economy instead of hoard the cash.

 

[Mason66]

Those were new yachts. No need for mechanics to repair them right? Why do you hate yacht mechanics that fix yachts?

New yachts are just like new motor homes. They both need constant repair from day one.

 

[Jack Hays]

On the basis of "what the hell does #2 have to do with the subject we were just on", I have to ask what the hell #1 is allegedly about. Should I google it at least?

In other words, unless the title is very misleading the second book sounds like it's about how awesome past developments were, which would not have happened without use of fossil fuels. That is true and irrelevant. Those improvements happened as we worked out how to use it.



But anyway, apart from that, why aren't these "experts" opinions argued in peer-reviewed papers? Conspiracy?

Look, I know how the AGW thing goes round and round on this forum. I'm doing round and round, especially when each response addresses a different subject. You ignored the key statements about the thing you ignored: that regardless of AGW, fossil fuels are bad and should be replaced. Secondly, that it would have been better if we were the ones selling cleaner tech to other countries, not the other way around. It's more of an iceberg on the cake that the few lone non-published nuts insist they're right and there's a conspiracy to silence them. Scientists thrive on proving each other wrong, or if not wrong to add to a theory.

1. Thomas Kuhn's book was and remains a landmark in the field of science history, and was reissued not so long ago in a commemorative 50th anniversary edition by the University of Chicago Press. It will make you think twice about your claim: ". . . science is fallible but almost always progresses in a positive fashion and also gets caught when it does not, . . . "
2. The second was not a book reference but a statement of fact. And no, fossil fuels are a good thing, not a bad thing. Here's a reference.
[h=3]Amazon.com: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels eBook: Alex Epstein ...[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels-ebook/dp/B00INIQVJA
[/URL]

Rating: 4.7 - ‎446 reviews
Editorial Reviews. Review. "If you want to see the power of fine logic, fine writing, and fine research, read Epstein's book." ---Patrick J. Michaels, director, Center ...

 

[lurchadams]

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...

I think it should be 80!

 

[Deuce]

That’s what theyre wishing for. Total banishment of fossil fuels.

Carbon neutral, anyway. Using recaptured CO2 as a fuel source works fine.

 

[Deuce]

You give these pinkos a ****ing inch and they demand an entire mile.

Environmental protection has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic system. Green New Deal still involves capitalism. Hope that makes you feel better.

 

[Deuce]

1. Thomas Kuhn's book was and remains a landmark in the field of science history, and was reissued not so long ago in a commemorative 50th anniversary edition by the University of Chicago Press. It will make you think twice about your claim: ". . . science is fallible but almost always progresses in a positive fashion and also gets caught when it does not, . . . "
2. The second was not a book reference but a statement of fact. And no, fossil fuels are a good thing, not a bad thing. Here's a reference.
[h=3]Amazon.com: The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels eBook: Alex Epstein ...[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels-ebook/dp/B00INIQVJA
[/URL]

Rating: 4.7 - ‎446 reviews
Editorial Reviews. Review. "If you want to see the power of fine logic, fine writing, and fine research, read Epstein's book." ---Patrick J. Michaels, director, Center ...

Read this book

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003RRXXO8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[poweRob]

shrug...

Oh, I always forgive you when you have nothing for rebuttal except snide remarks.

However, forgiving you doesn't mean that I won't dismiss you.

Toodles...

You don't have the authority to dismiss anyone but yourself. buuuhhhh bye.

 

[Jack Hays]

Read this book

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003RRXXO8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Historian Naomi Oreskes fails in historical research[/h][FONT=&quot]By Ron Arnold (from his blog Left exposed) Naomi Oreskes Warps History Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes is best known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate skeptics as paid hacks parroting the fossil-fuel industry’s self-serving opposition to the “consensus view” of man-made climate catastrophe, but…
[/FONT]
June 3, 2016 in Opinion.

 

[Deuce]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/historian-naomi-oreskes-fails-in-historical-research/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Historian Naomi Oreskes fails in historical research[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]By Ron Arnold (from his blog Left exposed) Naomi Oreskes Warps History Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes is best known to climate realists by her 2010 book,Merchants of Doubt and its scurrilous demonization of climate skeptics as paid hacks parroting the fossil-fuel industry’s self-serving opposition to the “consensus view” of man-made climate catastrophe, but…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/historian-naomi-oreskes-fails-in-historical-research/"]June 3, 2016[/URL] in Opinion.

Of course the hacks want to claim they aren't hacks. They're paid to do that.
Read this book

https://www.amazon.com/What-About-Climate-Change-Press/dp/0262018438

 

[Tom Horn]

Environmental protection has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic system. Green New Deal still involves capitalism. Hope that makes you feel better.

“ green “ is nothing but a con game. Case in point. EPA. Hog piss and **** ponds in Eastern Maryland have destroyed the Chesapeake Bay.

 

[Deuce]

“ green “ is nothing but a con game. Case in point. EPA. Hog piss and **** ponds in Eastern Maryland have destroyed the Chesapeake Bay.

Yeah, and you vote for the people who want to gut the EPA's ability to deal with any of that.

 

[GDViking]

Except they don't require a 70% tax.

Be a good start in paying for those subsidies now wouldn't it though.

Actually have hard working taxpayers keep more of their money rather than hard investing non-taxpayers...

 

[Tom Horn]

Yeah, and you vote for the people who want to gut the EPA's ability to deal with any of that.

No I don’t. For they fund the EPA through their incepid laws. A total scrapping of environmental laws would be better useage of funds. If the real greenies wanted to have the places cleaned up, they could go about it with strikes of mass gatherings blocking those found to be polluters. Like they do in Hondurus.