2020 Dems embrace Green New Deal, as GOP sees campaign gold

[ducks]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-embrace-green-new-deal-as-gop-sees-gold

Seven senators either running for the Democratic presidential nomination or seriously weighing White House bids have signed on as co-sponsors to the Green New Deal, the sweeping proposal unveiled in Congress Thursday that aims to transform the country’s economy to combat climate change -- while enacting a host of new welfare programs.

[ducks]

Cory Booker compares Green New Deal to going to the moon, defeating Nazis

[Pavlov]

Yeah, this is how they are going to blow it.

[DarrinS]

All they have to do to win, is not be insane...

Welp

[Millennial_Messiah]

All they have to do to win, is not be insane...

Welp
nah... incumbents don't lose, unless they immediately followed a 2-termer of the same party.

Trump should be the favorite either way, but this far-less stuff could make it a landslide. Yeah, the Dems will still win the Worst Coast and the majority of New England, but good luck after that.

[ducks]

All they have to do to win, is not be insane...

Welp
Biden and booker had the best shot at beating trump
Biden is alone now
His age hurts him some though

[rmt]

Biden and booker had the best shot at beating trump
Biden is alone now
His age hurts him some though

I agree. Biden can beat Trump in the Rust Belt. But I'm almost rooting for Biden than some far left looney (just in case he/she wins). I just don't know what to say about this GND - I hope these crazies put their money where their mouths are and stop eating meat, driving cars and flying in airplanes.

[ducks]

Warren: Trump 'may not even be a free person' by 2020

Lol

[ducks]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094718856197799936?s=20

[Chucho]

I'm honestly looking forward to the greasy horror show that will be the Demo debates. They literally had 2020 in the bag just this time last month and now they're looking to do what has defined the party the last 2 years- lose perfectly gift wrapped elections.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1095434604742234112

:lol

[hater]

Anything is possible nigas

Cory Betacus could rape pelosi on the congress floor and they still have a good shot at defeating Trump tbqh :lmao

[boutons_deux]

I agree. Biden can beat Trump in the Rust Belt. But I'm almost rooting for Biden than some far left looney (just in case he/she wins). I just don't know what to say about this GND - I hope these crazies put their money where their mouths are and stop eating meat, driving cars and flying in airplanes.

Nationally, BERNIE beats Trash by 8 pts.

[rmt]

Nationally, BERNIE beats Trash by 8 pts.

Bernie is OLD news - most of the other Dem candidates have the same policies but are younger and more attractive.

[Chris]

This is a real tweet:


https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/1095097374203097088

[FrostKing]

This is a real tweet:


https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/1095097374203097088
Big black nostrils breathing up all the white mans (polluted) air?

[ducks]

Union leaders warn Green New Deal may lead to poverty: 'Members are worried about putting food on the table

[koriwhat]

i won't even have to show up at the polls come 2020 and be sickened at the thought of voting a straight gop ticket. i won't have to vote at all again due to the retards of the left co-sponsoring this stupid fucking bs made up by a dumb fucking failed bartending retard.

[Pavlov]

This is a real tweet:


https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/1095097374203097088And?

[ducks]

How Democrats are handing Donald Trump a viable path to a second term

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/politics/trump-green-new-deal-socialism/index.html

[ducks]

And?

you that stupid?

[Pavlov]

you that stupid?it just cited a study.

[Chris]

you that stupid?

He's doing the troll thing. Pavlov prefers to troll.

[ducks]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/politics/trump-green-new-deal-socialism/index.html
McConnell promises a vote on Democrats' Green New Deal

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1095779634485100544

:)

[Pavlov]

Nice picture of Cocaine Mitch.

[Winehole23]

Milllenials break for the GND by thirty points. This ain't going away.

[Chris]

Milllenials break for the GND by thirty points. This ain't going away.

God willing, it will stick until 2020 and sully the election for the Demonrats. Trump can waltz right back in ezpz :tu

[Winehole23]

Spurstalkers so good at predicting the future.

Not.

[ducks]

Spurstalkers so good at predicting the future.

Not.
Ducks knew trump would win

[Winehole23]

All hail almighty ducks!

[ducks]

Doug Schoen: Amazon’s cancellation of move to NYC is catastrophic and could hurt far-left Dems at polls

[koriwhat]

Doug Schoen: Amazon’s cancellation of move to NYC is catastrophic and could hurt far-left Dems at polls

nothing more than building their data dump of city logistics nation/world wide. fuck amazon!

[ducks]

Beto O'Rourke says he 'absolutely' supports destroying existing walls on southern border

[ducks]

nothing more than building their data dump of city logistics nation/world wide. fuck amazon!
25k jobs at 150k a year
Yeah fuck Amazon
Rolleyes

[rmt]

Ducks knew trump would win

You got him there, ducks.

[Winehole23]

Beto O'Rourke says he 'absolutely' supports destroying existing walls on southern border

True.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-says-he-absolutely-supports-destroying-existing-walls-on-southern-border

[Winehole23]

What's wrong with that?

[Winehole23]

We did without one for a long time.

There's no wall on the northern border.

The average illegal immigrant now is Asian, college degreed and English speaking.

Do we need a wall for that too?

[ducks]

What's wrong with that?
Waste of money already spent

Also proven walls work why spend billions to pull existing walls done

[boutons_deux]

We did without one for a long time.

There's no wall on the northern border.

The average illegal immigrant now is Asian, college degreed and English speaking.

Do we need a wall for that too?

Stepehn Miller says yes. He's cutting immigration

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL @ Schummer crapping his pants over putting the Green Dream to a vote in the senate.

[Spurminator]

LOL @ Schummer crapping his pants over putting the Green Dream to a vote in the senate.

LOL McConnell putting a "nightmare" proposal up for a Senate vote to own the libs. Reminds me of conservatives rooting for Hillary to run again. You guys are masochists.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL McConnell putting a "nightmare" proposal up for a Senate vote to own the libs. Reminds me of conservatives rooting for Hillary to run again. You guys are masochists.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Winehole23]

That makes absolutely no sense.sure it does. without some external enemy to fear and hate, conservatives (and face it, most libs, too) have no unifying principles.

[CosmicCowboy]

sure it does. without some external enemy to fear and hate, conservatives (and face it, most libs, too) have no unifying principles.

If its Republican masochism, why is Schumer losing his shit over McConnell putting the green dream up for a vote?

[Winehole23]

If its Republican masochism, why is Schumer losing his shit over McConnell putting the green dream up for a vote?lol whataboutism

I'm not responsible for Schumer's spinelessness, which was already well known anyway. He's probably worried what his donors will think if his caucus supports it.

[boutons_deux]

Bitch McC knows GND will fail in the Repug Senate, knowing every Repug Senator is pro-oligarchy, pro-pollution

Repugs are obsessed, terrified by AOC + GND, because GND strikes right at the heart of planet-killing oligarchy's Capitalism

We will see how squishy the Dem Senators are.

Manchin, BigCarbon whore, obviously vote against it. Any other Dem Senators?

[CosmicCowboy]

lol whataboutism

I'm not responsible for Schumer's spinelessness, which was already well known anyway. He's probably worried what his donors will think if his caucus supports it.

I thought you were smarter than that.

The democratic senators don't want to have to vote yes/no on the green dream. Either way it's a lose/lose. They lose the left or lose moderates who realize how radical it is.

[Spurminator]

I thought you were smarter than that.

The democratic senators don't want to have to vote yes/no on the green dream. Either way it's a lose/lose. They lose the left or lose moderates who realize how radical it is.

Conservatives don't want this deal at all yet they are putting it up for vote.

[CosmicCowboy]

Conservatives don't want this deal at all yet they are putting it up for vote.

Damn straight, spanky. Put up or shut up.

[Spurminator]

Damn straight, spanky. Put up or shut up.

:cheer

[CosmicCowboy]

I think its fucking hilarious. AOC's puppet master fucked em all by putting out that whacko FAQ.

[boutons_deux]

"Put up or shut up"

wannabe macho tough talk from Cosmic Parasite.

tell us again how fucking wealthy you are, it makes your dick swell

[CosmicCowboy]

Put up or shut up.

wannabe macho tough talk from Cosmic Parasite.

tell us again how fucking wealthy you are, it makes you dick swell






Tell us again how you want the government to give you everything because you are a fucking loser.

[Spurminator]

I think its fucking hilarious. AOC's puppet master fucked em all by putting out that whacko FAQ.

It's such whacko legislation that your guys are proposing it in the Senate and you're cheering them for it.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's such whacko legislation that your guys are proposing it in the Senate and you're cheering them for it.

Yep. Every senator should make it public whether they are for or against it. Seems only fair to see where the elected representatives stand. I assume you would want to vote against the ones that are against it, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

If the Democrats didn't want to vote on it, they shouldn't have proposed the resolution. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

It's such whacko legislation that your guys are proposing it in the Senate and you're cheering them for it.

Get your facts straight. Democrats proposed the legislation. Now they get to vote on it. :lmao

[Will Hunting]

I get the strategy, but it’s not going to matter. Which Democratic Senate seats (outside of Doug Jones in Alabama, who’s losing either way) are really up for grabs in 2020? Minnesota and Michigan? Even those seats are going to be tough for a Republican to take, and by 2022 any political stunt like this is going to be long forgotten.

[CosmicCowboy]

I get the strategy, but it’s not going to matter. Which Democratic Senate seats (outside of Doug Jones in Alabama, who’s losing either way) are really up for grabs in 2020? Minnesota and Michigan? Even those seats are going to be tough for a Republican to take, and by 2022 any political stunt like this is going to be long forgotten.

Maybe, maybe not. Three senators running for president are on board. Like I said, AOCs puppetmaster fucked em with that FAQ. Republicans are gonna shove cow farts and airplanes up their ass.

[Will Hunting]

Maybe, maybe not. Three senators running for president are on board. Like I said, AOCs puppetmaster fucked em with that FAQ. Republicans are gonna shove cow farts and airplanes up their ass.
If moderates and independents hate the green new deal as much as you and other Republicans do, then yeah maybe it’ll affect the presidential race, but I have yet to see any polling data suggesting that’s the case. The only people I see whaling about how evil the GND is are people voting Republican come hell or high water.

[CosmicCowboy]

Of course, the weenies that want to play both sides will just vote "present".

[midnightpulp]

Can conservatives articulate their problems with the Green New Deal or any efforts to curb humanity's collective carbon footprint? Let's look at some facts:


There is, in fact, a fairly large consensus — as high as 97 percent based upon multiple studies of varying size, composition and method — that human emissions have been the primary driving force behind observed changes to the climate.

From an article (Factcheck, which is non-partisan) debunking the conservative effort to debunk the claim from advocates that the scientific community is in strong consensus that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/santorums-climate-consensus-claims/

To ignore these facts would take an extreme leap of faith that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are involved in some evil liberal conspiracy to impose "evil socialism" through environmental regulation reform.

The "Who pays for it?" argument.

Referring to the point above, climate scientists agree that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed sooner than latter. The last serious issue the US faced was World War 2, and it took a collective and sacrificial effort from the country (rationing, donating steel and copper, an unprecedented 94% marginal tax rate). We can "pay for it" if we want to. But unfortunately, since the threat isn't immediate, as in severely affecting life right now, conservatives think there isn't a looming problem. I trust the scientists in good faith of their claim that there is a looming problem. Why are conservatives against proactive measures in this regard? Is driving around a Hummer on the local streets or consuming some latest cheap-plastic-crap from China every month really that important to you?

"Jerbs"

Argument is that the blue collar chaps who work in the coal and fossil fuel industries will lose their jobs on a massive scale. But if we do this right, we can transition those workers into the new jobs that will no doubt be created. Cortez's timescale for this is obviously optimistic (12 years isn't enough time to totally transform the energy industry), but we need to start now nevertheless.

Conservatives haven't really presented a compelling counterargument, other than emotional appeals to socialism and job loss. I think the core issue is that conservatives have some kind of penis envy that they didn't first identify the issue contra Al Gore, long a boogeyman for the right.

[Spurminator]

Requires too much reading.

"It's socialism." Those are the magic words.

[Will Hunting]

Can conservatives articulate their problems with the Green New Deal or any efforts to curb humanity's collective carbon footprint? Let's look at some facts:



From an article (Factcheck, which is non-partisan) debunking the conservative effort to debunk the claim from advocates that the scientific community is in strong consensus that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/santorums-climate-consensus-claims/

To ignore these facts would take an extreme leap of faith that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are involved in some evil liberal conspiracy to impose "evil socialism" through environmental regulation reform.

The "Who pays for it?" argument.

Referring to the point above, climate scientists agree that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed sooner than latter. The last serious issue the US faced was World War 2, and it took a collective and sacrificial effort from the country (rationing, donating steel and copper, an unprecedented 94% marginal tax rate). We can "pay for it" if we want to. But unfortunately, since the threat isn't immediate, as in severely affecting life right now, conservatives think there isn't a looming problem. I trust the scientists in good faith of their claim that there is a looming problem. Why are conservatives against proactive measures in this regard? Is driving around a Hummer on the local streets or consuming some latest cheap-plastic-crap from China every month really that important to you?

"Jerbs"

Argument is that the blue collar chaps who work in the coal and fossil fuel industries will lose their jobs on a massive scale. But if we do this right, we can transition those workers into the new jobs that will no doubt be created. Cortez's timescale for this is obviously optimistic (12 years isn't enough time to totally transform the energy industry), but we need to start now nevertheless.

Conservatives haven't really presented a compelling counterargument, other than emotional appeals to socialism and job loss. I think the core issue is that conservatives have some kind of penis envy that they didn't first identify the issue contra Al Gore, long a boogeyman for the right.
Doesnt matter when Trumptards don’t view sources that disagree with them as nonpartisan regardless of how ridiculous they sound.

Prior to Trump snopes.com used to be widely considered a nonpartisan site that could be used to fact check claims, but once it started fact checking Trump, the ducks/Chris crowd started crying about how it was fake news.

[Spurminator]

Get your facts straight. Democrats proposed the legislation. Now they get to vote on it. :lmao

Don't be obtuse. McConnell has all the power in the world to block the resolution just like he blocked every liberal piece of legislation since 2011. He's allowing it to go forward, probably at the behest of the President, who has him by his pathetic nuts. Only the most privileged cheerleaders with nothing better to do with their lives, and nothing to lose, would agree with the Senate spending Congressional time on this partisan garbage, but maybe you're okay with anything that distracts from the fact that you've let Donald Trump take over your party.

[midnightpulp]

Doesnt matter when Trumptards don’t view sources that disagree with them as nonpartisan regardless of how ridiculous they sound.

Prior to Trump snopes.com used to be widely considered a nonpartisan site that could be used to fact check claims, but once it started fact checking Trump, the ducks/Chris crowd started crying about how it was fake news.

It's really, really disconcerting. Hannity will sit there and tell bald faced lies over and over and over and his audience will lap it up with gaping credulity. The latest spin was the late term abortion controversy, with Hannity et al describing it as basically abortion-on-demand, that a pregnant mother can just waltz into a clinic and have her 8 and 1/2 month fetus killed because she feels like it.

[midnightpulp]

Requires too much reading.

"It's socialism." Those are the magic words.

Such an irritating and lazy deflection. It also makes no sense for conservatives to use that as an insult since they're the biggest socialists in the world.

[Will Hunting]

It's really, really disconcerting. Hannity will sit there and tell bald faced lies over and over and over and his audience will lap it up with gaping credulity. The latest spin was the late term abortion controversy, with Hannity et al describing it as basically abortion-on-demand, that a pregnant mother can just waltz into a clinic and have her 8 and 1/2 month fetus killed because she feels like it.
There’s always going to be people who lap the Hannity bullshit up, but it’s really disconcerting that it’s basically 1/3rd of the country.

It seems like no matter what Trump says or does, his approval rating never dips below 35%.

[midnightpulp]

There’s always going to be people who lap the Hannity bullshit up, but it’s really disconcerting that it’s basically 1/3rd of the country.

It seems like no matter what Trump says or does, his approval rating never dips below 35%.

I think the only thing that 35% cares about is pissing off liberals. Trump's cult-of-personality is also impenetrable. Ann Coulter calling you out would be a death sentence for any prior republican figure, but even she can't convince his base otherwise.

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't be obtuse. McConnell has all the power in the world to block the resolution just like he blocked every liberal piece of legislation since 2011. He's allowing it to go forward, probably at the behest of the President, who has him by his pathetic nuts. Only the most privileged cheerleaders with nothing better to do with their lives, and nothing to lose, would agree with the Senate spending Congressional time on this partisan garbage, but maybe you're okay with anything that distracts from the fact that you've let Donald Trump take over your party.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and for the most part he is an embarrassment. That doesn't mean I have to support the economy destroying green dream. We have made great strides in improving air quality over the years and I'm sure we will do more in the future, but trying to ban fossil fuels for 325 million in 10 years while the other 7 billion on the planet don't is just plain ignorant.

[Spurminator]

There’s always going to be people who lap the Hannity bullshit up, but it’s really disconcerting that it’s basically 1/3rd of the country.

It seems like no matter what Trump says or does, his approval rating never dips below 35%.

Hannity's reach is a lot lower than it seems. Even at his highest ratings, his show and radio program are watched by less than 1% of American adults. You have to imagine there is some percentage of politically uninformed Americans who identify as a certain party and will rate approval accordingly. I don't know if 35% is the floor for a Republican President but it's probably close.

[Spurminator]

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and for the most part he is an embarrassment. That doesn't mean I have to support the economy destroying green dream. We have made great strides in improving air quality over the years and I'm sure we will do more in the future, but trying to ban fossil fuels for 325 million in 10 years while the other 7 billion on the planet don't is just plain ignorant.

I know you don't like Trump but this is Congress we're talking about. If I didn't like my party's President I would expect my party's reps to push back a hell of a lot more than current Republicans are.

[boutons_deux]

partisan garbage

GND isn't garbage

[rmt]

If its Republican masochism, why is Schumer losing his shit over McConnell putting the green dream up for a vote?

IMO, Schumer's been around and knows it's bad politics (just as McConnell knows it's good politics) to put this RIDICULOUS deal up for vote. When my lunch group on Thursday is making fun of this GND (and these are Dem government workers), you know it's way out there for American mainstream.

[Spurminator]

GND isn't garbage

Forcing a bad faith vote on a non-binding resolution that has no chance of passing is.

[CosmicCowboy]

So are ANY of you REALLY in support of banning all fossil fuels in the US in ten years? That's basically what net zero would require.

[rmt]

So are ANY of you REALLY in support of banning all fossil fuels in the US in ten years?

IMO, none of them are serious about it or they'd be riding/biking to work and not flying on airplanes (living their lives in support of what they REALLY believe). And I guess, since they aren't - they want the government to FORCE us all to.

[midnightpulp]

So are ANY of you REALLY in support of banning all fossil fuels in the US in ten years? That's basically what net zero would require.

If it's feasible, yes. It's obviously not, but we need to start working on their gradual phasing out.

[midnightpulp]

IMO, none of them are serious about it or they'd be riding/biking to work and not flying on airplanes (living their lives in support of what they REALLY believe). And I guess, since they aren't - they want the government to FORCE us all to.

Biking isn't an option if you commute some 10 or 20 miles. But most people I do know concerned about the issue make efforts to car pool, drive efficient cars, and don't fetishize dumb shit like Hummers.

[CosmicCowboy]

If it's feasible, yes. It's obviously not, but we need to start working on their gradual phasing out.

Exactly. It's obviously not. We are already on a gradual path to reducing emissions without wrecking the economy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Biking isn't an option if you commute some 10 or 20 miles. But most people I do know concerned about the issue make efforts to car pool, drive efficient cars, and don't fetishize dumb shit like Hummers.

They haven't made H2 hummers since 2009.

[midnightpulp]

Exactly. It's obviously not. We are already on a gradual path to reducing emissions without wrecking the economy.

This is just for transportation related emissions (25% of the culprit, if I recall), and I don't see really any significant change:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2018-03/trans_time.png

Vehicles have certainly gotten more efficient, but I would guess that the huge rise and dependency on online shopping has probably negated increased vehicle fuel efficiency.

[rmt]

We're supposed to wreck our economy (airline, cruise, transportation, etc) while the rest of the world continues to pollute. And then the yuan becomes the worldwide reserve currency - what s*** creek will we be up then? I tell ya - climate change - the new religion.

[midnightpulp]

We're supposed to wreck our economy (airline, cruise, transportation, etc) while the rest of the world continues to pollute. And then the yuan becomes the worldwide reserve currency - what s*** creek will we be up then? I tell ya - climate change - the new religion.

How is climate change a "religion" when it's supported by a scientific consensus? No one is banning airlines. Did you fall for some dumb right-wing news outlet telling you the GND wants to ban planes in favor of trains? It doesn't. And who gives a shit about China emerging into a hegemony when Florida is under water?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/

China will also be hit the hardest by climate change, so your retarded idea of them comfortably sitting as kings of the world while we perish away in our "wrecked economies" is, well, retarded.

[rmt]

How is climate change a "religion" when it's supported by a scientific consensus? No one is banning airlines. Did you fall for some dumb right-wing news outlet telling you the GND wants to ban planes in favor of trains? It doesn't. And who gives a shit about China emerging into a hegemony when Florida is under water?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/

China will also be hit the hardest by climate change, so your retarded idea of them comfortably sitting as kings of the world while we perish away in our "wrecked economies" is, well, retarded.

You should join with the red-haired, sub sandwich eating namesake.

[midnightpulp]

You should join with the red-haired, sub sandwich eating namesake.

Didn't answer the question. How is climate change a religion when it's supported by the scientific community?

[CosmicCowboy]

This is just for transportation related emissions (25% of the culprit, if I recall), and I don't see really any significant change:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2018-03/trans_time.png

Vehicles have certainly gotten more efficient, but I would guess that the huge rise and dependency on online shopping has probably negated increased vehicle fuel efficiency.

Its happening in power generation too. Converting from coal to natural gas has also helped.

[ducks]

Make America a shitmaker
Vote democract

[Winehole23]

This is just for transportation related emissions (25% of the culprit, if I recall), and I don't see really any significant change:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2018-03/trans_time.png

Vehicles have certainly gotten more efficient, but I would guess that the huge rise and dependency on online shopping has probably negated increased vehicle fuel efficiency.Geography and transportation are two blind spots of the GND.


America is a nation of sprawl. More Americans live in suburbs than in cities, and the suburbs that we build are not the gridded, neighborly Mayberrys of our imagination. Rather, the places in which we live are generally dispersed, inefficient, and impossible to navigate without a car. Dead-ending cul-de-sacs and the divided highways that connect them are such deeply engrained parts of the American landscape that it’s easy to forget they were, themselves, the fruits of a massive federal investment program.


Sprawl is made possible by highways. This is expensive — in 2015, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute estimated that sprawl costs America more than $1 trillion (https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/03/how-much-sprawl-costs-america/388481/) a year in reduced business activity, environmental damage, consumer expenses, and other costs. Leaving aside the emissions from the 1.1 billion trips Americans take per day (87 percent of which are taken in personal vehicles), spreading everything out has eaten up an enormous amount of natural land.


Environmentalists know transportation is the elephant in the room. At first blush, the easiest way to attack that problem is to electrify everything, and that’s largely what the Green New Deal calls for, with goals like “100 percent zero emission passenger vehicles by 2030” and “100 percent fossil-free transportation by 2050.” The cars we drive feel more easily changeable than the places we live.


But electric vehicles are nowhere near ready for widespread adoption — and even if they were, “half of the world’s consumption of oil (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-14/electric-vehicles-are-just-one-step-to-address-climate-change) would remain untouched,” Bloomberg reports. A Tesla in every driveway just won’t cut it.
https://grist.org/article/the-green-new-deals-huge-flaw/

[Winehole23]

In Alissa Walker’s exhaustive report in Curbed (https://www.curbed.com/a/texas-california/electric-cars-climate-change-sacramento-california) on why electric vehicles won’t save California, she argues that even with breakneck advances in renewable energy and electric cars, the country must still reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled. EVs won’t save the rest of America, either (https://www.enotrans.org/article/is-the-federal-aid-highway-program-compatible-with-the-green-new-deal/).


But the good news is that if we do account for land use, we will get much closer to a safe, sustainable, and resilient future. And even though widespread adoption of EVs is still decades away, reforms to our built environment can begin right now. In short, we can fix this. We build more than 1 million (https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf) new homes a year — we just need to put them in the right places.


Unsprawling America isn’t as hard as it sounds, because America is suffering from a critical, once-in-a-lifetime housing shortage. The National Low Income Housing Coalition reported last year (https://nlihc.org/press/releases/9493) that the U.S. has a national deficit of more than 7.2 million affordable and available rental homes for families most in need. Of course, if we build those homes in transit-accessible places, we can save their occupants time and money. But the scale of housing demand at this moment is such that we could build them in car-centric suburbs, too, and provide a human density that would not just support transit but also reduce the need to travel as shops, jobs, and schools crop up within walking distance.

[midnightpulp]

Good info. Thanks. Also, online shopping contributes to more "sprawl" in the sense that the small businesses that once occupied "main street" (in my greater neighborhood, there's a multiple shopping centers and "main streets" lined with businesses within walking/biking distance of any number of residential neighborhoods). Example. Had a hobby shop and RadioShack less than a mile from my house on the same street. I occasionally like to repair electronics and nerd it up with the old man hobby of building rubber powered gliders. Let's say I want to buy some balsa wood, glue, solder, and some resistors. I could drive less than a mile to get all that when those shops were there, but now, am forced to buy this shit online. And items this disparate typically come from different fulfillment centers. So what once was a less than a mile round trip is now a 30, 40, 50 mile or more trip for the delivery trucks.

[rmt]

It's telling that someone like ducks would be a republican, and visit foxnews.com. If you are a republican, based on ducks alone being one, it is well past time to look in the mirror. The absolute lowest IQ people always favor the right, because they are extremely gullible and anti-intellectual. They are easily fooled by even the simplest of political propaganda.

Those are pretty sweeping general statements about millions of people.

[boutons_deux]

...

[Will Hunting]

Don't get me wrong, there are a few smart republicans, but without fail they are united by 1 of 2 things; racism, or their hate of the poor. Generalizations exist because they are based on truth. If they didn't hold any truth, they wouldn't become generalizations.
The rich Republicans at the top are extremely smart :lol, they’ve managed to craft a political policy that has most of America’s dirt poor white trash population convinced that cutting taxes on the rich will makes their lives better.

[midnightpulp]

The rich Republicans at the top are extremely smart :lol, they’ve managed to craft a political policy that has most of America’s dirt poor white trash population that cutting taxes on the rich will makes their lives better.

The best quote I ever read/heard on this phenomenon is, "Poor (right leaning) Americans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires." They project themselves onto the rich and thus have the mentality that when they finally "make it" ain't no gubmint gonna take my hard earned money away.

Also, defenders of the tax break philosophy, like rmt, are guilty of false equivalency, as we've talked about before. Like when they say, "Well, you support taxing someone who makes 10 million dollars per year 70%. Fair enough, but are you willing to give up 70% of your paycheck as well? If not, you're a hypocrite." This argument is so bad since 10 million dollars per year and your average middle class level yearly salary aren't remotely similar.

[Will Hunting]

The best quote I ever read/heard on this phenomenon is, "Poor (right leaning) Americans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires." They project themselves onto the rich and thus have the mentality that when they finally "make it" ain't no gubmint gonna take my hard earned money away.

Also, defenders of the tax break philosophy, like rmt, are guilty of false equivalency, as we've talked about before. Like when they say, "Well, you support taxing someone who makes 10 million dollars per year 70%. Fair enough, but are you willing to give up 70% of your paycheck as well? If not, you're a hypocrite." This argument is so bad since 10 million dollars per year and your average middle class level yearly salary aren't remotely similar.
:lol remember in 2008 when that Joe the Plumber dipshit was crying about how much Obama was going to tax the $250k of annual income of the business he was “about to buy”....turned out he wasn’t even a licensed plumber :lmao

[midnightpulp]

:lol remember in 2008 when that Joe the Plumber dipshit was crying about how much Obama was going to tax the $250k of annual income of the business he was “about to buy”....turned out he wasn’t even a licensed plumber :lmao

Truly a blue collar man of the people.


In 2008, Wurzelbacher signed with a publicity management agent regarding media relationships, including "a possible record deal with a major label, personal appearances and corporate sponsorships."[

[koriwhat]

Don't get me wrong, there are a few smart republicans, but without fail they are united by 1 of 2 things; racism, or their hate of the poor. Generalizations exist because they are based on truth. If they didn't hold any truth, they wouldn't become generalizations.

you're so stupid and that's the truth.

[Will Hunting]

The best quote I ever read/heard on this phenomenon is, "Poor (right leaning) Americans think of themselves as temporarily humiliated millionaires." They project themselves onto the rich and thus have the mentality that when they finally "make it" ain't no gubmint gonna take my hard earned money away.

Also, defenders of the tax break philosophy, like rmt, are guilty of false equivalency, as we've talked about before. Like when they say, "Well, you support taxing someone who makes 10 million dollars per year 70%. Fair enough, but are you willing to give up 70% of your paycheck as well? If not, you're a hypocrite." This argument is so bad since 10 million dollars per year and your average middle class level yearly salary aren't remotely similar.
One thing to also note is that the logic you describe above couldn’t be more ass backwards than it is. It’s deranged the way poor Republicans are most scared of how much the government is going to help or hurt them when they’re rich. Wouldn’t someone who’s rationale be more worried about how the government is going to help them when they’re poor?

[Winehole23]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-socialism-never-took-root-in-america-because-the-poor-see

[koriwhat]

One thing to also note is that the logic you describe above couldn’t be more ass backwards than it is. It’s deranged the way poor Republicans are most scared of how much the government is going to help or hurt them when they’re rich. Wouldn’t someone who’s rationale be more worried about how the government is going to help them when they’re poor?

you equate having money with being republican and totally dismiss what republican actually stands for which is a less governed nation state. you've been brainwashed!

[Will Hunting]

you equate having money with being republican and totally dismiss what republican actually stands for which is a less governed nation state. you've been brainwashed!
Yeah that’s what Republicans say that stand for but it’s far from what their actual policy translates to.

[koriwhat]

Yeah that’s what Republicans say that stand for but it’s far from what their actual policy translates to.

you can claim this all day while your progressives don't make much of a stink over 3 dudes in virginia, a dude in minnesota, an anti-semite in minnesota, another anti-semite in michigan, etc... so fucking progressive and sticking to their mantras.

[ReginaldWitherspoon]

you equate having money with being republican and totally dismiss what republican actually stands for which is a less governed nation state. you've been brainwashed!

I'm all for the governing. When I walk into your tattoo shop, I want to be secure in knowing your shop meets all health code standards. You're doing good on that front, my friend. My experience was wonderful, especially love the cream you use!

[midnightpulp]

you equate having money with being republican and totally dismiss what republican actually stands for which is a less governed nation state. you've been brainwashed!

How are more taxes more "governing?" Do you think roads, infrastructure, public services, and the military run on charitable donations? How about building codes? I'm sure when you leased your shop's location, you wanted to see all the paperwork that confirmed you're not going to be doing business in place that has structural integrity issues. Libertarianism only works assuming a populace of ethical and rational actors. That's not the case.

[midnightpulp]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-socialism-never-took-root-in-america-because-the-poor-see

Thanks! I never knew who said it. Read it in forum some long time ago.

[koriwhat]

How are more taxes more "governing?" Do you think roads, infrastructure, public services, and the military run on charitable donations? How about building codes? I'm sure when you leased your shop's location, you wanted to see all the paperwork that confirmed you're not going to be doing business in place that has structural integrity issues. Libertarianism only works assuming a populace of ethical and rational actors. That's not the case.

def more governing if you're wanting more from my pocket. we all pay plenty of taxes as it is yet we have so many stupid fucking social programs and other bs programs eating them up. get rid of the bs and there'd be no need to tax heavy.

[midnightpulp]

def more governing if you're wanting more from my pocket. we all pay plenty of taxes as it is yet we have so many stupid fucking social programs and other bs programs eating them up. get rid of the bs and there'd be no need to tax heavy.

The military eats up far more tax dollars than social safety net programs. Social safety net programs can actually be a boon because they give the lower classes more purchasing power. I know it's aggravating standing in line behind a person with 8 kids whipping out their EBT card to pay, but the fact is most people on welfare are indeed working poor and not just baby making free loaders.

[koriwhat]

The military eats up far more tax dollars than social safety net programs. Social safety net programs can actually be a boon because they give the lower classes more purchasing power. I know it's aggravating standing in line behind a person with 8 kids whipping out their EBT card to pay, but the fact is most people on welfare are indeed working poor and not just baby making free loaders.

if they got 8 kids and have an ebt card then they are fucking freeloaders indeed!

as well we need a strong military presence and less welfare lazy fucks.

btw, i am also talking about all the attention whores these days with their bi-polar bs on government assistance. i know a dude who lives in stone oak and is living it up yet he dons a ebt card when he wants to go all out for a bbq or whatever. that shit has got to stop! fuck people like him!

[midnightpulp]

if they got 8 kids and have an ebt card then they are fucking freeloaders indeed!

as well we need a strong military presence and less welfare lazy fucks.

Do we need it in Europe where they have more than a competent defense? Did we need the Iraq and Afghanistan snafus that costed us trillions? Do we need 800 bases around the world, often in countries that have a capable defense?

[koriwhat]

Do we need it in Europe where they have more than a competent defense? Did we need the Iraq and Afghanistan snafus that costed us trillions? Do we need 800 bases around the world, often in countries that have a capable defense?

i believe you brought up valid points indeed. i believe we need a strong military that is well funded; however, i don't believe we need to police the world, help protect other countries even if they pay us, nor go into bs wars. those are all wasted dollars indeed.

[koriwhat]

What a lot of dumb fucks that vote republican for the purpose of greed don't realize is, their bank accounts and life are hurt substantially by LESS taxation. If their greed was coexisting with intelligence, they would be for higher taxes, because it would better their lives. This is just basic stuff. It's honestly common sense.

i don't know about you but i'd rather keep most of my hard earned cash in my pockets and out of the hands of bigBrother. i am also of the thinking that there's taxes i shouldn't have to pay like school taxes; fuck those kids they aren't mine!

[ducks]

It's telling that someone like ducks would be a republican, and visit foxnews.com. If you are a republican, based on ducks alone being one, it is well past time to look in the mirror. The absolute lowest IQ people always favor the right, because they are extremely gullible and anti-intellectual. They are easily fooled by even the simplest of political propaganda.
Dude I post stuff here from cnn also

[midnightpulp]

Dude I post stuff here from cnn also

Hi ducks.

[ducks]

Hello

[ducks]

I think most rich people would not have a problem paying down the debt if congress passed a law they can not spend more then what comes in



I want to take care of my family with my money then pay the gov more in taxes
You can call it greed i call it being a responsibly father and husband

[koriwhat]

This is because you have the mindset of a neanderthal. Maybe one day you will realize what is good for society on a large scale, in the long term, does more to benefit you than your immediate, selfish needs.

lmao because i chose, and i hope it stays this way, never to have kids that it's beneficial that i pay taxes for their schools & more. fuck out of here with that bs especially with the shit educations kids get today as it is from pre-k out of college.

[koriwhat]

You also chose to get calf tattoos. I'm not exactly speaking with a high-level thinker here.

you claim i'm the low-level thinker here while you throw insults that don't back up your claims. either way, don't you got some kids to feed? go break that ebt card in.

ps: i got tattoos. i got a shit ton of them too. how about a new name? torso tats.... full legs tats... full sleeve tats... something new? it's been yrs and yall still think yall are clever. nerds in their nerd group online. lmao

[koriwhat]

Are you under the guise that having tattoos does not make you awkward as fuck? Particularly with calf tattoos?

are you under the guise that i'm awkward as fuck only to you because you're a fucking weirdo to begin with? lmao tattoos make you awkward. last time i gave a shit what a bunch of faggots like yourself thought on a msgboard or in real life was never.

btw, a nerd like yourself calling anyone awkward is too much.

[koriwhat]

Not sure there's ever been a more obvious case of projecting. It becomes even more obvious when you consider you don't even have any idea who I am.

lmao you're another bitch like the rest. i know your kind.

[CosmicCowboy]

The military eats up far more tax dollars than social safety net programs. Social safety net programs can actually be a boon because they give the lower classes more purchasing power. I know it's aggravating standing in line behind a person with 8 kids whipping out their EBT card to pay, but the fact is most people on welfare are indeed working poor and not just baby making free loaders.

This is simply not true. I agree we spend more on the military than we should but military spending is much less than SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, ETC.

[CosmicCowboy]

Doesnt really matter. At the rate we are going interest will eventually eat the rest of the budget anyway.

[Winehole23]

This is simply not true. I agree we spend more on the military than we should but military spending is much less than SS, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, ETC.3.0 percent of GDP vs.10% of GDP in 2017, for anyone who cares to know. I wonder how much of the defense budget gets spent abroad and amounts to defacto foreign aid.

Do we really need military bases in 70 countries and troops in another 80?

Non-discretionary social net spending at least gets spent in the USA.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't have the answer, but I know what we have already is unsustainable. Current Medicare/SS payroll deductions go to pay current retiree expenses. The average retiree now is getting almost 1.5 times the medicare benefits than they paid in adjusted for inflation. There are currently 3 workers now paying for 1 retiree benefits. By the time you guys in your 40s retire there will be only two paying the benefits. The whole system is unsustainable even without all the green deal promises.

[rmt]

What a lot of dumb fucks that vote republican for the purpose of greed don't realize is, their bank accounts and life are hurt substantially by LESS taxation. If their greed was coexisting with intelligence, they would be for higher taxes, because it would better their lives. This is just basic stuff. It's honestly common sense.

I am a Republican, and I do not believe that by paying higher taxes, my life will be better. I KNOW I can make better use of that money than the government can.

[baseline bum]

I am a Republican

No shit WC

[rmt]

The military eats up far more tax dollars than social safety net programs. Social safety net programs can actually be a boon because they give the lower classes more purchasing power. I know it's aggravating standing in line behind a person with 8 kids whipping out their EBT card to pay, but the fact is most people on welfare are indeed working poor and not just baby making free loaders.

Social Security - $939 billion - 23.58%
Other - $614 billion - Spending on unemployment compensation, federal, civilian and military retirement, some veterans’ benefits, the earned income tax credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other mandatory programs - 15.41%
NonDefense - $610 billion - Spending on many programs related to transportation, education, veterans’ benefits, health, housing assistance, and other activities - 15.31%
Medicare - $591 billion - 14.84%
Defense $590 billion - 14.82%
Medicaid - $375 billion - 9.42%
Net Interest - $263 billion - 6.60%
Total (my calculation) $3982 billion - CBO chart says $4 trillion

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/graphic/53624-fy17federalbudget.pdf

[rmt]

3.0 percent of GDP vs.10% of GDP in 2017, for anyone who cares to know. I wonder how much of the defense budget gets spent abroad and amounts to defacto foreign aid.

Do we really need military bases in 70 countries and troops in another 80?

Non-discretionary social net spending at least gets spent in the USA.

Where are you getting these numbers? Are you counting military retirement or veteran's benefits as defense? See CBO breakdown above.

[kw's crack dealer]

lmao you're another bitch like the rest. i know your kind.

Muhfucka who you callin bitch? You was literally just eatin my nigga Carlos’ asshole out a few minutes ago.

[midnightpulp]

Social Security - $939 billion - 23.58%
Other - $614 billion - Spending on unemployment compensation, federal, civilian and military retirement, some veterans’ benefits, the earned income tax credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other mandatory programs - 15.41%
NonDefense - $610 billion - Spending on many programs related to transportation, education, veterans’ benefits, health, housing assistance, and other activities - 15.31%
Medicare - $591 billion - 14.84%
Defense $590 billion - 14.82%
Medicaid - $375 billion - 9.42%
Net Interest - $263 billion - 6.60%
Total (my calculation) $3982 billion - CBO chart says $4 trillion

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/graphic/53624-fy17federalbudget.pdf

I probably should've been more clear in my response to Koriwhat and not just said "social safety net" programs as a blanket description. He was obviously referring to welfare programs (food stamps, Medicaid, etc) that subsidize the supposed "irresponsible and lazy." We can take Social Security and Medicare off the list, since those are safety nets for elderly citizens who paid into them over the course of their (working) lives. And there you go, we spend far more on defense building outdated conventional weapons like 1.5 trillion dollar fighter plane projects and funding bases in countries we've never heard of. Is this a spending of your tax dollars you approve of? Conservatives like to bang the "small government, less spending drum," but seem to lack the courage to call out wasteful military spending.

[midnightpulp]

I am a Republican, and I do not believe that by paying higher taxes, my life will be better. I KNOW I can make better use of that money than the government can.

Here's the conservative projection phenomena at work again. When you read/hear Democrats/Liberals advocate for higher taxes, you clutch your purse and think they want your money. I'm going to out on a limb and say your household income is anywhere from 200K-1 million. No. What we (they) want is a more balanced tax bracket. It makes no sense to me that someone who makes 30 million per year pays the same amount of taxes as someone who makes 700K per year. And it sure as hell doesn't make a lick of sense that someone who makes 30 million dollars per year only pays about 50% more in taxes than someone making 100K per year, despite making 300 times as much money.

[rmt]

Here's the conservative projection phenomena at work again. When you read/hear Democrats/Liberals advocate for higher taxes, you clutch your purse and think they want your money. I'm going to out on a limb and say your household income is anywhere from 200K-1 million. No. What we (they) want is a more balanced tax bracket. It makes no sense to me that someone who makes 30 million per year pays the same amount of taxes as someone who makes 700K per year. And it sure as hell doesn't make a lick of sense that someone who makes 30 million dollars per year only pays about 50% more in taxes than someone making 100K per year, despite making 300 times as much money.


What a lot of dumb fucks that vote republican for the purpose of greed don't realize is, their bank accounts and life are hurt substantially by LESS taxation. If their greed was coexisting with intelligence, they would be for higher taxes, because it would better their lives. This is just basic stuff. It's honestly common sense.

Please take my post as written. If I wanted to project, I would. You are the one projecting - about what I think and my income. I am simply telling him that higher taxes would not better my life.

[midnightpulp]

Please take my post as written. If I wanted to project, I would. You are the one projecting - about what I think and my income. I am simply telling him that higher taxes would not better my life.

I'm not projecting. I'm assuming your financial situation to explain to you that when democrats/liberals advocate for higher taxes, they're not endorsing that the middle and even upper-middle classes pay more in taxes. The tax bracket ends at 600K per year, meaning someone making 600K per year pays the same amount in taxes (in percentage) as someone making 6 million per year. This isn't a fair outcome. And yes, your life would be better if people making over 1 million per year were taxed more. That extra revenue could be put toward infrastructure renovation, schools, scientific and medical research, and, get this, better border security! Bet that last one is a selling point, ain't it? If you make over 1 million per year and were say taxed 10% more, no, you wouldn't experience any decline in lifestyle unless you're an extremely greedy pig. Aren't you a Christian? Eye of the needle, rich man, heaven, camel and all that.

[CosmicCowboy]

Here's the conservative projection phenomena at work again. When you read/hear Democrats/Liberals advocate for higher taxes, you clutch your purse and think they want your money. I'm going to out on a limb and say your household income is anywhere from 200K-1 million. No. What we (they) want is a more balanced tax bracket. It makes no sense to me that someone who makes 30 million per year pays the same amount of taxes as someone who makes 700K per year. And it sure as hell doesn't make a lick of sense that someone who makes 30 million dollars per year only pays about 50% more in taxes than someone making 100K per year, despite making 300 times as much money.

Maybe you can confuse the stupid ones on here by claiming the guy making 30 million pays the same tax as the guy making 700,000, but you are talking percentages not dollars. The guy making 30 million obviously pays a hell of a lot more.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs early strategy is to slander the Dems as baby killers, and call them socialists, knowing that you ignorant Repug base types have no fucking idea what democratic socialism is

[midnightpulp]

Maybe you can confuse the stupid ones on here by claiming the guy making 30 million pays the same tax as the guy making 700,000, but you are talking percentages not dollars. The guy making 30 million on piously pays a hell of a lot more.

And the 39% tax hit affects the guy making 700K per much more than it does the guy making 30 million dollars per year. When someone makes this argument, I like to analogize income to calorie intake. Let's say a 2000 calorie per day intake is the proverbial "poverty line." To make the math a bit easier, I'm going to compare a 100K income and a 10 million dollar income. The 100K income is like 10K calorie per day diet, while the 10 million dollar income is like a 1 million calorie per day diet. It should be obvious that taxing each at 40% puts the lower earner closer to the poverty line than the higher earner. Even taxing the lower earner at 10% and the higher earner at 90% still puts the lower earner closer to the poverty line.

This is also why the "it's relative" argument doesn't make sense, either. A 10 million dollar per year earner wouldn't see any lifestyle changes at all being taxed 10 or 20 percent more than he already vs. a 100K per year earner. Oh, so the former can't buy another house in Italy. Boo fuckin' hoo. Now we can indeed make the argument that if that 10 million dollar per year earner is using that capital to grow his business, translating into raises for employees and new hirings, then yes, a tax break should be strongly considered. But if he's using the tax cut to simply indulge his greedy materialism or get more wealthy off passive capital gains investments, then he doesn't deserve it.

[midnightpulp]

I also anticipate the "bitterness at the rich" and "well, that Oligarch earned his money through working harder and smarter than others. Why punish him?" arguments.

I'll casually invent a "law" here that states the more wealth one has, it becomes less and less a result of "smart and hard work" and more a result of luck.

Thought experiment time, Let's say two people start working on the plans for a widget that will change the world at the same time. Inventor A's parents are millionaires, Inventor B lives in rural Appalachia. They finish their blueprints for this world changing widget at the exact same time. Inventor A can simply call his parents and ask for funding. Inventor B doesn't have that privilege. Even if he immediately emails his plans to a VC, he's still not getting seed capital nearly as quickly as Inventor A. Inventor A's version obviously gets to market quicker, he becomes a gazillionaire, and is feted as a "genius" who bootstrapped himself into becoming the world's richest man through "hard and smart work."

Maybe Inventor B figures out a way to get his product to market that does the same thing at a lower price, but then Inventor A's company hits him with intellectual property lawsuits.

The ultimate point of this thought experiment is not to explore free market dynamics, but to illustrate how there's a variety of forces at work that go into making a successful person, and it's not all merely the result of individual grit, talent, and hard work.


The results of this elucidating simulation, which dovetail with a growing number of studies based on real-world data, strongly suggest that luck and opportunity play an underappreciated role in determining the final level of individual success. As the researchers point out, since rewards and resources are usually given to those who are already highly rewarded, this often causes a lack of opportunities for those who are most talented (i.e., have the greatest potential to actually benefit from the resources), and it doesn't take into account the important role of luck, which can emerge spontaneously throughout the creative process. The researchers argue that the following factors are all important in giving people more chances of success: a stimulating environment rich in opportunities, a good education, intensive training, and an efficient strategy for the distribution of funds and resources. They argue that at the macro-level of analysis, any policy that can influence these factors will result in greater collective progress and innovation for society (not to mention immense self-actualization of any particular individual).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

[boutons_deux]

lucky wealth is to be born wealthy

60% of the wealthy inherited their wealth

socio/economic mobility is greatly decreased in USA, now below that of western Europe

born poor, die poor.

born wealthy, die wealthy

[CosmicCowboy]

And the 39% tax hit affects the guy making 700K per much more than it does the guy making 30 million dollars per year. When someone makes this argument, I like to analogize income to calorie intake. Let's say a 2000 calorie per day intake is the proverbial "poverty line." To make the math a bit easier, I'm going to compare a 100K income and a 10 million dollar income. The 100K income is like 10K calorie per day diet, while the 10 million dollar income is like a 1 million calorie per day diet. It should be obvious that taxing each at 40% puts the lower earner closer to the poverty line than the higher earner. Even taxing the lower earner at 10% and the higher earner at 90% still puts the lower earner closer to the poverty line.

This is also why the "it's relative" argument doesn't make sense, either. A 10 million dollar per year earner wouldn't see any lifestyle changes at all being taxed 10 or 20 percent more than he already vs. a 100K per year earner. Oh, so the former can't buy another house in Italy. Boo fuckin' hoo. Now we can indeed make the argument that if that 10 million dollar per year earner is using that capital to grow his business, translating into raises for employees and new hirings, then yes, a tax break should be strongly considered. But if he's using the tax cut to simply indulge his greedy materialism or get more wealthy off passive capital gains investments, then he doesn't deserve it.

:lmao

That argument was used in the 1991 "Luxury Tax". Turned out to be a dismal failure and decimated the east coast boat industry among others.

[midnightpulp]

:lmao

That argument was used in the 1991 "Luxury Tax". Turned out to be a dismal failure and decimated the east coast boat industry among others.

Nowhere in my argument did I advocate for a luxury tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nowhere in my argument did I advocate for a luxury tax.

bullshit

Money flows. "greedy materialism" is just a weighted phrase to say someone bought something that others produced that is the result of actual productive jobs producing desired goods and services.

The concept that only soaking the rich to pay for the utopian green dream is absolutely flawed. The financial weight of building the green dream will ultimately weigh heaviest on the middle class.

[midnightpulp]

bullshit

Money flows. "greedy materialism" is just a weighted phrase to say someone bought something that others produced that is the result of actual productive jobs producing desired goods and services.

The concept that only soaking the rich to pay for the utopian green dream is absolutely flawed. The financial weight of building the green dream will ultimately weigh heaviest on the middle class.

Wilbur Ross's 150 million art collection was "produced by people with actual productive jobs" :lmao. All those artists are dead. :lol

I'm not necessarily talking about soaking the rich to pay for the green new deal. I advocate soaking the rich because I believe it's morally just. Do you think someone making 10 million dollars per year paying 50% more in taxes (by rate) than someone making 100K per year is just and fair? You'll tell me yes. But I ask the question. Which income would you rather have? 10 million taxed at 80 percent or 100K not taxed at all? This illustrates that these incomes aren't "relatively equal, " as the argument goes. Proof is in the pudding. Look how each income group grew at a nearly identical rate at the beginning of the New Deal up until the Reagan Tax Cuts.

https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/distributional-shifts-1917-2010.png

Bottom 90% growth has stalled, while the top 10% has grown. All the data I've explored suggests tax cuts for the rich do not "trickle down." Why do you believe this to be so? Oh, I know. The projection phenomenon again. You're equating your small business situation with that of a Fortune 500 company. You tell yourself that a tax cut for you would translate into raises for your employees, new hires, etc, and think that Fortune 500 companies operate similarly. Unlike them, you're not beholden to shareholders. The verdict is out on this. The big corps used these tax cuts that are supposed to "trickle down" to buy back stock and inflate share prices. If it really "trickled down" we'd see bottom 90% growth keep pace with top 10% growth.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wilbur Ross's 150 million art collection was "produced by people with actual productive jobs" :lmao. All those artists are dead. :lol

I'm not necessarily talking about soaking the rich to pay for the green new deal. I advocate soaking the rich because I believe it's morally just. Do you think someone making 10 million dollars per year paying 50% more in taxes (by rate) than someone making 100K per year is just and fair? You'll tell me yes. But I ask the question. Which income would you rather have? 10 million taxed at 80 percent or 100K not taxed at all? This illustrates that these incomes aren't "relatively equal, " as the argument goes. Proof is in the pudding. Look how each income group grew at a nearly identical rate at the beginning of the New Deal up until the Reagan Tax Cuts.

https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/distributional-shifts-1917-2010.png

Bottom 90% growth has stalled, while the top 10% has grown. All the data I've explored suggests tax cuts for the rich do not "trickle down." Why do you believe this to be so? Oh, I know. The projection phenomenon again. You're equating your small business situation with that of a Fortune 500 company. You tell yourself that a tax cut for you would translate into raises for your employees, new hires, etc, and think that Fortune 500 companies operate similarly. Unlike them, you're not beholden to shareholders. The verdict is out on this. The big corps used these tax cuts that are supposed to "trickle down" to buy back stock and inflate share prices. If it really "trickled down" we'd see bottom 90% growth keep pace with top 10% growth.

What other contributing factors led to these results? You are being intellectually dishonest by singling out tax cuts as the cause.

[midnightpulp]

What other contributing factors led to these results? You are being intellectually dishonest by singling out tax cuts as the cause.

Okay. Stock buybacks were an illegal practice until the SEC legalized it in 1982. The shareholder primacy concept has come to totally dominate corporate philosophy over that time. We can talk about recessions, globalization, etc all we want, but for 40 fuckin' years the bottom 90% income has stalled. That's enough of a time frame to sort out any "noise" to see if the post-Reagan economic philosophy really "lifts all boats." It obviously didn't. On the contrary, the post-New Deal economic philosophy also got a 40 year trial and seemed to prove its worth in keeping inequality in check and growth consistent among every group.

How many more years of trial do you need in order for you accept it doesn't "trickle down?"

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay. Stock buybacks were an illegal practice until the SEC legalized it in 1982. The shareholder primacy concept has come to totally dominate corporate philosophy over that time. We can talk about recessions, globalization, etc all we want, but for 40 fuckin' years the bottom 90% income has stalled. That's enough of a time frame to sort out any "noise" to see if the post-Reagan economic philosophy really "lifts all boats." It obviously didn't. On the contrary, the post-New Deal economic philosophy also got a 40 year trial and seemed to prove its worth in keeping inequality in check and growth consistent among every group.

How more years of trial do you need in order for you accept it doesn't "trickle down?"

Do stock buybacks really bother you? So the companies bought their own stock. Big deal. What if they took the money and bought another companies stock...would that bother you as much? Did the people they bought the stock from not receive money for the stock? Did they not pay taxes on the gains? Did these people not spend or reinvest the money in other areas that provide jobs and services?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's a simple fact that technological advances and globalization in the last 50 years has killed menial, repetitive jobs in the US and they are never coming back. That is the cause. You can't legislate or class warfare your way to the return of these jobs.

[midnightpulp]

Do stock buybacks really bother you? So the companies bought their own stock. Big deal. What if they took the money and bought another companies stock...would that bother you as much? Did the people they bought the stock from not receive money for the stock? Did they not pay taxes on the gains? Did these people not spend or reinvest the money in other areas that provide jobs and services?

You're theorizing, where I prefer to look at the data. If that "reinvestment" had the efficacy you're claiming, we'd see a growth rate similar to that pre-Reagan. Yes, stock buybacks bother me. They bothered the SEC too before 1982. Another graph.

https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/piketty-saez-1945-to-2012-feb-2015.png

Again, how many more years of "trial" do we need? Do you think the suddenly income spike for the richest over Reagan's first term it's just a magical coincidence?

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay. Stock buybacks were an illegal practice until the SEC legalized it in 1982. The shareholder primacy concept has come to totally dominate corporate philosophy over that time. We can talk about recessions, globalization, etc all we want, but for 40 fuckin' years the bottom 90% income has stalled. That's enough of a time frame to sort out any "noise" to see if the post-Reagan economic philosophy really "lifts all boats." It obviously didn't. On the contrary, the post-New Deal economic philosophy also got a 40 year trial and seemed to prove its worth in keeping inequality in check and growth consistent among every group.



Uhhh gee. What followed right after the New Deal? WWII. The rest of the modern world was blown to shit while the US was safe in North America. We came out of WWII as the global economic superpower by default. Unemployment was low and GDP growth was off the charts. Yeah there were some ups and downs but the trend was sharply up into the mid 70's. Gee. What technology really took hold in the mid 70's?. I bought my first IBM PC then.

[midnightpulp]

It's a simple fact that technological advances and globalization in the last 50 years has killed menial, repetitive jobs in the US and they are never coming back. That is the cause. You can't legislate or class warfare your way to the return of these jobs.

So wholesale globalization and technological advancement "just happened" over Reagan's first term? We see the top earners really start to separate themselves over that small time frame. And you're correct to a point. But since those jobs "are never coming back," what's the solution to bring all income levels back in line vis a vis growth and income equality?

"Education!"

Guess what that requires? Tax dollars. And university education is also prohibitively more expensive today than it was in the 50s, 60s. https://www.cbpp.org/tuition-growth-has-vastly-outpaced-income-gains.

You're also assuming talent distribution is equal, and that all it takes is "bootstraps" to propel yourself into the American dream. Cruel fact of life is that there are people, through no fault of their own, are limited cognitively or physically. The average IQ is 100, where the average IQ of an engineer is 117. This fact sucks, but it's reality. So because of this fact, the working people who weren't gifted with above average talents are just supposed to slave away for minimum wage the rest of their lives? Yes, this person would make a nice living as a factory worker in the 60s, but as you said, jobs not coming back. The only solution is to raise wages of unskilled menial workers or impose more taxes on the fortunate so the menial worker has more free services to use and less of a tax burden. How does this not make moral sense?

[midnightpulp]

Uhhh gee. What followed right after the New Deal? WWII. The rest of the modern world was blown to shit while the US was safe in North America. We came out of WWII as the global economic superpower by default. Unemployment was low and GDP growth was off the charts. Yeah there were some ups and downs but the trend was sharply up into the mid 70's. Gee. What technology really took hold in the mid 70's?. I bought my first IBM PC then.

:lol Yeah, all the other countries in the world magically built up their manufacturing infrastructure to competitive levels over Reagan's first couple of years in office. But again, if it's supposed to "trickle down," why didn't these new technologies and business strategies that allowed the top earners to become wealthier proverbially "lift all boats?"

You can say it. "I got mine. Fuck it." It's cool. I don't judge. Everyone is selfish, and it often does take work to battle those innate instincts and do what's morally right.

[boutons_deux]

Notice a jump in Carter's years, then St Ronnie's gang got the shitball rolling in the '80s.

This financial history is strictly due to govt policies as purchased by the wealthy.

NOT being smarter, hard work, etc, etc all the other bullshit the wealthy dump on the poor for being lazy

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol Yeah, all the other countries in the world magically built up their manufacturing infrastructure to competitive levels over Reagan's first couple of years in office. But again, if it's supposed to "trickle down," why didn't these new technologies and business strategies that allowed the top earners to become wealthier proverbially "lift all boats?"

You can say it. "I got mine. Fuck it." It's cool. I don't judge. Everyone is selfish, and it often does take work to battle those innate instincts and do what's morally right.

The American car industry got it's ass kicked by Toyota and Nissan in the seventies.
The American TV/radio industry got it's ass kicked by Sony and Panasonic in the seventies
The American tool industry got it's ass kicked by the Germans in the seventies.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

Yeah, that's when it all started to change.

The only thing the US really was leading in was computers and software and that was a job killer in itself. Hell, accounting software alone eliminated millions of "good" jobs.

[midnightpulp]

The American car industry got it's ass kicked by Toyota and Nissan in the seventies.
The American TV/radio industry got it's ass kicked by Sony and Panasonic in the seventies
The American tool industry got it's ass kicked by the Germans in the seventies.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

Yeah, that's when it all started to change.

The only thing the US really was leading in was computers and software and that was a job killer in itself. Hell, accounting software alone eliminated millions of "good" jobs.

But why did it significantly change for the better for the top earners? If we, collectively, got our asses kicked by the Japanese, why didn't we all get our asses kicked, top earners included. Seems the bottom 90% are the ones who took the brunt, while the top earners increased their bottom lines.

[CosmicCowboy]

But why did it significantly change for the better for the top earners? If we, collectively, got our asses kicked by the Japanese, why didn't we all get our asses kicked, top earners included. Seems the bottom 90% are the ones who took the brunt, while the top earners increased their bottom lines.

The ones that evolved survived and profited. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex anymore, either. I'm not saying Les Moonves was really worth 70 million a year, but CBS obviously thought he was. Who am I to begrudge him making a lot of money if they thought he was worth it?

[midnightpulp]

The ones that evolved survived and profited. We don't have to worry about getting eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex anymore, either. I'm not saying Les Moonves was really worth 70 million a year, but CBS obviously thought he was. Who am I to begrudge him making a lot of money if they thought he was worth it?

You should begrudge the fact that there are people working their asses off for comparatively low wages and benefits. That said, my question was rhetorical. We're exploring the efficacy of the trickle down theory, which you support and believe "lifts all boats." Boiled down, the wealthy enjoyed significant growth over the 80s along with tax cuts, while the bottom 90% stalled. If trickle down does what you claim it does, why didn't (hasn't it) done so? Maybe it actually doesn't work?

Or are you simply a dog-eat-dog social Darwinist?

[CosmicCowboy]

You should begrudge the fact that there are people working their asses off for comparatively low wages and benefits. That said, my question was rhetorical. We're exploring the efficacy of the trickle down theory, which you support and believe "lifts all boats." Boiled down, the wealthy enjoyed significant growth over the 80s along with tax cuts, while the bottom 90% stalled. If trickle down does what you claim it does, why didn't (hasn't it) done so? Maybe it actually doesn't work?

Or are you simply a dog-eat-dog social Darwinist?

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

[midnightpulp]

Also, no one really begrudges or is "bitter" that someone can make 70 million per year greenlighting bad television shows. The bitterness is toward the system that allows people to make 70 million per year greenlighting bad television while at the same time you have fast food workers busting their asses for paycheck-to-paycheck wages. If everyone lived very comfortably above the poverty line (i.e. upper class), no one would really care if Jeff Bezos became a trillionaire.

The point of contention and why Cortez's et al message resonates is when we look at our socioeconomic system and see these wealth discrepancies, asking ourselves, "How can a person worth 120 billion and a working person who can't afford a home or afford to raise a family exist in the same system?" But yeah, the former just "worked harder."

[CosmicCowboy]

Meh. You can hate Bezos all you want but would you have had the balls to quit your Wall Street job, pack the family up in the car and move to Seattle and start an internet book sale business out of your garage?

[midnightpulp]

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

I have said that I agree that trickle down works on the small business micro level, but corporations are becoming bigger and bigger employers as they swallow everything up. And I don't see any evidence that trickle down generally works at that macro level. I'm sure some big corps allow it to, but it doesn't seem to be the rule.

On a sociological point, I think the gradual erosion of small businesses is also disintegrating social cohesion and might be a hidden factor to the depression epidemic we've seen over the last 20/30 years. As a employee, you simply feel more valued and less like a "cog" working for a small business where the owner often times becomes a friend. On the retail side, a main street lined with small businesses is a more personal and intimate consumer experience than going to Walmart or clicking a mouse. A primary reason I'm against this rise of online shopping. I don't think life mediated through the Internet is healthy.

[midnightpulp]

Meh. You can hate Bezos all you want but would you have had the balls to quit your Wall Street job, pack the family up in the car and move to Seattle and start an internet book sale business out of your garage?

This should be celebrated why? Many people quit high paying jobs to start shit like microbreweries or hot sauce companies, industries that have zero chance at making their owners billionaires. And if Amazon failed, I doubt Bezos would've been on the streets or forced to take up a menial service job. He would've just returned to Wall Street, so his risk factor wasn't as high as perceived.

[CosmicCowboy]

The politics of envy as promoted by AOC and others is still going down an extremely dangerous path.

[Will Hunting]

I have said that I agree that trickle down works on the small business micro level, but corporations are becoming bigger and bigger employers as they swallow everything up. And I don't see any evidence that trickle down generally works at that macro level. I'm sure some big corps allow it to, but it doesn't seem to be the rule.

On a sociological point, I think the gradual erosion of small businesses is also disintegrating social cohesion and might be a hidden factor to the depression epidemic we've seen over the last 20/30 years. As a employee, you simply feel more valued and less like a "cog" working for a small business where the owner often times becomes a friend. On the retail side, a main street lined with small businesses is a more personal and intimate consumer experience than going to Walmart or clicking a mouse. A primary reason I'm against this rise of online shopping. I don't think life mediated through the Internet is healthy.
The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

[midnightpulp]

The politics of envy as promoted by AOC and others is still going down an extremely dangerous path.

Why do you always believe it to be out of envy? For me, it's more about insuring a healthy, flourishing, financially stable life for all our citizens in the richest country in human history than "punishing the rich." The simple fact is the rich have more power to make that happen.

[midnightpulp]

The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

Indeed. Shareholder primacy.

[CosmicCowboy]

The small business doesn't have shareholders or a board of directors to answer to either. The owner knows most of the employees on a personal level and treats them better. The shareholder system alone is proof that trickle down doesn't work at the macro level - there's a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth, which means paying employees as little as you possibly can and giving them as little benefits as you possibly can to get the job done.

You act like this is a bad thing. Where do you think pension fund and retirement funds are invested in? they account for 40% of the stock owned in the US. Only 24.2% are owned by taxable accounts. The balance is made up by foreign investment, insurance companies, non-profits, etc.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-stock-market-2016-5

[Will Hunting]

This should be celebrated why? Many people quit high paying jobs to start shit like microbreweries or hot sauce companies, industries that have zero chance at making their owners billionaires. And if Amazon failed, I doubt Bezos would've been on the streets or forced to take up a menial service job. He would've just returned to Wall Street, so his risk factor wasn't as high as perceived.
I do think Bezos has certainly earned his billions in wealth more so than say the Walton family heirs have. Your point about living life through the internet being unhealthy is valid, but Amazon has created a convenience factor for people that's undeniable. He built a business from scratch that's now worth $800 billion and still has a fuckload of room for growth.

Regarding whether or not I think there should be antitrust laws that stop Amazon from becoming a monopoly or whether or not Bezos should be paying more in taxes, yes and yes, I'm basically saying he's a bad example of a billionaire to be pissed off about.

The wealth that I find really offensive is wealth that's inherited and not earned. If this country had an estate tax with serious teeth then I'd be a lot more OK with regular income taxes being lower.

[Will Hunting]

You act like this is a bad thing. Where do you think pension fund and retirement funds are invested in? they account for 40% of the stock owned in the US. Only 24.2% are owned by taxable accounts. The balance is made up by foreign investment, insurance companies, non-profits, etc.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying it's why "trickle down" doesn't work. I have no issues with the shareholder system as currently constructed, my point is the idea that lower taxes will somehow make it so shareholders are willing to take less money so the employees can be paid more than what's required to get the job done is ridiculous.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm saying it's why "trickle down" doesn't work. I have no issues with the shareholder system as currently constructed, my point is the idea that lower taxes will somehow make it so shareholders are willing to take less money so the employees can be paid more than what's required to get the job done is ridiculous.

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.

[midnightpulp]

I do think Bezos has certainly earned his billions in wealth more so than say the Walton family heirs have. Your point about living life through the internet being unhealthy is valid, but Amazon has created a convenience factor for people that's undeniable. He built a business from scratch that's now worth $800 billion and still has a fuckload of room for growth.

Regarding whether or not I think there should be antitrust laws that stop Amazon from becoming a monopoly or whether or not Bezos should be paying more in taxes, yes and yes, I'm basically saying he's a bad example of a billionaire to be pissed off about.

The wealth that I find really offensive is wealth that's inherited and not earned. If this country had an estate tax with serious teeth then I'd be a lot more OK with regular income taxes being lower.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily pissed off about him, just using as an example of how our system can allow a 120 billionaire while at the same time IronMexican, making 100k per year, can't even afford to buy a house. It's why AOC, Warren, etc message resonates. And as I said in a prior post, you can't always easily bootstrap or "responsible" your way to a comfortable living. There's factors at play (like the proverbial bad hand dealt at birth) that can prevent that.

[Will Hunting]

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.
I understand what I just wrote, I’m not sure I’m getting the point across though. What is it you want me to think about?

[rmt]

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

You definitely deserve it. Don't fall for this rubbish that's being spewed on this board that tries to GUILT you into not feeling proud of or not enjoying the fruits of your labor and risk. This whole topic/conversation infuriates me. This ENVY for what others have is DANGEROUS. The same envy and disdain for Bezos that some have can so easily be the envy for what an average American has - food to eat, a phone, etc. compared to the billions of others in this world living in REAL poverty. Do I sit here envying Lebron James for his fantastic body or Roger Federer for his talent - expecting that the fruits of their labor be virtually STOLEN from them to make my life better. It seems that some would like us all to be equal forgetting the progress mankind has gained from people who think differently, who are smarter, who are more charismatic, who are more resourceful, who are inventive, who are blessed with whatever talent/characteristic that is valued - than we are. What's missing is an appreciation of our differences and an attitude of gratitude for what it is we do have.

And what galls me is that these ideas of THEFT are all in the name of MORALITY - give me a break. Flame away.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily pissed off about him, just using as an example of how our system can allow a 120 billionaire while at the same time IronMexican, making 100k per year, can't even afford to buy a house. It's why AOC, Warren, etc message resonates. And as I said in a prior post, you can't always easily bootstrap or "responsible" your way to a comfortable living. There's factors at play (like the proverbial bad hand dealt at birth) that can prevent that.

By that theory there are literally billions in the world that we should be taking care of that got dealt a shitty hand.

Still, if we are really concerned about the American poor and working class, why are we opening our southern border to competition from millions more impoverished immigrants when we can't take care of our own?

[midnightpulp]

Interesting.

Think about what you just wrote.

He's implying paying them above their utilitarian value to the company's overall bottom line. It seems the rank-and-file are paid the bare minimum in this sense while the pencil pushing CEO is paid exorbitant amounts above "what's required to get the job done." And it's not always about talent retention, etc. These are very much cronyism old boy networks.

[midnightpulp]

By that theory there are literally billions in the world that we should be taking care of that got dealt a shitty hand.

Still, if we are really concerned about the American poor and working class, why are we opening our southern border to competition from millions more impoverished immigrants when we can't take care of our own?

Lol. We do. Why do you think we stick around after bombing some middle eastern hellhole to try and nation build the country in our self-image? Many of those working menial jobs are immigrants, children of immigrants, etc. I think the majority of multiple generation Americans have moved into the skilled and educated workforce area.

[baseline bum]

Lol. We do. Why do you think we stick around after bombing some middle eastern hellhole to try and nation build the country in our self-image? Many of those working menial jobs are immigrants, children of immigrants, etc. I think the majority of multiple generation Americans have moved into the skilled and educated workforce area.

We're at constant war with middle eastern shitholes because the MIC demands huge welfare checks. America doesn't give a shit about brown people overseas.

[CosmicCowboy]

Lol. We do. Why do you think we stick around after bombing some middle eastern hellhole to try and nation build the country in our self-image? Many of those working menial jobs are immigrants, children of immigrants, etc. I think the majority of multiple generation Americans have moved into the skilled and educated workforce area.

:lol

Our own stupidity.

Most of these shitholes aren't ready for democracy. Hell, lately I wonder if WE are.

[Will Hunting]

Still, if we are really concerned about the American poor and working class, why are we opening our southern border to competition from millions more impoverished immigrants when we can't take care of our own?
No argument from me there, all I'd say is that other than the AOCs of the world, I don't see very many Democrats advocating for "open borders".

Might be the only time I've ever agreed with Ann Coulter, but she was on Bill Maher not to long ago and flat out said to the audience (paraphrased), "I know I'm saying this to an audience that hates me but there's a reason that the Koch Brothers and all the other corporatists you hate want more immigration from Mexico."

[midnightpulp]

You definitely deserve it. Don't fall for this rubbish that's being spewed on this board that tries to GUILT you into not feeling proud of or not enjoying the fruits of your labor and risk. This whole topic/conversation infuriates me. This ENVY for what others have is DANGEROUS. The same envy and disdain for Bezos that some have can so easily be the envy for what an average American has - food to eat, a phone, etc. compared to the billions of others in this world living in REAL poverty. Do I sit here envying Lebron James for his fantastic body or Roger Federer for his talent - expecting that the fruits of their labor be virtually STOLEN from them to make my life better. It seems that some would like us all to be equal forgetting the progress mankind has gained from people who think differently, who are smarter, who are more charismatic, who are more resourceful, who are inventive, who are blessed with whatever talent/characteristic that is valued - than we are. What's missing is an appreciation of our differences and an attitude of gratitude for what it is we do have.

And what galls me is that these ideas of THEFT are all in the name of MORALITY - give me a break. Flame away.

Was Lebron James innate athleticism and height a result of the "fruits of his labor?" Is a billionaire who was born into a family of millionaires who was educated at the best schools, had access to his parents network of influential friends, received loans from his parents to start his business, all that the result of the "fruits of his labor?" You're vastly underestimating the role luck plays in this case. You can handwave it away as "envy" and insult the people whose lives are very much affected by income equality as "whiners" all you want, but that doesn't make it morally just.

How is taxation "theft" when the money from that taxation is socialized across society? How much you want to bet Lebron James enjoyed the "fruits" of social programs while growing up? Your argument is shit and a weak attempt to logically and emotionally justify selfishness and greed. Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? Again, rich man, eye of the needle, camel, heaven.

[baseline bum]

No argument from me there, all I'd say is that other than the AOCs of the world, I don't see very many Democrats advocating for "open borders".

Might be the only time I've ever agreed with Ann Coulter, but she was on Bill Maher not to long ago and flat out said to the audience (paraphrased), "I know I'm saying this to an audience that hates me but there's a reason that the Koch Brothers and all the other corporatists you hate want more immigration from Mexico."

Ann Coulter loses me when she advocates a wall instead of putting assholes like Trump in jail for hiring illegals. As long as there is no consequence for hiring illegals it's open borders from the right too.

[baseline bum]

:lol

Our own stupidity.

Most of these shitholes aren't ready for democracy. Hell, lately I wonder if WE are.

We don't have one.

[Will Hunting]

Ann Coulter loses me when she advocates a wall instead of putting assholes like Trump in jail for hiring illegals. As long as there is no consequence for hiring illegals it's open borders from the right too.
Yeah I was only agreeing with her general observation that Democrats who want immigration in the name of :cry muh diversity :cry and :cry muh act of love :cry should pause for a moment and ask themselves why they disagree with the Koch Brothers they hate so much on everything BUT immigration.

[Will Hunting]

Lol. We do. Why do you think we stick around after bombing some middle eastern hellhole to try and nation build the country in our self-image? Many of those working menial jobs are immigrants, children of immigrants, etc. I think the majority of multiple generation Americans have moved into the skilled and educated workforce area.
:lol you don't seriously think we do this in order to help the natives of that country, do you?

[midnightpulp]

:lol you don't seriously think we do this in order to help the natives of that country, do you?

That's what they sell it as :lol. Hawks in this case will often point to Japan as an example. I forget who said that Iraq has the potential to become the Japan of the Middle East.

[baseline bum]

Yeah I was only agreeing with her general observation that Democrats who want immigration in the name of :cry muh diversity :cry and :cry muh act of love :cry should pause for a moment and ask themselves why they disagree with the Koch Brothers they hate so much on everything BUT immigration.

I hated seeing Bernie flip flop on immigration to court the muh diversity crowd. :pctoss

[CosmicCowboy]

We don't have one.

Meh its a Representative Democracy. The fact that the Representatives typically turn into self serving whores is unfortunate.

[Will Hunting]

I hated seeing Bernie flip flop on immigration to court the muh diversity crowd. :pctoss
The muh diversity crowd is the biggest threat to the Democratic party right now. It's really not that many people but they're the loudest and most obnoxious Democrats out there so the end result is them being overrepresented at the expense of populist Democrats.

[baseline bum]

Meh its a Representative Democracy. The fact that the Representatives typically turn into self serving whores is unfortunate.

It's not representative. AOC is the one with the majority view on taxation. We live under minority rule thanks to having a senate and the electoral college, as well as disenfranchisement of an entire major city in DC. The rest of the first world must think it's nuts that the GOP presidential candidate has only gotten more votes once in the last thirty years and yet we had two terms of Bush and now one of Trump.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah I was only agreeing with her general observation that Democrats who want immigration in the name of :cry muh diversity :cry and :cry muh act of love :cry should pause for a moment and ask themselves why they disagree with the Koch Brothers they hate so much on everything BUT immigration.

My feeling on immigration is that's hard for me to be consistent with the fact that it was okay for my ancestors (and the ancestors of the majority of Americans) to flee some shithole situation (persecution, war, famine) to "the land of opportunity" in order to better their lives, but it's not okay for recent immigrants. Sure, we can say our ancestors did it legally, but the process was much easier then. Maybe this should be a hard states right issue? California needs them (natives don't want those fruit picking jobs here), where Minnesota probably doesn't.

[baseline bum]

The muh diversity crowd is the biggest threat to the Democratic party right now. It's really not that many people but they're the loudest and most obnoxious Democrats out there so the end result is them being overrepresented at the expense of populist Democrats.

I knew the Syrian refugees were going to completely fuck the Democrats in 2016. Who in his right mind wants to import a lunatic backwards religion that makes the southern baptists look like tree huggers? The Syrian refugees are why we have such a disgusting facist movement in Europe and probably why we have one in power here too.

[midnightpulp]

That said, immigrants need to do more work on their end to demonstrate they care about the country they're coming to. When you see these caravans marching along flying Honduran flags, it sends a bad message and pisses people off.

[midnightpulp]

..

[Will Hunting]

It's not representative. AOC is the one with the majority view on taxation. We live under minority rule thanks to having a senate and the electoral college, as well as disenfranchisement of an entire major city in DC. The rest of the first world must think it's nuts that the GOP presidential candidate has only gotten more votes once in the last thirty years and yet we had two terms of Bush and now one of Trump.
We also have gerrymandering and a system where people in certain areas regularly need to wait 8 hours in line on election day to vote when other people can mail a ballot in from their house.

That's before mentioning the fact that we have a two party system where neither party has America's majority view on taxation and healthcare as part of its platform.

[CosmicCowboy]

..

This again?

Never heard of the Marshall plan or reconstruction of Japan? It didn't "just happen" in the 70's, their newly rebuilt industries just matured into real competition. The US cars in the 70's were shit and Japan kicked our ass. It's like a lot of developing countries have better cell systems than we do because they weren't building on top of old hard wire systems and got to start from scratch with the latest technology.

Ford Pinto anyone?

0zKNBVVrWos

[midnightpulp]

This again?

Never heard of the Marshall plan or reconstruction of Japan? It didn't "just happen" in the 70's, their newly rebuilt industries just matured into real competition. The US cars in the 70's were shit and Japan kicked our ass. It's like a lot of developing countries have better cell systems than we do because they weren't building on top of old hard wire systems and got to start from scratch with the latest technology.

Disregard. Accidentally double posted.

[Will Hunting]

I knew the Syrian refugees were going to completely fuck the Democrats in 2016. Who in his right mind wants to import a lunatic backwards religion that makes the southern baptists look like tree huggers? The Syrian refugees are why we have such a disgusting facist movement in Europe and probably why we have one in power here too.


That said, immigrants need to do more work on their end to demonstrate they care about the country they're coming to. When you see these caravans marching along flying Honduran flags, it sends a bad message and pisses people off.

Yeah this is where I'm 100% in Trump's corner and it's also why I don't view the Southern border immigrants the same way as Ellis Island immigrants. We have 3rd generation hispanics here who don't speak a lick of English because their family never assimilated and they still cheer for the Mexico soccer team in the world cup. You can call it racist all you want but if you want to waive the Mexican flag and cheer for Mexico in the olympics then stay in fucking Mexico. When my ancestors fled the USSR to escape persecution they didn't come to America and hang banners of Stalin outside of their house.

Regarding Syrian refugees, you're never going to convince me that of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees (a disproportionately high number of which are men in their 20s and 30s coming over alone) who are mostly dirt poor don't have any extremists or terrorists among them. I'm sure Europeans think the amount of mass shootings we have is insane (they'd be right), but I think the amount of terrorist attacks they have is insane to when they're knowingly letting the potential terrorists in the door.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah this is where I'm 100% in Trump's corner and it's also why I don't view the Southern border immigrants the same way as Ellis Island immigrants. We have 3rd generation hispanics here who don't speak a lick of English because their family never assimilated and they still cheer for the Mexico soccer team in the world cup. You can call it racist all you want but if you want to waive the Mexican flag and cheer for Mexico in the olympics then stay in fucking Mexico. When my ancestors fled the USSR to escape persecution they didn't come to America and hang banners of Stalin outside of their house.

Regarding Syrian refugees, you're never going to convince me that of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees (a disproportionately high number of which are men in their 20s and 30s coming over alone) who are mostly dirt poor don't have any extremists or terrorists among them. I'm sure Europeans think the amount of mass shootings we have is insane (they'd be right), but I think the amount of terrorist attacks they have is insane to when they're knowingly letting the potential terrorists in the door.

Wonder if that was due to Arizona's comparatively less population density (meaning they could more easily move to isolated areas and build insular communities)? As you know, I'm from SoCal, and everyone I grew up with, regardless of ethnicity, was fully assimilated. I can't remember hearing a word of Spanish on the playground or even out and about in most cases. Today, it's different, obviously, even in SoCal. Can't get away from hearing Spanish :lol. The parents speak it and the kids speak it. "Back in my day," the parent of a Hispanic kid might speak broken English, but their kids were almost always assimilated.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wonder if that was due to Arizona's comparatively less population density (meaning they could more easily move to isolated areas and build insular communities)? As you know, I'm from SoCal, and everyone I grew up with, regardless of ethnicity, was fully assimilated. I can't remember hearing a word of Spanish on the playground or even out and about in most cases. Today, it's different, obviously, even in SoCal. Can't get away from hearing Spanish :lol. The parents speak it and the kids speak it. "Back in my day," the parent of a Hispanic kid might speak broken English, but their kids were almost always assimilated.

I eat occasionally in the (San Antonio) downtown Luby's at lunch and at least a third and probably half the tables are speaking Spanish. It is an even higher percentage in the local mexican food dives I go to. I have adults all the time walking in the door looking for a job that can't speak any english. I get that a second language is tough (my broken spanish sucks) but damn, guys...at least TRY to assimilate.

[SpursforSix]

I eat occasionally in the (San Antonio) downtown Luby's at lunch and at least a third and probably half the tables are speaking Spanish. It is an even higher percentage in the local mexican food dives I go to. I have adults all the time walking in the door looking for a job that can't speak any english. I get that a second language is tough (my broken spanish sucks) but damn, guys...at least TRY to assimilate.

Simmer down granpa. LOL Luby's.

[CosmicCowboy]

Simmer down granpa. LOL Luby's.

Fuck off, asshole. There aren't that many downtown options without paying $20 to park.

[SpursforSix]

Fuck off, asshole. There aren't that many downtown options without paying $20 to park.

So $20 is all that stands between you and a good meal?

[CosmicCowboy]

So $20 is all that stands between you and a good meal?

Well Richie Rich, we can't all eat lunch every day at Ruths Chris.

What a dick.

[SpursforSix]

Well Richie Rich, we can't all eat lunch every day at Ruths Chris.

What a dick.

lmao...you're way to sensitive about your Luby's.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's only an issue with faggots like you.

[baseline bum]

Yeah this is where I'm 100% in Trump's corner and it's also why I don't view the Southern border immigrants the same way as Ellis Island immigrants. We have 3rd generation hispanics here who don't speak a lick of English because their family never assimilated and they still cheer for the Mexico soccer team in the world cup. You can call it racist all you want but if you want to waive the Mexican flag and cheer for Mexico in the olympics then stay in fucking Mexico. When my ancestors fled the USSR to escape persecution they didn't come to America and hang banners of Stalin outside of their house.

Regarding Syrian refugees, you're never going to convince me that of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees (a disproportionately high number of which are men in their 20s and 30s coming over alone) who are mostly dirt poor don't have any extremists or terrorists among them. I'm sure Europeans think the amount of mass shootings we have is insane (they'd be right), but I think the amount of terrorist attacks they have is insane to when they're knowingly letting the potential terrorists in the door.

It's like people ask me how I could vote for Clinton when she is a deplorable person. But everything I hate about Clinton I also hate about Trump. Kind of the same with Islam. Everything I hate in Christianity is even worse in Islam. The muh diversity crowd is right to mock Christianity like they do but then it's kiddie gloves for every other cancerous religion? The only Syrian refugees I'd want are people with the job skills to live an upper middle class life and give their kids a leg up towards being successful. Not people who are going to have pissed off kids who will never be shit and then be easy to radicalize when they cling to their religion.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's like people ask me how I could vote for Clinton when she is a deplorable person. But everything I hate about Clinton I also hate about Trump. Kind of the same with Islam. Everything I hate in Christianity is even worse in Islam. The muh diversity crowd is right to mock Christianity like they do but then it's kiddie gloves for every other cancerous religion? The only Syrian refugees I'd want are people with the job skills to live an upper middle class life and give their kids a leg up towards being successful. Not people who are going to have pissed off kids who will never be shit and then be easy to radicalize when they cling to their religion.

As far as I am concerned that should apply to all immigrants at this point, not just Syrians.

[baseline bum]

I eat occasionally in the (San Antonio) downtown Luby's at lunch and at least a third and probably half the tables are speaking Spanish. It is an even higher percentage in the local mexican food dives I go to. I have adults all the time walking in the door looking for a job that can't speak any english. I get that a second language is tough (my broken spanish sucks) but damn, guys...at least TRY to assimilate.

Damn I don't think I have eaten at a Luby's in 25 years. Are they any good today?

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn I don't think I have eaten at a Luby's in 25 years. Are they any good today?

Not even close to what they were 25 years ago, but again, it's a quick lunch from work. Better than Wendys, Jack in the Box, or Bill Millers. I would never go there for dinner.

[baseline bum]

As far as I am concerned that should apply to all immigrants at this point, not just Syrians.

I wouldn't go that far with Mexican refugees. We need them for our agriculture, as they really help to keep our food prices cheap. So I'd like to see a system where Mexican agricultural workers could come here legally during growing seasons, pay their taxes, go back home after, and after maybe ten years earn citizenship if they have shown themselves to be responsible workers, stay out of trouble, and if they can speak the language passably and know enough about the US to pass a citizenship test.

[baseline bum]

Not even close to what they were 25 years ago, but again, it's a quick lunch from work. Better than Wendys, Jack in the Box, or Bill Millers. I would never go there for dinner.

That's disappointing to hear. I had a grandmother who loved Luby's but I stopped going once she died. Though I love Bill Miller. I would have killed to have them in LA when I lived there.

[AaronY]

We have 3rd generation hispanics here who don't speak a lick of English


This is such horseshit. 99% of hispanic families the kids always speak English and the older ones don't. We do a great of assimilating people into our culture. Best in the world at it and always have been.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wouldn't go that far with Mexican refugees. We need them for our agriculture, as they really help to keep our food prices cheap. So I'd like to see a system where Mexican agricultural workers could come here legally during growing seasons, pay their taxes, go back home after, and after maybe ten years earn citizenship if they have shown themselves to be responsible workers, stay out of trouble, and if they can speak the language passably and know enough about the US to pass a citizenship test.

I will agree with that. Unfortunately that requires control of our borders and an organized and easy system to permit them which we don't have.

[boutons_deux]

WATCH: White woman flips out inside Mexican restaurant :lol

after hearing manager speak Spanish


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/watch-white-woman-flips-inside-mexican-restaurant-hearing-manager-speak-spanish/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[CosmicCowboy]

WATCH: White woman flips out inside Mexican restaurant :lol

after hearing manager speak Spanish


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/watch-white-woman-flips-inside-mexican-restaurant-hearing-manager-speak-spanish/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Boo brings the shit goods as usual.

[SpursforSix]

Not even close to what they were 25 years ago, but again, it's a quick lunch from work. Better than Wendys, Jack in the Box, or Bill Millers. I would never go there for dinner.

Hey...I found a way you can save even more money for lunch. They have a LuAnn platter that's "the original value meal".

[CosmicCowboy]

Hey...I found a way you can save even more money for lunch. They have a LuAnn platter that's "the original value meal".

At least I don't get my protein by sucking cocks like you do.

[Will Hunting]

Honestly I agree with a quite a bit of the Trump/Miller immigration ideology, it’s just their retarded justification of a 10 billion dollar, 1000+ mile long slatted penis extender that completely loses me.
Yeah it's a false premise that anyone against the stupid fucking wall means that person must favor uncapped immigration. Building a wall in the middle of the Sonoran Desert is a waste of money and an environmental disaster, especially given that area had very little illegal immigrant traffic even in the early 2000s when border security actually was a much bigger issue.

[AaronY]

The immigrants that came in the first half of the 20th century faced HUGE backlash. For some reason people don't remember it or study it. Take Italians for instance. 11 Italians were hung in one instance in anti-Italian riot, the NY Times of all places ran an op ed when the Mafia was having huge gang battles in the streets with Tommy Guns saying that maybe Italians were too violent and animalistic to be allowed here. Think about the Mafia..I love all those Godfather/Goodfellas movies but imagine starting a small business and some greaseball piece of shit wants all of your money or he burns your place down. I would fucking hate him and everyone who looks like him. This kind of stuff gets forgotten but the Ellis Island immigrants were not some easily assimilated different brand of people. There's always been massive immigrant backlash in the U.S. but we pushed through it

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do you guys keep talking about a wall coast to coast? It's like the liberal equivalent of some of the crap I see by conservatives about AOC.

[Will Hunting]

Why do you guys keep talking about a wall coast to coast? It's like the liberal equivalent of some of the crap I see by conservatives about AOC.
Isn't that what Trump is advocating for? A wall across the entire border?

[CosmicCowboy]

Isn't that what Trump is advocating for? A wall across the entire border?

nope.

[boutons_deux]

Stephen Goebbels Himmler Miller said yesterday we need the wall to protect the 4000 troops there, sort of defensive perimeter

[CosmicCowboy]

Isn't that what Trump is advocating for? A wall across the entire border?

From 2017


“You don't need 2,000 miles of wall because you have a lot of natural barriers," Trump told reporters then. "You have mountains. You have some rivers that are violent and vicious. You have some areas that are so far away that you don't really have people crossing. So you don't need that …You’ll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles."

[Will Hunting]

From 2017
We already have close to 700 miles of walls and barriers across the border though, what specific areas is he talking about walling that aren't already walled?

[CosmicCowboy]

We already have close to 700 miles of walls and barriers across the border though, what specific areas is he talking about walling that aren't already walled?

My guess is it would be up to Customs and Border Patrol to set priorities. Seems more reasonable than asking Spurstalk. A lot of existing barriers you are counting are just vehicle barriers....posts set in the ground every few feet.

[Will Hunting]

My guess is it would be up to Customs and Border Patrol to set priorities.
I'd have no issue with giving $5 billion of funding for Customs and Border Patrol to use at their discretion.

[boutons_deux]

We already have close to 700 miles of walls and barriers across the border though, what specific areas is he talking about walling that aren't already walled?

butterfly preserve to be destroyed, along with lots of protected areas to have their pussies grabbed.

Then there's $B / year in inevitably increasing maintenance costs

[CosmicCowboy]

butterfly preserve to be destroyed, along with lots of protected areas to their pussies grabbed.

Then there's $B / year in inevitably increasing maintenance costs

Poor butterflies will have to fly over the fence instead of walking.

[Will Hunting]

Poor butterflies will have to fly over the fence instead of walking.
Yeah I don't understand how a fence with holes butterflies can get through would be a big deal :lol

I know there are areas in Texas where a wall would decimate the black bear population which I think is a bigger deal.

[Trill Clinton]

Fuck off, asshole. There aren't that many downtown options without paying $20 to park.

You can go a few blocks down and eat at the cove.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah I don't understand how a fence with holes butterflies can get through would be a big deal :lol

I know there are areas in Texas where a wall would decimate the black bear population which I think is a bigger deal.

I walked up on a big black bear boar sleeping in a little thicket on a ranch out north of Marathon about 15 years ago. Scared the shit out of me when he stood up about 30 feet from me. It was the last thing I was expecting to see. Both of us hauled ass. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

You can go a few blocks down and eat at the cove.

I do, but not every day. Cutting down on carbs so don't do many burgers.

[SpursforSix]

At least I don't get my protein by sucking cocks like you do.

LOL. You get so bent out of shape about the littlest things.
"God damn, don't your dare run down Luby's".

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL. You get so bent out of shape about the littlest things.
"God damn, don't your dare run down Luby's".

You smacktalk about the stupidest things. Your obvious penis envy is sad.

[SpursforSix]

I do, but not every day. Cutting down on carbs so don't do many burgers.

LMAO. I'm calling bullshit if you're saying you go to Luby's and eat low-carb.

[CosmicCowboy]

LMAO. I'm calling bullshit if you're saying you go to Luby's and eat low-carb.

Call all you want, porky. Just because you pig out on mac & cheese it doesn't mean I do.

[SpursforSix]

You smacktalk about the stupidest things. Your obvious penis envy is sad.

wtf. "smacktalk"

[spurraider21]

This policy would destroy America

also, lets put it up for a vote! so that we can pwn the libs for 2020

[Spurminator]

This policy would destroy America

also, lets put it up for a vote! so that we can pwn the libs for 2020

A smart campaign move for Dems in Kentucky would be to run ads about how Mitch McConnell refused to prevent a vote on an anti-coal and anti-Military piece of legislation that also calls for socialized health care.

[ducks]

Ocasio-Cortez's 'Deals' to Cost $338,000 Per Taxpayer, Analysis Shows

[ducks]

Sen. Warren Unveils ‘Universal Child Care’ Plan, Will Cost $70 BILLION PER YEAR

[midnightpulp]

Sen. Warren Unveils ‘Universal Child Care’ Plan, Will Cost $70 BILLION PER YEAR

Drop in the bucket when we fund 1.5 trillion dollar fighter plane projects.

[ElNono]

I do what I can. My employees all make good money, have all their health insurance premiums paid by me for them and their families and get 5% matching on their 401K's. Do I make more than they do? Yeah. Do I deserve it? I dunno. I assume financial risk every day to keep my small business running and work 60 hours a week. Is what it is.

Do you have a board in your company? Those packages sound real nice, they'll probably disappear as soon as that company goes public. That is somewhat the point. It's not that you're not doing your part, is that you're nowhere in the position of the Jeff Bezos of the world, as well as you might've done in your lifetime (which sounds like it's something to be proud of, I don't want to take anything away from you). At some point, if the company does really well, it goes from the hands-on to the automatic, and the automatic means shareholders, quarterly revenue increases, CEOs, restructuring, shakeups, where the focus is on the bottom line, not on the people. And that's why, I think, mid doesn't quite understand the fervor for these companies who honestly, truly, only care about the mighty buck.

And you really can't tell me with a straight face that you think it's OK that Amazon doesn't pay federal income taxes, while you work 60 hours a week, and have to pay every penny in taxes. The money they didn't pay will come out from all of us or added to the debt, coz we ain't cutting spending either.

Wild rmt is dumb as a rock, but I know you know what mid is talking about. There's a point where the system becomes perverse, and has nothing to do with envy. Almost every society historically eventually cracked from the pressure between the have and have not. As mid said, it invites what would otherwise sound very much like crackpots, like AOC, to resonate in some minds. It's not you that they hate, it's the $1+ billion mammoths that skirt taxes, dictate policy in DC, hire illegal immigrants, and get away with all of it.

[AaronY]

At least I don't get my protein by sucking cocks like you do.
Oh snap! dets a burn right durr! hahaha what a phaggy phag that guy is, huh CC?

[AaronY]

https://media.giphy.com/media/JyLrvtoeR86NW/giphy.gif

imo

[Winehole23]

globalist thought-leader Jeffrey Sachs makes the case that the GND is affordable:


The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, making decarbonization eminently feasible. Detailed estimates put the costs of substantial decarbonization (80% or more by 2050) at around 1% of GDP per year or less. (See here (https://academic.oup.com/reep/article/11/2/319/3964517) for one recent study). In many cases, renewable energy is already at "grid parity," meaning that it is at a cost point comparable to fossil fuels. Most of the modest costs of decarbonization will never hit the federal budget, as they will be absorbed by the utility industry, the automobile producers, and other parts of the private economy.


Decarbonization is already underway in the US, just not yet with the pace and scale required. US utilities are no longer building (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/420123-epa-no-new-coal-plants-likely-to-be-built-despite-relaxed-rule) coal-fired power plants; many are now scrapping plans for gas-fired plants (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy) in favor of renewable energy. Investors and in-house lawyers are warning companies not to invest in fossil fuels, as these investments would be stranded in future years. Automobile companies are rapidly shifting to electric vehicles. New buildings are going electric, with tough efficiency codes. These transformations are being driven mainly by environmental regulations, integrated resource planning by utilities, and market forces, not by federal outlays.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/opinions/green-new-deal-sachs/index.html

[Winehole23]

Lower-cost, high-quality health care for all, for example through Medicare for All, is also within reach. As with decarbonization, the right wing and corporate lobbies are using scare tactics to hide the basic fact: Health care costs in the US can be cut considerably, while improving services.

The US spends around 17% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care coverage (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2018/mar/health-care-spending-united-states-and-other-high-income), while other countries spend 10-12%. The main difference (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2674671) lies with the high prices of US health care, for drugs, hospital stays, medical procedures, and other goods and services, rather than with greater utilization of health services. These high prices have resulted in part from the rising concentration and market power (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2017/sep/health-care-market-concentration-trends-united-states) of health care providers at the metropolitan level. The result is outlandish salaries, bloated administration, heavy costs of advertising, and other inefficiencies that result in high incomes for the health care industry and exorbitant costs for taxpayers and for workers paying for private health care plans.

The question is therefore not whether we can afford Medicare for All, but whether we will get there before the private health care industry bankrupts us. As one approach, the private insurance premiums now flowing to private health insurers could be re-directed to a Medicare account that would reimburse the health providers at Medicare rates, with much lower management salaries and administrative costs. The nationwide cost savings of Medicare for All (https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all) -- hundreds of billions of dollars per year -- could be remitted to taxpayers or used to reduce the federal budget deficit.

[Winehole23]

Can debt-free higher education for all be achieved? The other rich countries all accomplish it. One proposal (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file) for "College for All," presented by Senator Bernie Sanders, would cost around one-quarter of 1% of GDP, a price point that is tiny compared with the burdens of a society weighed down by student debts that create lifelong anxieties until retirement years.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'd chunk the billions in the SSI account or some remittance as part of a front loaded qualitative easing program.