Debates
16 Oct 20
@lemon-lime saidI’ve no idea that’s why I asked the question, does it necessarily preclude it?
Does the Green New Deal allow for fracking?
I took the ‘green new deal’ to refer to a massive investment in green infrastructure you know like FDRs new deal but with the word green added as a prefix.
@kevcvs57 saidWhere would that massive investment come from?
I’ve no idea that’s why I asked the question, does it necessarily preclude it?
I took the ‘green new deal’ to refer to a massive investment in green infrastructure you know like FDRs new deal but with the word green added as a prefix.
Would it come from taxes used to create jobs (but not wealth)
Or would it voluntarily come from privately owned businesses able to create both wealth and jobs
The answer to this is obvious... it would come from tax payer dollars. But redistribution of wealth in order to create jobs does nothing to create wealth. In fact, creating jobs and paying workers from extracting privately earned (other peoples) money actually works to diminish wealth... in effect it works like gradually diminishing your health until you become permanently disabled.
This isn't an untested theory.
Think of it this way. Grain is a commodity you can sell because everyone needs to eat, including you. So you plant 10 seeds of grain and get back 10 times the grain you planted. Then you plant 50% percent of your yield and get back 10 times more from that second planting. As time goes by the amount of grain you keep getting back from your crops becomes more than you can handle, so you hire a few farm hands to help you deal with the abundance of grain. This is an example of both wealth and job creation... and there are no losers in this scenario.
18 Oct 20
@averagejoe1 saidAny rational person is opposed to fracking.
Keeping in mind that they cannot have the Green New Deal if there is a bunch of fracking going on. Really confusing.
It’s time to use other means.
18 Oct 20
@shavixmir saidI agree.
Any rational person is opposed to fracking.
It’s time to use other means.
Biden is irrational. His claim he listens to the science is clearly a lie.
18 Oct 20
@lemon-lime saidYes it would come from a mixture of direct taxes, tax incentives and private investment sources.
Where would that massive investment come from?
Would it come from taxes used to create jobs (but not wealth)
Or would it voluntarily come from privately owned businesses able to create both wealth and jobs
The answer to this is obvious... it would come from tax payer dollars. But redistribution of wealth in order to create jobs does nothing to create wealth. ...[text shortened]... ain. This is an example of both wealth and job creation... and there are no losers in this scenario.
Capitalism 101 Speculate to Accumulate.
What’s your problem with literally investing for the future?
@kevcvs57 saidI don't have a problem investing in the future if it's my call.
Yes it would come from a mixture of direct taxes, tax incentives and private investment sources.
Capitalism 101 Speculate to Accumulate.
What’s your problem with literally investing for the future?
Any fool can use that line, they can come up to you and say what they want to do is 'an investment for the future'.
Not having a choice as to whether I invest or not is what I have a problem with.
Where does a person's right to pursue happiness fit into this scenario if the government is able to indiscriminately reach into your pockets and take your hard earned money? Are you aware of the millions upon millions of dollars used for building 'bridges to nowhere'?
Tell me why investments used mostly for lining a politicians pockets be mandatory. Pelosi doesn't need my money, her net worth is estimated at 100 million dollars. We've already invested in her future, and she's doing okay for herself. So why not lay off the excessive taxation, and let us little people invest in our own futures for a change.
Joe Biden's climate plan targets net-zero emissions by 2050, so I guess he has 30 years before he stops fracking up the country.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/politics/joe-biden-2020-climate-plan/index.html
Biden changed his mind about a carbon tax. He was for it, now he is against it because of the economy.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/20/joe-biden-reportedly-wouldnt-pursue-carbon-tax-as-president/
Oh, that's right. He will not be president for 30 years. LOL! He will frack up the country for 4 to 8 years if elected. It is the problem for whoever is in office in 30 years. Joe will be long dead by then.
19 Oct 20
@lemon-lime saidLike I get a choice about getting taxed to pay for an overbearing police force or my racist post imperialist military. The hypocrisy of some people regarding their personal tax burden never ceases to amaze me.
I don't have a problem investing in the future if it's my call.
Any fool can use that line, they can come up to you and say what they want to do is 'an investment for the future'.
Not having a choice as to whether I invest or not is what I have a problem with.
Where does a person's right to pursue happiness fit into this scenario if the government is able to indiscrim ...[text shortened]... not lay off the excessive taxation, and let us little people invest in our own futures for a change.
19 Oct 20
@lemon-lime saidIs he saying he is going to raise your personal taxes to pay for the green deal. All your doing here is whingeing about taxes being spent on stuff you don’t agree with whilst being fine with me being taxed to pay for crap that I don’t agree with.
I don't have a problem investing in the future if it's my call.
Any fool can use that line, they can come up to you and say what they want to do is 'an investment for the future'.
Not having a choice as to whether I invest or not is what I have a problem with.
Where does a person's right to pursue happiness fit into this scenario if the government is able to indiscrim ...[text shortened]... not lay off the excessive taxation, and let us little people invest in our own futures for a change.
Have you ever added up all the tax dollars spent on defending the right of US oil companies to rape the natural resources of other people around the world?
19 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 - Is he saying he is going to raise your personal taxes to pay for the green deal.
Well, who are they gonna tax, Santa Claus? You're another fan of "free stuff", I see.
Kev, if BigGov got every penny from BigBiz, do you not think that BigBiz will raise prices to cover it?
Or you could do what Maduro of Venezuela did, force retailers to hold their prices down. Nice!
That closed down many retailers, as they went broke and moved to Colombia.
"Free stuff! Get your free stuff while it lasts!"
@earl-of-trumps saidYour not making any sense if your attempting to reply to my post earl.
@kevcvs57 - Is he saying he is going to raise your personal taxes to pay for the green deal.
Well, who are they gonna tax, Santa Claus? You're another fan of "free stuff", I see.
Kev, if BigGov got every penny from BigBiz, do you not think that BigBiz will raise prices to cover it?
Or you could do what Maduro of Venezuela did, force retailers to hold t ...[text shortened]... lers, as they went broke and moved to Colombia.
"Free stuff! Get your free stuff while it lasts!"
Green technologies and infrastructure pay for themselves after a time it’s an investment for the taxpayer. You get on the green technology bandwagon or you get left behind as a fossil based economy.
It doesn’t surprise me that you front for big oil companies regardless of how much they cost the taxpayer but your argument has no internal logic.
Tax dollars are Tax dollars, this is a debate about how you spend them. If you move to domestic green technologies think of how much you can save the tax payer on a reduced military bill from not having to ‘defend’ oil and its supply line.
@lemon-lime saidYou need a quick course in Economics.
I don't have a problem investing in the future if it's my call.
Any fool can use that line, they can come up to you and say what they want to do is 'an investment for the future'.
Not having a choice as to whether I invest or not is what I have a problem with.
Where does a person's right to pursue happiness fit into this scenario if the government is able to indiscrim ...[text shortened]... not lay off the excessive taxation, and let us little people invest in our own futures for a change.
Much of what is being proposed in the NGD is called "positive externalities". https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/positive-externality/#:~:text=Definition%20of%20Positive%20Externality%3A%20This,to%20the%20rest%20of%20society.&text=(positive%20production%20externality)
Because such benefits do not flow directly to the parties to the exchange, they undervalue them. Thus investment in such things will be chronically less than desirable in a market economy.
Right wingers made the same type of arguments when the Clean Air Act was proposed but it has resulted in greatly reduced levels of air pollution which was socially and economically beneficial to the country as a whole:
"From 1970 to 2017, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 73 percent while gross domestic product grew by 324 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.
The emissions reductions have led to dramatic improvements in the quality of the air that we breathe. Between 1990 and 2017, national concentrations of air pollutants improved 80 percent for lead, 77 percent for carbon monoxide, 88 percent for sulfur dioxide (1-hour), 56 percent for nitrogen dioxide (annual), and 22 percent for ozone. Fine particle concentrations (24-hour) improved 40 percent and coarse particle concentrations (24-hour) improved 34 percent between 2000, when trends data begins for fine particles, and 2015. (For more trends information, see EPA's Air Trends site.)"
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/[WORD TOO LONG].
And this is not even considering avoiding the hazards that climate change will cause if nothing is done.
@no1marauder saidWhat I'm hearing from you and kev is that you're okay with imposing taxes to pay for projects you both approve of.
You need a quick course in Economics.
Much of what is being proposed in the NGD is called "positive externalities". https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/positive-externality/#:~:text=Definition%20of%20Positive%20Externality%3A%20This,to%20the%20rest%20of%20society.&text=(positive%20production%20externality)
Because such benefits do not ...[text shortened]... this is not even considering avoiding the hazards that climate change will cause if nothing is done.
Never mind what The People ( remember them? ) would like to see. You know better what the greater good is for both you and them.
I've lost track of how many measures were voted down in California, only to have those down votes overturned by judges.
So tell me, where's the incentive for anyone to vote up or down on measures if you take away The People's right to self governance?
BTW, don't forget to give us another timely lecture on the hypocrisy of 'right-wingers'.
19 Oct 20
@lemon-lime saidThe People overwhelmingly support measures which will combat climate change:
What I'm hearing from you and kev is that you're okay with imposing taxes to pay for projects you both approve of.
Never mind what The People ( remember them? ) would like to see. You know better what the greater good is for both you and them.
I've lost track of how many measures were voted down in California, only to have those down votes overturned by jud ...[text shortened]...
BTW, don't forget to give us another timely lecture about the hypocrisy of 'right-wingers'.
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government should act more aggressively to combat climate change, and almost as many say the problem is already affecting their community in some way, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the nationwide survey of 10,957 adults conducted this spring finds that Americans overwhelmingly want the government to do more to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to a warming climate, with significant majorities backing policies that would plant huge numbers of trees, greater restrict power plant emissions, require more fuel-efficient cars and tax corporations based on their emissions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/23/climate-change-poll-pew/
@no1marauder saidInstead of making policy decisions based on polls, why not just put it to a vote.
The People overwhelmingly support measures which will combat climate change:
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government should act more aggressively to combat climate change, and almost as many say the problem is already affecting their community in some way, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the nati ...[text shortened]... missions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/23/climate-change-poll-pew/
Why not let The People decide? Or can't they be trusted to make the right decisions.