Congresswoman AOC

[ClayC]

I have to admit. This rising star of the democratic party intrigues me. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

People are giving her a microphone and nodding their heads at some grand sounding ideas — save the planet, give everyone a job — but when I listen to her, she really seems clueless to the broader applications of what she is saying. Sadly, those nodding their heads in agreement don't get it either.

It sounds good to say she'll raise taxes on the rich so that those making $10 million or more pay at a 70% rate. The Washington Post provides the analysis that if today's pool that falls into that category paid that rate, it would generate only $72 billion dollars a year. That's rather meager when one considers the trillions it would take to retrofit every automobile in America to be electric, provide an entirely new transportation system to replace aircraft, provide guaranteed jobs for all those that "can't or are not willing" to work, provide universal healthcare and more. At least Barry Sanders was up front with his agenda and told everyone that nearly everyone would have to pay over 8% more on taxes for the dream to come true. As Dave has pointed out, would people just stop earning a salary over $10 million? What good is that kind of paycheck when you see about $0.13 on every dollar? Are the Hollywood elite on board with this plan?

I also notice AOC talking about the person who "works 80 hours a week and still can't feed their children." Let's assume for a moment that this hypothetical person is working two, full-time minimum wage jobs. $13.75 x 80 = 1,100. That's $57,000 a year. How many children does this hypothetical person have? If you can't feed your kids on that, then you have bigger issues. Full disclosure, she's also said "works 100 hours a week" and still can't put food on the table. That's over $71k a year. That ought to put some food on the table, me thinks. If the 80-100 is at one job, then overtime rules kick in which yields even more cash for the little darlings to get their happy meals.

None of this gets into the absolute unconstitutional need to strip away liberty left and right for any of this utopia to come true. Outlaw the internal combustion engine? Ban aircraft?

What is jaw dropping (and concerning) for me isn't that this woman has zany ideas backed with nothing but fluffy clouds and rainbows. It's that people take her seriously and have elected her to the United States Congress.

Yikes and gulp.

[B Keg]

Well she just signed a 10million dollar deal with Netflix so maybe she will pony up 7 mil.....

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/e890c82d-03cc-4cc3-8765-1097c0925021%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ken ken]

Barry Sanders was anything but straightforward. He had some of the best lateral moves ever seen in football. Bernie Sanders, though, has been pretty honest about his policies. 

Where is 13.75/hr the minimum wage? There are all kinds of jobs around here touting 10/hr as an upgrade. Let's redo the math. Try it with 8/hr. 640/wk X 50 =32K/yr. Minus taxes. One can make it on that. Perhaps here in Kansas; but perhaps not so easily in New York. Is 13.75 the minimum wage in NYC? 

If Trump's tax cut gives a trillion dollars to mostly the wealthy, then shouldn't that be fairly easily recovered? Same with Bush tax cuts. Math aside, what's really obvious is that tax cuts for the wealthy are pretty easy to implement and almost impossible to rescind. I wonder why? 

  I like E. Warren's notion of a wealth tax. Much more effective. Also spread a little more widely. 

  The cost analysis of various suggested programs is almost certainly flawed. If we provided health care for all, I would predict a drop in total health care costs. I've already explained why. Now, the costs would be seen as an increase in taxes, balanced by a decrease in premiums and a decrease in wages withheld by employers to pay the freight. But the overall amount need not increase a priori and in fact could easily decrease. Also, since it becomes part of the tax code, the costs are shifted upward, an automatic boon to lower and middle income earners. Presto, two birds killed with one stone. 

  One need not outlaw the internal combustion engine. Just implement a carbon tax, and watch the technology die like buggy whip making. A carbon tax, rather than massive gov't regulation, would move things where they need to go (assuming that man/climate issue needs attention). Level the playing field; charge carbon producers for the damage they inflict on the environment. Then solar and wind would be automatically competitive. No subsidies, no tax relief.

As for AOC, movement leaders are often considered radical for their time, often vilified for their ideas. Maybe she's asking for the moon, but would accept a medium sized asteroid. Are there any Biblical characters who were initially vilified for their ideas, even punished and persecuted, but later thought to be very important? (Don't bother with commentary about false equivalence; I know it). Any political people you can think of? I can think of two who's first name begins with a "M". Dream big and reality will follow to some extent. If you doubt the value, notice that you're already paying attention to her; and she hasn't accomplished a thing. I'd keep paying attention. 

[GMoney]

I'm just now being introduced to this gal.....and only in snippets as i've tuned out most of those idiots. I liked her succinct and on-point take down of campaign finance. I thought her New Green Deal was an absolute joke...and so did Pelosi, which was kinda funny. 

This legislative style of "I know it's pie-in-the-sky and impossible and would bankrupt the country and it's an exaggeration but let's go for it anyway" is pretty stupid in my opinion. Gore admitted to some of this with his Inconvenient Truth garbage...."stretching the truth and exaggerations are OK if the end goal is pure!".   Ugh.  No, it's actually not. 

Can't we just have a party of truth? Just tell the truth.  What am i thinking....truth doesn't win elections. 

--

[B Keg]

Blondes are now starting to tell AOC  jokes......

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/CACazdfJ%3D%2BS7iYhowYnOwoBCAQyo0%3D-ryRaEg6s%3DV4bEiZ8DSfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Fairchild]

Why are the Democrats seemingly going hard, hard left? It would seem like if they could find a reasoned moderate, affable personality like a young Bill Clinton, they'd have a lock on the POTUS race in 2020. I suspect there are lots of Americans who don't want DT and don't want Venezuela.

[B Keg]

Insanity?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/8dcd2f20-6279-4d0a-9022-0d36f4f93b1e%40googlegroups.com.

[GMoney]

I used to agree with that sentiment, but this isn't the same country. Not the same people. You used to fight extremism with moderation....now you fight it with the opposite extremism. That's what we're seeing with the left. Instead of countering Trump's craziness with a liberal brand of reason, we see crazy shit like the New Green Deal and free (fill in the blank) for everyone!

I'm telling you the election of Donald Trump as leader of this country was a watershed moment. A fundamental shift. Ideas like what Brian K. and Craig espouse on this list used to be accepted with a smirk and smile, then dismissed through reason......now they become policy. Trump idiots think it's fun now, but eventually it's going to be "liberal crazy" in charge, and they won't find it quite as amusing then. 

Frankly none of it is amusing. 

--

[David Fairchild]

Hmm. What extreme policy has DT introduced? I maintain there s nothing watershed or fundamentally different about DT other than his degree of boorishness.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com.

[GMoney]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:34 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm. What extreme policy has DT introduced? I maintain there s nothing watershed or fundamentally different about DT other than his degree of boorishness.

I don't see much difference between Alex Gordon and Joe Dimaggio....other than his inability to hit a baseball.

Those are pretty important "other thans". 

The watershed shift is in US, not Trump or politics in general.

[B Keg]

He defeated her. It was her turn and he stole the election from her. This has caused the left to lose whatever anchor to reality it had left and AOC is the result. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/8dcd2f20-6279-4d0a-9022-0d36f4f93b1e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/09ca55fc-b76a-4a01-bc5c-688a08e8eef8%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

Batting stats are great because they allow for rank ordering. So, I am struggling in trying to follow you analogy.

How are we different pre DT election and post DT election? Is this measureable? Are there specific attributes that we exude more of or less of?

[GMoney]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:57 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Batting stats are great because they allow for rank ordering. So, I am struggling in trying to follow you analogy.

How are we different pre DT election and post DT election? Is this measureable? Are there specific attributes that we exude more of or less of?

Ignorance. Targeted apathy. Emotion at the expense of reason. Gullibility. Naivete. Xenophobia. Nationalism. 

All the things it takes to elect a person like Donald Trump. 

No, i can't give you measures. I can't give you stats. All. i can give you is the reality: PRESIDENT Donald Trump.

You draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine. 

[David Fairchild]

But how does the election of a person represent a fundamental shift in the core of a people? U.S. POTUS elections are generally close and often decided only by a plurality of voter rather than a majority.

Do people you know act fundamentally different now than they used to?

[GMoney]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

But how does the election of a person represent a fundamental shift in the core of a people? U.S. POTUS elections are generally close and often decided only by a plurality of voter rather than a majority.

A majority that allows such, has shifted, be it by commission or omission. 

 

Do people you know act fundamentally different now than they used to?

Yes. Trump America is different. Trump Americans are different. I'm certainly different, though the micro is no proof of the macro as your question seems to imply.

 

[David Fairchild]

But there was no majority for DT among the people in general, or the voters, or the states. There was a majority among the EC. Is this the majority you mean that has shifted?

I wish I could see like you what or who has changed so drastically.

[GMoney]

Not  sure i know the answer. heck maybe the change wasn't really that drastic, and i've just been THAT wrong about America and Americans.

Here's a nice changed American for ya...at least in the micro:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-supporter-launches-apos-incredibly-105355973.html

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/8b1e7e5f-475d-4360-bc73-2a47f65c6c22%40googlegroups.com.

[Ken ken]

Except she won. And there is a growing body of evidence that there was a heavy thumb on the scale. We're still anchored to reality just fine. It's the Reps that freely worked to elect a psychotic crook. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/8dcd2f20-6279-4d0a-9022-0d36f4f93b1e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

She won what? The popular vote? Yes. More states? Yes. The EC? No.

[Ken ken]

I don't know if I should answer to you or Dave. But, if one looks really carefully at numbers, does it add up to "bankrupting" the US? 

If solar and wind are going to cost so much, why are private companies investing? Aren't they expecting a ROI? Can't the gov't recoup ROI? 

If we continue to rely on oil/gas, aren't we subsidizing infrastructure, same as we would with solar/wind? The gas you put in your car pays for extraction, shipping, refining, storage, shipping, etc. How much LESS will we pay for this? How much will it offset the cost of renewables? 

After all, what we're buying is energy; we have to get it from somewhere. Who's to say the new tech, and converting to it, won't SAVE money in the long run? Remember, the reality based pie-in-the-sky people also amortize in the cost of carbon/pollution/climate change, etc. Maybe we actually end up better off. Somebody not named Republican should be crunching the numbers. 

  Not so much of a joke to me. 

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:07:14 AM UTC-6, G wrote:

I'm just now being introduced to this gal.....and only in snippets as i've tuned out most of those idiots. I liked her succinct and on-point take down of campaign finance. I thought her New Green Deal was an absolute joke...and so did Pelosi, which was kinda funny. 

This legislative style of "I know it's pie-in-the-sky and impossible and would bankrupt the country and it's an exaggeration but let's go for it anyway" is pretty stupid in my opinion. Gore admitted to some of this with his Inconvenient Truth garbage...."stretching the truth and exaggerations are OK if the end goal is pure!".   Ugh.  No, it's actually not. 

Can't we just have a party of truth? Just tell the truth.  What am i thinking....truth doesn't win elections. 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:36 PM 'ClayC' via Kansas City Diversity Coalition <kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I have to admit. This rising star of the democratic party intrigues me. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

People are giving her a microphone and nodding their heads at some grand sounding ideas — save the planet, give everyone a job — but when I listen to her, she really seems clueless to the broader applications of what she is saying. Sadly, those nodding their heads in agreement don't get it either.

It sounds good to say she'll raise taxes on the rich so that those making $10 million or more pay at a 70% rate. The Washington Post provides the analysis that if today's pool that falls into that category paid that rate, it would generate only $72 billion dollars a year. That's rather meager when one considers the trillions it would take to retrofit every automobile in America to be electric, provide an entirely new transportation system to replace aircraft, provide guaranteed jobs for all those that "can't or are not willing" to work, provide universal healthcare and more. At least Barry Sanders was up front with his agenda and told everyone that nearly everyone would have to pay over 8% more on taxes for the dream to come true. As Dave has pointed out, would people just stop earning a salary over $10 million? What good is that kind of paycheck when you see about $0.13 on every dollar? Are the Hollywood elite on board with this plan?

I also notice AOC talking about the person who "works 80 hours a week and still can't feed their children." Let's assume for a moment that this hypothetical person is working two, full-time minimum wage jobs. $13.75 x 80 = 1,100. That's $57,000 a year. How many children does this hypothetical person have? If you can't feed your kids on that, then you have bigger issues. Full disclosure, she's also said "works 100 hours a week" and still can't put food on the table. That's over $71k a year. That ought to put some food on the table, me thinks. If the 80-100 is at one job, then overtime rules kick in which yields even more cash for the little darlings to get their happy meals.

None of this gets into the absolute unconstitutional need to strip away liberty left and right for any of this utopia to come true. Outlaw the internal combustion engine? Ban aircraft?

What is jaw dropping (and concerning) for me isn't that this woman has zany ideas backed with nothing but fluffy clouds and rainbows. It's that people take her seriously and have elected her to the United States Congress.

Yikes and gulp.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com.

[Ken ken]

Dave, Trump gave a trillion or so to the ultra wealthy and added to the debt that Republicans will be railing about the next time a Democrat is elected. He is working as fast as possible to dismantle the ACA (sorry, I'm in favor. Fix the flaws). He has appointed idiots and thieves to run a variety of agencies, including the EPA among others. He's as extreme as possible- extremely corrupt, extremely incompetent, extremely dangerous. 

[Ken ken]

I wont bother sending you the post of the cameraman at the El Paso Trump rally getting assaulted. Yes, there has been some change in how US acts. Just ask any of our allies. We have reduced ourselves to an embarrassment, all due to one person. 

[ClayC]

Barry Sanders was anything but straightforward. He had some of the best lateral moves ever seen in football. Bernie Sanders, though, has been pretty honest about his policies. 

Everyone is a comedian. Barry. Bernie. One is a short, fast black guy. The other...

 

Where is 13.75/hr the minimum wage? There are all kinds of jobs around here touting 10/hr as an upgrade. Let's redo the math. Try it with 8/hr. 640/wk X 50 =32K/yr. Minus taxes. One can make it on that. Perhaps here in Kansas; but perhaps not so easily in New York. Is 13.75 the minimum wage in NYC?

I apologize. I misread the NYC minimum wage (the city she was referring to). It's a little over $11 per hour there. That's still $45k a year. Certainly not a ton of money, but also enough to put food on the table for the kids.

 

If Trump's tax cut gives a trillion dollars to mostly the wealthy, then shouldn't that be fairly easily recovered? Same with Bush tax cuts. Math aside, what's really obvious is that tax cuts for the wealthy are pretty easy to implement and almost impossible to rescind. I wonder why?

I don't know, Ken. The point is that this notable idea of "taxing the rich" doesn't produce what people believe it does. It certainly won't pay for all the wonders of the AOC agenda.

 

  I like E. Warren's notion of a wealth tax. Much more effective.

The notion of a wealth tax is grounded on some twisted concept that being wealthy is in and off itself immoral. 

  The cost analysis of various suggested programs is almost certainly flawed. If we provided health care for all, I would predict a drop in total health care costs. I've already explained why. Now, the costs would be seen as an increase in taxes, balanced by a decrease in premiums and a decrease in wages withheld by employers to pay the freight. But the overall amount need not increase a priori and in fact could easily decrease. Also, since it becomes part of the tax code, the costs are shifted upward, an automatic boon to lower and middle income earners. Presto, two birds killed with one stone. 

Please show me how this works in numbers.

 

  One need not outlaw the internal combustion engine. Just implement a carbon tax,

Implementing a carbon tax resides in a twisted notion that producing carbon is immoral. I suppose everyone should not exhaling.

 

and watch the technology die like buggy whip making.

Buggy whip making died because new and better transportation was invented and became more affordable for the public through creativity and free market place. Not because the government instituted a poop tax on horses.

 

A carbon tax, rather than massive gov't regulation, would move things where they need to go (assuming that man/climate issue needs attention). Level the playing field; charge carbon producers for the damage they inflict on the environment.

Assuming indeed. But who needs proof. Let's just consider carbon immoral. Again, try not to exhale too much.

 

Then solar and wind would be automatically competitive. No subsidies, no tax relief.

Or, IOW, because the government robbed Peter, they no longer need to give to Paul.

 

As for AOC, movement leaders are often considered radical for their time, often vilified for their ideas.

Yes, and many have deservingly been vilified for their ideas. Especially those who make their name famous by taking away liberty and freely spending other people's money to build their empires.

 

Maybe she's asking for the moon, but would accept a medium sized asteroid.

She thinks she deserves the moon and wants it.

[David Fairchild]

My retired 74-year-old dad the other day blasted the AOC healthcare for all plan as transfer of wealth from the old to the young.

I said that's okay Dad because it just offset the transfer of wealth from the young to the old know as Social Security. He didn't much care for that.

[ClayC]

Dave, Trump gave a trillion or so to the ultra wealthy

Who are the "ultra wealthy" and how did he "give" them a trillion or so dollars?

 

and added to the debt that Republicans will be railing about the next time a Democrat is elected.

True, but addition to the debt has been the status quo for my entire life. To Dave's point, this doesn't appear to be a radical shift in any way.

 

He is working as fast as possible to dismantle the ACA (sorry, I'm in favor. Fix the flaws).

How is this evidence of a radical shift?

 

He has appointed idiots and thieves to run a variety of agencies, including the EPA among others.

Seems like status quo. Some heads of agencies are not equipped for the roles. Some are. You're most likely over-generalizing here.

 

He's as extreme as possible- extremely corrupt, extremely incompetent, extremely dangerous. 

He's rude and boorish and talks like an arrogant bully on the playground. But from a policy position, how is he "extreme" when compared to the last 5 POTUSes?

[Ken ken]

Carbon is not the only problem that comes out of a car's tailpipe. Ask BK; he's been advocating against pollution for a long time. As for the morality, how about 4-5000 deaths/yr from asthma. Not adult COPD from smoking; we're talking childhood asthma. Much is attributed to pollution. In fact, asthma can be correlated to living in areas of high auto traffic. Is that moral enough for you? As for carbon, 98% of relevant scientists think that it's pretty damaging to the environment. How's that not a moral issue? 

And why does a tax have to address moral issues only? That seems silly on its face. 

Tax cuts for the rich: note how cavalier you and other Republicans are at touting their benefits, which are essentially non-existent, while at the same time telling us that  taxes don't get us much. Sauce goose= sauce gander. If you think that taxing the wealthy yields little, then why am I to assume that NOT taxing them yields anything? Should be equally futile either way. But, as you suggest, show me with numbers how that works. 

Health care: the ACA mandated that insurers spend 80-85 of their premium dollars on health care. You can guess, and I can ASSURE, that the numbers were a lot smaller before ACA. So assume that insurers take 20 cents out of every premium dollar. Medicare runs on 2%. You do the math. That's about 500 billion/yr in money not spent. And that's just low handing fruit. We can go from there. The countries that have universal care get their care for about half the cost we put out. And stats don't show that we get much more for our outlay. 

Taxing is not a morality issue. If you think a wealth tax is immoral, then I guess the graduated income tax is immoral, also. After all, that takes more from the wealthy. 

As for moving money downstream, if it's such a bad idea, why did Sarah Palin do exactly that for citizens of Alaska. She taxed the oil companies and gave it directly to the citizens. How Republican. 

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 4:06:57 PM UTC-6, ClayC wrote:

[David Fairchild]

Taxing is not a morality issue.

What tax is devoid of moral consideration? Presumably you tax to try to solve a moral dilemma, and surely cause another in the process.

[Ken ken]

Try reading less of what BK writes, Clay, and watching Rachel. Tax cuts put money into the pockets of those receiving them. I call that "giving". And yes, I get that they prefer calling it "giving back", like it was their money in the first place. 

I thought you were older, Clay. Reagan's contribution to the debt was 3 trillion. Before that the cumulative debt from FOREVER was 1 trillion. It's not the status quo all your life. And here's a handy chart to show you who did what:

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

Looks like Reagan, Bush, Bush, did the most damage. Waiting to see if Trump, as is his habit, can be "the greatest" at doing this. 

Undoing the ACA is about as radical as one can get vis-a-vis health care. It's the opposite of what went before. Pretty radical to me. 

False equivalency on the cabinet appointees. More BK rabbit hole. His appointees have quit or been fired in droves, been indicted or worse. No comparison to anyone that has gone before. "We have the BEST people, the best". That's a quote from you-know-who. 

He may not be much more extreme than others presidents. But, IMO, he has a taste for power that is dangerous and extreme. His own language suggests that he would accept any and all power given to him. Hence my occasional references to tyrants of the past. He's extreme is that regard. On a broader basis, he is extreme in his personality. I know that I hold a minority opinion on this site; but I think he's truly unhinged in a variety of ways. 

[ClayC]

Cameramen have not been assaulted before? Protest rallies and "mobs" are new to America? As a result of Trump policies?

[ClayC]

Carbon is not the only problem that comes out of a car's tailpipe.

You are endorsing a carbon tax Let's stick with that before addressing the potential other problems that might come out of a car's tailpipe. Is emitting carbon immoral?

Ask BK; he's been advocating against pollution for a long time. As for the morality, how about 4-5000 deaths/yr from asthma. Not adult COPD from smoking; we're talking childhood asthma.

Does this make the act of emitting carbon immoral?

 

Much is attributed to pollution. In fact, asthma can be correlated to living in areas of high auto traffic. Is that moral enough for you? As for carbon, 98% of relevant scientists think that it's pretty damaging to the environment.

Love this. You get to decide who the "relevant" scientists are, and 98% of them happen to agree with your POV.

Plants need carbon. Carbon is a natural occurring substance in the earth. So it's a part of the environment yet is pretty damaging to it. Perhaps you mean to say "too much carbon is harming to the environment." How much is too much?

 

How's that not a moral issue? 

And why does a tax have to address moral issues only? That seems silly on its face. 

You propose taxing someone for doing an activity that you deem bad or harmful with the hope that the tax will dissuade them from continuing such activity. Therefore, you are using taxes as a means to impose a moral view. 

 

Tax cuts for the rich: note how cavalier you and other Republicans are at touting their benefits, which are essentially non-existent, while at the same time telling us that  taxes don't get us much.

 

Sauce goose= sauce gander. If you think that taxing the wealthy yields little, then why am I to assume that NOT taxing them yields anything?

Because NOT taxing them removes the disincentive of being taxed for generating wealth. Without the tax, the "wealthy" are free to create, invest and generate more wealth that has a net positive influence on the economy and eventual government income.

There's no sauce here.

Again, however, who are the "ultra wealthy"? Is it immoral to be wealthy? If not, then why vilify them and treat them putatively with the tax code?

[Ken ken]

We've discussed this before, Dave. I don't agree that taxes are a moral consideration, all the time. However, they are mentioned in the Bible; so maybe there is some morality attached. The USC calls for: 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...Aug 16, 2010

Getting that stuff done takes money. Taxes are the vehicle by which the money is obtained. If the preamble is a moral doctrine to you, who am I to dispute.

[Ken ken]

Well, Clay, in my lifetime, which I think is longer than yours, the vast majority of attacks on the media have happened very recently. But, if we're looking for patterns and not anecdotes, I'll leave it to you to show us tapes of any other presidents egging his audience on to attack the media, either verbally or physically. More from the BK false equivalency bubble? His behavior is right out the Tyrant's Handbook, at least co-authored by some German from the 1930's. Tell me where you've seen it before. Nixon just dabbled by comparison. Not even close. I love the term sui generis to describe Trump, and not in a good way. 

[ClayC]

Ken, I agree that taxes are not always driven by a direct moral consideration in terms of being punitive against "bad" behavior.

For example, a tax to maintain public roadways isn't a punitive tax. However, there is an underlying moral position that, as a national community, we have an obligation to pitch in together to provide decent public transportation options for the whole as a ways of providing general welfare.

That aside, you have clearly stated that carbon emissions are bad because of the damage they cause to the environment. That is a moral judgement. One method to curtail this bad behavior is to levy a tax against those who choose to engage in this immoral behavior. This is a position shared by many (mostly but not inclusively on the political left).

The irony is that when the government chooses to levy a punitive tax as a mean to discourage immoral behavior, it often finds its profiting from that behavior and in some ways relying on it in order to earn income.

[David Fairchild]

"...as a national community, we have an obligation..."

There are no communal moral obligations. There are only individual moral obligations the we each may opt to satisfy communally.

[ClayC]

Dave, I'm not arguing this to be true. Only that it is the perceived moral principle behind the law. 

[Ken ken]

Wrong on the facts, Clay. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/20/17584376/carbon-tax-congress-republicans-cost-economy

The carbon tax is generally considered a conservative's approach to lowering the usage of fossil fuels. Of all the ways to discourage the use of fossil fuels, this one probably enjoys the widest acceptance. 

On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 7:14:14 AM UTC-6, ClayC wrote:

[ClayC]

Ken, exactly what facts am I wrong on?

[Ken ken]

I just read this post, Clay. What a waste of photons on my eyeballs. "Carbon is part of the environment, yet it's damaging". So is water. But people drown all the time. Ever a tsunami? Uranium is part of the environment. Need I say more? 

   "You get to decide who the relevant scientists are, and 98% agree with you". I usually (but not always) agree when there is this level of consensus. So do most scientists when the subject is not in their field. Hey, I can refer you to a world expert on retroviruses, who to this day will assert that the HIV virus does NOT cause AIDS. He is even willing to inject himself with HIV infected blood. Are you inclined to believe him? At all? Even a little? Are you inclined to let yourself be injected with HIV infected blood? Why not? 98% of scientists (of my choosing, mind you) think it's dangerous. But you shouldn't let that stop you. And then there's the expert on lead toxicity, who helped perpetrate the notion that lead wasn't THAT bad, and that it need not be removed from gasoline. It took years to get past his bought and paid for lies. And the tobacco industry and their hired guns. You can find an "expert" to back up almost any cockamamie notion that you want. If 98% of scientists thought that the earth's environment was just fine, I'd be fine with that. I don't have a dog in the hunt, other than my existence. All I want is the truth. 

   The ultra-wealthy are who WTP say they are. But I'm sure we could find them if we look. Putative means "reputed" or "supposed". Nothing to do with punitive. Word Nazi. As for the notion that lowering taxes incentivizes the wealthy to invest more and thereby create more wealth, it's never been shown to be true. Looks like it ought to be true; but never demonstrated. If it was true, then tax cuts to the wealthy ought to show up on the bottom line of the incomes of the lower and middle classes. But, agreed upon stats show that those wages have been essentially flat for a few decades, while that of the wealthy, not so flat. 

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 5:26:20 PM UTC-6, ClayC wrote:sddarbon is not the only problem that comes out of a car's tailpipe.