(01-04-2019 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

I'd argue that restricting or allowing the regulation of something via amendment is different from completely prohibiting something at the federal level via amendment. The former allows for voters to have a say in how the topic is handled on a yearly basis. The latter doesn't.

And furthermore, this amendment is suggesting that individual states can make the decision to regulate election spending, whereas a state is unable to do that now.

You miss the point entirely Lad, even with your pendantics.

The point is that pretty much every single Amendment written is done so to 'guarantee rights' to individuals or to states. They are written as 'floor' provisions, they state the minimum that those individual or states rights can be encroached. (1st through the 11th, 13th - 15th, 16th in the manner that it limits Federal taxation, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th)

One deals with Senate selection (17th)

The ones that dont simply for the most part delineate Presidential issues or Congressional pay. (12th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th)

Only one in the history of the Constitution has served as a pure restriction, or even a reservation for Congress to restrict a right --- the 18th. The one leftover (21st) removed that.

I dont give a flying fk about your so-called distinction between 'regulation' and 'prohibition' and your associated arm-flapping about that. The singular fact remains that one (and only one) Amendment has *ever* served as a restriction on the populace.

This one also serves to support such a restriction. Vaunted company I would say, even in light of your so-called amazing distinction. Even more vaunted since the restriction is aimed at one of the 'biggies' (the 1st). Color me shocked that the Democrats (progressives) are the group wishing to shut down and restrict this form of expression.

And I dont give a flying fk about the arm-flapping that it 'allows the states to do so' either, for rather obvious reasons. The distinction whether Texas, or the Feds, or for that matter my Water District, regulates the delineated First Amendment activity takes a big honking back seat to the issue that the proposed Amendment would allow restrictive practices on what is presently very clearly protected First Amendment activity. But that is lost sight of in your 'distinction'.

When you read the flyers that accompany the proposed amendment I find them at best highly misleading.

The author complains about the SCOTUS 'removing all limits for a political cycle on individual contributions.' What that case did, in fact, was keep in place the maximum donation *per* candidate per cycle. The portion of the law deemed invalid was the 'aggregate contribution' per cycle. If someone wants to 'max down' on 539 races, so be it.

Amazingly misleading.

But the implications about Citizen's United are also highly misleading. Remember that the law in place that was considered in Citizen's United had a possible provision of a jail term for an act of publishing a political-based book within a certain timeframe preceding an election. In fact, the Solicitor General was forced to admit that this was a possibility in oral arguments, but had the stunning comeback of 'but of course we would never pursue such a criminal violation that would result in a jail term for publishing a book.'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

(01-04-2019 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

I'd argue that restricting or allowing the regulation of something via amendment is different from completely prohibiting something at the federal level via amendment. The former allows for voters to have a say in how the topic is handled on a yearly basis. The latter doesn't.

And furthermore, this amendment is suggesting that individual states can make the decision to regulate election spending, whereas a state is unable to do that now.

You miss the point entirely Lad, even with your pendantics.

The point is that pretty much every single Amendment written is done so to 'guarantee rights' to individuals or to states. They are written as 'floor' provisions, they state the minimum that those individual or states rights can be encroached. (1st through the 11th, 13th - 15th, 16th in the manner that it limits Federal taxation, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th)

One deals with Senate selection (17th)

The ones that dont simply for the most part delineate Presidential issues or Congressional pay. (12th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th)

Only one in the history of the Constitution has served as a pure restriction, or even a reservation for Congress to restrict a right --- the 18th. The one leftover (21st) removed that.

I dont give a flying fk about your so-called distinction between 'regulation' and 'prohibition' and your associated arm-flapping about that. The singular fact remains that one (and only one) Amendment has *ever* served as a restriction on the populace.

This one also serves to support such a restriction. Vaunted company I would say, even in light of your so-called amazing distinction. Even more vaunted since the restriction is aimed at one of the 'biggies' (the 1st). Color me shocked that the Democrats (progressives) are the group wishing to shut down and restrict this form of expression.

And I dont give a flying fk about the arm-flapping that it 'allows the states to do so' either, for rather obvious reasons. The distinction whether Texas, or the Feds, or for that matter my Water District, regulates the delineated First Amendment activity takes a big honking back seat to the issue that the proposed Amendment would allow restrictive practices on what is presently very clearly protected First Amendment activity. But that is lost sight of in your 'distinction'.

Yup, flapping these fk’n arms all over the place...

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

(01-05-2019 01:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will say kudos to them for introducing a proposed amendment.

But, funny enough, it is an amendment that is designed to *restrict* individual rights. I can only think of one amendment that did that ---- ever. And that one was shitcanned.

But kudos for them for trying to get a 'restriction' on individual rights (First Amendment restrictive, as well...) popped through.

I'd argue that restricting or allowing the regulation of something via amendment is different from completely prohibiting something at the federal level via amendment. The former allows for voters to have a say in how the topic is handled on a yearly basis. The latter doesn't.

And furthermore, this amendment is suggesting that individual states can make the decision to regulate election spending, whereas a state is unable to do that now.

You miss the point entirely Lad, even with your pendantics.

The point is that pretty much every single Amendment written is done so to 'guarantee rights' to individuals or to states. They are written as 'floor' provisions, they state the minimum that those individual or states rights can be encroached. (1st through the 11th, 13th - 15th, 16th in the manner that it limits Federal taxation, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th)

One deals with Senate selection (17th)

The ones that dont simply for the most part delineate Presidential issues or Congressional pay. (12th, 20th, 22nd, 25th, 27th)

Only one in the history of the Constitution has served as a pure restriction, or even a reservation for Congress to restrict a right --- the 18th. The one leftover (21st) removed that.

I dont give a flying fk about your so-called distinction between 'regulation' and 'prohibition' and your associated arm-flapping about that. The singular fact remains that one (and only one) Amendment has *ever* served as a restriction on the populace.

This one also serves to support such a restriction. Vaunted company I would say, even in light of your so-called amazing distinction. Even more vaunted since the restriction is aimed at one of the 'biggies' (the 1st). Color me shocked that the Democrats (progressives) are the group wishing to shut down and restrict this form of expression.

And I dont give a flying fk about the arm-flapping that it 'allows the states to do so' either, for rather obvious reasons. The distinction whether Texas, or the Feds, or for that matter my Water District, regulates the delineated First Amendment activity takes a big honking back seat to the issue that the proposed Amendment would allow restrictive practices on what is presently very clearly protected First Amendment activity. But that is lost sight of in your 'distinction'.

Yup, flapping these fk’n arms all over the place...

I'm not the one drawing the amazing distinctions between 'regulate' and 'prohibit'.

Nor the amazing distinction that it allows *states* to regulate and restrict current First Amendment protected activity as opposed to Federal regulation and restriction of current First Amendment protected activity.

I guess you missed that.

I will also note that the issues in the Amendments was pointed out quite graphically to me by my ConLaw professor, so I will take this opportunity to cite to him for the base idea lest there is some twerpy comment about plagiarising ideas in a forum.

-----

Btw, I will back up and self-correct a point: at a point about 15 years ago the Republicans floated a Constitutional Amendment that would put into place the constraints of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which would have similarly put into place an amendment that served as a restriction.

That was as ill-conceived and against the notion of the current state of the Amendments as this one is, and for the same reasons.

I guess the major issue there was that it didnt allow state regulation, which we all know is a major issue and *significant* distinction in whether there is regulation or not of protected activity.

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

Not unless you want to discount the entirety of the Reagan and Clinton booms, arguably the strongest in decades if not of the 20th century, which were pretty much acknowledged to be fueled by the Chicago school ideas including smaller marginal tax rates as a, if not the, major pillar.

But feel free to discount that.

The differences between the LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter years and Reagan II and the entirety of the Clinton era are somewhat startling. I guess the concept of velocity of monies really doesnt mean anything.....

(01-05-2019 12:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

Not unless you want to discount the entirety of the Reagan and Clinton booms, arguably the strongest in decades if not of the 20th century, which were pretty much acknowledged to be fueled by the Chicago school ideas including smaller marginal tax rates as a, if not the, major pillar.

But feel free to discount that.

The differences between the LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter years and Reagan II and the entirety of the Clinton era are somewhat startling. I guess the concept of velocity of monies really doesnt mean anything.....

If Ocasio-Cortez really wanted to mix things up, she'd get together with one of the remaining centrist R's and propose lowering the marginal rates, adding a VAT/consumption tax + carbon tax (ala James Baker) to stir the heart strings of the libertarian leaning R's and D's AND fund her green agenda.

In the context of political reality/divided gov't, headlining a 70% marginal tax rates is in fact idiotic.

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

Further the era of the 70%+ tax rate was further exemplified by:

a) far less globalization;
b) far less 'competition' for jurisdictional tax rate preference accompanied by any sort of accompanying stability;
c) A US economy bloated by being the *only* major power having an economic base not in a 'rebuild from scratch' via world war;
d) A US economy bloated on a full governmental-demand war economy from 1940 to 1990.

Lad's conjecture about the 70% marginal tax rate having a record of being successful might be a little in doubt when you account for any or all of those factors.

Might be easy to have a successful 70% marginal tax rate with any of those historical issues being present. But, they dont seem to be last I looked. The US is no longer the only game in town, and it isnt in a continuous state of war production (through '72) or Cold War preparedness spending (through late 80's).

Given the presence of those historical parameters I am wholeheartedly on Lad's statement. But with the same perspective in historical parameters, one could also say 'you shouldnt laugh at fielding an army of horse riders with carbines, as they seem to have historically done well in the Plains states'.

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2019 10:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

Brilliannt economic theory.

Glad she’s yours and not mine.

You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

You just went full Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't think that could happen. I guess the pressure to defend the D was too much.

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 01:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right, history has shown us that a marginal tax rate that high would never allow an economy to flourish and it would immediately spell doom and gloom!

You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

Competition is good "but only 'competition' with massive governmental intervention".

FIFY there Lad.

Kind of funny hearing hearing 'competition is good' with the caveat of massive intervention. Sounds to me that the concept of what you term 'competition' really isnt. Funny that.

I'm all for competition. Let any and all energy solutions stand and fall where they can produce energy solutions. Let any and all solutions trying to 'replace' hydrocarbons stand and fall where they can do so. If they can build a better mousetrap, no problems on this end.

The defense of 'tax hydrocarbons till they cant breathe' isnt 'competition' in any stretch of any language, nor is 'handing alternatives boatloads of free cash' any tangible definition of 'competition' in the slightest either. No matter how much arm-waving you do with the pithy term you use so...... generously.

(01-05-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

Competition is good "but only 'competition' with massive governmental intervention".

FIFY there Lad.

Kind of funny hearing hearing 'competition is good' with the caveat of massive intervention. Sounds to me that the concept of what you term 'competition' really isnt. Funny that.

I'm all for competition. Let any and all energy solutions stand and fall where they can produce energy solutions. Let any and all solutions trying to 'replace' hydrocarbons stand and fall where they can do so. If they can build a better mousetrap, no problems on this end.

The defense of 'tax hydrocarbons till they cant breathe' isnt 'competition' in any stretch of any language, nor is 'handing alternatives boatloads of free cash' any tangible definition of 'competition' in the slightest either. No matter how much arm-waving you do with the pithy term you use so...... generously.

Yup, I completely agree that the ONLY form of competition is if there is "massive" government intervention. Great and studious observation that this is the ONLY form of competition I favor.

I am 100%, unapologetically supportive of the government using its resources to fund advances in technology that will generate better outcomes for the citizens of the US. From an energy perspective, that is supporting the further development and refinement of energy sources that are more sustainable, efficient, etc. That's because under our current economic system, the negative externalities of fossil fuel use are not accounted for - neither the pollution generated by burning fuels like coal, nor the carbon dioxide emitted are actually taken into account by our market system. It is going to be much cheaper and easier to burn those fossil fuels because of how energy dense they are, but there are negative externalities that must be accounted for. We already do that to a certain extent by limiting emissions on say, PM, as we've identified that as a criteria pollutant, but there are still other fish to fry in this arena.

Taxing hydrocarbons is about accounting for all of the side effects they generate that the market doesn't currently capture, and making sure that we are fully accounting for their effects. We're going to need to take rapid steps to address our worsening environment in the next decade or two, and aggressively supporting the growth and further development of cleaner energy alternatives is a great place to start.

(01-05-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You miss the point entirely once more, Lad, either that or this is you defending her plan.

You don’t have to embrace everything she says just because she isa D.

How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

You just went full Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't think that could happen. I guess the pressure to defend the D was too much.

Not quite. I don't fully support the idea of completely removing fossil fuels from energy production within 10 years (natural gas is a pretty great energy source). And I also saw that nuclear was off the table, which I disagree with as well.

But I very much support her push to focus on government support for technology development. Government funded research has been shown to generate an incredibly high return on investment, so it's a very efficient way to use dollars. I also support using taxes or a cap/trade system to fully realize the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels, since the market will not capture that (we already do that for things like pollution control, since it does not cost energy companies $$ to release pollutants like ozone producing compounds, but those pollutants do affect the public).

You can go back through my posts and see that I've always felt this way regarding sustainable energy development and pollution emissions. At some point, I'm going to have to inhabit this rock, and any potential children will too, so I'd rather err on the side of caution regarding environmental issues.

(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

Competition is good "but only 'competition' with massive governmental intervention".

FIFY there Lad.

Kind of funny hearing hearing 'competition is good' with the caveat of massive intervention. Sounds to me that the concept of what you term 'competition' really isnt. Funny that.

I'm all for competition. Let any and all energy solutions stand and fall where they can produce energy solutions. Let any and all solutions trying to 'replace' hydrocarbons stand and fall where they can do so. If they can build a better mousetrap, no problems on this end.

The defense of 'tax hydrocarbons till they cant breathe' isnt 'competition' in any stretch of any language, nor is 'handing alternatives boatloads of free cash' any tangible definition of 'competition' in the slightest either. No matter how much arm-waving you do with the pithy term you use so...... generously.

Yup, I completely agree that the ONLY form of competition is if there is "massive" government intervention. Great and studious observation that this is the ONLY form of competition I favor.

I see that you dont see the massive transfer via the tax code as government intervention.

By the way, please tell me where I state the 'only' form of competition that you support is one underpinned by massive governmental transfers. Kind of a giant fing strawman you complain of there, lad.

You may very well believe in true competition in some instances -- but your example fundamentally belies that concept.

So you are in favor of massive governmental transfers away from hydrocarbons and to alternatives. Good for you.

But dont play anyone as a chump and disguise that transfer as 'competition'.

Hey, I am all for competition as well. Especially 'competition' where I am the direct beneficiary of largess and unlimited resources from the government. But I'll still call that 'competition' to make myself feel better.

Your pendantics are keeping you well in the New Year, lad.

(01-07-2019 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

Competition is good "but only 'competition' with massive governmental intervention".

FIFY there Lad.

Kind of funny hearing hearing 'competition is good' with the caveat of massive intervention. Sounds to me that the concept of what you term 'competition' really isnt. Funny that.

I'm all for competition. Let any and all energy solutions stand and fall where they can produce energy solutions. Let any and all solutions trying to 'replace' hydrocarbons stand and fall where they can do so. If they can build a better mousetrap, no problems on this end.

The defense of 'tax hydrocarbons till they cant breathe' isnt 'competition' in any stretch of any language, nor is 'handing alternatives boatloads of free cash' any tangible definition of 'competition' in the slightest either. No matter how much arm-waving you do with the pithy term you use so...... generously.

Yup, I completely agree that the ONLY form of competition is if there is "massive" government intervention. Great and studious observation that this is the ONLY form of competition I favor.

I see that you dont see the massive transfer via the tax code as government intervention.

By the way, please tell me where I state the 'only' form of competition that you support is one underpinned by massive governmental transfers. Kind of a giant fing strawman you complain of there, lad.

You may very well believe in true competition in some instances -- but your example fundamentally belies that concept.

So you are in favor of massive governmental transfers away from hydrocarbons and to alternatives. Good for you.

But dont play anyone as a chump and disguise that transfer as 'competition'.

Hey, I am all for competition as well. Especially 'competition' where I am the direct beneficiary of largess and unlimited resources from the government. But I'll still call that 'competition' to make myself feel better.

Your pendantics are keeping you well in the New Year, lad.

Tell you where you said that? How about your bolded comment:

Quote:Competition is good "but only 'competition' with massive governmental intervention".

FIFY there Lad.

If the current energy industry was completely devoid of government subsidies, your point would have a lot more weight, but it isn't. As you can see in the remainder of my reply, I believe that the market is not efficiently capturing the true cost of fossil fuel being burned as energy, so correction via support for alternatives or a tax on the fossil fuel industry is needed to level the playing feel. IMO we need to be doing life cycle analyses on all our energy sources and making sure that the negative externalities that the market misses are accounted for.

But a bit ironic to try and call me a pendant when you're the one quibbling over my use of the word competition... A bit, um, pedantic?

edit: question for you. why would funding alternative energy research be "massive governmental transfers away from hydrocarbons and to alternatives?" What about supporting alternative research and development explicitly takes government funds away from hydrocarbons? I can at least appreciate why you're suggesting that providing more support to one industry over the other results in less fair competition, but I don't see how supporting sustainable energy is transferring money away from another industry. I'm guessing you're viewing any increase in taxes due to negative externalities of fossil fuel production/use as being the transferring method, regardless of if it was that revenue that was used to fund alternative research?

(01-07-2019 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 05:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 02:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How did I miss the point entirely? Your point was that you think it’s an idiotic economic theory (by sarcastically using the word brilliant), and I pointed out that there is historical evidence to suggest that a high marginal tax rate isn’t idiotic economic theory.

Now the entire tax plan can’t be raise the highest marginal rate to X%. But suggesting that it return to pre-1980 levels in and of itself doesn’t seem idiotic.

The plan in its entirety is unworkable and a dream. The marginal tax rates are only a part of the house of cards.

But, to tax rates, I am sure your seventh grade math teacher brought up the concept of apples and oranges.

Those earlier high marginal rates enjoyed tons of deductions (tax breaks for the rich) that are not there in AOC's plan. So apples to oranges.

Three words. EFFECTIVE. TAX. RATE.

But there are other logical inconsistencies - she wants a fossil fuel free America in 12 years. I guess when all those oil barons go out of business they will keep on paying their 70%, to help her out. But it's not just the oil barons. How many employees does Exxon-Mobil have? All out of work, as are the oil field workers and support staff and pipeline employees and service station workers and a lot of mechanics, and...

I wonder if she plans to shut down all those coal-fired and natural gas fired producers of electricity and depend 100% on solar.

But never mind. It is a beautiful dream, a fossil fuel free america with crystal air and butterflies. I think I saw it in a Disney movie. And all paid for by those guys making, like ten million a year.

This is what you are defending, Lad. The pipe dreams of an idealistic 29 year old who doesn't understand the real world.

I wonder what legislation she will propose to keep those anti-environmental cows from farting greenhouse gases. Biodegradable cow diapers? Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is part of her plan, too.

You know oil is used for a lot more than just energy, right? And you know Exxon-Mobil has diversified its operations, right?

Why should energy policy be hamstrung because an industry may need to change, right?

I have 0 problem defending a policy that whole-heartedly supports and pushes emerging energy technologies that are cleaner and more sustainable. Competition is good.

You just went full Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't think that could happen. I guess the pressure to defend the D was too much.

Not quite. I don't fully support the idea of completely removing fossil fuels from energy production within 10 years (natural gas is a pretty great energy source). And I also saw that nuclear was off the table, which I disagree with as well.

But I very much support her push to focus on government support for technology development. Government funded research has been shown to generate an incredibly high return on investment, so it's a very efficient way to use dollars. I also support using taxes or a cap/trade system to fully realize the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels, since the market will not capture that (we already do that for things like pollution control, since it does not cost energy companies $$ to release pollutants like ozone producing compounds, but those pollutants do affect the public).

You can go back through my posts and see that I've always felt this way regarding sustainable energy development and pollution emissions. At some point, I'm going to have to inhabit this rock, and any potential children will too, so I'd rather err on the side of caution regarding environmental issues.

You are blinded by the wind/solar research. That’s like the people who welcome totalitarian dictators because they will make the trains run on time. Yay!

What she is proposing is Big Brother government, anticapitalistic and anti democratic. If solar power is such a goal to you that you would accept the Sovietation of the USA for it, that’s your choice. But we can have research into alternative power without also killing fossil fuels and without draconian tax increases. Liking a part of does not make the whole enchilada edible.