(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.