She's not going to be president. She's fairly smart, but she never knows what the hell's going on, and no on will ever elect a woman who only wears black yoga pants with a black tee with a jacket of a different color every other day. You can't dress that way and be POTUS... wtf? Yang too... you can't wear a necktie? OOOOOPs, sorry, you ALSO cannot be POTUS.
I'll need to see your pass. As far as I can tell no one has voted you Hall Monitor. Are you lost?
She's not going to be president. She's fairly smart, but she never knows what the hell's going on, and no on will ever elect a woman who only wears black yoga pants with a black tee with a jacket of a different color every other day. You can't dress that way and be POTUS... wtf? Yang too... you can't wear a necktie? OOOOOPs, sorry, you ALSO cannot be POTUS.
Before Kennedy, you couldn't be president without wearing a hat
She's not going to be president. She's fairly smart, but she never knows what the hell's going on, and no on will ever elect a woman who only wears black yoga pants with a black tee with a jacket of a different color every other day. You can't dress that way and be POTUS... wtf? Yang too... you can't wear a necktie? OOOOOPs, sorry, you ALSO cannot be POTUS.
What is Elizabeth Warren's position on increasing federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel?
Don't have a clue but they made a terrible mistake at the end of the energy crisis. When oil prices dropped they should have switched to a percentage tax that would have reduced costs in the short run but kept up with costs in the long run. Afterall, the cost to government increases when oil prices go up so it is a huge hit to the deficit. Especially when you maintain as large a military as the US.
Forgot that I wanted to respond to this post. haresfur, I disagree 100%.
High excise taxes would provide a permanent incentive to use less and use more efficiently. Automobiles remain one of the most dangerous things that most North Americans use on a regular basis (with the exception of tobacco smoking and heavy alcohol consumption). Automobile emissions are far less deadly than they once were but they are still deadly. Close to 40% of Americans are obsese. Roughly 2/3 of obese Americans have COPD. To those people, air quality matters and should not be sacrificed for the God of cheap energy.
Almost all the recessions in the USA in the post-war period have been preceded by an oil price shock. High excise taxes would encourage Americans to use less and thus reduce the vulnerability of the US economy to oil price shocks.
Lower income working people are the ones who get hit the hardest by recessions.
High excise taxes on polluting fossil fuels for automobiles would provide funds for fixing America's dilapidated road system.
American health outcomes are absolutely atrocious and part of the answer requires Americans to use their automobiles less. Not more.
But you aren't going to get high excise taxes. I think most developed countries should increase taxes on fossil fuels - especially the US where the tax rate is so low. The thing is the rate isn't even keeping up with inflation so make it a % tax the have the policy discussions to figure out what the % should be
She's not going to be president. She's fairly smart, but she never knows what the hell's going on, and no on will ever elect a woman who only wears black yoga pants with a black tee with a jacket of a different color every other day. You can't dress that way and be POTUS... wtf? Yang too... you can't wear a necktie? OOOOOPs, sorry, you ALSO cannot be POTUS.
BlueHeronDruid wrote:
jahgirl8 wrote:
westslope wrote:
Does Elizabeth Warren understand the concepts of adverse selection and moral hazard?
no
Awesome! We have an expert on Elizabeth Warren! Please school us.
What is Elizabeth Warren's position on increasing federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel?
Don't have a clue but they made a terrible mistake at the end of the energy crisis. When oil prices dropped they should have switched to a percentage tax that would have reduced costs in the short run but kept up with costs in the long run. Afterall, the cost to government increases when oil prices go up so it is a huge hit to the deficit. Especially when you maintain as large a military as the US.
Forgot that I wanted to respond to this post. haresfur, I disagree 100%.
High excise taxes would provide a permanent incentive to use less and use more efficiently. Automobiles remain one of the most dangerous things that most North Americans use on a regular basis (with the exception of tobacco smoking and heavy alcohol consumption). Automobile emissions are far less deadly than they once were but they are still deadly. Close to 40% of Americans are obsese. Roughly 2/3 of obese Americans have COPD. To those people, air quality matters and they should not be sacrificed to the God of cheap energy.
Almost all the recessions in the USA in the post-war period have been preceded by an oil price shock. High excise taxes would encourage Americans to use less and thus reduce the vulnerability of the US economy to oil price shocks.
Lower income working people are the ones who get hit the hardest by recessions.
High excise taxes on polluting fossil fuels for automobiles would provide funds for fixing America's dilapidated road system.
American health outcomes are absolutely atrocious and part of the answer requires Americans to use their automobiles less. Not more.
The reality of our democracy is that we are too lazy and too stupid to assess the viability of more complex plans. Medicare for all may actually be a really good plan, but nobody can follow the cost increases and decreases. The fact that people are fighting to protect....think about it, protect....unreasonably high premiums that still have risks associated with coverage is insanity. I left my last job a year ago, and have spent $24k on COBRA premiums over 12 months. No doctors visits, no prescriptions, 3 dental checkups....$24k. My elderly parents had medical bills over $400k in 2019. We're fighting to keep this?
Warren's problem is that there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. She throws around spending numbers every minute or two...$100M for this, $2B for that...and her only tangible revenue source is a 2% billionaire tax.
I agree with almost everything here. COBRA is a joke, when I've left jobs I was never able to afford the premiums. I'm out of work, and you expect me to pony up that kind of scratch?
What I don't exactly agree with is the number of rich people. Well, the number of really rich people. Consider some simple math. Forget inflation here, let's just use today's numbers.
As a degreed engineer, let's say I make $100,000 year. Nice living, right? Okay, say I worked 40 years. Heck, 50 years. How much money did I make in my lifetime? Any guesses? Again, ignore inflation, taxes, etc.
Now compare that number with many hundreds of CEOs, CFOs, hedge fund traders, etc. etc. make in a year. Their ANNUAL salaries are often many times more, hundreds of times more, than I made IN MY WHOLE LIFE. Remember, I'm a degreed engineer who made a nice living doing my job - I'm not exactly complaining about what I made. But the disparity is obscene.
But it gets better. Due to their outsized income, the really rich have a LOT of money left over after paying their living expenses, no matter how lavish. What's a mansion cost these days? $20 million? That's couch-cushion money. Look at Bloomberg: he's already spent, what, $200 million? For what? A mansion, a yacht? No. Heck, let's not even mention piddling trifles like schools, clean water, health care? No, he's spent that money, crazy money, on campaign ads. Can't live in it, can't drive it, doesn't actually do any 'good' unless you LIKE being bombarded with ads.
Yet again, it gets better. So what do they do with all that extra green? Invest it, of course. Funny thing is, the income they receive from those investments is taxed at roughly HALF of the income I made by the sweat of my brow (furrowed). A dollar invested in, say, a credit-default-swap, is worth more than a dollar earned by, say, digging a ditch. The fiction of financial vehicles is worth more than the fact of hard work.
Think about campaign contributions for a minute. They aren't tax-deductible, from Intuit/Turbotax: "According to the IRS:âYou canât deduct contributions made to a political candidate, a campaign committee, or a newsletter fund. Advertisements in convention bulletins and admissions to dinners or programs that benefit a political party or political candidate arenât deductible.â This includes Political Action Committees (PACs), as well."
So the really rich don't want to pay more taxes, but they are quite happy to throw MILLIONS of dollars at the candidate they think will keep their taxes low. What if they just paid a fraction of those millions in taxes instead? Hey Bloomberg, instead of throwing $200 million into the ether, why not offer grants for education, infrastructure, health initiatives, et al? Can you imagine what communities could do with the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into PACs? We could have schools, hospitals, and roads that make the Emerald City look like a slum.
The really rich have thoroughly rigged the system. It's not unique, in fact I suspect it's inherently human. Problem is, eventually the rabble get sick of being trod upon. The results are well-documented, and uniformly unpleasant.
I'll make a prediction that has never, not once, failed me. "Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better."
The result is the confounding spectacle of candidates attempting to attract supporters with proposals they know they cannot implement. Reporters ask how candidates plan to pay for policies that will never be enacted. Pundits and wonks add up the âtotal costâ of agendas that would require unified partisan control of government to get even partially enacted. Voters are left systematically misled about what they can realistically expect and disappointed that they never get what theyâre promised. When this happens again and again, bomb-throwing âoutsiderâ candidates who promise to blow up the system and barrel through gridlock end up looking better and better.
The result is the confounding spectacle of candidates attempting to attract supporters with proposals they know they cannot implement. Reporters ask how candidates plan to pay for policies that will never be enacted. Pundits and wonks add up the âtotal costâ of agendas that would require unified partisan control of government to get even partially enacted. Voters are left systematically misled about what they can realistically expect and disappointed that they never get what theyâre promised. When this happens again and again, bomb-throwing âoutsiderâ candidates who promise to blow up the system and barrel through gridlock end up looking better and better.
The reality of our democracy is that we are too lazy and too stupid to assess the viability of more complex plans. Medicare for all may actually be a really good plan, but nobody can follow the cost increases and decreases. The fact that people are fighting to protect....think about it, protect....unreasonably high premiums that still have risks associated with coverage is insanity. I left my last job a year ago, and have spent $24k on COBRA premiums over 12 months. No doctors visits, no prescriptions, 3 dental checkups....$24k. My elderly parents had medical bills over $400k in 2019. We're fighting to keep this?
Warren's problem is that there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. She throws around spending numbers every minute or two...$100M for this, $2B for that...and her only tangible revenue source is a 2% billionaire tax.
The result is the confounding spectacle of candidates attempting to attract supporters with proposals they know they cannot implement. Reporters ask how candidates plan to pay for policies that will never be enacted. Pundits and wonks add up the “total cost” of agendas that would require unified partisan control of government to get even partially enacted. Voters are left systematically misled about what they can realistically expect and disappointed that they never get what they’re promised. When this happens again and again, bomb-throwing “outsider” candidates who promise to blow up the system and barrel through gridlock end up looking better and better.
