Lolz. Of course half my post wasn't about her proposal because it was a direct reply to your post, section for section with what you posted that wasn't about the proposal either.Way to deflect.
Seems you misunderstood. I said that people are dismissing her proposal for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the proposal. You then started explaining all of the reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the proposal that justify dismissing her proposal.
It wasn't a reply to my post - it was a demonstration of the faulty logic that I said is seems prevalent related to her.
In three years a model 3 used may not be 35k, but if the Model S has taught us anything it won't be cheap either. There is a good portion of the country that can only afford the cheapest of cheap cars, rather than a 5-8 year old car. A 10 year old model 3 may not ever be $1500 for all we know. Anything is possible, but there are a lot of hopeful and optimistic projections involved in regards to entirely eliminating fossil fuels while simultaneously maintaining cheap car purchases so quickly. The entire landscape of cars would vastly change, so say by 2029 there could be a vast inventory of "cheap used electric cars" for low income to shop around. It would have to be there though, or we'll run into some real issues years after. They would need to be cheap in a way where I bought my first car for $850 types of options too, because you won't be buying fossil fuel cars in 2031 while they go into near extinction. 18-20 years sounds a bit more realistic and attainable than 12 if we are talking about eventually removing fossil fuels from utility. But you have to plan for it correctly to get the best outcome or you are forced to do damage control at the tail end.
Being that it was a response to how she would fund the NGD, it sounds more like "through 70% taxing". The answer she gave is in regards to funding the plan. She even mentioned FDR being "radical" by establishing Social Security. It's the same answer she always tends to give though for any subject when asked, "tax rich people high and we can pay for all the plans" runs pretty generic. Taxing over 10mil 70% sounds cute on paper, but I can't imagine that not creating a multitude of issues as a result that can likely do more harm than good.
In 6 years is what I said. Not 3. As for hopeful and and optimistic projections, that's amusing considering that your entire argument is premised on pessimistic assumptions.
Why would cars need to be as cheap as what you bought in some unspecified year? Remember that thing about projections and assumptions - are we just assuming that technological advancements are not going to take place over the next dozen years thus driving down the prices for outdated technology? It happens in pretty much every industry but somehow it won't happen with cars?
11 years ago, the iPhone was debuted. It cost $500. Nowadays, you can buy a brand new more technologically advanced smartphone for $50. 1/10th of the price in a decade's time. This happens with pretty much everything. Stop worrying about poor people buying electric cars 12 years from now, the prices for used cars will come down as the technology increases.
As for the taxes, you didn't listen to the video very well. She was talking about the entire economy - that people need to pay their fair share and that 60-70% on high income.
As for imagining a multitude of issues - such as? Raising taxes causes issues. Cutting taxes causes issue. Every change from the status quo comes with "issues" because it forces change on a static system. "Oh no there will be issues" isn't an argument, it's just chicken little-ing an issue.
And it's stupid to claim that she gave a generic answer when she took the time to reference prior tax policy as justification for proposed tax policy that would be lower in terms of upper end rates than the time period that she is referencing. Let me guess, you heard Anderson say it would require higher taxes, heard her say "yeah..." and then stopped listening to her explanation for why higher taxes are viable and necessary?
