Economy "Radical" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[cincymma79]

Sig bet?

Already have one which may come to fruition

 

[helltoupee]

By any measure we know the top percent dogs pay significantly more out than the majority regardless of money kept aside. We can look to increase that paid amount, and we should, but realistically speaking we shouldn't be looking to double the amount paid. That's excessive, very excessive.
...

Not only just that, but the top 0.1% pays 19% of all taxes combined in the United States. You can't just throw out numbers like "70% tax rates" without context. It's a ridiculous amount.

Of course they pay more in absolute terms - they enjoy a larger slice of the pie.

What's significant is proportionally, they absolutely do not pay more than the middle class. Especially given the fact that they hide much of their wealth, and are not taxed on any of it.

What a silly misstep for your argument to make.

 

[ferrisjso]

I'm all for improving various technology to cut down on carbon emissions, etc. But she seriously wants to do away with use of fossil fuels within 12 years?

Then a 60-70% tax rate on some portion of 10 million of income?

Love this cause it's a symbolic reputdiation of the Reagan revolution as that was the top tax rate then. Of course we would need to make more brackets as not to hurt the upper middle class and that should not be for the current highest bracket, more brackets is the aspect of the progressive tax policy that never gets touched.

Keep in mind that tax is necessary under the conservative House Dems new "Pay as you go" rules where you need to propose new tax revenue(spending cuts should be out of the question given how ridiculously conservative our tax policy already is and how ridicolously tiny our social safety net is). Under MMT it stands to reason the debt is an imaginary issue in a country like ours but if they want to do that fiscal conservative BS, well AOC is just playing within those rules, sure she would have been happy to not play within them(one of three who voted no).

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

There are people with such unfathomable sums of money, that they make what you think of as "rich", aka the "Hollywood elite", look impoverished. And all data points to the fact that their share has continually increasing exponentially.

Of course, but it doesnt mean the hollywood elite arent rich and won't take a huge hit in taxes so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[helltoupee]

Of course, but it doesnt mean the hollywood elite arent rich and won't take a huge hit in taxes so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ya, they are rich no doubt. What's scary is the people who put them to shame, and the fact that the divide is only getting worse.

 

[PEB]

More dance music.



https://mobile.twitter.com/aoc_dances

 

[deadshot138]

More dance music.



https://mobile.twitter.com/aoc_dances

She’s an idiot. Can we just admit she only got the job because she’s a minority female?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Already have one which may come to fruition

I was funnin. 12 years is a long time to wait on a sig bet.

 

[Scheme]

America is doomed no matter who is in charge. If a socialist like this comes along and increases the deficit then it will just fail quicker.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

She’s an idiot. Can we just admit she only got the job because she’s a minority female?

Probably more to do with pushback to Trump and Republican shenanigans. I just hope we don't have the same problem with a log jammed Congress that we did from '10-'16.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Right wingers will never learn but they’ll constantly vote for people who help their demise.

“Bbbutttt why penalize the wealthy”

Idiots

Because theyre afraid if they vote against rich people theyll lose their jerbs.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

I'd like to see the math. Not because I disagree with you but because I'm curious how that is calculated.

This is going to be some rough calculations, as it's more of a thought experiment than an in depth look at the exact numbers it a tenth of a percentage point, but it will be correct enough to get an idea. So here we go......

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics the following are the number of vehicles registered in the US over the last 5 years they have published (this will include freight vehicles such as cargo vans and semis, so yah...).

2012 - 253,639,386
2013 - 255,876,822
2014 - 260,350,938
2015 - 263,610,219
2016 - 268,799,083

Now, using these numbers we can see that over a 5 year span there is an AVERAGE of 3,789,924 more vehicles on the road every year. For the purpose of this, I will jump ahead to the very beginning of 2019. Which makes for a grand total of.... 276,378,931. So, that's where we start off.

Now, how many new vehicles are sold every year? Well... Thats actually an annoying one to find it seems. But thankfully, after much searching, I have found some graph that doesn't involve a shitload of number crunching! So I will use the same set of sales years for this. Meaning, 2011 to 2015.

2011 - 12,778,885
2012 - 14,492,398
2013 - 15,582,136
2014 - 16,531,070
2015 - 17,470,659

So, now we have an average of 15,371,030 new vehicles each year. Using this point of data, we can get the final important piece of information; the number of vehicles removed from the total every year. Using the averages, we come to a total of 11,581,106.

And here we go. If we just use averages, we can get an idea on the total amount of vehicles on the road every year, and extend that out till we get to the date point we want. (I will just use the averages from these years to keep my brain from melting completely, don't hurt me!) I am also crazy tired, so I will keep this simple for my own sake. Assuming all vehicles starting on 1/1/2019 are gas, and all new vehicles sold are electric, the table goes as (Total gas vehicles of previous year - vehicles lost)/New All Electric Sales.

2019 - 276,378,931/0
2020 - 264,797,825/15,371,030
2021 - 253,216,719/30,742,060
2022 - 241,635,613/46,113,090
2023 - 230,054,507/61,484,120
2024 - 218,473,401/76,855,150
2025 - 206,892,295/92,226,180
2026 - 195,311,189/107,597,210
2027 - 183,730,083/122,968,240
2028 - 172,148,977/138,339,270
2029 - 160,567,871/153,710,300
2030 - 148,986,871/169,081,603

Going by this (god awfully simplified structure) it would take until sometime in 2029 for electric vehicles to finally overtake gas powered vehicles. And that is under the absolute, remarkably best circumstances I could give electric vehicles, meaning a statistical impossibility. You would need about another 13 years before gas vehicles were entirely phased out. A grand total of 23 years for complete elimination, well over her talking point of 12 years.

Now, there are several other factors which seriously complicate the math. Electric sales in the US only account for 240,380 in 2018. While a 130% increase over 2017, thats still a dismal 1.56% of new car sales (give or take a few tenths, I'm fucking tired). So in all reality, the chart should actually look something like this....

(previous years total vehicles - vehicle loss) + (new vehicles - last years total electric vehicle sales * 1.56) : Last years total electric vehicles * 1.56)

.....I think.

And that still isn't accounting for people who will cling to older gas vehicles for any number of reasons, electric vehicles being part of the total vehicle loss from the previous year, economic downswings which bolster used vehicle sales while depressing new (used vehicles sales in 2017 were around 39 million), and god only knows how many other factors. All said and done, having all electric vehicles in the next 20 years is nothing short of a pipe dream barring serious government intervention.

Now, if someone wants to dig into the numbers and do some real crunching, I will supply the links that I used to get this all done. And again, math is not my strong suite so feel free to correct me if I screwed this up somewhere (which I am sure I did at some point. Bleh.)

But regardless, hope this sates your curiosity a wee bit @panamaican as I did the best I could after a 16 hour work day. And now I am off to fucking bed.

Links of shit:
total vehicles - https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances
new vehicle sales - http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/10/usa-auto-industry-total-sales-figures/
used vehicle sales - https://www.edmunds.com/about/press...ording-to-latest-edmunds-used-car-report.html
electric sales 2018 - https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/0...-210-in-q4-2018-us-electric-car-sales-report/

 

[Ruprecht]

This is going to be some rough calculations, as it's more of a thought experiment than an in depth look at the exact numbers it a tenth of a percentage point, but it will be correct enough to get an idea. So here we go......

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics the following are the number of vehicles registered in the US over the last 5 years they have published (this will include freight vehicles such as cargo vans and semis, so yah...).

2012 - 253,639,386
2013 - 255,876,822
2014 - 260,350,938
2015 - 263,610,219
2016 - 268,799,083

Now, using these numbers we can see that over a 5 year span there is an AVERAGE of 3,789,924 more vehicles on the road every year. For the purpose of this, I will jump ahead to the very beginning of 2019. Which makes for a grand total of.... 276,378,931. So, that's where we start off.

Now, how many new vehicles are sold every year? Well... Thats actually an annoying one to find it seems. But thankfully, after much searching, I have found some graph that doesn't involve a shitload of number crunching! So I will use the same set of sales years for this. Meaning, 2011 to 2015.

2011 - 12,778,885
2012 - 14,492,398
2013 - 15,582,136
2014 - 16,531,070
2015 - 17,470,659

So, now we have an average of 15,371,030 new vehicles each year. Using this point of data, we can get the final important piece of information; the number of vehicles removed from the total every year. Using the averages, we come to a total of 11,581,106.

And here we go. If we just use averages, we can get an idea on the total amount of vehicles on the road every year, and extend that out till we get to the date point we want. (I will just use the averages from these years to keep my brain from melting completely, don't hurt me!) I am also crazy tired, so I will keep this simple for my own sake. Assuming all vehicles starting on 1/1/2019 are gas, and all new vehicles sold are electric, the table goes as (Total gas vehicles of previous year - vehicles lost)/New All Electric Sales.

2019 - 276,378,931/0
2020 - 264,797,825/15,371,030
2021 - 253,216,719/30,742,060
2022 - 241,635,613/46,113,090
2023 - 230,054,507/61,484,120
2024 - 218,473,401/76,855,150
2025 - 206,892,295/92,226,180
2026 - 195,311,189/107,597,210
2027 - 183,730,083/122,968,240
2028 - 172,148,977/138,339,270
2029 - 160,567,871/153,710,300
2030 - 148,986,871/169,081,603

Going by this (god awfully simplified structure) it would take until sometime in 2029 for electric vehicles to finally overtake gas powered vehicles. And that is under the absolute, remarkably best circumstances I could give electric vehicles, meaning a statistical impossibility. You would need about another 13 years before gas vehicles were entirely phased out. A grand total of 23 years for complete elimination, well over her talking point of 12 years.

Now, there are several other factors which seriously complicate the math. Electric sales in the US only account for 240,380 in 2018. While a 130% increase over 2017, thats still a dismal 1.56% of new car sales (give or take a few tenths, I'm fucking tired). So in all reality, the chart should actually look something like this....

(previous years total vehicles - vehicle loss) + (new vehicles - last years total electric vehicle sales * 1.56) : Last years total electric vehicles * 1.56)

.....I think.

And that still isn't accounting for people who will cling to older gas vehicles for any number of reasons, electric vehicles being part of the total vehicle loss from the previous year, economic downswings which bolster used vehicle sales while depressing new (used vehicles sales in 2017 were around 39 million), and god only knows how many other factors. All said and done, having all electric vehicles in the next 20 years is nothing short of a pipe dream barring serious government intervention.

Now, if someone wants to dig into the numbers and do some real crunching, I will supply the links that I used to get this all done. And again, math is not my strong suite so feel free to correct me if I screwed this up somewhere (which I am sure I did at some point. Bleh.)

But regardless, hope this sates your curiosity a wee bit @panamaican as I did the best I could after a 16 hour work day. And now I am off to fucking bed.

Links of shit:
total vehicles - https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances
new vehicle sales - http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/10/usa-auto-industry-total-sales-figures/
used vehicle sales - https://www.edmunds.com/about/press...ording-to-latest-edmunds-used-car-report.html
electric sales 2018 - https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/0...-210-in-q4-2018-us-electric-car-sales-report/

At the moment the IEA is only projecting 125 million electric vehicles globally by 2030 (with on road totals closing on 2 billion). Current number is around 4 million (reached last September).
That's without the EV30@30 policy changes, which would aim to increase EV market share to 30% by 2030 (which is considered ambitious).

There are countries slated to start restricting new sales of fossil fuel vehicles as early as 2020 of course.

 

[PEB]

She’s an idiot. Can we just admit she only got the job because she’s a minority female?

A little salty because Molly Ringwald did not add you to the breakfast club?



https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/...-dances-people-lose-their-minds-1420348995730

Heck even Paul McCartney approves I am sure.

 

[shockaholic12]

She’s an idiot. Can we just admit she only got the job because she’s a minority female?

Fairly entertaining watching these women trigger you guys day in and day out. Always a new thread about something silly like a curse word or dancing, each filled with this kind of rustle.

 

[PEB]

Fairly entertaining watching these women trigger you guys day in and day out. Always a new thread about something silly like a curse word or dancing, each filled with this kind of rustle.

I think the curse word was a little poorly timed. I thank you though for pointing out how easily rustled the right gets. I like though not the least bothered about President Trumps wife famous modeling career with tons of Christian right heart attack inducing spasms photos. Could you imagine how the right would react if she posed the same way?

Edit: I have to admit she's no Rick Perry.

Good for business of music too apparently. She's already boosting the economy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...ia-ocasio-cortez-breakfast-club-college-video

https://www.businessinsider.com/lis...ses-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-2019-1?r=UK&IR=T

 

[Married...With Boxing]

I'm nonpartisan and not a fan of hers but perhaps radical problems need radical solutions or desperate times call for desperate measures. Arguably. How you define what is radical or desperate is another arguable matter. With regard to this issue, maybe we've moved past the point of slow, incremental bureaucratic changes, because of all the obfuscation, foot-dragging and partisan hatchet jobs that have prevented such incrementalism from taking the effect it should have over the years or gaining middle America's full political support until it's too late to be adequate and radical, even seemingly unrealistic change needs enforced. I don't know. Or maybe that's a savvy way of assuming negotiation to the middle ground and starting more extreme than you assume you will even get near.

 

[Canada]

Doesn't have or can't have?

Because she specifically said that we'd have to push our technological development. She didn't make any pretenses that we're capable right now of doing this.

It was 16 years between the Wright brothers first flight and the 1st transatlantic flight. It was 8 years between the time Kennedy said we're going to the moon and NASA landing a man on the moon. So, if you tell me 12 years is insane, it's going to require a little more than just pointing out that we can't do it in the immediate future.

I read you. I‘m not saying it is impossible, but the effort and cost that have to be put in are huge compared to the reward. It’s not like Tesla was making any money, eh.

Maybe a realistic goal would be to say there are large emmission-free zones in every major city of the country. That would make hybrid or electric cars much more attractive to people living there, and it would decrease pollution in the inner part of the city. I picture people in hybrid cars using the commute to recharge their batteries before entering the city. Sounded good in my head, lol.

BTW I‘m wondering whether Ford will survive the next decade. People working there told me they are far behind in basically every modern technology - autonomous driving, low- or zero-emission vehicles, and even practical aspects like delivering cars in time. On an unrelated note.

 

[helltoupee]

I know that, agree it's an issue, and mentioned it throughout my argument. Read all the posts.

If that's the case, then why even mention what the super-rich pay in absolute terms? It's meaningless given they also command a significantly higher portion of the wealth. It reads like a fool's argument, like when people talk about tax brackets without understanding both marginal and effective tax rates.

 

[ocean size]

I don't think we need unnecessary moderation in dealing with ecological collapse.

A measure like this would put the American capitalist machine into full gear.

I read you. I‘m not saying it is impossible, but the effort and cost that have to be put in are huge compared to the reward. It’s not like Tesla was making any money, eh.

The reward would be the US would be global leaders in renewable technology probably - you know, the shit we are currently buying from China, that much of the world will soon be on. Arguably more reward than the pissing contest of putting a man on the moon - which of course resulted in tons of technical development that benefited us all, but an equal incentive to develop renewable energy would do the same plus the direct application.