SIAP: U. S. assets can eliminate national debt
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
Why do you presume it is insufficient when it has not been tried?
What’s the basis for your determination?
Because while US defense consumption of fossil fuels certainly contributes significantly to the climate crisis, just getting out of the Middle East wouldn't change that much.
Perhaps you weren't talking about actual fossil fuel usage, but the general policy to protect/control middle eastern oil? I'm not sure why that would make things better, so you'll have to talk me through that if that's what you meant.
Those things said, my main complaint about your (and others') approach is that you only focus on the price of gas and oil, not the climate crisis.
While the price of fuel can certainly impact consumption, we've gotten to the point where mere price shifts are no longer projected to shrink fossil fuel usage nearly enough to avert climate disaster. If we had gotten serious and thrown the weight of the US behind such modest efforts back in the 90s, we might well have been able to have a soft landing. But that window has closed.
Climate changes, and has been changing since the earth was formed, before man arrived. On one hand you don't think military burning of fossil fuels makes much difference, but then you talk about not enough focus on climate change.
If you really think what the US is doing on climate change today, or that we have an immediate crisis, you will be disappointed.
The US is on it's way to bankruptcy, way more quickly than we will be able to do anything substantial to affect climate change. A great number of people are being priced out of the housing market, and struggle to buy groceries. Once the US is functionally bankrupt there won't be much money left to spend on climate change.
Sometimes I think you have a shoebox of deflection talking points and you just randomly grab a few and paste them into your comments on important topics.
It's only a third grade argument in your mind because you don't understand it.
And sometimes, just when you appear reasonable, you go full tilt to the far left.
Climate change is something we have to deal with, and mitigate as best we can. It's supremely arrogant to think the United States can control the climate when we can't even forecast the daily weather with any high degree of certainty. We can't control massive forest fires, or volcanoes.
What I seek here, and will never find, is consistency. Having a massive military costs us a lot of money, and does tremendous environmental damage. I would guess the carbon footprint of the US military equals or exceeds the carbon footprint of transportation of the civilian population. Eliminating fossil fuels using offshore wind kills birds and whales. EV's are charged with diesel powered generators, and battery production is based on mining that devastates the environment, while burning fossil fuels in the process.
Biden does everything he can to cut US production, and initially succeeds, only to beg for foreign production, and raid the Strategic Reserve. How much oil does a tanker burn while transporting oil to the US?
Theory is great, and we need to do better in many ways. Destroying everything in the process probably isn't the best solution.
I realize that following the science is "far left" to you. But I don't understand why.
Speaking for the left, I'm happy to own science.
wow...he is doing a TERRIBLE job at cutting US oil production, considering its higher than its ever been
Based on your point that corporations are efficient tax collectors, then why don't we eliminate all income taxes and just reform our tax system and move to a national sales tax? If we did that, we would make sure all goods and services were taxed, no one would be excluded from paying taxes, there could be no tax loop holes, and we would be incentivising something we need more of, productivity, and would be taxing something we should limit, consumption.
Why do conservatives consider successful proportionate contribution a penalty?
You succeed to a greater degree in our economy, you are rewarded, and you contribute to society accordingly. It's a matter of logic. You remarked earlier people (citizens I assume) should contribute more. I'm retired on a moderate pension and feel this way. I don't have a problem paying taxes, but I guess I'm not selfish.
Many people contribute a significant %'age of the ability to survive while wealthy and corps contribute little or nothing. This is the winning formula for the heartless and extreme, but it doesn't work for the masses.
Another thing. You keep throwing out percentages. 1995 was not 2022. The population of the U.S. was 266.6 million vs 333.3 million. When the Interstate highway system was built in the 1950s the tax for the high income earners was 90%.
You can twist and turn but can't rationalize insufficient revenue flow over decades hasn't been a problem when the deficit has grown, and tax CUTS have been enacted.
Wow. Let's start at the very beginning, It's the very best place to start. Or better yet, let's just leave this one alone.
Are you lying, or just stupid?
- The lowest quintile experienced a combined tax and transfer rate of negative 127.0 percent, meaning that for each dollar they earned, they received an additional $1.27 from the government, netting transfers (gains) and taxes (losses), while the top quintile had a rate of positive 30.7 percent, meaning on net they paid just under $0.31 for every dollar earned.
- The top quintile funded 90.1 percent, or $1.6 trillion, of all government transfers in 2019. For each dollar of taxes paid, the top quintile received $0.11 in gross government transfers.
That’s why we use percentages, instead of absolute numbers.
We have HIGHER tax collections under the current rate structure than we had in the 1950s.
Why do you want higher rates that collect less taxes?
What is the point?
You dipshit, you can look the numbers up yourself. Tax collections (actual dollars taken from the public to fund expenditures) are HIGHER under the current rate structure than before it.
You want higher rates that historically have lower tax collections. AND you ignore that our spending is at unprecedented levels that we’ve NEVER collected taxes sufficient to cover. Measured as a percentage of GDP federal expenditure are almost 50% more than at the end of the Clinton era.
It’s a spending problem, but you’re either willfully blind to it (because you’ve been shown the data) or too dumb to understand how this works.
It's slightly more than the highs achieved in 2019 before the COVID shutdowns. Oil production increased despite the policies, not because of them.
One of many stories
