Exactly, in the US we generate a lot of our electricity by dirty coal (and there isn't any other type, "clean coal" is a fraud) and so if you switch to electric transportation you're going to use more coal which is worse than gasoline. Stupidly, the environmental lobby is the biggest opponent of nuclear power, the only real alternative we have for clean base load power generation. I normally vote Green Party, but I am a fervent supporter of nuclear power. I think they will come around on the issue though, there isn't any other alternative.
There's no reason why it couldn't work. There are cities just as large as LA in the world that do just fine with less cars. Tokyo and Moscow come to mind. There just isn't enough political/cultural will to get it done at the moment. $5+/gl petrol would probably change that.
People will be more willing to accept high taxes on energy related to transportation if they had alternatives. If you reinvest the tax money, or some of it, into a robust public transportation system it would make it easier to live without a car; something which is difficult to impossible in many places in the US. There is still a huge car culture in America, and it'll take a culture shift for that to change but it has to start somewhere. It no longer makes sense that we're reliant on each person owning and operating there own 2000 pound machine to move them to where they need to go. It is rapidly becoming economically and environmentally unsustainable and it's a change that has to happen.
This already goes on, it's rampant. The solution is more restrictions and regulations on Wall Street to stop people from being able to make money who don't actually produce anything of value. It shouldn't be possible to get rich skimming off the top and siphoning away wealth from the working class that actually moves the economy. This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive. This can't go on forever, and if we don't put and end to it it's going to put an end to us.
I'm not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it's a good idea - because I'm not qualified to know that - but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.
It'll ruin our economy just like it did during the horrible economic times of the 50s...
There is a fundamental shelter built into any progressive tax system; only those who can well afford to pay more are required to pay the higher rate. At a certain point on the graph of tax rates overall revenue actually decreases when rates are increased beyond that limit, but we are no where near that point. In fact, by all account our top marginal rate could be doubled without getting into that danger zone of diminishing returns.
It's one thing to say you're OK with the level of inequality we have now, I can't argue with you if that's your position, but don't try to claim that it doesn't exist or that the solutions are not well known and documented.
You mean like when we had a 90% TOP marginal tax rate in the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Do you even know what marginal means? I can say it with a straight face because we've had it before, a fact you seem to be ignorant of.
CNN is a conservative/corporatist news source just like Fox, just like MSNBC. I distrust CNN just as much as any for profit news source. They all serve the same masters.
We don't have universal health care. It was never seriously up as an option. Single payer never even had a chance of being passed or even realistically debated as a choice. The health care "reform" was destined to be an insurance industry give away from the very start and the Democrats went right along with it because they are conservative too, which is the point I've been making all along.
I'm with you eliminating private property, the other stuff is fear-mongering though.
There is a difference between private property (the means of production) and personal property (the items you own like your clothes, car, etc). No one is suggesting we get rid of personal property, not even the socialists/communists want that. When you confuse the two it's easy to make the mistake you made, I don't blame you for that it's a different concept than most people are used to dealing with but it's an important distinction.
Yes, yes I do. You are the one who lacks a depth of experience and education to see just how ignorant you are.
Of course capitalism creates a lot of material goods and increases the standard of living of many, I'm not saying that hasn't happened. But it comes at a huge price of inequality, not just within one country but globally. We afford ourselves a high standard of living by exploiting the labor of areas struggling under poverty - poverty we create and maintain. When capital can move freely anywhere in the world but labor cannot, you will always have exploitation.
Two people will work together to achieve something neither could by themselves, which is the entire point; replacing the current system of exploitation with one based on cooperation. There is no reason why a group of workers should give their labor away for less than its worth (this is capitalism) when they could keep it all, own the business themselves, and live better.
And it would not require fraud because the basics of Wall Street and banks would be the same. Would stocks be fraud? Would trading in derivatives? Would bankers perpetuating debt-slavery be fraud? All of these things are not only permitted in a capitalist system (even one without a fiat currency) they are fundamental features of it. It doesn't have to be that way.
I have an understanding of the issue at hand, probably a broader understanding than you. All capitalist systems are built on predation and exploitation and that has been true for all time, in all capitalist economies even when the currency was backed by precious metals. Maybe you should investigate some of the criticisms of capitalism instead of just believing what you were told about it - by people who never seriously consider any alternatives.
It would make no difference if we had a metal backed currency. There would still be people on Wall Street and in the banks who would get rich manipulating numbers on a computer.
Yes, liberals want that. The Democrats in office don't, which is why they are not very liberal. Saying they just don't come out and say that's what they support is unverifiable to the point of meaninglessness. When they actually get the chance to implement real liberal policies they don't, and that's what matters.
We are comparing democratic nations similar to the US, including other nations would be meaningless and you know it. Stop trolling. And the Democratic Party as a whole IS conservative by world standards, even if there are people in the party who are more left. Even the "liberals" you demonize are not all that liberal.
Only when you let the crooks make their own regulation. The working class cannot trust their so called "representatives" to promote their interest. Those in congress all come from the upper class, the elite segments of society and that is who they really represent. Only direct action can secure a better future for the average American. So yes, I want less government intervention too, I want MORE populist intervention.
Here's what a real leftist government would look like. Immigrants would be given amnesty and a path to citizenship. The top marginal tax rate would be closer to 90% than the current 35%. Regressive taxes like sales tax and vehicle taxes would be eradicated. There would be a massive investment in a single payer government run health care system for all. A massive reinvestment in education from bottom up, focusing on leveling the inequality of poor school districts in minority neighborhoods and inner cities. Wall Street would be heavily regulated and much of what currently goes on would be illegal. Housing, food, and a meaningful job would be a right just like speech currently is. Workers would collectively own the businesses they work for. The level of income inequality would be unacceptable. And the military industrial complex would be dismantled, removing the troops we have stationed over seas. We would also never use our military again in an unprovoked war of aggression.
THAT would be a leftist party. Do we have a viable party like that on the national level? Do you have that in Maryland.
Get some perspective. Your "far left" is demonstrably to the right of center.
Compare them to the Green Party or a true Socialist party and you'll see that they are both on the right of the entire political continuum. I didn't say they were an extremist group, they are just right leaning in their political ideologies with some small variations to make it appear as though there is a real choice. On economic matters neither of them question that capitalism is the best and only way to organize an economy, and none are advocating for the kind of progressive tax structure the US needs.
The free market has failed because it allows people to make billions by merely manipulating money in creative ways. This generation of unproductive wealth siphons the hard work of productive members of society and gives it to people who produce nothing, create nothing, and contribute back nothing. They use their new wealth to buy political power and advocate even lower taxes and less regulation. It's an endless cycle of exploitation with the hard working segments of society supporting the decadence of the rich who feel they are entitled to the wealth they have done nothing to earn.
The solution to this problem is NOT less regulation, lower taxes, or a more "free" market.
The most popular gospel in modern American Christianity is the gospel of wealth. Making money is now a holy act, and the poor deserve what they get because they are lazy and not working hard like God wants them to.
There is not a real "left" in America. Democrats are not left, they are just slightly left of the Republicans. If you want to know what real leftist ideas look like then read about the Green Party, or the Democratic Socialist Party. If those were viable parties and were winning elections then you could say we have a real right-left divide, right now all we have is right and far right so if you have a problem with either the Democrats or the Republicans then you are saying you don't like conservative ideas - they are both conservative.
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, in the US we generate a lot of our electricity by dirty coal (and there isn't any other type, "clean coal" is a fraud) and so if you switch to electric transportation you're going to use more coal which is worse than gasoline. Stupidly, the environmental lobby is the biggest opponent of nuclear power, the only real alternative we have for clean base load power generation. I normally vote Green Party, but I am a fervent supporter of nuclear power. I think they will come around on the issue though, there isn't any other alternative.
There's no reason why it couldn't work. There are cities just as large as LA in the world that do just fine with less cars. Tokyo and Moscow come to mind. There just isn't enough political/cultural will to get it done at the moment. $5+/gl petrol would probably change that.
People will be more willing to accept high taxes on energy related to transportation if they had alternatives. If you reinvest the tax money, or some of it, into a robust public transportation system it would make it easier to live without a car; something which is difficult to impossible in many places in the US. There is still a huge car culture in America, and it'll take a culture shift for that to change but it has to start somewhere. It no longer makes sense that we're reliant on each person owning and operating there own 2000 pound machine to move them to where they need to go. It is rapidly becoming economically and environmentally unsustainable and it's a change that has to happen.
This already goes on, it's rampant. The solution is more restrictions and regulations on Wall Street to stop people from being able to make money who don't actually produce anything of value. It shouldn't be possible to get rich skimming off the top and siphoning away wealth from the working class that actually moves the economy. This country produces thousands of college graduates every year who go on to be bankers or Wall Street traders when they should be engineers and scientists. We produce people who not only don't contribute anything themselves but actually make it harder for other people to be productive. This can't go on forever, and if we don't put and end to it it's going to put an end to us.
I'm not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it's a good idea - because I'm not qualified to know that - but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.
That's not a shelter - if you look at what rich people were paying in the 1950s, it never approached a marginal rate of 90%.
Yes. It really was that high. Source is the IRS's own figures.
It'll ruin our economy just like it did during the horrible economic times of the 50s...
There is a fundamental shelter built into any progressive tax system; only those who can well afford to pay more are required to pay the higher rate. At a certain point on the graph of tax rates overall revenue actually decreases when rates are increased beyond that limit, but we are no where near that point. In fact, by all account our top marginal rate could be doubled without getting into that danger zone of diminishing returns.
It's one thing to say you're OK with the level of inequality we have now, I can't argue with you if that's your position, but don't try to claim that it doesn't exist or that the solutions are not well known and documented.
You mean like when we had a 90% TOP marginal tax rate in the 40s, 50s, and 60s? Do you even know what marginal means? I can say it with a straight face because we've had it before, a fact you seem to be ignorant of.
Really? Have the governments of Sweden, Germany, Japan, etc collapsed?
I find nothing insulting with being compared to him, and it says more about you than it does me when you consider his name to be a pejorative.
CNN is a conservative/corporatist news source just like Fox, just like MSNBC. I distrust CNN just as much as any for profit news source. They all serve the same masters.
We don't have universal health care. It was never seriously up as an option. Single payer never even had a chance of being passed or even realistically debated as a choice. The health care "reform" was destined to be an insurance industry give away from the very start and the Democrats went right along with it because they are conservative too, which is the point I've been making all along.
I'm with you eliminating private property, the other stuff is fear-mongering though.
There is a difference between private property (the means of production) and personal property (the items you own like your clothes, car, etc). No one is suggesting we get rid of personal property, not even the socialists/communists want that. When you confuse the two it's easy to make the mistake you made, I don't blame you for that it's a different concept than most people are used to dealing with but it's an important distinction.
Yes, yes I do. You are the one who lacks a depth of experience and education to see just how ignorant you are.
Of course capitalism creates a lot of material goods and increases the standard of living of many, I'm not saying that hasn't happened. But it comes at a huge price of inequality, not just within one country but globally. We afford ourselves a high standard of living by exploiting the labor of areas struggling under poverty - poverty we create and maintain. When capital can move freely anywhere in the world but labor cannot, you will always have exploitation.
Two people will work together to achieve something neither could by themselves, which is the entire point; replacing the current system of exploitation with one based on cooperation. There is no reason why a group of workers should give their labor away for less than its worth (this is capitalism) when they could keep it all, own the business themselves, and live better.
And it would not require fraud because the basics of Wall Street and banks would be the same. Would stocks be fraud? Would trading in derivatives? Would bankers perpetuating debt-slavery be fraud? All of these things are not only permitted in a capitalist system (even one without a fiat currency) they are fundamental features of it. It doesn't have to be that way.
I have an understanding of the issue at hand, probably a broader understanding than you. All capitalist systems are built on predation and exploitation and that has been true for all time, in all capitalist economies even when the currency was backed by precious metals. Maybe you should investigate some of the criticisms of capitalism instead of just believing what you were told about it - by people who never seriously consider any alternatives.
It would make no difference if we had a metal backed currency. There would still be people on Wall Street and in the banks who would get rich manipulating numbers on a computer.
Yes, liberals want that. The Democrats in office don't, which is why they are not very liberal. Saying they just don't come out and say that's what they support is unverifiable to the point of meaninglessness. When they actually get the chance to implement real liberal policies they don't, and that's what matters.
You are the one who is incorrect.
We are comparing democratic nations similar to the US, including other nations would be meaningless and you know it. Stop trolling. And the Democratic Party as a whole IS conservative by world standards, even if there are people in the party who are more left. Even the "liberals" you demonize are not all that liberal.
Get a clue.
Only when you let the crooks make their own regulation. The working class cannot trust their so called "representatives" to promote their interest. Those in congress all come from the upper class, the elite segments of society and that is who they really represent. Only direct action can secure a better future for the average American. So yes, I want less government intervention too, I want MORE populist intervention.
No.
Here's what a real leftist government would look like. Immigrants would be given amnesty and a path to citizenship. The top marginal tax rate would be closer to 90% than the current 35%. Regressive taxes like sales tax and vehicle taxes would be eradicated. There would be a massive investment in a single payer government run health care system for all. A massive reinvestment in education from bottom up, focusing on leveling the inequality of poor school districts in minority neighborhoods and inner cities. Wall Street would be heavily regulated and much of what currently goes on would be illegal. Housing, food, and a meaningful job would be a right just like speech currently is. Workers would collectively own the businesses they work for. The level of income inequality would be unacceptable. And the military industrial complex would be dismantled, removing the troops we have stationed over seas. We would also never use our military again in an unprovoked war of aggression.
THAT would be a leftist party. Do we have a viable party like that on the national level? Do you have that in Maryland.
Get some perspective. Your "far left" is demonstrably to the right of center.
Compare them to the Green Party or a true Socialist party and you'll see that they are both on the right of the entire political continuum. I didn't say they were an extremist group, they are just right leaning in their political ideologies with some small variations to make it appear as though there is a real choice. On economic matters neither of them question that capitalism is the best and only way to organize an economy, and none are advocating for the kind of progressive tax structure the US needs.
The free market has failed because it allows people to make billions by merely manipulating money in creative ways. This generation of unproductive wealth siphons the hard work of productive members of society and gives it to people who produce nothing, create nothing, and contribute back nothing. They use their new wealth to buy political power and advocate even lower taxes and less regulation. It's an endless cycle of exploitation with the hard working segments of society supporting the decadence of the rich who feel they are entitled to the wealth they have done nothing to earn.
The solution to this problem is NOT less regulation, lower taxes, or a more "free" market.
The most popular gospel in modern American Christianity is the gospel of wealth. Making money is now a holy act, and the poor deserve what they get because they are lazy and not working hard like God wants them to.
There is not a real "left" in America. Democrats are not left, they are just slightly left of the Republicans. If you want to know what real leftist ideas look like then read about the Green Party, or the Democratic Socialist Party. If those were viable parties and were winning elections then you could say we have a real right-left divide, right now all we have is right and far right so if you have a problem with either the Democrats or the Republicans then you are saying you don't like conservative ideas - they are both conservative.
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
Alcohol may have been involved, but at least I still display manners.