[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 54 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Now accepting credit card payment for 4chan Pass purchases and renewals. Click here for details.


I just read through the proposed Green Deal. One thing that did catch my eye is they propose expanded public transit options and new high speed rail.

Though, I don’t know how they expect for tax payers to be able to foot the bill for the Green deal.
>>
Like any other government project, a lot of money will get funneled directly into the pockets of contractors and friends of politicians. It also likely includes a bunch of white elephant projects that politicians can brag about that help virtually no one (like the Atlanta streetcar to nowhere). Not to mention drawn-out impact studies and bloat from government ineptitude.

We're past the days when we could go out and do huge public works projects like the depression.
>>
>>1282257
well, I do like the idea of expanded public transit. I live in a metropolitan area, and traffic gets worse and worse here every year. If our metro system was larger, less people would drive. I like this concept. But I think larger parts of the green deal are problematic. Like switching from gas powered cars to all electric cars in 15 years. I don’t see how that’s even possible unless the government were to subsidies electric car companies like Tesla in order to drastically drop the price for electric cars to levels where even poors can buy them. But of course, doing this would greatly increase taxes
>>
>>1282256
Unfortunately democratic societies aren't able to deal with climate change at the scale a green new deal might. The tax burden would be rejected by a relatively healthy economy that can't recognize the threat of climate change. The reality is either eco-fascism or business as usual. Of course, the latter will prevail. Maybe some feel good green coping mechanisms along the way, but there will be no potent response to climate change besides one that is reactive and "adaptive"
>>
>>1282256
>I don’t know how they expect for tax payers to be able to foot the bill for the Green deal.
We should really start to think of impulsive consumerism as a de facto tax. How much money and resources do we lose every year to buying the most useless shit? Half of the problem of climate change would be solved in the first by merely not buying shit we don't need. With the resources saved, you can easily finance the cost to solve the rest of the climate change problem
>>
>>1282270
well If we pulled back from social services like Medicare and welfare it could be done. But obviously that won’t happen
>>
>muh climate warming change
Why the fuck my shithole got so frozen?
>>
>>1282272
that’s weather lad. but climate change is effecting the weather. as the poles heat, cold air masses are pushed south. That’s why it’s been colder farther south than usual. Because it’s warming in the north
>>
>>1282256
Can I get a TL;DR on what this is? As an ausfag I'm not particularly clued in on US politics
>>
>>1282279
pretty much it’s just a proposal to get carbon emissions to 0 and completely stop the use of all fossil fuels... within 12 years.
>>
>>1282276
Makes zero sense
>>
>>1282290
Why do you say that?
>>
>>1282300
Because it makes zero sense
>>
>>1282256
Impossible feel-good bill that will get torn apart by establishment dems and all republicans. Renewables are a meme outside of very specific enviroments. Nuclear is the future but enviromentalists keep acting like its the 80s and think every nuclear plant is another Chernobyl or TMI waiting to happen.
>>
>>1282301
It makes """zero sense""" to you because you're not realizing that weather is a world-wide system, not just something that happens where you happen to live. Warmer oceans mean there's more water vapor in the atmosphere of the entire planet, not just over the oceans, for instance. Warmer air means all that extra water vapor gets moved around more. This and other factors change overall weather patterns everywhere.

The reason people don't understand climate change is like you they're only looking at it on a small scale centered around where they live, or maybe at most what they see on the news, so at most they're looking at perhaps a couple hundred miles radius of where they live. Generally speaking people don't give a fuck about what happens thousands of miles away, let alone what happens on the other side of the planet, so they don't pay any attention to it, and if they do they don't connect any of that to anything going on where they live. Scientists that specialize on climate science are looking at *the entire weather system of the planet*, not what happens in their home town.
>>
>>1282317
I had to register as Democrat because shit is totally out of control, but unlike most Democrats I actually agree with you, '''renewables''' aren't going to cut it all by themselves, we need nuclear power.

What most anti-nuclear people don't understand is that there are better ways to design fission reactors so they're intrinsicly safer to operate. Then they talk about dealing with the spent fuel; science I'm certain can find a better way to deal with that, too. What they also don't realize is that we can use fission reactors as a stop-gap while we're working on fusion power, which will be much safer, and who knows what other advances in physics will bring us? Meanwhile it's vital that we start moving away from fossil fuel use as much as possible.
>>
>>1282318
>you're not realizing that weather is a world-wide system, not just something that happens where you happen to live.

Incorrect.

I didn't bother reading the remainder of your post due to such a basic wrongful assumption
>>
>$7 trillion
>eliminates air travel
Lmao. You know these congress members still use private jets
>>
>>1282345
>it doesn't happen where I live, therefore it can't be real!
You're a fucking moron
>>
>>1282444
I didn't state that either

This is why most people don't buy into climate alarmism
>>
>>1282446
not him, but you really should educate yourself. Scroll down and read.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/harsh-winter/
>>
>>1282256
The government will do what it always does, raise taxes somewhere, probably on vehicles and gas, cut funding somewhere else, and we'll get left with the consequences so some fuck nuts in DC can appeal to their small but vocal subset of brainwashed twitter followers. 2015+4, trusting that the government has your best interest in mind is a fucking meme.

Every day, I'm glad I'm one day closer to moving out into the middle of nowhere and living until I die.
>>
>>1282449
All that site says is that some winters are worse than others. I already knew that.


>>1282486
Dude, don't you get it? If you just demand that the government takes more of your money, everything will get better
>>
>>1282498
>Dude, don't you get it? If you just demand that the government takes more of your money, everything will get better
Did you graduate from Prager U or something?
>>
Basically Eco Stalinism.

Give up your life and country to the vision of the wealthy political elites. Go back to 19th century standard of living in a small apartment in an o overcrowded city. Never travel far in your life because it all costs too much and takes to long now. Then become impoverished and leave the country after the government goes bankrupt and the phoney economy collapses.

Idiot proposals like this make it hard for real environmentalists to get realistic work done. Like electrifying existing rail and converting diesel and shipping to CNG.
>>
>>1282505
Ad hom attack. You have conceded your point.
>>
>>1282270
If we collectively stopped going into debt to buy useless shit the global economy would collapse.
>>
File: bushfires.jpg (76 KB, 1028x928)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>1282272
Just because it's cold where you are doesn't mean climate change isn't a thing.

Come down to Australia where in Tasmania and Victoria over 200,000 hectares was burnt to a crisp in one of the worst bushfire seasons in recent years. We've had a 1-in-500-year flood in Queensland where thousands have had to be evacuated with over a year's worth of rain falling in two weeks. In the meantime over 80% of NSW is still in drought conditions.

We've had more and more heatwaves over 45°C and it's only going to get worse as our government refuses to take meaningful action about carbon emissions and climate change.

You can't deny that more and more extreme weather events are happening.
>>
>>1282564
Yes it's Australia that's the problem, not China, not India, etc.
>>
>>1282570
Nice whataboutism, cunt.
>>
Using the 2009 BNSF study. It will cost at least ten billion dollars to electrify. Bnsf and UP both have about 34,000 miles of track and 8000 locomotives. Csx has 21,000 miles of track and 4000 locomotives. NS has 26,000 miles and 4000 locomotives. KSC has a mere 6000 miles.

So 40 to 50 billion 2009 dollars to just electrify those 5 RRs.
>>
>>1282570
Gee, it's almost as if the countries with the largest population in the world might be the most polluting in the world. Sure, we might only produce 1.2% of the world's carbon emissions but you have to consider the fact that Australia only has 0.3% of the world's population. We produce about 15 tonnes of CO2 yearly per capita, twice as much as China's 6 tonnes per capita. It certainly isn't insignificant on the world stage when Australia is one of the most polluting countries per person.

That's not even taking into account that China and India are some of the world's largest producers of renewable energy in the world and are rapidly investing in new renewables, and our government... isn't.

Blaming other countries for producing so much pollution because they have to produce so much energy in the first place is rank hypocrisy if your own country isn't doing a single fucking thing to help. Just because the restaurant down the road throws out dumpsters full of garbage each week doesn't mean you can just litter anywhere because it's so much less in comparison.
>>
even for the people who don’t believe in climate change. How can you not support some sort of movement to 0 emissions in the future? It’s clear that pollution is unhealthy for all life.
>>
>>1282673
because muh growth....until the oil runs out, then clean air would be cool though

>>1282672
Read in the NYT recently an article outright saying it isn't right for the West to dictate what developing nations should or shouldn't do regarding their development, in regards to pollution and climate change. Had the vibe of western hypocrisy/exceptionalism. Right, I get it. China/india for example, have large populations and have industrialized at a fast pace to satisfy the demand of the much larger, consumerist economies, using the "trickle down" flow of manufacturing techniques to achieve their scale. Technological leaf frogging into the 21st century. So the consumerist countries both empower indirectly with technology the means to produce and then encourage the rapid expansion of production powerhouse nations with little environmental oversight.

If we in the West have any obligation to saving the planet, without dictating how developing countries should develop, its to create technologies to "trickle down" to the developing nations that are more economical than their more polluting counterparts. Of course the argument of "future innovation will save" us has been around for ages and what is technically possible or not is more often speculation than fact. And more often than not, is a free market knee jerk response to most problems, that the alleviating technology is simply in the pipeline...waiting to be invented
>>
>>1282676
Our country has a really high rate of medical issues. and I don’t believe all of that is due to eating habits. I think vehicle pollution is terrible for us
>>
>>1282256
It will never pass, though I dont think it was ever supposed to.
>>
>>1282693
AOC is good at trollolololing to shift the overton window.
>>
>>1282679
>our country
specify which, which I'm assuming is 'merica. Here's top ten deaths in the USA from the CDC:

Heart disease:
Cancer:
Accidents (unintentional injuries):
Chronic lower respiratory diseases:
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases):
Alzheimer’s disease:
Diabetes:
Influenza and pneumonia:
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis:
Intentional self-harm (suicide):

Air pollution might contribute to only some, but really lifestyle choices and healthcare system failures are mostly to blame. You can attribute some of the list to air pollution, but the leading causes of heart disease, cancers, diabetes, etc, is not air pollution. Anyway, this thread is about climate change and implicitly CO2.

>>1282693
Ocasio-Cortez and Markey's bill was certainly introduced with their real intent, but Pelosi is right in not bringing it to a vote since it'll never pass
>>
>>1282530
Which point? That’s my first post ITT
>>
>>1282695
>cancers
>not air pollution
You haven't forgotten that carbon particulates are carcinogenic?
All hydro-carbon burning engines will produce carbon particulates, and the worst offenders are engines which burn long carbon chain fuels like diesel, kerosene, bunker fuel and so on.
Since petroleum is much shorter carbon chain, it produces fewer carbon particulates when burned, but they're still produced. LPG probably produces the least amount of carbon particulates for an internal combustion engine.

Unless we switch to natural gas for this sort of thing (which we probably won't because of its high price, and even higher extraction price), cancers will be caused by air pollution, and there's not a whole lot of things we can do about it. Cities are already banning diesel engines cars, but leaving buses and goods vehicles alone, and the EU has been advancing diesel engine standards to ever more stricter diesel engine emitions for the time being.
>>
I consider myself pretty hard left but the thought of giving trillions in infrastructure spending to people who want to "eliminate air travel" is fucking horrifying.
>>
>>1282578
Not an argument

>>1282672
Pretty sure the climate doesn't care about Australia's population relative to its greenhouse emissions

But go ahead, vote yourself a tax increase and call it all good
>>
>>1282706
Then you're not as far left as you think, I guess. Air travel produces tons of carbon dioxide per passenger. If you want to address CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, you need to address air travel. This is why climate progress will never happen, people are simply not willing to make the sacrifices needed.
>>
>>1282706
How do you feel that one of the mentions in the Resolutions included “economic stability for persons who are unable or unwilling to work”?
>>
>>1282710
>Paying people not to work

Bribing more people to support & become slaves to the government
>>
>>1282256
I just read through the major points of this proposal.

I'm a registered Democrat, but I can't get behind most of it. It's almost pure fantasy. Reads like whoever wrote it wasn't living in the real world. 10 years isn't enough to accomplish everything it says it wants to accomplish, and some of it is just plain ridiculous.
>>
>>1282706
It's not that they want to 'eliminate air travel', they think they can build highspeed transoceanic trains that will make air travel '''obsolete'''. It's pure fantasy. Also you think someone hijacking or managing to blow up planes is bad? Imagine how much fun terrorists could have sabotaging thousands of miles of undersea rail service intended to run at hundreds of miles per hour.
>>
>>1282707
Fucking hell did you understand anything of what I wrote at all?

Everybody should be chipping in to help fight climate change. Australia isn't pulling its weight compared to other countries. People have no right to complain about other countries being polluting when your own country refuses to lift a finger.

I didn't even mention taxes. The government can easily make up the costs of funding renewables by redirecting indirect subsidies for fossil fuels (ie tax breaks etc) and economic reform (cracking down on tax evasion, franking credits etc) without any new taxes at all.

Australia might not be "the problem", but we are still contributing to it.
>>
>>1282710
>whining about that
I don't understand are we on the same website? This is the home of the neet. I want /r/the_donald normals to leave
>>
File: 14230063929_34d59121fa_o.jpg (343 KB, 1920x1080)
343 KB
343 KB JPG
>>1282256
HSR is profitable. So after a while you get your money back.
You also save taxpayer money because there is no need for new highways.
>>
>>1283017
Profitable*

*only certain lines where ridership is always near full, and trains run frequently.
>>
>>1283022
*and only with enough complementary subsidized conventional train and/or public transit services to get it to fill up in the first place
>>
>>1283017
it would only be effective regionally here. Not coast-coast
>>
>>1283005
>The government can easily make up the costs of funding renewables by

The government can do anything it sets its mind to! :^)
>>
>>1283255
Not him but quit fucking shitposting if you’re just going to spout memes and nothing substantive. Fucking 4chan fuck
>>
File: Shinkansen_0-series.jpg (1.65 MB, 3000x2000)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB JPG
>>1283022
Of course you need passengers. Empty trains don't make profit. That's why you build lines between big cities. This guarantees enough passengers.
>>
>>1282606
That is the most generous study ever. It would be 3 digit billion.
>>
>>1283209
Coast to coast rail is what built america
>>
>>1283337
Yes. But this is not the 1800s anymore. Nobody has the time to sit on a train for multiple days when you could fly in a few hours
>>
Many American cities, their suburbs, and their surrounding region have little to no public transportation infrastructure this forces everyone to drive everywhere for everything consuming vast sums of oil and generating vast sums of CO2. As well as also generating constant low density urban sprawl as more roads with very finite capacities must be built to keep pace.


Too often public transit planning in the US is left to local counties and city councils creating a very haphazard approach, curiously this doesn't happen with roads, what is needed is a statewide public transit authority to design and administer networks of:

* Regional and interurban rail linking regional population centers and rural areas with one another and cities.

* Commuter rail to and through a cities suburbia.

* Metro rail where appropriate in cities that warrant it but if they don't because a combination of commuter rail and streetcars working together make an adequate substitute in medium to low density cities that don't need a metro.

* And streetcars/lightrail on the road in and around city centers and surrounding urban areas and they can also be quite good in regional areas too - a large town might have a network of 3 or 4 or 5 routes and this can connect to the mainline railways and provide additional services in between the regional and interurban trains. The tram-trains in Germany have been very effective.

HSR should only come after this. Its seen as a fixall in America where there isn't any rail to begin with but you cant have HSR without conventional rail first - how do you get to the HSR? How do you get around when you arrive?
>>
>>1282257
Economists have proven that the New Deal was the cause not the solution to the prolonged depression in the 30s. Public works are rarely efficient because of the very nature of politics and its inherent connection to the government.
>>
>>1282279
In order to stop climate change the democrats are proposing a bill that will outlaw climate change.
>>
>>1283017
>HSR is profitable
There are exactly two HSR lines in the world that make money, Tokyo-Oosaka, and Paris-Lyon.
>>
>>1283343
lolbertarian economists funded by rightwing ideologues that oppose the New Deal
>>
>>1283343
>Public works are rarely efficient because of the very nature of politics and its inherent connection to the government.
lol why not just say
>because reasons
>>1283345
>I cant even tell a good lie
>>
>>1283351
More like every respected economist and economic historian. It's well known that the two countries that focused the most on public works, the US and Nazi Germany, were the slowest to recover from the depression.
>>
>>1283352
>>
>>1283353
lolno
>>
File: burns snrub 2.jpg (38 KB, 250x249)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>1283354
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/lee-ohanian
>Hoover Institute
>>
>>1283357
>scholarly analysis of evidence using mathematical models vs simpsons pics and greentext
>>
File: here's cookie.jpg (27 KB, 400x321)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>1283360
>lets just ignore his position as a senior fellow at a highly biased institute funded by rightwing interests that expect results for their spending
>>
>>1283362
Not him but that's still not an argument
>>
>>1283375
The source is clearly biased and this man wants to insist that they are unbiased
>>
>>1283347
Beijing-Shanghai and Taiwan's HSR are also profitable
>>
>>1283400
Taiwan's "HSR" is not a true HSR and it received multiple government bail-outs in just over 10 years of operation.
>>
>>1283341
The problem with this is all of the private property the government would have to take. Plus the enormous cost.

Then add to the fact that rich people don’t want metro in their suburbs.
>>
>>1283379
STILL not an argument
>>
>>1283440
STILL not UNDERSTANDING what an argument is.
>>
>>1283337
Cargo and mail rail. Passenger rail was never a money maker. It was just tacked on
>>
>>1283466
It probably was when trains were the only practical way to travel long distances, the railroads weren't known for their charitable causes
>>
>>1282256
they need to address land use and zoning
>>
>>1283440
>its not an argument to show they have an obvious bias and conflict
it seems that anything that contradicts you is deemed not an argument
>>
>>1283404
>the problem is it requires effort
Where does the land come from for all the roads and highways and freeways they have to keep building to keep pace with congestion - and hey you're all free market economists here so tell me isn't that INDUCED DEMAND? - doesn't it get purchased as well?

And speaking of which, couldn't some of that maybe be converted?

Suppose you've got a highway or freeway that is 4 or 5 or 6 or more lanes going both ways - is it really such a loss for the inner most two lanes to be converted into railways?

>metro in their suburbs
Metros are inside cities, in subway tunnels or elevated causeways
Commuter trains go to and through suburbia
>>
>>1283522
>And speaking of which, couldn't some of that maybe be converted?

You could, but it would still be expensive and you'd be limited to the route a highway takes. Running in/along highways offers more drawbacks than solutions imo


>>1283521
Simply offer a logical rebuttal instead of logical fallacies
>>
>>1283521
You haven't shown a single example of actual bias though, you just point out that one of the scholars is being paid partially through an institution that is likely to fund such research, which by itself means nothing.
Honestly all you've done was make yourself look like a dumbass.
>>
>>1283531
>>1283525
Friendly reminder that “not an argument” is a logical fallacy. But please keep posting your drivel. It fits much better here than your home board /pol/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_an_argument
>>
>>1283568
Let us know when you offer an actual counterargument or rebuttal
>>
File: WHY.png (269 KB, 538x538)
269 KB
269 KB PNG
>Demonstrates willingness to commit more money than the writer can even confidently say exists and radically alter US law/policy, if not American society itself, to take an absurd moon-shot at meeting 100% of energy needs with zero-emissions sources
>No nuclear regulation-reform and power plant building in the plan, at all

I have never seen a document so worthy of trashing in my entire life.
>>
>there are people ITT who are actually defending this shit
thats it, im fucking moving.
>>
>>1283591
Go to Mexico, they dgaf about pollution there. They practically don't even have passenger trains. Do it!
>>
>Though, I don’t know how they expect for tax payers to be able to foot the bill for the Green deal.
Maybe reduce the "defense" spending again. There are hundreds of billions of savings in there. The US federal government is spending more on "defense" alone than my county, Germany, has in its entire federal tax household, and we're one of the largest economies in the world. The US pour $17,800 a SECOND into the military. It's just absolutely unfathomable. By the time you've read this post to the end there will have gone another half million or million dollars into the American military.
>>
>>1283625
Good luck. The USA has to "bring democracy" no matter who is in office. Destabilizing countries and driving refugee waves to the Western world. Also so banks and big corporations can benefit from it, and the political class can play geopolitical chess and buy votes with the creeping socialist state.

Hawaiian Mommy is the only Democrat campaigning on non interventionism.
>>
>>1283604
>trashing and replacing 99% of all existing vehicles is giving a fuck about pollution
Can you even imagine (if it was physically possible) the amount of energy and pollution needed to build 260 million (clean and renewaable!) cars in 10 years?
>>
>>1283573
No nuclear makes me rage so hard. It faces the worst of friendly green environmentalism because nuclear is such an easy target for the lowest common denominator. Nuclear BAD! We don't want another Chernobyl! Air pollution from fossil fuels kills more people than nuclear energy ever has. Ultimately environmentalists always end up talking about the carbon costs of uranium mining and plant construction as if there isn't any carbon sunk into producing millions of PV panels or wind turbines. Not to mention providing peak usage and intermittent supply for renewables nuclear is the perfect answer and the response is always "we'll figure it out!" or "battery technology is still coming"

I actually heard the former NRC chairman on NPR the other day suggest that we don't need nuclear to supplement peak usage hours because the battery technology is going to improve in a leap and render the whole problem moot. I can't actually fathom how anyone believes battery tech is going to improve that much, much less be feasible to power cities AND still be carbon neutral.
>>
>>1283671
The left treats solar like the does coal. People with money, and those wanting to make money are doing their best to funnel government and private funds to their stock portfolio.
>>
File: 170523-D-ZZ999-001.jpg (102 KB, 1460x1080)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>1283625
People who say "just take it from the military budget lmao" often have no idea what it is spent on. The majority of defense spending goes into operations, logistics, and maintenance or into paying the troops themselves. We have security obligations all over the world and millions of troops. That is expensive. Telling defense nerds to "just spend less on defense lol" is like me telling you "just take a car lol you dont need trains". We'd love to spend less on defense, believe me. Unfortunately our allies do that for us.
>>
>>1283679
>We'd love to spend less on defense, believe me.
[citation needed]
>>
>>1283680
I meant the average American, not our neocon/neolib politicians. The problem is that the average American thinks we will be weakened if we do spend less. And as I implied above they arent entirely wrong. If our allies would pull their own weight in regional security we could easily manage with a $300-$350bn budget, but they wont. Anglosphere minus Canada plus France are the exceptions to this statement. From a defense perspective they are good allies.
>>
File: kiwi.jpg (52 KB, 1000x575)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>1283685
we dont fucking do anything
stay cucked amerisharts
>>
>>1283679
Just pull out of the middle east and Africa. Save a hundred billion a year right there, and nothing really changes.
>>
>>1283679
you can't unfuck yourself, sure, but none of your bullshit makes sense either
>>
>>1283688
You lose valuable geo-political influence. The chinks then move in.
>>
>>1283679
I remember when Obama cut the military budget in 2013, we had to start buying our own rolls of toilet paper because the public bathrooms on base no longer has toilet paper, because the base couldn’t afford it
>>
>>1283687
I forgot you even existed, sorry.
>>1283688
Pulling out of MENA sounds nice in theory, and it COULD work, but we could also end up in a situation much worse if we ignore it. The point is moot either way, since it seems every prospective politician and their mother has "pull out of MENA" on their to-do list. So you'll probably get what you want.
>>1283690
Also to a lesser extent this.
>>1283689
Im sorry, I dont understand.
>>1283692
Exactly! This is the kind of thing I was talking about. People think the majority of the budget goes into cool new tanks or drones or wonder weapons but it doesnt. It goes into essentials and maintaining supply lines for those essentials.
>>
>>1283625
You know the majority of our spending goes into social services and welfare?

I know a guy who is an economist. He took a sample of the entire US budget and attempted to get us out of debt. He said even have putting the Defense budget at $0, Foreign Affairs at $0, Infastructure spending at $0, he could not possibly bring us out of debt because of how much we spend on welfare
>>
>>1283696
>People think the majority of the budget goes into cool new tanks or drones or wonder weapons but it doesnt. It goes into essentials and maintaining supply lines for those essentials.

Those stories about $500 rolls of toilet paper and military brass ordering the destruction of used / extra materials aren't exactly wrong either, though.

If a base was allocated 5 mil and they only used 4 of that during the fiscal year, they would just burn the remainder simply so their spending doesn't get cut next year.
>>
>>1283704
it’s not $500 rolls of toilet paper. what are you talking about?

When I was in, and Obama is the cuts in 2013, not only did we not have basic things like toilet paper in public restrooms or socks being issues to soldiers, but much of our training that year was canceled. You have no idea how expensive it is to conduct a training exercise
>>
>>1283671
>Nuclear BAD!

Nuclear is perfectly safe as long as nothing unforeseen happens. Luckily that's never happened
>>
>>1283698
Why is America seemingly the only wealthy western country who can’t implement basic social democratic infrastructure without utter economic devastation and ruin?
>>
>>1283724
Population
>>
>>1283725
I don’t follow.
>>
>>1283726
our population is so much larger than France. Not only that, but our country geographically is much larger than France too. More cost. Also, culturally we do not the federal government dictating our lives. We don’t want to pay insane amount of tax like the French do. This is why people here believe it’s the state and local governments job to push these kind of projects. Not the federal government
>>
>>1283724
Lol what in the fuck does 'basic social democratic infrastructure' mean
>>
>>1283728
>our population is so much larger than France. Not only that, but our country geographically is much larger than France too. More cost.
Isn't a larger population offset by having a larger tax base? And why France? Are they the only country with social democracy?

>Also, culturally we do not the federal government dictating our lives. We don’t want to pay insane amount of tax like the French do. This is why people here believe it’s the state and local governments job to push these kind of projects. Not the federal government
Ah yes, the old "blue collar rural right-wing Americans are the only real Americans and every single one of them is a dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal Republican" adage...

>>1283729
National health insurance, public university without tuition, etc. Things that the American right claims will cause untold destruction and suffering (as opposed to the very sad and very fake "Chinese global warming hoax")
>>
>>1283735
>National health insurance, public university without tuition,

We don't need those. We're exceptional


>etc.

That's all you could think of?
>>
>>1283738
>We don't need those.
Questionable.

>We're exceptional
Yes, but that's not a good thing in this case.

>That's all you could think of?
I thought that those two should have sufficiently illustrated my point for you, and they seem to be relatively popular at the moment.
>>
>>1283739
>Questionable.
Not really questionable, if you want health insurance, work or get Medicare. If you want free tuition, get a scholarship or use the GI Bill


>Yes, but that's not a good thing in this case.
Purely opinion


>I thought that those two should have sufficiently illustrated my point for you, and they seem to be relatively popular at the moment.
They illustrated you're just another foreigner who thinks they know what's best for the US. Worry about your own country
>>
>>1283741
>Not really questionable, if you want health insurance, work or get Medicare. If you want free tuition, get a scholarship or use the GI Bill
Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a nice platitude but things are hardly that simply in practice.

>Purely opinion
And?

>They illustrated you're just another foreigner who thinks they know what's best for the US. Worry about your own country
I'm a born and bred Midwesterner.
>>
>>1283735
>National health insurance, public university without tuition, etc
But, we don’t need this?
>>
>>1283745
>Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a nice platitude but things are hardly that simply in practice.
"Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" just means working for something and in the US that's the culture.


>And?
Your opinion can and will be discarded


>I'm a born and bred Midwesterner.
If you want "social democratic infrastructure" (still probably the dumbest thing I'll read today), move to Canada of Europe or wherever the fuck. You'll be happier. It will involve some work on your part so of course you'll reject the idea
>>
>>1283747
I any many others disagree.

>>1283748
I didn't realize I was being trolled epic style here.
>>
>>1283745
>Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a nice platitude but things are hardly that simply in practice.

If you have a fulltime job, you have health insurance. If you are a complete poor, apply for Medicare.

If you want free school. Apply for a scholarship. Not even students even apply for scholarships. At my uni they even said that they are begging for students to apply. Last year they said $2bil went to waste last year because not enough students applied.

Or, you could go into the military and get free uni and allowance.

Our country is based on the ideas that you have to build yourself and work for what you want. You can control your own path. Nobody else is responsible for you, just you. This leads to success for those who strive to be something. Everyone here has the same opportunities, it just depends whether they go for it or not.
>>
>>1283749
>I disagree
Can you educate me then how we are suppose to pay $2.8 trillion a YEAR for Medicare for all? That’s not even including however much free uni would be
>>
>>1283750
>If you have a fulltime job, you have health insurance. If you are a complete poor, apply for Medicare.
I don't believe that your access to affordable medical care should depend on your job, especially in this increasingly uncertain economy where gigs seem to be replacing long-term careers.

>If you want free school. Apply for a scholarship. Not even students even apply for scholarships. At my uni they even said that they are begging for students to apply. Last year they said $2bil went to waste last year because not enough students applied.
Again, I don't think that education should be reliant on private scholarships. A well-educated populace is necessary for a liberal democracy to function, and as such a well-funded public education system is a utility that we should provide.

>Or, you could go into the military and get free uni and allowance.
And risk becoming a pawn in some Iraq War-esque misadventure?

>Our country is based on the ideas that you have to build yourself and work for what you want. You can control your own path. Nobody else is responsible for you, just you. This leads to success for those who strive to be something. Everyone here has the same opportunities, it just depends whether they go for it or not.
These are Cold War era platitudes. The ideological basis behind the American Revolution were liberal Enlightenment values that pre-date industrial capitalism. Historically there have been many schools of economic/political thought in the United States that would be considered "radical leftism" in the current neoliberal consensus (which has only been the dominant political force for the last few decades).

>>1283751
>Can you educate me then how we are suppose to pay $2.8 trillion a YEAR for Medicare for all? That’s not even including however much free uni would be
Taxation. Furthermore, wasn't there a recent study which determined that a national health insurance system would actually cost less than the current system?
>>
>>1283753
>Taxation. Furthermore, wasn't there a recent study which determined that a national health insurance system would actually cost less than the current system?

Why should I have to pay a ton more in taxes
>>
>>1283754
You wouldn't necessarily have to pay "a ton" (?) more, most of the proposals that I'm aware of call for increasing taxes on higher-income earners. Furthermore, there's the portion of your paycheck that would no longer be going towards a private insurance provider. I suggest that you look into that study I mentioned.
>>
>>1283753
>I don't believe that your access to affordable medical care should depend on your job,
That's why there's Medicare and Medicaid

>A well-educated populace is necessary for a liberal democracy to function,
It's not. Only in recent generations has post secondary education been seen as 'necessary'

>And risk becoming a pawn in some Iraq War-esque misadventure?
Yes, you don't get something for nothing. If serving on a destroyer or in a desert Air Force installation is too much for you to stomach, tough

>These are Cold War era platitudes.
PLATITUDES
PLATITUDES
PLATITUDES
Nah dude they're still true today even despite manchildren such as yourself

>Taxation.
Of fucking course. And I bet you think it'll be the rich who will be taxed the most, not actual working people

>Furthermore, wasn't there a recent study which determined that a national health insurance system would actually cost less than the current system?
Think about all the things that were promised with ACA that didn't pan out. You believe the government functions in a benevolent, efficient, and practical manner despite that never being the case. Studies don't mean shit
>>
>>1282271
They aren't damaging the environment
>>
>>1282272
Climate change freezed your shit hole. The situation is literally comparable to the day after tomorrow although of course the difference is that the movie was just a fake story but you're experiencing a real cold storm from Artic.
>>
>>1283758
why do you say that? Do you really think all of the rich people in this country can cover all of that expense all alone?

Also, explain this to me. Say taxes are raised on everyone, especially billionaires and high end millionaires... what happens when they all move to Russia (which is a rich person friendly country). When the 1% leave the US and move their money into Swiss and Russian banks. Who becomes the new 1%? The upper middle class?
>>
>>1283764
>why do you say that? Do you really think all of the rich people in this country can cover all of that expense all alone?
They already do so (mostly)
>>
>>1283758
>you wouldn’t necessarily have to pay a ton
So, in France they pay 55% income tax.

For an example. Let’s say right now I pay 25% tax and I have a pre tax monthly income of $4k.

At 25% that’s $3k left after federal tax (not including state tax). So, say I am able to pay my bills, mortage, and expenses. But I don’t have tons of money left over.

But let’s say like you wish, tax raises to say 50% (still lower than France). So now I’m only getting $2k a month after federal tax (but before state). I can now no longer pay my bills. What am I suppose to do, sell my house and move?
>>
>>1283766
Post proof
>>
>>1283764
>we should cuck ourselves to the rich
>>
File: IMG_20190211_024432.jpg (25 KB, 283x274)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>1283767
>in France they pay 55% income tax.
what?
>>
>>1283770
you never answered my question. What do we do if the rich leave?

It happens in the US right now. Have you noticed lots of rich people are moving to low tax states?
>>
File: FF491_1.png (38 KB, 850x604)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>1283769
>>
>>1283771
My gf is french and she said they actually pay 55%
>>
>>1283774
Again. So what’s the plan when their taxes go from 36% to 70% and they leave?
>>
>>1283760
>That's why there's Medicare and Medicaid
Exactly. I believe that we should expand these programs to cover all citizens.

>It's not. Only in recent generations has post secondary education been seen as 'necessary'
I'm speaking of education in general.

>Yes, you don't get something for nothing. If serving on a destroyer or in a desert Air Force installation is too much for you to stomach, tough
Neat slogan. I don't believe that serving in the military should be a prerequisite for access to education or healthcare

>*autistic screeching*
Calling me a "man child" doesn't address my refutation of your platitudes.

>Of fucking course. And I bet you think it'll be the rich who will be taxed the most, not actual working people
Isn't that what is being proposed?

>Think about all the things that were promised with ACA that didn't pan out. You believe the government functions in a benevolent, efficient, and practical manner despite that never being the case. Studies don't mean shit
The Affordable Care Act was poor legislation that originated with the GOP healthcare reform proposal in the Clinton administration. Rather than pushing for a proper nationalized health insurance system, Obama compromised with conservative Democrats (e.g. Lieberman) and likely believed that the GOP would be on board with their own former proposal.
>>
>>1283764
>why do you say that? Do you really think all of the rich people in this country can cover all of that expense all alone?
It depends, what is the expense being proposed?

>Also, explain this to me. Say taxes are raised on everyone, especially billionaires and high end millionaires... what happens when they all move to Russia (which is a rich person friendly country). When the 1% leave the US and move their money into Swiss and Russian banks. Who becomes the new 1%? The upper middle class?
If the U.S. economy is entirely dependent on appeasing a class of disloyal capitalists who are willing to destroy it in order to avoid a return to mid-20th Century style social democracy, then that makes me question as to whether or not the more radical leftist critiques of capitalism have merit.
>>
>>1283775
A few possibilities:
- Her knowledge is outdate/she recalled wrongly
- She's talking about inheritance tax
- She added other things like insurance and VAT and such into it.
- She mixed up her experience from other countries.
>>
>>1283776
Those who would move away have already moved. Well obviously raising the tax level to 70% at once seems too much but as the wealth gap in the society grow larger, most wealthy people should have realized that they need to pay more to the society in order to maintain the society balance, and that's why many rich people are leftist and support tax increase.
>>
>>1283777
>I believe that we should expand these programs to cover all citizens.
It does

>I'm speaking of education in general.
Then the current level of funding is adequate

>I don't believe that serving in the military should be a prerequisite for access to education or healthcare
It's not

>Calling me a "man child" doesn't address my refutation of your platitudes.
Your platitudes are weaker than my platitudes

>Isn't that what is being proposed?
Yes and it won't work. The rich and corporations will simply find ways to get around tax laws like they always do while the working class will still bear most of the tax burden

>The Affordable Care Act was poor legislation
Of course it was, and there's no reason to believe anything more comprehensive would be any better.
>>
>>1283784
How much money do you expect to raise from additional taxation of the wealthy? How much do you expect it will cost to implement UHC and free tuition and a robust public transit system, etc?
>>
>>1283785
>It does
I was under the impression that they apply only to the disabled, elderly and poor?

>Then the current level of funding is adequate
I disagree. The U.S. scores relatively poorly in education compared to other developed nations, there seems to be a large discrepancy in school quality and I believe that the current education system leaves many Americans ignorant in matters of civics and economics.

>It's not
It is if you don't have a job that provides insurance and you don't meet the current conditions for national health insurance.

>Your platitudes are weaker than my platitudes
Which platitudes were those? You claimed that your beliefs were the ideological basis behind the United States, and I explained how that was historically untrue.

>Yes and it won't work. The rich and corporations will simply find ways to get around tax laws like they always do while the working class will still bear most of the tax burden
What is the basis for this claim?

>Of course it was, and there's no reason to believe anything more comprehensive would be any better.
This is a nonsensical argument. The fact that poor legislation was passed means that good legislation can't be written? I don't understand why that would be the case.
>>
>>1283773
Capital controls. Property only exists by virtue of the state. As they say, possession is nine tenths of the law. That fact that the rich possess this power to blackmail the nation and its people only shows that the rich are in fact the problem. The rich already offshore jobs instead of keeping capital here, they already have foreign tax havens. Just cuck yourself more and give them even more power to screw you over.
>>
>>1283786
Here's one proposal for a national insurance system:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
>>
>>1283767
> Let’s say right now I pay 25% tax and I have a pre tax monthly income of $4k.
>At 25% that’s $3k left after federal tax
You don't know how income tax work, do you?
4k/month =48k/year.
Then you can minus various tax deduction/exemption items, let say you have 16k tax deduction, then you only need to pay tax for 32k taxable income.
And then the federal tax rate now is that the first 8k income have a 10% tax rate and the next next 24k income would have a 15% tax rate, so in this case you only need to pay something like 4.4k usd tax a year, in other words you only need to pay 366 USD tax per month for a 4K monthly salary.
>>
>>1283797
mommy pays his taxes
>>
>>1283793
>I was under the impression that they apply only to the disabled, elderly and poor?
Yes, why would you need it otherwise

>The U.S. scores relatively poorly in education compared to other developed nations, there seems to be a large discrepancy in school quality
There isn't a positive correlation between school funding and academic success

>It is if you don't have a job that provides insurance and you don't meet the current conditions for national health insurance.
You'll qualify for something under ACA

>You claimed that your beliefs were the ideological basis behind the United States, and I explained how that was historically untrue.
You didn't

>What is the basis for this claim?
History. As a singular example, Apple is holding onto many billions of dollars of cash overseas to avoid having it taxed

>good legislation can't be written?
Correct
>>
>Even /n/ can't escape occasional cortex threads
JUST FUCKING STOP. YOUR DUMB ASS BETTER BE A CIA PLANT TO FRACTURE THE DEMS FURTHER.
>>
>>1283804
Not the other anon but,
>>I was under the impression that they apply only to the disabled, elderly and poor?
>Yes, why would you need it otherwise
Because not only disabled/elderly/poor people would get sick, and medical expense is an issue for other citizens as well.

>>The U.S. scores relatively poorly in education compared to other developed nations, there seems to be a large discrepancy in school quality
>There isn't a positive correlation between school funding and academic success
There are no guarantee that more educational expense would result in more success but most of those academically successful people come from well funded schools

>>What is the basis for this claim?
>History. As a singular example, Apple is holding onto many billions of dollars of cash overseas to avoid having it taxed
Those are the income they have outside America, I would say they should be taxed locally instead
>>
>>1283804
>Yes, why would you need it otherwise
So your access to affordable healthcare is not dependent on your employment.

>There isn't a positive correlation between school funding and academic success
Source?

>You'll qualify for something under ACA
You have just stated that the ACA is poor legislation. I would prefer to see it replaced by something better.

>You didn't
I find it difficult to believe that you aren't being deliberately obtuse, but I clearly pointed out that the neoliberal "libertarian" ideology that you're claiming formed the basis of this country has only been the dominant political force since the 1990s.

>History. As a singular example, Apple is holding onto many billions of dollars of cash overseas to avoid having it taxed
History? What about the social democratic New Deal consensus of the post-war era? Companies who deliberately hold their money overseas to avoid paying taxes need to be penalized so as to discourage the practice.

>Correct
So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
>>
>>1283807
>Because not only disabled/elderly/poor people would get sick, and medical expense is an issue for other citizens as well.
Already been covered itt

>There are no guarantee that more educational expense would result in more success but most of those academically successful people come from well funded schools
Don't move the goalposts

>Those are the income they have outside America, I would say they should be taxed locally instead
That wasn't the issue. It's anexample of how American companies avoid taxes. Most large companies have an echelon of employees whose specific job is to mitigate or avoid tax burdens


>>1283809
>So your access to affordable healthcare is not dependent on your employment.
If you work, you have healthcare
If you work but are poor or are just poor or elderly or whatever, you have Medicare and Medicaid

>Source?
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-education-improve-academic-achievement
In b4 "bias!" It's not up to me to look up information for you. There is also some evidence that argues there is a positive correlation between the two. I've decided the evidence that school funding doesn't indicate academic success is correct.

>but I clearly pointed out that the neoliberal "libertarian" ideology that you're claiming formed the basis of this country has only been the dominant political force since the 1990s.
First you said it was a Cold War ideology, now it's post 1990s, make up your mind

>History?
Yes

>So you're an anarcho-capitalist?
No
>>
>>1283784
raising the income tax does nothing because the extreme wealthy don't make their money from wages. AOC just doesn't understand how things work because she is uneducated and also kind of slow.
>>
>>1283531
>not a single example of bias
>he argues in favor of minimal government intervention in the economy and against the New Deal
>he is a member of an institute funded by powerful financial interests that oppose government intervention
>this isn't bias
>>
>>1283784
But if this tax increase wouldn’t happen swiftly, then how could all of these social programs possibly be funded?
>>
>>1283826
>income means wages
Are you a brainlet? I know you're talking about CG but still, this is pretty retarded.
>>
>>1283829
Are YOU a brainlet? If your income is from wealth and not wages it is extremely easy to control how much you pay in income tax. If you need this spelled out for you instead just understanding it, I don't think you are qualified to discuss anything to do with taxes.
>>
God bless AOC, her faction of dems will tear the party apart from the inside out.
>>
ITT: an caps cant argue and have double standards and anything that contradicts them isn't true.
Why are you fags even here? This is /n/ - Transportation. Go to /o/ or back to /pol/.
>>
>>1283822
>If you have a full-time job you have health insurance and thus doesn't need government funded programs
How about people like student, having a gap between job, self-employed, housewives, doing multiple part time jobs instead of a single full time job, or if their company doesn't provide a health insurance with sufficient coverage?

>Don't move the goalposts
What do you want to achieve with education?

>That wasn't the issue, it's an example of how American companies avoid tax
All companies across the world do the same, it might be seen as more serious in Ameri a because most of their properties are from overseas, but that is exactly because most American companies source of revenue are from oversea countries.
>>
>>1283826
>Raising income tax does nothing
Explain this graph: >>1283774
>>
>>1283604
nah, air NZ is hiring and they can vouch for me there.
>>
>>1283831
You're just trying to deflect about you being a retard. I'm not even the other anon, I just hopped in to point out saying income = wages is retarded.
>>
>>1283837
The point is it will not increase tax revenue. The 1% pay income tax now because it is palatable and not worth it to avoid paying the income tax. However as you increase marginal tax rates there will be less spending and less reason for the 1% to obtain income. Pocahonta's wealth tax proposal is the far more useful (but unlikely to succeed) proposal.

>>1283841
You are retarded and nothing you say has any value.
>>
>>1283833
That's what they said about badorangeman.
>>
>>1283843
Says the retard that thinks income means wages.
>>
>>1283833
or the corporate fat cats in the party will be kicked out and the party will finally start representing real people and not just be the less extreme faction of the Business Party
>>
>>1283843
>However as you increase marginal tax rates there will be less spending and less reason for the 1% to obtain income.
Have you ever see anyone who actually think "Oh, the tax is too high! Let's stop gaining money!"?
>>
>>1283851
what fucking fairy tale are you living?
>>
File: 1545936615424.gif (1.06 MB, 498x278)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB GIF
>>1283851
>>
>>1283845
Yes except the factions that vote R (typically) dont fight. They all show up to vote even if they dislike the candidate. The demographics that vote D do fight. Many flat out refuse to show up if they arent represented. Eg. the right can nominate outright repulsive people and still earn the moderate vote while the left cannot do the same and earn the centrist vote.
>>
>>1283852
You can gain money without income dumbass. Your assets aren't taxed unless you realize the gains.
>>
>>1283851
>the party will finally start representing real people
And this is a good thing why?
>>
>>1283858
Any gains that have not been realized are only numbers on paper and literally doesn't matter
>>
>>1283854
>>>/g/
>>
>>1283862
You literally don't understand what "realize" means in terms of income tax.
>>
>>1283862
Any gains you realize are also numbers on paper, except the government gets up to 70% of it.
>>
>>1283869
Why do you think I am using the word if I don't understand it? If you have acquired a property and its value rise from 1 Million to 1 Billion then it's just a number on paper and you don't have to pay tax for it because before you cash out from the investment the value of the property can still change further in any time of the day and it could also go back to being 1 Million in which time you didn't gain anything
>>1283871
You can reuse those number after realized the gains.
>>
>>1283873
>If you have acquired a property and its value rise from 1 Million to 1 Billion then it's just a number on paper
Yeah and if you get paid $1 mil. dollars on your paycheck it's just a number on paper. You are like a child who's learning about money for the first time in his retarded life.
>>
>>1283875
Number on different papers.Blance sheet is not the same as your account book.
>>
>>1283835
>How about people like student, having a gap between job, self-employed, housewives, doing multiple part time jobs instead of a single full time job, or if their company doesn't provide a health insurance with sufficient coverage?
Students are covered by their parent's insurance
Gap job/self-employed/multiple employment: One of the plans under ACA, even a lot of shit tier jobs offer insurance plans now. They're not great but you can buy a better plan if you want
Housewives: lol how quaint, covered by spouse's insurance

>What do you want to achieve with education?
Not relevant

>All companies across the world do the same,
Not relevant


>>1283851
>or the corporate fat cats in the party will be kicked out and the party will finally start representing real people
It's possible but it's also possible they'll just represent a new controlling cabal that is totally insulated from the people they were elected to represent
>>
>>1283884
>Not relevant
Not relevant.
>>
File: crying baby.jpg (8 KB, 205x246)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>if it doesn't agree with me its wrong
>>
>>1282256
From the other thread.

But in seriousness. Zoning should really be a main issue in the US. Lack of good zoning laws has caused so many problems.
>>
>>1283901
>Lack of good zoning laws

A neat way of saying lack of authoritarian government controls
>>
>>1283906
>a good way to guarantee congestion, flooding, sprawl, environmental degradation, industrial buildings in residential areas, fire hazards, etc.

that there evil gubmint tellin me how I can't fuck up society >:(
>>
>>1283906
>Current American zoning law
>Not authoritarian
>>
>>1283901
>Lack of good zoning laws
A neat way of saying actual American people don't want tenements full of immigrants and blacks near them.
>>
>>1283917
>t. white supremacist
>>
>>1283913
>that there evil gubmint tellin me how I can't fuck up society >:(

Yeah pretty much

Fuck off statist scum
>>
>>1283858
>you can gain money without realizing gains
What did the blithering retard mean by this?
>>
>>1283918
I actually live in a multiple-dwelling with people of all races. But I'm also realistic enough to know that our cities and towns look the way they do because that's what the people want.
>>
>>1283929
It's basic federal income tax, moron. Appreciations on your assets are realized only when you sell them. Your assets can grow without you realizing those gains and thus incurring taxable income.
>>
>>1283932
>being a moron
>calling people morons
Explain how you gain money when your assets grow.
>>
>>1283826
Capital gains should be changed.

0% for people with incomes under $250,000 a year and total assets under 5 mil. The working class and most middle class can invest tax free.

5% if income below 250,000 and total assets under 10 mil.

10% if income below 250,000 and total assets under 15 mil

15% if total assets at 15 mil or higher.

20% if total assets at 100 mil or higher

25% if total assets 1 billion or higher.
>>
>>1283022
not an argument

just like airplanes, on trains, empty seats lose money
>>
>>1283692
that was the republican congress who cut your budget, friendo. they insisted on the budget control act of 2011, which resulted in the sequestration of 2013.

the sequester
>>
>>1283935
Airlines can reduces flights per day on that route and use smaller airplanes. Trains just have to keep running and eat losses.
>>
>>1283936
Obama had already told the military to downsize since 2010.
>>
File: drill.jpg (34 KB, 500x363)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>lets go to /n/ and argue against public transportation
>>
>>1283957
Utterly ridiculous proposal that will cripple transportation.
>>
>>1283957
I am in favor of public transportation. But not in this method.
>>
/n/ unironically defending a universally mocked proposal that the creator herself promptly disowned
>>
>>1283945
>rail can't use smaller trainsets or run fewer services
Fucking retard
>>
File: cat laugh.jpg (25 KB, 480x472)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>1283995
like what, the free market providing it?
>>
>>1284022
Transportation that makes sense. Not just mandating some forms and banning others. To fulfill some eco-socislist wet dream.
>>
>>1284001
https://youtu.be/0JDoll8OEFE

Lines to no where that lose money and will probably never see good ridership. Lines routed away from population centers for speed purposes.
>>
>>1283779
- he doesn’t have a gf, is full of shit, and made both up
>>
>>1284026
Who said banning?
Many american cities are currently automotive centric you have no choice but to drive
If people have a choice between driving and riding where is the ban?
>>
>>1283957
oh yeah, because this proposal will TOTALLY benefit public transportation instead of setting it back by 50 years.
>>
Guys I had an idea but I'm not american so I have no idea how your politics works

What if the original plan included things that were never feasible and where there for people to complain about (banning all aircraft travel, no nuclear etc) so that the more rational parts on the plan would get overlooked

In practice you wouldn't implement these things so you can claim you've made "compromises" for bipartisan support

So, everybody wins: conservatives can say they stopped the filthy commies from polluting murica and progressives can get the important things that they really want through like improved rail + PT, healthcare and meaningful action against climate change

Because if you tone things down a bit it sounds like a plan that might work?
>>
Guys I had an idea but I'm not american so I have no idea how your politics works

What if the original plan included things that were never feasible and where there for people to complain about (banning all aircraft travel, no nuclear etc) so that the more rational parts on the plan would get overlooked

In practice you wouldn't implement these things so you can claim you've made "compromises" for bipartisan support

So, everybody wins: conservatives can say they stopped the filthy commies from polluting murica and progressives can get the important things that they really want through like improved rail + PT, healthcare and meaningful action against climate change
>>
>>1282710
I would be fine with providing them with government housing in commieblock tier apartments well outside of city centers and providing them with basic meals. Want more shit in your life than a suicide cube and bland food? Go get a fucking job.
>>
>people actually are considering this plan
im leaving this country out of same.
>>
>>1284062
lol
>>
>>1283753
>And risk becoming a pawn in some Iraq War-esque misadventure?
You do realize that there are massive amounts of POG jobs in the armed forces where you will never leave a highly secured base/ship? Combine that with being able to learn valuable skills that can be later used in civilian market, and with the help soldiers get in finding jobs enlisting is one of the most idiot proof ways to succeed in the US. Don't blow your enlistment bonus on a new Camaro and don't knock up the first woman who offers to fuck you and you're set for life.
>>
>>1284062
Well i’m not fine with that. I don’t want to pay to support worthless people
>>
>>1284188
They're not worthless if they can take part in the economy.
>>
>>1284188
While it would be ideal to not have to provide the bare necessities to anyone it's almost always preferable to do it instead of leave them hanging. If you provide people with housing and food they're far less likely to resort to criminal activity in order to survive. And if you do social security in form of hard goods like providing them housing and food instead of giving them cash it's much harder to exploit and encourages people to find work. The goal is to provide help to them until they can find work and stop needing support.
>>
>>1284062
Honestly this. There is no just state where a criminal gets more welfare than an honest citizen.
>>
I like that it starts a conversation. It has a lot of flaws. But don’t we alll?
>>
>>1284211
We didn't mean the Gibs part.
>>
>>1282564
That's what you get from all that shitposting.
Wonder how to leafs get around that.
>>
>>1287133
You're fucking thick m8.
>>
>>1282256
UPDATE:
Based on today's news, I'm starting to get the idea that perhaps there's some genius behind this 'proposal': getting Republicans to come to the table and actually discuss things like Climate Change and take it seriously, because this 'proposal' is so outlandish that they have to come discuss the subject rather than risk this actually becoming legislation.
>>
>>1283347
source or GTFO
>>
>>1287157
kek
>>
>>1282256
I think before the US can begin tackling it's lack of public transportation infrastructure they need to tackle the problem of urban sprawl. The size and sprawl of most American cities make development of this infrastructure too costly for the return.
>>
>>1282258
That's not even close to the insanity of rebuilding every building in the US to make it more energy efficient.
>>
>>1282317
Part of the Green New Deal would set aside funding for fusion research, which I'm totally onboard with. The simple amount of land that renewables require to produce the energy they do simply isn't worth it.
>>
>>1283341
God, if we can just fix the urban sprawl it would do so much to help with emissions.
>>
>>1283934
I'm down for this.
>>
>>1284059
That would theoretically work if the dems were willing to compromise at all right now. Look at the current fiasco over wall funding. Trump has compromised significantly on the original bill but a faction of dems continue trying to block it no matter what because they want to abolish borders and get rid of ICE (not being hyperbolic)
>>
>>1283805
BASED.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.