Because There Can Be More To The Good Life, A Higher Level, A More Abundant Life -
From Mere Wealth To Prosperity
Wealth preserving economic insights make living the best of the good life prudent wealth management
Now with control of Congress for 2 years, he may well be right!
It may take a while before we know if he's a true believer, a communist con, or just another political profiteer, but the Democrats' campaign promises and the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations offer hints of what to expect.
Higher Taxes And Greater Compliance With More IRS Audits.
"The Internal Revenue Service has a history of going after more individual Americans and corporations when Democrats control Washington, especially the White House, according to a comprehensive study of the agency going back to 1978.
What's more, when Democrats run the Senate, as they did during the Obama administration's IRS targeting scandal, the agency is typically given more money to hire more auditors who conduct more audits.
"Democratic control of the Senate is correlated with an increased IRS budget and workforce. The president's party has a statistically significant impact on the number of IRS enforcement personnel when both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats," said the study promoted by Harvard University last week and published in the Journal of Public Policy."
"Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement that increasing funding for IRS enforcement in order to crack down on wealthy people abusing tax laws “will be one of my top priorities if Democrats retake the Senate.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling for increased IRS enforcement in addition to a wealth tax. She was one of several candidates to call for increased IRS funding during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary."
_edited.png){kind=small}
It said the IRS should audit people showing $100,000 or more in business losses and no receipts, a recommendation the IRS declined, saying it would require “diversion of resources from other areas.”
Of course that was the IRS under Trump. The IRS under Democrats have different priorities. It's not clear if that is $100,000 in annual business losses or total.
Freedom, Prosperity & The Pursuit Of Happiness Of Boaters & All Americans Are Increasingly At Risk
And while it was all hands on deck and to battle stations as World War II was a true national emergency - were boaters treated fairly?
The Office of Price Administration outlawed as of noon January 7, 1943 all pleasure driving......
On January 22, the pleasure use of gasoline-powered boats was banned.
But by summer of '45, boaters sought answers-
Must We
Lay Up Our Boats?
With the European war brought to a successful conclusion, we believe it is time for the Office of Price administration to review facts in connection with present allotments of gas to motorboats.
In a spirit of service and wholehearted cooperation, the yachtsmen of America stepped into the breach and donated both their boats and their services during a period of grave crisis. When OPA restrictions on fuel were found necessary, the boatman took the cut with good grace, though questioning, perhaps the logic that forced his boat out of commission.
Now that the crisis is past, we feel that the very least OPA can do is to restore some semblance of equity.
Don't forget, electing Reagan in 1980 thwarted this government plan.
§ 477.48 Recreational watercraft restriction measure.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this measure is to reduce the demand for motor fuel by prohibiting weekend use of watercraft.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section the definitions contained in Subpart A of this part and the following shall apply— "Watercraft” means all owned, chartered or rented vessels, boats or similar equipment which provide transportation over water and which use motor fuel as a source of propulsion energy; except vessels, other than yachts, which are registered under Federal or foreign law. "Day" means from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.
(c) Measure requirements. The owner of a watercraft shall not operate or permit operation of such watercraft one day a weekend, or both days of the weekend, as determined by the President or as specified by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of an approved State Plan.
Boat Owners Are Easy Political Targets
Fat Cats, Frauds, Freeloaders, Fascists, Freaks, Families & Fishermen
Fact: boat ownership is not cheap. Some say it's a luxury lifestyle. It certainly can be.
That's why many politicians and activist groups feel safe and are encouraged to target boat owners - because they believe that's where the money is!
This popular meme pretty much says it all.
Thus to achieve certain political ends, it's easy to portray "Boat Folks" in one of several unflattering ways - which ever may be the most politically fruitful:
1) As wealthy, older, white men who made their money by taking advantage of others and continue to do so by not paying their fair share of taxes and committing tax fraud with their tax loopholes that enable them to fund their yachting lifestyle at the expense of honest hard working Americans so they can use their yachts to sexually exploit young women and continue to pollute the planet and poison primarily poor people of color simply for their pleasure and profit.
2) As traditional American "families" with the dreaded, dangerous, and deplorable "traditional family values.
3) As unsophisticated, rural, redneck, frontiersmen that have nothing better to do than go fish, kill animals, and destroy nature. (If they have fishing tackle, they probably have guns too.)
4) As the same as 1 above, except as multiple generations as trust fund babies they are even worse. Their capital gains tax rate is too low.
5) As despicable "Deniers" of the global warming crisis that threatens the very extinction of all life on Earth. For only a truly degenerate Denier would refuse to reduce their carbon footprint by continuing to own and operate their motor boats.
6) As Environmental Racists. Do Black Lives Matter to boaters? Poor people of color suffer disproportionately adverse health consequences from pollution, increasingly caused by the excessive greed and consumption by the wealthy. The unnecessary burning of fossil fuels simply for recreational boating - is just another example of systematic racism and white privilege.
Many Democrats promise targeting the most successful will rectify all types of social ills and avert future economic and climate catastrophes. A few of them may actually believe it.
'The world is going to end in 12 years
if we don't address climate change,'
says Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez now Co-Chair of Biden's climate task force.
As reported by CNN
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to co-chair Biden-Sanders campaign climate task force
By Gregory Krieg, Ryan Nobles and Paul LeBlanc, CNN
Updated 11:08 AM ET, Wed May 13, 2020
CNN)Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will co-chair a task force for Joe Biden's campaign on climate change, a move that adds progressive credentials to the former vice president's effort to unify the party ahead of the general election.
AOC calls climate change her generation's "World War II."
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made her remarks during an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the MLK Now event in New York City celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.
Climate
Joe’s Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice
Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
Vice President Biden knows there is no greater challenge facing our country and our world.
Today, he is outlining a bold plan – a Clean Energy Revolution – to address this grave threat and lead the world in addressing the climate emergency.
If the global temperature continues to increase at the current rate and surpasses 1.5°C, the existential threat to life will not be limited to just ecological systems, but will extend to human life as well.
But the impacts – on health, economics, and overall quality of life – are far more acute on communities of color, tribal lands, and low-income communities. “Climate change does not affect everyone equally in the United States,” according to Rachel Morello-Frosch, lead author of The Climate Gap. “People of color and the poor will be hurt the most – unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene.”
.png)
Too Little, Too Late? Carbon Emissions and the Point of No Return
How long before it is too late to reduce fossil fuel emissions and meet the 2 degree target of the Paris Climate Agreement? A new study provides clues to how policymakers might plan to address climate change and carbon emissions, and how long they have to do so. By arming leaders with an understanding of how policy, risk, and temperature targets are related, the study puts a timeline to humanity’s Point of No Return.
BY VIVAN SORAB • MARCH 26, 2019
"With the same assumptions but a 1.5 degree warming threshold, the Point of No Return has already passed. Greenhouse gas removal, if implemented immediately, might push the Point of No Return to 2026. For a more aggressive (fast) mitigation strategy, the Points of No Return, assuming no greenhouse gases are removed from the atmosphere, will arrive in 2027 and 2045 respectively for the 1.5 degree and 2 degree targets."
If one honestly believes it's true:
-
that 1.5 degrees of warming is an existential threat to all human life,
-
that the Point of No Return has either already passed,
-
or with immediate sufficiently aggressive measures the Point of No Return could possibly be forestalled until 2026 or 2027,
- then what could possibly justify risking the planet and all human life by allowing the non-essential burning of any fossil fuels for recreation - such as motor boating?
AP Photo Bebeto Matthews
By EDITH M. LEDERER April 25, 2019
-
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. climate chief says world leaders must recognize there is no option except to speed-up and scale-up action to tackle global warming, warning that continuing on the current path will lead to “a catastrophe.
-
Patricia Espinosa stressed in two recent interviews with the Associated Press that climate scientists are saying there’s still a chance to make things right “but the window of opportunity is closing very soon” and the world has 12 years until carbon emissions reach “a point of no return.”
-
That means the world needs to accelerate all efforts to keep from reaching that level, “and therefore all efforts are absolutely indispensable” to cut carbon emissions and keep temperatures from rising, she said. (Emphasis Added)
Rasmussen Reports, "Voters tend to agree with Senator Bernie Sanders that America will be in big trouble very soon if it doesn’t aggressively tackle climate change.
The Wednesday, May 22, 2019 national telephone and online survey found that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree that the United States has only 12 years to aggressively fight climate change or else there will be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world. Forty percent (40%) disagree, while 11% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)"
A World War II global threat requires a World War II type response-right?
Having only 12 years to save the planet from catastrophic global warming - if true- would be a global crisis far exceeding the threats of World War II.
It certainly makes all efforts to cut carbon emissions absolutely indispensable to keep temperatures below the point of no return.
If America banned all motor boating to win WW II, can we do any less to save all humanity?
For those true believers with the political power to act - what possible moral justification or ethical reasoning could prevent them from immediately and fully implementing their total power and authority to the greatest extent necessary if we have 6 - 12 years to save all mankind from extinction?
Isn't that what they are elected do do? Isn't that what those that voted for them expect?
Thus, the only rational policy for non-suicidal true believers of a climate crises would be to immediately eliminate or severely curtail all unnecessary burning of fossil fuels as soon as possible: including recreational boating.
Politically speaking, for such politicians and their climate justice constituents, targeting boat owners would be the easy low hanging fruit. It should be priority - one. Day one.
Nothing should be off the table- given what's at stake. No policy should be considered too extreme or draconian- especially after the national economic shut down from the corona-virus.
Therefore, based up the public promises, published polices and professing priorities of Green New Deal politicians seeking election in 2020, boat owners could reasonably expect and should prepare for policies to eliminate or substantially curtail motor boating:
-
As in WW II, immediately ban completely all recreational boating that burns fossil fuels,
-
As the 1980 plan, limit all motor boating to only a few days,
-
As the coronavirus edicts, make motor boating impractical in other ways such as requiring masks, social distancing, disinfecting, fever checks for passengers and crew, etc, and
-
Make the recreational burning of fossil fuels so prohibitively expensive through direct costs, taxes and regulations so as to effectively end the practice.
CLIMATE JUSTICE & THE GREEN NEW DEAL
It’s stated objective of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions requires the elimination of all fossil fuel consumption, in the next 10 years. This requires the complete elimination of all motor vehicles operating on fossil fuels, including any vehicle with a combustion engine, be that vehicle a car, truck, boat, or plane.
-
"We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (House Resolution 109).
-
This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.
-
The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
-
We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.
-
92 percent of Democrats support the Green New Deal & every major Democratic Presidential contender support it including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.
-
We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."
If You Like Your Boat (Job Or Business), You Can Keep It.
Haven't we heard something like that before?
Politicians will say anything to be elected. And yet sometimes they really mean what they say. As Tyler Durden of ZERO Hedge noted in August of 2016-
"Turns out politicians do occasionally keep their promises. For example, in 2008 Obama vowed to "bankrupt" the coal industry by imposing massive fines on greenhouse gas emissions. Obama made the following comment to the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008:
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,”
Six of America's largest public coal mining companies filed for bankruptcy in just 2 years destroying billions in shareholder value and leaving 1,000s unemployed. In just the last 4 years of the Obama administration, coal jobs declined by over 42%
Burgers, Babies, Or Boats
If Democratic Party leaders pursuing climate justice, seek to eradicate the coal industry despite the economic impact and lost jobs, now state their policies to save the planet require the elimination of all fossil fuels and greenhouse emissions in 10 years, includes getting rid of all beef and dairy cattle - all burgers, steaks, ice cream and baby formula- AND all airplanes too - then, where do you think they - and most non - boating Americans - rank the needless burning of fossil fuels simply for the recreation of "privileged" boat owners?
True Believers, Political Profiteers & Communist Cons
When it comes to global warming, the climate crisis, and what if anything to do about it, it's difficult to tell what anyone really believes.
Few actually live like the world's in imminent peril by cutting their personal carbon footprint. Yet many seem to want - demand- that others do so - or they want others to pay for it.
The future for boating may well be determined by what those in charge actually believe and their true motives - and what they believe will best help them win the next election.
So voters and boaters must assume that candidates for political office - if elected, and they have the power to do what they were elected to do - will do it. Even if for no other reason than to satisfy their constituents to help win their next election.
Don't Be Fooled
Climate Justice Is NOT Now, Nor Has It Ever Been
Just About The Environment
Melding social justice with climate activism is a ruse to justify combining environmental and tax policy as a way to redistribute YOUR wealth- and make sure you "finally" pay your "fair share". Accordingly, Americans that can afford any kind of recreational boat, obviously have more discretionary income than necessary and they should all pay higher taxes. Rep Ocasio-Ortize has even called for some yacht owners to be specifically targeted and penalized with punitive confiscatory rates. Higher taxes on boaters can be further optimized when additional use taxes - carbon credits, cap and trade, etc. are specifically targeted to reduce or completely eliminate the unnecessary burning of all fossil fuels by recreational boat owners. Then there are environmental reparations you and your family owe for your current and past generational environmental sins as a means to help pay for the less fortunate to now go green in order to save the planet. After all, your privilege and affluence created, and you enjoyed the benefits of, the current global pollution crisis, so it's only "fair" that you now pay to clean it up - right?
In 2008 the UN Secretary General made clear the goal for a Green New Deal whose success was not measured upon environmental improvement but in economical and social change.
Together, we face two crises: climate change and the global economy.
But these crises present us with a great opportunity—an opportunity to address both challenges simultaneously.
Managing the global financial crisis requires massive global stimulus.
A big part of that spending should be an investment—an investment in a green future.
An investment that fights climate change, creates millions of green jobs and spurs green growth.
We need a Green New Deal.
This is a deal that works for all nations, rich as well as poor.
We also urgently need a deal on climate change to provide the political, legal, and economic framework to unleash a sustained wave of investment.
In short, our response to the economic crisis must advance climate goals, and our response to the climate crisis will advance economic and social goals.
It is therefore encouraging to hear about the incoming administration’s (Obama) plan to put alternative energy, environmentalism and climate change at the very center of America’s definition of national security, economic recovery, and prosperity.
Adaptation will be key, including risk reduction and management. Change must be integrated with strategies for development and poverty alleviation. One without the other means failure for both.
A revolution. A turning point. A moment when we turned away from a past that no longer works toward a more equitable and prosperous future.
Also in 2008 and 2009 Van Jones, author, activist and advisor to President Obama was advocating and explaining how a Green New Deal was in truth a political tactic for social and economic change.
.png)
Make No Mistake. Don't Be Deceived.
The most recent report from the IPCC makes it clear they're still at it in 2020, trying to use the threat of a climate catastrophe as a ruse for the global redistribution of wealth - yours and your family's.
While efforts to eradicate poverty are certainly noble pursuits, they can and often do conflict with rational and prudent climate policy.
Which policy is the priority?
Why would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - if it was really about catastrophic climate change- why would the IPCC even address Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities?
What does Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities have to do with eliminating fossil fuels?
Nothing, other than simply as a scam for some to profit from a wealth transfer from those that burn more fossil fuels to those that burn less.
Don't Allow The Misguided, Misinformed, And Malevolent Deprive You And Your Family Of The Pursuit Of Happiness.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
That if your current advisors knew, surely they'd have told you already- wouldn't they?