Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[David Dennison 18946]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It’s not a lie if you believe it.

What would you call Social Security and Medicare?

[Incredulity 11683]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would you call Social Security and Medicare?

Not policy

[workswithseed 2110]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What would you call Social Security and Medicare?

Cause everyone loves those programs.

[David Dennison 18946]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Not policy

Even better. The most popular laws in America are socialist in nature.

[David Dennison 18946]

7 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Cause everyone loves those programs.

They are two of the most popular programs in the United States without question.

[Incredulity 11683]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Even better. The most popular laws in America are socialist in nature.

Nope 

 

[David Dennison 18946]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Nope 

Yes, they are. 

But I'll play along for fun. How would you describe Social Security and Medicare?

[workswithseed 2110]

28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes, they are. 

But I'll play along for fun. How would you describe Social Security and Medicare?

Do you think you'll get SS? And what is the numbers?

[David Dennison 18946]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Do you think you'll get SS? And what is the numbers?

Yes. So will you.

This is from eight years ago. I doubt much has changed.

[workswithseed 2110]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. So will you.

This is from eight years ago. I doubt much has changed.

I personally don't think that I'll get it, but I could be wrong.

Seems the closer you are to retirement the more you like it.

[Enchubben 5510]

12 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

 1. we can't make sure everyone has affordable healthcare and ensure our most wealthy contribute their fair share because we have too many non-whites 

The top 3% of income earners pay 50% of total income tax. The bottom 50% of earners paid almost 5% of total tax. But sure, the rich don’t pay their fair share.

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

18 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Sounds good to me, let's use that model and raise taxes on the wealthy.

You’d need to start by taxing ALL income under $30k 65%. The money comes from the poor for services as well as the rich. 

The also sold government owned businesses and privatized pensions

Let’s see the socialists candidates run on this platform please. 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 18946]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

The top 3% of income earners pay 50% of total income tax. The bottom 50% of earners paid almost 5% of total tax. But sure, the rich don’t pay their fair share.

They don't.

[Huckleberry 33092]

The top 3% of income earners pay 50% of total income tax. The bottom 50% of earners paid almost 5% of total tax. But sure, the rich don’t pay their fair share.

So the top 30% or so of income pays 50% of income taxes.

Sounds reasonable when you don't intentionally try to make it sound unreasonable.

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

They also don't deal with the strain of 1 million illegal migrants per year in addition to the million admitted legally added to these social services annually. 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So the top 30% or so of income pays 50% of income taxes.

Sounds reasonable when you don't intentionally try to make it sound unreasonable.

I don’t disagree with the principle, but you have 47% of the population with a 0% ETR. Changing that to 65% might not go over well with the constituency. 

And smaller government with less intervention isn’t a fan favorite of the socialist candidates either. 

[Huckleberry 33092]

23 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

I don’t disagree with the principle, but you have 47% of the population with a 0% ETR. Changing that to 65% might not go over well with the constituency. 

And smaller government with less intervention isn’t a fan favorite of the socialist candidates either. 

Given that the upper income tax brackets are taxed at percentages much lower than long-term historical norms and that income disparity is much higher than long-term historical norms, it seems like tax policy isn't why stats such as the one you cited exist.

Seems completely logical that when the richest people are making a much higher share of the money that they would pay a much higher share of the taxes. if you're so concerned with so many people not having an income tax burden there are ways to fix that. Like a much higher minimum wage and much lower executive pay, for example. You interested?

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Given that the upper income tax brackets are taxed at percentages much lower than long-term historical norms and that income disparity is much higher than long-term historical norms, it seems like tax policy isn't why stats such as the one you cited exist.

Seems completely logical that when the richest people are making a much higher share of the money that they would pay a much higher share of the taxes. if you're so concerned with so many people not having an income tax burden there are ways to fix that. Like a much higher minimum wage and much lower executive pay, for example. You interested?

Executive pay, of course. A minimum wage set by the local governments to match their cost of living? Sure. A nation-wide mandate? No. 

Also, all INCOME is income regardless of how earned. A CEO selling stock for 10 million and taking a $1/yr salary should be taxed the same as a CEO with a $10 million (+$1) salary. Hedge funds and others should be taxed at the highest rates, not capital gains. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Why a nationwide mandate on executive pay then? 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Lulz.  What an utterly formed-in-bullshit argument.  The right loves to write off change because . . . well, it only worked because everybody there is a whitey.

Could you be any more transparent?

Could you be any more ignorant ?  You have a serious issue with critical thinking skills.  Race isn't the issue, culture is the issue.  

Edited April 29, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

19 hours ago, workswithseed said:

The information is out there. I just hate that people shit on capitalism, but then go look at the Nordic countries. 

That's because the argument has been simplified to a false binary choice of you're either for capitalism or you're for socialism, and imho, the bulk of that blame for the argument being mischaracterized this way goes to AM talk radio, Fox News, and the GOP's almost religious commitment to the Reagan gospel that government isn't the solution, government's the problem.

 

Every industrialized western democracy is a hybrid capitalism-socialism economy. They act as a check and balance system lest either one becomes a toxic runaway cancer. They benefit each other. I suspect the reason you feel capitalism gets shit on is that we've seen first-hand what problems arise when the steering wheel gets stuck for decades in the Reagan Revolution Overton Window, only to have the right respond with

1) calls for even more capitalism into the hybrid economy

2) rearranging deck chairs that maintains the status quo imbalance

3) denying there's even a problem, such as climate change

4) denying, or derailing any point that shows instances of socialism improving the overall standard of living for its citizens, almost perfectly illustrated by DD's and Incredulity's back and forth that followed after your post I quoted- as if acknowledging the general support of some socialist programs means total surrender to the entire concept of capitalism, something that can only happen in the false binary framework.

[jimmyjazz 46128]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Could you be any more ignorant ?  You have a serious issue with critical thinking skills.  Race isn't the issue, culture is the issue.  

There is zero evidence that democratic socialism only works in Nordic countries because of their racial makeup.  It's a cop-out.  Thanks for your diagnosis, though.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is zero evidence that democratic socialism only works in Nordic countries because of their racial makeup.  It's a cop-out.  Thanks for your diagnosis, though.

Never said that, but you go ahead and twist words. 

[jimmyjazz 46128]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Never said that, but you go ahead and twist words. 

I probably should have multi-quoted, so that's my bad.  However, your statement was part of a discussion where it was floated that the rationale for the US not accepting such a structure was that those Nordic countries are more "homogeneous".  Yes, they are, but I don't think that's the reason why such a government doesn't fly here.  Consistent fear-mongering about the evils of "socialism" (communism, etc.) in the US for nearly a century has created a populace that just couldn't be bothered to dig in and learn some actual truth.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I probably should have multi-quoted, so that's my bad.  However, your statement was part of a discussion where it was floated that the rationale for the US not accepting such a structure was that those Nordic countries are more "homogeneous".  Yes, they are, but I don't think that's the reason why such a government doesn't fly here.  Consistent fear-mongering about the evils of "socialism" (communism, etc.) in the US for nearly a century has created a populace that just couldn't be bothered to dig in and learn some actual truth.

Same race, different geographic locations can account for different trends. A homogenous race does tend to have shared commonalities that can make things easier and or more difficult to accept.  A common race, and shared life experience gives many people a similar outlook more or less.

Japan is a homogeneous society that because of their shared cultural/racial history, traditions, etc. made them accept war, and then a new form of gov't. and Constitution after WWII (simplified explanation). They're rules followers as a culture/tradition.  That's not a racist tendency it's a racial component of their society. 

Nordic nations are a bit isolated and insular, so something about that shared tradition may have made them more accepting of a socialist style of gov't, which most are now stepping back from to more capitalistic styles with socialism lighter govt's. It has nothing to do with race, but more their shared history, and cultural development.

[jimmyjazz 46128]

Seems like a circular argument.  Nordic countries are more accepting of socialism because . . . they're more liberal?

At any rate, I think we're a long way away from being able to break the curtain of chaff that disallows real discussion about these things in Mayberry.  Like everything else these days, there is no convincing, just talking past each other.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Seems like a circular argument.  Nordic countries are more accepting of socialism because . . . they're more liberal?

At any rate, I think we're a long way away from being able to break the curtain of chaff that disallows real discussion about these things in Mayberry.  Like everything else these days, there is no convincing, just talking past each other.

Nope not at all. Never said they were more liberal, just that something in their history, and shared life experiences made them more accepting of that style of gov't.

The westward expansion of the US is a far different experience than someone living in a Nordic country. Socialism, in that kind of expansion would seem foreign to the people living in much more scattered less populated regions. Socialism seems to find more fertile ground in higher population density communities/cities

[David Dennison 18946]

3 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

They also don't deal with the strain of 1 million illegal migrants per year in addition to the million admitted legally added to these social services annually. 

It's truly backbreaking in America. Whatever shall we do?

[Dahobbs 17682]

The idea that "socialist policies" and capitalism are at odds is simply inconflict with the truth. Good social policies help capitalism function more efficiently and ideally by reducing market inefficiencies and externalities (e.g., reducing information asymmetry, creating recognition of true costs of products/services). The myth that unfettered capitalism is the only true capitalism is a dangerous distortion of the principles at the heart of capitalism.  It is not surprising that the uninformed on this board continue to perpetuate that load of shit.  

Edited April 29, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The idea that "socialist policies" and capitalism are at odds is simply at odds with the truth. Good social policies help capitalism function more efficiently and ideally by reducing market inefficiencies and externalities (e.g., reducing information asymmetry, creating recognition of true costs of products/services). The myth that unfettered capitalism is the only true capitalism is a dangerous distortion of the principles at the heart of capitalism.  It is not surprising that the uninformed on this board continue to perpetuate that load of shit.  

I'd agree with this for sure. It's the right mix that keeps the ball moving forward.

[Thermos H. Christ 478]

On 4/2/2019 at 5:04 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Maybe if you can’t afford $15 a month for vitamins don’t get pregnant?

What’s going to fuck our country harder than anything is that the smart and responsible people who should be having kids aren’t.  And the dipshits on Vic Mackey’s Facebook feed are popping them out as fast as they can.  

So I assume you’re in favor of robust paid leave policies and subsidized childcare and affordable healthcare for pregnancy and birth and kids? You know, the kinds of things that would make having a child realistic for middle class people who want to be smart and responsible as opposed to just having kids whenever and further trapping themselves and their offspring in a cycle of poverty?

Edited April 29, 2019 by Thermos H. Christ

[happyfunball 481]

AOC and her group will be a force in the presidential election

[EuroHorn 3268]

56 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

AOC and her group will be a force in the presidential election
 

Must have deleted it from his twitter page...

[American Swindle 102]

[jimmyjazz 46128]

Hilarious.

[Parliament 14293]

Tanks run on JP5, not gas.

[Dirk X West 772]

12 hours ago, American Swindle said:

 

Cow farts hurr durr hurr durr

[henrygandorf 29194]

i'm assuming this has been posted upthread, but i saw the doc was on netflix last night.  here's the trailer:

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Just finished the doc.

Really fortuitous that the filmmakers picked her to follow not knowing how big her national profile would become.

I was really moved by the other women and hope they run for something in the future.

And man, what a shithead Joe Crowley is. Sending a surrogate to that debate was just so entitled.

And the fact that they didn’t have any polling at all and went into Election Day blind and watching her shock as she rushed into her party and realizes she won was pretty cool.

I don’t always agree with some of her more radical ideas but I firmly believe we need more “real people” in Washington and not people like Crowley. On both sides.

The Beto doc comes out this month too and I’m excited to watch that too (which I’m sure is a huge shock to y’all).

[Enchubben 5510]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I don’t always agree with some of her more radical ideas but I firmly believe we need more “real people” in Washington and not people like Crowley. On both sides.
 

I disagree with everything that comes out of her pie hole. But absolutely agree with this. Campaign finance reform, term limits and whatever else is possible to turn politics back into a public service rather than a career should be considered.

[Fozzz 152]

She is so spineless.

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

11 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

And man, what a shithead Joe Crowley is. Sending a surrogate to that debate was just so entitled.

I don’t always agree with some of her more radical ideas but I firmly believe we need more “real people” in Washington and not people like Crowley. On both sides.

 Honest question  since we knew congressman Crowley very well from Myriad  business dealings —— The attempts to trivialize her by his campaign are almost as bad as most of what’s going on right now with her ........ do you see any link between how house leadership  is trivializing representative Cortez   And what she did to dismantle the Crowley machine ?   Because I find it inextricably linked and fucking fascinating.  And almost no Democrats are talking about it

[jimmyjazz 46128]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

She is so spineless.

 

Wait . . . if she speaks up she's a petulant child-bitch who should know her place, but if she defers she's spineless?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking you just don't like the idea of a progressive young brown female Congressperson.  (Pick your adjectives, consider it a buffet.)

[Fozzz 152]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . if she speaks up she's a petulant child-bitch who should know her place, but if she defers she's spineless?

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking you just don't like the idea of a progressive young brown female Congressperson.  (Pick your adjectives, consider it a buffet.)

lol.  No I just think she's spineless and possibly a careerist.  If you want to see what a truly progressive young brown female Congressperson looks like then google Ilhan Omar. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

 Honest question  since we knew congressman Crowley very well from Myriad  business dealings —— The attempts to trivialize her by his campaign are almost as bad as most of what’s going on right now with her ........ do you see any link between how house leadership  is trivializing representative Cortez   And what she did to dismantle the Crowley machine ?   Because I find it inextricably linked and fucking fascinating.  And almost no Democrats are talking about it

Could be. I don’t doubt that the thought of an AOC type trying to primary Pelosi or the rest of Democratic House leadership has them shitting their britches a bit.

Because ironically, it’s the long entrenched ones like Crowley from super safe blue districts that are the most vulnerable. Because the primary is basically the election.

Luckily for AOC, her national high profile - thanks in no small part to Fox News and other right wing idiots - makes it hard for the Dem leadership to completely freeze her out.

And Nancy seems very pragmatic. More likely to use the strategy of “including” her - IE better to have her inside the tent, pissing out of it than outside the tent pissing in.

[Guest Lobo]

^
Good point that doesn't get addressed very much...in a twisted way---gerrymandered districts (and this is hard for us to recognize in Texas), but especially those in "safe/solid" blue districts are actually the most vulnerable.  Because we will see out-flanking maneuvers by relative unknowns taking down establishment candidates from within their own parties.  Long before I had ever heard of Rep. Cortez, I knew that Crowley was one of the most corrupt House members of any party in a generation and that's saying something.  And he wisely stayed off the grid.  He was literally the basis for a Congressman Underwood, but without the male:male sexual harassment, just mostly male:female intimidation.  We literally said a "Oh, how quaint...a local do-gooder is going to primary him."  Then we saw what he tried to do to her and silently cheered for her.  

The truly dangerous thing about her?  Not her social media prowess or her exposing who is taking money from whom.  It's that she is a stark reminder to many in her party of why they're supposed to be there and how/why they lost their way.  You can hold a mirror up to an adult and remind them of what they've become and that they sold out...and most of us will recognize it and just accept that's what happened.  It's when you show an adult what they used to be and what they used to believe in...that's when they breakdown.  The "portrait" of us now should scare us, but it doesn't---we know it's the price of progress, of doing business.  It's the "portrait" of us as young people that breaks our heart... When they look back and see their error in their path to power, and they wish they had it to do over again...but they can't.  And that's when they go back on the attack to hide their guilt.  

Edited May 3, 2019 by Lobo

[elfenix 34332]

54 minutes ago, Lobo said:

and this is hard for us to recognize in Texas

we saw it happen in texas in 2010/2/4 when every republican had to run hard tea party or they'd get primaried.  see: david dewhurst

[Guest Lobo]

^

I understand what you mean but I specifically said safe blue districts not the Republican landscape that you just described particularly David dewhurst.  .   The tea party model and pain in the ass is one result of the gerrymandered landscape we find ourselves in especially here in Texas     But I was speaking specifically about Crowley Cortez and other Democrats in traditionally safe blue districts in traditionally blue states  but I was speaking specifically about Crowley Cortez and other Democrats in traditionally safe blue districts in traditionally blue states    It is there that a very interesting battle ground within the Democratic Party is being fought.   Crowley is a very misunderstood and underestimated power broker in the Democratic Party     All Republicans are tripping over themselves to berate Cortez   And Democrats are high-fiving one another because of her fun tweets ,  all would do well to appreciate what she did to usurp a very very entrenched reprobate. 

 This being a Cortes thread it was my intention to discuss that not David Dewhurst , Who in hindsight is the pope compared to Dan Patrick who has fucked more kids over than a Sandusky Halloween party.    Not to mention Dan Patrick must be obviously getting campaign donations from rather illicit parties in Mexico.  That he condemned the possibility for less criminalized  marijuana  just hours before the Mexican supreme court was deliberating its decision   Is the coincidence of the fucking century   

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah, if a Tea Partier or Dem Socialist primaries a serving rep in a purple or marginal district, that usually turns out bad for their party. The other party just runs someone safe, normal, and “sane” and they steal a seat.

Where the Tea Party candidates and Justice Dems get victories are in super red and super blue, lockdown safe districts.

And it’s frequently because of gerrymandering but some areas are just honestly blue or red.

AOC’s district doesn’t look all that gerrymandered to me.


Neither is Steve King’s -


I hope more people watch the doc. I’d love to have more discussion on it. Especially the other women besides AOC. Like I said, I hope they haven’t given up on politics.

I was particularly interested in Cori Bush from the Missouri district that includes Ferguson.

She was fighting someone just as entrenched as Crowley. Hell, that seat has been held by father then son since the 70s I think they said. And the African American political machines in certain areas can be just as brutal and closed to outsiders as Crowley’s was in NY.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Rick Scott decides to test the AOC waters: