Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[jimmyjazz 45952]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

How does a Muslim only bank that doesn’t charge interest make money, you ask?  One word:  volume.

I know a guy who decided to open a used car lot but not charge interest on loans they brokered.  It was against his "Christian" values.

I told him I was skeptical, but he was adamant they could make a legitimate business out of the idea.  They were closed within 6 months.

[Chad Fuck 17681]

I know a guy who decided to open a used car lot but not charge interest on loans they brokered.  It was against his "Christian" values.
I told him I was skeptical, but he was adamant they could make a legitimate business out of the idea.  They were closed within 6 months.

Anytime someone mentions “Christian” and “business” together, watch yer corn hole, because someone is about to get fucked.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Anytime someone mentions “Christian” and “business” together, watch yer corn hole, because someone is about to get fucked.

The only time I wanna see a fish on business card is if it's a charter boat captains card.

[BurntOrange&White 39932]

Any bikini pics to fap to?

[Cajun 11705]

On 5/9/2019 at 12:48 PM, Incredulity said:

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

Islamic banking or Islamic finance (Arabic: مصرفية إسلامية‎) or sharia-compliant finance^[1] is banking or financingactivity that complies with sharia (Islamic law) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (profit-sharing and loss-bearing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost-plus), and Ijara (leasing).

Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).^[2][3] Investment in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to Islamic principles (e.g. pork or alcohol) is also haraam ("sinful and prohibited").

[Incredulity 11671]

8 minutes ago, Cajun said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

Islamic banking or Islamic finance (Arabic: مصرفية إسلامية‎) or sharia-compliant finance^[1] is banking or financingactivity that complies with sharia (Islamic law) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (profit-sharing and loss-bearing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost-plus), and Ijara (leasing).

Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).^[2][3] Investment in businesses that provide goods or services considered contrary to Islamic principles (e.g. pork or alcohol) is also haraam ("sinful and prohibited").

Thats not what I didn’t believe.

[Cajun 11705]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Thats not what I didn’t believe.

 

[Incredulity 11671]

5 minutes ago, Cajun said:

 

Sure

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

We don't even have a huge, ornate scepter.

 

This government is stupid.

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

6 hours ago, Bevo VIII said:

Any bikini pics to fap to?

It’s not a burkini, it’s a slanket 

[EastTexan 662]

13 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

She was on a tour right? She jumped up there and Pelosi snapped the pic.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 5/9/2019 at 1:07 PM, HRSchenker said:

Dumb law. Just convert to Islam and find a bank that will loan to you. That's what one of my friends from California did to start his business. Interest on borrowed money is a sin so they have Muslim-only banks just for those folks

Muslim banks don't loan at all. They buy your business or home outright and sell it to you in installments at a marked up price. It usually works out financially the same.

[Guest Lobo]

^

that's true.  Our bank started out as a Pakistani bank and had to do this.  When you attempt to explain that Islam invented loan amortization, they would generally not like you.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Did she ever find out what the monster in her sink was?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

(Follow up tweets)

Now I’m going through a huge income transition compared to living off tips (which diff pay every week, very hard).

& I have HEALTH INSURANCE, which now means I have fewer expenses.

According to banks, I’d be more “responsible,” but my character hasn’t changed. Just my math. /3

The myth that bad credit or struggling w bills = irresponsibility is a heinous myth.

Paying people less than what’s needed to live is what’s actually irresponsible.

GDP + costs are rising, wages are not. That doesn’t mean YOU’RE bad. It means working people are set up to fail.

It’s a big part of what makes this Chase tweet so bad.

It’s the idea that if you choose to have any expense beyond mere animalistic survival - an iced coffee, a cab after a 18hr shift on your feet - you deserve suffering, eviction, or skipped medicine. 

You don’t. Nobody does.

US GDP is at an all-time high. As a nation, we are more prosperous than we ever have been.

But that’s simply not the lived truth. Even now, I’m paid similar to a doctor or corporate lawyer - many who‘d think they are “rich,” but it’s nowhere near what we actually mean in policy.

When we say “tax the rich,” we mean nesting-doll yacht rich. For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich.

Trick-the-country-into-war rich. Subsidizing-workforce-w-food-stamps rich.

Because THAT kind of rich is simply not good for society, & it’s like 10 people.

Ultimately, living in a moral society, a good nation, means establishing some basic standards of dignity:

- healthcare as a right

- a living wage

- public education that prepares for civil society + economy (which now shld incl college)

- all people having power in the economy

And in the meantime, as we continue fighting for Medicare for All, a living wage, & more:

Unionize your workplace.

Demand a raise.

And don’t stop until you get one. 💪🏽

[Ted Lange 16085]

Tweeting nonsense is now Presidential 

[GSU&UT 1798]

On 5/12/2019 at 2:06 AM, longhornmatt said:

That’s some quality Trumpian stream of consciousness tweeting.  How dare banks - of all institutions! - consider irrelevant things like “how much money you make” and not your “character.”  Although it is comforting to know the rich who need to pay their fair share in taxes are only “like 10 people.”  I’m sure Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie and Warren appreciate her throwing that out there so in 2021 they have to answer why more than just those 10 people are required to pay for their Medicare For All and free college.

She seems to treat her Twitter like it is a 24 hour cable network that needs content at all times.  I’m admittedly not a fan, so I’m sure plenty will disagree, but I’d advise her to start picking her spots much more selectively.  She doesn’t need to keep the Tweets coming on a slow day with the Twitter equivalent of Stephen A. Smith filler shows on daytime ESPN.  It’s been 6 months, and she already doesn’t feel fresh and new anymore.

You mean how we all have to pay a heavy monthly premium that our employers don't pick up the entire tab for already? Damn, that'll really upset people.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Also, for the people like matt who smugly act like she doesn't have a point because "like 10 people" sounds stupid,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/

 

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Also, for the people like matt who smugly act like she doesn't have a point because "like 10 people" sounds stupid,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/

 

It’s just mind numbingly simplistic fodder. 

Guess what is also easy for those ten people?  Mobility. They can simply leave for a better deal. Ask NY how that is going for them?  Just a few individuals leaving the state had a massive effect on taxes received in state leading to a large shortfall. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cuomos-budget-rich-high-taxes/

Leaving New York

Last year, the study said, 61.5% of New York movers left the state; just 38.5% moved in. Among those who left, 41% earned $150,000 or more. Just 8.4% earned less than $50,000.

From 2010 to mid-2017, New York had a net outmigration of over 1 million people, more than any other state. No, they're not all rich. But many are.

And recent changes in the deductibility of federal taxes certainly hasn't helped high-tax states like New York. The wealthy have choices that others don't.

Last year, a study by Wallet Hub looked at states ranked by their total tax burden. New York came out on top. Our own report compared the Wallet Hub data with Census data from 2007 to 2016. New York lost 1.3 million citizens, more even than California, which lost just under a million, and Illinois.

By the way, we also compared the Wallet Hub data with the states that were gaining population, and lo and behold: Five low-tax states — Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington — gained the most population.

In short, high taxes drive people away; low taxes attract them. It's simple economics, yet so many Blue States don't get it.

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Oh no, they'll leave! If your point that we shouldn't let them use tax havens then I agree, hold them accountable!

https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/19-02-01-video-inequality-has-gone-viral-so-what-next

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Oh no, they'll leave! If your point that we shouldn't let them use tax havens then I agree, hold them accountable!

https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/19-02-01-video-inequality-has-gone-viral-so-what-next

I'd say it just points out the hypocrisy of many liberals. We should give stuff away, but not if it comes from my pile.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

23 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd say it just points out the hypocrisy of many liberals. We should give stuff away, but not if it comes from my pile.  

I'd say these aren't real liberals, they're hardcore capitalists with a few pet issues mostly for appearances.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'd say these aren't real liberals, they're hardcore capitalists with a few pet issues mostly for appearances.

Riiiiiight, you tell herself that. I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was a wee lad. You have a bit more growing up I guess.

 

The real liberals ..... love it....  

[Smax 3800]

(Follow up tweets)
Now I’m going through a huge income transition compared to living off tips (which diff pay every week, very hard).
& I have HEALTH INSURANCE, which now means I have fewer expenses.
According to banks, I’d be more “responsible,” but my character hasn’t changed. Just my math. /3
The myth that bad credit or struggling w bills = irresponsibility is a heinous myth.
Paying people less than what’s needed to live is what’s actually irresponsible.
GDP + costs are rising, wages are not. That doesn’t mean YOU’RE bad. It means working people are set up to fail.
It’s a big part of what makes this Chase tweet so bad.
It’s the idea that if you choose to have any expense beyond mere animalistic survival - an iced coffee, a cab after a 18hr shift on your feet - you deserve suffering, eviction, or skipped medicine. 
You don’t. Nobody does.

US GDP is at an all-time high. As a nation, we are more prosperous than we ever have been.
But that’s simply not the lived truth. Even now, I’m paid similar to a doctor or corporate lawyer - many who‘d think they are “rich,” but it’s nowhere near what we actually mean in policy.
When we say “tax the rich,” we mean nesting-doll yacht rich. For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich.
Trick-the-country-into-war rich. Subsidizing-workforce-w-food-stamps rich.
Because THAT kind of rich is simply not good for society, & it’s like 10 people.
Ultimately, living in a moral society, a good nation, means establishing some basic standards of dignity:
- healthcare as a right
- a living wage
- public education that prepares for civil society + economy (which now shld incl college)
- all people having power in the economy
And in the meantime, as we continue fighting for Medicare for All, a living wage, & more:
Unionize your workplace.
Demand a raise.
And don’t stop until you get one.

Yep she's an idiot

[Dahobbs 17534]

On 5/12/2019 at 1:06 AM, longhornmatt said:

That’s some quality Trumpian stream of consciousness tweeting.  How dare banks - of all institutions! - consider irrelevant things like “how much money you make” and not your “character.”  Although it is comforting to know the rich who need to pay their fair share in taxes are only “like 10 people.”  I’m sure Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie and Warren appreciate her throwing that out there so in 2021 they have to answer why more than just those 10 people are required to pay for their Medicare For All and free college.

She seems to treat her Twitter like it is a 24 hour cable network that needs content at all times.  I’m admittedly not a fan, so I’m sure plenty will disagree, but I’d advise her to start picking her spots much more selectively.  She doesn’t need to keep the Tweets coming on a slow day with the Twitter equivalent of Stephen A. Smith filler shows on daytime ESPN.  It’s been 6 months, and she already doesn’t feel fresh and new anymore.

I've think you've tacked on to something that wasn't her point. Yes, she used banks as an example because of Chase's tweet, but her point wasn't that banks in evaluating extending credit shouldn't consider financial resources. Rather her point was that the common social view that only the irresponsible are poor/struggle with finances is misguided.   Her point was that we need to make sure the wealth of the nation actually benefits the whole the nation. She didn't end the tweet saying "banks should loan to everyone no matter what," she ended it by demanding more just wages. Your (in my opinion irrational) dislike of her has blinded you to what she is actually saying.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I've think you've tacked on to something that wasn't her point. Yes, she used banks as an example because of Chase's tweet, but her point wasn't that banks in evaluating extending credit shouldn't consider financial resources. Rather her point was that the common social view that only the irresponsible are poor/struggle with finances is misguided.   Her point was that we need to make sure the wealth of the nation actually benefits the whole the nation. She didn't end the tweet saying "banks should loan to everyone no matter what," she ended it by demanding more just wages. Your (in my opinion irrational) dislike of her has blinded you to what she is actually saying.

I like her egalitarian attitude.  Will it transfer to actual results ? 

[Anastasis 23469]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

the common social view that only the irresponsible are poor/struggle with finances is misguided. 

Does anybody here actually hold this common social view?

I don't think anybody with two brain cells fails to recognize that there are many complexities to issues related to poverty and financial hardship.

This feels like a straw man set up around a millennial external locus of control.    

[Anastasis 23469]

17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I like her egalitarian attitude.  Will it transfer to actual results ? 

Not if she is only planning to raise taxes on 10 people. 

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

On 5/12/2019 at 1:06 AM, longhornmatt said:

That’s some quality Trumpian stream of consciousness tweeting.  How dare banks - of all institutions! - consider irrelevant things like “how much money you make” and not your “character.”  Although it is comforting to know the rich who need to pay their fair share in taxes are only “like 10 people.”  I’m sure Pelosi, Schumer, Bernie and Warren appreciate her throwing that out there so in 2021 they have to answer why more than just those 10 people are required to pay for their Medicare For All and free college.

She seems to treat her Twitter like it is a 24 hour cable network that needs content at all times.  I’m admittedly not a fan, so I’m sure plenty will disagree, but I’d advise her to start picking her spots much more selectively.  She doesn’t need to keep the Tweets coming on a slow day with the Twitter equivalent of Stephen A. Smith filler shows on daytime ESPN.  It’s been 6 months, and she already doesn’t feel fresh and new anymore.

 

I agree with the bolded 100%, and I am a fan.

 

I think the number "10" is not that far off. What percentage of the wealth do the top 10richest  people own? Maybe she should have said 10 percent.

[Anastasis 23469]

On 5/12/2019 at 1:06 AM, longhornmatt said:

She seems to treat her Twitter like it is a 24 hour cable network that needs content at all times.

Like it or not, this is the new politics. The modern equivalent of the printing press. Put me in the get off my lawn camp personally, but this is the new media. And she deploys it masterfully. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Does anybody here actually hold this common social view?

I don't think anybody with two brain cells fails to recognize that there are many complexities to issues related to poverty and financial hardship.

This feels like a straw man set up around a millennial external locus of control.    

I'm quite sure that some here do (Johnny Sack comes to mind). You can pretend that it isn't a historically common misconception in our society. I certainly can't stop you from being intellectually dishonest. But I will call you out on it.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Anastasis 23469]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I certainly can't stop you from being intellectually dishonest. But I will call you out on it.  

Maybe you can also find time to comment on the intellectual honesty of claiming that the DSA tax policy is limited to raising taxes on like 10 people.  

[Anastasis 23469]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm quite sure that some here do (Johnny Sack comes to mind).

Oh, and I will let @Johnny Sack speak for himself, but I don't recall him ever stating that ONLY the irresponsible are poor/struggle with finances.  That seems like a ridiculous posture to take. As does claiming that it is a common social view.  Most recognize that individuals can arrive at poverty by a number of different paths and circumstances, some within their control, many outside of it. What does approach a common American social view is to acknowledge that poor financial literacy and bad financial decision making is often observed among many people who struggle with finances.  But that approaches a tautology. 

Edited May 13, 2019 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17534]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe you can also find time to comment on the intellectual honesty of claiming that the DSA tax policy is limited to raising taxes on like 10 people.  

I don't know that she claimed that. She did use a bit of hyperbole in attempting to explain what "tax the rich" is supposed to me. And she is right to explain it because "tax the rich" has been a bit misinterpreted by some to include taxing everyone who is well off. As an example, her 70% bracket on people making over $10 million a year would cover only a fraction of the top 1%, which starts out at something like $400k. According to this article https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx, only ~16,000 Americans actually make over $10 million a year. I don't see anything in that tweet where she said she was opposed to raising taxes at all on the rest of the 99.95 percent of us. Her point was that her focus is on the over-the-top wealthy (the .05%).   

[Dahobbs 17534]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh, and I will let @Johnny Sack speak for himself, but I don't recall him ever stating that ONLY the irresponsible are poor/struggle with finances.  That seems like a ridiculous posture to take. As does claiming that it is a common social view.  Most recognize that individuals can arrive at poverty by a number of different paths and circumstances, some within their control, many outside of it. What does approach a common American social view is to acknowledge that poor financial literacy and bad financial decision making is often observed among many people who struggle with finances.  But that approaches a tautology. 

Oh now you're just being pedantic. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that it was literally the only possible cause of financial hardship. I meant that, in this country, there has historically been a very strong presumption that financial hardship is caused by one's own irresponsibility.  Now, are you really going to argue that such a presumption hasn't or doesn't exist? 

Edited May 13, 2019 by Dahobbs

[txhorns 2409]

I am often opposed to AOC and I would never claim that only the irresponsinle struggle with finances/poverty.  There are too many outside influences, especially health care bills, that can lead to poverty.  The one common thing with poverty is lack of opportunity.  Growing up poor provides fewer opportunities to advance ones financial well being than growing up wealthy.

[Anastasis 23469]

2 minutes ago, txhorns said:

I am often opposed to AOC and I would never claim that only the irresponsinle struggle with finances/poverty.  There are too many outside influences, especially health care bills, that can lead to poverty.  The one common thing with poverty is lack of opportunity.  Growing up poor provides fewer opportunities to advance ones financial well being than growing up wealthy.

Stop being pedantic. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Stop being pedantic. 

His/hers was a fair post. I don't know what your issue has been over the last couple months, but you've gone from a thoughtful poster who didn't always agree with to a straight troll. It is sad. Even if not a single person on this site held the view that poverty is usually caused by irresponsibility, it has been a significant view in this country. We tell everyone to raise themselves by their own bootstraps, and if they can't do it then it is because they aren't good enough. We lay blame on those that fail and raise up those that succeed. Maybe you've never heard anyone denigrate those on well-fare or call them freeloaders. Maybe you just live in a really nice bubble where everyone is kind and understanding. Maybe you're just willfully ignorant. Or maybe you're just arguing to argue and have no intention of engaging in real discussion. I know where my money would be. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

His/hers was a fair post. I don't know what your issue has been over the last couple months, but you've gone from a thoughtful poster who didn't always agree with to a straight troll. It is sad. Even if not a single person on this site held the view that poverty is usually caused by irresponsibility, it has been a significant view in this country. We tell everyone to raise themselves by their own bootstraps, and if they can't do it then it is because they aren't good enough. We lay blame on those that fail and raise up those that succeed. Maybe you've never heard anyone denigrate those on well-fare or call them freeloaders. Maybe you just live in a really nice bubble where everyone is kind and understanding. Maybe you're just willfully ignorant. Or maybe you're just arguing to argue and have no intention of engaging in real discussion. I know where my money would be. 

Sarcaso-meter check I think ?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

28 minutes ago, txhorns said:

I am often opposed to AOC and I would never claim that only the irresponsinle struggle with finances/poverty.  There are too many outside influences, especially health care bills, that can lead to poverty.  The one common thing with poverty is lack of opportunity.  Growing up poor provides fewer opportunities to advance ones financial well being than growing up wealthy.

Comes down to education, hard work, and a bit of luck once you get that eduction. Education opens doors to worlds people can't otherwise see in their small little slice of heaven.

[tantric superman 4667]

Heard an interesting podcast this weekend.  Peter Attia's The Drive.  He had Robert Sopulsky on (researcher from Stanford who studies stress, and has done some really good books, one on his study of baboons.

He and the podcaster stopped down for a bit to talk about how they older they got and the more they lived, the more they realized their success was a succession of lucky moments.

They talked about going to a prison, and doing that test where they ask the group of visitors and prisoners to raise their hands if they were raised with both parents, if they were always well fed, if they hadn't seen someone killed in front of their eyes before they turned 13.   And of course when it was all done they were left with just the prisoners who had had all those hard hands dealt to them.

Their approach was that most the prisoners had made one monumental fuckup that society just would not let them get away from. (Not something like pulling the trigger -- more like hanging out with a gangmember on the day the gangmember decided to shoot someone -- being pulled into something by being in the wrong place.)

Maybe they were just having a contest who could be the most humble, but they both saw the argument that anyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps to be utterly silly as a foundation of any public policy.

 

[Anastasis 23469]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

His/hers was a fair post. I don't know what your issue has been over the last couple months, but you've gone from a thoughtful poster who didn't always agree with to a straight troll. It is sad. Even if not a single person on this site held the view that poverty is usually caused by irresponsibility, it has been a significant view in this country. We tell everyone to raise themselves by their own bootstraps, and if they can't do it then it is because they aren't good enough. We lay blame on those that fail and raise up those that succeed. Maybe you've never heard anyone denigrate those on well-fare or call them freeloaders. Maybe you just live in a really nice bubble where everyone is kind and understanding. Maybe you're just willfully ignorant. Or maybe you're just arguing to argue and have no intention of engaging in real discussion. I know where my money would be. 

You made a poorly formulated statement that I read as a straw man intended to undermine perspectives which put some amount of weight on personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to financial decision making. I pointed that out. Instead of simply acknowledging, reformulating your position, and moving on, you deflect to a tried and true JohnnySack reference, throw out insults, and hide under your little troll security blankie. If you want to have a real discussion about our society's tendency to conflate morality and character judgments with material wealth, I think that you and I would likely find a good bit of alignment. But that would require you to be less reflexive. 

[ChickenSandwich 9836]

59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know that she claimed that. She did use a bit of hyperbole in attempting to explain what "tax the rich" is supposed to me. And she is right to explain it because "tax the rich" has been a bit misinterpreted by some to include taxing everyone who is well off. As an example, her 70% bracket on people making over $10 million a year would cover only a fraction of the top 1%, which starts out at something like $400k. According to this article https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx, only ~16,000 Americans actually make over $10 million a year. I don't see anything in that tweet where she said she was opposed to raising taxes at all on the rest of the 99.95 percent of us. Her point was that her focus is on the over-the-top wealthy (the .05%).   

"tax the rich" sounds better than "attack the middle class"

[Incredulity 11671]

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't know that she claimed that. She did use a bit of hyperbole in attempting to explain what "tax the rich" is supposed to me. And she is right to explain it because "tax the rich" has been a bit misinterpreted by some to include taxing everyone who is well off. As an example, her 70% bracket on people making over $10 million a year would cover only a fraction of the top 1%, which starts out at something like $400k. According to this article https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx, only ~16,000 Americans actually make over $10 million a year. I don't see anything in that tweet where she said she was opposed to raising taxes at all on the rest of the 99.95 percent of us. Her point was that her focus is on the over-the-top wealthy (the .05%).   

Well the definition that has been used for the last decade has been over $250K income.  Which isn't exactly wiping your ass with $100 bills money.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

"tax the rich" sounds better than "attack the middle class"

Everybody knows how this goes. Those 10 people only get you so far. The reality is that you have to tax the meat of the distribution.  There is no realistic way around that.  But it doesn't have the same rhetorical merits. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You made a poorly formulated statement that I read as a straw man intended to undermine perspectives which put some amount of weight on personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to financial decision making. I pointed that out. Instead of simply acknowledging, reformulating your position, and moving on, you deflect to a tried and true JohnnySack reference, throw out insults, and hide under your little troll security blankie. If you want to have a real discussion about our society's tendency to conflate morality and character judgments with material wealth, I think that you and I would likely find a good bit of alignment. But that would require you to be less reflexive. 

Please, your whole post was a reflexive attack designed to create a straw man and deflect the conversation. The focus of my post was to correct what I believed to be a misinterpretation of AOC's point: i.e., that she thought banks shouldn't consider financial resources in evaluating credit worthiness. That is it. The "poorly formulated statement" was a bare description of what she was actually attacking, not an exhaustive evaluation of the philosophy and its historical underpinnings. You were trolling and you are trolling. If you want to discuss something, discuss it. Stop bickering with me over the tangent YOU brought up. You've corrected me to the extent I've needed to be corrective, feel free to address the actual meat of the thread.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17534]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well the definition that has been used for the last decade has been over $250K income.  Which isn't exactly wiping your ass with $100 bills money.

Who has used that definition? 250K isn't even the 1%. I certainly have never considered it rich. And at any rate, the $250k "rich" certainly aren't the target of a tax on people making over $10 million a year, which is what she was talking about. 

[Anastasis 23469]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The "poorly formulated statement" was a bare description of what she was actually attacking

She did a better job formulating her point than you did. However, my response applies to her tweet as well. She is minimizing perspectives which put some amount of weight on personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to financial decision making, and suggesting that fantasy funding mechanisms impacting an inperceivably small number of Americans will support government largesse.  Which honestly makes her pretty much perfect for congress. 

 

 

[American Swindle 102]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You made a poorly formulated statement that I read as a straw man intended to undermine perspectives which put some amount of weight on personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to financial decision making. I pointed that out. Instead of simply acknowledging, reformulating your position, and moving on, you deflect to a tried and true JohnnySack reference, throw out insults, and hide under your little troll security blankie. If you want to have a real discussion about our society's tendency to conflate morality and character judgments with material wealth, I think that you and I would likely find a good bit of alignment. But that would require you to be less reflexive. 

All we need is a separate thread about how the welfare state is immoral.  It's an unpopular opinion I've heard.