Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Patrick Bateman 3984]

40 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Man, Hannity's really retaining a lot of water these days.

Alcoholic bloat setting in...... maybe he's worried about what Cohen's got on him.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[F250 29205]

51 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is kind of incredible 

This actually benefits Hannity.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

This actually benefits Hannity.

True. He needs the ratings. 

[Cajun 11780]

Uh, no, he really doesn't...

Per Nielsen data provided to Deadline, Sean Hannity has grown nicely into his role as Fox’s Bill O’Reilly replacement, with his show Hannity scoring an average of 3.28 million viewers. For the second straight year, he boasts cable news’ most-watched program.

https://observer.com/2018/12/tv-ratings-fox-news-channel-sean-hannity/

Fuck Hannity, but you've missed the mark.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

AOC going after the GOP Queen

 

[Brisketexan 107024]

AOC going after the GOP Queen
 

I don’t link tweets, but when the dipshits told her to leave climate change “to God”....she fucking owned them with biblical citations.
Her Twitter game is as good as it gets.

[Cajun 11780]

I guess this would be scientists "owning" AOC...

Quote

Climate scientists refute 12-year deadline to curb global warming

12 years isn't a deadline, and climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down," said Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA. "We don't have 12 years to prevent climate change — we have no time.  It's already here. And even under a business-as-usual scenario, the world isn't going to end in exactly twelve years."  

• In reference to Ocasio-Cortez's comments, Marvel said: "She's right that decisions we make in the next decade will determine how bad climate change gets — we can't prevent bad things, but we have the power to avoid the worst-case scenario."

Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, told Axios that the idea that there is only a finite amount of time to fix climate change is the wrong way to look at the problem. She summed up the IPCC's 1.5-degree report this way: "Every action matters. Every bit of warming matters. Every year matters. Every choice matters."

• Hayhoe says she worries that deadlines will make people treat climate change more cavalierly to start, since 12 years can seem like a long time.

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline-c4ba1f99-bc76-42ac-8b93-e4eaa926938d.html

Distilling a complex issue into a eye catching bumper sticker that catches attention, but isn't at all what is going to happen doesn't lend much credibility.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Cajun

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

On 1/22/2019 at 10:15 AM, Brisketexan said:

The funny thing is, that's utterly false.  Not that long ago, we effectively DID have pretty close to "free" college education -- public universities were accessible to all for next-to-nothing.  Check out what tuition was at UT 50 years ago (1969).  Compare that to the average wage, and you'll see that a person could pay their college tuition by working just a few hours a week.  Today, it takes 56 hours a week of work to pay tuition (in other words, it can't be done).

.

 

True that. When I enrolled at UT in the early 80's, I paid less than 500 dollars for a full time semester. This included lab fees, sports package, rec center fees, all that crap. I supported myself with a part time job during the school year, and a full time job during the summer. The only unearned income I got was a one time scholarship that basically paid for my freshman year dorm. My parents contributed pretty much nothing. I graduated with no student loans.

 

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

Definitely raise taxes but until the idiots in government learn how to spend for the people it won’t make a shit.  

I’m a fan of Dell’s answer.  Big shock, I know.  Will Bill and Melinda Gates do more good per dollar with the money they’re donating to charity vs the government? I’d argue yes.  

But of course Gates/Dell are the exception and Trump is more the rule, for wealthy families - gross.  I say tax inheritance at 75% on those fortunes over 200M.  Can have a gradually increasing rate below...But there’s a million loopholes so here we are.  Wouldn’t fix a damn thing.  And again everyone wants their pound of flesh from the wealthy but the fucking government is terrible getting that money to where it needs to go.  

[Dahobbs 18398]

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

I guess this would be scientists "owning" AOC...

 

Did you read anything you quoted? I assume no...

[Rimbo 27091]

a freshman congressman from New York has somehow inspired 88 pages of blather on a Texas college sports board.

that's how you know she's a superstar

[UpperWestside 6285]

7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

a freshman congressman

So Finkle is Einhorn?

[Cajun 11780]

6 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you read anything you quoted? I assume no...

Every last word.  

It's cool man.  Grasping nuance in the midst of being starry eyed is not an easy feat.

[Dahobbs 18398]

40 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Every last word.  

It's cool man.  Grasping nuance in the midst of being starry eyed is not an easy feat.

I really dont give a shit about some freshman representative from New York other than it entertains me that other people are freaking out about her.

But, case in point, framing those statements as "owning" AOC isn't grasping nuance, it is grasping at straws. The big picture is that scientists agree that we should be acting now to prevent further damage.

[Cajun 11780]

Lol, ok man.

I forgot, she gets to play by different rules.  When you're morally right, facts and accuracy don't matter, right?

My bad.  And sorry for using the word "owning", it was hyperbolic.  I mean, how dare I not be precise with the conveyance of a thought?

Shame, shame I say

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Cajun

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The pearls are clutched too much.

[GSU&UT 1799]

11 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Lol, ok man.

I forgot, she gets to play by different rules.  When you're morally right, facts and accuracy don't matter, right?

My bad.  And sorry for using the word "owning", it was hyperbolic.  I mean, how dare I not be precise with the conveyance of a thought?

Shame, shame I say

 

Is it physically painful to be this stupid?

[Cajun 11780]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

Is it physically painful to be this stupid?

Solid response brah.  I mean, really, excellent work.

Now, mix in some racist/nazi bombs and you're golden.

[Dahobbs 18398]

23 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Lol, ok man.

I forgot, she gets to play by different rules.  When you're morally right, facts and accuracy don't matter, right?

My bad.  And sorry for using the word "owning", it was hyperbolic.  I mean, how dare I not be precise with the conveyance of a thought?

Shame, shame I say

 

Do you really think AOC meant the world would literally and suddenly end in 12 years? Or do you think that just maybe she was deploying a rhetorical device to emphasize that we must act now, you know, like the scientist said? And do you even realize the irony of your third paragraph? 

[Cajun 11780]

Do you really think that, from a rhetorical device standpoint, my use of the word (the one you took exception to) was somehow different than her device?

And do you even realize the irony of defending AOC by parsing this stuff on my end while rolling out the red carpet on hers?

I didn't think so.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Cajun

[Dahobbs 18398]

27 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Do you really think that, from a rhetorical device standpoint, my use of the word (the one you took exception to) was somehow different than her device?

And do you even realize the irony of defending AOC by parsing this stuff on my end while rolling out the red carpet on hers?

I didn't think so.

I didn't take exception to one word; I disagreed with your entire conclusion. The scientist and AOC are in agreement here. You're trying, unsuccessfully, to pick the tiniest of nits.  Would you honestly have preferred her to say that climate change is already here, we are fucked, and the only thing we can do is limit how fucked we are? Cause that was the point the scientist was making, maybe you missed it. 

[wildcat09 29600]

10 hours ago, Cajun said:

I guess this would be scientists "owning" AOC...

 

Actually, this is you owning yourself.

[Footballpants 138]

8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

that's how you know she's a superstar

Superstar, ha! The reason this thread is so popular is the same reason the aggie thread is so popular on the football board - it's always good for a laugh. She's a buffoon with zero self-awareness. She truly believes she's the smartest person in the room and does not acknowledge her lack of experience, lack of understanding of basic U.S. civics, and lack of understanding of basic economic principles. 

She has great twitter game though, and nice tits. Subscribed!

[pepper brooks 580]

12 hours ago, Tom said:

Always a spectacular failure?  L. O. Fucking. L.

Her economic policies are a hell of a lot closer to the "Leave it to Beaver/Make America Great Again" era than that which current conservatives pine for with everything post 1980.  

Maybe you just think this country is too stupid to figure out things like healthcare for everyone and affordable education.  Things that most westernized nations figured out long ago that America lags behind in because half of this country is fucking stupid and thinks "Government doesn't work.  Defund everything!"  

Congrats on 40 years of supply-side economics of killing the middle class for greed.  This is probably the part where you yell "What about Venezuela!?" and I roll my eyes.

so Venezuela just didn't get their socialism/redistribution quite right, but if AOC and Bernie led the new redistribution revolution here it would all work out.  Yeah.  that'd be just swell, Beaver.  roll your eyes all you want.  go ahead and list all those great socialist empires where their citizens are thriving economically and have any social freedoms.  

[hpslugga 4097]

14 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

 go ahead and list all those great socialist empires 

You wanna know how I know you haven't the foggiest clue what socialism is?

Edited January 24, 2019 by hpslugga

[pepper brooks 580]

8 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You wanna know how I know you haven't the foggiest clue what socialism is?

sure.  go ahead and try and explain away how policy rooted in "redistribution" of wealth, call it "socialism", "collectivism", "communism", "totalitarianism", whichever term you want to use matters little as they all result in the same outcome, is an example of how a society should be run.  Give us one example where the people ruled by such policies are thriving as a major power, and have economic and personal liberties.  It won't take you long in your search.  There isn't one.  But keep on believing that policy can work in some form and result in a higher standard of living for it's subjects despite zero examples in history.  

[Dahobbs 18398]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

sure.  go ahead and try and explain away how policy rooted in "redistribution" of wealth, call it "socialism", "collectivism", "communism", "totalitarianism", whichever term you want to use matters little as they all result in the same outcome, is an example of how a society should be run.  Give us one example where the people ruled by such policies are thriving as a major power, and have economic and personal liberties.  It won't take you long in your search.  There isn't one.  But keep on believing that policy can work in some form and result in a higher standard of living for it's subjects despite zero examples in history.  

You still don't know what those terms mean. But, an obvious example is the United States prior to lowing the top marginal rate. Or are you saying the United States wasn't "thriving as  a major power" with "economic and personal liberties" before that?

[hpslugga 4097]

15 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

sure.  go ahead and try and explain away how policy rooted in "redistribution" of wealth,

That's not what it's rooted in, which is exactly my point: you haven't the foggiest idea what it is. You only know the Western Strawman that was created centuries after the very first socialist literatures were written. I would be willing to bet my entire year's salary that you couldn't for the life of you name the first published socialist author, the name of the work, and what it actually said.

Quote

call it "socialism", "collectivism", "communism", "totalitarianism", whichever term you want to use matters little as they all result in the same outcome, is an example of how a society should be run. 

The only term you quoted that was apt to those societies was totalitarianism. Those regimes paid lip service to the notion of socialism, but each time they came to power, they murdered any opportunity to implement even the most basic concepts of socialism and did so consciously and on the very first day. These weren't cases of some over-ambitious government that became slowly overcome with greed and corruption; these were people who were greedy and corrupt in the beginning and used a very real moral force in order to gain power. It's kinda like when Donald Trump rants and raves about illegal immigration when his businesses have been employing illegal immigrants for years: because he doesn't really care about it. He just uses that issue as red meat for people who unite behind that "cause."

Quote

Give us one example where the people ruled by such policies are thriving as a major power

Socialism was never meant to erect a major power, which is why I bolded those two words you used: "socialist empire" is a flat contradiction in terms. Had you actually read socialist literature instead of regurgitated Western strawmen, you'd have already known that even if you still disagreed with it.

From the first letter to the last punctuation mark, everything that you posted was not only wrong but was also a shocking display of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Edited January 24, 2019 by hpslugga

[pepper brooks 580]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You still don't know what those terms mean. But, an obvious example is the United States prior to lowing the top marginal rate. Or are you saying the United States wasn't "thriving as  a major power" with "economic and personal liberties" before that?

again, you're assuming those top marginal rated were actually paid.  They were not.  Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out.  Point being, revenue collections as a percentage of GDP are virtually unchanged today vs when top rates were 70-90%.  There were countless tax shields, shelters, deductions, etc that are now no longer available.  Not sure why all of you in favor of such a punitive tax rate fail to grasp this very significant issue, and furthermore why do you believe you're entitled to confiscate 70% of someone else's earnings, and why would you think our government that is 20+ trillion in debt would be a reasonable vehicle to redistribute this confiscated capital.  There is zero logic there leading one to believe this is a decent idea.  

[hpslugga 4097]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

fail to grasp...zero logic

Just stop. This performance is absolutely abysmal. 

[Incredulity 11882]

10 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Just stop. This performance is absolutely abysmal. 

again, you're assuming those top marginal rated were actually paid.  They were not.  Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out.  Point being, revenue collections as a percentage of GDP are virtually unchanged today vs when top rates were 70-90%. 

 

cosigned.

 

Read this a couple hundred times then report back.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13567]

16 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

 Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out. 

 

Why?

Quote

... and furthermore why do you believe you're entitled to confiscate 70% of someone else's earnings, and why would you think our government that is 20+ trillion in debt would be a reasonable vehicle to redistribute this confiscated capital. 

I, an individual American, am not "entitled" to confiscate anything.

The government, however, is. It's in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8.

Can you explain what relevance the national debt has to the government's ability to redistribute wealth?

"HOW CAN LEBRON JAMES BE GOOD AT BASKETBALL WHEN HIS HAIRLINE IS SO BAD!?!?"

[936horn 942]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

again, you're assuming those top marginal rated were actually paid.  They were not.  Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out.  Point being, revenue collections as a percentage of GDP are virtually unchanged today vs when top rates were 70-90%. 

 

cosigned.

 

Read this a couple hundred times then report back.

 

 

He can read it, but there's a less than 0% chance he will comprehend it, and even if he does there won't be a cogent response. Just more of "you obvi totes don't get socialism man"

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

10 hours ago, Rimbo said:

a freshman congressman from New York has somehow inspired 88 pages of blather on a Texas college sports board.

that's how you know she's a superstar

Lol.  Let’s not make that the standard.  See Trump.  

[hpslugga 4097]

Just now, 936horn said:

but there's a less than 0% chance he will comprehend it

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

again, you're assuming those top marginal rated were actually paid.  They were not.  Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out.  Point being, revenue collections as a percentage of GDP are virtually unchanged today vs when top rates were 70-90%. 

 

cosigned.

 

Read this a couple hundred times then report back.

 

 

True.  They should just add more loopholes and lock in that 70%.  ACO can look smart and wealthy people will keep laughing.  

[Anastasis 23717]

10 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I say tax inheritance at 75% on those fortunes over 200M.

If we are going to do this, just do a straight up annual wealth tax.  Exceptions for property up to $XXMM, and other assets up to$XXMM.  Everything over that get taxed at XX% annually. If we are going to use tax policy to redistribute wealth, let's do it right. Taxing income is a clunky solution to capture assets from the rich.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 18398]

36 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

again, you're assuming those top marginal rated were actually paid.  They were not.  Fine, if you want those rates, then also go back and restore the deductions that have all been phased out.  Point being, revenue collections as a percentage of GDP are virtually unchanged today vs when top rates were 70-90%.  There were countless tax shields, shelters, deductions, etc that are now no longer available.  Not sure why all of you in favor of such a punitive tax rate fail to grasp this very significant issue, and furthermore why do you believe you're entitled to confiscate 70% of someone else's earnings, and why would you think our government that is 20+ trillion in debt would be a reasonable vehicle to redistribute this confiscated capital.  There is zero logic there leading one to believe this is a decent idea.  

I didn't assume anything of this sort. I was just pointing the obvious example of the sort of policies you were talking about being implemented in a successful and powerful nation. Further, as discussed previously, it doesn't really matter if the tax is actually paid. Like many tax policies, the point is to encourage a particular behavior rather than revenue generation. A high top marginal tax rate encourages certain beneficial behaviors in order to avoid paying the top rate, for example: increased investment in business  and increased charitable donations.  In either instance, the tax wouldn't be paid, capital gets active rather sitting, and the individual gets to choose where the money goes rather than sending it the government.  It is actually an example of a market based approach to wealth redistribution. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Dahobbs

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

If we are going to do this, just do a straight up annual wealth tax.  Exceptions for property up to $XXMM, and other assets up to$XXMM.  Everything over that get taxes at XX%. If we are going to use tax policy to redistribute wealth, let's do it right. Taxing income is a clunky solution to capture assets from the rich.  

You may convince people to give up shit when they die but your plan has zero chance of success.  Let’s try to tax cap gains at 35%.  Again ACO and her ilk like to talk big.   Let’s see someone go after the loopholes.  Hell, the Democrats and Republicans just last year teamed up on this opportunity zone boondoggle.  Look that up.  A joke.  An awesome joke if you’re wealthy.  

[bad_teammate 13567]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If we are going to do this, just do a straight up annual wealth tax.  Exceptions for property up to $XXMM, and other assets up to$XXMM.  Everything over that get taxed at XX% annually. If we are going to use tax policy to redistribute wealth, let's do it right. Taxing income is a clunky solution to capture assets from the rich.  

This guy is on the right track. We should listen to him.

[Incredulity 11882]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't assume anything of this sort. I was just pointing the obvious example of the sort of policies you were talking about being implemented in a successful and powerful nation. Further, as discussed previously, it doesn't really matter if the tax is actually paid. Like many tax policies, the point is to encourage a particular behavior rather than revenue generation. A high top marginal tax rate encourages certain beneficial behaviors in order to avoid paying the top rate, for example: increased investment in business  and increased charitable donations.  In either instance, the tax wouldn't be paid, capital gets active rather sitting, and the individual gets to choose where the money goes rather than sending it the government. 

A supply side argument for increased tax rates.  Totally awesome.

[bad_teammate 13567]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

You may convince people to give up shit when they die but your plan has zero chance of success.  Let’s try to tax cap gains at 35%.  Again ACO and her ilk like to talk big.   Let’s see someone go after the loopholes.  Hell, the Democrats and Republicans just last year teamed up on this opportunity zone boondoggle.  Look that up.  A joke.  An awesome joke if you’re wealthy.  

once the guillotines fire up, minds will change

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

once the guillotines fire up, minds will change

Lol. Bring it bitch.  

[Anastasis 23717]

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You may convince people to give up shit when they die but your plan has zero chance of success. 

People don't give up shit when they die.  People with the means structure their assets in such a way as to minimize inheritance tax. But put that aside.  There is little conceptual difference between a wealth tax (like many europeans countries require) and an estate tax. If you are OK with an estate tax @75% over 200MM, you should be able to find thresholds for an annual wealth tax that are acceptable.  

[Rimbo 27091]

18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol.  Let’s not make that the standard.  See Trump.  

Well, Trump is the POS POTUS. There's going to be discussion because his actions are in many cases relevant to us, especially those of us who live near the border, maybe married an immigrant, etc. etc.

This is one out of 435 representatives who doesn't represent any of us on this board.

On that same topic, I saw a Beto sticker here. In San Diego. On a car with a not-very-recent California license plate. Beto didn't even win.

[bad_teammate 13567]

5 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol. Bring it bitch.  

I won't be bringing anything. When the guillotines fire up, they're coming for me, as well. (And rightfully so.)

It's not a threat, bud, it's history. If we oppress the poor hard enough they will move past the whipped-dog stage. Better to fix society first; it's cleaner for everyone.

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

People don't give up shit when they die.  People with the means structure their assets in such a way as to minimize inheritance tax. But put that aside.  There is little conceptual difference between a wealth tax (like many europeans countries require) and an estate tax. If you are OK with an estate tax @75% over 200MM, you should be able to find thresholds for an annual wealth tax that are acceptable.  

We agree on the loopholes.  I don’t think either are realistic but if they can pull it off, I’m all for it.  

I just think this is all posturing.  

[ChiTownDoc 21348]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I won't be bringing anything. When the guillotines fire up, they're coming for me, as well. (And rightfully so.)

It's not a threat, bud, it's history. If we oppress the poor hard enough they will move past the whipped-dog stage. Better to fix society first; it's cleaner for everyone.

I grew up poor.  And I’m giving it all away when I die.  If I’m lucky enough to see the revolution, I’ll welcome death.   

No kids gives you an interesting take on life.  

[Asithappens 978]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

People don't give up shit when they die.  People with the means structure their assets in such a way as to minimize inheritance tax. But put that aside.  There is little conceptual difference between a wealth tax (like many europeans countries require) and an estate tax. If you are OK with an estate tax @75% over 200MM, you should be able to find thresholds for an annual wealth tax that are acceptable.  

And there's nothing wrong with using the available tax law to minimize one's tax liability. As long as it's not evasion.

And I think there's quite a bit of conceptual difference b/t a wealth tax and an estate/inheritance tax. With one, you're still alive, right? With the other, you're not. A wealth tax would, I guess, be applied annually. An estate tax is levied once.