Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[GrenadaRoger]

Well, here is the response you should be hearing.

"How can you say they aren't paying enough?" Because the benefits of government go mostly to the rich. Their income & wealth is protected from crime by the police, foreign invasion by the army, contracts enforced by the courts (they have more to protect than the poor, working class, middle class, even upper middle). And quite often, the business interest of the rich are protected from economic competition by laws, regulation and tariffs.

As an example of this last point, consider something we all are here are quite familiar with, internet poker Sheldon Adelson and his kind---you really think he didn't influence/benefit from the federal law in 2006 and the fed govt Black Friday 2010 crackdown? (talk to Bryan Micon about that btw)

And then you mention flat tax? Well, because of the loopholes, the tax rates have always been much more flat than it appears. Indeed, even when we had top marginal tax rates of 90% (pre-Regan), the effective tax rate was much flatter. Rich folks with income from investment in municipal bonds (tax free interest), or dividend paying stocks (capital gains taxed as 15% flat), or oil (depletion allowances based on production, not investment) or real estate (year of accelerated depreciation) all escaped the higher tax rates. The Regan Tax Cut and Trump Cut lowered tax rates but also cut out many deductions---netting the effect of some of the rate cuts back toward revenue neutral.

so my claim is we've actually had a much flatter tax system than it appears, and the benefits of government are disproportionately skewed towards the high income/wealthy: that is unfair and the reason for increased rates on higher incomes.

Your answer doesn't make much sense if you stop and really think about what you wrote.

There will never be complete equality in utilization of government services. They are open to everyone, but certain services are only needed by certain segments of the population, large and small. Frequent drivers are benefited most by the roads. Frequent fliers are most benefited by airports. Business owners utilize the court system the most (though not always to their benefit!) Lower income people use social services and public transportation far more. I disagree with your claim about the military and law enforcement. Those organizations benefit everyone. In fact, law enforcement has a tougher and more important job in the lower class neighborhoods, due to higher crime. Most people in lily-white, upper-class neighborhoods rarely need the police. It is absurd to say that government services "mostly benefit the rich", so therefore they should pay more.

But they are paying more, anyway! The top 20% of income earners are shouldering the vast majority of income tax revenue. Isn't that enough? I'm not arguing that the rich should pay the same amount as the poor. I'm arguing that they should pay the same percentage.

Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.

But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received/distributed (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.

I don't expect you to agree.

[gut]

Your answer doesn't make much sense if you stop and really think about what you wrote.

There will never be complete equality in utilization of government services. They are open to everyone, but certain services are only needed by certain segments of the population, large and small. Frequent drivers are benefited most by the roads. Frequent fliers are most benefited by airports. Business owners utilize the court system the most (though not always to their benefit!) Lower income people use social services and public transportation far more. I disagree with your claim about the military and law enforcement. Those organizations benefit everyone. In fact, law enforcement has a tougher and more important job in the lower class neighborhoods, due to higher crime. Most people in lily-white, upper-class neighborhoods rarely need the police. It is absurd to say that government services "mostly benefit the rich", so therefore they should pay more.

But they are paying more, anyway! The top 20% of income earners are shouldering the vast majority of income tax revenue. Isn't that enough? I'm not arguing that the rich should pay the same amount as the poor. I'm arguing that they should pay the same percentage.

Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.

But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.

I don't expect you to agree.

Just LOLing at "more utility per dollar".

[GrenadaRoger]

Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.

But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.

I don't expect you to agree.

Just LOLing at "more utility per dollar".

okay, use marginal utility or unit of satisfaction per units of spending power

by your reaction I doubt you've taken econ 155 (econ 1 at a JC)...that's okay, its not required for you to be a success in you field and have a good life...but you would have trouble understanding my arguments

[gimmick]

Just LOLing at "more utility per dollar".

okay, use marginal utility or unit of satisfaction per units of spending power

by your reaction I doubt you've taken econ 155 (econ 1 at a JC)...that's okay, its not required for you to be a success in you field and have a good life...but you would have trouble understanding my arguments

Yea these tend to fall into, "if you knew very little about this, this would be so much easier, but then we wouldn't even have this discussion"-category.

[MumblesBadly]

Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.

But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received/distributed (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.

I don't expect you to agree.

Of course he wouldn’t agree. His ridiculous argument that rich neighborhoods don’t need police as much as poor ones ignores the fact that police are much more responsive to 911 calls in rich neighborhoods than poor ones because their likely to face more political heat from richer residents.

Also, people who don’t “look” like they belong there are much more likely to be harassed by the police in wealthier neighborhoods versus in poor ones. Shit! Philandro Castile was stopped over 40 times over a two year period for apparently minor traffic violations driving through a predominantly white upper middle class neighborhood that was on his commuting route to his library job before he ended up getting shot to death by a chicken shit cop there. When was the last time you heard of such harassment by the police of a white guy in a poor black neighborhood?

[lol wow]

mumbles has had at least 5 blowjobs from truck stop black chicks so he knows

[Daly]

Well, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with what economists refer to as utility and surplus value.

But as you acknowledge, there is never equality in use/benefit from government services. My claim is the rich benefit far greater because of the protection government affords them--the direct type: police, fire, food purity, etc; and hidden types: barriers to direct competition through licensing, tariffs, regulation, etc--gives them more surplus value than poorer persons (more utility per dollar). In my opinion, graduating the tax rates more closely matches the benefit received/distributed (surplus value) to the tax (price) paid than does a flat tax system.

I don't expect you to agree.

If I’m a poor person and I pay 0% of the income tax I’m not sure how it’s possible to get a better return on money spent on government services on a % basis.

[GambleBotsSatire]

[Ryan Eisenhower]

This is unexpected:

America’s “ruling class,” Carlson says, are the “mercenaries” behind the failures of the middle class — including sinking marriage rates — and “the ugliest parts of our financial system.” He went on: “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/181719...tism-trump-gop

[JimmyG_415]

You GOP RW whack job's are making a bigger deal out of her, than the DEM's are.
FYI, old white guy trolls are no problem for her.

Say what you want, she wants to "Legalize it" , in fact hired a pro marijuana politico.
and wants MOC's salary's tied to the shutdown.
Less than a month in, name someone in congress who walks the walk more than that? I'm still learning about her, but those are 2 big pluses, IMO.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/cong...enior-advisor/

The former director of federal policy for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has joined the staff of newly sworn-in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as a senior counsel and policy advisor.

Dan Riffle, who most recently served as communications director to former Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and a legislative aide to former Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), will bring his expertise on health care and tax reform to the freshman congresswoman’s team at a time when her proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate is dominating headlines.

[sonatine]

You GOP RW whack job's are making a bigger deal out of her, than the DEM's are.
FYI, old white guy trolls are no problem for her.

Say what you want, she wants to "Legalize it" , in fact hired a pro marijuana politico.
and wants MOC's salary's tied to the shutdown.
Less than a month in, name someone in congress who walks the walk more than that? I'm still learning about her, but those are 2 big pluses, IMO.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/cong...enior-advisor/

The former director of federal policy for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has joined the staff of newly sworn-in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as a senior counsel and policy advisor.

Dan Riffle, who most recently served as communications director to former Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and a legislative aide to former Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), will bring his expertise on health care and tax reform to the freshman congresswoman’s team at a time when her proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate is dominating headlines.

i read a great piece about how women of color especially are basically torn down if they succeed but refuse to frame their success as 'the system works and everything is fine'. like if they stand up and use their position to put a spotlight on injustice they are essentially slandered as entitled/demanding/etc.

basically the playbook for all the hysterical pearl clutching being focused on her right now.

a considerable portion of which, btw, is coming from the mainstream/centerist left.

[Mintjewlips]

The spotlight is on her because of how she says things, not what she is saying in particular.

I personally have been bombarded with socialist dystopian platitudes since I was in elementary, so I'm very familiar with someone my age propagating their indoctrinated spiel.

In Alexandrias case, I feel, and have felt like the "criticism" from the center left is a bit contrived.

What I mean by that is, for years i have watch the Democrats preach and propagate the same bullshit that AOC is saying, so why the big fuss? Well what we are witnessing is the unraveling of years worth of lies, back stabbing and deceit, and just down right treason. We are witnessing a factional split in the Democratic party, one of many, but a major one at that. That split is between the socialist that have always been on the fringe of the party, and the Clinton cult....like its literally a cult.....real talk....

At this point, you have all the Hillary sycophants that have done her bidding, all watching everything about to crumble, so how do you solve a political crisis? Become President... hence the laughable mention of Hillary running again.

Problem is that the Hillary cult pretty much exposed themselves, and got exposed, everyone was able to see just how much of a stranglehold they had on the party.

So, now you have a weakened Hillary cult, emboldened Bernie bros who are still pissed off at 2016, and an upcoming void in power when the cult of Hillary takes its final death blow.

All the black mail in the world won't stop the her downfall.

I think the criticism from the leftist media is coming from libtards that are still loyal to Hillary, probably because they are or still feel pressured to do so as Hillary is really considering a run.

Hillary is really a crony capitalist in liberal clothing if you judged her by her actions, I guess what makes her "liberal" is her views on the second amendment and abortion, oh and wanting zero free speech.

So with AOC I think we are watching a person that really has swallowed the socialist kool aid, very much like Bernie Sanders in his younger age, hence she is a threat to someone that will say anything that polls high just to get into power, I think for now, we really do have a true blue socialist in AOC, but also someone who isn't in the Hillary cult, so she's deemed as a threat, so how do you deal with her without causing a major rift and risk losing the little power you have left? Well you do what the Clintons have always done, you let other people say it for you

[Daly]

i read a great piece about how women of color especially are basically torn down if they succeed but refuse to frame their success as 'the system works and everything is fine'. like if they stand up and use their position to put a spotlight on injustice they are essentially slandered as entitled/demanding/etc.

basically the playbook for all the hysterical pearl clutching being focused on her right now.

a considerable portion of which, btw, is coming from the mainstream/centerist left.

Tine

If I was to go on the record as saying I thin her and sanders are equally fucking crazy does that mean I’m not a racist or am I still racist because I don’t snap support Cortez?

[limitles]

Tine

If I was to go on the record as saying I thin her and sanders are equally fucking crazy does that mean I’m not a racist or am I still racist because I don’t snap support Cortez?

You're a racist if you support racist ideals. If you support someone who promotes said ideals then yeah you probably are a racist. Ignorance is your only out but it comes at a cost.

[Krypt]

I'm generally a very good judge of character. I was the first to callout “kilgore trout” as a total and utter fraud. I was the first to call “4Dragons” an absolute creep, while many of you were polishing his knob for substandard photoshops. Point being I know what im talking about and you shouldn’t question me.

Now with that being said, Alexandria ocasio-cortez gives me the creeps. She seems like an absolute sociopath, and this is coming from someone who is rather open-minded and liberal. It bothers me when I see a youngish politician, or any politician for that matter, pander to the lowest common denominator, a la Trump to poor whites. And yet Cortez’ policies will almost certainly damage this country much more than Trump’s policies. This country needs to continue to foster pro-capitalistic policies that promote free markets, while rooting out crony capitalists (trumps achilles heel IMO) and avoid foreign intervention when possible.

Anyways, when I see politicians begin to livestream on social media, major alarm bells begin going off in my head.

[limitles]

I'm generally a very good judge of character.
This country needs to continue to foster pro-capitalistic policies that promote free markets, while rooting out crony capitalists (trumps achilles heel IMO) and avoid foreign intervention when possible.

this is alway in the back of the mind of a capitalist with a conscience
let's keep the free market but only to a point where an elite class
cannot have rules in their favor
certainly not

well that fantasy is called regulation. Without regulation you got scum that will do whatever necessary to keep their revenue flowing regardless of the impact to society

take a look at organized crime. are they happy with regulations?

[sonatine]

Tine

If I was to go on the record as saying I thin her and sanders are equally fucking crazy does that mean I’m not a racist or am I still racist because I don’t snap support Cortez?

im not sure either of them are that crazy so im probably not the ideal target audience for this question.

i prefer sanders to her because i believe sanders has a broad spectrum understanding of what can and cant be changed and what should and should not be changed, and i think shes about 40 years from gaining that sort of clarity.

but on the other side of the aisle you literally have this shit:



so when people talk about 'damage' part of me wonders if they are worried about the tumor or the patient.

[Sanlmar]

Anyways, when I see politicians begin to livestream on social media, major alarm bells begin going off in my head.

She demonstrates a masterful use of social media. This concerns you? No shit. Trump/Parscale did the same.

Crazy plays on Facebook kid. America eats this shit up.


So, yes, you are required reading here but on this matter you are waaaay behind the curve.

Warren has that crazy look too. Look out. The Pocahontas schtick is actually well played.

[lol wow]

TINE PREFERS SANDERS BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY THE SAME AGE

[limitles]

She demonstrates a masterful use of social media. This concerns you? No shit. Trump/Parscale did the same.

Crazy plays on Facebook kid. America eats this shit up.


So, yes, you are required reading here but on this matter you are waaaay behind the curve.

Warren has that crazy look too. Look out. The Pocahontas schtick is actually well played.

Yes they did eat it up. From what I hear Facebook etc...are a lesson.
Follow that path, which the next generation is not want to do, and you do so at your own peril.

It comes down to being duped or not. No one wants to admit they've been duped but there is a long line starting in the U.S.