Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 219
  1. #1

    Default Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right: There should be no billionaires

    At the very least, AOC is going to change the conversation during the next decade about what America should stand for in a world increasingly governed by right wing extremists and their unthinking and morally bankrupt followers.


    As usual, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right: There should be no billionaires

    On Monday, Ocasio-Cortez attended a symposium where author Ta-Nehisi Coates asked her if it was moral to have "a world that allows for billionaires." Ocasio-Cortez swiftly said it was not. She hastened to note that individual billionaires, such as Bill Gates, may well be good people. But "a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong."

    AOC continued to hammer this point home later the same night on "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert, explaining (yet again) that her proposed 70 percent marginal income tax rate would only be on money made above the first $10 million a year -- and that a similar marginal tax rate reached 90% when Dwight Eisenhower was president.

    "Do we want to live in a city where billionaires have their own personal Uber helipads," she asked, "in the same city and same society as people who are working 80-hour weeks and can't feed their kids?"

    Read complete article at: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/22/as-...-billionaires/


    Nearly 3/4 of Democratic-leaning voters would consider AOC for president

    Freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York isn't even old enough to run for president, yet nearly three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults would consider voting for her if she could.

    A new Axios/Survey Monkey poll shows that 74 percent of Democrats and those who lean toward the party would consider voting for her if she were able to run. As is, the Constitution prevents anyone under the age of 35 from serving as president.

    Ocasio-Cortez is 29.

    Read complete article at: https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...dent/23649987/
    Last edited by Cruze; 01-23-2019 at 12:55 PM.
    #resistance


  2. #2

    Default

    Rich people bad. For God's sake, the last thing we want to do is promote the notion of people working hard to get ahead.
    - Respect is the ultimate currency

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruze View Post
    At the very least, AOC is going to change the conversation during the next decade about what America should stand for in a world increasingly governed by right wing extremists and their unthinking and morally bankrupt followers.


    As usual, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right: There should be no billionaires

    On Monday, Ocasio-Cortez attended a symposium where author Ta-Nehisi Coates asked her if it was moral to have "a world that allows for billionaires." Ocasio-Cortez swiftly said it was not. She hastened to note that individual billionaires, such as Bill Gates, may well be good people. But "a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong."

    AOC continued to hammer this point home later the same night on "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert, explaining (yet again) that her proposed 70 percent marginal income tax rate would only be on money made above the first $10 million a year -- and that a similar marginal tax rate reached 90% when Dwight Eisenhower was president.

    "Do we want to live in a city where billionaires have their own personal Uber helipads," she asked, "in the same city and same society as people who are working 80-hour weeks and can't feed their kids?"

    Read complete article at: https://www.salon.com/2019/01/22/as-...-billionaires/


    Nearly 3/4 of Democratic-leaning voters would consider AOC for president

    Freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York isn't even old enough to run for president, yet nearly three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults would consider voting for her if she could.

    A new Axios/Survey Monkey poll shows that 74 percent of Democrats and those who lean toward the party would consider voting for her if she were able to run. As is, the Constitution prevents anyone under the age of 35 from serving as president.

    Ocasio-Cortez is 29.

    Read complete article at: https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...dent/23649987/
    So you agree with her!
    How would you accomplish that?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cruze View Post
    AOC is going to change the conversation during the next decade
    Pffffft, AOCDS

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,015

    Default

    I'd love to see George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates & the Koch Bros. hand over their fortunes to the masses & have their political influence peddling shut down.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costa Rican Gopher View Post
    I'd love to see George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates & the Koch Bros. hand over their fortunes to the masses & have their political influence peddling shut down.
    I gotta say, the Koch's are the least effective influence peddlers in the world.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,015

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    I gotta say, the Koch's are the least effective influence peddlers in the world.
    They're sure working overtime against Trump & Main St. They might still get the USMCA squashed.

  8. #8

    Default

    I’d much rather see Occasional-Cortex comments on the state of Democratic Socialism in Venezuela

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norseland Store View Post
    I’d much rather see Occasional-Cortex comments on the state of Democratic Socialism in Venezuela
    It would be funny to seeher reaction and answer if after one of these statements one of the reporters was smart enough to come back with "and how has this idea been working in venezuela?"
    Who hates iowa?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    30,537
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Her response may be "what is Venezuela?" Dumb blonde jokes have met their replacement.
    Kingdom Warriors

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ogee Oglethorpe View Post
    the last thing we want to do is promote the notion of people working hard to get ahead.
    Working hard doesn't make you rich.

    Try working construction on a day like today. You wouldn't last an hour.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gophers_4life View Post
    Working hard doesn't make you rich.

    Try working construction on a day like today. You wouldn't last an hour.
    oh boy....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    12,024

    Default

    Past Republican administrations had taxes after 10 million up to 90%. Just saying.
    Aloha Mr. Hand

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tikited View Post
    Past Republican administrations had taxes after 10 million up to 90%. Just saying.
    'Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars[20]) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%.[21] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944[22] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars[23]). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments."

    I'm sure the initial pitch for the income tax was like, we'll just take 1%, that will be all the money we'll ever need. And then 5 years later, well, how about 77%?

    There's never enough money. 90% tax rates across the board wouldn't be enough money. The 'needs' are infinite. Literally.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    12,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Section2 View Post
    'Congress enacted an income tax in October 1913 as part of the Revenue Act of 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000, equivalent of $16,717,815 in 2018 dollars[20]) to finance World War I. The average rate for the rich however, was 15%.[21] The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925 and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% in 1944[22] (on income over $200,000, equivalent of $2,868,625 in 2018 dollars[23]). During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments."

    I'm sure the initial pitch for the income tax was like, we'll just take 1%, that will be all the money we'll ever need. And then 5 years later, well, how about 77%?

    There's never enough money. 90% tax rates across the board wouldn't be enough money. The 'needs' are infinite. Literally.
    "The top tax rate was above 90 percent during the 1950s, and while it has slowly descended," noted the Washington Post's Jeff Stein on Saturday, "it remained as high as 50 percent for much of President Ronald Reagan’s tenure in the 1980s."

    I would help the people freaking out about this possibility to know what had happened in the past. Then argue away.
    Aloha Mr. Hand

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •