The real derangement syndrome, AOCDS

[s0me0nesmind1]

Actually, raising taxes on the Rich is rather popular. Not because they're evil, but because even high tax rates won't hurt their lifestyles to an appreciable degree. Because taxes are currently highly regressive at the tippy top. Because the 1% share of national income more than doubled since 1980, concentrated in the top .1%.

Raising taxes on the rich can be popular all you want. I never said otherwise.

The FACT though is that you can tax the rich as 100% (not that they would stand for that) - it STILL won't be enough to pay for our healthcare (let alone the other shit you guys get a hardon for - free college, etc.). Comprende?

 

[Triloby]

I never stated that you said such? It's a direct reference to your love affection with AoC - who has constantly advocated with statements that if we just tax the rich more we will solve all of life's problems.

Yet you somehow inferred that I was making that distinction, when I didn't. And "love affection"? Now I know for a fact that you assume too much.

The fact that I think AOC's single proposal of a 70% marginal tax rate on earnings above $10 million dollars has some merit does not imply any kind of love affection for her.

It's what you get from a typical cum dumpster that worked as a bartender her previous life. No real knowledge of facts, just illogical fallacies.

Compared to the cocksuckers in Congress and the Senate that have spent decades pushing and defending failed policies and ideas for their massive corporate overlords, I find AOC's past life experiences to be no worse than that of other Congressmen.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yet you somehow inferred that I was making that distinction.

No, I didn't. I never did. I'm sorry you're retarded and don't understand basic pronouns - yet at the same time it's not surprising seeing your intellectual level.

 

[Jhhnn]

Raising taxes on the rich can be popular all you want. I never said otherwise.

The FACT though is that you can tax the rich as 100% (not that they would stand for that) - it STILL won't be enough to pay for our healthcare (let alone the other shit you guys get a hardon for - free college, etc.). Comprende?

So what? The govt can still do more with greater revenue. It's only right that those who have gained a lot more from this society should pay a much higher tax rate than those who don't. Tax rates on our richest citizens are obscenely low.

 

[Triloby]

No, I didn't. I never did. I'm sorry you're retarded and don't understand basic pronouns - yet at the same time it's not surprising seeing your intellectual level.

Says the guy who jumped to a conclusion I never made.

But, hey, keep on putting words in my mouth. Probably not the first or last time you'll be doing that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Says the guy who jumped to a conclusion I never made.

But, hey, keep on putting words in my mouth. Probably not the first or last time you'll be doing that.

Quote me where I jumped to conclusion that you made you fucking halfwit retard.

I already stated, you don't understand basic pronouns. I NEVER DECLARED that YOU said what I stated.

I'm sorry you're retarded. Maybe one day you can do something about it. Best of luck.

 

[Triloby]

Quote me where I jumped to conclusion that you made you fucking halfwit retard.

I already stated, you don't understand basic pronouns. I NEVER DECLARED that YOU said what I stated.

I'm sorry you're retarded. Maybe one day you can do something about it. Best of luck.

What I said:

The failed sales pitches of trickle-down Reaganomics, massive tax cuts for the uber rich, allowing corporations the same rights as a person, and many other shitty policies from the old mutts in Congress have done nothing but ruined the United States on a major level. In comparison, AOC's 70% marginal tax rate on earnings above $10 million doesn't sound like the end of the world.

What you said:

How about the failed sales pitch that "If we just tax the EVIL RICH PEOPLE we will solve all of life's problems"?

You can tax rich folks at 100%, it still won't even fix our healthcare costs - let alone our countless other issues.

But keep on keeping on with the whole evil rich vs. the poor folk, I hear that argument is working REALLY WELL.

Agreeing with one tax proposal =/= taxing the rich with no exceptions will solve everything.

Keep on getting flustered over absolutely nothing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What I said:


What you said:


Agreeing with one tax proposal =/= taxing the rich with no exceptions will solve everything.

Keep on getting flustered over absolutely nothing.

Me Quoting your post is not a direct correlation to me stating you said something. Specifically when I never directly reference something that you did in fact say.

It's used as this amazing mechanism to do this called "reply". Do you know what a "reply" is?



Nevermind, you're simply too retarded for this conversation.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Where exactly did I say anything remotely close to "tax the rich and everything will be fine"? Show me.

(Protip: Don't bother, because you won't find it. I never said anything like the above in my original post.)



Again, quote me to where I said that "taxing the rich 100% will fix everything".

(Another pro-tip: I never said anything like that. But hey, good luck with finding that strawman in the first place.)

I like how they slapped an "old" reaction on your response, that was posted shortly after their post. They can't even dumbass properly.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I never stated that you said such? It's a direct reference to your love affection with AoC - who has constantly advocated with statements that if we just tax the rich more we will solve all of life's problems.

It's what you get from a typical cum dumpster that worked as a bartender her previous life. No real knowledge of facts, just illogical fallacies.

What a truly nasty little man you show yourself to be.

 

[Greenman]

The failed sales pitches of trickle-down Reaganomics, massive tax cuts for the uber rich, allowing corporations the same rights as a person, and many other shitty policies from the old mutts in Congress have done nothing but ruined the United States on a major level. In comparison, AOC's 70% marginal tax rate on earnings above $10 million doesn't sound like the end of the world.

Also, in comparison to AOC, we have the current POTUS who:

• Is a fake billionaire and failed businessman that bankrupted several of his casinos, and to whom no American bank is willing to lend money to him
• Is possibly owned and willingly manipulated by foreign (non-American) actors
• Is pushing an idiotic vanity project (BORDER WALL) that is not only ludicrously expensive to build and maintain, but horribly ineffective in its purpose and that around +60% of Americans refuse to support
• Pushes other unwarranted nonsense like massive tax cuts for the rich and powerful that will only explode and add to the national deficit
• Has virtually no real understanding of economics, foreign relations, or politics (trade wars are so easy to win, right?)
• Is trying his damnedest to obstruct and halt an FBI investigation onto him (if he's innocent, then he should let the investigation run its' course and not desperately try to stop it, right?)
• Is enabling right-wing domestic terrorism on a level almost never seen before

And probably a lot more than what I posted here. Compared to the scumbags in power, AOC seems to have far more credibility than the current POTUS and the entire GOP.

Not one single word of that address the thoughts I have on OAC and her desire to reform the US. That you hate Trump doesn't lend credence to OAC's agenda.

 

[HomerJS]

Raising taxes on the rich can be popular all you want. I never said otherwise.

The FACT though is that you can tax the rich as 100% (not that they would stand for that) - it STILL won't be enough to pay for our healthcare (let alone the other shit you guys get a hardon for - free college, etc.). Comprende?

Here's something that is NOT a strawman...

Because trickle down economics has worked so well

 

[Triloby]

Me Quoting your post is not a direct correlation to me stating you said something. Specifically when I never directly reference something that you did in fact say.

It's used as this amazing mechanism to do this called "reply". Do you know what a "reply" is?



Nevermind, you're simply too retarded for this conversation.

You quoted me, then decided to misrepresent the point that I was making in that post. You assumed that I came to a conclusion that I never stated to begin with. And now you want to throw a bitch fit over the fact that you never directly referenced something that I never said.

I know what a "reply" is. Your "reading comprehension", on the other hand, sucks.

Keep up the whinging anyway, you autistic shithead.

 

[zinfamous]

The simple reality is she's a very young freshmen congressmen that has decided to pursue fundamentally changing the united states. That's a big step. All she's produced so far is a sales pitch, and quite honestly, not a very good sales pitch in that she doesn't have any sort of actual plan beyond the outline presented.
This s a 29 year old ex bartender talking about a budget that will run into tens of trillions of dollars. It's going to take more than a few trite platitudes to sell this deal.

When Reagan and the GOP fundamentally changed the USA, leading us to the proverbial economic shithole that nearly any GOP voter will claim that we are in right now, why was that not a horrific proposition?

NO, AOC's goal is to restore the USA to what it was when it was fundamentally great, which was prior to the appearance of that prolapsed rectum, Ronald Reagan, in the national GOP sphere.

 

[blackangst1]

Raising taxes on the rich can be popular all you want. I never said otherwise.

The FACT though is that you can tax the rich as 100% (not that they would stand for that) - it STILL won't be enough to pay for our healthcare (let alone the other shit you guys get a hardon for - free college, etc.). Comprende?

The fact is, the New Green Deal is estimated to cost 93TRILLION. If we taxed ALL income over 1M at 100% it would bring in only just under 700M. Wheres the rest gonna come from?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I never stated that you said such? It's a direct reference to your love affection with AoC - who has constantly advocated with statements that if we just tax the rich more we will solve all of life's problems.

It's what you get from a typical cum dumpster that worked as a bartender her previous life. No real knowledge of facts, just illogical fallacies.

Aw, he mad.

 

[nakedfrog]

The fact is, the New Green Deal is estimated to cost 93TRILLION. If we taxed ALL income over 1M at 100% it would bring in only just under 700M. Wheres the rest gonna come from?

Source?

 

[Jaskalas]

The fact is, the New Green Deal is estimated to cost 93TRILLION. If we taxed ALL income over 1M at 100% it would bring in only just under 700M. Wheres the rest gonna come from?

1: I do not believe a fully funded social safety net would be derived from the "rich" alone.
2: If you're talking over 10 years, then that 93 trillion is 60% of American's personal income.
3: I'd want a constitutional amendment where the maximum tax rate is 50%.
4: I haven't reviewed the details of the "Green Deal", I do not know if I'd support all aspects of it.

From the initial sound bits I have on it, it sounds a bit too much old fashioned European style strings attached. I prefer to do things in a more libertarian manner, but I'll admit I don't address Global Warming in my plans, I focus entirely on return on investment for the American people. That might be where I part with this plan, but again, I'll need to review it more.

 

[ivwshane]

Source?

You want a link to his butt hole?

 

[zinfamous]

You want a link to his butt hole?

Well, it's faster than the middleman path, which is ATP&N.

 

[blackangst1]

Source?

Google and the IRS.

 

[blackangst1]

Here you lazy fucks.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

Adjusted gross income 2015 top 1%: just over 2 Trillion

Tax 100% of adjusted gross income at 100% revenue collected just over 2 trillion. No where near 93Trillion needed for the fairy princesses dream deal.

 

[ewdotson]

I'm pretty sure they were asking for a citation on the $93 trillion. Given how much the GND is more a statement of principles than anything resembling concrete policy proposals, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of anyone trying to pin a hard cost on it one way or the other.

 

[nakedfrog]

Here you lazy fucks.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

Adjusted gross income 2015 top 1%: just over 2 Trillion

Tax 100% of adjusted gross income at 100% revenue collected just over 2 trillion. No where near 93Trillion needed for the fairy princesses dream deal.

This 93 trillion number, is that a per-year value?

 

[nakedfrog]

I'm pretty sure they were asking for a citation on the $93 trillion. Given how much the GND is more a statement of principles than anything resembling concrete policy proposals, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of anyone trying to pin a hard cost on it one way or the other.

Well, gosh, that almost sounds like a downright reasonable statement right there.