Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy

[bdutton]

[/dev/null]

https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/12/why-ocasio-cortez-cant-be-wrong/

[njbuff]

Does anybody have a dollar to stuff down her G-string?

[3rdnlng]

55 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Does anybody have a dollar to stuff down her G-string?

Even folded for you.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1084829641469132801

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

BEN SHAPIRO: DEMOCRATS ARE IN LOVE WITH THE IDEA OF TAXING THE RICH MORE—IT'S ABSURD

by Ben Shapiro

 

 

It’s frequently stated that the Republican Party has a lot of ideas but only one common priority: lowering taxes. Their legislative record tends to back this depressing assessment–after two years of complete control of Congress and the White House, their main legislative achievement was yet another tax cut. As a fan of tax cuts, I’m admire that achievement. But the same GOP that promised to defund Planned Parenthood, radically increase border security, remove the regulatory burdens of Obamacare and reform the welfare state hasn’t done much of any that.

 

If the GOP’s point of commonality is its willingness to cut taxes, the Democratic Party presents the mirror image: a group of disparate interests that coincide only on the topic of raising taxes. Thus, newly-empowered Congressional Democrats have begun competing with one another to promise higher and higher tax rates. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), she of the Fresh Face™ and charming social media, has proposed a top tax rate of 70 percent for those earning over $10 million. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is running for president, has approvingly stated that the top tax rate should be above 50 percent, although she says that 90 percent would be “shockingly high.” Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who also wants to run for president, has echoed those words.

 

Democrats, in other words, are in love with the idea of a tax increase.

 

To support their arguments, Democrats generally make two points: first, that the economy worked fine in days past, when the top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are now; second, that we need the rich to spend their “fair share” on a bevy of priorities ranging from a “Green New Deal” to free college education.

 

The first point is mistaking correlation for causation. Yes, the American economy boomed in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was in excess of 70 percent. First off, that top tax rate only applied to people making a family income of more than $2 million. Far more importantly, nobody paid it

 

{snip}

 

What about the second argument—that the rich aren’t paying their fair share? That’s a simple absurdity, and a demagogic absurdity at that. America has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world: the top 1 percent of income earners paid a 27.1 percent overall individual income tax rate in 2014, over seven times the rate of those in the bottom 50 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. Their share of income was 20.6 percent; their share of federal income taxes was 39.5 percent.

 

Furthermore, simply taxing the rich won’t pay for the sort of priorities the Democrats have in mind. The Nordic countries they so adore don’t merely tax the hell out of the rich—they tax the hell out of everyone. The top tax rate in Denmark was 60 percent—and it applied to everyone earning more than $54,900 dollars. The top tax rate in Sweden was 57 percent, and applied to those making over $65,500 dollars. It’s the middle class tax rates that pay the bills in social democratic countries.

 

Sure, the Democratic spending priorities are wrong to begin with—the Green New Deal is a would-be fiasco of epic proportions, necessitating trillions in spending; free college tuition is a terrible idea, given the fact that we already have too many people going to college rather than redirecting their skills toward more profitable ends. But the Democratic addiction to high taxation, is just as wrong, and it isn’t going to solve America’s problems. It’s just going to exacerbate them.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/ben-shapiro-democrats-are-love-taxing-rich-opinion-1289849

 

 

.

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

BEN SHAPIRO: DEMOCRATS ARE IN LOVE WITH THE IDEA OF TAXING THE RICH MORE—IT'S ABSURD

by Ben Shapiro

 

 

It’s frequently stated that the Republican Party has a lot of ideas but only one common priority: lowering taxes. Their legislative record tends to back this depressing assessment–after two years of complete control of Congress and the White House, their main legislative achievement was yet another tax cut. As a fan of tax cuts, I’m admire that achievement. But the same GOP that promised to defund Planned Parenthood, radically increase border security, remove the regulatory burdens of Obamacare and reform the welfare state hasn’t done much of any that.

 

If the GOP’s point of commonality is its willingness to cut taxes, the Democratic Party presents the mirror image: a group of disparate interests that coincide only on the topic of raising taxes. Thus, newly-empowered Congressional Democrats have begun competing with one another to promise higher and higher tax rates. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), she of the Fresh Face™ and charming social media, has proposed a top tax rate of 70 percent for those earning over $10 million. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is running for president, has approvingly stated that the top tax rate should be above 50 percent, although she says that 90 percent would be “shockingly high.” Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who also wants to run for president, has echoed those words.

 

Democrats, in other words, are in love with the idea of a tax increase.

 

To support their arguments, Democrats generally make two points: first, that the economy worked fine in days past, when the top marginal tax rates were significantly higher than they are now; second, that we need the rich to spend their “fair share” on a bevy of priorities ranging from a “Green New Deal” to free college education.

 

The first point is mistaking correlation for causation. Yes, the American economy boomed in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was in excess of 70 percent. First off, that top tax rate only applied to people making a family income of more than $2 million. Far more importantly, nobody paid it

 

{snip}

 

What about the second argument—that the rich aren’t paying their fair share? That’s a simple absurdity, and a demagogic absurdity at that. America has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world: the top 1 percent of income earners paid a 27.1 percent overall individual income tax rate in 2014, over seven times the rate of those in the bottom 50 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. Their share of income was 20.6 percent; their share of federal income taxes was 39.5 percent.

 

Furthermore, simply taxing the rich won’t pay for the sort of priorities the Democrats have in mind. The Nordic countries they so adore don’t merely tax the hell out of the rich—they tax the hell out of everyone. The top tax rate in Denmark was 60 percent—and it applied to everyone earning more than $54,900 dollars. The top tax rate in Sweden was 57 percent, and applied to those making over $65,500 dollars. It’s the middle class tax rates that pay the bills in social democratic countries.

 

Sure, the Democratic spending priorities are wrong to begin with—the Green New Deal is a would-be fiasco of epic proportions, necessitating trillions in spending; free college tuition is a terrible idea, given the fact that we already have too many people going to college rather than redirecting their skills toward more profitable ends. But the Democratic addiction to high taxation, is just as wrong, and it isn’t going to solve America’s problems. It’s just going to exacerbate them.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/ben-shapiro-democrats-are-love-taxing-rich-opinion-1289849

 

 

.

 

Please put that in another thread.  This thread does it no service other than keep the idiots name popping up

[B-Man]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

Please put that in another thread.  This thread does it no service other than keep the idiots name popping up

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[boyst]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[njbuff]

I swear I lose brains cells every time I hear this exotic dancer speak.

[Nanker]

 

 

[Paulus]

4 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Please put that in another thread.  This thread does it no service other than keep the idiots name popping up

Well, some of us are in love with the "idiot."

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Paulus

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Well, some of us are in love with the "idiot."

 

It looks like she just farted but realized it wasn't a fart

[/dev/null]

19 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Well, some of us are in love with the "idiot."

 

stick your d*ck in it at your own peril, but never fall in love with cray-cray

[Paulus]

8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

It looks like she just farted but realized it wasn't a fart

Nah, she's staring you down, little mister. 

[Keukasmallies]

Let's not go all ballistic on Ms. Occasionally-Crazed, she is just carrying water for her mentor, NYC Mayor Bloomberg.  

[Paulus]

22 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

stick your d*ck in it at your own peril, but never fall in love with cray-cray

That's like saying, "don't breathe air." In order to defeat your enemy, you must love your enemy first.

[Doc]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: the girl you wish you hadn't elected to Congress.

[/dev/null]

 

[GG]

38 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

She's quite amazing pulling off a Congressional spot and coaching the Jets at the same time.  

[Doc Brown]

On 1/11/2019 at 2:03 PM, Paulus said:

I love how people just assume the dems will squash her. Do you think it is all against one? 

 

There was this republican guy they said that about.

 

Some of yall are just out of touch with outside age groups who happen to vote.

 

 

I was going to mention that. Still, don't let her trout face distract from Dizzy, the true goddess.

You guys really underestimate the power of social media, still. I don't get it. She was an IG girl, just like all these other ladies are doing. It is real enough for some of you neocons to put an hour of research into. It may prove enlightening.

She's a combination of Palin and Trump and it's awesome.  She's like Palin of the left (Democratic-socialist opposed to Tea Party leader) in which she's a talented politician that a certain group of people can relate to who is too lazy to get her facts straight and therefore is exposed.  With her social media prowess and Democratic establishment types wishing she'd just go away and Republicans trying to highlight her as the dire future of the Democratic Party....she reminds me of a 2015-2016 Trump where Republicans were helpless to stop him.  People should not underestimate her.

[Nanker]

20 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

She's a combination of Palin and Trump and it's awesome.  She's like Palin of the left (Democratic-socialist opposed to Tea Party leader) in which she's a talented politician that a certain group of people can relate to who is too lazy to get her facts straight and therefore is exposed.  With her social media prowess and Democratic establishment types wishing she'd just go away and Republicans trying to highlight her as the dire future of the Democratic Party....she reminds me of a 2015-2016 Trump where Republicans were helpless to stop him.  People should not underestimate her.

Largely agree. The best way to counter her ideas is not to ridicule her abject stupidity, but to confront her ideas head on and refute them on the merits.

 

e.g. Her 70% tax bracket proposal. She correctly says the taxes used to be at those levels in the 50s and 60s. If she’s in favor of bringing back those rates, then she should fully embrace the tax shelters and loopholes that were in place at then time. Looking forward to hearing her pontificate on the virtues of real estate depreciation et al. 

 

Also, it would be a treat to hear her explain the morality of seizing other people’s earnings in an unequal manner. Can she explain why stores don’t have “progressive” pricing for their goods and services? I’ve yet to go to a store or gas station and have the price of what I’m purchasing be tied to how much I earn that year.

 

What would she say if someone asked her “How much should Bill Gates or Barbara Streisand pay for a gallon of gas, a quarter pound of Brie, or a pound of burger?” Why aren’t they paying “their fair share” for these consumables so that other people with fewer means could be paying less for the same goods and services? 

 

Is is she in favor of movie stars having legal residency in states without state taxes in order to avoid California state taxation?  

 

Does she want to raise the corporate tax rate back up to where it used to be and drive American companies and their money back offshore? Can she explain how that would be a great win for America? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

50 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

She's a combination of Palin and Trump and it's awesome.  She's like Palin of the left (Democratic-socialist opposed to Tea Party leader) in which she's a talented politician that a certain group of people can relate to who is too lazy to get her facts straight and therefore is exposed.  With her social media prowess and Democratic establishment types wishing she'd just go away and Republicans trying to highlight her as the dire future of the Democratic Party....she reminds me of a 2015-2016 Trump where Republicans were helpless to stop him.  People should not underestimate her.

 

Oh sure, former waitress = city council member, two term mayor, oil and gas commission member, governor and VP candidate. {insert eye roll} exactly like Palin. 

 

And and the only thing she (OC) has in common with President Trump is they are both serving their first terms in a political office - she got 12k votes in her primary to secure election in a heavily Democratic district, he got 63m votes and took on the MSM, Clinton machine and deep state.

 

Totally the same. 

 

The national review talking points in this new meme are crazy.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

Largely agree. The best way to counter her ideas is not to ridicule her abject stupidity, but to confront her ideas head on and refute them on the merits.

 

e.g. Her 70% tax bracket proposal. She correctly says the taxes used to be at those levels in the 50s and 60s. If she’s in favor of bringing back those rates, then she should fully embrace the tax shelters and loopholes that were in place at then time. Looking forward to hearing her pontificate on the virtues of real estate depreciation et al. 

 

Also, it would be a treat to hear her explain the morality of seizing other people’s earnings in an unequal manner. Can she explain why stores don’t have “progressive” pricing for their goods and services? I’ve yet to go to a store or gas station and have the price of what I’m purchasing be tied to how much I earn that year.

 

What would she say if someone asked her “How much should Bill Gates or Barbara Streisand pay for a gallon of gas, a quarter pound of Brie, or a pound of burger?” Why aren’t they paying “their fair share” for these consumables so that other people with fewer means could be paying less for the same goods and services? 

 

Is is she in favor of movie stars having legal residency in states without state taxes in order to avoid California state taxation?  

 

Does she want to raise the corporate tax rate back up to where it used to be and drive American companies and their money back offshore? Can she explain how that would be a great win for America? 

 

You don't argue with ideologues, because they are true believers who can't be swayed by the introduction of new information. 

 

What you do is you savagely attack and tear down their ideology, making it so obviously unappealing to the general public that they discard the ideologue.

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

Largely agree. The best way to counter her ideas is not to ridicule her abject stupidity, but to confront her ideas head on and refute them on the merits.

 

e.g. Her 70% tax bracket proposal. She correctly says the taxes used to be at those levels in the 50s and 60s. If she’s in favor of bringing back those rates, then she should fully embrace the tax shelters and loopholes that were in place at then time. Looking forward to hearing her pontificate on the virtues of real estate depreciation et al. 

 

Also, it would be a treat to hear her explain the morality of seizing other people’s earnings in an unequal manner. Can she explain why stores don’t have “progressive” pricing for their goods and services? I’ve yet to go to a store or gas station and have the price of what I’m purchasing be tied to how much I earn that year.

 

What would she say if someone asked her “How much should Bill Gates or Barbara Streisand pay for a gallon of gas, a quarter pound of Brie, or a pound of burger?” Why aren’t they paying “their fair share” for these consumables so that other people with fewer means could be paying less for the same goods and services? 

 

Is is she in favor of movie stars having legal residency in states without state taxes in order to avoid California state taxation?  

 

Does she want to raise the corporate tax rate back up to where it used to be and drive American companies and their money back offshore? Can she explain how that would be a great win for America? 

Counter her ideology with common sense and mock her into oblivion.

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

She's a combination of Palin and Trump and it's awesome.  She's like Palin of the left (Democratic-socialist opposed to Tea Party leader) in which she's a talented politician that a certain group of people can relate to who is too lazy to get her facts straight and therefore is exposed.  With her social media prowess and Democratic establishment types wishing she'd just go away and Republicans trying to highlight her as the dire future of the Democratic Party....she reminds me of a 2015-2016 Trump where Republicans were helpless to stop him.  People should not underestimate her.

 

If only she could get every single leftist network to follow her every move at every rally and every tweet and every word and every thing she does from sun up to sun down.

 

Because that's how you got Trump.

 

She's not a 2015-2016 Trump.

 

She's Wendy Davis with nicer shoes.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by LABillzFan

[RochesterRob]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Counter her ideology with common sense and mock her into oblivion.

  Republicans should just leave her alone and in the process tear the Democrats apart.  Biden and Clinton have to be very concerned about her impact on the party.  Throw out the standard playbook of sexual harassment allegations and being tied to the old white boy network in dealing with her.  Live by the identity politics sword and now die by that same sword.  Republicans going after AOC now is going to drive the more radical members of the Democratic Party into the laps of the party leaders.  Those leaders are going to say "see how afraid the Republicans are of us so lets unite in an effort to crush them."  Let the Democrats divide into factions including those ages 18-30 who may say "screw being pragmatic for the benefit of the party.  We are going to be around for a while so lets do a controlled burn of the old wood in the party so new ideas can finally breath free."

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

If only she could get every single leftist network to follow her every move at every rally and every tweet and every word and every thing she does from sun up to sun down.

 

Because that's how you got Trump.

Oh, it's coming.  We're moving closer to idiocracy.  

[Chef Jim]

21 hours ago, Paulus said:

Well, some of us are in love with the "idiot."

 

 

How can you be in love with looks alone?  Crazy is still crazy.  

[Paulus]

41 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How can you be in love with looks alone?  Crazy is still crazy.  

I think this broad might have what it takes to be great. I could be totally off with the social media crud, though. Like, people are tuning into these IG girls taking a poop, or eating popcorn and watching a movie, or putting on socks. I know enough to know I am so very ignorant to this IG crud. It is catching on , and it annoys the hell out of me. As a single male in SoCal maybe I see this movement on the bottom rungs of the hell it is turning into. Or, perhaps I and just suffering from shellshock. But, that there, is one boss B word. I am in love with the idea of tagging along with her for the ride, man. 

[njbuff]

I think I just saw her walking into the strip joint on West Side Highway.

[RochesterRob]

20 minutes ago, njbuff said:

I think I just saw her walking into the strip joint on West Side Highway.

  Employee entrance?

[njbuff]

9 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Employee entrance?

 

Yep.

 

Short short skirt and bytch heels.

 

lol

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

I think this broad might have what it takes to be great. I could be totally off with the social media crud, though. Like, people are tuning into these IG girls taking a poop, or eating popcorn and watching a movie, or putting on socks. I know enough to know I am so very ignorant to this IG crud. It is catching on , and it annoys the hell out of me. As a single male in SoCal maybe I see this movement on the bottom rungs of the hell it is turning into. Or, perhaps I and just suffering from shellshock. But, that there, is one boss B word. I am in love with the idea of tagging along with her for the ride, man. 

 

You live in SoCal and you're in love with that nut job.  Well I guess when you refer to them as broads I can understand why you're single. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

You live in SoCal and you're in love with that nut job.  Well I guess when you refer to them as broads I can understand why you're single. 

He's so smooth.

[Paulus]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

You live in SoCal and you're in love with that nut job.  Well I guess when you refer to them as broads I can understand why you're single. 

 

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

He's so smooth.

 

I mean, I get laid pretty regularly. I'm nothing special. 

 

That said, it is pretty sad you two try and distract from the fact your heads are so far up your arses you have absolutely no idea why things smell so bad. AOC is legit.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-female-president-190114063930734.html

[Koko78]

9 minutes ago, Paulus said:

 

 

I mean, I get laid pretty regularly. I'm nothing special. 

 

That said, it is pretty sad you two try and distract from the fact your heads are so far up your arses you have absolutely no idea why things smell so bad. AOC is legit.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-female-president-190114063930734.html

 

While I appreciate their prediction that Trump will win in 2020, AOC is going to be irrelevant long before 2024. She'll be damned lucky if the Democrats don't primary her out of a job in 2020.

 

There is no way in hell she will ever connect with the moderate voters. She connects with an audience who doesn't actually vote.

[DC Tom]

28 minutes ago, Paulus said:

 

 

I mean, I get laid pretty regularly.

 

Nobody cares. 

[Paulus]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Nobody cares. 

I care, Tom. I care.