Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

The Juggler

Not a huge AOC fan either but at least "tax the rich" is not nearly as confusing as "defund the police." At least it is direct and to the point. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Poncier said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

criticism is healthy, but it's key to understand what and why you are criticizing. I'd like to know why it's hypocritical to go to an exclusive event and promote a message to close the economic gap? that's exactly the audience you need to reach to gain those things in society, and to get people talking. talking to poor people is all fine and dandy, understanding their problems, but if you don't promote that message to the elite, you won't get anywhere. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/style/2021/09/14/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-met-gala-designer-dress-newday-vpx.cnn

I said it was hypocritical because she was attending said event, an event strictly for the elite, so her message is tone deaf at beast and to me hypocritical. She claims to be for the little people but she's attending one of the highest profile galas for the elite.

Spreading her message is fine but spreading that message while attending the Met Gala shows me she really doesn't get it.

disagree. we wouldn't be talking about her message today had she not done this. 

that's called a successful outing. 

I disagree with this.  Success is moving the middle, not preaching to the choir..  As someone in teh middle, she didn't move me.  

you are one person in the middle. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Poncier said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

criticism is healthy, but it's key to understand what and why you are criticizing. I'd like to know why it's hypocritical to go to an exclusive event and promote a message to close the economic gap? that's exactly the audience you need to reach to gain those things in society, and to get people talking. talking to poor people is all fine and dandy, understanding their problems, but if you don't promote that message to the elite, you won't get anywhere. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/style/2021/09/14/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-met-gala-designer-dress-newday-vpx.cnn

I said it was hypocritical because she was attending said event, an event strictly for the elite, so her message is tone deaf at beast and to me hypocritical. She claims to be for the little people but she's attending one of the highest profile galas for the elite.

Spreading her message is fine but spreading that message while attending the Met Gala shows me she really doesn't get it.

disagree. we wouldn't be talking about her message today had she not done this. 

that's called a successful outing. 

I disagree with this.  Success is moving the middle, not preaching to the choir..  As someone in teh middle, she didn't move me.  

you are one person in the middle. 

And I'm very inclined to liberal arguments too.  Our local Rangers fan seems to feel the same way as me though. 

F Me In The Brain

I like her more after this, not less.
(I am not a fan of her policies, in general, but I liked this )

mickeyrat

 https://youtu.be/z5oPjR5D35w

GlowGirl

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

 https://youtu.be/z5oPjR5D35w

Best thing from this was

"so if that did happen, the media is saying that donating a bunch of money to a museum is a bad thing.  That's an interesting take."

Hahahahaha!  Killed them w that one!

tempo_n_groove

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Halifax2TheMax

400 families saw $1.4 trillion in wealth gain since 2019. I think they can swing it without missing a beat. 

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

400 families saw $1.4 trillion in wealth gain since 2019. I think they can swing it without missing a beat. 

Teh problem you have his how those families live now.  Because they have such massive assets, what they do is borrow against the assets and only draw down what is needed to pay the note on the loan.  They live on the loan.  It's very clever and prevents them from paying untold amounts of capital gains taxes.  They only have to pay it on what they use to repay the loans. 

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

400 families saw $1.4 trillion in wealth gain since 2019. I think they can swing it without missing a beat. 

My question about this, if this is the case (and it is) and if there are super wealthy people (and there are)….why the $400,000 level for taxes? Why is that the number used? Plenty of hard working real Americans in that boat. 

And I guess I don’t recall, is the $400,000 individual or total family income? 

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

400 families saw $1.4 trillion in wealth gain since 2019. I think they can swing it without missing a beat. 

Yes.  Do it in small increments or percentages.

Hobbes

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

tempo_n_groove

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

If you tax a person until they aren't rich anymore does no good for anyone.  That is pretty much communism.  You need economic diversity, yes.

The racial wealth is bad, we all know this.  Taking from someone else until they don't have it anymore won't go over well.  

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

If you tax a person until they aren't rich anymore does no good for anyone.  That is pretty much communism.  You need economic diversity, yes.

The racial wealth is bad, we all know this.  Taking from someone else until they don't have it anymore won't go over well.  

There is not one person declaring that we "should take from someone else until they don't have it anymore." At least that I know of. Maybe link to them or their statement(s), policy, etc.

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

400 families saw $1.4 trillion in wealth gain since 2019. I think they can swing it without missing a beat. 

Teh problem you have his how those families live now.  Because they have such massive assets, what they do is borrow against the assets and only draw down what is needed to pay the note on the loan.  They live on the loan.  It's very clever and prevents them from paying untold amounts of capital gains taxes.  They only have to pay it on what they use to repay the loans. 

That "loophole" needs to be closed or at the least limited. Or taxed.

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

If you tax a person until they aren't rich anymore does no good for anyone.  That is pretty much communism.  You need economic diversity, yes.

The racial wealth is bad, we all know this.  Taking from someone else until they don't have it anymore won't go over well.  

There is not one person declaring that we "should take from someone else until they don't have it anymore." At least that I know of. Maybe link to them or their statement(s), policy, etc.

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

This was what I have been referring to and quoted that I disagreed with.

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

If you tax a person until they aren't rich anymore does no good for anyone.  That is pretty much communism.  You need economic diversity, yes.

The racial wealth is bad, we all know this.  Taking from someone else until they don't have it anymore won't go over well.  

There is not one person declaring that we "should take from someone else until they don't have it anymore." At least that I know of. Maybe link to them or their statement(s), policy, etc.

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

This was what I have been referring to and quoted that I disagreed with.

well I think she was just saying it made her think of a song. she wasn't advocating for that as policy. at least that's not how I took it. 

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Hobbes said:

tempo_n_groove said:

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

I disagree w taxing them until we are all on the same playing field.  You need diversity.  Remove that and then creativity dies, corruption blossoms.

I don't see what is wrong with a 2% increase across the board on the rich though.  It's just enough to kick the bees nest and not get stung too bad.

Bit confused with your use of diversity here. Do you mean a wide range of socioeconomic status? Not sure how that promotes creativity and limits corruption. Quite the opposite, really. Wealth inequality is growing and the racial wealth divide is anything but diverse.

If you tax a person until they aren't rich anymore does no good for anyone.  That is pretty much communism.  You need economic diversity, yes.

The racial wealth is bad, we all know this.  Taking from someone else until they don't have it anymore won't go over well.  

There is not one person declaring that we "should take from someone else until they don't have it anymore." At least that I know of. Maybe link to them or their statement(s), policy, etc.

GlowGirl said:

The first thing I thought of when I saw her dress was "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years after - "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more".

This was what I have been referring to and quoted that I disagreed with.

well I think she was just saying it made her think of a song. she wasn't advocating for that as policy. at least that's not how I took it. 

Yep.  Just pointing out that I don't agree with it and letting Fax know where it all derived from.

The Juggler

Taxing until they are not rich anymore  is laughable. Come on Tempo!