The Democrat Utopia

[ZRod]

57 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I’ve got no examples off the top of my head. I just know I don’t like her or her politics.

Ok. So, what policies then?

[JJ Husker]

51 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Ok. So, what policies then?

The far left ones….

Defund the police

Too much leniance in the justice system, against minimum sentences.

Free college education for all

Housing as a right

 

I mean I’m pretty much on board with Medicare for all but she wants housing and college thrown in too. It’s not the government’s job to provide everything, it’s their job to provide an environment that keeps things fair so people can provide for themselves. Lots of give away plans but I haven’t seen how she plans to fund them. Everything sounds good on the surface but seems to be lacking reality.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

The far left ones….

Defund the police

Too much leniance in the justice system, against minimum sentences.

Free college education for all

Housing as a right

 

I mean I’m pretty much on board with Medicare for all but she wants housing and college thrown in too. It’s not the government’s job to provide everything, it’s their job to provide an environment that keeps things fair so people can provide for themselves. Lots of give away plans but I haven’t seen how she plans to fund them. Everything sounds good on the surface but seems to be lacking reality.

 

 

AOC has proposed a 70% top tax rate, which was based on published economic papers.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floating a 70 percent top tax rate — here’s the research that backs her up

 

I get that this isn't what you want politically, but there's a lot of "she's crazy" without much substance to it. AOC is certainly not perfect, but she's often got good explanations behind what she's doing and why.

[ZRod]

7 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The far left ones….

Defund the police

Too much leniance in the justice system, against minimum sentences.

Free college education for all

Housing as a right

 

I mean I’m pretty much on board with Medicare for all but she wants housing and college thrown in too. It’s not the government’s job to provide everything, it’s their job to provide an environment that keeps things fair so people can provide for themselves. Lots of give away plans but I haven’t seen how she plans to fund them. Everything sounds good on the surface but seems to be lacking reality.

 

 

Sounds less moronic and more of just a political disagreement.

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

AOC has proposed a 70% top tax rate, which was based on published economic papers.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floating a 70 percent top tax rate — here’s the research that backs her up

 

I get that this isn't what you want politically, but there's a lot of "she's crazy" without much substance to it. AOC is certainly not perfect, but she's often got good explanations behind what she's doing and why.

That article makes no sense.   According to it….We should have much higher tax brackets so those people who make high incomes will decide to become teachers instead?????

 

One sentence says regardless of how much money we think the  government should spend, squeeze the rich as much as possible???  
 

So a 70% fed rate, plus a state tax rate plus a city tax in many cases, plus FICA taxes leaves what?????15-20% of that income left for the person who actually earned it.   Geesh that’s enticing.  
 

Then they talk about CEO pay and how CEO’s of lower tax companies make less leaving more for lesser paid workers, without actually mentioning what makes yearly CEO pay here so high….stock options.    Getting rid of stock options here, i.e. having CEO’s make less (which doesn’t actually bother me one bit) does not leave more for lesser paid workers because they wouldn’t get the options either.   
 

If they want to make the income gap shrink from CEO level to front line worker level, enact a law that says whatever percentage a CEO gets in options, every worker in the company should get that same percentage in their pay.   Similar to health insurance at a company level.  

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The far left ones….

Defund the police

Too much leniance in the justice system, against minimum sentences.

Free college education for all

Housing as a right

 

I mean I’m pretty much on board with Medicare for all but she wants housing and college thrown in too. It’s not the government’s job to provide everything, it’s their job to provide an environment that keeps things fair so people can provide for themselves. Lots of give away plans but I haven’t seen how she plans to fund them. Everything sounds good on the surface but seems to be lacking reality.

 

 

Expanding SCOTUS 

Open borders 

Getting rid of cow farts 

getting off fossil fuels in 12 years 

She thinks ICE has a bed quota to fill with illegals captured 

She claims Medicare for all would cut Gov expenditures…..they won’t. 
she wants to ban fracking 

Green New Deal (some of what is included above)

 

Just a few off the top of my head.   Not to mention her insane questioning at times in Congressional hearings.  

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

This was my point, yet when I say it, all of a sudden it’s party over politics

It smells like party politics when you openly want a bad candidate to be nominated by the other party so it’s easier for your party to win….when you don’t even know who your nominee is. You just want your party to win. 
 

why don’t you prefer good candidates from both parties so you can have a good choice?

[Archy1221]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

It smells like party politics when you openly want a bad candidate to be nominated by the other party so it’s easier for your party to win….when you don’t even know who your nominee is. You just want your party to win. 
 

why don’t you prefer good candidates from both parties so you can have a good choice?

You should have your sense of smell looked at then.   DeSantis would be an exceptional candidate and AOC would be a disaster.  Your hatred of Trump clouds your judgement on this.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

AOC has proposed a 70% top tax rate, which was based on published economic papers.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floating a 70 percent top tax rate — here’s the research that backs her up

 

I get that this isn't what you want politically, but there's a lot of "she's crazy" without much substance to it. AOC is certainly not perfect, but she's often got good explanations behind what she's doing and why.

If you agree with the policy, it doesn’t sound crazy. 
 

Im find opposing it and thinking it’s crazy. 

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You should have your sense of smell looked at then.   DeSantis would be an exceptional candidate and AOC would be a disaster.  Your hatred of Trump clouds your judgement on this.  

No. Both disasters. And, why did you bring Trump into this?

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Sounds less moronic and more of just a political disagreement.

You’re right. Maybe just some ideas I don’t agree with. Unfortunately nowadays politically “moronic” is a very high hurdle.

[Archy1221]

Forgot about this guy….$8.5 million was a pretty good investment for the Dems.  

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That article makes no sense.   According to it….We should have much higher tax brackets so those people who make high incomes will decide to become teachers instead?????

No, it incentivizes people to choose professions other than just the highest paying ones because occupations like teaching have rewards other than just fiscal. I think it's probably a fairly minor effect, but it doesn't have anything to do with AOC having a plan for balancing taxes with spending.

 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

One sentence says regardless of how much money we think the  government should spend, squeeze the rich as much as possible???  

If you read the entire sentence it makes perfect sense (emphasis mine):

Quote

It follows that regardless of how much money we think the government should spend, we should be squeezing the richest people as much as possible to keep taxes lower on the less wealthy who will miss the money more. They then do empirical calculations that lead them to estimate that a rate of 73 percent or so would maximize revenue — higher than that and taxation becomes counterproductive because people work less.

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So a 70% fed rate, plus a state tax rate plus a city tax in many cases, plus FICA taxes leaves what?????15-20% of that income left for the person who actually earned it.   Geesh that’s enticing.  

That's not how progressive taxes work. They would only be taxed at 70% above a threshold. The rich pay the same amount of taxes as the poor on the first part of their income.

 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Then they talk about CEO pay and how CEO’s of lower tax companies make less leaving more for lesser paid workers, without actually mentioning what makes yearly CEO pay here so high….stock options.    Getting rid of stock options here, i.e. having CEO’s make less (which doesn’t actually bother me one bit) does not leave more for lesser paid workers because they wouldn’t get the options either.   

Stock options count towards income when the CEO receives them.

 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

If they want to make the income gap shrink from CEO level to front line worker level, enact a law that says whatever percentage a CEO gets in options, every worker in the company should get that same percentage in their pay.   Similar to health insurance at a company level.  

That's also an interesting idea but not really what I was talking about.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If you agree with the policy, it doesn’t sound crazy. 
 

Im find opposing it and thinking it’s crazy. 

Calling it crazy is just a lazy way of not having to think about it IMO. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that policy, but it's not at all crazy. It's actually better supported by the research than much of the policies bandied about by politicians.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Calling it crazy is just a lazy way of not having to think about it IMO. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that policy, but it's not at all crazy. It's actually better supported by the research than much of the policies bandied about by politicians.

No, I’ve thought about it thoroughly. 
 

Of its lazy, it’s because I don’t feel like explaining it to you. 
 

I don’t want her as President.  

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, I’ve thought about it thoroughly. 
 

Of its lazy, it’s because I don’t feel like explaining it to you. 
 

I don’t want her as President.  

I'm fine with you not wanting her as President. I'm mostly disappointed that in a time of people like Trump, MTG, Boebert, etc. that people call AOC crazy because of a policy she's advocating that's actually well thought out.