info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Understanding the Ocasio-Cortez phenomenon
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 11:48:07 AM2/28/19
to
I've thought about this a bit...
It's very easy to dismiss her as the archetypal "loose cannon", and in
some sense this is accurate, but the longer I think about it, the more I
think she is actually the left's counterpart of Trump.
It should be easy to recall how, for very much of the primary season,
Trump was viewed as a loud and divisive annoyance by the GOP mainstream,
and I can still recall my feeling of disorienting shock when I woke up
on the day after the 2016 election to find that he'd won.
So really, she's had the trail blazed by Trump's success, and to dismiss
both her, and her proposals, is pre-mature and short-sighted.
Functionally, the principal difference between O-C and Trump is that
whether one likes Trump or not, it's clear that he's been around the
block a few times, and has absorbed, mostly through repeated experience,
practical lessons concerning micro-economics, and from this he might be
able to infer some understanding of macro economics because the
principal difference is not conceptual so much as a matter of scale and
legal complexity.
But I venture to guess that O-C has no experience in any of these areas,
and her ideas, if any, are ideologically drive, and derived from theory
rather than empiricism.
So basically, Trump's ideas have mostly been tried before, and so
there's some idea of the results they might yield--good or bad--but for
O-C, a lot is entirely new and speculative--experimental, at least in
the context of the US.
So I'd conclude that just due to a better grounding in reality, by
repeated trial-and-error, Trump is more likely to "get it right" the
first time through than O-C is (although each seems absolutely certain
that they know everything). This does not mean that eventually O-C might
never equal or exceed Trump in basic economics; she certainly could, if
she is objective and quick on the uptake.
But I think that one would be wrong to assume that O-C is a remote
outlier. I think that you can find O-C-Lites all over the the country--I
sure can in Oregon--and this is the true meaning of the outcome of the
2018 midterm. These O-C clones are fully as radical as she is, and the
fact that they've been elected should tell us that there's a hunger
within a part of the electorate for the solutions these political
leaders espouse.
The fact that many of the proposals are either unworkable, or are likely
to yield outcomes contrary to expectations means nothing, and this is
because those who vote for the O-Cs of this nation neither know, nor
care, if the proposal is possible or not, or the details of how it might
be implemented--they just *like* the ideas the proposals represent.
We've seen this sentiment voiced, loudly, on RST, so everyone should
know what I'm talking about.
And the O-C's, representing those who are dissatisfied with the status
quo--because the basic difference between a progressive and a
conservative is level of satisfaction with the *traditional* status
quo--don't really care if the proposals work, or not, because success
would lead to satisfaction, which undercuts their political support
among the chronically dissatisfied.
It's like the situation with welfare caseworkers: if the pool of those
qualifying for assistance actually *shrinks*, their careers are
imperiled, so really, it's best if the lot of the recipients remains the
same--dependent on benefits ad infinitum.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
It's very easy to dismiss her as the archetypal "loose cannon", and in
some sense this is accurate, but the longer I think about it, the more I
think she is actually the left's counterpart of Trump.
It should be easy to recall how, for very much of the primary season,
Trump was viewed as a loud and divisive annoyance by the GOP mainstream,
and I can still recall my feeling of disorienting shock when I woke up
on the day after the 2016 election to find that he'd won.
So really, she's had the trail blazed by Trump's success, and to dismiss
both her, and her proposals, is pre-mature and short-sighted.
Functionally, the principal difference between O-C and Trump is that
whether one likes Trump or not, it's clear that he's been around the
block a few times, and has absorbed, mostly through repeated experience,
practical lessons concerning micro-economics, and from this he might be
able to infer some understanding of macro economics because the
principal difference is not conceptual so much as a matter of scale and
legal complexity.
But I venture to guess that O-C has no experience in any of these areas,
and her ideas, if any, are ideologically drive, and derived from theory
rather than empiricism.
So basically, Trump's ideas have mostly been tried before, and so
there's some idea of the results they might yield--good or bad--but for
O-C, a lot is entirely new and speculative--experimental, at least in
the context of the US.
So I'd conclude that just due to a better grounding in reality, by
repeated trial-and-error, Trump is more likely to "get it right" the
first time through than O-C is (although each seems absolutely certain
that they know everything). This does not mean that eventually O-C might
never equal or exceed Trump in basic economics; she certainly could, if
she is objective and quick on the uptake.
But I think that one would be wrong to assume that O-C is a remote
outlier. I think that you can find O-C-Lites all over the the country--I
sure can in Oregon--and this is the true meaning of the outcome of the
2018 midterm. These O-C clones are fully as radical as she is, and the
fact that they've been elected should tell us that there's a hunger
within a part of the electorate for the solutions these political
leaders espouse.
The fact that many of the proposals are either unworkable, or are likely
to yield outcomes contrary to expectations means nothing, and this is
because those who vote for the O-Cs of this nation neither know, nor
care, if the proposal is possible or not, or the details of how it might
be implemented--they just *like* the ideas the proposals represent.
We've seen this sentiment voiced, loudly, on RST, so everyone should
know what I'm talking about.
And the O-C's, representing those who are dissatisfied with the status
quo--because the basic difference between a progressive and a
conservative is level of satisfaction with the *traditional* status
quo--don't really care if the proposals work, or not, because success
would lead to satisfaction, which undercuts their political support
among the chronically dissatisfied.
It's like the situation with welfare caseworkers: if the pool of those
qualifying for assistance actually *shrinks*, their careers are
imperiled, so really, it's best if the lot of the recipients remains the
same--dependent on benefits ad infinitum.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Calimero
Feb 28, 2019, 1:30:24 PM2/28/19
to
While the orange clown is a clown but smart.
Max
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 1:44:09 PM2/28/19
to
O-C is a disgruntled liberal arts grad, it seems like. She could even be
smart--real smart--but intellectual potential, alone, means little.
She's pretty clearly an ideologue, too. With an ego bigger than the
great outdoors...
...in that regard, also like the orange clown.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
reilloc
Feb 28, 2019, 3:56:26 PM2/28/19
to
On 2/28/2019 10:48 AM, Sawfish wrote:
> I've thought about this a bit...
Why wasn't that good enough for you? In fact, why does anybody need to
> I've thought about this a bit...
know about anything that's flitted across the Future Site of Alzheimer
Acres that's inside your skull? You never have anything new or
interesting to say. Nobody wants to know how things look to you or feel
to you or the messy hash you make of facts run through the blender that
is your life experience. For somebody as old as you are you have all the
insight of a mayfly into the brevity of its existence.
Go back in a minute (the duration of your attention span) or an hour or
day or week and re-read the drivel you wrote that I've mercifully
deleted and then tell us whether you think you wrote it or that it was
some other superannuated fart who hijacked your laptop.
LNC
reilloc
Feb 28, 2019, 3:56:54 PM2/28/19
to
fill up the two minutes after I read something particularly idiotic--but
I always discard the draft.
Well, I certainly regret the lapse in routine. Yes, I'm annoyed at myself.
Since it's already happened, though, what's the verdict? Your writing or
the result of possession by the ghost of Nathan Bedford Forrest?
LNC
TT
Feb 28, 2019, 4:03:58 PM2/28/19
to
are many young very liberal women who usually are with the Green Party.
I figured that young women vote them & young people in generel,
university students & such.
As for AOC herself, I think Young Turks has helped her "very
tremendously". Wonder if she pays the fuckers.
TT
Feb 28, 2019, 4:12:44 PM2/28/19
to
reilloc kirjoitti 28.2.2019 klo 22:56:
> On 2/28/2019 2:56 PM, reilloc wrote:
>> On 2/28/2019 10:48 AM, Sawfish wrote:
>>> I've thought about this a bit...
>>
>> Why wasn't that good enough for you? In fact, why does anybody need to
>> know about anything that's flitted across the Future Site of Alzheimer
>> Acres that's inside your skull? You never have anything new or
>> interesting to say. Nobody wants to know how things look to you or
>> feel to you or the messy hash you make of facts run through the
>> blender that is your life experience. For somebody as old as you are
>> you have all the insight of a mayfly into the brevity of its existence.
>>
>> Go back in a minute (the duration of your attention span) or an hour
>> or day or week and re-read the drivel you wrote that I've mercifully
>> deleted and then tell us whether you think you wrote it or that it was
>> some other superannuated fart who hijacked your laptop.
>>
>> LNC
>>
>
> OMG. Did I really hit "send?" Sometimes I write these things just to
> fill up the two minutes after I read something particularly idiotic--but
> I always discard the draft.
>
Man, you must be REALLY bored.
> On 2/28/2019 2:56 PM, reilloc wrote:
>> On 2/28/2019 10:48 AM, Sawfish wrote:
>>> I've thought about this a bit...
>>
>> Why wasn't that good enough for you? In fact, why does anybody need to
>> know about anything that's flitted across the Future Site of Alzheimer
>> Acres that's inside your skull? You never have anything new or
>> interesting to say. Nobody wants to know how things look to you or
>> feel to you or the messy hash you make of facts run through the
>> blender that is your life experience. For somebody as old as you are
>> you have all the insight of a mayfly into the brevity of its existence.
>>
>> Go back in a minute (the duration of your attention span) or an hour
>> or day or week and re-read the drivel you wrote that I've mercifully
>> deleted and then tell us whether you think you wrote it or that it was
>> some other superannuated fart who hijacked your laptop.
>>
>> LNC
>>
>
> OMG. Did I really hit "send?" Sometimes I write these things just to
> fill up the two minutes after I read something particularly idiotic--but
> I always discard the draft.
>
> Well, I certainly regret the lapse in routine. Yes, I'm annoyed at myself.
>
Hey Guys
Feb 28, 2019, 9:25:28 PM2/28/19
to
70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success. That’s a tested policy.
Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 10:03:21 PM2/28/19
to
On 2/28/19 6:25 PM, Hey Guys wrote:
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success.
Respectfully, HG, I's ask you to consider the top brac ket you are in
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success.
currently, and if you'd like to see that doubled, perhaps. Not whether
you could pay it, bit how well you'd like it, year after year.
What would you expect to see in exchange for this increase? What might
you expect to see that others, but not you, might benefit from, and also
what you might see that would be of direct benefit to you?
I'm not trying to force an answer, but would ask that you honestly think
about this. Please do not fall in the facile idea that you're not paying
a high rate, but are certain that you'd not mind it if you made more money.
This is very easy to say to justify taking other people's money/
> That’s a tested policy.
income, and college educations, as I recall.
>
> Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
>
--
> Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Barbecue grills on fire behind the condominiums that line the 9th fairway. I watched casual strollers slip on dog excrement on the boardwalk near the amusement pier. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time for lunch."
--Sawfish
Hey Guys
Feb 28, 2019, 10:26:22 PM2/28/19
to
Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
Hey Guys
Feb 28, 2019, 10:35:03 PM2/28/19
to
Even Fox News polls show majority support for her tax policy.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjo5IWMgeDgAhUOh-AKHd0FBbcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fmost-voters-support-70-percent-tax-hike-on-richest-americans-poll&psig=AOvVaw0frLA2FVsJTICksQ5G7-8H&ust=1551497600497136
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjo5IWMgeDgAhUOh-AKHd0FBbcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fmost-voters-support-70-percent-tax-hike-on-richest-americans-poll&psig=AOvVaw0frLA2FVsJTICksQ5G7-8H&ust=1551497600497136
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 10:42:34 PM2/28/19
to
On 2/28/19 7:26 PM, Hey Guys wrote:
> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>
> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did,
Since I responded directly to your *quoted* points it's hard to see how
> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>
> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did,
I changed the subject, HG. I don't know how more on-topic than
that--direct responses to your quoted, unaltered points.
> but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
>
> Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
>
> Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 11:09:41 PM2/28/19
to
On 2/28/19 7:35 PM, Hey Guys wrote:
> Even Fox News polls show majority support for her tax policy.
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjo5IWMgeDgAhUOh-AKHd0FBbcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fmost-voters-support-70-percent-tax-hike-on-richest-americans-poll&psig=AOvVaw0frLA2FVsJTICksQ5G7-8H&ust=1551497600497136
Well, I'm going to surmise that few of the 59% who favor it expect to
> Even Fox News polls show majority support for her tax policy.
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjo5IWMgeDgAhUOh-AKHd0FBbcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fmost-voters-support-70-percent-tax-hike-on-richest-americans-poll&psig=AOvVaw0frLA2FVsJTICksQ5G7-8H&ust=1551497600497136
pay any part of it. It's a classic case of how easy it is to spend other
people's money.
Let's do a hypothetical.
Currently, people making 10M are in the 37% bracket. The proposal that
59% of the people support would not quite double it, to 70%.
Or, as O-C so succinctly tells an interviewer:
“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your ten millionth, sometimes
you see tax rates as high as 60 percent or 70 percent. That doesn’t mean
all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that
as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-floats-70-percent-tax-on-top-earners-to-fund-green-new-deal
So it appears to be fairly vague at this point.
Let's assume that whatever bracket you're in currently, in order to have
the 37% bracket raised to 70% (89% increase), your top bracket would
increase by 45%.
So if you're in the 12% bracket, you'd now pay 17.4%; if in the 22%
bracket, it would be 31.9%; if 24% 34.8%; if 32%, then 46.4%.
Of course those now in the top income bracket, 37%, would go to 70%.
Fair? If not, why not?
Now, this assume that their income is all some form of earned income:
they were paid 10M, e.g., for services, or from passive investments. But
many people in the upper ranges of income derive their income from cap
gains. I assume that you know this, and that cap gains rates are not the
same as earned income brackets we've been talking about. The maximum
rate for cap gains is 20%. This is NOT the same as the income brackets
that everyone is talking about, so raising the top bracket from 37 to 70
would not affect the cap gains rate.
You know this already, right? Do you suppose that O-C does? Does she
make direct mention of it when she calls for a 70% top rate?
Pelle Svanslös
Mar 1, 2019, 12:25:20 AM3/1/19
to
On 28/02/2019 22.56, reilloc wrote:
> On 2/28/2019 2:56 PM, reilloc wrote:
>> On 2/28/2019 10:48 AM, Sawfish wrote:
>>> I've thought about this a bit...
>>
>> Why wasn't that good enough for you? In fact, why does anybody need to
>> know about anything that's flitted across the Future Site of Alzheimer
>> Acres that's inside your skull? You never have anything new or
>> interesting to say. Nobody wants to know how things look to you or
>> feel to you or the messy hash you make of facts run through the
>> blender that is your life experience. For somebody as old as you are
>> you have all the insight of a mayfly into the brevity of its existence.
>>
>> Go back in a minute (the duration of your attention span) or an hour
>> or day or week and re-read the drivel you wrote that I've mercifully
>> deleted and then tell us whether you think you wrote it or that it was
>> some other superannuated fart who hijacked your laptop.
>>
>> LNC
>>
>
> OMG. Did I really hit "send?" Sometimes I write these things just to
> fill up the two minutes after I read something particularly idiotic--but
> I always discard the draft.
Lol. It was a good post!
> On 2/28/2019 2:56 PM, reilloc wrote:
>> On 2/28/2019 10:48 AM, Sawfish wrote:
>>> I've thought about this a bit...
>>
>> Why wasn't that good enough for you? In fact, why does anybody need to
>> know about anything that's flitted across the Future Site of Alzheimer
>> Acres that's inside your skull? You never have anything new or
>> interesting to say. Nobody wants to know how things look to you or
>> feel to you or the messy hash you make of facts run through the
>> blender that is your life experience. For somebody as old as you are
>> you have all the insight of a mayfly into the brevity of its existence.
>>
>> Go back in a minute (the duration of your attention span) or an hour
>> or day or week and re-read the drivel you wrote that I've mercifully
>> deleted and then tell us whether you think you wrote it or that it was
>> some other superannuated fart who hijacked your laptop.
>>
>> LNC
>>
>
> OMG. Did I really hit "send?" Sometimes I write these things just to
> fill up the two minutes after I read something particularly idiotic--but
> I always discard the draft.
The Iceberg
Mar 1, 2019, 3:24:43 AM3/1/19
to
The Iceberg
Mar 1, 2019, 3:36:00 AM3/1/19
to
it's definitely not the case in the UK(not even free colleges since the late 90's). Larger nations with immigration cannot sustain it.
It good she has an idea for making the USA a better place though, that is like Trump too and very unlike zero-policy Hillary and the rest of the demorats like Pelle etc.
Sawfish
Mar 1, 2019, 9:29:16 AM3/1/19
to
proposals.
Now, at least they're out there. They can be explored openly, which is
unlike the way a lot of posters here, who tend to support O-C, waltz
away from any possible commitment, using instead their energies in a
purely negative critique, with no clear idea of any concrete replacement
programs.
Some of her stuff might be doable and useful. We'll need to examine the
proposals and try to flesh them out.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*skriptis
Mar 1, 2019, 9:55:31 AM3/1/19
to
Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
that we find so much about him or her.
So she interested in waging a race war and advocates replacement
of European population in the US. Open borders. Even claimed
Hispanics are indigenous so they have a right to enter USA in
numbers as much as they see fit. And finally she even used
environment as a pretext and said that you should not have kids
to help reduce CO2. The goal of all of it?
That permanently disqualifies her in my book, regardless of what
she might say eventually on some other issues.
Who cares about taxes 2% up or down if she's plotting how to take
over your country and commit a genocide?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> On 3/1/19 12:35 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 March 2019 03:26:22 UTC, Hey Guys wrote:
>>> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
>>>
>>> Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
>>>
>>> Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
>> WHERE does universal healthcare AND free college tuition still happen? along with closing every coal and natural gas power plant in that country?
>> it's definitely not the case in the UK(not even free colleges since the late 90's). Larger nations with immigration cannot sustain it.
>>
>> It good she has an idea for making the USA a better place though, that is like Trump too and very unlike zero-policy Hillary and the rest of the demorats like Pelle etc.
>
> I agree about the positive aspects of O-C making at least a set of clear
> proposals.
>
> Now, at least they're out there. They can be explored openly, which is
> unlike the way a lot of posters here, who tend to support O-C, waltz
> away from any possible commitment, using instead their energies in a
> purely negative critique, with no clear idea of any concrete replacement
> programs.
>
> Some of her stuff might be doable and useful. We'll need to examine the
> proposals and try to flesh them out.
AOC claimed Trump is racist. When a person says something like
>> On Friday, 1 March 2019 03:26:22 UTC, Hey Guys wrote:
>>> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
>>>
>>> Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
>>>
>>> Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
>> WHERE does universal healthcare AND free college tuition still happen? along with closing every coal and natural gas power plant in that country?
>> it's definitely not the case in the UK(not even free colleges since the late 90's). Larger nations with immigration cannot sustain it.
>>
>> It good she has an idea for making the USA a better place though, that is like Trump too and very unlike zero-policy Hillary and the rest of the demorats like Pelle etc.
>
> I agree about the positive aspects of O-C making at least a set of clear
> proposals.
>
> Now, at least they're out there. They can be explored openly, which is
> unlike the way a lot of posters here, who tend to support O-C, waltz
> away from any possible commitment, using instead their energies in a
> purely negative critique, with no clear idea of any concrete replacement
> programs.
>
> Some of her stuff might be doable and useful. We'll need to examine the
> proposals and try to flesh them out.
that we find so much about him or her.
So she interested in waging a race war and advocates replacement
of European population in the US. Open borders. Even claimed
Hispanics are indigenous so they have a right to enter USA in
numbers as much as they see fit. And finally she even used
environment as a pretext and said that you should not have kids
to help reduce CO2. The goal of all of it?
That permanently disqualifies her in my book, regardless of what
she might say eventually on some other issues.
Who cares about taxes 2% up or down if she's plotting how to take
over your country and commit a genocide?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Calimero
Mar 1, 2019, 1:02:40 PM3/1/19
to
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 3:25:28 AM UTC+1, Hey Guys wrote:
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success. That’s a tested policy.
>
With tons of possible deductions which aren't in place anymore today.
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success. That’s a tested policy.
>
Max
Manco
Mar 1, 2019, 1:23:18 PM3/1/19
to
It's easy to be a socialist radical from that district. What will be interesting is if AOC can 'primary' moderate Democrats i 2020. She's already threatening them. We will see if she's more bark than bite.
Manco
Mar 1, 2019, 1:24:57 PM3/1/19
to
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 6:25:28 PM UTC-8, Hey Guys wrote:
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success. That’s a tested policy.
>
> Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
The only way to raise real tax revenue is hike the rates on people making $100-$250K a year. That's because the real wealthy people know how to hide their income & assets from the IRS. You can pretend you will 'eat the rich' but it can't happen in today's global world. The rich will just flee to various enclaves like Singapore, Duabi, Macau.
> 70% marginal tax rates were in place much of the 20th century, with great success. That’s a tested policy.
>
> Most of her other proposed policies are already in place in other countries.
Sawfish
Mar 1, 2019, 1:41:38 PM3/1/19
to
optimize taxes, legally.
Many actually think that avoiding taxes solely the province of the very
wealthy--and there are a lot more avenues available to those in the
upper reaches of income--5M per year, or higher.
But for a relatively regular person like myself, there are these
"loopholes":
1) mortgage interest deduction (now limited by the new tax laws);
2) 1031 like kind exchange for income property (Means you can avoid cap
gains indefinitely by reinvesting like-kind properties within certain
parameters)
3) Roth, or Roth conversions for retirement accounts.
Probably there are others I'm unaware of.
Calimero
Mar 1, 2019, 1:50:19 PM3/1/19
to
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 7:23:18 PM UTC+1, Manco wrote:
> It's easy to be a socialist radical from that district. What will be interesting is if AOC can 'primary' moderate Democrats i 2020. She's already threatening them. We will see if she's more bark than bite.
Occasional-Cortex should be primaried.
> It's easy to be a socialist radical from that district. What will be interesting is if AOC can 'primary' moderate Democrats i 2020. She's already threatening them. We will see if she's more bark than bite.
But wait - better not. She is the gift that keeps on giving. With her help Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania could be kept in line.
Max
Calimero
Mar 1, 2019, 1:51:04 PM3/1/19
to
Max
Manco
Mar 1, 2019, 10:55:18 PM3/1/19
to
Occasional Cortex... LOL I actually came up with that one myself before I heard Michael Savage say it and others too. She really is that stupid.
reilloc
Mar 1, 2019, 11:08:02 PM3/1/19
to
On 3/1/2019 9:55 PM, Manco wrote:
> Occasional Cortex... LOL I actually came up with that one myself before I heard Michael Savage say it and others too. She really is that stupid.
>
Chad told me Stacey sez you lie, monkoboy.
> Occasional Cortex... LOL I actually came up with that one myself before I heard Michael Savage say it and others too. She really is that stupid.
>
LNC
bob
Mar 2, 2019, 9:39:46 AM3/2/19
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:48:04 -0800, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
absolutely.
main difference being 1 is a billionaire businessman (like him or
not), the other a 20 something unaccomplished waitress.
bob
wrote:
>I've thought about this a bit...
>
>I've thought about this a bit...
>
>It's very easy to dismiss her as the archetypal "loose cannon", and in
>some sense this is accurate, but the longer I think about it, the more I
>think she is actually the left's counterpart of Trump.
absolutely. i discussed this a while back with friends. in mannerisms,
>some sense this is accurate, but the longer I think about it, the more I
>think she is actually the left's counterpart of Trump.
absolutely.
main difference being 1 is a billionaire businessman (like him or
not), the other a 20 something unaccomplished waitress.
bob
Mar 2, 2019, 9:42:38 AM3/2/19
to
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 10:23:16 -0800 (PST), Manco <musef...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>It's easy to be a socialist radical from that district. What will be interesting is if AOC can 'primary' moderate Democrats i 2020. She's already threatening them. We will see if she's more bark than bite.
she better enjoy her 2 yrs.
bob
wrote:
>It's easy to be a socialist radical from that district. What will be interesting is if AOC can 'primary' moderate Democrats i 2020. She's already threatening them. We will see if she's more bark than bite.
bob
bob
Mar 2, 2019, 4:59:02 PM3/2/19
to
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 06:29:09 -0800, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 3/1/19 12:35 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 March 2019 03:26:22 UTC, Hey Guys wrote:
>>> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
>>>
>>> Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
>>>
>>> Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
>> WHERE does universal healthcare AND free college tuition still happen? along with closing every coal and natural gas power plant in that country?
>> it's definitely not the case in the UK(not even free colleges since the late 90's). Larger nations with immigration cannot sustain it.
>>
>> It good she has an idea for making the USA a better place though, that is like Trump too and very unlike zero-policy Hillary and the rest of the demorats like Pelle etc.
>
>I agree about the positive aspects of O-C making at least a set of clear
>proposals.
>
>Now, at least they're out there. They can be explored openly, which is
>unlike the way a lot of posters here, who tend to support O-C, waltz
>away from any possible commitment, using instead their energies in a
>purely negative critique, with no clear idea of any concrete replacement
>programs.
>
>Some of her stuff might be doable and useful. We'll need to examine the
>proposals and try to flesh them out.
she's just mimicking bernie, just need to look at everything he said 2
yrs ago.
bob
wrote:
>On 3/1/19 12:35 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 March 2019 03:26:22 UTC, Hey Guys wrote:
>>> Your basic premise was AOC ideas are based on theory and not empiricism. That’s incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are welcomed to change the subject as you did, but it doesn’t change the fact that your premise is wrong.
>>>
>>> Not to mention progressive policies are popular in the US...more popular than conservative policies.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwillfiV_d_gAhXym-AKHextBRkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2019%2F02%2F26%2Fdemocratic-party-centrism-aoc-sanders-warren%2F&psig=AOvVaw2FyWpG0P-bpVVuE5vkVllb&ust=1551496547504732
>>>
>>> Very little of what AOC is proposing is “crazy” or “out there.” Most are policies already in place in countries throughout the world, such as Canada and Germany. You can’t get more empirical than that.
>> WHERE does universal healthcare AND free college tuition still happen? along with closing every coal and natural gas power plant in that country?
>> it's definitely not the case in the UK(not even free colleges since the late 90's). Larger nations with immigration cannot sustain it.
>>
>> It good she has an idea for making the USA a better place though, that is like Trump too and very unlike zero-policy Hillary and the rest of the demorats like Pelle etc.
>
>I agree about the positive aspects of O-C making at least a set of clear
>proposals.
>
>Now, at least they're out there. They can be explored openly, which is
>unlike the way a lot of posters here, who tend to support O-C, waltz
>away from any possible commitment, using instead their energies in a
>purely negative critique, with no clear idea of any concrete replacement
>programs.
>
>Some of her stuff might be doable and useful. We'll need to examine the
>proposals and try to flesh them out.
yrs ago.
bob
0 new messages