Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Is Ocasio-Cortez pretending to be working class when she’s really not?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
quoting myself. Her dancing video is innocent and cute. The proposed up to 70% tax on the wealthy is scary: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/04/ocasio-cortez-70-percent-tax-1080874 |
Anonymous
Not scary at all. In fact, it used to be 94%. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489 |
Anonymous
|
Oh no, she’s doing it again! GOP heads are going to explode!!
https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1081234130841600000?s=21 |
Anonymous
“There is a lot of evidence that from an economic and fiscal perspective, we'd be way better off with top rates approaching 70. Starting with the basic fiscal implications, the best and most recent research suggests that rates around 70 percent for top earners will raise the most revenue. At 37% currently, we are leaving a lot of $$ on the table. Diamond and Saez on this: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.4.165 Trickle-downers will argue that higher taxes on the rich won't raise money because the rich will reduce their work in response, but the evidence is really clear that's not true at all at current rates. Basically, the "laffer curve" doesn't really kick in until past 70. On to the broader economic implications beyond budgetary ones. For the last 40 years, we have been cutting taxes on rich people and expecting those windfalls to eventually trickle down to everyone else. Hasn't happened, won't happen. Instead, we have incentivized the super-rich to grab a larger and larger share of the gains from overall growth. In groundbreaking research, @S_Stantcheva and co-authors show how top rate reductions lead to higher PRE-tax shares of income going to the rich. So it's not just that higher top rates raise us more money which we can use better, but they actually make the PRE-tax distribution better. In other words, raising top tax rates will mean more money in more pockets, even before we account for the revenue effects. Finally, let's talk about the economic impact of using the revenue from a much higher top tax rate to finance something like a Green New Deal. The basic question we should ask: Will the investment financed by the higher tax rates generate more good than the lower rate would? The answer here is self-evidently yes. Lower tax rates on the super-rich, as discussed above, are bad for the economy, so the higher taxes themselves are already better for the economy. But when you factor in that the revenue will be used to both combat climate change (which will have enormous, painful consequences if left unaddressed) and create new jobs and higher wages now, then it's a very clear slam dunk. Last note: There will be many on the right & in the media who will mock @AOC for calling for tax rates at 60 or 70, but they're the ones who are economically illiterate. They're basing their view on an outdated and ideological understanding of taxation, not on the best research. - Michael Linden, The Hub Project https://twitter.com/michaelslinden/status/1081214960036954112?s=21 |
Anonymous
I am not a republican who finds her immature and annoying. I don't want my country's reps to think each day is about trash talk and entertainment. She is unprofessional, eccentric (in a bad way), and dying for attention. If you think Trump is a narcissist, you should look at AOC. She's not far behind. |
Anonymous
Great, except she's not a trash talker, nor any od those other things that you listed. You must be drinking the RWNJ kool aid if you think she is. |
Anonymous
| She annoys me and seems like a flash in the pan but I have to admit that she ruffles their feathers makes me dislike her less. |
Anonymous
I can hear your belt screaming NO MORE as it tries to corral your gunt. |
Anonymous
That's your perception, which I think is off . . . but There are others who feel as I do. My friend's 17 yo daughter, who's in college, has a resume that can beat AOC's "accomplishments" - and she's polished, which is equally as important. (not exaggerating about the 17 yo, with her two FBI internships and a summer in the state's attorney office) So someone found her dancing around. OK - But providing another dance video only illustrates how she likes to fight. She's egotistical and superficial. a flash in the pan |
Anonymous
| The GOP are acting like a bunch of kindergarten boys trying to pull her pigtails. They're so in love with her that they can't stand themselves. |
Anonymous
Honestly? They really just want to hatef#ck her. I have a few Republican-leaning buddies and they are so ANNOYED that they think AOC is "hot." Because, as we saw in the dancing video, she actually is a gorgeous woman. It's so pathological to see the GOP resort to school yard bullying behavior against a first term Congress rep who, in actuality, has very little tangible political power right now. My guess is that she adeptly can play the GOP's own game (ignore critics, don't compromise, get sh#t done) and that's why they are already gunning hard for her. They are applying the Clinton and Warren media hate-machine against AOC. |
Anonymous
True, but she does take millennial narcissism to the hilt. It's kinda gross. Nose, meet grindstone: nobody wants to watch you make caramelized onions in your instapot whilst wearing your adult acne face mask. |
Anonymous
Your friend’s DD (LOL...stretch!) placed second in Intel and got herself to a good school after losing a parent? You lie. Also, dude. Be ashamed that you’re such a mental midget that you need to degrade her to try and make the failed mogul you voted for look better. Loser. |
Anonymous
Ummm. Her father died while she was a sophomore. |
Anonymous
Different poster here: Still doesn't change the fact that you're acting like a mental midget loser. Seriously. |