Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on political influence of money

Page 5 of 20 [ 306 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

13 Feb 2019, 6:22 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
The media whipped up such hysteria and people like Kathy Griffin were pleading for the kid's address to be made public and there are left wing thugs looking for the poor kid. That's the insane media.


Nobody in the media defended what Eric Cartman would call, "black a$$holes," and in fact pointed that out that they had instigated trouble with the kids.
He was more than a little inch away from the kids ears.
The media in fact went on to explain the misunderstanding.


The media had to do a bunch of retracting and correcting when more than just their cherry picked clip became available... after it had whipped the public up into a frenzy. What Phillips did is inexcusable, he was way too close and way too loud. It wasn't a big deal, but he was still in the wrong.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Feb 2019, 6:40 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
The media whipped up such hysteria and people like Kathy Griffin were pleading for the kid's address to be made public and there are left wing thugs looking for the poor kid. That's the insane media.


Nobody in the media defended what Eric Cartman would call, "black a$$holes," and in fact pointed that out that they had instigated trouble with the kids.
He was more than a little inch away from the kids ears.
The media in fact went on to explain the misunderstanding.


The media had to do a bunch of retracting and correcting when more than just their cherry picked clip became available... after it had whipped the public up into a frenzy. What Phillips did is inexcusable, he was way too close and way too loud. It wasn't a big deal, but he was still in the wrong.


The mainstream media corrected their mistake when the full story was known.
Philips trying to diffuse the situation was inexcusable? It hardly worked out the way he had wanted, but the right wing media, including Fox, had no business vilifying him like that.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

13 Feb 2019, 6:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trump is no Robin Hood, and it's hardly big government taking from ordinary people, but rather, that's the actions of business.
As for your charge that it's only theory that the ultra-wealthy don't reinvest their tax cut refunds, or that Trump had no intention of following through with better health care: no, it's absolutely true.


So that big chunk taken out of each paycheck that says "taxes" is the action of business and not government?
The ultra-wealthy are the 1%. what about the other 79% of earners who shoulder the majority of the tax burden?
I'm sure you believe in what you say, but I'd like to do some fact checking anyways.


That chunk the government takes out of paychecks fuels social security, unemployment, etc, which Americans rely on.
The 1% have far more financial resources than the 79%, and can afford to be parted with what taxes they should pay. And yet, it's that 1% that pays little or no taxes, leaving the burden on everyone else.


That chunk is still being taken out. The 79% are still paying plenty. Since the 1% pay little or no taxes anyways, what difference does it make?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

13 Feb 2019, 6:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
The media whipped up such hysteria and people like Kathy Griffin were pleading for the kid's address to be made public and there are left wing thugs looking for the poor kid. That's the insane media.


Nobody in the media defended what Eric Cartman would call, "black a$$holes," and in fact pointed that out that they had instigated trouble with the kids.
He was more than a little inch away from the kids ears.
The media in fact went on to explain the misunderstanding.


The media had to do a bunch of retracting and correcting when more than just their cherry picked clip became available... after it had whipped the public up into a frenzy. What Phillips did is inexcusable, he was way too close and way too loud. It wasn't a big deal, but he was still in the wrong.


The mainstream media corrected their mistake when the full story was known.
Philips trying to diffuse the situation was inexcusable? It hardly worked out the way he had wanted, but the right wing media, including Fox, had no business vilifying him like that.


Their misinformation was too clearly exposed, that time. How is marching up to someone yelling and banging a drum in their face a defusing method?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Feb 2019, 7:38 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trump is no Robin Hood, and it's hardly big government taking from ordinary people, but rather, that's the actions of business.
As for your charge that it's only theory that the ultra-wealthy don't reinvest their tax cut refunds, or that Trump had no intention of following through with better health care: no, it's absolutely true.


So that big chunk taken out of each paycheck that says "taxes" is the action of business and not government?
The ultra-wealthy are the 1%. what about the other 79% of earners who shoulder the majority of the tax burden?
I'm sure you believe in what you say, but I'd like to do some fact checking anyways.


That chunk the government takes out of paychecks fuels social security, unemployment, etc, which Americans rely on.
The 1% have far more financial resources than the 79%, and can afford to be parted with what taxes they should pay. And yet, it's that 1% that pays little or no taxes, leaving the burden on everyone else.


That chunk is still being taken out. The 79% are still paying plenty. Since the 1% pay little or no taxes anyways, what difference does it make?


Every American not at the pinnacle of wealth depends on that chunk taken out after retirement, or due to disability, illness, injury, etc. How is it a good idea to not take any of that out?
What difference does it make that the 1% pay no taxes? Are you serious? They are in a position where they can part with part of their income, and still not suffer any ill effects due to it. Taxing the rich would help take the burden off of the rest of America that Trump and Republicans give lip service to caring about.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

13 Feb 2019, 8:12 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
My point about the tax cuts is that the great bulk of it went to those so wealthy that they hardly needed a cut. Despite the trickle down theory of the rich reinvesting those tax cuts into their businesses, most just keep that money out of circulation by hoarding it in savings accounts. As those rich people will probably never even use that money, it might as well be non-existent.


That sounds like a theory. I'd be interested in seeing some actual figures and so on.


How is a theory vs. plain as day objective reality? :?

For at least the last couple hundred years rich people have been lying to poor people telling them if they keep more of their wealth it'll be better for poor people because they'll use it intelligently to create more opportunities for poor people... and then they almost never follow through on that and simply enrich themselves further. Why poor people have believed this BS for so long I have no idea, but they have and that's part of how we're in the mess we're in now.

Same for the rest of his post. $ sitting in accounts not being invested in jobs, productivity/automation, research & development etc etc - $ just sitting there is doing nothing for anyone. It's simply been removed from the financial system and hoarded so someone can have the title of Billionaire.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

13 Feb 2019, 8:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trump is no Robin Hood, and it's hardly big government taking from ordinary people, but rather, that's the actions of business.
As for your charge that it's only theory that the ultra-wealthy don't reinvest their tax cut refunds, or that Trump had no intention of following through with better health care: no, it's absolutely true.


So that big chunk taken out of each paycheck that says "taxes" is the action of business and not government?
The ultra-wealthy are the 1%. what about the other 79% of earners who shoulder the majority of the tax burden?
I'm sure you believe in what you say, but I'd like to do some fact checking anyways.


That chunk the government takes out of paychecks fuels social security, unemployment, etc, which Americans rely on.
The 1% have far more financial resources than the 79%, and can afford to be parted with what taxes they should pay. And yet, it's that 1% that pays little or no taxes, leaving the burden on everyone else.


That chunk is still being taken out. The 79% are still paying plenty. Since the 1% pay little or no taxes anyways, what difference does it make?


Every American not at the pinnacle of wealth depends on that chunk taken out after retirement, or due to disability, illness, injury, etc. How is it a good idea to not take any of that out?
What difference does it make that the 1% pay no taxes? Are you serious? They are in a position where they can part with part of their income, and still not suffer any ill effects due to it. Taxing the rich would help take the burden off of the rest of America that Trump and Republicans give lip service to caring about.


It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Feb 2019, 8:23 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trump is no Robin Hood, and it's hardly big government taking from ordinary people, but rather, that's the actions of business.
As for your charge that it's only theory that the ultra-wealthy don't reinvest their tax cut refunds, or that Trump had no intention of following through with better health care: no, it's absolutely true.


So that big chunk taken out of each paycheck that says "taxes" is the action of business and not government?
The ultra-wealthy are the 1%. what about the other 79% of earners who shoulder the majority of the tax burden?
I'm sure you believe in what you say, but I'd like to do some fact checking anyways.


That chunk the government takes out of paychecks fuels social security, unemployment, etc, which Americans rely on.
The 1% have far more financial resources than the 79%, and can afford to be parted with what taxes they should pay. And yet, it's that 1% that pays little or no taxes, leaving the burden on everyone else.


That chunk is still being taken out. The 79% are still paying plenty. Since the 1% pay little or no taxes anyways, what difference does it make?


Every American not at the pinnacle of wealth depends on that chunk taken out after retirement, or due to disability, illness, injury, etc. How is it a good idea to not take any of that out?
What difference does it make that the 1% pay no taxes? Are you serious? They are in a position where they can part with part of their income, and still not suffer any ill effects due to it. Taxing the rich would help take the burden off of the rest of America that Trump and Republicans give lip service to caring about.


It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


I've noticed that.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

13 Feb 2019, 8:43 pm

goldfish21 wrote:
It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


What I said is that if the 1% pay little to no tax, what difference does it make if they get a tax cut?

Whereas a tax cut makes big difference to the 79%.



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

13 Feb 2019, 9:26 pm

EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


What I said is that if the 1% pay little to no tax, what difference does it make if they get a tax cut?

Whereas a tax cut makes big difference to the 79%.


They pay very little in taxes largely because of tax cuts, why should they get even more breaks?

Here’s a good article on what trump’s tax cuts cost.. bottom line: at Least $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That’s what difference it makes if they get a tax cut.

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trum ... ts-4586645


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

14 Feb 2019, 12:32 am

goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


What I said is that if the 1% pay little to no tax, what difference does it make if they get a tax cut?

Whereas a tax cut makes big difference to the 79%.


They pay very little in taxes largely because of tax cuts, why should they get even more breaks?

Here’s a good article on what trump’s tax cuts cost.. bottom line: at Least $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That’s what difference it makes if they get a tax cut.

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trum ... ts-4586645


Is an internet article all you have to go on?



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

14 Feb 2019, 12:38 am

EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


What I said is that if the 1% pay little to no tax, what difference does it make if they get a tax cut?

Whereas a tax cut makes big difference to the 79%.


They pay very little in taxes largely because of tax cuts, why should they get even more breaks?

Here’s a good article on what trump’s tax cuts cost.. bottom line: at Least $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That’s what difference it makes if they get a tax cut.

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trum ... ts-4586645


Is an internet article all you have to go on?


Would you prefer I found one in print or printed off a hard copy & mailed it to you? Like wtf is the difference that the source is an article on the internet? That's where MOST news articles are published these days. :? :? :?


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

14 Feb 2019, 12:48 am

goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
It seems EzraS is overlooking the simple fact that the 1% do not have 1% of the wealth - the 1% have the lion's share of the wealth.. so, the 1% not paying taxes = a MASSIVE tax burden for the working class.


What I said is that if the 1% pay little to no tax, what difference does it make if they get a tax cut?

Whereas a tax cut makes big difference to the 79%.


They pay very little in taxes largely because of tax cuts, why should they get even more breaks?

Here’s a good article on what trump’s tax cuts cost.. bottom line: at Least $1 Trillion over the next 10 years. That’s what difference it makes if they get a tax cut.

https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trum ... ts-4586645


Is an internet article all you have to go on?


Would you prefer I found one in print or printed off a hard copy & mailed it to you? Like wtf is the difference that the source is an article on the internet? That's where MOST news articles are published these days. :? :? :?


I'd like to see you demonstrate that you actually know what you're talking about. Googling up more links isn't going suffice.

Edit: if you're crunching right now, that means you don't actually know what you're talking about.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Feb 2019, 2:30 am

I think Goldfish, and the rest of us, do know what we're talking about.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

14 Feb 2019, 3:51 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I think Goldfish, and the rest of us, do know what we're talking about.


agree on that



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

14 Feb 2019, 4:49 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
I think Goldfish, and the rest of us, do know what we're talking about.


Some us seem to, others don't really. I think there's a difference between being versed on a topic like this and having an opinion based on what's gleened from the media.

How can the 1% have their income taxed when they're not on a salary or paid hourly like the 79%? And how can that be adjusted?