Fox News guest: AOC does the 'Latina thing'

[Economy 52,835]

12 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I think you think she is more 'radical' than she is tbh, even knowing about DSA and that some members do identify as such....Obviously Pure Socialism has its faults, but I think the purpose of being anti capitalist or critical of capitalism, ala "post-capitalism" is to acknowledge that our system isn't working and to open a discussion and propose ideas beyond that mutually agreed upon point. 
There's a wide range of ideas under that umbrella term. Some may wish to reform the existing capitalist system, while some may think it is not salvageable,  fundamentally unsustainable, immoral, etc. and wish to find a new system to take its place. Some others may think the latter, but that the "new" system they are looking for is just a beefed up, regulated Capitalist-ish society, with many social programs to combat capitalism's penchant for corruption and wealth disparities (*Cough* Democratic Socialists *Cough*).

I'm honestly more interested in what you think is wrong about being post capitalist or at least what is wrong about being as critical of capitalism as she is. I grew up in feminist academic circles so I talk to outright marxists, anarchists, communist feminists, quite often  and AOC is nowhere near where some of these people are politically . What is misguided about sharing your skepticism or condemnation of elements of capitalism with the public?? (And again, you are assuming the severity of her ideals by association; the DSA has never claimed all members must be gung ho for the abolition of capitalism or anything  Just that many people are more pro socialist than capitalist and even anti-capitalist, which isnt abolitionist  )

 To me, her complaints are very capitalist criticism 101 ... many people who might not identify as strongly as she does agree, as we can tell from the public's response to her and her ideas, despite the numerous think pieces from the right (and moderate-left) daily.

To me it sounds so childish and defeatist to throw up your hands like this. Its like "How dare this young woman criticize CAPITALISM, our lord and savior that must never be questioned, because even if its not very good, theres nothing better and there never will be!!! /s" Not to mention the banal McCarthyist "Socialism!?! Venezuela!?!?"  witch hunt the right is so fond of doing  

It's really not  new information that capitalism encourages oppression, hierarchy, monopoly, etc. in its efforts to maximize wealth and this renders it an imperfect system when it comes to delivering on most of the assets that we initially used to justify adopting said system. It might work better if we had a true meritocracy,  but we don't so... And I also don't really think you can argue that capitalism is just so great and worth keeping because "it fosters competition, which drives innovation and creativity while promising opportunity etc etc...." when the vast majority of people will never be able to meaningfully have access to or sometimes even participate in this system in any way other than for bare essentials  To me that sounds like stubbornly holding onto an ideal even though the data shows that capitalism has a really quite abysmal success rate when it comes to things that matter.

That's why u have capitalism with some degree of redistribution

 

U still have the freedom for innovation, entrepreneurship and business growth etc...

 

But you tax the wealthy a little more (within reason) and invest it in programs that you can provide for ordinary citizens... Also have minimum wages at a reasonable level not the Insanely low $8/h in some states

 

It's Capitalism with a sprinkle of socialism. I call it Capsolism

 

really it's just Centre Wing tho

 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

[RAMROD 116,994]

Did he mean accents? What is wrong with that?

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, Deku said:

Most countries with universal healthcare don't have taxes much higher than the US. The top NZ tax bracket for example is 33% And most people don't even reach that. We manage free healthcare for our citizens despite being a lot poorer than the US. Plus private systems still exist. There is no reason why you can't still get private health insurance.

I agree that doctors need to be paid a lot though. The debt that is accumulated from medical school is enormous. At least in New Zealand it is surmountable though. Student loans are completely interest free here.

Including state taxes, the Scandinavian countries are ten to fifteen per cent higher.

The real difference is Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

 Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

  

 

[Morphine Prince 109,645]

22 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

Did he mean accents? What is wrong with that?

Everything. Dog whistle for Fox News viewers. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I think you think she is more 'radical' than she is tbh, even knowing about DSA and that some members do identify as such....Obviously Pure Socialism has its faults, but I think the purpose of being anti capitalist or critical of capitalism, ala "post-capitalism" is to acknowledge that our system isn't working and to open a discussion and propose ideas beyond that mutually agreed upon point. 
There's a wide range of ideas under that umbrella term. Some may wish to reform the existing capitalist system, while some may think it is not salvageable,  fundamentally unsustainable, immoral, etc. and wish to find a new system to take its place. Some others may think the latter, but that the "new" system they are looking for is just a beefed up, regulated Capitalist-ish society, with many social programs to combat capitalism's penchant for corruption and wealth disparities (*Cough* Democratic Socialists *Cough*).

I'm honestly more interested in what you think is wrong about being post capitalist or at least what is wrong about being as critical of capitalism as she is. I grew up in feminist academic circles so I talk to outright marxists, anarchists, communist feminists, quite often  and AOC is nowhere near where some of these people are politically . What is misguided about sharing your skepticism or condemnation of elements of capitalism with the public?? (And again, you are assuming the severity of her ideals by association; the DSA has never claimed all members must be gung ho for the abolition of capitalism or anything  Just that many people are more pro socialist than capitalist and even anti-capitalist, which isnt abolitionist  )

 To me, her complaints are very capitalist criticism 101 ... many people who might not identify as strongly as she does agree, as we can tell from the public's response to her and her ideas, despite the numerous think pieces from the right (and moderate-left) daily.

To me it sounds so childish and defeatist to throw up your hands like this. Its like "How dare this young woman criticize CAPITALISM, our lord and savior that must never be questioned, because even if its not very good, theres nothing better and there never will be!!! /s" Not to mention the banal McCarthyist "Socialism!?! Venezuela!?!?"  witch hunt the right is so fond of doing  

It's really not  new information that capitalism encourages oppression, hierarchy, monopoly, etc. in its efforts to maximize wealth and this renders it an imperfect system when it comes to delivering on most of the assets that we initially used to justify adopting said system. It might work better if we had a true meritocracy,  but we don't so... And I also don't really think you can argue that capitalism is just so great and worth keeping because "it fosters competition, which drives innovation and creativity while promising opportunity etc etc...." when the vast majority of people will never be able to meaningfully have access to or sometimes even participate in this system in any way other than for bare essentials  To me that sounds like stubbornly holding onto an ideal even though the data shows that capitalism has a really quite abysmal success rate when it comes to things that matter.

Wow. Very insightful, darling. I appreciate it. Here are my thoughts:

I'm aware that my beliefs can be wrong... I'm just having a hard time with this picture right here: AOC is a proud member of the DSA and it is literally in their core mission that they want to be post-capitalist. I think you're understating just how extreme a socialist (or post-capitalist) ideology is. A purely socialist ideology is SO extreme and radical that is has NEVER been implemented in the modern history of Earth. Seriously. 

I understand that pure capitalism is a terrible system that breeds unbearable inequities that are, put simply, abhorrent. It's also important to note that the US is NOT a purely capitalist country - the mere existence of programs like Medicaid disqualifies it from such a label.

I hope you realize that pure socialism is just too extreme (so much so that it hasn't been implemented). And we can extrapolate that pure capitalism would yield even greater inequities than those that are experienced in the US today. 

With this in my mind, I see only one cogent solution:

We must keep the current status of the US economy. A mixed-economy is truly best. That being said, it's WHAT KIND of mixture that matters. The current social programs in the US are so preposterously inadequate that it's laughable. It makes the most sense for the US to add in MORE SUBSTANTIAL social programs and to redistribute the money in our system so that everyone can at least live.

From my experience, someone that makes minimum wage can't afford their living expenses without a roommate. That's unacceptable. Period. We need our government to implement solutions that allow minimum-wage-earners to be able to live without depending on others. That's the baseline. 

If one wants to excel and exceed this status quo, they should have the option to obtain a (FREE) higher education and an equivalently higher-paying job. That's the power of capitalism: it allows people to succeed and is the baseline for the 'American Dream'. Immigrants didn't come to the Americas to have everything handed to them. They came to work harder than the status quo and be paid at a correspondingly higher wage than the status quo. That's a BIG part of freedom to me. 

Sidenote: Capitalism is NOT my lord and savior. H*ll to the no. I dislike capitalism but believe it is necessary. 

Sidenote 2: I think your experience is slightly skewed because the women you are/were around are much, much more extreme than the majority of America. Although I would need to check some polling to prove this. Don't take this as a personal attack, just pointing out something that I noticed in a hopefully helpful and pragmatic way. 

[TheQueenLG 2,469]

6 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Including state taxes, the Scandinavian countries are ten to fifteen per cent higher.

The real difference is Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

 Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

  

 

Wow! Geat receipts! I love this!

[Whispering 18,865]

This reminds me of Trump saying “Puerhhhto Reek Oh” 

[RAMROD 116,994]

42 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Everything. Dog whistle for Fox News viewers. 

I meant to say, what's wrong with AOC having an accents sksksk

Just provocation, I suppose

[Guest]

Ok I really don’t understand what sending d*ck pics has to do with how the dude runs the Washington Post? That’s something almost everyone does in their own personal private life, I don’t see how that should affect the credibility of his work ethic? I swear republicans grasp at straws...

[NotNightwing 1,710]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

Including state taxes, the Scandinavian countries are ten to fifteen per cent higher.

The real difference is Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

 Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

  

 

Definitely true for the Scandinavian countries, though they also support many other social policies most countries don't. The countries most similar culturally to the US, (Canada, AUS, NZ, and the UK) all have some form of universal healthcare without having massively higher taxes. Although they also have smaller and more manageable populations, which makes any direct comparisons to the US difficult. Not an easy topic to debate. 

Absolutely love your post. It's extremely well reasoned and researched. If everyone put as much thought and effort into topics like these the world would be a better place.  

[Whispering 18,865]

2 minutes ago, Deku said:

Definitely true for the Scandinavian countries, though they also support many other social policies most countries don't. The countries most similar culturally to the US, (Canada, AUS, NZ, and the UK) all have some form of universal healthcare without having massively higher taxes. Although they also have smaller and more manageable populations, which makes any direct comparisons to the US difficult. Not an easy topic to debate. 

Absolutely love your post. It's extremely well reasoned and researched. If everyone put as much thought and effort into topics like these the world would be a better place.  

Yeah, our states are like small countries. The magnitude of getting universal healthcare set up for 327 million people spread across states that have their own budgets and tax structures is mind boggling. At some point, I do feel that we are going to shift towards healthcare for all, but it is going to be a LONG process. We have to to balance hope for progress and realism. 

[Economy 52,835]

6 hours ago, Whispering said:

Including state taxes, the Scandinavian countries are ten to fifteen per cent higher.

The real difference is Scandinavian income taxes raise a lot of revenue because they are actually rather flat. In other words, they tax most people at these high rates, not just high-income taxpayers. The top marginal tax rate of 60 percent in Denmark applies to all income over 1.2 times the average income in Denmark. From the American perspective, this means that all income over $60,000 (1.2 times the average income of about $50,000 in the United States) would be taxed at 60 percent.

Sweden and Norway have similarly flat income tax systems. Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.

 Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate.

  

 

Yeah but taxes don't have to be that high for a universal health care system. Our taxes aren't as high as Scandinavian countries especially not at the lower incomes (my taxes last year we're like 18% to 20% or something like that and I make $50,000, I did enter a higher bracket but only a small portion of my income entered the middle class bracket so my overall taxes were still low)

 

These countries spend a lot in general not just on healthcare. I think one of the Scandinavian countries even covered public transportion with taxes if I'm not mistaken

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

I stand by my post. And if you’re white and feel objected then you’re probably at fault. We all know what I meant by “white folks”. 

[joannesrats 26]

On 3/20/2019 at 1:35 PM, Economy said:

I

Raise minimum wage to livabke levels and cut business taxes to compensate the costs to the employer and they don't have to pass on costs to the public

 

The reduced business tax revenue would be compensated by less welfare and social security expenses and encourage more people to work instead of being on the sidelines or comfortable on social support

 

Reduced income gap without costing business owners or government more and encouraging higher labor force participation rates. Everyone wins

This sounds like a good plan on the surface, but what are we going to do with the corporations that send all of their jobs overseas? Are we going to tax the hell out of them for that when they're ignoring the people that now need jobs in their own country? Are we going to make sure racial biases aren't at play when hiring all these new workers that now need jobs because their welfare is cut? I don't want to see a country where companies shift all their jobs overseas and don't get punished for it, people don't get jobs because of their race (among other factors), and their social assistance is cut. I would be all for this if we were going to tax the pants off of corporations that have almost all of their workforce overseas. I say only 20% can be coming from oversea-workers. When their workers are in the US, don't give them a reward for doing the right thing, either.