Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 165 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

    • flashgordon

      Participant
      Post count: 1127

      Another pretty girl who goes for some ugly guy; what’s that girls name who’s with Trump? Only, Alexandria is seemingly smart – call me jealous!

      Bobby Blue Bland I Pity The Fool (1961)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 222

      AOC is the laughing stock of the country,  you’re on the outside looking in here little one.

      My favorite part of her tweet was the “4 year” comment. Even when this unbelievably stupid and entirely worthless human being is trying to “burn” someone, she still gets the facts wrong.

      AOC has accomplished nothing and that will continue, Trump is one of the best presidents this country has ever seen. Objective facts I wouldn’t expect pedo defenders to understand or care about.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Another pretty girl who goes for some ugly guy; what’s that girls name who’s with Trump? Only, Alexandria is seemingly smart – call me jealous!

      Ok, somebody hasn’t been paying attention.  She’s had more gaffes than Joe Biden. She’s proved time and time again that she doesn’t understand basic, simple stuff.

      Calling her impressive or smart is just wrong.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Not a fan of her politics, but she’s objectively smart and successful

      Everyone has a right to criticize her and certainly to dislike her politics, but the only reason I find the topic interesting is this kind of stuff, “[e]ven when this unbelievably stupid and entirely worthless human being is trying to “burn” someone,” offered above by Escobar

      The notion that someone is “stupid” solely because they have a different political view is absurd to begin with, but in this instance that argument is offered by someone who ROUTINELY posts things that are demonstrably false and/or wrong. Escobar, you’re saying she is”unbelievably stupid and entirely worthless” because she occasionally does publicly what you routinely do anonymously?

      The “us versus them” view peddled by Trump is a real problem for a representative democracy. Escobar is hardly to blame for his view though because he is a classic alt-right cocoon type and so he sees this:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/republicans-really-hate-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-theres-lesson-there/

      the article talks about the impact of conservative media in making people on the right HATE her (not just her policies):

      “So why might that be? If you have to ask, it means you aren’t a Fox News viewer. Or a conservative talk radio listener, or a conservative website reader. Because conservative media are almost obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez and what a villain she is.

      A lot of the talk is about her policy positions — after all, she calls herself a socialist! — but it goes way farther. They investigate her boyfriend. They go after her name, or her childhood home, or her clothes. They offer her money to debate them. At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, one speaker after another criticized her. They talk about her and talk about her and talk about her.”

      You should read the bottom of the article, its talks about hos conservatives once loved Obama LMAO.

      Look, AOC’s politics may suck, her views are definitely naive . . but she’s a product of Trump and she is objectively well educated and successful

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Lol! That escobar kid is one triggered snowflake.

      Hook

      Line

      Sinker

       

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      My favorite part of her tweet was the “4 year” comment. Even when this unbelievably stupid and entirely worthless human being is trying to “burn” someone, she still gets the facts wrong.

      Sounds like you’re describing the POTUS.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Cracks me up. For all of Trump’s gaffes and lies, he shit his pants over 4 years instead of 3 years. Lol!

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      covfefe

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      covfefe

      Bigly…

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Cracks me up. For all of Trump’s gaffes and lies, he shit his pants over 4 years instead of 3 years. Lol!

      I’d hardly call pointing out yet another gaffe by this broad, in a thread where you’re attempting to say she isn’t a dunce, is “shitting his pants.”

      Of course, seeing as you had no idea the dunce miscounted to four, I highly doubt you see the irony of your thread.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Lol! She said 4! What a gaff!

       

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Lol! She said 4! What a gaff!

      Counting to three is hard for her, and you, apparently.  Most human beings older than a toddler would consider that a gaffe.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Just one (liberal) person’s opinion:

      Who’s Afraid of AOC?
      The future isn’t old, white, and male — and that has conservative men worried

      “Conservatives sure are afraid of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They don’t like that she danced in college, they’re in an uproar over an old high school nickname — some are even spreading a false rumor about a nude photo.

      The Republican, mostly male obsession with the 29-year-old Bronx native is more than run-of-the-mill misogyny; it’s existential panic. Because in addition to the young Democratic Socialist standing for (reasonable) policies that conservatives find terrifying, Ocasio-Cortez represents a vision of the future of the United States — a future that’s no longer centered around old white men.

      “Ocasio-Cortez — who is telegenic, talented, and unabashedly left — embodies a shift in power that terrifies the right. That’s why the sustained attack on the youngest woman ever elected to Congress is so very specific: making up sexualized rumors, calling her a “girl,” or referring to her as Sandy (I have particular ire for men to use nicknames as a way to belittle women). It is all meant to discredit and diminish her bona fides.”

      ###

      Women — women of color, in particular — are amassing power across politics and culture, and those who have traditionally held that power are scared shitless.

      Their hatred for Ocasio-Cortez, just like their pushback against #MeToo and the feminist movement, is a thin veil over what they really think, which is: How dare they. How dare women have the power to shape legislation? How dare they have the power to say no to sexual advances? How dare they hold men accountable?

      But they can’t say those things, not out loud anyway — not without being taken to task. So instead, conservatives mock. And diminish. And discredit.

      The good news is that this strategy seems to be failing. Ocasio-Cortez is well-versed enough in misogyny — and social media — that she’s been able to effectively push back on the smears, and if the new members of Congress are any indication, Americans are eager for younger, more diverse leadership.

      The backlash is nasty and cruel, and I have no doubt that as 2020 approaches it will get even worse. But the more conservatives attack the women who represent the future of politics in this country, the more they reveal themselves as afraid. I, for one, am betting on the future.

      I don’t agree with the author suggestion that all the criticism of AOC comes from “white fear.” There are genuine reasons to criticize her policies, for sure. But, the author has a point about the nature of the criticisms of some (not all), in that the non-substantive criticism is meant to “meant to discredit and diminish her bona fides.”

      One fact to support the author: Look at Josh Harder (D-CA). Same class as AOC, liberal, beat out a Republican. Supports “Medicare for All.” White male. You’ve probably never heard of him until this post.

      Granted, AOC has a much higher profile, but that is partially the point of the article above and the thread generally, she is a “whipping girl” for conservative media. I presume that is why the OP knew this would be an irresistible topic.

      Demonizing a large group through association with one person is not a new concept in politics, but if you take the time to look at her brief legislative career, she’s a fringe player at best — which only highlights the point of the author above

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      AOC making fun of GOP “Older male members” by posting a picture of a democrat next to a cardboard cutout of her young gorgeous self…. smart.

      https://futurefemaleleader.com/10-worst-alexandria-oscacio-cortezs-gaffes/

      Number 7…. When she said “all three chambers of Congress… uh, rather, Chambers of Government”

      Pretty smart.

      She once said, “A 17 year old can walk into a shop and purchase an assault weapon”  17 year old’s cannot by any type of gun in America.

      AOC – “Unemployment is low because people have two jobs”

      Impressive?

      AOC compares the situation at the southern border to “concentration camps” and the “holocaust”.  causing the Holocaust museum to respond.  “learn about concentration camps”.

      She once tweeted that she couldn’t afford housing in DC on a congressional salary….. Is that smart or just impressive?

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Well as I’m sure you know, nobody is infaliable. I’ll read your article in a bit. Top 10 gaffs, oh boy!

      But now do Trump’s gaffs!

      He struggles on a lot of topics so you might need to set aside a couple hours, create a spreadsheet, and find some trends.

      AOC is young so she will learn.

      Trump is 70 so I think we know what we have…

       

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Here are a few… man I forgot some of these.

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-biggest-fatal-gaffes-mistakes-offensive-214289

      Hilarious stuff. Oh but 3 vs 4 years!

      Two Corinthian! 🤣🤣🤣

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Building a wall in Colorado!

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/trump-wall-colorado.amp.html

      Because you know, it borders Mexico

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “He struggles on a lot of topics so you might need to set aside a couple hours, create a spreadsheet, and find some trends.

      AOC is young so she will learn”

      This portion of the discussion is hilarious because its arguing “gaffes = stupid”

      Every person typing in this thread makes mistakes ROUTINELY and none of us are talking in front of cameras etc.

      Trump is perpetually in front of cameras AND by his choice he is almost always under prepared, speaking “off the cuff,” so of course he makes many, many mistakes. AOC is also a public figure, so she has “many gaffes,” neither though is a sign of much more than having a lot of opportunities to mess up :-)

      By the way, conservatives used to get very angry that Dems called Reagan “dumb.” AOC is called dumb as a way of dismissing her

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      @jbear

      I’ve posted that list multiple times.  It still doesn’t stop the Mayor of Cluelessville from finding her “impressive” or the good Counselor from claiming people are saying she’s a dunce simply because they disagree with her politics.  She’s called a dunce because she’s a fuggin’ dunce.

      My favorite is still when she thought she was going to be inaugurated into congress.  That Boston University education is “impressive” alright.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Well as I’m sure you know, nobody is infaliable. I’ll read your article in a bit. Top 10 gaffs, oh boy!

      But now do Trump’s gaffs!

      He struggles on a lot of topics so you might need to set aside a couple hours, create a spreadsheet, and find some trends.

      AOC is young so she will learn.

      Trump is 70 so I think we know what we have…

      Fair enough but this is an AOC thread.  Plenty of Trump is an idiot threads around here.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      ““I still remember what the intellectuals of the late 1970s and the ’80s frequently said about my old boss, Ronald Reagan. Remember, he was unintelligent,” recalls Laura Ingraham. “He slept in the afternoons. He went to a second-rate college, just an actor, shallow.” Reagan “had the same problem and handled it well,” Trump tweets.

      Both defenses have something in common. Rather than segregate questions about Trump’s brain away from the broader partisan debate, they dissolve the former into the latter. They believe that Trump’s being called dumb by the intellectual elite is intimately connected to his political identity. This belief is largely correct. As it has moved farther and farther right, the Republican Party has grown increasingly anti-intellectual. Trump’s base adores him, not despite his obvious mental limitations, but because of them.”

      I guess it only works one way (pfffft)

      By the way, could we poll the critics for demo?

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      @jbear – read the article. Lots of stretches in there… just like 3 vs 4 years. Meaning minor gaffs or gaffs where she seemingly immediately corrected herself.

      You’re right that there are plenty of threads on Trump’s gaffs but it is relevant because it was AOC responding to Trump that she has “accomplished nothing” which at best is hypocritical… at worst is a flat out lie. By simply winning over an establishment incumbent it sent precedent within the DNC that the old guard doesn’t relate to the new vote (for better or for worse).

      So again, saying 4 years instead of 3 years in the world of gaffs is exactly and precisely nothing (or nothingburger as the right would call it).

      Some of her other gaffs quite literally come from a lack of experience – like with how the micro aspects of government work (I nor you or anyone know all of that). You learn it by doing it so that’s why both Trump and AOC make those gaffs – freshman politicians.

      Trump’s go beyond being a freshman politician because his gaffs are largely unrelated to the workings of government.

      Remember the Bama hurricane? And he just sticks to his guns then writes in his “truth”. So largely different.

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      This might sound crazy, but hear me out.

      AOC and Trump are BOTH fuggin’ idiots.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      I’d say that’s an equivalency bias

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      I’d say that’s an equivalency bias

      Yeah.

      Or, that they’re both idiots.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Or, and hear me out, comparing her gaffs to his is lazy.

      Like saying Wilson and Winston both turn the ball over.

      Fine to disagree with her politics or call her politics dumb… but she is a rags to riches (congress) while Trump is….well, you know.

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      Or, and hear me out, comparing her gaffs to his is lazy.

      I’m not comparing their gaffs.

      They’re both idiots in their own unique ways.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Lol… fair enough

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Hard to keep up because the gaffs are daily and his base loves this stupid shit

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      When do start to discus Whether the problem is actually Trump or the people at the rally who seem completely detached from reality?

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Good point

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      I agree 100%

      But what a dumb woman! Amirite?

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @ Firelicht2020

      Can’t even quote you now…. agh.

      Anyway, that link is hilarious.  I don’t know who Heidi N. Moore Is but calling that bullspit an “Economically sound argument” is embarrassing.  I’m glad you didn’t actually say that yourself… oh wait, you 100% agreed with the post lol.

      Look AOC said in a nutshell,- “Fuck Economics.”  That is not a sound economical argument no matter what your professor says.

      It’s this kind of nonsense that drives me to post.  She’s talking about feelings and emotions and her followers think it has something to do with economics.  Agree with her if you want but don’t try to tell the rest of us that it has something to do with economics.  You are bordering on Trump level disinformation.

       

       

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      What do you not agree with?

      People will pay anything to survive/live.

      Be more specific with your disagreement

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      The argument is of course, socializing health care. I think that much is obvious…

      Her specific argument here relates to price gouging.

      Paying x for insulin for example.

      This is where I’m more interested in actual debate… I know you think everything should be privatized but that’s pretty dang absurd…

      So I’d be open to a debate on privatizing vs public (socialized) methods of industries.

      Most notably two that I think should be socialized:

      Prisons

      Health care

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Hopefully this isn’t news to anyone:

      “ A typical vial of insulin that will last a diabetic about 10 days costs about $300 without insurance in the United States. In Canada, the exact same type of insulin can be purchased for just $30. The increase in the price has been dramatic in recent years.”

      And …

      “ Eli Lilly on Wednesday forecast better-than-expected revenue and adjusted profit for 2019, as the drugmaker benefits from higher demand for its newer medicines including diabetes drug Trulicity and psoriasis drug Taltz.”

      And that’s not even the leading insulin (metforman?)

      In other words, it’s simply undeniable that WITH THE HELP OF CONGRESS, drug companies legally gouge US consumers

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Precisely… and you dont have to support socialized health care to understand that but calling out her economic acumen is absurd… maybe lazy? Maybe sexist? Hard to tell…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      @jbear this is the stuff that makes me say he/she is posting something he/she doesn’t believe (ie trolling)


      Look AOC said in a nutshell,- “Fuck Economics.” That is not a sound economical argument no matter what your professor says.

      It’s this kind of nonsense that drives me to post. She’s talking about feelings and emotions and her followers think it has something to do with economics. Agree with her if you want but don’t try to tell the rest of us that it has something to do with economics. You are bordering on Trump level disinformation.”

      How would a self-described libertarian think UNITED STATES drug prices are “economics” when US drug prices are a reflection of government, not economics? You’re supposed to be against government, but I guess not when it benefits corporations?

      I am not being critical, just saying your posts make no sense from an ideological perspective. They ramble all over the place.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @Virgilcane

      First of all, for the hundredth time, I’m not trolling.  If you’d just ask me to clarify my position maybe you’d see that.

      Secondly, I never said that “United States Drug prices are “economics”. Yes the pure libertarian POV is that markets including for healthcare and drugs should be completely unregulated “free”.  But I haven’t really believed that was practical in a long time.  It’s the same argument against Social Security that I no longer feel is practical.  So, no I am not a hardcore Libertarian and no, nothing about the U.S. heathcare system has anything to do with real economics because the system is already extremely regulated.

      To be clear, I am no longer for repealing Social Security and I am not for completely unregulated wild west free market principles in healthcare.  I am for the smallest regulatory footprint possible and I am for capitalism.  I’m not saying that there is no role for government to ensure that things don’t get out of hand regarding costs to the consumer however I reject the left wing conspiracy theory that the fact some drug prices are perhaps higher than they should be that it has something to do with evil capitalists and not overregulation or just temporary market factors.

      The insulin discussion we’ve had before and I’m not interested in completely rehashing it but to say that high insulin prices in the U.S. are solely due to evil corporations taking the consumer for everything they have is untrue.  So Canada has price controls…… whoopie doo.  All I can say is they should be thanking their stars that the U.S. market exists because in a vaccume, price controls will not work.  When the world goes to price controls and you don’t have a huge market like the U.S. with consumers who demand the absolute premium of drugs will be the day innovation stifles and in a matter of decades you will see shortages and your great great grandchildren will be using the same exact drugs with a much lower quality.

      Literally, all I was saying was that what AOC was saying was NOT economics it was an argument for socialized healthcare based on the idea that people will pay anything to live. But the result of a truly socialized healthcare system will remove all remnants of economic concern regarding healthcare…. because we all want to live.  But the truly insane aspect of that argument is that over time the care will get worse in a socialized system.  It will get worse AND the ability for a person to have any control over anything related to healthcare will be completely wiped out.

      How can AOC be making a brilliant economic argument when she’s arguing to completely obliterate economic factors in healthcare?  That’s my point.

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      JBear – I could be wrong but I think it’s not “price controls” in Canada as much as it’s provinces buying in bulk (ie economics). That is certainly the way it is in the UK and NOT the way it is here …. because of Congress

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      The argument is of course, socializing health care. I think that much is obvious…

      Her specific argument here relates to price gouging.

      Paying x for insulin for example.

      This is where I’m more interested in actual debate… I know you think everything should be privatized but that’s pretty dang absurd…

      So I’d be open to a debate on privatizing vs public (socialized) methods of industries.

      Most notably two that I think should be socialized:

      Prisons

      Health care

      Socialized healthcare will be the end of quality healthcare in this country.

      Socialized prisons which I assume you mean, government run and paid for, create their own form of business (big government).  It’s a wicked, evil circle.  Big government has an incentive to keep prisons full, to keep good government jobs and big government voters (government workers) happy.  Detach that incentive and make it about giving money to evil corporations and you may find we want to send less people to prison for non violent offenses.  We have more people in prison that any other country by a mile.  I want violent people in prison not dumb kids who got addicted to drugs.

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Also, you must not have watched the video because her point is much narrower than that (a drug is not equal to a cell phone, economically speaking) and it is economically sound

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Even “Campaign Trump” agreed lol

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/maine-drugs-buy-canada-1.5365204

      However, it’s illegal (read:Congress) for Candian wholesalers go well toUS states

      AND

      Even the replacement for NAFTA includes a protection (read:Congress) for drug prices

      Not a “liberal conspiracy”… reality

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      I watched the video Virgil.  Everyone knows that a drug is not equal to a cellphone.

      In Canada right now they are clamoring for increased regulation of drug prices because the drugs are too expensive.  I would call what they have right now, “price controls” as it meets the definition however “the people” still aren’t happy. Which begs the question…. when will people ever be happy about paying for anything when you give them the choice to not pay or pay less.  The more heavy handed they go the more problems they’re going to have in the long run.

       

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Jbear I don’t agree with what you’re saying but I appreciate your POV. There are some fair points… wish I had some time to give you a more well thought out response…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      I watched the video Virgil. Everyone knows that a drug is not equal to a cellphone.

      In Canada right now they are clamoring for increased regulation of drug prices because the drugs are too expensive. I would call what they have right now, “price controls” as it meets the definition however “the people” still aren’t happy. Which begs the question…. when will people ever be happy about paying for anything when you give them the choice to not pay or pay less. The more heavy handed they go the more problems they’re going to have in the long run.

      The point isn’t to make people happy it’s to not make corporations happy to the DETRIMENT of citizens. Literally, go not let corporations by an unfree market for themselves by paying off politicians

      That’s why I said your views typed here are not libertarian they are gop. You don’t want the govt interfering in a citizens life but it’s ok for the govt to interfere in a citizens life ( by allowing drug companies to rip them off)

      Selective liberty lol

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      The US has an easily identified problem and that is that law making is DOMINATED by corporate interests to the detriment of citizens. PoliticIan have crafted a political system where $ is king and so that makes corporAtions very powerful.

      We don’t have to destroy the current system (like AOC) suggests. It’s only a question of Rebalancing priorities

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @Virgilcaine

      This is is just logically inaccurate and a clear misunderstanding of the ideology behind where I’m coming from.  This is one of the reasons I take issue with your claim to have voted Republican your entire life.  What you say here just doesn’t make sense unless you are coming from a completely left wing ideology in the first place.  Anyone who believes in the idea of a light handed approach to government, as Republicans historically have, would be able to grasp the idea that allowing the market to do what the market will do is not interference.  Interference is manipulating the market in any way.  Nobody who understands this could say that – allowing drug companies to rip people off by not interfering is a form of interference.

      The only people who can even think something like you said here are coming from a completely leftist viewpoint.  The idea that the status quo of the Universe is for the government to maintain a happy equilibrium by making sure that people don’t get ripped off is completely foreign concept to someone who is truly coming at the problem from a Libertarian mindset.

      I like the fact that we’ve been conversing so I would like to add that I don’t mean this to be insulting.  I truly can’t understand how an intelligent former Republican could say what you just did. Maybe it was a joke?

      Edit:  Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something about the way you worded what you’re saying.

      I don’t support the interference we have now if that makes my position any more clear.  From a practicality standpoint I wonder if we’ll ever be able to do away with the ACA and I have recently said that perhaps I do see that we do need some interference which is certainly not very Libertarian but what I’ve always stood by is that I want to see the least possible market interference.  Like I said, maybe we aren’t understanding each other.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Corporate welfare is interfering in a free market

      The free market for drugs would have lower US prices. We don’t have lower prices because corporate interests control (and abuse the patent process), because free Americans are not free enough to buy drugs from Canada (thanks to Congress) because Congress includes drug price protections in the USMCA lol and so on.

      The “constituent” is the industry not the voter so the “free market” is shaped by legislation

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Also, Republicans have not been the party of small government over the past 20 years.

      They’ve expanded the powers of the Executive branch.

      They’ve expanded the military and global policing

      Patriot Act

      None of those concepts are small government and/or fiscally Conservative.

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Puppies aren’t separated from their moms until ~8 weeks. Less than that is thought of as harmful or abusive.

      One of the most common lengths of US paid family leave is ~6 weeks.

      So yes, when we “let the market decide”on parental leave, “the market” treats people worse than dogs.

       

      Clearly one of the brightest minds around.  Boston University must be proud.

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13935

      I would pay top dollar to watch AOC and Trump in a debate.

      Pros: The one-liners and sound bites.

      Cons: You’d most likely IQ points, as their stupidity is most likely contagious.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Corporate welfare is interfering in a free market

      The free market for drugs would have lower US prices. We don’t have lower prices because corporate interests control (and abuse the patent process), because free Americans are not free enough to buy drugs from Canada (thanks to Congress) because Congress includes drug price protections in the USMCA lol and so on.

      The “constituent” is the industry not the voter so the “free market” is shaped by legislation

      The patent process is a form of interference initiated by the government, not the evil corporations.

      In any case, it’s pretty obvious that a free market Libertarian wouldn’t be against allowing people to buy drugs from Canada and many Libertarians are against all patent laws and certainly, “price protections”.   The system now is a mess but Progressive plans to “fix” the system are heavily reliant on ramping up interference which we’ve already got much more than we need.

      Individual people should be able to trade freely across borders without government interference and yes the Patent law is an area that we should be looking at.  I don’t want to disincentivize research and development and I certainly do feel that a company who spends a lot of resources on developing a drug should profit from it, I also love the idea of competition.  When Patents are misused they often end up stifling competition.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Puppies aren’t separated from their moms until ~8 weeks. Less than that is thought of as harmful or abusive.

      One of the most common lengths of US paid family leave is ~6 weeks.

      So yes, when we “let the market decide”on parental leave, “the market” treats people worse than dogs.

      Clearly one of the brightest minds around. Boston University must be proud.

      Oh yes, I saw that one too.  The way her mind works is quite frankly offensive.  disgusting.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Aren’t conservatives the family values party?

      Nothing screams family values like forcing parents to choose between maternity/paternity leave and paying the bills.

      My wife is due and my work doesn’t offer paid paternity leave (yes I can take it off unpaid by law) so of course I now have 3 options:

      – use vacation time

      – take it unpaid

      – shorten my time to bond with a new child

      I find it hilarious that folks on the right want to do nothing (and subsequently do nothing) then they complain when the left has ideas.

      Well, what do you propose? It’s a lot easier to shoot down ideas and identify gaps than it is to be solutions-oriented.

      So jbear and biggs, should we just continue what we are doing?

      If you think the governemt shouldn’t intercede, yet there are countless studies that show benefits and pay haven’t kept up with COL and inflation, that what do you propose?

      Self-regulate? Haha, that worked so well with Wall Street and the housing market, let’s do it again!

      No laws!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      so . . .

      8,000 comments

      37,000 retweets

      178,000 likes

      on a boring “socialist” topic like maternity leave (US is 6 weeks versus 26 in most comp countries)

      Yep, that “broad” is dumb, she need her some learnin. Maybe with some learnin should might figure how to get her point out on twitter . .

      (I dont agree with her policy, but the irony of calling her dumb . . . for a tweet that made its way to the alt-right world (its on reddit, among others)? What the publicity quote?)

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Twitter likes = smart and impressive.  You must consider Trump a modern-day Einstein.

      Good call, dipshit.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      The point

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      Responding directly to my question

      .

      .

      .

      .

       

      Biggie’s head

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      Rock bottom

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Twitter likes = smart and impressive. You must consider Trump a modern-day Einstein.

      Good call, dipshit.

      I will just ignore the poor reading and the strawman and say she must be offended by your opinion. I am sure she will see it.

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

       

      Making choices is hard for the Boston University grad, which must make that esteemed University proud.  The dunce would prefer somebody else to do the thinking for her.

      Nevermind, I forgot getting likes and retweets constitutes being “impressive” for the simpletons among us.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      You left out the 3 subsequent tweets that went with it…

      IE the context

      I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you read them…?

       

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      The context?  You’re attempting to say she was taken out of context?  Bwhahahahaha

      Are these the follow-up tweets (after the ridicule of her fully contextualized first tweet) stating with “moral outrage” that she couldn’t get Obamacare until after she was elected?  Or the one where she reiterates that “it’s a pain” to make a choice?

      Your continued support of this broad is comical.  She’s a dunce.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Aren’t conservatives the family values party?

      Nothing screams family values like forcing parents to choose between maternity/paternity leave and paying the bills.

      My wife is due and my work doesn’t offer paid paternity leave (yes I can take it off unpaid by law) so of course I now have 3 options:

      – use vacation time

      – take it unpaid

      – shorten my time to bond with a new child

      I find it hilarious that folks on the right want to do nothing (and subsequently do nothing) then they complain when the left has ideas.

      Well, what do you propose? It’s a lot easier to shoot down ideas and identify gaps than it is to be solutions-oriented.

      So jbear and biggs, should we just continue what we are doing?

      If you think the governemt shouldn’t intercede, yet there are countless studies that show benefits and pay haven’t kept up with COL and inflation, that what do you propose?

      Self-regulate? Haha, that worked so well with Wall Street and the housing market, let’s do it again!

      No laws!

      Personally, I’d use my vacation time like a big boy.  But that’s just me I guess.

      I know someone else who was shocked that Americans didn’t give three year, state paid maternity leave like they do in former Soviet states.    Yes this is a real thing.  In Ukraine the state pays mothers to leave work for three years when they have a child and guarantees their job when they decide to come back.

      I’m sorry fire but having children is a personal choice.  The idea that the evil employer should be forced to pay because you decided to start a family is personally offensive to me and represents everything wrong with todays progressive thought.

      I think if an employer wants to give as a bonus a certain amount of time off paid, for new parents then that should be part of your considerations when you’re looking for a job.  As should a company that does not do that should also be a part of your considerations…. and whether or not you would be able to take advantage of such generous compensation which does you no good if you aren’t planning to have children.

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      The broad’s a dunce, I tell ya!

      ;-)

      Schiano’s post above is spot on. Heres the “thread”

      (Incidentally, for further context . . Look at the date and time of her thread . . and consider this report from Dec 16th. . . . “The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is extending the deadline to enroll in an Obamacare health insurance plan, thanks to a website crash that reportedly prevented about 100,000 consumers from signing up prior to the original deadline on Sunday.

      The deadline was extended 36 hours, running 3 p.m. to 3 a.m. Wednesday, at HealthCare.gov.”)

      :-)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “The idea that the evil employer should be forced to pay because you decided to start a family is personally offensive to me and represents everything wrong with todays progressive thought.”

      except that isn’t the idea ;-)

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      @jbear – can’t take you seriously when you go to the absolute political extreme of 3 years.

      We are talking about 3 months paid leave.

      This is a critical time to bond with new parents.

      You wanna bitch about generations as this that and whatever… but then you have a number of factors that erode at the family dynamic due to the economics of it all.

      You also seemingly don’t have a heart but that’s your choice.

       

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      The context? You’re attempting to say she was taken out of context? Bwhahahahaha

      Are these the follow-up tweets (after the ridicule of her fully contextualized first tweet) stating with “moral outrage” that she couldn’t get Obamacare until after she was elected? Or the one where she reiterates that “it’s a pain” to make a choice?

      Your continued support of this broad is comical. She’s a dunce.

      So no you don’t know the context. Hannity referred to this so you rushed to your laptop for a triumphant victory lap.

      Lol. Thanks for proving your cemented bias and stubbornness.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      This 👆

      It’s a great example of fake news created by third parties (ie accepting as true the repackaged version offered by some hyper political person )

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      So no you don’t know the context. Hannity referred to this so you rushed to your laptop for a triumphant victory lap. Lol. Thanks for proving your cemented bias and stubbornness.

      Context:  Decisions are hard for the dumb broad

      Hannity:  Don’t watch, never have.

      Mayor of Cluelessville:  Still on top, as nobody is taking your title, champ.

       

       

      An aside – thanks for starting this thread.  It will be nice to periodically add to the voluminous amount of stupid this dumb broad has previously thrown out there, all in a relatively small amount of time.  She’s gifted, and you’ll be there to make excuses for her at every turn.  Impressive, alright.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @firelicht2020

      3 years was just the example that came to mind.  Big picture, I wonder if AOC and Bernie would really be opposed to that if they thought they could do it.  You’re talking about a woman who proposed restructuring our entire economy and social structure and even eliminating cows in response to global warming so I don’t think she has any problem with thinking big.

      Also I have a huge heart.  I love people and have no problem with people getting as much of a break as they can when they have a child but the world is full of practical concerns and even in a Socialist utopia the world is still full of practical concerns.  The difference is that in a socialist utopia, instead of being concerned about whether or not you can afford that upgrade to a 75 inch TV your concerns are about being able to heat your house and feed your kids.

      Make a dumb uniform rule that all employers have to provide 3 months paid leave to everyone is stupid.  All of this stuff will be baked into the compensation packages anyway.  It’s called economics which so long as we hold off the socialist utopia…. still exists.

      Allowing the market to do it’s job is best for everyone.  The guy who is not having children can weigh out the benefits that he will be using when he’s looking for a new job and figure out the best compensation for him.  The right of people to make their own choices about what’s best for them and their family is one of the most basic rights that any person can be given but that right is not bestowed by the government but as the founders proclaimed in the declaration of independence, it is bestowed by God.

      I have no problem with people being able to go back to work when they decide even if it’s six months or a year but I do have a problem with forcing employers to pay people for a mandated amount of time.

       

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @firelicht2020

      then there is this;

      You wanna bitch about generations as this that and whatever… but then you have a number of factors that erode at the family dynamic due to the economics of it all.

      If you want to talk about eroding the family dynamic the discussion begins and ends with personal responsibility and it’s erosion by the state.  This is a prime example of that idea.  If government would only guarantee my pay for x amount of time…. then I could be a good parent.  Short of government intervention we’re all powerless to take care of our kids?  Because of evil business owners I guess.

      I understand that that is not what you’re saying I’m just trying to make a point of a general mindset that seems to pervade left wing thinking.

      So trying to make something better is now dumb?  No.  All I’m saying is that when you put responsibility for personal things like the family dynamic on the government you erode the family dynamic by diminishing your role in it.

      If you want to change the way we as a society view maternity leave how about supporting organizations that use boycotts and try to sway public opinion on the issue.  I don’t want that public opinion used as a hammer to enact legislation demanding all businesses pay a certain amount of leave but I think it’s more than fair to shame companies into being more generous with maternity leave.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “ Allowing the market to do it’s job is best for everyone”

      Like prescription drugs, opioids, tobacco, and AR-15s

      😁

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      holy strawman Batman

      “ Short of government intervention we’re all powerless to take care of our kids? Because of evil business owners I guess.”

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      I don’t disagree with your personal choice point… I don’t disagree that businesses can decide to bake it into their benefits package.

      But I am saying that businesses should offer it and that a number of economic factors have led to the decline in the family dynamic.

      Stagnant wages

      Increased daycare costs

      Both parents working

      Paid leave

      We can argue the solution, but those are the gaps/problems. If you don’t see those as fundamental issues, then there is no point in furthering the conversation.

      As it currently stands there is a strong dichotomy between the gap and the solution.

      The left offers overreaching solutions through law and regulation

      The right offers solutions that only help their rich constituents.

       

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @Firelicht2020

      The left offers overreaching solutions through law and regulation

      The right offers solutions that only help their rich constituents.

      I agree to disagree with your conclusion.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Well the Trump Tax plan is a complete scam…

      It has only widened the gap and created more money to play with in politics…

      For most of us it did nothing… for the rich it transferred more money to their pockets and created a greater deficit – adding to the debt.

      Money is still offshore.

      Jobs are still growing at the same rate.

      This is more short-sighted greedy thinking.

      But as you said, agree to disagree

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      A first term Trump tax plan is an naked attempt to get relected by appealing to corporations who offer big money. The winners of the Trump tax cut are corporations.

      The losers, all of our grandchildren and beyond.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Goalposts?  Forget goalposts, lets play charades instead!

      I see how you two manage to never lose an argument.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Goalposts? Forget goalposts, lets play charades instead!

      I see how you two manage to never lose an argument.

      Wtf are you talking about?

      I’m referring to your post of “agree to disagree”.

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “ I see how you two manage….”

      Au contraire ..,

      Discuss

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Well the Trump Tax plan is a complete scam…

      True story.  The largest tax revenues ever, record-breaking job numbers, etc. is very scammy.

      I bet if you say it enough, it will become reality.  Give it a try, Mr. Mayor.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      The trump tax plan is a scam because of the way it was sold (ie that it’s would pay for itself). To see that, look no further than Breitbart trying (but failing) to sell that It was almost there. Breitbart made this claim in January of 2019 and then it was CRUSHED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES (lol). But you don’t need the NYT, just look at the DISHONEST WAY Briebart tried to save the Trump admin’s claim.

      First, you have to deal with the loss of CORPORATE tax revenues Here’s key part:

      “ Revenue from taxes on corporate profits declined by $9 billion or 15 percent due to the deep cuts in corporate tax rates. The 2017 tax act lowered the income tax rate for most corporations to 21 percent from the prior top statutory rate of 35 percent.

      The decline in corporate tax revenue, however, was nearly entirely offset by a rise in tariff revenue. These jumped by $8 billion, largely because of new tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports imposed by the Trump Administration last year.”

      SO, THE REVENUE LOSS WASNT THAT BAD BECAUSE OF TRADE WARS. LMAO

      AND THATS NOT EVEN THE WORST PART. Here is is

      “ The Federal Reserve contributed to the higher deficit in two ways, both by lowering revenue and forcing federal outlays higher.”

      Here’s the hilarious explanation

      “ First, the Fed’s payments to the Treasury declined by $5 billion largely because it raised the interest it pays to banks on their reserves, leaving the Fed with less income to remit. Second, higher interest rates meant the federal government had to pay more interest on its debt. Interest payments rose by $16 billion compared with the period a year earlier.”

      HAHAHAHAHA. OUR TAX CUTS HAVENT PAID FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE YOU FORCED US YO PAY INTEREST ON THE DEBT ANC IT WAS HIGHER BECAUSE YIU TICKED UP RATES

      Breitbart’s new tag line: “we think our readers are rubes”

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      So, here a good opportunity for some intellectual honesty.

      Who acknowledges that the Trump admin selling of the tax cut was a “scam?”

      (Cue Jeopardy music)

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      “ I see how you two manage….”

      Au contraire ..,

      Discuss

       

      Here’s the recap.

      Fire starts a thread about AOC.  Many pages of back and forth about AOC being dumb or impressive.  Inevitably, you two go on tirades about Trump and Republicans being scum and how the Trump tax plan is a sham.  I respectfully bow out.  Fire then doubles down on bullspit blanket statements about Evil Republicans while backhandedly mocking me for bowing out.  Virgil chimes in with his own “Trump tax plan sucks” moment and Fire can’t figure out why I say you guys moved the goalposts again.

      You two are fantastic at pointing out when others do this but have a major blind spot when looking in the mirror.

      Should I mention why this looks like trolling?  Nah.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      So, here a good opportunity for some intellectual honesty.

      Who acknowledges that the Trump admin selling of the tax cut was a “scam?”

      (Cue Jeopardy music)

      Uh? Hello?

      😁

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      I don’t disagree with your personal choice point… I don’t disagree that businesses can decide to bake it into their benefits package.

      But I am saying that businesses should offer it and that a number of economic factors have led to the decline in the family dynamic.

      Stagnant wages

      Increased daycare costs

      Both parents working

      Paid leave

      We can argue the solution, but those are the gaps/problems. If you don’t see those as fundamental issues, then there is no point in furthering the conversation.

      As it currently stands there is a strong dichotomy between the gap and the solution.

      The left offers overreaching solutions through law and regulation

      The right offers solutions that only help their rich constituents.



      @jbear
      you are fucking hilarious. You quoted one section of this post I made. YOU, not me…YOU

      This thread referred to how liberals (AOC) addresses problems with solutions vs Conservatives…

      So I didn’t move the goalpost you daft dick… you did.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      So smart. So wise.

      Snowflakes can’t stand her! Especially @escobar. That guy is a raging snowflake!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Dumb broad crushes stable genius

      Weird

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      So, here a good opportunity for some intellectual honesty.

      Who acknowledges that the Trump admin selling of the tax cut was a “scam?”

      (Cue Jeopardy music)

      In Island Bucs world this ^^ was a partisan post because he and the other Trumpettes couldn’t force themselves to respond 😂

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      The trump tax plan is a scam because of the way it was sold

      It was sold as a tax cut that would be good for the economy.  Turns out, it was a tax cut that was good for the economy.  Pretty scammy.

       

      Uh? Hello?

       

      This was 15 minutes after your laughable post.  I know this may come as a shock to a divorced loser like yourself, but not everybody spends every waking moment “downstairs” like you do.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Shocking

      😁

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      And from far far away, outside the tight confines of the cocoon, through the magic of Google:

      “ The report flies in the face of confident assertions by Republicans in the Trump administration and in the Senate that their tax cut plan would pay for itself. “Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin promised. “I think this tax bill is going to reduce the size of our deficits going forward,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told reporters in early November.”

      Uh…, wait …, what?

      “ Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’”

      Stop

      It

      Fake news!


      “The plan will pay for itself with growth,” Mnuchin said at an event hosted by the Institute of International Finance.”

      Oh

      No

      🤭

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      So, here a good opportunity for some intellectual honesty.

      Who acknowledges that the Trump admin selling of the tax cut was a “scam?”

      (Cue Jeopardy music)

      JBear the Libertarian?

      Island Buc the Investor?

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Biggs thinks:

      Continued economic prosperity is a direct result of the tax cuts. This of course leaves out future prosperity as the deficit soars to new heights along with the debt – IE kick the can.

      Classic causation without correlation

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “Continued economic prosperity is a direct result of the tax cuts. This of course leaves out future prosperity as the deficit soars to new heights along with the debt – IE kick the can.”

      The Reagan tax cuts even exist as proof of your point

      back to the other topic, there reason its a good intellectually honesty test is that the GOP & Trump were forced to sell it as deficit neutral (ie “it will pay for itself”) because the deficit and debt is a real problem, the economy was moving forward already BUT ALSO . . and MOST IMPORTANTLY . . because Trump campaigned on being a BALANCED BUDGET/DEFICIT CUTTER:

      “At his official campaign launch address in 2015, Trump told supporters he would apply his business acumen to federal fiscal policy, right from the get-go, saying he would “reduce our $18 trillion in debt, because, believe me, we’re in a bubble.”

      “Again, in March 2016, Trump told The Washington Post that he could get rid of the debt “fairly quickly.” When pressed, he said, “Well, I would say over a period of eight years.”

      “Shortly before his inauguration, he told Sean Hannity that he would “balance the budget very quickly … I think over a five-year period. And I don’t know, maybe I could even surprise you.

      YOU CANNOT HAVE AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRUMP TAX CUTS WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT WAS A SCAM AS SOLD . . . especially when you consider that we have the Reagan tax cut experience as a road map.

      The honest approach would have been to say that the debt is worth it to spur the economy BUT you cant say that when the economy is already going up AND you are proposing a tax cut that dwarf the auto bailout that the GOP was dead against

      zero credibility if you cant acknowledge that when the actual facts are now known. Its like looking back at the moon landings and saying “they didn’t happen.” :-)

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      Biggs thinks:

      Continued economic prosperity is a direct result of the tax cuts. This of course leaves out future prosperity as the deficit soars to new heights along with the debt – IE kick the can.

      Classic causation without correlation

       

      The largest tax revenues ever from the uber-scammy tax cuts has dick to do with the deficit/debt.  The lack of spending cuts does.  Again for the back of the short-bus, TAX REVENUES WERE THE LARGEST EVER ON THE PLANET.

      Seriously, this isn’t too difficult to comprehend.  This has already been discussed, multiple times.  I can write most of your foolishness off as pure ignorance, like having no idea employers pay for unemployment.  But why this needs to be continually repeated for you is one of the many reasons your title of Mayor of Cluelessville won’t be challenged anytime soon.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Ugh

      https://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-revenue-risen-2018

      The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that “Tax Revenues Are Higher,” citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.

      While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn’t account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year’s tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

      Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent – well below the rate of inflation.

      Nominal increases below the rate of inflation mean that the value of revenue collection has actually declined in real terms. By our estimate, total revenue over the time period in question has actually fallen by 1.3 percent after accounting for inflation in the last year. Measured relative to GDP – a sensible way to measure since a steady tax system would be expected to capture the same share of the economy year-after-year – we estimate revenue has fallen 3.8 percent. Finally, relative to the increases that had been expected from population growth, inflation, wage growth, structural elements of the tax code, and other factors, tax revenue is down by roughly 5.5 percent.

      Yet even these numbers understate revenue losses between 2017 and 2018, since they count revenue raised in 2018 but under 2017’s pre-tax cut laws. Roughly three-quarters of the increase in nominal individual income tax revenue since 2017 is the result of non-withheld tax payments made in April (and March) to cover last year’s taxes. Another quarter of the rise is from revenue in October, November, and December of 2017 – months which are part of fiscal year 2018 but were under the old tax code.

      Excluding October through December as well as non-withheld tax payments, individual income tax revenue is essentially unchanged from 2017. Under this scenario, total nominal revenue is down 4.3 percent, real revenues are down 6.4 percent, and revenues as a share of the economy have decreased by 8.8 percent. Revenues from May through July have fallen even more steeply.*

      In other words, revenue has dropped substantially post-tax reform.

      🤭

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      The referenced WSJ Ed board article

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-revenues-are-higher-1533941919?mod=e2two

      “We report, you decide”

      Lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      @Virgilcane

      As you are so fond of pointing out when it suits you….. We’ve already had this conversation and I don’t acknowledge that any tax cut is ever a scam.

      Here’s how it works for me…….. Someone (Republican, Democrat, Satan….) says “I’d like to propose a tax cut” I involuntarily leap to my feet, hand raised in the air and yell YES!

      I don’t think you really needed for me to say that but unlike you I will play along if I want to post my thoughts on a message board.  I sure as hell dont’ think I’m above responding to trolls.

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      VC: do you agree the Trump admin/GOP sold tax cut on false premise?

      Java: I like tax cuts

      VC: uh… okay

      Lmao.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      This thread is so representative of the Cove lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      This thread is so representative of the Cove lol

      Sure is. Fire starts an AOC is awesome thread and by page 7 the two of you have managed to turn even this into another Trump is a liar and an asshole thread. Congratulations!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      “ the two of you have”

      The cove wouldn’t be the cove without you

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      VC: do you agree the Trump admin/GOP sold tax cut on false premise?

      Java: I like tax cuts

      VC: uh… okay

      Lmao.

      I don’t care what he said to get the tax cut passed much like left wingers didn’t care what  Obama had to say about keeping your doctor to get Obamacare passed.

      The big difference is that I’m happy to admit it while left wingers go around saying any mention of that lie is deflection .

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      “ the two of you have”

      The cove wouldn’t be the cove without you

      Nicest thing you’ve ever said to me.

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

       



      @jbear
      (I cant quote you because site is trash)

      This just shows how flamingly partisan you are.

      It also shows how you continue with your equivalency bias narrative…

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      If you want to call me a partisan for being strongly for tax cuts and smaller government I’m fine with that.  But I’ll go after Trump and “moderate” republicans on spending every day of the week.  Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government but most of them just give the idea lip service.  It makes me angry just not quite as angry as the folks on the left who want to make spending even worse than they do, most especially the self avowed Socialists and proud progressives.

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 6251

      This thread is so representative of the Cove lol

      Your total lack of self-awareness never ceases to amaze.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Hmm, a post about a poster, as a defense to this thread not be “representative” of the Cove, coming after several posts were previously demonstrated as wrong . . .

      “what is this manner of sorcery, of 4 D chess . . , he says”

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Hmm, a post about a poster, as a defense to this thread not be “representative” of the Cove, coming after several posts were previously demonstrated as wrong . . .

      “what is this manner of sorcery, of 4 D chess . . , he says”

      This thread is about AOC being impressive.  I love how every time you type something out you immediately think you’ve proved some grand point and ended the discussion.

      You occassionally make a decent point and make me think a bit but in this case all you did was change back to your favorite topic. Trump. And make a big deal about an insignificant point that perhaps the tax cuts didn’t completely pay for themselves as Trump said they would.

      The fact is, tax cuts do benefit the economy and certainly could have paid for themselves.  I’m sure Trump hoped they would much like Obama hoped we’d be able to keep our doctors.

      Like all politicians who believe in a certain ideology,  they run with the numbers that support what they want to do.

      Your argument only works in your bubble of like minded thinkers unless you want to argue that tax cuts have no positive effect on the economy ?

      You’ll lose that argument btw.

      End of the day you come off sounding exactly like the people who would never let the Obama is a liar argument rest.

      Personally I understand exactly  why Obama made that argument and I’m fine with it because I get that it came from his ideological belief that he could set up some sort of utopia healthcare system that existed outside of economics.  Certainly he hoped to be able to go back and get closer to single payer which if you’re a deciple of progressive thought,  you feel will solve everything since the market would no longer exist.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      This is just ignorant ass shit or just all-in Republicanism ( from a libertarian lol)

      “ The fact is, tax cuts do benefit the economy and certainly could have paid for themselves”

      1 Tax cuts can benefit the economy BUT

      2. YIU have to WEIGH that short term benefit against the DRAG THE DEBT CREATES LONG TERM ( this is just basic, unassailable kitchen table Econ)

      3. This is why tax cuts are particularly relevant as a tool to escape a sluggish economy (Trump it taxes at end of 8 year bull?)

      4 Tax cuts will NEVER pay for themselves long-term without spending cuts, A FACT PROVEN BY HISTORY, SUCH AS THE REAGAN TAX CUTS ( if you buy this bs you are a RUBE who ignores actual history)

      5 tax cuts are NOT essential for a good economy. Clinton raised taxes, had a good economy and a SURPLUS

      6. Lastly, tax cuts DO NOT CREATE LESSS GOVERNMENT. Spending cuts do. One more time for the dolts in the back row, SPENDING CUTS DO. When you remove a government agency you remove its spending ( on services, payroll etc)

      So here, suck on this. In fact you and your buddy maybe rub each other’s nipples for comfort as you come up with a way to reconcile your dumbness with TODAYS NEWS

      “Trump signs $1.4 trillion bill to avoid government shutdown, raise minimum age for tobacco”

      Don’t give me “that’s Congress” because … the tax cut was not even close to essential AND … AND … lol .. your boy Trump CAMPAIGNED AS A BUSINESS GUY WHO WOUKD USE HIS BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE TO CUT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT (as quote multiple time above)

      (you dopes are so easy to undercut because you keep trying to maintain an intellectually and factually bankrupt position. The TRUMP TAX CUT WAS was: an unnecessary GOP corporate tax give back that added to the deficit. FACT. While tax cut to spur an economy and small government are good goals, this cut was OBJECTIVELY political and based on “voodoo economics” that was discredited decades ago)

      😁

      Merry Christmas!

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Simple, kitchen table concept:

      Adding debt adds angrowing, immovable expense: INTEREST

      You cut taxes now when you don’t really need to (rather than using the tax revenue to pay down debt) you are taking a minimal short term gain(if you’re lucky) and saddling the future with an even bigger payment that has to be paid just to keep the government open.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      I would pay top dollar to watch AOC and Trump in a debate.

      Pros: The one-liners and sound bites.

      Cons: You’d most likely IQ points, as their stupidity is most likely contagious.

      She would crush him, not because she is a genius but just because she is always hyper prepared and he is never prepared ( and not particularly quick on his feet)

      If you notice, Trump never does press conferences (just the helicopter talks) and recently suggested he would not debate And his actual “successful” forum is the unchallenged campaign stage

      The few times he has actually tried to take people on in real time he’s mostly gotten crushed. Think Pelosi/Schumer confrontation in tv over the wall.

      He has single-handedly revitalized and elevated Pelosi (the wall meeting, the standing at the table, her trolling him like yesterday) and he literally built AOC ( because he needs a phantom to protect his flock from)

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      This is timely example of what I described about Trump above:

      https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475374-trumps-dingell-insults-disrupt-gop-unity-on-impeachment

      The ripping of Dingell WHILE IN MICHIGAN ( a state he needs) and while impeachment is ongoing OBJECTIVELY DUMB. For all the bs that he is some kind of political genius, he’s a actually an unscripted, undisciplined disaster who has to constantly get pulled out of messes by his people.

      Correctly identifying and pandering to a political movement that has existed for decades doesn’t take genius it just takes no shame (because the movement is in many regards the worst instincts of the country, not the best). Kudos to him for capitalizing but he’s still a complete moron

      (Trump changed himself to Bannon’s ideology so it’s really Bannon who capitalized on the movement/issues – see Europe)

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      In a single payer system, the market would still exist (or could exist).

      And not or…

      And jbear, I already outlined how the conversation EVOLVED away from AOC and into tax cuts. This wouldn’t be the first thread that did that and it happened because you quoted a PORTION of my post regarding AOC.

      Cmon man…

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      Lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Simple, kitchen table concept:

      Adding debt adds angrowing, immovable expense: INTEREST

      You cut taxes now when you don’t really need to (rather than using the tax revenue to pay down debt) you are taking a minimal short term gain(if you’re lucky) and saddling the future with an even bigger payment that has to be paid just to keep the government open.

      As you know, debt is created when you spend more than you bring in!  The key is spending not tax revenues.  If you take AOC and her plans as a guideline, you might conclude that strategically the focus on the debt is all about opposition to tax cuts while turning a blind eye to spending cuts.  As a proponent of MMT she’s on record as someone who doesn’t believe that debt is all that important.

      Her boogie man is the dreaded tax cut which is one of the only things Democrats ever want to be sure we can pay for before we do them…. I wonder why that is? Debt is not the goal of a tax cut.  Cutting the size of government is.

      Logically, if cutting taxes benefits the economy perhaps the left believes there is a correlation between government spending and economic growth?  Does government spending prop up the economy?  There is evidence that providing people wages helps the economy sure but government is renowned for it’s waste not it’s efficiency.

      I’ve been down this road with this argument before but it’s the argument you and the left wing don’t want to have.  Dollar for dollar spent on government benefits the economy by pennies on the dollar compared with the economic benefit provided by the free market.  Never mind the fact that the whole line of thinking that government is supposed to provide everyone a job and good pay is absolutely abhorrent.  Government isn’t supposed to do any of that.

      Debt is never the goal of a tax cut and is a side effect of a refusal to cut spending.  Since the conversation these days seems to be all about the coming Socialist Utopia, how about turning the page and putting a little thought into a libertarian Utopia.

      Very small government, very low taxes, very robust and thriving capitalist economy where everyone benefits from the business owner to the lowest, least educated employee.  Jobs are plentiful, employers and corporations are generous because employers and corporations are or are run by other human beings.  It’s not a machine, it’s not a monster or satanic cult.

      The information age has changed how business’s are perceived and how they need to be perceived in a positive light to thrive.  LESS government is what makes that happen.  No more fanny patting backdoor meetings with government officials to obtain trade advantages through manipulation of regulations through government force.  The people have the information and good relations with the people are paramount and the key to making a profit.

      Philanthropy, a high standard of living and a general feeling of goodwill towards your fellow man is the norm not the exception.  The libertarian utopia is as far from the hateful, crushing of the unfortunate masses as could be.

      As much as I’m sure you’ll make light of everything I’ve said here, I think it needs to be said.  It seems to be taken for granted that the extreme left holds some sort of moral high ground but it’s high time that be taken away from them.  EVERYTHING the left wants to do is dependent on force, on distrust of human spirt and intentions and the belief that the only thing that can save us is the elevation of an elite class of government bureaucrats who will decide for everyone how to best insure that all people get a mostly equal share of everything.  As with all things, those at the top are likely to get the biggest share however, the market bases these rewards on merit while a socialistic state bases them on influence and favor trading.

      I’ll take the market every day of the week.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      I agree that politics make spending the tougher and bigger issue but this is just d…u…m…b:

      “ As you know, debt is created when you spend more than you bring in! The key is spending not tax revenues”

      You shouldn’t even be able to read those two sentences together without laughing

      Sentence 1: Debt = expense > revenue

      Sentence 2: Debt = expense only

      Wtf?

      Like I said above, these kind of arguments are so easy to knock down because they are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

      OF COURSE

      OF COURSE

      OF COURSE..

      Voluntarily cutting revenue impacts debt

      Especially when you don’t need to voluntarily cut revenue AND

      You knowingly cut revenue WITHOUT cutting expenses

      ^^ this undeniable truth is why you LIE and say total BS like “the tax cuts will pay for themselves”

      Good grief. Lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      I agree that politics make spending the tougher and bigger issue but this is just d…u…m…b:

      “ As you know, debt is created when you spend more than you bring in! The key is spending not tax revenues”

      You shouldn’t even be able to read those two sentences together without laughing

      Sentence 1: Debt = expense > revenue

      Sentence 2: Debt = expense only

      Wtf?

      Like I said above, these kind of arguments are so easy to knock down because they are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

      OF COURSE

      OF COURSE

      OF COURSE..

      Voluntarily cutting revenue impacts debt

      Especially when you don’t need to voluntarily cut revenue AND

      You knowingly cut revenue WITHOUT cutting expenses

      ^^ this undeniable truth is why you LIE and say total BS like “the tax cuts will pay for themselves”

      Good grief. Lol

      Speaking of good grief.  You just flat out refuse to even acknowledge my POV.  Here you are again talking about a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts but you fail to acknowledge that a tax cut with corresponding spending cuts was exactly what someone with my position would have wanted.  I want spending cuts in fact one of the main points of a tax cut in my view is to put pressure on spending.  Even if the tax cut did pay for itself, it still puts pressure on future spending which would have just been an added victory but short of that the tax cut in and of itself is a huge victory.

      Your whole bolded argument is the dumb statement here.  As if the only thing that matters is suddenly debt.  Coming from the left that’s rich and sure does require a suspension of disbelief to imagine that it is a sincere argument coming from the party of AOC.

      This is why you being a former Republican is such a joke.  These are DNC talking points and they are really interesting because Democrats never historically care about debt unless arguing against a tax cut.  Medicare for all, no problem, green new deal great idea!  The list goes on as you know full well.

      A cut to revenues is bad if the government was run as a business, if growth is the goal and taking over the world the end game.  I refuse to acknowledge that as a legitimate plan for the government.  A cut to revenues is a mandate to shrink government and to force it to get out of every private facet of our lives that we can handle quite well on our own.

      The argument that you can’t have a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts that you know full well, will be a sticking point on getting the tax cuts in the first place is nothing but a partisan argument to fight against tax cuts which we all know you hate the idea of in the first place.

      The really unseemly thing about your argument is that you ask me to believe that you don’t have a problem with the tax cuts as long as they are accompanied by spending cuts.  If that were really true then you and I would be on the same side.

       

       

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      “The list goes on as you know well”

      *narrator’s voice* it did not go on

      We need spending down and revenue up. We need both.

      Trump just quadrupled down on the debt/deficit yet you’re arguing against a green deal that doesn’t even exist in law/funding?

      In the end, as I’ve said many times, we cant regulate everything to death and we can privatize everything. We can’t tax people to death and we can’t eliminate taxes.

      The question comes down to where? When? How?

      Its funny, both sides argue against the extremists of the opposition party and for the centrist of their own party. Like how we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions.

      The only difference now is both parties are moving toward the extremes… the Liberals as a reaction to Trump, and the Conservatives as a reaction to Obama (a moderate)

       

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Hey JBear

      “ but you fail to acknowledge that a tax cut with corresponding spending cuts was exactly what someone with my position would have wanted. ”

      Didn’t you say in another post that you’d support tax cuts anytime because you want smaller government?

      I already knocked that lunacy down and now here you are criticizing another poster for not crediting you with WANTING spending cuts …..

      Circular …. equals….?

      Lol

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      “The list goes on as you know well”

      *narrator’s voice* it did not go on

      We need spending down and revenue up. We need both.

      Trump just quadrupled down on the debt/deficit yet you’re arguing against a green deal that doesn’t even exist in law/funding?

      In the end, as I’ve said many times, we cant regulate everything to death and we can privatize everything. We can’t tax people to death and we can’t eliminate taxes.

      The question comes down to where? When? How?

      Its funny, both sides argue against the extremists of the opposition party and for the centrist of their own party. Like how we judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions.

      The only difference now is both parties are moving toward the extremes… the Liberals as a reaction to Trump, and the Conservatives as a reaction to Obama (a moderate)

      I agree with some of what you say here and I’m bothered by the fact that I don’t respond to you as much as I should . I disagree with your focus on the center being somehow right just because you can get the most people agreeing there.  Being in the center doesn’t make you right.

    • jbear

      Participant
      Post count: 3965

      Hey JBear

      “ but you fail to acknowledge that a tax cut with corresponding spending cuts was exactly what someone with my position would have wanted. ”

      Didn’t you say in another post that you’d support tax cuts anytime because you want smaller government?

      I already knocked that lunacy down and now here you are criticizing another poster for not crediting you with WANTING spending cuts …..

      Circular …. equals….?

      Lol

      And you…. Again,  every time you type something out it doesn’t mean you won an argument.  I understand that you agree with yourself.

      The big difference between what you’re saying and what I’m saying is that you seem to think every time you make a point you’ve proved that what you think is correct and you’ve just won the blue ribbon.

      The only thing I’m trying to do is prove to you that what I think is valid thought.  Which btw it obviously is as there are countless pundits more credentialed than either of us making similar arguments every single day.

      What you end up doing just about every single day looks a lot more like bullying than winning an argument.

      It aslo paints you very plainly, not just for trupettets but for rational thinkers who bother to read your crap posts as a very obvious, closed minded partisan.

      A thinker understands that you can’t solve the world’s problems with a dictate or by shouting down differing views and that no brilliant mind has ever been able to unify all human thought.

      Only a fool ever thinks they can win an ideological argument with reason.  The resting state is discord and the active state a bullet in the head, ask Stalin and Hitler.

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      Java Bear angry

      Typical Cove. Java, you started with something demonstrably false and since that was pointed out you’ve waffled back and forth, even contradicting prior positions you’ve taken, until eventually it devolves to:

      “You’re a bad and mean poster”

      Lmao.

      Simple reality: if you VOLUNTARILY CUT TAXES (revenue) you automatically increase the deficit/debt UNLESS you cut spending. Because that is simply and undeniably the truth and because everyone knows there’s not going to be a corresponding/offsetting cut … the GOP recycled an old, discredited lie .. “ growth will lead to tax cuts paying for themselves.”

      Cry all you want

    • FireLicht2020

      Participant
      Post count: 6255

      I’