U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Boston
5,764 posts, read 1,700,461 times
Reputation: 4256

Advertisements

Progressive wing of the Democratic Party won't be happy until all comrades are making $15 an hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
9,604 posts, read 7,790,419 times
Reputation: 6209
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
Nice to know this 29 year old is so insightful, what a moral compass for us to follow....


She is an bimbo bartender. I like how she uses the word "allows" for billionaires, like the government should have a say in how much one accumulates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Federal Way, WA
288 posts, read 132,428 times
Reputation: 338
I don't favor seizing things, but I'll never understand how someone could be so god damn greedy that they want to hoard money far beyond what 1000 people could live a comfortable life on. I'll also never understand how the right got middle class people to be so concerned about making sure the ultra rich frequently pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the average American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:49 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,404 posts, read 4,465,164 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
Anybody agree with AOC?

Should we limit people’s success and wealth or seize it ?

——
“When asked whether “a world that allows for billionaires” is “a moral outcome,” Ocasio-Cortez responded: “No it’s not. It’s not.”

“She then said that she does not believe all billionaires “like Bill Gates, for example, or Warren Buffett are immoral people."

“I’m not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said.”
Why is that snipped like that <"When asked whether "a world that allows for billionaires" is "a moral outcome">

Did they not include the word "is" with their question to her?

What did they ask then "...a world that allows for billionaires...a moral outcome..."

Trump said that rich people like him aren't where they are because they follow morals. In fact, he said it is smart to steal from the government and people should be proud of him if he did, but not proud of nonEuropean immigrants doing exactly that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,404 posts, read 4,465,164 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy View Post
Progressive wing of the Democratic Party won't be happy until all comrades are making $15 an hour.
But the Russian "comrades" were helping Trump and misleading Democrats and Republicans because we didn't accept that they expanded and infringed on one of our ally's sovereignty.

How much does the Regressive wing of the Republican Party want it's "comrades" to make an hour? A small $1 million loan from daddy before inheritance dues to the government are fairly tariffed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM
 
49,796 posts, read 40,295,769 times
Reputation: 31262
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Don't you think that is problematic? I do. It doesn't have to be the case.

Threads like these continue to convince me that the GOP is being overrun by illiterates, intellectual lightweights, and fools convinced they aren't poor so much as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Much of what she says is nonsense, but it isn't much of a stretch to say that the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few is problematic, if not immoral.
1) You are arguing theory. I was arguing practical implementation which you took to mean that I supported the status quo for some reason. Again, I ask you since Europe has much higher taxes in general....um...having any trouble collecting on the billionaires? Or are they using globalism and loopholes?

2) It's not just the GOP lol....or did you not pay attention to the 2016 primaries as just one example?

3) Extreme wealth imbalance is a pretty broad topic. It would need to be broken down into the variety of billionaires so to speak....inherited vs. built a company etc. etc. Seems like when "rich people" topics come up it's ok to be rich if you're Ronaldo or Michael Jordan....but not if you founded a company etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:15 PM
Status: "Happy New Year!" (set 20 days ago)
 
377 posts, read 214,347 times
Reputation: 433
Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example of why they put instructions on shampoo bottles. Enough said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:18 PM
 
10,316 posts, read 8,773,157 times
Reputation: 6128
What an idiotic concept. You must want a world were laziness and mediocrity (at best) are encouraged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm1982 View Post
Anybody agree with AOC?

Should we limit people’s success and wealth or seize it ?

——
“When asked whether “a world that allows for billionaires” is “a moral outcome,” Ocasio-Cortez responded: “No it’s not. It’s not.”

“She then said that she does not believe all billionaires “like Bill Gates, for example, or Warren Buffett are immoral people."

“I’m not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez said.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...res-is-immoral
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
4,410 posts, read 1,592,620 times
Reputation: 3497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFit View Post
I don't favor seizing things, but I'll never understand how someone could be so god damn greedy that they want to hoard money far beyond what 1000 people could live a comfortable life on. I'll also never understand how the right got middle class people to be so concerned about making sure the ultra rich frequently pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the average American.
Don't you worry it's going to trickle down to them. Any day now, you watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,404 posts, read 4,465,164 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete98146 View Post
Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example of why they put instructions on shampoo bottles. Enough said.
All you said is that you think she is stupid to stand up against the powerful and wealthy with an attempt at a censured politically correct metaphor. That is all you did. That is simply not enough at all. If anything, "enough said," is why shampoo companies put instruction on shampoo bottles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top