alexandria ocasio-cortez: political actress

Z. T. Jacob

Established
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
130
Everybody called FDR a socialist (and rightfully so) , but because of him you can withdraw your money when a bank fails (FDIC), poor children and elderly people don’t die from not having healthcare (Medicaid & Medicare), Most people have a better shot at home ownership (FHA), Elderly people have at least the basic necessities to survive (Social Security), and Farmers have crop insurance so they don’t go hungry when drought strikes (FCIC)

These programs have been systematically dismantled and de-toothed by both Republicans and Democrats (who are all wrongly called socialist) in the name of reducing the national debt (Repubs) and being “bipartisan” (Dems) Yet we rack up trillions of dollars in debt going to pointless (unless you’re an oil company or defense contractor) wars across the globe and bipartisanship is never for the sake of the people and always for the corporations.

And all I can do is scoff at those who do for creating a “free market economy,” because in the 1950s under Pres. Eisenhower, a Republican, we a had far stronger social safety net and there was far greater economic freedom for the average American. The top marginal tax rate was 91%, and we were actually helping the downtrodden, and the economy was doing phenomenally.So really, an economy more balanced between socialism and capitalism , like we had from the 40s to 70s is better for the market.

In the 1960s, as a result of the economic stability, security, and freedom afforded to most Americans by the New Deal, there was a beautiful flourishing of democracy; black Americans stood up for their god given rights, young people questioned the moral authority of the status quo, women demanded equality, workers demanded better pay, etc. And the entrenched interests of the global elites were concerned that the people would take their power away from them.

In 1975, the Trilateral Commission released a report titled The Crisis of Democracy, in which they warned against “too much democracy” Why? It threatened the power of the elite. So, starting in the mid 70s, elites started to conspire against the American people, and started buying all our politicians, and all the media so they could use it to disinform and divide us, so they could coerce us into reversing the conditions of the new deal that led to so much prosperity for the vast majority of our people.

Unfortunately, it worked. What AOC wants to is center the American economy, because it has gone way too far right in the last 40 years, which has resulted in stagnating wages, low participation in democracy (because people rightfully believe that their government doesn’t work for them), and unprecedented personal and student debt. No economy was ever nor will ever be an entirely socialist or capitalist economy, they are all mixed.

What, I and AOC, and Bernie Sanders are arguing for is an economy that is balanced between the interests of labor and capital e.g. more socialism, but not too much socialism e.g. state ownership of the means of production nor too much capitalism e.g. rampant income inequality and corporate ownership of the political system.

I’m glad we have the socialist programs we do, I was a able to go to public school for free for 13 years, if I’m in a dangerous situation I can call the police, and most importantly I don’t starve because of food stamps. If we didn’t have police, roads, and public education, Republicans would be calling AOC and Bernie socialist.

Don’t be scared of the S-word, be scared of the billionaire elites who deliberately undermine democracy and disinform the population for their own selfish ends. What democratic socialists want is a fairer distribution of wealth and power, because all power in the hands of the state is just as dangerous as all power in the hands of a few oligarchs. What Demsocs want and what this country needs is power in the hands of THE PEOPLE!
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
Everybody called FDR a socialist (and rightfully so) , but because of him you can withdraw your money when a bank fails (FDIC), poor children and elderly people don’t die from not having healthcare (Medicaid & Medicare), Most people have a better shot at home ownership (FHA), Elderly people have at least the basic necessities to survive (Social Security), and Farmers have crop insurance so they don’t go hungry when drought strikes (FCIC)

These programs have been systematically dismantled and de-toothed by both Republicans and Democrats (who are all wrongly called socialist) in the name of reducing the national debt (Repubs) and being “bipartisan” (Dems) Yet we rack up trillions of dollars in debt going to pointless (unless you’re an oil company or defense contractor) wars across the globe and bipartisanship is never for the sake of the people and always for the corporations.

And all I can do is scoff at those who do for creating a “free market economy,” because in the 1950s under Pres. Eisenhower, a Republican, we a had far stronger social safety net and there was far greater economic freedom for the average American. The top marginal tax rate was 91%, and we were actually helping the downtrodden, and the economy was doing phenomenally.So really, an economy more balanced between socialism and capitalism , like we had from the 40s to 70s is better for the market.

In the 1960s, as a result of the economic stability, security, and freedom afforded to most Americans by the New Deal, there was a beautiful flourishing of democracy; black Americans stood up for their god given rights, young people questioned the moral authority of the status quo, women demanded equality, workers demanded better pay, etc. And the entrenched interests of the global elites were concerned that the people would take their power away from them.

In 1975, the Trilateral Commission released a report titled The Crisis of Democracy, in which they warned against “too much democracy” Why? It threatened the power of the elite. So, starting in the mid 70s, elites started to conspire against the American people, and started buying all our politicians, and all the media so they could use it to disinform and divide us, so they could coerce us into reversing the conditions of the new deal that led to so much prosperity for the vast majority of our people.

Unfortunately, it worked. What AOC wants to is center the American economy, because it has gone way too far right in the last 40 years, which has resulted in stagnating wages, low participation in democracy (because people rightfully believe that their government doesn’t work for them), and unprecedented personal and student debt. No economy was ever nor will ever be an entirely socialist or capitalist economy, they are all mixed.

What, I and AOC, and Bernie Sanders are arguing for is an economy that is balanced between the interests of labor and capital e.g. more socialism, but not too much socialism e.g. state ownership of the means of production nor too much capitalism e.g. rampant income inequality and corporate ownership of the political system.

I’m glad we have the socialist programs we do, I was a able to go to public school for free for 13 years, if I’m in a dangerous situation I can call the police, and most importantly I don’t starve because of food stamps. If we didn’t have police, roads, and public education, Republicans would be calling AOC and Bernie socialist.

Don’t be scared of the S-word, be scared of the billionaire elites who deliberately undermine democracy and disinform the population for their own selfish ends. What democratic socialists want is a fairer distribution of wealth and power, because all power in the hands of the state is just as dangerous as all power in the hands of a few oligarchs. What Demsocs want and what this country needs is power in the hands of THE PEOPLE!
Well said!

I don't know how people can looks at facts like this and still defend Wall Street and the Empire. I've heard the same tired arguments my whole life, "without capitalism no one will want to work" or, "without competition there's no progress." The lies of capitalists like that drone Thomas Sowell never stop. Socialism is the ruling elite's greatest fear and they can't hide it.

I watched an excellent video yesterday about the history of socialism in America. The ruling class has engaged in every know tactic to subvert and extinguish the workers movement the last 120 years- jailing, beatings, assassinations, silencing free speech, deportation, counter-intelligence ops, blacklisting, on and on it's brutal. The Red Scare and McCarthyism, the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, Smith Act, Taft-Hartley Act were all direct attempts to crush socialism, straight up. Woodrow Wilson is a demon.

It's great to remember the place socialism held in American history. From 1898-1933 there were 57 socialist mayors elected in 23 states. Over 200,000 members of the Communist and Socialist parties. In women's rights, anti-war, labor rights, and especially civil rights victories of the 1960's. The 1% would like for nothing more than hope for justice and equality to fade away but these are beliefs that will never die.

 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
You've just proven exactly what's wrong with leftist thinking: It's not based in reality. NOTHING IS FREE. FREE DOES NOT EXIST. Someone paid for your education. They are called taxpayers. Someone pays for your food stamps. They are called taxpayers. While you benefit from others paying for things for you, they are often working overtime or taking 2 jobs to keep their family afloat.

The government should provide basic public services that uphold the law, protect citizens, maintain roads, provide basic education. That's what we taxpayers pay for. Beyond that, it's an abuse of power and taxpayer funds, and encourages enslavement to a government system that keeps people dependent upon itself.

But I know I'm speaking into the wind here. Free stuff wins, apparently.
If you think your taxes will decline if the government stops throwing people their meager bones you are sorely mistaken. You will still pay taxes they will just go to wars and bankers and rich people (even more so then they already do now) instead.

And the people who go to public schools and benefit from those programs are taxpayers as well. I’d rather my tax dollars go to things that benefit the citizens of this country then go to pay for unnecessary wars, foreign aid, corporate tax benefits, and tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
2,024
You've just proven exactly what's wrong with leftist thinking: It's not based in reality. NOTHING IS FREE. FREE DOES NOT EXIST. Someone paid for your education. They are called taxpayers. Someone pays for your food stamps. They are called taxpayers. While you benefit from others paying for things for you, they are often working overtime or taking 2 jobs to keep their family afloat.

The government should provide basic public services that uphold the law, protect citizens, maintain roads, provide basic education. That's what we taxpayers pay for. Beyond that, it's an abuse of power and taxpayer funds, and encourages enslavement to a government system that keeps people dependent upon itself.

But I know I'm speaking into the wind here. Free stuff wins, apparently.
we are being conditioned to call almost every suggestion of using a larger amount of taxpayer money for things that actually benefit society “socialism”. Otherwise we might catch on to the fact that we can’t afford anything because we’re paying for ridiculous things like endless war to help funnel more money to the wealthiest people.
 
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
Wow. Socialism and communism - which is what AOC is pushing - isn't liberation.[ It's enslavement, pure and simple.
State socialism, maybe. But since I'm an anarchist, I don't support state socialism. I do, however, support any effort to take power away from bosses and give it to employees since the entire problem with this world is he have vertical power structures. The bosses, kings, and like on the top... And everyone else on the bottom.

I mean, how the hell isn't capitalism slavery? Just because you get a paycheck?


But if you're someone who doesn't want to earn their living through hard work and making the most of the opportunities here, then sure, 'free stuff' and redistribution of wealth sounds great, doesn't it.
It would be great if hard work paid off. But guess what? It doesn't.

My father worked himself so hard he gave himself health problems. My mother worked hard for her entire life. And what do they have to show for it? A house they still haven't paid off because they kept needing to take mortgages to pay medical bills because insurance doesn't cover everything and credit card debt because when there's no money coming you still have to eat.


Socialism and communism is pure greed and covetousness. For the masses, it's the lust to have what others have but without earning it.
You hear it here, folks. Wanting to have food, shelter, and medicine even if you lose your job is pure greed and covetousness. McDonald's CEO earning almost $22 million? That's fine.

For the leaders, it's the lust for power and control over others while they remain above the consequences.
I'm curious as to how this is any different than our current system?

Capitolism is the most free and successful system in the world, and many other countries are adopting it and thriving. Many emigrate to the states BECAUSE they know they have a chance at success if they educate themselves and work hard. If you want to live under AOC's dream state, move to a country that matches those views.
Let's ask the Chinese workers we have make our shit if they love capitalism. Let's as African nations that are exploited for their resources if they like capitalism. Let's as South American countries if they love capitalism.

People come to American to earn money since our dollar as more value than theirs... And almost everyone is exploitive.

If you're a capitalist that worried about the Illuminati, you need to wake up and realize that capitalism is their strongest tool. Hell, AOC and the like aren't even socialists; they are social democrats. They sure as hell aren't talking about seizing the means of production for the worker... Which, you know. Is the point of socialism?
 

Z. T. Jacob

Established
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
130
Someone paid for your education. They are called taxpayers. Someone pays for your food stamps. They are called taxpayers. While you benefit from others paying for things for you, they are often working overtime or taking 2 jobs to keep their family afloat.
Warren Buffett, a man worth upwards of $70 billion pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is absolutely absurd.

Right now the middle class does bear the burden of taxation, but If we had laws in place to make sure rich folks paid their fair share of taxes (like not allowing them to move their money overseas, taxing capital gains as income, not giving rich people handouts a.k.a tax credits & subsidies, and not allowing giant corporations to pay $0.00 in federal taxes) then we could take the burden off the middle class and over time, eliminate the deficit. Whenever a program is proposed that would help working Americans (who I'll call taxpayers b/c they pay most of the taxes) Republicans and boardroom progressives alike say, "yeah, but... how are we gonna pay for it?" That question never comes up when we start a new war, or when we give a massive tax cut to billionaires.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Warren Buffett, a man worth upwards of $70 billion pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, which is absolutely absurd.

Right now the middle class does bear the burden of taxation, but If we had laws in place to make sure rich folks paid their fair share of taxes (like not allowing them to move their money overseas, taxing capital gains as income, not giving rich people handouts a.k.a tax credits & subsidies, and not allowing giant corporations to pay $0.00 in federal taxes) then we could take the burden off the middle class and over time, eliminate the deficit. Whenever a program is proposed that would help working Americans (who I'll call taxpayers b/c they pay most of the taxes) Republicans and boardroom progressives alike say, "yeah, but... how are we gonna pay for it?" That question never comes up when we start a new war, or when we give a massive tax cut to billionaires.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info.

Buffet said he was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, but he was comparing the tax on her salary versus the tax he pays on capital gains. Buffet's personal salary is nominal, but he still pays more in taxes than his secretary, and the taxes he pays on his capital gains, where he makes his real money, are much, much more than that.

As for the middle class bearing the burden of taxation. That's a myth.

 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Your judging by a different metric... tax as percentage of income versus tax as absolute dollar value. It’s a fun trick I’ll give you that..
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Your judging by a different metric... tax as percentage of income versus tax as absolute dollar value. It’s a fun trick I’ll give you that..
I was explaining what Buffet meant when he said he was taxed at a lower rate, and pointing out that he still paid a lot in taxes.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I was explaining what Buffet meant when he said he was taxed at a lower rate, and pointing out that he still paid a lot in taxes.
His tax liability was an overall lower rate as percentage of income than his secretaries... I thought that was pretty self explanatory myself. Idk.

And their are corporations (and presidents) who pay $0
 
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
1,269
Not owning 100% of your labor makes it slavery.

Psst. You know who believes you should 100% own your labor? Socialists. That's sort of what seizing the means of production is.

Social Democrats like AOC aren't socialists. Granted, it's a step above our current economic system and might make people realize there's more options... But they aren't socialist. Maybe a step towards it, though.
 

Z. T. Jacob

Established
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
130
Socialists have no income tax?
Income tax is the most just form of taxation (if capital gains are included of course) because those who extract the most out of the earth and humanity get shittons of income, which should be taxed and given back to the earth (environmental protection) and the humans who have been commodified for their labor.

Property taxes are regressive because they force the monetization of all property and land and they hurt the little guy more than big business.

And sales taxes are regressive because they inhibit peoples' ability to purchase things that they need and/or would increase their wealth (cars for example) and because they put more of the burden of taxation upon poor and Middle class people. Rich people do not and can not spend all their money, so therefore proportionally contribute less to the budget and economy.

Corporate taxes are a mixed bag. Large corporations should be taxed (much more than they are now), so as to inhibit their ability to monopolize markets, but small corporations should not be taxed, so they can be more competitive and reduce market monopolization.

I do not believe in public ownership of the means of production in most industries. I do however, believe that we need to redistribute some of our wealth to the people who have been commodified and extracted for their labor, and I do believe that we need more socialism than we have now.

We must go back to a more just, balanced form of capitalism. When you go back to 1776, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, was writing against mercantilism, which is a state monopoly in the interests of the wealthy. What we have now is a corporate monopoly in the interests of the wealthy, he was essentially writing against monopolization which is what we have now. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition, and we do not, through regressive forms of taxation and the failure of antitrust legislation, have that now.

I call myself a democratic socialist because I want more socialism, but not total state control of the economy. Most democratic socialists really want a more balanced, just form of capitalism where the emphasis is not on how well the very wealthiest individuals are doing, but how well the least among us are doing.

Both economics and government are about power. I think that too much power has been amassed by too few people, in all areas of society, so we must ameliorate that by giving more power, politically, economically, and socially to working people. The fundamental principle of nature is balance, e.g. homeostasis, and we haven't got enough of it.

This is officially a rant....
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
There was no income tax prior to 1913. It was only implemented - originally - to fund wars. I’d argue that’s really all it does now. The government used to be funded mainly by import tariffs which protected American trade. All this changed when the economy became more global and to benefit industry, not the people.

FICA taxes are more of an insurance setup which I personally view differently.

Corporations should be taxed heavily on profit. It would encourage them to pay their workers more (hopefully)
 
Last edited:
Top