No, my thesis is that you were intentionally misrepresenting facts by stating that 70% number and then doubled down when you said that it was "pretty close" to a 70% rate on income over $10 million. You did it because you thought it made the Democrats seem more "radical". (I'll ignore the fact that AOC's proposal is considerable out of the mainstream of the 2019 Democratic Party)

It isn't unusual by those on the right to misrepresent that 70% number. Here's a Republican member of the House doing exactly what you did:


https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1092414531064786944

You act like I actually argued that it was 70% effective.

You basically did.

so no one cares that usa is giving saudis nukes? or is that a fake story?

I'll admit that I did not know that it was for income over 10 million.

In fact as I stated I didn't know any of the details. Obviously though I did assume that it would be a progressive tax. The only thing I knew was that a top rate of 70% had been proposed.

When I said "sounds pretty close" what I mean to say is that you are playing semantics.

And since we're playing semantics you know...a 70% rate is a 70% rate.

You admit that there was a 70% rate you just feel the need to qualify that it was a 70% marginal rate.

It is pretty close to what I said, like I said.

Whether it is for income over 500k, 1 million, or 10 million. My point was literally that a 70% rate had been proposed which I'm not wrong about. I never argued that it was effective and in fact I argued that rich people have a way of avoiding taxes.

Awful example too btw.

This fits your argument, that income tax was imposed by the rich to require the not rich to pay for government, how?

I heard we're setting them up nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.

Good news everybody, according to ABC the state of California is currently 99.4% drought-free!

Especially since most sports literally have a luxury tax

That wasn't my argument.

From reading it looks like income tax did have a large degree of popular support. It was thought that the excise taxes and tarrifs that had been used to fund government were burdensome on the poor (like sales taxes basically). So the income tax was popular with progressives.The 1894 law was declared unconstitutional and the 16th amendment was passed in 1913 which allowed for a renewed income tax that year.

Originally only a very small percentage of households paid taxes but that expanded drastically after wwii.

So there is support I suppose for some of your narrative. My argument though is that the income tax serves a purpose for the ruling class. And perhaps at this point it's a little circular as its sort of "it exists so it must be doing something for them".

But that just means I need to work on it more. It could be that they've found that it is simply the best way of funding the government that serves to enrich them and keep them in power--better than tarrifs (aka trade barriers).

just the factories right, so they can make their own.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-saudi-arabia/

tl;dr ostensibly for wattage, but they refuse to agree to limit themselves from using facilities and technology for enriching uranium for nuclear weapons like other nations in the area.

So I guess in a sense Saudi Arabia is competing with Iran. America is evening out the playing field.

some satisfying ownage

i guess im too old to embed tweets. i tried.

https://twitter.com/RealBankReform/s...24736595546112

idk, filthy

"pop quiz math problem" isn't exactly the type of high-level policymaker qualification I'm most concerned with

Question: "Do you think Congresswoman Omar was unfairly singled out?"

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "You know, I think that things came down on her a little too hard."


AOC is such a joke

What can you expect when you went to a school funded by a billionaire who is devoted to the RAND institution with a faculty made of a bunch of “ex”-CIA spooks

..

As usual, you mix up cause and effect, Dustin

Maybe but probably not. Aoc doesn't seem to be going anywhere so perhaps we'll get some more data points down the road.

Your theory is that her being popular with the media causes her to keep spouting imperialist takes? That’s wrong obviously

She is popular with the media because she sides with imperialism

Yeah that would be obviously wrong. I agree. Not my theory though.

filthy,

the next horde of barbarians are at the gate.