Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Democrats have marginalized themselves so far to the left that they are the third party now. They are the ones that should get out of the race.
Really? They just took the House national vote by 8.5%, something Republicans haven't done in the recent past.
Judging by what's coming out of the stupid mouths of their POTUS wannabes they will never do that again.
I don't see them doing anything differently now. I think income inequality is a real issue that we all feel, whether you want to admit it or not.
That's funny. The Democrats have turned down the path of socialism now which is designed to make us all equally poor. I don't see that as a solution to income inequality. They keep this up and they are done for as a party. But that will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Why are the dems freaking out over a 3rd party candidate who is going after centrist/GOP voters?
He's criticizing the dem candidates stupid policies already.
They should be thankful that they don't go into 2020 with those lose-lose policies.
He makes the dems candidates look like losers already.
A centrist/GOP voter? The guy has been a Democrat and he supports most Democratic causes except for taxes and anything that might move money away from the elites.
In reality, Trump needs this guy to run given his unpopularity. He couldn't win a majority of votes to save his life, especially now.
Yep, people are pissed about having jobs and such.
People are pissed about not having any real wealth in this country because it's all been sucked upward. The right on the other hand won't even support a minimum wage increase. Suckers.
Really? They just took the House national vote by 8.5%, something Republicans haven't done in the recent past.
Judging by what's coming out of the stupid mouths of their POTUS wannabes they will never do that again.
I don't see them doing anything differently now. I think income inequality is a real issue that we all feel, whether you want to admit it or not.
That's funny. The Democrats have turned down the path of socialism now which is designed to make us all equally poor. I don't see that as a solution to income inequality. They keep this up and they are done for as a party. But that will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Of course there is.
If you take 70% of a person's income after $50M AND you institute a "wealth tax" that takes a set percentage of their overall wealth each year you are going to A) See a lot of billionares move out of the country and B) not see any new billionares created.
Get a job, rumor has it that it helps.
Neat, stay on topic.
I see, and people not having any real wealth is some how related to Howard Schultz must pull out of Presidential bid now?
Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
We have a Commerce Clause. When are Capitalists going to save us with a profit not a loss.When are billionaires going to make billions for the People not just the Profit!
Why don't the people whining about billionaires start a company and make billions they pledge to the government?
The thing AOC is not understanding about people supporting someone like Schultz or TRUMP is that having someone who has started a successful business gives them experience of being accountable for spending money, most often other peoples money. This seems to be something one doesn't learn as a career politician.
Neat, stay on topic.
I see, and people not having any real wealth is some how related to Howard Schultz must pull out of Presidential bid now?
Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Just how does the wealth of the top 1% affect you in any way?
Judging by what's coming out of the stupid mouths of their POTUS wannabes they will never do that again.
I don't see them doing anything differently now. I think income inequality is a real issue that we all feel, whether you want to admit it or not.
That's funny. The Democrats have turned down the path of socialism now which is designed to make us all equally poor. I don't see that as a solution to income inequality. They keep this up and they are done for as a party. But that will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Of course there is.
If you take 70% of a person's income after $50M AND you institute a "wealth tax" that takes a set percentage of their overall wealth each year you are going to A) See a lot of billionares move out of the country and B) not see any new billionares created.
Show me anyone who said they are going to take 70% of anyone's wealth after any dollar amount.
Here's a hint, wealth does not equal income.
I don't see them doing anything differently now. I think income inequality is a real issue that we all feel, whether you want to admit it or not.
That's funny. The Democrats have turned down the path of socialism now which is designed to make us all equally poor. I don't see that as a solution to income inequality. They keep this up and they are done for as a party. But that will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Of course there is.
If you take 70% of a person's income after $50M AND you institute a "wealth tax" that takes a set percentage of their overall wealth each year you are going to A) See a lot of billionares move out of the country and B) not see any new billionares created.
Show me anyone who said they are going to take 70% of anyone's wealth after any dollar amount.
Here's a hint, wealth does not equal income.
Um , I didn't say anyone said anything about taking 70% of anyone's wealth, I said income.
Why do you people insist on telling such stupid lies?
People on the bottom of the income pyramid tend to spend everything they earn. Rich people save and invest there money. Comparing wealth is an inaccurate measure of material well being. So-called "poor people" still earn significant amounts of money.I see, and people not having any real wealth is some how related to Howard Schultz must pull out of Presidential bid now?
Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Bottom 90% = the top 1% and someone at best at the bottom third of that 90% is defending income inequality.
it may take awhile. He has it now. What is the Capital plan, Stan?When are billionaires going to make billions for the People not just the Profit!
You are obviously smarter than the average bear, why don't you make your own billions?
I see, and people not having any real wealth is some how related to Howard Schultz must pull out of Presidential bid now?
Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Just how does the wealth of the top 1% affect you in any way?
It's not really about 'me', now is it?
Here is one article that may help you on your journey of knowledge.
Without equality of income there can be no equality of opportunity
That's funny. The Democrats have turned down the path of socialism now which is designed to make us all equally poor. I don't see that as a solution to income inequality. They keep this up and they are done for as a party. But that will be a good thing, not a bad thing.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Of course there is.
If you take 70% of a person's income after $50M AND you institute a "wealth tax" that takes a set percentage of their overall wealth each year you are going to A) See a lot of billionares move out of the country and B) not see any new billionares created.
Show me anyone who said they are going to take 70% of anyone's wealth after any dollar amount.
Here's a hint, wealth does not equal income.
Um , I didn't say anyone said anything about taking 70% of anyone's wealth, I said income.
Why do you people insist on telling such stupid lies?
Yes, but you are conflating it.
a stop loss or minimum fixed Standard; is what some on the left consider market friendly.I see, and people not having any real wealth is some how related to Howard Schultz must pull out of Presidential bid now?
Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Just how does the wealth of the top 1% affect you in any way?
It's not really about 'me', now is it?
Here is one article that may help you on your journey of knowledge.
Without equality of income there can be no equality of opportunity
let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. the right wing refuses to pay more than lip service for those social programs.We have a Commerce Clause. When are Capitalists going to save us with a profit not a loss.When are billionaires going to make billions for the People not just the Profit!
Why don't the people whining about billionaires start a company and make billions they pledge to the government?
The thing AOC is not understanding about people supporting someone like Schultz or TRUMP is that having someone who has started a successful business gives them experience of being accountable for spending money, most often other peoples money. This seems to be something one doesn't learn as a career politician.
Most of the Taxes the U.S. government receives is created by some form of capitalism. The government wasting vast amounts of that money is more of the problem than where it came from.
Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing. Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. Good Capitalists should learn how to turn foreign nationals into tourists, in the most market friendly manner possible under our form of Capitalism.let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. the right wing refuses to pay more than lip service for those social programs.We have a Commerce Clause. When are Capitalists going to save us with a profit not a loss.When are billionaires going to make billions for the People not just the Profit!
Why don't the people whining about billionaires start a company and make billions they pledge to the government?
The thing AOC is not understanding about people supporting someone like Schultz or TRUMP is that having someone who has started a successful business gives them experience of being accountable for spending money, most often other peoples money. This seems to be something one doesn't learn as a career politician.
Most of the Taxes the U.S. government receives is created by some form of capitalism. The government wasting vast amounts of that money is more of the problem than where it came from.
What? so get rid of ICE? .... just let heroin be sold over the counter? You do realize death by heroin and other opioids , dwarfs gun deaths in the United States? So lets try to be rational when it comes to Gov. waste.
People on the bottom of the income pyramid tend to spend everything they earn. Rich people save and invest there money. Comparing wealth is an inaccurate measure of material well being. So-called "poor people" still earn significant amounts of money.Did I say he must pull out? Nope. I think if he's interested in not getting Trump reelected then he'd be smart to not run, or at least run in the Democratic or Republican primary. But in the end it's his call.
No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Bottom 90% = the top 1% and someone at best at the bottom third of that 90% is defending income inequality.
So what? Neither their wealth, nor their income affects you or me in any way. BTW, that wealth and income is not sitting in some closet, it is invested in our economy, and providing jobs for a whole lot of people.
No, there is nothing designed to make us 'equally poor'. There isn't even anything close to a plan or policy to make billionaire extinct.
Of course there is.
If you take 70% of a person's income after $50M AND you institute a "wealth tax" that takes a set percentage of their overall wealth each year you are going to A) See a lot of billionares move out of the country and B) not see any new billionares created.
Show me anyone who said they are going to take 70% of anyone's wealth after any dollar amount.
Here's a hint, wealth does not equal income.
Um , I didn't say anyone said anything about taking 70% of anyone's wealth, I said income.
Why do you people insist on telling such stupid lies?
Yes, but you are conflating it.
No I'm not , Democrats are right now both calling for a 70% income tax rate after $50M and calling for a wealth tax of X% on a person's total wealth. I'm not the one pushing for such stupidity.
And I mean how stupid do you have to be to push for those things? Do you know what a billionaire is going to do when you tell him you're going take part of his wealth and 70% of his income and oh by the way he needs to start paying all his employees $15 an hour plus benefits which includes like a month of vacation time each year? He's going to look around and say "wait a minute, I'm beyond wealthy, I can just close my business down and have zero income for myself and my family will be just fine"
People on the bottom of the income pyramid tend to spend everything they earn. Rich people save and invest there money. Comparing wealth is an inaccurate measure of material well being. So-called "poor people" still earn significant amounts of money.No you didn't, I just find it strange that you suggest I stay ON topic when I respond to your comment which was OFF topic.
Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Bottom 90% = the top 1% and someone at best at the bottom third of that 90% is defending income inequality.
So what? Neither their wealth, nor their income affects you or me in any way. BTW, that wealth and income is not sitting in some closet, it is invested in our economy, and providing jobs for a whole lot of people.
Without equality of income there can be no equality of opportunity
Read it.
People on the bottom of the income pyramid tend to spend everything they earn. Rich people save and invest there money. Comparing wealth is an inaccurate measure of material well being. So-called "poor people" still earn significant amounts of money.Yeah, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90% in the U.S. and your response is to 'get a job'. As though that were anywhere near on topic to what I was saying.
Bottom 90% = the top 1% and someone at best at the bottom third of that 90% is defending income inequality.
So what? Neither their wealth, nor their income affects you or me in any way. BTW, that wealth and income is not sitting in some closet, it is invested in our economy, and providing jobs for a whole lot of people.
Without equality of income there can be no equality of opportunity
Read it.
Equality of incomes isn't possible, and neither is equality of opportunity.
If you don't take it literally, then how are you supposed to take it? How much inequality is still "equality?"People on the bottom of the income pyramid tend to spend everything they earn. Rich people save and invest there money. Comparing wealth is an inaccurate measure of material well being. So-called "poor people" still earn significant amounts of money.
Bottom 90% = the top 1% and someone at best at the bottom third of that 90% is defending income inequality.
So what? Neither their wealth, nor their income affects you or me in any way. BTW, that wealth and income is not sitting in some closet, it is invested in our economy, and providing jobs for a whole lot of people.
Without equality of income there can be no equality of opportunity
Read it.
Equality of incomes isn't possible, and neither is equality of opportunity.
True. Then again you're probably taking the word 'equality' too literally.
