Ocasio-Cortez: “A System That Allows Billionaires” Is Immoral

[BS Filter]

"Mining the border"? What in the wide wide world of sports does that mean?

land mines on the border; the right wing doesn't care about the law or natural rights.

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Oh yeah, you're a Constitutional scholar, huh.

 

[BS Filter]

"Mining the border"? What in the wide wide world of sports does that mean?

land mines on the border; the right wing doesn't care about the law or natural rights.

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

Give me the link for that information. You're an idiot.

you are even dumber if You don't know it.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, the law, or natural rights.

Correct, and you're a nobody.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"Mining the border"? What in the wide wide world of sports does that mean?

land mines on the border; the right wing doesn't care about the law or natural rights.

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

 

[ThisIsMe]

wealth disparity should not happen merely for the sake of the bottom line at the expense of the Poor.

The right wing complains about the cost of socialism and welfarism, but insist on infringing upon Individual Liberty, freedom and natural rights merely for the bottom line of the Richest.

Nope, I think it's good to help the poor, and in think rich people should do these things. I dont think they should be forced into it.

Believe it or not, if the government would stop trying to raise taxes, I think people would be more apt to help more, but government keeps wanting more and more, so charitable giving gets less and less.

Spending doesn't correlated with revenue for the right wing.

Ok, you've said this twice. In what are you referring to, exactly?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is she railing against Chavez and Castros too? They're billionaires

 

[francoHFW]

wealth disparity should not happen merely for the sake of the bottom line at the expense of the Poor.

The right wing complains about the cost of socialism and welfarism, but insist on infringing upon Individual Liberty, freedom and natural rights merely for the bottom line of the Richest.

What about Liberty and freedom for unborn humans that are mutilated by you socialists every day?

Prevention is better; Only the right wing has a problem with it.

Lie. I'm all in for preventing abortions. You're ignoring the murder of innocent human life.

I will go with the Supreme Court and settled law thanks

 

[basquebromance]

we need to: get to net-zero carbon emissions! invest in clean energy and green jobs! update infrastructure and build community resiliency! we need a green new deal, and we need it now!

 

[danielpalos]

land mines on the border; the right wing doesn't care about the law or natural rights.

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Oh yeah, you're a Constitutional scholar, huh.

I know how to read.

 

[danielpalos]

land mines on the border; the right wing doesn't care about the law or natural rights.

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

 

[danielpalos]

wealth disparity should not happen merely for the sake of the bottom line at the expense of the Poor.

The right wing complains about the cost of socialism and welfarism, but insist on infringing upon Individual Liberty, freedom and natural rights merely for the bottom line of the Richest.

Nope, I think it's good to help the poor, and in think rich people should do these things. I dont think they should be forced into it.

Believe it or not, if the government would stop trying to raise taxes, I think people would be more apt to help more, but government keeps wanting more and more, so charitable giving gets less and less.

Spending doesn't correlated with revenue for the right wing.

Ok, you've said this twice. In what are you referring to, exactly?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.

The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.

 

[Likkmee]

A system that allows hyphenation is immoral.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Please show a source for that information.

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

 

[danielpalos]

read the threads. the right wing doesn't care about the law, natural or otherwise, just their bigotry.

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope, I think it's good to help the poor, and in think rich people should do these things. I dont think they should be forced into it.

Believe it or not, if the government would stop trying to raise taxes, I think people would be more apt to help more, but government keeps wanting more and more, so charitable giving gets less and less.

Spending doesn't correlated with revenue for the right wing.

Ok, you've said this twice. In what are you referring to, exactly?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.

The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.

On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.

However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.

The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.

Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.

That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.

What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?

If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?

When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.

I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.

So, did you read what I posted? Immigration is not mentioned in the constitution, but there are immigration laws, which the constitution gives congress the right to make. The constitution does mandate the government provides for the general welfare of the country and its citizens.

The effects of immigration could definitely fall under a burden to our general welfare.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I keep hearing the term bigotry and racist being thrown around. Can you point to where this bigotry and racism is? Any examples?

Just because someone wants something another person does, does not equate to either of those two things.

Have you ever heard anyone say "I dont like them because they are brown"? Yes, there are probably those rare examples, but as a whole, it just isn't true, and you cannot point to examples of it as even a general consensus in the right wing.

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.

Also, we do have an illegal immigration problem, because our laws make it illegal to illegally cross into this country. Estimates are that around 2000 people come into this country illegally every day.

 

[danielpalos]

Spending doesn't correlated with revenue for the right wing.

Ok, you've said this twice. In what are you referring to, exactly?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.

The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.

On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.

However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.

The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.

Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.

That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.

What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?

If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?

When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.

I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.

Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.

So, did you read what I posted? Immigration is not mentioned in the constitution, but there are immigration laws, which the constitution gives congress the right to make. The constitution does mandate the government provides for the general welfare of the country and its citizens.

The effects of immigration could definitely fall under a burden to our general welfare.

the right wing is illegal enough to be kettles and call less fortunate pots, black.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no express immigration or wall building clause in our federal Constitution.

Sure there is. Our government is charged with protecting our borders. This would mean any measures deemed necessary by the government in ensuring that act are within their purview, including a wall.

And if that doesnt work, then it would be under the general welfare clause.

We already have express powers that cover this situation. There is no express power to build any walls or concerning immigration.

Correct, we have immigration laws, and the constitution defines what a legal citizen is. The general welfare clause, which is used to promote general welfare for all citizens, would be applicable.

Illegal immigration can cause a negative impact to the general welfare of the country and the citizenry. Plus, the constitution gives the right of congress to make laws, which, by extension, has made laws regarding immigration.

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution. There is a naturalization clause. We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.

Also, we do have an illegal immigration problem, because our laws make it illegal to illegally cross into this country. Estimates are that around 2000 people come into this country illegally every day.

two illegalities do not make a legality.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok, you've said this twice. In what are you referring to, exactly?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Still dont know what you are talking about, but, posting the debt clock is a prime example of why the government needs to cut spending.

The right wing does not correlate cutting spending with tax cut economics.

On the contrary, I think the right wing would advocate cutting spending so there is no need to tax its citizens excessively.

However, in that, there needs to be uniformity in the tax code, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, the constitution does mention uniformity in tax collection. Whether that is referring to each state paying a uniform amount, or each person paying a uniform amount, I'm not sure.

The point is, we are a nation of freedoms. We can live and work as we please, as long as it is within the confines of our laws. When someone puts themselves in a position to make great sums of money, it is their freedom to be able to keep that money, and not be unfairly penalized for doing so.

Our constitution has no provision for allowing one citizen to be unfairly taxed over another. Morally, the rich should want to help, and in most cases they do, but, it should not be for the government to decide who is rich enough and to seize their money based on the belief that one makes too much money.

That could be a slippery slope. Most people dont think much of it, because it doesnt apply to them, but what happens when it does? What if 20 years from now, then government decides that if you make 100k that that is enough, and any more than that should be taxed at 70%.

What if the government decides that you dont need a 2300 square foot house if you only have 2 children?

If you start allowing the government to dictatae how much is enough money, what's to stop them from applying that same measure to other things?

When does the government get the right to regulate an extravagant lifestyle? It almost sounds as if people are saying "you dont need more than 10 million per year, so the government should have the right to take it". If that's the case, again, I can see a lot of people pulling huge sums of money out of the market, because the market is a risk vs reward venture. If you take awaythat reward, there is no need to take the risk.

I also see companies reducing production, because cost of materials, labor, and utilities wont be warranted if the shareholders are limited in their income. Why would they want to spend the extra money to produce more if their returns will be capped? Shareholders are there to make a return on their investment, if the return isn't there, then the investments will go down.

Only the "morally challenged" complain about taxes when poverty exists in our republic and could be solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States as that form of equal protection of the law concerning the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't help the poor, what they are saying is you shouldn't force people to help the poor. It should be something you do willingly, willingly, but alas, taxation becomes prohibitive.

I argue that you would see charitable giving go up if government would stop taxing so much. I'm telling you, if you decide to raise taxes to 70% on the ultra rich, youd see the economy tank, because rich people dont take risk with their money if there is no return.

The left wants to keep piling more taxes on the wealthy, but they dont want to cut mlm spending. You say they should be helping the poor, so you want to raise taxes, meanwhile, illegals immigration costs the American economy more that 116 billion a year, not to mention all of the foreign aid that we send to other countries.

If they would stop spending so much elsewhere, we'd have the money to put into these programs to aid our own people, and our homeless vets.

Equal protection under the law doesnt mean you can take from one group to another. That's not the intent.

Were not even mentioning all the millions that these rich people give to charities already. Many of these people are philanthropic, and give large sums of money to charitable organizations. Sure, they get tax deductions for it, but at least they are donating.