Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

only in right wing fantasy. you need real arguments, not just gossip.

Then you need to quit gossiping and come up with valid arguments because so far you are coming up with a lot of nothing, just tired old unproven propaganda.

you are the one claiming capitalism doesn't work, regardless if everyone is getting paid.

Really, point that out for me.

thanks for your support for solving simple poverty via market friendly means.

Again show me where I said capitalism doesn't work, you make claims then when asked to show proof you divert.

if capitalism works; then, I am right.

 

[hadit]

What are you going to do when the takers outnumber the producers?

capitalism works.

We're not talking about Capitalism, remember? Pure Capitalism would not support nonproducers.

So, since you once again attempted to answer with nonsense, what are you going to do when the takers outnumber the producers?

what do you believe will happen by solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being being unemployed.

Nope, I asked first and now you're frantically dodging again. You never answered the question, so until you do, you're full of fallacies and excuses and you never get it. This is why no one takes you seriously.

you have no valid rebuttal. we could have more efficient markets by solving for simple poverty.

I don't need a rebuttal. You made a statement and I asked a question about it. You don't know how to answer that question, obviously.

 

[danielpalos]

what do you believe will happen by solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being being unemployed.

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

more people spending money and creating demand, increases liquidity and stimulates our economy.

 

[rightwinger]

some of it has already been created; it just needs to be financed. demand and supply.

What are you going to do when the takers outnumber the producers?

How Ayn Rand of you

It's a valid concern. He wants to be paid simply for existing and providing nothing of value in exchange.

You do realize the takers in our society are multibillionaires

How are they taking out without producing? Why don't you name some multibillionaires who take more taxpayer money than they generate so we can compare?

I think what you're really complaining about is someone who has more than you think they should and you're not really looking at how much economic activity they actually generate.

The Golden Rule......He who has the gold, makes the rules

Our wealthy write the tax code, they write legislation on foreign trade, they have our military protecting their foreign investments, they get infrastructure improvements to improve their access

And conservatives complain about a black lady with an Obamaphone

 

[rightwinger]

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

More trickle down nonsense

The market sets the price of your product. If a business could charge more for their product....they already would

And if every outlet was hit by the same tax increase, they would in unison raise their prices.

Possibly
If the marketplace allows it

 

[hadit]

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

More trickle down nonsense

The market sets the price of your product. If a business could charge more for their product....they already would

And if every outlet was hit by the same tax increase, they would in unison raise their prices.

Possibly
If the marketplace allows it

Which means there is a finite limit to the taxes government can compel a company to pay.

We see the unified raising and lowering of prices every year in gasoline. It goes up, it goes down, but every station moves at the same time.

 

[Esmeralda]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts one why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

yup


just like Democrats were afraid of Palin in 2008

People didn't like Palin because she was entirely unfit for national office: she's of mediocre intelligence, mediocre knowledge of national and international issues; in fact, she has an all encompassing mediocre ability and intellect in general. She was a joke as a vice presidential candidate and caused McCain to lose the election---this is something we all know, especially McCain. He was painfully aware that she lost him the election. People were not 'afraid' of her other than if she were vice president, she would do a great deal of harm to the country. It's the kind of harm Drumph is doing, and you all support him like you supported Palin. Some people apparently have no idea at all what it takes to govern the greatest country in the world. No idea at all.

People were not 'afraid' of her other than if she were vice president, she would do a great deal of harm to the country.

The same reasons people should be afraid of Hillary as President.

What a ridiculous comment
HIllary is eminently more intelligent and more qualified than Palin

But....but.....What about Hillary?

qualified?

no

 

[Papageorgio]

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

More trickle down nonsense

The market sets the price of your product. If a business could charge more for their product....they already would

And companies will set the profit margin and if the margins aren't there, the product will either cost more or go away. Businesses will not lose money.

 

[Papageorgio]

cuts to social services is all the right wing wants to do.

Always plenty of money for war and corporate welfare, though.

We need deep cuts across the board, and corporate welfare needs to be cut to nothing.

discretionary spending should go first. That means, our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

First? Why not all at once, if you are going to cut do it, don't just talk about it.

discretionary spending should go first.

First or second, I don't care as long as it is all cut within a day or two.

 

[Papageorgio]

We're not talking about Capitalism, remember? Pure Capitalism would not support nonproducers.

So, since you once again attempted to answer with nonsense, what are you going to do when the takers outnumber the producers?

what do you believe will happen by solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being being unemployed.

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

our current regime is worse. a general tax is much less intrusive.

Depends on how often and how much.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then you need to quit gossiping and come up with valid arguments because so far you are coming up with a lot of nothing, just tired old unproven propaganda.

you are the one claiming capitalism doesn't work, regardless if everyone is getting paid.

Really, point that out for me.

thanks for your support for solving simple poverty via market friendly means.

Again show me where I said capitalism doesn't work, you make claims then when asked to show proof you divert.

if capitalism works; then, I am right.

Show me where I said capitalism wouldn't work.

 

[Papageorgio]

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

more people spending money and creating demand, increases liquidity and stimulates our economy.

Yep, if I kept more of my money instead of losing it to taxes, I'd have more money to spend, however much of my taxes go to social programs and limit my spending.

 

[Billo_Really]

When I think of Ocasio-Cortez, fearful is the wrong f-word.

She's a hottie! And what do we like to do with hotties?

 

[danielpalos]

what do you believe will happen by solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being being unemployed.

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

our current regime is worse. a general tax is much less intrusive.

Depends on how often and how much.

how about,

junk bonds not junk laws?

a bond issue could fund it, initially.

 

[Papageorgio]

When I think of Ocasio-Cortez, fearful is the wrong f-word.

She's a hottie! And what do we like to do with hotties?

Not sure if I'd consider her a hottie however she is a lot of fun to have in Congress, name another Democrat that would hold a sit in at Nancy Pelosi's office. That is fantastic!

 

[danielpalos]

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

more people spending money and creating demand, increases liquidity and stimulates our economy.

Yep, if I kept more of my money instead of losing it to taxes, I'd have more money to spend, however much of my taxes go to social programs and limit my spending.

not the same thing. less liquidity and less demand can be created.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When I think of Ocasio-Cortez, fearful is the wrong f-word.

She's a hottie! And what do we like to do with hotties?

Translation~ the only way you can get laid is taking advantage of young ignorant little girls.


Pervert..

.


.

 

[danielpalos]

When I think of Ocasio-Cortez, fearful is the wrong f-word.

She's a hottie! And what do we like to do with hotties?

Whatever shall we do with our "Women of Congress" who can't pay for their programs?

 

[Papageorgio]

It won't solve poverty, every society has poverty and will always have poverty. Non-producers will cause simple poverty by being simple.

only if you know nothing about economics. we could have freer markets with less government intervention.

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

our current regime is worse. a general tax is much less intrusive.

Depends on how often and how much.

how about,

junk bonds not junk laws?

a bond issue could fund it, initially.

Fund what? We were talking less government intervention in the market place and "General" tax. So again...

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree with that less government intervention is a freer market. Binding business with more taxes ruins the free market.

If taxes are a cost of doing business and applied equitably....how do they ruin a free market?

The burden of taxes falls directly on the consumer, not the business. Businesses just pass through the tax onto the consumer. Less taxes equal more spending power and stimulates the economy.

more people spending money and creating demand, increases liquidity and stimulates our economy.

Yep, if I kept more of my money instead of losing it to taxes, I'd have more money to spend, however much of my taxes go to social programs and limit my spending.

not the same thing. less liquidity and less demand can be created.

As what?