AOC's Latest Economics Blunder

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because you believe King George wasn't a man of extreme wealth during the revolution? LMAO

You've just proven YOUR IGNORANCE.

Ahem...you may have noticed i dont respond to all your replies to me. That's because you are a simpleton. Every post you make says basically the same thing. You are an amazingly silly person. A characature.

Anyway...now that I have here...

"The American Revolution happened primarily due to colonial opposition to British attempts to impose greater control and taxes on the colonies after a long period of neglect. Key events, such as the imposition of unpopular taxes and the desire for independence, fueled the desire for rebellion against British rule."

Its a statement of effectiveness of media and the American education system, that you are so consistently wrong about the vast majority of your knowledge, perceptions and beliefs. 

Meh...ANTFA farts.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Because you believe King George wasn't a man of extreme wealth during the revolution? LMAO

You've just proven YOUR IGNORANCE.

Actually all his wealth belonged to the country.  You know, like communism  LOLOL

And he wasn't "the billionares". 

Oh robo.  You remind me of that scene from MegaMind  ,...  "when will you learn that there IS no easter bunny, there IS no tooth fairy, and there IS no Queen of england!"  

[Hodad]

On 5/10/2026 at 7:07 AM, gatomontes99 said:

I just deal in reality: 

Democrats are the only partisan group of the three that views socialism more positively than capitalism — 66% to 42%, respectively.

If you dealt in reality, you'd stop trying to conflate socialism and communism. 🙄

There's a broad spectrum of socialism. There are social programs in the US. A few more in Canada. A few more in the Nordic countries. None of them are close to being communist. 

 

Quote

No. I know the tax laws allow for profit organizations to claim they are nonprofit if they use their profits to grow or store their profits in bank accounts or investments. But that is not a real nonprofit, is it? No. They are just lying to chumps that eat it up and buy their worthless shit thinking they are doing some thing good. 

 

You may know now that nonprofits can generate excess revenue and grow their endowments, but you clearly didn't when you started this thread. You're welcome. 

They're not just allowed to do it. They're encouraged to do it. And yes, they are "real" nonprofits. Nonprofits, rather than existing for personal profit, exist to support the mission. When they're not taking private profits out of the organization. all of the money goes back into the mission. That's the difference between nonprofit and for-profit entities. 

The idea that "shit" made by a nonprofit is somehow worthless or a grift of some kind is just a tantrum trying to cover up the earlier knowledge gap. Nobody is buying Newman's Own salad dressing because the business rolls up to a nonprofit. They're buying it because they like the product. Its sitting on the shelf next to Kraft and Hidden Valley and is competing on taste and quality--what is the shopper going to put on the family table at dinnertime. They're not eating gross food to feel better about themselves. They just like the product. And making "stuff" is only one aspect of commerce. The giant nonprofits I mentioned before are service providers. 

 

Quote

I only deal in reality:

Simply put, Washington collects more income-tax revenues (as a share of GDP) today with a top tax bracket of 37% than it collected in the 1950s with a 91% tax bracket. In fact, since 1950, the yearly correlation between the highest income-tax bracket and federal income-tax revenues as a share of the economy is –0.23, meaning that higher top tax rates are correlated with lower income-tax revenues.

You're overreaching. That article is missing some key information, and even with that, you aren't on the right takeaway. Ask yourself, what else changed between then and now?

Revenue (as % GDP) isn't slightly higher now because income tax rates are lower. It's slightly higher because we've dramatically increased payroll taxes. Lower income tax (and corporate tax) rates are generating less revenue. We're just taxing in other ways to make up the difference. 



That matters because, again, because we're shifting more of the tax burden from capital to labor. Also, in many ways, it's more regressive. Social security, for example, is capped at something like $160K (I think) so every dollar of lower income workers is taxed to create that , but only that tiny fraction of higher earner income is subject to that tax. 

Again, this is not meant to be a definitive statement on optimal tax policy for growth and prosperity, but rather to point out that implying that lowering the tax rates is revenue neutral or positive is not true. You article addresses that up front: tax cuts don't pay for themselves. 

 

Quote

Oh that is so dramatic. And false. The biggest drag on the middle class is subsidies. Subsidies for education drive up the cost of college degrees. Subsidies for health care drive up the cost of health care. Subsidies for food drive up the cost of food. Subsidies for energy drive up the cost of energy. Subsidies for housing is driving up the cost of housing.

Government spending is what is driving up the cost of living. Guess who is desperately trying to prevent spending cuts and fraud prosecutions. 

Yeah, if a significant percentage of the market couldn't afford to buy food and shelter they'd die off and there would be less demand for those things, causes prices to fall. Brilliant!

Down with subsidies! Up with death!

You've convinced me.

 

 

Edited May 11 by Hodad

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Ahem...you may have noticed i dont respond to all your replies to me. That's because you are a simpleton. Every post you make says basically the same thing. You are an amazingly silly person. A characature.

You almost ALWAYS respond, USUALLY with BUPKIS. AKA NOTHING of SUBSTANCE. LMAO

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Anyway...now that I have here...

"The American Revolution happened primarily due to colonial opposition to British attempts to impose greater control and taxes on the colonies after a long period of neglect. Key events, such as the imposition of unpopular taxes and the desire for independence, fueled the desire for rebellion against British rule."

Its a statement of effectiveness of media and the American education system, that you are so consistently wrong about the vast majority of your knowledge, perceptions and beliefs. 

Meh...ANTFA farts.

"British attempts" means King George. Duh

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Lockback said:

Well, the current Democrat Party is Far Left, veering into Communist territory and doing so with breathtaking speed and alacrity.  It's hugely discouraging and disappointing.  They used to represent working people.  Now they support illegal aliens and Marxist academics.

Exactly not.

Points for 'alacrity' though...⭐

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

"British attempts" means King George. Duh

No, but don't let facts or history stand in your way

[Lockback]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly not.

Points for 'alacrity' though...⭐

How can you deny the Far Left bent of the current Democrat Party is absolutely beyond me.  They might as well be led by Karl Marx or Vlad Lenin.

[Lockback]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Did you ask her whether "communism works"?

You right wingers don't even know the difference between socialism and communism.

Prove it. When did AOC quote Marx?

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between socialism and communism.  

As for AOC quoting Marx, I wasn't being literal but then Far Left Democrats are incapable of having a sense of humor or proportion.

The fact is that AOC is not very bright and spouts socialist baloney daily.  It's embarrassing, frankly.  "There shouldn't be any billionaires" is an example: she's too dumb to understand how somebody can accrue that much money.

[Lockback]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

For the life of me, I can't discern a huge difference between the Democrat Party leadership and Communists ...

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

If you dealt in reality, you'd stop trying to conflate socialism and communism. 🙄

Socialism is to communism as tadpole is to frog. 

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

There's a broad spectrum of socialism. There are social programs in the US. A few more in Canada. A few more in the Nordic countries. None of them are close to being communist. 

No. Stop. Social welfare spending is not the full take over of the economy. You are the one that is conflating.

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

You may know now that nonprofits can generate excess revenue and grow their endowments, but you clearly didn't when you started this thread. You're welcome. 

You seem to have intentionally missed the point. 

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Revenue (as % GDP) isn't slightly higher now because income tax rates are lower. It's slightly higher because we've dramatically increased payroll taxes. Lower income tax (and corporate tax) rates are generating less revenue. We're just taxing in other ways to make up the difference. 

The 90% was an individual income tax. Your argument is based on a bad assumption. It had nothing to do with corporate taxes. 

Further, who pays income taxes? Not the employee. Not the business. Read this 100 times if that is what it takes for you to understand it:

ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE END CONSUMER.

I get paid by my employer who witholds my taxes. I accepted a salary that has a takehome pay that I agreed to. My employer builds my wages, income taxes and payroll taxes into their cost structure. All of that is paid for by our clients. 

I am paid in Texas even though I work in California regularly. Do you know why we don't tell Cali I work there often? Take a guess.

That is why high taxes rates don't work. People find a way around them. They did that under insanely high taxes before and they will do it again. Only when taxes are reasonable will they be paid.

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, if a significant percentage of the market couldn't afford to buy food and shelter they'd die off and there would be less demand for those things, causes prices to fall. Brilliant!

Down with subsidies! Up with death!

You've convinced me.

You clearly don't understand supply, demand and pricing. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Lockback said:

How can you deny the Far Left bent of the current Democrat Party is absolutely beyond me.  They might as well be led by Karl Marx or Vlad Lenin.

Such opinions come from people who don't have a serious understanding of political history. 

True leftists want the government to own large industry, or maybe all economic activity.  Democrats like Hillary Clinton don't even support single-payer Healthcare.  They want Private industry to administer and run it, which is not leftist.  At best, it's a centrist social program like expanded Medicaid. 

 

[Lockback]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Such opinions come from people who don't have a serious understanding of political history. 

True leftists want the government to own large industry, or maybe all economic activity.  Democrats like Hillary Clinton don't even support single-payer Healthcare.  They want Private industry to administer and run it, which is not leftist.  At best, it's a centrist social program like expanded Medicaid. 

 

You can define it however you wish but in common parlance the Democrat Party is Far Left.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Lockback said:

You can define it however you wish but in common parlance the Democrat Party is Far Left.

Common parlance does change, and there's something called the Overton window. But Marxism is pretty well defined.

If you're okay with using loose definitions, you can't object to people calling Republicans pejorative names 

 

On a discussion board, the game of playing with meanings is really tedious, worse than ping pong.

Edited May 12 by Michael Hardner

[Lockback]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Common parlance does change, and there's something called the Overton window. But Marxism is pretty well defined.

If you're okay with using loose definitions, you can't object to people calling Republicans pejorative names 

 

On a discussion board, the game of playing with meanings is really tedious, worse than ping pong.

The biggest problem is that the Democrat Party's policies are universally failures.  So call them whatever you want but I just call them Failures.

[Deluge]

On 5/8/2026 at 10:47 PM, Hodad said:

It's absurd that you still don't know the difference between communism, socialism and liberalism. Conflating them is just silly, and neither socialists nor liberals are opposed to profit. 

No, it's not absurd. All three represent government overload - the rest is fluffy bullshit to confuse people. 

Communism, socialism and today's liberalism (leftism) are all trash and need to be illegal in the US. 

That's all anyone needs to know. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

On a discussion board, the game of playing with meanings is really tedious, worse than ping pong.

Says the “conservative”

ROFL

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Such opinions come from people who don't have a serious understanding of political history. 

True leftists want the government to own large industry, or maybe all economic activity.  Democrats like Hillary Clinton don't even support single-payer Healthcare.  They want Private industry to administer and run it, which is not leftist.  At best, it's a centrist social program like expanded Medicaid. 

 

Absolutely false. True leftists are quite happy with controlling the means of production through regulation and taxation even in a market environment. They're not particularly fussy about how it's controlled as long as it's controlled and they're the ones who do the controlling.

You stuck in 1940s thinking and it is you who has no understanding of political history.

And currently the party is far left. Especially socially. They seek to control and legislate literally every aspect of what you can think and do and own.

You are 100% incorrect Mike. But perhaps not a shock from someone who keeps trying desperately to refer to himself as a conservative  

[Lockback]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely false. True leftists are quite happy with controlling the means of production through regulation and taxation even in a market environment. They're not particularly fussy about how it's controlled as long as it's controlled and they're the ones who do the controlling.

You stuck in 1940s thinking and it is you who has no understanding of political history.

And currently the party is far left. Especially socially. They seek to control and legislate literally every aspect of what you can think and do and own.

You are 100% incorrect Mike. But perhaps not a shock from someone who keeps trying desperately to refer to himself as a conservative  

Absolutely spot on.

The current Democrat Party isn't like the Bolsheviks of a century ago.  They don't need to be.  They don't have to be.  They can regulate, change rules and laws to fit their goals. The old Communist doctrine of owning the means of production, etc. no longer need to be employed when billionaire corporate owners for reasons I will never understand favor Far Left policies.  

The old Marxists relied on economic gaps to provide the seething energy they needed to create a revolution.  The Left now uses that less because even the so-called "poor" in America live better than lots of folks in other country, what with their HD TVs and iPhones.  So now the Left is dividing society by race and gender instead, as well as pushing antisemitism . Their radicalism is stunning: imagine thinking that it's okay to have boys in a girls locker room, for instance.  Staggering.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely false. True leftists are quite happy with controlling the means of production through regulation and taxation even in a market environment.  

I noticed you and the other one are using the term 'leftist' now and have shied away from 'Marxist' 'Communist' etc.

As such, I do agree with this sentence but the original point is now dead it seems...

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Lockback said:

when billionaire corporate owners for reasons I will never understand favor Far Left policies.  

It is very simple. You know how the true believers think that socialism and communism will make everyone equal? It will. But only for the average peon. The winners in socialism and communism are the beaurocrats. And the billionaires will be the beaurocrats. 

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I noticed you and the other one are using the term 'leftist' now and have shied away from 'Marxist' 'Communist' etc.

The term you used was socialist. That's what I responded to directly. and the socialists are indeed leftists

 

Quote

As such, I do agree with this sentence but the original point is now dead it seems...

Well fair enough. 

But you're still not a conservative   

Edited May 12 by CdnFox

[Lockback]

46 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

It is very simple. You know how the true believers think that socialism and communism will make everyone equal? It will. But only for the average peon. The winners in socialism and communism are the beaurocrats. And the billionaires will be the beaurocrats. 

Good point.

The billionaires will still be billionaires.  And they'll have more power over the Little People.

[Reg Volk]

On 5/10/2026 at 3:22 PM, Lockback said:

She's a communist.  And a not very bright one at that.

The scary thing is that millions of people think she's brilliant.

Terrifying.

she's no different than the airhead idlot Justin we had running Canada for 10 years - she's an actor reading a script, and earning an extremely large salary to do it.  She doesn't care that she's spouting evil communist ideals that have caused untold human suffering over the past 100 years.  She just wants to get paid.

Edited May 13 by Reg Volk

[Lockback]

1 hour ago, Reg Volk said:

she's no different than the airhead idlot Justin we had running Canada for 10 years - she's an actor reading a script, and earning an extremely large salary to do it.  She doesn't care that she's spouting evil communist ideals that have caused untold human suffering over the past 100 years.  She just wants to get paid.

Exactly.  An airhead reading a script, just like Trudeau.  

These are the most dangerous people on Earth.