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

[danielpalos]

A system of welfare is immoral. It is thievery and slavery for the people that have to pay for the free shit for the welfare queens.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Nobody takes right wingers seriously economics. They have no problem with non-enumerated alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

[Flash]

A system of welfare is immoral. It is thievery and slavery for the people that have to pay for the free shit for the welfare queens.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Nobody takes right wingers seriously economics. They have no problem with non-enumerated alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

...and it has been explained top you many times, you stupid Moon Bat, that that clause doesn't mean what you think it means. Our Founding Fathers did not set up a welfare state where the oppressive government took away our personal liberties and made slaves of us to provide food stamps and free health care for filthy ass welfare queens and illegals.

You stupid Moon Bats are as confused about that clause as you are confused about "a well regulated militia", aren't you?

 

[Rustic]

Only control freaks care what someone else makes or how little they make...

 

[danielpalos]

A system of welfare is immoral. It is thievery and slavery for the people that have to pay for the free shit for the welfare queens.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Nobody takes right wingers seriously economics. They have no problem with non-enumerated alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

...and it has been explained top you many times, you stupid Moon Bat, that that clause doesn't mean what you think it means. Our Founding Fathers did not set up a welfare state where the oppressive government took away our personal liberties and made slaves of us to provide food stamps and free health care for filthy ass welfare queens and illegals.

You stupid Moon Bats are as confused about that clause as you are confused about "a well regulated militia", aren't you?

providing for the general welfare is a general power; it is not a common power.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our problem is that we don’t have enough billionaires.

Exactly. There may be many millionaires who aspire to become billionaires and perhaps fall short, but then at least the goal is allowed to exist thus creating everything in between. These dumb ass marxists would like to eliminate Billionaires due to their class envy. Without realizing it they would also alter the lives of the middle class for the worse.

Damn, did ANY of you cackling goobers watch the video? Clearly not.

 

[Yarddog]

Our problem is that we don’t have enough billionaires.

Exactly. There may be many millionaires who aspire to become billionaires and perhaps fall short, but then at least the goal is allowed to exist thus creating everything in between. These dumb ass marxists would like to eliminate Billionaires due to their class envy. Without realizing it they would also alter the lives of the middle class for the worse.

Damn, did ANY of you cackling goobers watch the video? Clearly not.

You mean the ring-worm video? she doesn't realize that if parents let their kids play in the dirt when there are animals around, they can probably get ringworm. It's not because they dont have access to healthcare. There are cheap over the counter meds that can take care of it, and my mom treated my little brother and sister using black walnut leaves to kill it. No health care necessary. Just use your head if your a parent.
And why she tied that to the existence of a society that allows billionaires I have no idea. No need to get your feathers ruffled though.

 

[Billo_Really]

She is right! We need to tax the shit out of the rich. Their free ride is over.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.

I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.

It does to a Progressive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our problem is that we don’t have enough billionaires.

Exactly. There may be many millionaires who aspire to become billionaires and perhaps fall short, but then at least the goal is allowed to exist thus creating everything in between. These dumb ass marxists would like to eliminate Billionaires due to their class envy. Without realizing it they would also alter the lives of the middle class for the worse.

Damn, did ANY of you cackling goobers watch the video? Clearly not.

You mean the ring-worm video? she doesn't realize that if parents let their kids play in the dirt when there are animals around, they can probably get ringworm. It's not because they dont have access to healthcare. There are cheap over the counter meds that can take care of it, and my mom treated my little brother and sister using black walnut leaves to kill it. No health care necessary. Just use your head if your a parent.
And why she tied that to the existence of a society that allows billionaires I have no idea. No need to get your feathers ruffled though.

Of course her point is clear, even if your favorites pastime is playing dumb. And she is 100% correct. But thank goodness billionaires have poor footsoldiers like you to fight their battles for them....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She is right! We need to tax the shit out of the rich. Their free ride is over.

How is it a free ride when they are the ones who built the ride?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A system of welfare is immoral. It is thievery and slavery for the people that have to pay for the free shit for the welfare queens.

Welfare queens?

You mean those that are too stupid to figure out how to get by in life?

More like too irresponsible. But of course the left promotes irresponsibility, so what should we expect?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Only the right wing believes in that form of amorality. We have a Constitution and providing for the common defense and general welfare requires income redistribution.

I disagree. The constitution does not allege income redustributuon. General welfare does not mean taking from one person and giving it to another. That would be a socialist form of government, which is not what the founders wanted.

Yes, it does. Why do you believe it doesn't?

Simply delegating the Power to Tax is a form of income redistribution.

The power to tax is supposed to have been to help run and pay the debts of the government, and to support the functions of government, things like building post roads, funding for military. Things that were allowed for under the enumerated powers.

It was never supposed to be for taking from people and giving to other people.

Or for taxing people into submission, or to tax people who you believe are your political foes.

 

[danielpalos]

She is right! We need to tax the shit out of the rich. Their free ride is over.

How is it a free ride when they are the ones who built the ride?

with a hard work Labor ethic from the Age of Iron?

 

[there4eyeM]

"Systems" don't "allow" "billionaires" (or the equivalent in any age). Systems either co-exist with or at the behest of said "billionaires".

 

[basquebromance]

It is time that we pay people what they are worth and not how little they are desperate enough to accept.

 

[Billo_Really]

How is it a free ride when they are the ones who built the ride?

They are not paying their fair share. We need to tax the shit out of them. I have no sympathy for billionaires.

 

[basquebromance]

AOC has what I call ‘gameness’ or competitive heart — the combination of grit, determination, fighting spirit that you can’t coach,

You either have it or you don’t, and she has it bigly

"“I aspire to be the conservative AOC,” said Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz(FL) in a Politico interview, half-jokingly lamenting, “I can’t dance for shit.”"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How is it a free ride when they are the ones who built the ride?

They are not paying their fair share. We need to tax the shit out of them. I have no sympathy for billionaires.

The top 1% pay 46% of all collected federal income taxes. That's not a fair share?

"What is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

 

[basquebromance]

Here's AOC bragging that she doesn't know what day it is, says she's not happy with the name "Green New Deal"...eloquently says: "it's not an outlet, its an inlet!"

 

[deanrd]

Because socialist governments keeping people from becoming wealthy is moral!

View attachment 241705

Ocasio-Cortez: ‘A System That Allows Billionaires’ is Immoral

So you’re a pro ringworm? Because that’s what she said. A system that allows billionaires when there’s people living in Alabama who still have ringworm. So you think ringworms OK. It wouldn’t bother you at all?