Policies Have Consequences

[PoliticalChic]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pals, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.




3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

 

[william the wie]

The rejection of this statist insanity is quickly going worldwide.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Cortez' 60 Minutes spot was a big nothing. Did they not ask questions, or were they forced to leave most of it on the cutting room floor?

She's uniquely dimwitted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rejection of this statist insanity is quickly going worldwide.

From your keyboard to God's ear.

 

[Taz]

Cortez' 60 Minutes spot was a big nothing. Did they not ask questions, or were they forced to leave most of it on the cutting room floor?

She's uniquely dimwitted.

As dimwitted as polechic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cortez' 60 Minutes spot was a big nothing. Did they not ask questions, or were they forced to leave most of it on the cutting room floor?

She's uniquely dimwitted.

Not so unique.

It's a toss-up between Ocasio, and those reliable Democrat voters.

 

[william the wie]

The Yellow vest movement needs a US branch.

 

[Third Party]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pal, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.




3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

No generalization is worth, well you know. There is a grain of truth in every side, here is one for Ms. Cortez: Would we be better off, all things being equal, if we had all non fossil fuel energy use? Most, including non-liberals would say yes. The question no one asks is: do fossil fuels in small amounts impact the environment positively? Trees and plants like carbon dioxide. If we are in a mini Ice Age, do greenhouse gases help keep us from freezing? As the Greeks used to say,"there is much to be said for both sides". Maybe we should do a little of each and agree to disagree.

 

[Dragonlady]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pals, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

Once ahain,

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.


3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

Once again Politically Clueless declares victory after being thoroughly discredited and trashed in her "Green Deal" thread, and starts another thread to tout her cleverness in defeating the forces of liberalism.

Careful PC, it appears you're obsessed with Ms. Cortez. How many threads is this that you've started trashing her - three? four?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pal, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.




3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

No generalization is worth, well you know. There is a grain of truth in every side, here is one for Ms. Cortez: Would we be better off, all things being equal, if we had all non fossil fuel energy use? Most, including non-liberals would say yes. The question no one asks is: do fossil fuels in small amounts impact the environment positively? Trees and plants like carbon dioxide. If we are in a mini Ice Age, do greenhouse gases help keep us from freezing? As the Greeks used to say,"there is much to be said for both sides". Maybe we should do a little of each and agree to disagree.

"Would we be better off, all things being equal, if we had all non fossil fuel energy use?"
No.

Total nonsense.

You should rethink your investment in Tesla.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pals, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

Once ahain,

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.


3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

Once again Politically Clueless declares victory after being thoroughly discredited and trashed in her "Green Deal" thread, and starts another thread to tout her cleverness in defeating the forces of liberalism.

Careful PC, it appears you're obsessed with Ms. Cortez. How many threads is this that you've started trashing her - three? four?

In the earlier thread you claimed I made up what I stated about Ocasio's Green New Deal, and I showed you were lying.

This is her's and the Democrat's proposal.



What I like about your posts is that I can point to you as the poster child for dishonesty and ignorance....the perfect Democrat voter.


Write soon, y'hear!

 

[danielpalos]

1.In an earlier thread I provided, as a target for our Liberal pals, the pronouncement of the latest ‘fresh new face of the Democrat Party,’ economic guru -née-bartender, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez.

The point I aimed to prove was that Democrat voters are unable to justify, defend, or even explain, what they are ordered to support.

That thread can be found here:

No Education Nor Intellect Required...



2.The dozen or so board drones who raced to attack it quickly proved my premise, and found that the had no ammunition for the attack.
There was no 'defense' of "the Green New Deal."

Too bad.
A rousing defense of Ocasio and the Democrat Party would have paved the way to point out the inanity of her, and Bernie, and the Democrat’s policies, because government policies have consequences in terms of the costs to taxpayers of those policies.

And the costs are not merely pecuniary.




3.Let's imagine that these policies have merit, and were put in place:

The Ocasio-Cortez/Democrat Party “Green New Deal.”

a. Every industrial and residential building is to be retro-fitted with every techological advance available

b. Elimination of all greenhouse gases

c. A committee will be formed that would have a mandate to push union membership

d. The committee would form a national jobs force to move all workers into green jobs

e. A guaranteed living wage and a universal income

f. Medicare for all

g. The federal government would take over and regulate and unionize all industries


4. The question posed by this OP is not whether this agenda is advisable, or fitting in a free nation.
Assume arguendo that both are the case.
The earlier thread showed that being a Democrat relieves one of actually having to test these ideas, to actually think, but let’s move on to the next step to be faced:

a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies?

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

These are questions that any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Leftist should have asked himself, without it being mashed in his face by a conservative.....
...but, alas, we have seen neither the ability nor propensity to do so from those folks.




I’ll answer both in this thread….and the answers will not surprise sane people, i.e., non-Liberals.

it is a starting point; promoting the general welfare not the general warfare is what we are supposed to be doing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. According Einstein Ocasio, the policies of her Green New Deal, "might require a 60%-70% taxation on those fabled ‘rich people.’"


This claim should be stabled with ‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,’

And

‘My healthcare plan will cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2500 a year.”

Yup….just as close to reality as those Democrat promises.




6. Guy Benson calculated what the tax system has to look like to pay for the Democrat/Sanders/Ocasio fantasy:

a. Raise the payroll tax 10% on both workers and employers

b. Impose a new 20% national VAT tax

c. Impose a 10% increase in income tax for every category, from rich to poor.

d. Double the 35 and 37% tax brackets to 70 and 74%

e. Raise corporate tax rate by 20%

f. Eliminate the EITC and child care deduction

And not SOME of these.....ALL of them!!!

g. And a half dozen more increases

[see Stunning: Here Are the Tax Hikes Required to Pay For Single-Payer Healthcare's $32.6 Trillion (Minimum) Price Tag]



a. what are taxation ramifications of this set of policies? See above.

and

b. what would be the effect of said tax requirements on the populace?

Coming up......

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is more important.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. When one considers the enormous set of tax increases that would be necessary for the Sanders/Occasion/Democrat promises, one can only conclude that

a. these two, and by extension all Democrats, are either lying to constituents, or are clueless about their own programs.

b. I’ve already shown that Democrat voters are clearly clueless, and fearful of questioning their masters




8. Thus it has ever been by the income-stealing Democrats

a. There was the godfather of the Democrat Party, Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
The huge tax burden necessary to provide the ‘rights’ and fund federal welfare programs can be laid at the feet of the New Deal. Before 1940, only 5% of Americans paid any income tax, and the maximum was 25%. By the end of WWII, 2/3 of American families paid income tax- and it started at 24%, with a $500 exemption.

It went up to 94% over $200k. So, if one earned $300k, one kept only $6000 of the last $100k.
Withholding was re-introduced so the government got the money immediately. (Had been repealed in 1916.)



b.The attitude of the FDR government, and Democrats in general, can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism


There's no daylight between the Democrat view, and Hitler’s philosopher Hegel who said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



c. "Dan Rostenkowski, standing next to the candidate in front of the cameras and the cheering crowd at the convention after the fateful speech, whispered to Mondale, "You've got a lot of balls, pal." According to Rostenkowski, Mondale whispered back, "Look at 'em, we're going to tax their ass off."
Mondale says: "We're going to tax their ass off"


d.And, Hussein..... "But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.”
The Education of President Obama


Obama’s father was for 100% taxation…think about that.


....next, what that sort of taxation presages.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Obama’s father was for 100% taxation…think about that.


Democrats have always been associated with taxes, and tax rates such as those mentioned above…..60%...70%....94%....100%

What would be the correct term for someone who works, and then forks over 100% of their income….I mean beside “reliable Democrat voter”????


And while you’re mulling that over, focus on the words to this tune:

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. “Ocasio-Cortez also this week introduced a top marginal tax rate of 70%, and in some places like New York City, the top top marginal rate could shoot as high as 82%.

It’s not her fault that she wasn’t born yet when Jimmy Carter had rates at that level and we all waited in gas lines for rationed fuel. But Ocasio-Cortez seems to idolize countries that have rationing and long lines for bare shelves so maybe that’s just her strategy.” Congress 2019: Why The Future May Be Female, But These Ideas Are Filled With Ignorance, Stupidity & Danger!


Policies have consequences....intended or otherwise.

And the Democrat policies would reach into your pockets.......deep, deep, into your pocket.


But Democrat voters have been cowed, fearful of every considering or questioning the consequences of the policies they have been ordered to support.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. For context, and before some Lefty loon claims that it’s that sort of thing in Scandinavia…the imagined socialist Utopia….

Myth: Socialism works spectacularly in Nordic countries.


The problem here is the equating socialist redistribution programs, with socialist economies. The Scandinavian nations are not socialist economies; Denmark has a freer economy than does the USA. Higher tax rates to support the redistributionist part, but far less business regulation than America.



“Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen told students that he had “absolutely no wish to interfere the presidential debate in the US” but nonetheless attempted to set the record straight about his country.



"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.



“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.


The PM’s comments come after US presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton used part of the first Democratic debate to discuss how the United States could emulate Scandinavia.” Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist




Check out the rankings of economic freedom, here: Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

 

[danielpalos]

even a divine Commune of Heaven requires Faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. For decades the Democrats have shown the inclination to take over more and more of citizens’ lives, contrary to the foundations of this nation. Outstanding was the instruction manual of America, the Constitution, which restricted what the federal government can do….see article 1, section 8.

It all changed when the best friend of Joseph Stalin, and the godfather of the modern Democrats, Franklin Roosevelt, announced his disrespect for the Constitution.


Now, through the uttering the total imbecile, Sonia Ocasio-Cortez, we can see the endgame: making Americans slaves to their own government via taxation.




Let’s review:

1.The thread reveals the plans of Ocasio/Sanders/Democrats for America.

2.The thread reveals the level of taxation would be required to institute those plans.

3.The thread correctly identifies the free and easy use of taxation by Democrats: FDR’s proposals, Chandler’s view of citizen’s obligations to government, Mondale’s admission on taxation, and Obama as another tax and spend Democrat.

Did you notice the FDR/Chandler similarity to Hitler’s inspiration, Hegel’s “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



4. And here is the aim of the thread, to make the clear and evident case that at the Democrat level of confiscation, taxation, citizens become no more that serfs working for government.

At that level of taxation, how to describe citizens as other than slaves?
The terms 'slaves' and 'Democrat Party' seem to be combined too often in our history.


5. The Founders gave us freedom, liberty, and the Democrat plans aim to make us their slaves.