AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

JF Idaho is in the same boat. Housing prices in the more desirable areas are exploding.
And thanks SH I needed the positive encouragement.
 
bystander said:
More commentary from Greenpeace activists. This one is date 2006 and is about immigration into the US. The speak is Paul Watson, who is considered one of the most aggressive environmentalists in the history of the movement:

https://www.seashepherd.org.au/news...the-nation-on-population-and-immigration.html

"Captain Watson Speaks to the Nation on Population and Immigration

With most of the major environmental organizations intimidated, reluctant, and decidedly voiceless on the issue, Captain Paul Watson spoke out on the Fox National News Network on May 15th in a broadcast heard from Maine to Hawaii on the issue of growing U.S. populations and the impact on both the U.S. and the global environment.

Captain Watson took advantage of the current controversy over illegal immigration to point out the environmental concerns about escalating U.S. populations. He advocated reducing immigration numbers to a level that will achieve U.S. population stabilization.

"The United States has the highest population growth rate of any nation with a 1.3% annual increase," said Watson. "This rate of increase, if it remains at this level will give the United States a population approaching or exceeding one billion by the end of the 21st Century."

Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, argues that it does not matter how many people enter the United States because the world population is not affected because people move around.

"What Carl is ignoring here is the reality that the United States is the highest per capita resource consuming nation in the world. Every new American increases global resource utilization," said Watson, "The United States produces 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Population stabilization in the U.S. is not only good for the United States, it is good for the planet."

Paul Watson also pointed out that population growth contributes to urban sprawl and is the single greatest threat to species diversity.

When asked why other conservation organizations would not comment on the issue, Watson said that it is a choice between being ecologically correct or being seen as politically correct, and unfortunately, most environmental organizations are more concerned with being seen as politically correct.

One critic sent an e-mail to Captain Watson demanding to know what this issue has to do with protecting whales and marine life. "Stick to what you do best and don't get involved in this issue," the message said.

Captain Watson responded by pointing out that escalating human populations are the greatest threat to the survival of oceanic species. More people means more pollution, more agricultural run-off, more fishing, more pressure to resume whaling, to lower seal populations, and it means more ships and more resource extraction.

"The three most important ecological laws are diversity, interdependence, and finite resources. Diversity of species on this planet and the interdependence of these species is essential to the survival of all species, including our own. There are limits to growth and for human populations to increase means we must steal the resources and thus carrying capacity of the environment from other species. They must be removed to increase our numbers. This will result in less diversity and less interdependence and ultimately it will have grave consequences for humanity," Captain Watson said.

"I don't say what it is popular to say," added Watson. "I don't hold right or left political values. I speak from an ecological perspective. Being concerned about population growth in the United States is an ecologically-correct position. There is nothing political about it."
Click to expand...
Teaming up with Econuts / EcoNazis to curb illegal immigration? Politics clearly makes strange bedfellows.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Trump is no Reagan despite efforts to tie the former to the latters coat tails.
Click to expand...

In many ways he is like Reagan. Regardless of what you believe Trump isn't stupid. The problem is that so much of the "conventional wisdom" that you libs believe to be reality is dead wrong. People who think outside the box will continue to have success just like Trump is having and Reagan did before him.
 
Last edited:
iatrogenic said:
Tell him your true thoughts SH. Don't sugar coat it.

"Trump is a poopy head!" Take that Garmel.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand the hate people have toward Trump because it's so irrational. The whole "Trump is stupid" trope just doesn't mesh with what we're seeing. If Trump is stupid what the hell does that make Obama?
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's housing prices driving people from "liberal bastions", not taxes. If you already own a house in one of these markets you can sell it for a mint then pay cash and have a nice nest egg in a less inflated housing market. This is part of my plan after all my sons get into college. Oregon, Idaho or Arizona are more likely destinations for my wife and I though.
Click to expand...
BS. My cousin moved to SC from NJ, specifically stating taxes.
 
When you post a stupid (and hypocritical based on her campaign expenses) take, get called on it, and then actually try to respond and just make things worse... It's ratio time.



Not a sign of economic insight to compare hiring labor to buying shoe leather.
 
Clean said:
The question is where are we going after they destroy Texas? I hear Costa Rica is nice.
Click to expand...

California Democrats who bail on California are like a Biblical horde of locusts. They destroy, move, destroy again, move again. Their inability to think logically and reasonably is staggering. Meanwhile, Texas politicians could have put up a lot more barriers when they had unfettered power and could see this swarm on the way, but they just refused to unseat Joe Straus. A pox upon all their houses.

i4hd_albert_einstein_definition-of-insanity.jpg
 
Last edited:
Trying to follow here:

"Uber runs at a deliberate loss to monopolize market share. It’s a post-profit model."

So... sub-living wages is causing the loss?

If you’re a shoe business, you don’t get to pay half price for the leather you need just because you’re not profitable.

"No, you find a better supplier or shut your doors."

Living wage is the minimum cost of labor. Anything less is exploitation.

"Raising wages will require raising the rates you are charging. Maybe that's what she means by them operating at a loss. But if they're losing money now due to some "post-profit" pricing matrix, raising prices to break-even still does not push one dime to the drivers."
 
bystander said:
Trying to follow here:

"Uber runs at a deliberate loss to monopolize market share. It’s a post-profit model."

So... sub-living wages is causing the loss?

If you’re a shoe business, you don’t get to pay half price for the leather you need just because you’re not profitable.

"No, you find a better supplier or shut your doors."

Living wage is the minimum cost of labor. Anything less is exploitation.

"Raising wages will require raising the rates you are charging. Maybe that's what she means by them operating at a loss. But if they're losing money now due to some "post-profit" pricing matrix, raising prices to break-even still does not push one dime to the drivers."
Click to expand...
It is difficult to decipher AOC's babble, but it looks as though she is stating that the labor costs shouldn't be reduced because the firm is showing losses. She conveniently ignores the fact that laborers can move to a better job anytime they wish.

She also states the term "living wage", whatever that means. Technically, you can live on water and peanut butter while sleeping under a bridge, so maybe Uber could cut their labor costs to hit that minimum. Regardless, she is almost incoherent.
 
The problem with a politician is when they apply their entitlement to tax dollars to the business world. They think they can make changes and it works in the vacuum that is their mind. When it comes to the federal budget, there is no cost consideration (except for the wall). The money is theirs; not ours.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's housing prices driving people from "liberal bastions", not taxes. If you already own a house in one of these markets you can sell it for a mint then pay cash and have a nice nest egg in a less inflated housing market. This is part of my plan after all my sons get into college. Oregon, Idaho or Arizona are more likely destinations for my wife and I though.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part where AOC's mother talks about taxes being the reason for the move...and the fact that many of the LeftCoast tards who move to Austin ALSO make the same claim.

I would not have a problem with the moves from those areas if they would leave their tax and spend politics behind. Instead they bring them to Texas (and other low cost areas) and proceed to screw up the places that were formerly nice and inexpensive places to live.
 
mb227 said:
I guess you missed the part where AOC's mother talks about taxes being the reason for the move...and the fact that many of the LeftCoast tards who move to Austin ALSO make the same claim.

I would not have a problem with the moves from those areas if they would leave their tax and spend politics behind. Instead they bring them to Texas (and other low cost areas) and proceed to screw up the places that were formerly nice and inexpensive places to live.
Click to expand...

Virtues are portable; apparently lessons learned are not.
 
iatrogenic said:
It is difficult to decipher AOC's babble, but it looks as though she is stating that the labor costs shouldn't be reduced because the firm is showing losses. She conveniently ignores the fact that laborers can move to a better job anytime they wish.
Click to expand...

One of the many problems with is that as far as I know, the people working full time for uber either can"t find another job or made good enough money to leave their other job. Neither works too well in her arguement.
 
Joe Fan said:
California Democrats who bail on California are like a Biblical horde of locusts. They destroy, move, destroy again, move again. Their inability to think logically and reasonably is staggering.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should build the wall around California - to keep the Californians from moving out.
 
HornHuskerDad said:
Maybe we should build the wall around California - to keep the Californians from moving out.
Click to expand...

That might work if we also go with the GND and ban all airplanes.

I've long thought that when the wall is built from Texas through Arizona we should turn north and go to the Canadian border.
 
I'm all for de-federalizing border security. Have to be careful about not restricting flow too much though or you will really hurt your economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top