Turning Point UK launches, lefty heads explode! Watch

DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Underscore__)
Pointing out that someone says stupid stuff and mocking them for it is not a smear campaign.

I think the crazy policies people are referring to are the 70% marginal tax rate; replacing all combustion engines within 10 years and; promising economic security to those are ‘unwilling’ to work
There's a differenece between disagreeing wuth a policy, and calling it 'stupid'. In the 50s America had a top rate of tax around 90%. You're perfectly entitled to disagree, but it doesn't make the policy 'stupid' if the end result is increased investment in healthcare and public services.

Back to AOC, she's obviously talented, watch her Senate Committee questioning on lobbying, for example.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by DSilva)
There's a differenece between disagreeing wuth a policy, and calling it 'stupid'. In the 50s America had a top rate of tax around 90%. You're perfectly entitled to disagree, but it doesn't make the policy 'stupid' if the end result is increased investment in healthcare and public services.

Back to AOC, she's obviously talented, watch her Senate Committee questioning on lobbying, for example.
I didn’t call a single one of her policies stupid, I said they were crazy. To be more specific with what I mean by crazy; I certainly disagree with them, I think the majority of people would disagree with the policies I mentioned and I don’t think they’re conducive to a prosperous society.

Talented in what regard? She’s clearly likeable to a lot of people but she says a lot of stupid and ridiculous things.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Underscore__)
I didn’t call a single one of her policies stupid, I said they were crazy. To be more specific with what I mean by crazy; I certainly disagree with them, I think the majority of people would disagree with the policies I mentioned and I don’t think they’re conducive to a prosperous society.

Talented in what regard? She’s clearly likeable to a lot of people but she says a lot of stupid and ridiculous things.
You call them crazy because you disagree with them. Societies, including America have prospered and grown before with high tax rates on top earners, it's not some sort of unthinkable scenario. You're entitled to disagree of course, but it doesn't make the idea crazy.

Watch the 5 minute clip of her appaerancd at the Senate Committee on lobbying, which is the msof viewed clip of any hearing there has been in that committee! In five short minutes she showed how utterly facial and corrupt the lobbying system in the USA is. Give it a watch.

What stupid and ridiculous things has she said? Again, all you've pointed to is policies that you disagree with.

I dislike Trump, I don't deny he's obviously very talented in certain regards.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by BigGunBen)
Well, she has said things like abolishing fossil fuels and planes and high top rates of tax normally scare away investors whether 90% would be fair or not. Venezuela would be a good argument against her ideas as investors will not stay in a country where they are losing a large amount of profits from very high tax rates. Whether arguing in favour for or against high top rates of tax based on morals, those who are looking to make large sums of money will just move elsewhere to a country which has lower tax rates. Also, she said something along the lines of that being factually correct is not as important as being virtuous. Not a great idea when trying to run an economy.
Again though, these are policy disagreements, not necessarily a sign of her positions being crazy.

There is certainly a body of economic opinion and research suggesting higher tax rates would generate higher revenues, notwithstanding that certain businesses may leave. But equally, there are plenty of right leaning individuals who support Brexit, despite businesses also saying they would leave. You can't have it both ways and pick and choose when you believe businesses' warnings.

Just saying 'Venezuela' as an argument to virtually any suggesting of raising taxes or spending money is illogical. It would be like saying any attempt to reduce taxes would be akin to turning us into a place with no law and order like Somalia.

We certainly should be looking to stop using fossil fuels. They cause unbelievable damage to the planet. We should instead, for the sake of the planet and humanity, be investing in green energy.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by BigGunBen)
Well, she has said things like abolishing fossil fuels and planes and high top rates of tax normally scare away investors whether 90% would be fair or not. Venezuela would be a good argument against her ideas as investors will not stay in a country where they are losing a large amount of profits from very high tax rates. Whether arguing in favour for or against high top rates of tax based on morals, those who are looking to make large sums of money will just move elsewhere to a country which has lower tax rates. Also, she said something along the lines of that being factually correct is not as important as being virtuous. Not a great idea when trying to run an economy.
Calling the Green New Deal "stupid and ridiculous" is like an alcoholic calling the doctor's instructions to stop drinking or they'll die "stupid and ridiculous".
It may not be welcome, it may not be immediately achievable or even at all, but it is necessary if the worst outcome is to be avoided. (I don't necessarily agree with all of the details, but I support the direction and would rather the GND than to continue the way we are)

The problem with too many politicians is that they care more about their careers than they do about the welfare of the country and the people. We could get away with that in the past but not any more. Time is running out. We can't leave everything to future generations any more.
2
reply
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
American style right wing populism will never work in British politics. We're not positive or jingoistic for the most part, we're pessimists, we're stubborn and we're stiff upper lip exceptionists. There's no way that an alt-right movement not linked to High Toryism will gain ground.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Underscore__)
Pointing out that someone says stupid stuff and mocking them for it is not a smear campaign.

I think the crazy policies people are referring to are the 70% marginal tax rate; replacing all combustion engines within 10 years and; promising economic security to those are ‘unwilling’ to work
Isn't it interesting that a return to a top marginal rate that worked for decades in the US prior to Reaganomics (when wealth inequality and the exploitation of labour became a major feature rather than defect of capitalism) is considered crazy? Almost like decades of failure, as corrupt billionaires accumulated wealth, has given people stockholm syndrome...
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by DSilva)
You call them crazy because you disagree with them. Societies, including America have prospered and grown before with high tax rates on top earners, it's not some sort of unthinkable scenario. You're entitled to disagree of course, but it doesn't make the idea crazy.
No, I explained the reason I called them crazy. The idea of replacing all combustion engines and retrofitting every single building in the United States to be achieve ‘maximum energy efficiency’ within 10 years is crazy because it’s completely unrealistic. Developing America’s rail network to a point where air travel is no longer necessary is crazy because it’s so unrealistic. Removing all cows from the country is crazy because it’s so unrealistic. Providing economic security for those who are ‘unwilling’ to work is crazy because it’s an unelectable policy.

Even with that tax rate the government still collected the same amount of the GDP from tax. Despite having such a high top marginal rate the income from tax remained unchanged.

(Original post by DSilva)
Watch the 5 minute clip of her appaerancd at the Senate Committee on lobbying, which is the msof viewed clip of any hearing there has been in that committee!
Like I said, she’s popular. I’m not sure what the number of views the video has has to do with anything?

(Original post by DSilva)
In five short minutes she showed how utterly facial and corrupt the lobbying system in the USA is. Give it a watch.
Which video specifically would you like me to watch?

(Original post by DSilva)
What stupid and ridiculous things has she said? Again, all you've pointed to is policies that you disagree with.
She said that the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t stop climate change, compared climate change to world war 2 and said it doesn’t matter how we’ll to combat climate change. She said that it’s more important to be ‘morally right’ than factually accurate. She contradicts herself; one minute unashamedly saying that preventing climate change requires huge government intervention and then saying that the right tries to discredit green policies by claiming they require government takeover. She said that 200m Americans make less than $20k a year which is 40% of the country. She said unemployment figures are only so low because ‘everyone has two jobs’. Would you like me to continue?

I dislike Trump, I don't deny he's obviously very talented in certain regards.[/QUOTE]

Right...I asked what her talent is, not if you think Trump is talented.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Underscore__; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Isn't it interesting that a return to a top marginal rate that worked for decades in the US prior to Reaganomics (when wealth inequality and the exploitation of labour became a major feature rather than defect of capitalism) is considered crazy? Almost like decades of failure, as corrupt billionaires accumulated wealth, has given people stockholm syndrome...
Isn’t it interesting that despite having a 91% top marginal tax rate the government’s income from tax, as a percentage, was practically the same as it is today. Isn’t it interesting that thinking the government doesn’t have a right to half of what a person earns is interpreted as them having Stockholm Syndrome toward billionaires.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Underscore__; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Underscore__)
No, I explained the reason I called them crazy. The idea of replacing all combustion engines and retrofitting every single building in the United States to be achieve ‘maximum energy efficiency’ within 10 years is crazy because it’s completely unrealistic. Developing America’s rail network to a point where air travel is no longer necessary is crazy because it’s so unrealistic. Removing all cows from the country is crazy because it’s so unrealistic. Providing economic security for those who are ‘unwilling’ to work is crazy because it’s an unelectable policy.

Even with that tax rate the government still collected the same amount of the GDP from tax. Despite having such a high top marginal rate the income from tax remained unchanged.
No, what's crazy is that there are plenty of people who essentially either deny or are completely indifferent to climate change because it suits their political agenda. It's one of the biggest threats the planet faces and the general response from much of the right seems to be a shrug of the shoulders. There needs to be a radical policy to try and tackle it. Sure, her policy is ambitious and perhaps elements are unrealistic, but it's far better to aim higher when it comes to tackling it. If we even achieve a quarter of her plan, it would be far better than doing nothing. So no, it's not crazy.

As another poster aptly put it, it would be like calling a doctor crazy for telling an alcoholic that he needs to stop drinking or he'll die.

As for the tax, again all you've said is you disagree, which is fine but it doesn't show it's a crazy or unworkable policy to tax earnings over $10,000,000 at 70%. The USA used to do more than that and achieved considerable growth, other countries in Europe have top rates of tax at 60 odd percent. You said you don't think the government has a right to take that much, which is fine as it's your opinion - but that doesn't show how it's a crazy idea, just one you think is undesirable.




Which video specifically would you like me to watch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs


[/quote]
Right...I asked what her talent is, not if you think Trump is talented.
She's 29, the youngest congresswoman who's amassed a rather large following, that certainly takes talent. Listening to her speak and her performance in Congress, she's obviously talented and has something about it. Put it this way, the Republicans wouldn't be launching such a ludicrous smear campaign against her if they weren't worried about her, or thought she was a 'gift' to them.
Last edited by DSilva; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Underscore__)
Isn’t it interesting that despite having a 91% top marginal tax rate the government’s income from tax, as a percentage, was practically the same as it is today. Isn’t it interesting that thinking the government doesn’t have a right to half of what a person earns is interpreted as them having Stockholm Syndrome toward billionaires.
Almost like the top marginal rate didn't actually affect many besides those who can more than afford it. All Reaganomics and the changes in tax structure has done is ran Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor to give to the rich. Hence why recompense for the actual wealth creators (the workers) rather than the parasitic class above them has lagged well behind productivity:

Name:  IMG_20190308_182355.jpg
Views: 5
Size:  68.9 KB

This is what you support, the sacrifice of human beings upon the altar of capital, when the existence of billionaires in a society that also has poverty and homelessness is inherently immoral.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Underscore__)
Isn’t it interesting that despite having a 91% top marginal tax rate the government’s income from tax, as a percentage, was practically the same as it is today. Isn’t it interesting that thinking the government doesn’t have a right to half of what a person earns is interpreted as them having Stockholm Syndrome toward billionaires.
Confiscatory tax rates are not supposed to be big revenue sources. They exist to encourage corporations to use their money for something other than executive remuneration. If nobody has to pay it, it means it's working. Of course, it's common nowadays for executives to be offered stock options rather than a set salary, but that's where the wealth tax comes in.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by QE2)
Calling the Green New Deal "stupid and ridiculous" is like an alcoholic calling the doctor's instructions to stop drinking or they'll die "stupid and ridiculous".
It may not be welcome, it may not be immediately achievable or even at all, but it is necessary if the worst outcome is to be avoided. (I don't necessarily agree with all of the details, but I support the direction and would rather the GND than to continue the way we are)

The problem with too many politicians is that they care more about their careers than they do about the welfare of the country and the people. We could get away with that in the past but not any more. Time is running out. We can't leave everything to future generations any more.
The green new deal is more than just stupid, using your analogy it would be like telling an alcoholic to start using crystals and essential oils to cure themselves alongside drinking bleach to clean their organs.
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by DSilva)
No, what's crazy is that there are plenty of people who essentially either deny or are completely indifferent to climate change because it suits their political agenda. It's one of the biggest threats the planet faces and the general response from much of the right seems to be a shrug of the shoulders. There needs to be a radical policy to try and tackle it. Sure, her policy is ambitious and perhaps elements are unrealistic, but it's far better to aim higher when it comes to tackling it. If we even achieve a quarter of her plan, it would be far better than doing nothing. So no, it's not crazy.

As another poster aptly put it, it would be like calling a doctor crazy for telling an alcoholic that he needs to stop drinking or he'll die.

As for the tax, again all you've said is you disagree, which is fine but it doesn't show it's a crazy or unworkable policy to tax earnings over $10,00,000 at 70%. The USA used to do more than that and achieved considerable growth, other countries in Europe have top rates of tax at 60 odd percent. You said you don't think the government has a right to take that much, which is fine as it's your opinion - but that doesn't show how it's a crazy idea, just one you think is undesirable.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h810bO-4LIs

She's 29, the youngest congresswoman who's amassed a rather large following, that certainly takes talent. Listening to her speak and her performance in Congress, she's obviously talented and has something about it. Put it this way, the Republicans wouldn't be launching such a ludicrous smear campaign against her if they weren't worried about her, or thought she was a 'gift' to them.[/QUOTE]

You do realise that there is more than two sides to this whole debate, with the whole green new deal being utterly insane and a joke and climate change denial being the same, not supporting the green new deal does not mean you are a climate change denier.

She has amassed a following of absolute idiots, she has come up with a stupidly farfetched and insane idea and people gawk at how clever it is, it would be like trump saying "we are going to build a dyson sphere around the sun to help with global warming and power issues" sure, would be cool if we could do it but it is impossible for any time in the near or far future.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Almost like the top marginal rate didn't actually affect many besides those who can more than afford it. All Reaganomics and the changes in tax structure has done is ran Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor to give to the rich. Hence why recompense for the actual wealth creators (the workers) rather than the parasitic class above them has lagged well behind productivity:

Name:  IMG_20190308_182355.jpg
Views: 5
Size:  68.9 KB

This is what you support, the sacrifice of human beings upon the altar of capital, when the existence of billionaires in a society that also has poverty and homelessness is inherently immoral.
So because a person can afford something the government has the right to compel them to pay for it? What's immoral is taking money you haven't earned because the government has decided certain people can afford to give it to you.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Confiscatory tax rates are not supposed to be big revenue sources. They exist to encourage corporations to use their money for something other than executive remuneration. If nobody has to pay it, it means it's working. Of course, it's common nowadays for executives to be offered stock options rather than a set salary, but that's where the wealth tax comes in.
Because of course, the government should be able to tell corporations what to do with the money they've earned.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by DSilva)
No, what's crazy is that there are plenty of people who essentially either deny or are completely indifferent to climate change because it suits their political agenda. It's one of the biggest threats the planet faces and the general response from much of the right seems to be a shrug of the shoulders. There needs to be a radical policy to try and tackle it. Sure, her policy is ambitious and perhaps elements are unrealistic, but it's far better to aim higher when it comes to tackling it. If we even achieve a quarter of her plan, it would be far better than doing nothing. So no, it's not crazy.
And the people who want to do nothing and pretend a problem doesn't exist are also wrong; you can't justify her ridiculous policies by mentioning that other people also have ridiculous views on the same topic. Her proposals aren't ambitious; ambitious is a kid who wants to grow up to be a doctor. Her proposals are completely unrealistic and as close to impossible to achieve as any serious political proposal I'm aware of. I don't imagine if Trump said he wanted to increase the US GDP by 100000000000% you would be saying it's better to aim high, you'd say it's crazy.

Further it seems you've avoided my point about providing economic security to those who are 'unwilling' to work also being crazy because it's an unelectable policy.

(Original post by DSilva)
As another poster aptly put it, it would be like calling a doctor crazy for telling an alcoholic that he needs to stop drinking or he'll die.
No it's like calling a plan to replace hundreds of millions of combustion engines; retrofit hundreds of millions of buildings and; build hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of miles of high speed railway lines, in a country with notoriously bad commuter railways, in ten years, crazy.

(Original post by DSilva)
As for the tax, again all you've said is you disagree, which is fine but it doesn't show it's a crazy or unworkable policy to tax earnings over $10,000,000 at 70%. The USA used to do more than that and achieved considerable growth, other countries in Europe have top rates of tax at 60 odd percent. You said you don't think the government has a right to take that much, which is fine as it's your opinion - but that doesn't show how it's a crazy idea, just one you think is undesirable.
Well my point that you seem to have missed is that in the past the extortionately high tax rate didn't bring in a significant amount of extra revenue, to enact the kind of policies the likes of AOC propose you would need to dramatically increase government funds.


(Original post by DSilva)
She's 29, the youngest congresswoman who's amassed a rather large following, that certainly takes talent. Listening to her speak and her performance in Congress, she's obviously talented and has something about it. Put it this way, the Republicans wouldn't be launching such a ludicrous smear campaign against her if they weren't worried about her, or thought she was a 'gift' to them.
Well I agree that she's clearly likeable to a lot of people so I would say she has a PR talent of sorts as for anything further I think we'll need to wait and see.

As I've already pointed out, criticising someone's policies and the stupid things they say isn't a smear campaign.
Last edited by Underscore__; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by Underscore__)
And the people who want to do nothing and pretend a problem doesn't exist are also wrong; you can't justify her ridiculous policies by mentioning that other people also have ridiculous views on the same topic. Her proposals aren't ambitious; ambitious is a kid who wants to grow up to be a doctor. Her proposals are completely unrealistic and as close to impossible to achieve as any serious political proposal I'm aware of. I don't imagine if Trump said he wanted to increase the US GDP by 100000000000% you would be saying it's better to aim high, you'd say it's crazy.

Further it seems you've avoided my point about providing economic security to those who are 'unwilling' to work also being crazy because it's an unelectable policy.

Yet the President and the Republican party tend to either deny climate change or refuse to do anything about it. That's far crazier than anything AOC has suggested. I don't agree the Green Deal is necessarily unrealistic, it's certainly not crazy. It's a genuine attempt to tackle one of the biggest threats the planet faces while the Republicans shrug their shoulders.

As for the 'unwilling to work', you didn't provide the context. It was one line, which has now been deleted, which has been explained referring to those who are retired. More likely bad drafting by a staffer. And besides, people should be economically secure and have some sort of safety net, in lots of peoples' opinion.

Further, saying a policy is 'unelectable' does not necessarily make it a crazy idea. You're just appealing to popularity there.

Well my point that you seem to have missed is that in the past the extortionately high tax rate didn't bring in a significant amount of extra revenue, to enact the kind of policies the likes of AOC propose you would need to dramatically increase government funds.
There are all sorts of factors at play. There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the taxation debate, which for the purposes of this debate are not really relevant. All that's relevant is that arguing for high tax rates on those earning over $10,000,000 is certainly not a 'crazy idea'. Such tax rates have existed before and similar rates exist in other countries. You may disagree, as you have said you do, but again that's not to say the policy is crazy.









As I've already pointed out, criticising someone's policies and the stupid things they say isn't a smear campaign.
Criticising someone for appearing in a dance video at university, which people did, is certainly a smear. As is slating someone for not
debating a media personality. As is criticising her for appearing in a fashion shoot for a magazine .https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1041007083058024449

The obsessive focus on here by Republicans really is quite telling, given they also keep saying that she's a 'gift' who they aren't worried about.[/quote]
0
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 week ago
#79
Twitter's just "socialism is bad and jez is an anti-semite". There's not a lot there. Fully expect them to maintain near-irrelevance despite the guardian giving them attention for no apparent reason.
(Original post by alice992019)
She’s got a reputation of sleeping around a LOT and seeking attention and generally can be quite rude... And she makes constant really annoying Facebook posts about politics and a lot of the time just body shames other women.
Honestly sounds like a solid chunk of student women I know. If this was meant to be shocking i dunno what to tell ya.
0
reply
ACherry
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 week ago
#80
It is not bizarre to not wish to waste one's time debating someone who focuses wholly on style, and nothing on substance.

Academics do not have a lot of free time to fly off somewhere and take part in a big publicised debate. When they do, they have the academic and intellectual integrity to debate those who are on a level with them.

I would not expect a leftist academic to waste much of their time on Shapiro or Crowder, nor would I expect a rightist academic to waste much of their time on Owen Jones or Shaun King.
(Original post by Jebedee)
You'd think that the left would be queuing up to debate these guys, since they are so "laughable". Yet even promises of cash payment in exchange for a debate isn't enough in some cases. How bizarre!
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (128)
17.9%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.21%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (123)
17.2%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (103)
14.41%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.79%
How can I be the best version of myself? (218)
30.49%

Watched Threads

View All