• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your opinion the 60 minutes interview with Anderson copper and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

SouthernDemocrat said:
I think she is highly overrated. She defeated a Democrat in a primary in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country. If a super conservative Republican defeated a conservative Republican in a rural southern district, would anyone find that particularly impressive?

All this adoration AOC is getting is kind of a slap in the face to all the women that won in November in really competitive districts.
Click to expand...

She unseated a very high-ranking, long-serving Democrat. It's not that easy to do.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, now that she has been inaugurated she can sign many bills just like Lincoln and FDR did.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about.
 
The Mark said:
What the hell are you talking about.
Click to expand...

She used the term "inaugurated" instead of "sworn in" one time and right-wingers think this is some really big deal.
 
trouble13 said:
I like AOC so far. Not because I agree with her. I adamantly disagree with her. I like her honesty. She is a person a real debate can be had with. I want less of her ideological beliefs but more of her integrity in our representatives.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She's been there a week. I'm guessing her integrity diminishes once she her sitdown with Nancy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is important when talking about raising tax rates close to 100% that you make sure most folks understand that you are not talking about ever raising their taxes only giving them a "fair share" of other folks money. What she will not say, of course, is how much revenue that tax plan would allegedly generate or how much more she wants to spend. Those pesky facts just might get in the way of her plans.
Click to expand...

How is it you're spreading such misinformation, is it deliberate?
Marginal tax rates with a high number, such as 70% or more, do not apply until you hit the very "tippy top" dollar.
In other words, a 70% marginal rate with a cap of four million dollars means that only the very last thousand bucks or so (depending on how the rate was set up) would be taxed at that 70% rate.

The girl even went to great lengths to explain it in the interview, which of course you probably didn't watch.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's a bit scary to see her as having a career position. Districts safe from other party competition can (and have) produced some very odd career politicians.
Click to expand...

like Maxine Waters and B1 Bob Dornan
 
Gaius46 said:
Despite the fact that she represents the district I used to live in I don’t know much about her personality. What makes you say that? The mere fact that she won an election or something else?

I similarly thought it kinda tactless that she decided to mansplain progressive taxes to Anderson Cooper.
Click to expand...

How ridiculous. She wasn't mansplaining anything, she was explaining to the viewing audience how progressive tax rates work.
And apparently more than a few people right here need that explanation.
 
jimbo said:
She's been there a week. I'm guessing her integrity diminishes once she her sitdown with Nancy.
Click to expand...
I tell you I'm disappointed if she cast her vote for Nancy as the speaker. If she did its her first compromise

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
How ridiculous. She wasn't mansplaining anything, she was explaining to the viewing audience how progressive tax rates work.
And apparently more than a few people right here need that explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree she wasnt being condescending she was speaking to the auidence

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
She unseated a very high-ranking, long-serving Democrat. It's not that easy to do.
Click to expand...

It's a hell of a lot easier to do in a district as liberal as her's is, than it is for a minority Democratic woman to unseat an incumbent Republican like Sharice Davids did in my suburban Kansas City district. Sharice Davids is a Native American lesbian woman that handily defeated an incumbent Republican in suburban Kansas. That is a hell of a lot harder than what AOC did, and unlike AOC, she did not spend much of 2018 running around the country supporting and endorsing loser candidates. In fact, AOC endorced a competitor in the primaries to Sharice Davids who was running as a self described socialist. Had he won the primary, he would have been destroyed in the general and we would still have a Republican congressman.

AOC is looking just like Bernie Sanders in that she will probably propose nothing but unrealistic, politically impossible legislation, and as a result be every bit as ineffective of a legislator as Bernie is. Basically, great at interviews, rallies and soundbites, terrible at ever actually getting anything accomplished.
 
trouble13 said:
I agree she wasnt being condescending she was speaking to the auidence

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In the late Eisenhower and early Kennedy days the top marginal rate was 91%.

So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That's $2,769,932.58 in 2018 dollars.

That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate.

There were PLENTY of filthy rich people walking around in the 50's and 60's.
I'll never forget meeting Jessie York when I was a little four year old, a friend of my Uncle Oscar.
Jessie York owned a 180 foot yacht, a Rolls, a Caddy limo, a Ferrari, a sumptuous mansion right on the beach in Long Island, a palatial 18 bedroom home in New York City and a couple of lovely eight seater airplanes.

That was 1961, so he was probably paying some kind of high progressive tax rate. He wasn't hurting for money, I guarantee you, and he had all kinds of loopholes, too.
And incentives. He saved a lot on his taxes by reinvesting in his company.

Progressive tax rates only sound scary to people who don't understand how they work.

PS: The Yorks are still around, Jessie's an old old man but he's still filthy rich.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
In the late Eisenhower and early Kennedy days the top marginal rate was 91%.

So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That's $2,769,932.58 in 2018 dollars.

That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate.

There were PLENTY of filthy rich people walking around in the 50's and 60's.
I'll never forget meeting Jessie York when I was a little four year old, a friend of my Uncle Oscar.
Jessie York owned a 180 foot yacht, a Rolls, a Caddy limo, a Ferrari, a sumptuous mansion right on the beach in Long Island, a palatial 18 bedroom home in New York City and a couple of lovely eight seater airplanes.

That was 1961, so he was probably paying some kind of high progressive tax rate. He wasn't hurting for money, I guarantee you, and he had all kinds of loopholes, too.
And incentives. He saved a lot on his taxes by reinvesting in his company.

Progressive tax rates only sound scary to people who don't understand how they work.

PS: The Yorks are still around, Jessie's an old old man but he's still filthy rich.
Click to expand...

Has anyone voted in a progressive tax rate increase that affected them?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think she is highly overrated. She defeated a Democrat in a primary in one of the most liberal congressional districts in the country. If a super conservative Republican defeated a conservative Republican in a rural southern district, would anyone find that particularly impressive?

All this adoration AOC is getting is kind of a slap in the face to all the women that won in November in really competitive districts.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
She unseated a very high-ranking, long-serving Democrat. It's not that easy to do.
Click to expand...

Basically this.

Let's not forget that she was utterly written off by the media until she won and absolutely crushed Crowley in a victory that was considered to be a complete upset; that is no minor thing.

As to AOC, love her, genuine person with great, sorely needed policies even if she's a bit rough around the edges due to her new stature, and she'll make a fine female president someday (much unlike Hillary) after she gets the requisite needed years of experience under her belt.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
She's a very nice and congenial person that comes across to me as a naive and idealistic young person that has no actual cognitive skills related to the understanding of macro-economics, forms of government, or our Constitutionally protected rights or freedom.
Click to expand...

So you're saying she already knows twice as much as Trump.
 
Beaudreaux said:
She's a very nice and congenial person that comes across to me as a naive and idealistic young person that has no actual cognitive skills related to the understanding of macro-economics, forms of government, or our Constitutionally protected rights or freedom.
Click to expand...

Just wondering if you believe Trump has any actual cognitive skills related to the understanding of macro-economics, forms or government, or our Constitutionally protected rights or freedom? JMO, but his lack of understanding is of much greater importance than hers. She's one little vote in the Congress, and seems to have got everyone's attention. She's like the shiny thing that keeps Trump safe.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is important when talking about raising tax rates close to 100% that you make sure most folks understand that you are not talking about ever raising their taxes only giving them a "fair share" of other folks money. What she will not say, of course, is how much revenue that tax plan would allegedly generate or how much more she wants to spend. Those pesky facts just might get in the way of her plans.
Click to expand...

She could just claim Mexico is going to pay for it. That seems to work.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

I agree, any plan needs a (real) payment strategy.
 
Rucker61 said:
Has anyone voted in a progressive tax rate increase that affected them?
Click to expand...

I have, as far as I can. I voted for a candidate who said they were going to raise taxes...including mine.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
In the late Eisenhower and early Kennedy days the top marginal rate was 91%.

So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That's $2,769,932.58 in 2018 dollars.

That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate.

There were PLENTY of filthy rich people walking around in the 50's and 60's.
I'll never forget meeting Jessie York when I was a little four year old, a friend of my Uncle Oscar.
Jessie York owned a 180 foot yacht, a Rolls, a Caddy limo, a Ferrari, a sumptuous mansion right on the beach in Long Island, a palatial 18 bedroom home in New York City and a couple of lovely eight seater airplanes.

That was 1961, so he was probably paying some kind of high progressive tax rate. He wasn't hurting for money, I guarantee you, and he had all kinds of loopholes, too.
And incentives. He saved a lot on his taxes by reinvesting in his company.

Progressive tax rates only sound scary to people who don't understand how they work.

PS: The Yorks are still around, Jessie's an old old man but he's still filthy rich.
Click to expand...
exclusive. Dont scare me but I have a fundamental disagreement with taxing people on their income. It's a debate I'm happy to have but I dont want to hijack this thread to have it.

My point in this discussion is that AOC was not out of line. She has every right to her very wrong opinion as you do or I do.

Honest arguments are an essential element to a healthy culture. You and I are very apart in our opinions but I would never try to silence your thoughts.

In a sense we are involved in a very high stakes game. Our ideas are competing for survival. I reject the accusations that I'm s racist because I dont agree with you and I reject that your cancer because your not aligned with me. There may be a tinge of truth in each of those positions but we evolve.

At the end of the day most people are good inside. These arguments are over how we define goodness. Spoiler alert we disagree on the fundamental definition.

I disagree with AOC too but her voice is as important as ours

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Beaudreaux said:
She's a very nice and congenial person that comes across to me as a naive and idealistic young person that has no actual cognitive skills related to the understanding of macro-economics, forms of government, or our Constitutionally protected rights or freedom.
Click to expand...


.......as opposed to the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
 
Surrealistik said:
Basically this.

Let's not forget that she was utterly written off by the media until she won and absolutely crushed Crowley in a victory that was considered to be a complete upset; that is no minor thing.

As to AOC, love her, genuine person with great, sorely needed policies even if she's a bit rough around the edges due to her new stature, and she'll make a fine female president someday (much unlike Hillary) after she gets the requisite needed years of experience under her belt.
Click to expand...

Name one newly elected Senator or Congressman that started off by doing every interview they could, even prior to being sworn in, that ever went anywhere.

Let's list some out that started with the AOC model:

Alan Grayson
Anthony Weiner
Marsha Blackburn
Bernie Sanders
Ron Paul
Ted Cruz

These are all people that wanted to become media darlings before they put their head down and actually accomplished some real changes. In the cases of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, they are some of the most ineffective people ever to sit in congress in terms of actual legislation they authored being passed. All Ted Cruz has ever been effective at is being a train wreck to any progress out of either party. My point is, going out in front of every camera in the country, campaigning for unelectable candidates (which AOC did throughout 2018. Her and Bernie had a terrible tract record endorsing candidates in what was otherwise a very good year for the Dems), and throwing out politically impossible ideas in interviews, is not something that leads to being an effective legislator.

The effective legislators go in and keep their head down at first working hard for the constituents and the American people and don't start hitting the interview circuit until they have some actual significant legislative accomplishments behind them.

As to how overrated her primary win is, I explained that here: https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...lexandria-ocasio-cortez-4.html#post1069522594
 
trouble13 said:
exclusive. Dont scare me but I have a fundamental disagreement with taxing people on their income. It's a debate I'm happy to have but I dont want to hijack this thread to have it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Personally I would like to see a tax on non-essential goods. Please let me know if you start a thread, I would like to join.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom