Home | About | Donate

Putting Tax Rates and Billionaire 'Excess' in Moral Terms, Ocasio-Cortez Asks 'What Kind of Society Do We Want to Live In?'

Putting Tax Rates and Billionaire 'Excess' in Moral Terms, Ocasio-Cortez Asks 'What Kind of Society Do We Want to Live In?'

Julia Conley, staff writer

Appearing on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" Monday night, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) once again brought to American households a discussion of the economic system which has allowed an extreme wealth gap to widen in the United States, explaining her proposal to impose a far higher tax rate on the wealthiest Americans in order to even the playing field.


Every time AOC speaks in public a FoxBot wets the couch. Keep speaking truth to power AOC, you are a breath of fresh air!


The excesses of the elites, are one example of the evil that men do.


Here’s my comment to NYT regarding both Kamala (other women) and more importantly the only effective strategy to peacefully over-throw this Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE in 2020:

She promotes a book but it’s not hers. Gotta love it. Suck on that you self-promoting bobbleheads.


Too bad she can’t shift enough of Bernie’s 77 birthdays to herself (making her over 35, and allowing her to run as his VP) and reduce Bernie’s age to just 70, eh???


Last election primary, I saw a different DNC. Has it “evolved” away from the RNC yet?

I like the fact that she is developing an independent constituency outside of Bernie’s base and is not overtly compromising her views despite extreme pressure. I’m hoping that she runs for Senate in the 2022 primary against Schummer in New York. That would be way more significant to moving U.S. politics forward than a stint as VP.


The income disparity,and the needs of many others, should be addressed in our tax code for sure.
What bothers me just as much is that these big daddy war bucks folks have to be told to give it up, a little.

Ocasio-Cortez clarified that she doesn’t believe billionaires like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are “immoral” just because they are billionaires

That sounds like a safe, inoffensive, politically-correct thing to say, but is it true? A billionaire faces the question, “should I help people who are in need, or by a seventh house?” and even if he can answer it, “well, I gave a million dollars to charity,” why can’t we ask if buying themselves a seventh house is immoral?

For most of us, if we have more than enough money to pay the bills, we put it to soon-to-be-needed savings or a little entertainment to distract us from the pains of this world. At some point, however, you get to a certain level of money where the question, “How should I spend or invest it?” has unavoidable moral implications. Ignoring those implications could itself be seen as immoral.

1 Like

A pearl of a reply, dpearl, and as a New Yorker, AOC would have a damn good shot at the Senate —- and maybe then the presidency (if that office still exists).

1 Like

Reflecting on the implied pursuit of a ‘perfect’ candidate, the one who seemingly says all the right things for everyone, at least here in the progressives corner, I couldn’t help but think of who might fit that bill. It led me to review the Green Party’s platform. And I believe it is worth considering, not least for the detailed depth of what it addresses.

But, of course, alternatives to the duopoly are routinely dismissed as infeasible, which circles back around to who will be the ‘perfect’ candidate.

I also happen to feel inspired by someone like AOC who is willing to advocate for the principles she does.

1 Like

The most appropriate term as Bertrand Russell noted is “The Merchants of Death” —- since ‘weapons of war’ are the only products that generate 100% ‘negative externality costs’ when used for their intended purpose (as real ‘Board-clearers’) and generate massive faux-profits for their God-damned corporate crooks and over-lords.

Great ROI, eh, gandolf??


More war investors, hoorah.

1 Like

Figures that the NYT is advocating for more of the same, corporate-loving, Kamala Harris; but, denouncing Tulsi Gabbard as a chameleon who will compromise with Trump.

I found one AOC comment on Russia":

You and Chen, or (you Chen?) seem to be trying to sabotage the brightest star Progressives have. Demonstrably, AOC doesn’t toe the establishment Democratic Party line although here she acknowledges that Russians were “aggressive”. America is much more aggressive and conducts regime change by interfering in other countries elections. Anyone can wage cyberwarfare and it is silly to think no one else does.

The DNC and Hillary seem to have concocted the Russiagate story to deflect attention from their own interference in the election. Admitting Russia (as does everyone else) hacks other elections does not make AOC “dumb, a parrot, a Deep State loyalist, or an Obama ringer with a bright shiny smile”. By not accepting corporate bribes, AOC shows she is not a corporate Democrat like Clinton and the DNC. Is there a better way to reject these people?

Thanks to AOC, millionaires seem to be facing those unavoidable moral implications::

Thanks, my laugh for the day.

Colbert has a nice show. He leads and Centrists follow. A O-C was wise in this instance " to go along to get along " and reiterate her previous talking points. The progressives must employ the inside/outside politics of " zero fucks " and explain the overall benefits of democratic socialism and redistribution of wealth ( ending ringworm in Alabamans ) to an open but leary public.
In the end we may be both " skinning polecats and skinning billionaires " to get the agreed upon and necessary results. Or, we find out they’re one and the same thing.

1 Like

As morality (for the most part) cannot be legislated, the amoral among us are allowed to frolic.