Become a Patron!
To Date which US Presidential candidate will you be voting for & why?
- Thread starter SMOKIE
- Start date
- Status
The early days of the 2020 presidential primary have shown the Democratic Party is in flux and having a robust debate about what its future will look like. And while that debate is centered on progressive policies like "Medicare-for-all," the Green New Deal and how much to tax the rich, it's being fueled by shifting demographics within the party.
New research from Gallup released Tuesday reveals the party is getting less white, more educated, less religious and progressively more liberal since 2001. Notably, the party's liberal shift is mostly driven by white Democrats, while nonwhite Democrats make up a larger share of the moderate and conservative wings of the party.
From 2013 through 2018, an average of 46% of Democrats identified as "liberal," compared with 35% of respondents who said they were "moderate" and 17% who called themselves "conservative," according to Gallup.
That's a stark jump from the previous six years: From 2007 through 2012, those who identified as "liberal" or "moderate" were basically the same -- 39% and 38%, respectively.
New research from Gallup released Tuesday reveals the party is getting less white, more educated, less religious and progressively more liberal since 2001. Notably, the party's liberal shift is mostly driven by white Democrats, while nonwhite Democrats make up a larger share of the moderate and conservative wings of the party.
From 2013 through 2018, an average of 46% of Democrats identified as "liberal," compared with 35% of respondents who said they were "moderate" and 17% who called themselves "conservative," according to Gallup.
That's a stark jump from the previous six years: From 2007 through 2012, those who identified as "liberal" or "moderate" were basically the same -- 39% and 38%, respectively.
The research comes amid a crisis of self in the Democratic Party -- whether the winning strategy in a growing field of candidates is to nominate a presidential candidate who will take a moderate position on hot-button issues or to nominate one who is likely to take a more liberal stance.
The change is largely driven by the increasingly liberal leanings of whites and college graduates within the party.
In the last six years, more than half of white Democrats, 54%, identified themselves as "liberal." That's a 20-point jump from the average in 2001-2006. By comparison, the percentage of Hispanic Democrats and black Democrats identifying as liberal grew 9 points and 8 points, respectively, in that same time frame.
College-educated Democrats have long been more likely to identify as liberal than those without college degrees, and the percentage of Democrats who reported having a college education grew 17 points from 2001-2006 to 2013-2018.
Those educated groups have grown increasingly liberal over lime, with the percentage of Democrats with college degrees who identify as liberal jumping 16 points from 2001-2006 to 2013-2018. The percentage of Democrats with post-graduate degrees identifying as liberal also jumped 13 points in that time frame, outpacing the growth among people with some college education (12 points) and no college education (10 points).
That shift toward liberalism can, again, be chalked up to a change in white Democrats -- this time in the growth of educational attainment. Gallup's research shows an average of 42% of white Democrats reported having college degrees in 2013-2018 -- a 13-point jump from 2001-2006. In that same period, the percentages of black Democrats and Hispanic Democrats with college degrees grew 3 points and 1 point, respectively.
According to Gallup, the shift toward liberalism within the party is being set by leaders in Washington and politics at large -- as leaders present more leftist views on policy, the party follows.
While white Democrats are fueling a shift toward the left in the party, they are making up a shrinking share of its makeup.
According to the research, the percentage of nonwhite Democrats has gone up to an average of 43% in 2013-2018 from an average of 31% in 2001-2006. White people now make up 56% of the party, a 12-point drop from 2001-2006.
Those nonwhite Democrats are also the least likely ones to identify as liberal. According to Gallup's research, 17% of liberal Democrats are black, 13% of liberal Democrats are Hispanic and 65% of liberal Democrats are white. In comparison, conservative Democrats are 35% black, 22% Hispanic and 40% white.
The number of Democrats who identified as having "no religion" has also doubled (20% in 2013-2018) since 2001-2006. The country as a whole has seen more people picking "no religion" when asked about their religious identity, but the pace is more pronounced among Democrats, according to Gallup.
There are places where the party still agrees almost completely, namely on stricter gun laws and labor unions, but breaks are seen on the issues of abortion and health care.
Health care has already been a main focus in the 2020 campaign. Sen. Kamala Harris, of California, made waves with her support for Medicare-for-all in a CNN town hall, escalating an intraparty debate on the right way for the party to approach health care. Earlier this week, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, disagreed with Harris, arguing for a more pragmatic approach.
According to Gallup, an average of three-quarters of liberal Democrats in the last six years preferred a government-run health care system, while about half of moderate Democrats and 42% of conservative Democrats agreed.
The change is largely driven by the increasingly liberal leanings of whites and college graduates within the party.
In the last six years, more than half of white Democrats, 54%, identified themselves as "liberal." That's a 20-point jump from the average in 2001-2006. By comparison, the percentage of Hispanic Democrats and black Democrats identifying as liberal grew 9 points and 8 points, respectively, in that same time frame.
College-educated Democrats have long been more likely to identify as liberal than those without college degrees, and the percentage of Democrats who reported having a college education grew 17 points from 2001-2006 to 2013-2018.
Those educated groups have grown increasingly liberal over lime, with the percentage of Democrats with college degrees who identify as liberal jumping 16 points from 2001-2006 to 2013-2018. The percentage of Democrats with post-graduate degrees identifying as liberal also jumped 13 points in that time frame, outpacing the growth among people with some college education (12 points) and no college education (10 points).
That shift toward liberalism can, again, be chalked up to a change in white Democrats -- this time in the growth of educational attainment. Gallup's research shows an average of 42% of white Democrats reported having college degrees in 2013-2018 -- a 13-point jump from 2001-2006. In that same period, the percentages of black Democrats and Hispanic Democrats with college degrees grew 3 points and 1 point, respectively.
According to Gallup, the shift toward liberalism within the party is being set by leaders in Washington and politics at large -- as leaders present more leftist views on policy, the party follows.
While white Democrats are fueling a shift toward the left in the party, they are making up a shrinking share of its makeup.
According to the research, the percentage of nonwhite Democrats has gone up to an average of 43% in 2013-2018 from an average of 31% in 2001-2006. White people now make up 56% of the party, a 12-point drop from 2001-2006.
Those nonwhite Democrats are also the least likely ones to identify as liberal. According to Gallup's research, 17% of liberal Democrats are black, 13% of liberal Democrats are Hispanic and 65% of liberal Democrats are white. In comparison, conservative Democrats are 35% black, 22% Hispanic and 40% white.
The number of Democrats who identified as having "no religion" has also doubled (20% in 2013-2018) since 2001-2006. The country as a whole has seen more people picking "no religion" when asked about their religious identity, but the pace is more pronounced among Democrats, according to Gallup.
There are places where the party still agrees almost completely, namely on stricter gun laws and labor unions, but breaks are seen on the issues of abortion and health care.
Health care has already been a main focus in the 2020 campaign. Sen. Kamala Harris, of California, made waves with her support for Medicare-for-all in a CNN town hall, escalating an intraparty debate on the right way for the party to approach health care. Earlier this week, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, disagreed with Harris, arguing for a more pragmatic approach.
According to Gallup, an average of three-quarters of liberal Democrats in the last six years preferred a government-run health care system, while about half of moderate Democrats and 42% of conservative Democrats agreed.
The early days of the 2020 presidential primary have shown the Democratic Party is in flux and having a robust debate about what its future will look like. And while that debate is centered on progressive policies like "Medicare-for-all," the Green New Deal and how much to tax the rich, it's being fueled by shifting demographics within the party.
New research from Gallup released Tuesday reveals the party is getting less white, more educated, less religious and progressively more liberal since 2001. Notably, the party's liberal shift is mostly driven by white Democrats, while nonwhite Democrats make up a larger share of the moderate and conservative wings of the party.
From 2013 through 2018, an average of 46% of Democrats identified as "liberal," compared with 35% of respondents who said they were "moderate" and 17% who called themselves "conservative," according to Gallup.
That's a stark jump from the previous six years: From 2007 through 2012, those who identified as "liberal" or "moderate" were basically the same -- 39% and 38%, respectively.
The research is based on combined data from Gallup's multiday cross-sectional national telephone polls conducted by cellphone and landline each year from 2001 through 2018. The results are summarized in six-year periods and include interviews with 73,303 Democrats for 2001-2006, 48,195 Democrats for 2007-2012 and 32,830 Democrats for 2013-2018.
Results based on these samples have margins of sampling error of less than ±1 percentage point at a 95% confidence level.
Results based on these samples have margins of sampling error of less than ±1 percentage point at a 95% confidence level.
Hot upon a surge of unexpected sensitivity about racial stereotypes, brought on by the bizarre outbreak of Democrats admitting to having worn blackface in Virginia, conservatives found it irresistible this week to order up a heaping helping of indignation at the new Minnesota Democratic representative, Ilhan Omar, over her inflammatory tweets about Israel, Jewish-Americans and money:
"It's all about the Benjamins, baby," is how she cavalierly -- and disturbingly -- put it.
"It's all about the Benjamins, baby," is how she cavalierly -- and disturbingly -- put it.
Rep. Omar earned the measure of opprobrium she received for an observation rife with anti-Semitic connotations: Even granting the legitimacy of policy-based critiques of the Israeli government, suggestions that pro-Israel positions are being bought with Jewish money inevitably conjure up ugly associations to treacherous fear-mongering about imaginary Jewish business cabals determining the fate of nations.
And Rep. Omar was indeed quickly upbraided by members of her own party. That led to her public apology -- also on Twitter -- which recognized the corrosive impact of her words: "I am grateful to Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."
Those were the worthwhile steps to take, by both the representative and her Democratic colleagues. But they were hardly enough for many on the right, who, undoubtedly lacerated by a long, ongoing litany of accusations of bigotry against conservatives, sought to exact a bit of revenge.
Nobody used the exact phrase, "Remember Steve King" (a la the Alamo or the Maine), but the connection got made -- overtly.
And Rep. Omar was indeed quickly upbraided by members of her own party. That led to her public apology -- also on Twitter -- which recognized the corrosive impact of her words: "I am grateful to Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."
Those were the worthwhile steps to take, by both the representative and her Democratic colleagues. But they were hardly enough for many on the right, who, undoubtedly lacerated by a long, ongoing litany of accusations of bigotry against conservatives, sought to exact a bit of revenge.
Nobody used the exact phrase, "Remember Steve King" (a la the Alamo or the Maine), but the connection got made -- overtly.
Vice President Pence decided to lead the charge by calling Rep. Omar's tweets "a disgrace" and her apology "inadequate." He insisted she should "face consequences" and "at minimum" Democrats should remove her from committee assignments, because, he noted, that was the action that Republicans took with Rep. King last month.
The right to free speech is never abridged in America, so Pence and the other voices on the right who have taken up the cause of making Rep. Omar a pariah -- like the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy -- are free to use the opportunity of her broad jump into the bear trap of anti-Semitic comments to try to even the score on "consequences" for bigotry.
But the effort only opens the door to a full consideration of just how selective this display of moral outrage truly is. (McCarthy himself has never apologized for a tweet widely denounced as redolent of anti-Semitism).
The comparison to Steve King is the most obvious evidence of an egregious stretch. For his entire tenure in Congress -- and in his previous elected positions -- King has been repeatedly accused of engaging in bigotry. No stranger to charges of anti-Semitism himself (the ADL sent a letter condemning him for smearing the Jewish Democratic donor George Soros), the list of his other dalliances with racist positions and white nationalist leaders is rather extensive.
Yet it took the Republican leadership in Congress more than 15 years to condemn any of King's ugly views. In the intervening years, he was appointed a committee chairman, praised endlessly by Republican leadership and his endorsement was widely and warmly sought after by presidential hopefuls. Unlike Omar, he never apologized, not even for his most recent descent into bigotry: questioning why the idea of white supremacy should even be considered offensive.
That question was the rhetorical last straw that led to the first bout of "consequences" he had ever faced from Republican leadership. Instead of any hint of apology, King scurried to hide behind the shopworn excuse of media bias as a defense; this week, rather than finding some path toward expiation, he was touting the support of religious leaders as reason to have his committee assignments reinstated.
The right to free speech is never abridged in America, so Pence and the other voices on the right who have taken up the cause of making Rep. Omar a pariah -- like the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy -- are free to use the opportunity of her broad jump into the bear trap of anti-Semitic comments to try to even the score on "consequences" for bigotry.
But the effort only opens the door to a full consideration of just how selective this display of moral outrage truly is. (McCarthy himself has never apologized for a tweet widely denounced as redolent of anti-Semitism).
The comparison to Steve King is the most obvious evidence of an egregious stretch. For his entire tenure in Congress -- and in his previous elected positions -- King has been repeatedly accused of engaging in bigotry. No stranger to charges of anti-Semitism himself (the ADL sent a letter condemning him for smearing the Jewish Democratic donor George Soros), the list of his other dalliances with racist positions and white nationalist leaders is rather extensive.
Yet it took the Republican leadership in Congress more than 15 years to condemn any of King's ugly views. In the intervening years, he was appointed a committee chairman, praised endlessly by Republican leadership and his endorsement was widely and warmly sought after by presidential hopefuls. Unlike Omar, he never apologized, not even for his most recent descent into bigotry: questioning why the idea of white supremacy should even be considered offensive.
That question was the rhetorical last straw that led to the first bout of "consequences" he had ever faced from Republican leadership. Instead of any hint of apology, King scurried to hide behind the shopworn excuse of media bias as a defense; this week, rather than finding some path toward expiation, he was touting the support of religious leaders as reason to have his committee assignments reinstated.
Notably, President Trump, who was in a fevered rush to assail Rep. Omar's comments and say she should resign from Congress, had no reaction at all last month to Steve King's similar situation, saying he hadn't "followed" that particular story.
What's going on now might be labeled "modified, limited outrage," a term not too dissimilar from one made famous in a previous Republican administration. With an opponent of the President speaking out in a way that many found offensive, it was suddenly deemed the right time to release the hounds of umbrage.
And maybe the reason those hounds are now baying at such volume is that they have been shackled up in the Republican basement for the past two or three years. Though examples of offensive bigotry have abounded, no previous provocation could induce Republican leadership to let them out:
Not charges that an American judge was too "Mexican" to render fair decisions.
Not a proposed ban on travelers to the US based solely on their religion.
Not a Star of David imposed over a pile of money in a pro-Trump campaign ad.
Not the assertion that "many fine people" populated a rally marked by chants of "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us."
Not praise for a Senate candidate who had worn a Confederate cap and once volunteered to be in the front row of a "public hanging."
Not repeated mocking references to Pocahontas nor the massacre at Wounded Knee nor a "joke" about the Native American genocide known as the Trail of Tears.
Stay up to date...
Sign up for our new newsletter.
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
Not calling an NFL player a "son of a bitch" nor insulting the intelligence of the greatest basketball player in the world.
Not repeatedly dismissing a black congresswoman as having an "extraordinarily low IQ."
Despite all those instances of irresponsible, insensitive, and bigoted comments, none of the people in high dudgeon at Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel spoke out about them -- even in low dudgeon. There was no dudgeon at all.
What's going on now might be labeled "modified, limited outrage," a term not too dissimilar from one made famous in a previous Republican administration. With an opponent of the President speaking out in a way that many found offensive, it was suddenly deemed the right time to release the hounds of umbrage.
And maybe the reason those hounds are now baying at such volume is that they have been shackled up in the Republican basement for the past two or three years. Though examples of offensive bigotry have abounded, no previous provocation could induce Republican leadership to let them out:
Not charges that an American judge was too "Mexican" to render fair decisions.
Not a proposed ban on travelers to the US based solely on their religion.
Not a Star of David imposed over a pile of money in a pro-Trump campaign ad.
Not the assertion that "many fine people" populated a rally marked by chants of "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us."
Not praise for a Senate candidate who had worn a Confederate cap and once volunteered to be in the front row of a "public hanging."
Not repeated mocking references to Pocahontas nor the massacre at Wounded Knee nor a "joke" about the Native American genocide known as the Trail of Tears.
Stay up to date...
Sign up for our new newsletter.
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
Not calling an NFL player a "son of a bitch" nor insulting the intelligence of the greatest basketball player in the world.
Not repeatedly dismissing a black congresswoman as having an "extraordinarily low IQ."
Despite all those instances of irresponsible, insensitive, and bigoted comments, none of the people in high dudgeon at Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel spoke out about them -- even in low dudgeon. There was no dudgeon at all.
Prosecutors in Maryland called Christopher Paul Hasson a “domestic terrorist” in a Tuesday court filing, first reported by George Washington University’s Seamus Hughes, that argued for Hasson’s detention ahead of trial on firearms and controlled substance charges.
What law enforcement discovered during a Feb. 15 arrest and search led prosecutors to tell a federal court that Hasson “intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country.” They included references to an anti-abortion bomber; a white supremacist Islamophobic mass murderer in Norway; his stated desire to “kill almost every last person on the earth” through biological weapons; and the discovery of 15 guns in his Silver Spring, Maryland basement.
What law enforcement discovered during a Feb. 15 arrest and search led prosecutors to tell a federal court that Hasson “intends to murder innocent civilians on a scale rarely seen in this country.” They included references to an anti-abortion bomber; a white supremacist Islamophobic mass murderer in Norway; his stated desire to “kill almost every last person on the earth” through biological weapons; and the discovery of 15 guns in his Silver Spring, Maryland basement.
Specific journalists and others appear in Hasson’s search history, the filing claims, including: MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes, Joe Scarborough, and Ari Melber; Sens. Richard Blumenthal—or “blumen jew,” in Hasson’s writing—Tim Kaine, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker; Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ilhan Omar; CNN’s Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Van Jones; as well as prominent Democrats Beto O’Rourke and John Podesta, and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Hasson’s searches also included “what if trump illegally impeached,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “best place in dc to see congress people.”
Hasson’s searches also included “what if trump illegally impeached,” “civil war if trump impeached” and “best place in dc to see congress people.”
Making headlines almost daily, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be the most talked about politician in the U.S., second only to President Donald Trump.
Revered by many on the left and loathed by as many on the right, Ocasio-Cortez, 29, has faced unrelenting scrutiny since she first launched her grassroots 2018 electoral campaign against 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley. And in the weeks since Ocasio-Cortez took office, the spotlight has only shined brighter on the self-described democratic socialist, with the criticism of her growing more intense.
This week, Ocasio-Cortez's detractors went so far as to pay for a billboard in New York City's Times Square, accusing her of single-handedly bringing down a major deal between Amazon and New York that would have seen the tech giant build a $2.5 billion headquarters in Long Island City, Queens, which borders a slice of Ocasio-Cortez's district. Amazon had been set to create as many as 25,000 jobs, but it would also be potentially receive as much as $3 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
"Thanks for nothing, AOC!" the giant billboard reads in one of New York City's busiest—and msot iconic—locations, despite the fact that Ocasio-Cortez was not the only politician to speak out in opposition to the deal.
Of course, as much as Ocasio-Cortez has become well-known for her bold policy proposals, such as the Green New Deal, she has also quickly made a name for herself as the "queen of savage comebacks," brushing off the billboard and the "billionaire-funded groups blowing tons of cash on wack billboards."
But the billboard battle is just one in a string of fights the New York politician has faced in an ever-growing war of words with her critics.
Here, we take a look at some of the key moments in which Ocasio-Cortez's opponents have tried to smear or insult herâand in which she rarely let them have the last word:
Attacks on intelligence
'It must be because I'm dumb'
A common thread in attacks against Ocasio-Cortez appears to center around the lawmaker's intelligence, with critics constantly questioning her intellect, including her role in Amazon's decision to call off its potential deal with New York to build a campus in Queens.
Among those critics was New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who suggested that Ocasio-Cortez's opposition to the deal stemmed from a lack of understanding of how it would have worked. Meanwhile, conservative outlets also took hits at her, asserting that she "should retake basic math."
Ocasio-Cortez didn't retreat from the backlash, asserting in a tweet that "there was little in the fuzzy proposal that guaranteed jobs for actual NYers, yet lots of hard concessions from the public," as she accused politicians of dismissing valid concerns from the public.
"Queens saw how the FoxConn/Wisconsin disaster is working outâa$4.5 billion nightmareâ&asked Qs. The response? 'This is above you. You won't get it.'"
"Folks handling the failed deal treated community w/condescension+disdain for their legitimate concerns," she said. "I warned early to any & all that surging NYC costs+failing subways are creating major political forces to be reckoned with. But I don't know what I'm talking about, right?"
In a separate tweet, Ocasio-Cortez questioned whether "pundits talking about Amazon" had "even read the deal or where it was going."
"$500+ million of the deal was *capital grants.* $2.5 billion in tax breaks. It's fair to ask why we don't invest the capital for public use, + why we don't give working people a tax break," she said.
"Frankly, the knee-jerk reaction assuming that I 'don't understand' how tax giveaways to corps work is disappointing," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "No, it's not possible that I could come to a different conclusion. The debate *must* be over my intelligence & understanding, instead of the merits of the deal."
Revered by many on the left and loathed by as many on the right, Ocasio-Cortez, 29, has faced unrelenting scrutiny since she first launched her grassroots 2018 electoral campaign against 10-term incumbent Joe Crowley. And in the weeks since Ocasio-Cortez took office, the spotlight has only shined brighter on the self-described democratic socialist, with the criticism of her growing more intense.
This week, Ocasio-Cortez's detractors went so far as to pay for a billboard in New York City's Times Square, accusing her of single-handedly bringing down a major deal between Amazon and New York that would have seen the tech giant build a $2.5 billion headquarters in Long Island City, Queens, which borders a slice of Ocasio-Cortez's district. Amazon had been set to create as many as 25,000 jobs, but it would also be potentially receive as much as $3 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
"Thanks for nothing, AOC!" the giant billboard reads in one of New York City's busiest—and msot iconic—locations, despite the fact that Ocasio-Cortez was not the only politician to speak out in opposition to the deal.
Of course, as much as Ocasio-Cortez has become well-known for her bold policy proposals, such as the Green New Deal, she has also quickly made a name for herself as the "queen of savage comebacks," brushing off the billboard and the "billionaire-funded groups blowing tons of cash on wack billboards."
But the billboard battle is just one in a string of fights the New York politician has faced in an ever-growing war of words with her critics.
Here, we take a look at some of the key moments in which Ocasio-Cortez's opponents have tried to smear or insult herâand in which she rarely let them have the last word:
Attacks on intelligence
'It must be because I'm dumb'
A common thread in attacks against Ocasio-Cortez appears to center around the lawmaker's intelligence, with critics constantly questioning her intellect, including her role in Amazon's decision to call off its potential deal with New York to build a campus in Queens.
Among those critics was New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who suggested that Ocasio-Cortez's opposition to the deal stemmed from a lack of understanding of how it would have worked. Meanwhile, conservative outlets also took hits at her, asserting that she "should retake basic math."
Ocasio-Cortez didn't retreat from the backlash, asserting in a tweet that "there was little in the fuzzy proposal that guaranteed jobs for actual NYers, yet lots of hard concessions from the public," as she accused politicians of dismissing valid concerns from the public.
"Queens saw how the FoxConn/Wisconsin disaster is working outâa$4.5 billion nightmareâ&asked Qs. The response? 'This is above you. You won't get it.'"
"Folks handling the failed deal treated community w/condescension+disdain for their legitimate concerns," she said. "I warned early to any & all that surging NYC costs+failing subways are creating major political forces to be reckoned with. But I don't know what I'm talking about, right?"
In a separate tweet, Ocasio-Cortez questioned whether "pundits talking about Amazon" had "even read the deal or where it was going."
"$500+ million of the deal was *capital grants.* $2.5 billion in tax breaks. It's fair to ask why we don't invest the capital for public use, + why we don't give working people a tax break," she said.
"Frankly, the knee-jerk reaction assuming that I 'don't understand' how tax giveaways to corps work is disappointing," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "No, it's not possible that I could come to a different conclusion. The debate *must* be over my intelligence & understanding, instead of the merits of the deal."
New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezdoubled down on her calls for a 70 percent tax rate on income over $10 million.
The freshman Congresswoman appeared on Showtime's "Desus & Mero" Thursday saying, "It really comes down to the question of, 'isn't $10 million enough? Like, when does it stop? At what point is it amoral that we're building Jeff Bezos a helipad when we have the most amount of homeless people in New York City?'"
The freshman Congresswoman appeared on Showtime's "Desus & Mero" Thursday saying, "It really comes down to the question of, 'isn't $10 million enough? Like, when does it stop? At what point is it amoral that we're building Jeff Bezos a helipad when we have the most amount of homeless people in New York City?'"
The top marginal income tax rate is currently 37 percent for income over $500,000. The U.S. last had a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent in 1981.
Forbes Media Chairman Steve Forbes responded to the comments made by the congresswoman on FOX Business' "After The Bell" on Friday.
Forbes Media Chairman Steve Forbes responded to the comments made by the congresswoman on FOX Business' "After The Bell" on Friday.
- Status