Tucker Carlson melts down after getting embarrassed on his show

[Trill Clinton]

https://twitter.com/jmonkeh80/status/1098308408426545152?s=19

[hater]

Hes a fucking snowflake

[boutons_deux]

Carlson is a bottom feeder in the Fox News septic tank

[Spurs Homer]

lol that was awesome!

Tucker got handed his ass

[Will Hunting]

:lmao Carlson had nothing to say, he kept stuttering every time he was given a chance to respond

[Stan]

I’m guessing Chris, Derp, DarrinS, kw, etc won’t have shit to say about this.

[baseline bum]

LOL that was great.

[Isitjustme?]

https://twitter.com/jmonkeh80/status/1098308408426545152?s=19

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Isitjustme?]

Tucker at 6:45

https://media.giphy.com/media/vk7VesvyZEwuI/giphy.gif

[Chris]

"Tucker said a naughty word! I'm going to start a thread about it!"

"I just HATE that Fox News sooo much!"

[Pavlov]

"Tucker said a naughty word! I'm going to start a thread about it!"

"I just HATE that Fox News sooo much!":lol Your boy lost his shit. All anyone has to do is be straightforward with him and not get sidetracked by him. Jon Stewart did the same thing and killed Cucker's show at the time.

:lol Qhris

[David Hogg]

"Tucker said a naughty word! I'm going to start a thread about it!"

"I just HATE that Fox News sooo much!"
The Tuck got Cucked :lmao

[RandomGuy]

"Tucker said a naughty word! I'm going to start a thread about it!"

"I just HATE that Fox News sooo much!"

Emperor has no clothes. These people can't handle the truth, quite literally.

[Nathan89]

"The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent."

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

[RandomGuy]

"The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent."

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

... and your point is....?

[Nathan89]

... and your point is....?

It adds context to part of the video.

[midnightpulp]

"The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent."

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

Again, not many people made the necessary >200K to get taxed at that rate back then. The top .01 percent back then was more like the 1 percent today, and the average tax rate on said group was 55 percent vs. 40 percent today. And this isn't merely a 15 percent difference. It's about a 40 percent difference.

In any event, the rich paid higher taxes then, and we can clearly see the efficacy of higher tax rates on the rich vs. lower tax rates on the rich. From the New Deal to pre-Reagan, all the income groups grew at a nearly identical rate (per capita, so your argument about it was because women were entering the workforce is disproven). Once Reagan took office and significantly overhauled the tax code, the income of the top earners spiked, while the bottom 90% flat-lined. The evidence is pretty fuckin' clear that it does not "trickle down."

And there's no deflection you can use here, i.e. "Well, it was because of outsourcing. It was because of globalization. It was because of this and that..." Nope. The core fuckin' idea of supply side economics is that when the brilliant and benevolent captains of industry have greater wealth and less of a tax burden, it magically "trickles down." These brilliant and benevolent captains of industry saw their incomes rise post-Reagan, even as technology and globalization changed the business landscape, and it has yet to "trickle down."

[Spurtacular]

:lol Your boy lost his shit. All anyone has to do is be straightforward with him and not get sidetracked by him. Jon Stewart did the same thing and killed Cucker's show at the time.

:lol Qhris

:lmao Clutching your pearls again.

[Nathan89]

Again, not many people made the necessary >200K to get taxed at that rate back then. The top .01 percent back then was more like the 1 percent today, and the average tax rate on said group was 55 percent vs. 40 percent today. And this isn't merely a 15 percent difference. It's about a 40 percent difference.

In any event, the rich paid higher taxes then, and we can clearly see the efficacy of higher tax rates on the rich vs. lower tax rates on the rich. From the New Deal to pre-Reagan, all the income groups grew at a nearly identical rate (per capita, so your argument about it was because women were entering the workforce is disproven). Once Reagan took office and significantly overhauled the tax code, the income of the top earners spiked, while the bottom 90% flat-lined. The evidence is pretty fuckin' clear that it does not "trickle down."

And there's no deflection you can use here, i.e. "Well, it was because of outsourcing. It was because of globalization. It was because of this and that..." Nope. The core fuckin' idea of supply side economics is that when the brilliant and benevolent captains of industry have greater wealth and less of a tax burden, it magically "trickles down." These brilliant and benevolent captains of industry saw their incomes rise post-Reagan, even as technology and globalization changed the business landscape, and it has yet to "trickle down."

Yes, so if the tax many people then and it will now then it's moronic to point to that era and say "it works".

Greater participation of women is a factor according to the study I sited. I never said it's the only factor. You are the one that deals in absolutes.

The amount of people in the upper middle class has also been increasing. At the same time the number of people is the two lowest classes has been decreasing.

[Kyle Kashuv]

:lmao Clutching your pearls again.
Says the guy who got asshurt over a Congresswoman calling Trump a motherfucker :lmao

[Spurtacular]

Says the guy who got asshurt over a Congresswoman calling Trump a motherfucker :lmao

:lol Mono thinks that's good form for a sitting congressman.

[midnightpulp]

Yes, so if the tax many people then and it will now then it's moronic to point to that era and say "it works".

Greater participation of women is a factor according to the study I sited. I never said it's the only factor. You are the one that deals in absolutes.

The amount of people in the upper middle class has also been increasing. At the same time the number of people is the two lowest classes has been decreasing.

No it isn't. Do you understand what per capita means? That's per person, which means that particular statistic ignores overall household income. I've already explained the problem with the graph in your sig. We can arbitrarily define what upper, middle, and lower classes all we want. It also varies by state to state, i.e. a 100K per year income in NY doesn't have the same purchasing power as a 100K per year in Minnesota.

I prefer to cut through arbitrary definitions and opinions, and look at the stats. All income levels (per capita) have enjoyed growth following St. Ronnie except the bottom 90%. Again, the CORE IDEA of supply side is that lower taxes+increased wealth for the "job creator" class is supposed to flood down through every economic group. The "job creator" class has seen their wealth and tax burden increase and decrease respectively, and yet, no trickle down. How many more years of trial do we need before we collectively realize this is a bullshit idea?

[midnightpulp]

Oh, just read the article from which Nathan89's sig comes from, and yeah, we can pretty much dismiss it as bullshit since it simplifies "class" by raw income level, and doesn't take into consideration cost of living expenses that vary massively by state. 101K per year in Southern California isn't fuckin' "upper class."

https://imgur.com/a/3Vgroyi

[Nathan89]

The study on women said their greater labor participation increased wages for everyone.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Clutching your pearls again.:rollin you have no idea what that phrase means.

:lol dumbass

[midnightpulp]

The study on women said their greater labor participation increased wages for everyone.

And apparently that didn't even work post-Ronnie since the bottom 90 percent flatlined. The trend was also quite clear post-New Deal before women entered the labor market en masse.

https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/distributional-shifts-1917-2010.png

It. Does. Not. Trickle. Down.

[AaronY]

It's relevant again!!

http://liberalamerica.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/voting-republican1.jpg

[Nathan89]

Well the growth slowed post Ronnie which was the point.

[midnightpulp]

Also took a look at the PopEcon article where it claimed when women enter the workforce, wages just magically rise. They don't.


This increase is significant, as 40% of the cities in our sample experienced no real wage growth in these three decades — in other words, the median worker in 40% of cities is no better off in 2010 than they were in 1980. This deserves a brief side note: Despite increases in GDP per capita, real wages for many workers have been stagnating in recent decades. The gains in economic growth have been disproportionately accruing to the top of the income distribution, as broader economic trends (such as globalization and technological change) have led to increasing inequality in the U.S. and a hollowing out of middle-skill jobs. These trends have particularly hurt men, such as those in manufacturing, while women have largely benefited from the growing service sector. Most cities, about 60% of our sample, experienced some real wage growth despite these national trends, due in part to higher FLFPR.

Nathan also tried to connect this study to the post-New Deal/pre-Reagan economic climate, crediting women entering the workforce as one reason for the post-New Deal boom, when the study only examined the effects of increasing female workforce participation from 1980-2010.

[Winehole23]

Nathan89 has a poor understanding of his own sources and tragically overrates himself. His grim sagacity and solemn self-regard as would be merely pathetic were they not so amusing.

[midnightpulp]

Well the growth slowed post Ronnie which was the point.

See my latest post. But I'll reiterate. Did you even read the study you cited or are just parroting the headline? Women entering the workforce doesn't equate to an automatic wage increase. It's city and region dependent. The study found no median wage growth in 40% of the cities where there was increased female participation. The study also found that as the US transitioned more from a producer economy to a service economy, women's wage growth rose with the transition, since women are naturally more suited to those jobs and faced less competition.


while women have largely benefited from the growing service sector.

The service sector wasn't anywhere near as robust in the 40s and 50s.

Also, the study only examined the period from 1980-2010. It had nothing to say about the post-New Deal/pre-Reagan era. You're also skipping around the primary point. Again, supply side economics is an absolute in the sense that its theory is centered on the idea that more money/less taxes for rich=good for all. So why did we not see any bottom-90% wage growth post-Reagan? There are no excuses you can make, because the post-Reagan economic climate satisfied the parameters of trickle down theory. The rich got wealthier and enjoyed reduced taxes. If the theory worked like advertised, you'd see the bottom 90% line in the graph I posted conform to the red line.

[Winehole23]

Did you even read the study you cited or are just parroting the headline? Yep.

[midnightpulp]

Nathan89 has a poor understanding of his own sources and tragically overrates himself. His grim sagacity and solemn self-regard as would be merely pathetic were they not so amusing.

I try to be classy in discussion and hope to change minds. I changed my mind about Libertarianism, so it's possible. The data simply flies in the face of what trickle down is supposed to theoretically do. It perhaps works better on the micro-small business level, but not at the Fortune 500 level.

[Winehole23]

I try to be classy in discussion and hope to change minds. I changed my mind about Libertarianism, so it's possible.Best of luck with that.

Just curious, did you change your own mind, or did someone change it for you?

[Spurtacular]

:rollin you have no idea what that phrase means.

:lol dumbass

You clutchin' your pearls, psychopav.

[midnightpulp]

Best of luck with that.

Just curious, did you change your own mind, or did someone change it for you?

Changed it myself. But credit to the people who collect the data and examine these issues for helping me along.

[Pavlov]

You clutchin' your pearls, psychopav.What do you think that phrase means, derp?

Give your definition.

If you're not afraid, that is....

[Luka Doncic]

Nathan89 has a poor understanding of his own sources and tragically overrates himself. His grim sagacity and solemn self-regard as would be merely pathetic were they not so amusing.
He and Derp are about as Dunning-Kruger as it gets.

[Spurtacular]

What do you think that phrase means, derp?

Give your definition.

If you're not afraid, that is....

Stop. This has been covered. Triteness won't get you W's.

[spurraider21]

"The data shows that, between 1950 and 1959, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average of 42.0 percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. Since then, the average effective tax rate of the top 1 percent has declined slightly overall. In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 36.4 percent."

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
lol, thinking a 6% decrease is "slight"

imagine tomorrow they hiked all tax brackets by 6%

not to mention, the income gap has only widened

[boutons_deux]

State of Working America

Wages 2018

Wage inequality marches on—and is even threatening data reliability

Rising wage inequality and sluggish hourly wage growth for the vast majority of workers have been defining features of the American labor market for nearly four decades, despite steady productivity growth.

most workers are experiencing moderate wage growth and even workers who have seen more significant gains are just making up ground lost during the Great Recession and slow recovery rather than getting ahead.

The data show not only rising inequality in general, but also the persistence, and in some cases worsening, of wage gaps by gender and race.

while wages are growing for most workers, wage growth continues to be slower than would be expected in an economy with relatively low unemployment.

policymakers should try to keep labor markets as tight as possible for as long as possible to see if wage growth lost during the Great Recession can be clawed back, and to see if wage disparities by gender and race can be reduced.

https://www.epi.org/publication/state-of-american-wages-2018/?utm_source=Economic+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=3191141ab8-EMAIL_CAM%E2%80%A6

"keeping Labor markets tight" is exactly the opposite of what Capitalists (the banker's tool aka the Fed) want.

Capital requires, dictates excess Labor to keep wages down.

[Pavlov]

Stop. This has been covered. Triteness won't get you W's.
It hasn't been covered.

What do you think it means?

[RandomGuy]

It adds context to part of the video.

Oh. If we are talking about context then, let's do that dance.

https://www.census.gov/content/census/en/library/visualizations/2015/demo/gini-index-of-money-income-and-equivalence-adjusted-income--1967/jcr:content/map.detailitem.800.high.png/1459361632606.png


The Gini index or Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of distribution developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini in 1912. It is often used as a gauge of economic inequality, measuring income distribution or, less commonly, wealth distribution among a population. The coefficient ranges from 0 (or 0%) to 1 (or 100%), with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 representing perfect inequality. Values over 1 are theoretically possible due to negative income or wealth.

Then benefits of our economy over the last 30 years have flowed almost overwhelmingly to the top.

The majority of human beings in our country are one $400 bill away from economic disaster, and the ones that trip up, cost society vastly more than simply helping them.

[RandomGuy]

:lol Your boy lost his shit. All anyone has to do is be straightforward with him and not get sidetracked by him. Jon Stewart did the same thing and killed Cucker's show at the time.

:lol Qhris


:lmao Clutching your pearls again.

clutching pearls implies outrage at something.


The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts,

https://i.imgflip.com/p1ij6.jpg

Mockery =/= outrage

[Spurtacular]

It hasn't been covered.

What do you think it means?

It's been covered, psychopav.

[Pavlov]

It's been covered, psychopav.Show me where you covered it.

What do you think it means?

[Spurtacular]

Show me where you covered it.

What do you think it means?

It's been covered. Are you saying it hasn't been covered?

[Pavlov]

It's been covered. Are you saying it hasn't been covered?Not by you.

What do you think it means?

[Spurtacular]

Not by you.


Did I say it was?

[Pavlov]

Did I say it was?So cover it yourself.

What do you think it means?

[Spurtacular]

So cover it yourself.

What do you think it means?

I don't need to cover it. It's been covered.

[Pavlov]

I don't need to cover it. It's been covered.Yes you do, because your use of it here made no sense.

What do you think it means?

[Spurtacular]

:cry Muh Checking for understanding :cry

[Pavlov]

:cryI accept your white flag.

Seriously, what did you think it meant?

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to cover it. It's been covered.

Jesus, Abbott, who is on first!!!

[TheGreatYacht]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1166178370113155073

[Thread]

https://mobile.twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1166178370113155073

Your side gets away with that all the time on CNN & MSNBC. We figured what's good for the goose is sauce for that gander.

[TheGreatYacht]

Your side gets away with that all the time on CNN & MSNBC. We figured what's good for the goose is sauce for that gander.

BOTH sides are Jewish controlled opposition to divide and conquer

[Thread]

BOTH sides are Jewish controlled opposition to divide and conquer

To what end?

[TheGreatYacht]

Tucker Carlson (Fake Populist) Defends Loser Corporatist John Delaney
https://youtu.be/cnevmVgNr40

[Millennial_Messiah]

corporatocracy is the lesser of the two evils

[TheGreatYacht]

To what end?

They're both pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-big oil, and pro-big pharma.


corporatocracy is the lesser of the two evils

Democratic Socialism > Corporatocracy

Ex. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

[spurraider21]

Tucker Carlson (Fake Populist) Defends Loser Corporatist John Delaney
https://youtu.be/cnevmVgNr40
you should call into his show and ask him about his thoughts on zionists controlling everything in the world and bibi orchestrating 9/11

[Thread]

you should call into his show and ask him about his thoughts on zionists controlling everything in the world and bibi orchestrating 9/11

He's never been fully vested in the old man, nary a day. Too much time left on his life/career to do so. I'm close enough to the end & divorced enough from society to marry the old man without so much as a second thought.

Same with Hannity, he's a faker...& you one can hear it in his speech patterns. Close your eyes, don't see him, just listen. Here & there he exposes himself, incapable of muting his self preservation instinct.

[spurraider21]

He's never been fully vested in the old man, nary a day. Too much time left on his life/career to do so. I'm close enough to the end & divorced enough from society to marry the old man without so much as a second thought.

Same with Hannity, he's a faker.
there's a whole world outside of cable news, cubby

[Millennial_Messiah]

Ex. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

those country systems wouldn't work on a large scale population and you know it.

[Thread]

there's a whole world outside of cable news, cubby

True, but, that (whole world outside) does not invigorate me, nor trigger my bile duct & spleen filled with hate. These 4 years, perhaps 8 are my well spring of new life. I actually see my vengeance being exacted thru the old man & suffered by CNN agents.

The fact, the mere fact that CNN casts FOX down for siding the old man is a victory & vengeance. FOX has anti-Trumper's on the air, each day, every day. Not one single CNN host is pro-old man. Not one. That's why CNN attacks FOX, trying to reflect sight upon their own behavior. And Americans, by & large buy it, to not see CNN for what they are. It's incredible, but, true.

[LkrFan]

https://twitter.com/jmonkeh80/status/1098308408426545152?s=19

Fucker was big mad! :rollin :lmao :rollin

[Will Hunting]

those country systems wouldn't work on a large scale population and you know it.
Why not exactly?

[Millennial_Messiah]

Why not exactly?

Long lines in healthcare
Too much competition for education, resources, etc

Remember the Soviets? Well I don't quite, but my mom does. Living there was less than ideal. Eventually big government has to take over EVERYTHING and it becomes miserable to even live there.

[TheGreatYacht]

The Grayzone's Anya Parampil on Fox: US regime change policy fuels migration crisis

https://youtu.be/O6LV93jKkXs




Good job Tucker Carlson :tu