Sign up  |  Log in

10-term Congressman Crowley defeated by 28-year-old activist, hot chick

Greenman72 wrote:

Can anybody explain this person to me?  I really do not understand anything she is saying.  

Apparently she got an economics degree from Boston University and graduated cum laude.  Based on the stupid sht that she says, I’m ready to call the entire university a sham.  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-calls-question-about-how-...

Please take this argument in good faith:

In short, Americans currently pay a lot for health care. A universal system would increase bargaining power and decrease prices. Meaning, that in aggregate when you take personal & gov’t expenditures, total cost goes down. Yes, the gov’t pays more, but the US as a whole pays less. Ex. You save 5k a year and the gov’t spends 4k more.

If you don’t take my word for it, take a look at Koch funded research.

See: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/

What’s to explain? She’s smart, young, articulate and good-looking. The last two points especially have made her a media darling. 

In US terms she is a far left extremist. In other western countries she would rank center-left I’d say. 

^agreed. we need collective bargaining to reduce costs. it’s actually a no brainer. it aint that hard to choose.

insurance for large companies are much cheaper than insurance for smaller companies.

plus if we just aggregated everyone we can essentially bring prices down to the people who bring care. its amusing how these hospitals can charge different prices for a similar procedure. if you are a medical proffesional, you arent doing it for the money so neg them down. there’s also a lack of price transparency. you dont get the bill until the very end. this is the most ridiculous system ever.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

How come people don’t understand Ocasio-Cortez on the left or Steve King on the right.  We need them to help show where is the middle.  They serve a useful purpose even if we have to listen to ideas we don’t like or agree.

Man, if you’re republican today, and you can see this train wreck coming, get off at the next stop and go independent.  When historians write about this era, future americans will not look kindly on republicans who pulled a con on americans by convincing them that receiving healthcare is anti-liberty or not in their self-interest.  Totally agree with nerdy and schopenaur, in fact, I don’t even understand how this is a debate.  We will keep ACA or get another version of national healthcare cause access to healthcare is good for people, for families, good for the economy, and good for national security.  And, the fairest way to deliver healthcare to the population is by a program like ACA or Medicare/caid.   Every day i read an article about some rural state or district, usually votes republican, where people young and old are dying from opiod addiction. Clearly people are experiencing pain, physical or mental, they need medical attention but they can’t get it because their gov broke the ACA.  

Nerdyblop wrote:

^agreed. we need collective bargaining to reduce costs. it’s actually a no brainer. it aint that hard to choose.

insurance for large companies are much cheaper than insurance for smaller companies.

plus if we just aggregated everyone we can essentially bring prices down to the people who bring care. its amusing how these hospitals can charge different prices for a similar procedure. if you are a medical proffesional, you arent doing it for the money so neg them down. there’s also a lack of price transparency. you dont get the bill until the very end. this is the most ridiculous system ever.

Malee wrote:

When historians write about this era…

…they’ll be Chinese.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/davos-billionaires-are-scared-of-alexand...

  • The 70 percent tax rate on earnings above $10 million proposed by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has the elite financiers attending Davos worried.
  • “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” says Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer for $265 billion Guggenheim Partners.
  • “It’s not going to happen – trust me,” says one billionaire.
  • “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” said Minerd, who added that he would probably be personally impacted by it. “And I think the likelihood that a 70 percent tax rate, or something like that, becomes policy is actually very real.”

    The billionaires and millionaires attending Davos had misgivings about Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, which she made during a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” A poll found that 59 percent of voters were in favor of the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans liked it. The lawmaker has turned heads in Washington and on Wall Street with her left-wing economic rhetoric, despite only being sworn into office earlier this month. Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, identifies as a Democratic-Socialist.

  • The problem with the tax — nearly double the current top rate of 37 percent — is that rich people will simply figure out ways to shelter their income, and that will be a drag on productivity, Minerd said.

    “The political pendulum is swinging,” Minerd said. “The conservatives found out they’re being held hostage by the extreme right. Now the Democrats are going to find out they’re being held hostage by the extreme left.”

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

why cant we have a progressive whi understand economics?

comp_sci_kid wrote:

why cant we have a progressive whi understand economics?

Not only did AOC get a minor in Econ, but this policy makes sense.

I’d support the same tax regime that America had back in the 1950s. Back when America was great.

I think you wanted to post it on r/politics. 

US effective tax rates (actual amount collected) has not changed much and stayed in pretty tight band. All she is doing is riling up the base with 0 economic underpinning of her ideasp

comp_sci_kid wrote:

I think you wanted to post it on r/politics. 

US effective tax rates (actual amount collected) has not changed much and stayed in pretty tight band. All she is doing is riling up the base with 0 economic underpinning of her ideasp

A lot of nuance and understanding of the issues in your post, sorry I was a bit daft before. It’s much clearer now, thanks!

Schopenhauer wrote:

comp_sci_kid wrote:

why cant we have a progressive whi understand economics?

Not only did AOC get a minor in Econ, but this policy makes sense.

I’d support the same tax regime that America had back in the 1950s. Back when America was great.

A “minor in Econ” = “understand economics”

Related image

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

To be fair, I’m pretty skeptical that anyone actually understands the economy.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

To be fair, I’m pretty skeptical that anyone actually understands the economy.

False.

Image result for south park economy gif

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

^Randy for President. I have to say though, that clip provides no argument that I am not skeptical about people’s understanding of the economy.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

1. first of these types of polices should be eased in. so you cant just go from 40 to 60 in a drop of a hat. 

2. second, you should prolly tighten capital controls to prevent brain drain. and capital flight.

3.  technically the highest marginal tax rate is 60%, and its by sweden, and they are doing swell!

as far as effective tax rates in the us historical:

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

we are running a trillion deficit, with 20 trillion in debt. we need to increase taxes or cut spending. you can either increase taxes on the rich and take their freedom to choose on how to spend their money, or cut spending on the old and poor and watch them die. 

personally i feel there is nothing wrong with taxing rich people more to pay for a deficit. but there is also nothing wrong with letting people die as oppose to subsidizing unproductive people to make more unproductive people. its just a lifestyle choice! but escalating teh debt and deficit is unfair to future generations. 

also i feel that creating new higher brackets with higher marginal tax rates is better than simply increasing the marginal tax rates at each bracket.for example if we have a 100% marginal tax rate for people making over 1b/year. only 4 ppl are affected. and that would generate approximately 2b. of course what would likely happen is that they will cut that person’s salary and pay everyone else below them just a little more. that’s prolly a better way to increase productivity.

Renaissance Technologies’ Jim Simons topped the list, earning $1.7 billion, followed by Appaloosa Management’s David Tepper with $1.5 billion. Citadel’s Ken Griffin brought home $1.4 billion and Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio made $1.3 billion.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Nerdyblop wrote:

1. first of these types of polices should be eased in. so you cant just go from 40 to 60 in a drop of a hat. 

2. second, you should prolly tighten capital controls to prevent brain drain. and capital flight.

3.  technically the highest marginal tax rate is 60%, and its by sweden, and they are doing swell!

as far as effective tax rates in the us historical:

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

we are running a trillion deficit, with 20 trillion in debt. we need to increase taxes or cut spending. you can either increase taxes on the rich and take their freedom to choose on how to spend their money, or cut spending on the old and poor and watch them die. 

personally i feel there is nothing wrong with taxing rich people more to pay for a deficit. but there is also nothing wrong with letting people die as oppose to subsidizing unproductive people to make more unproductive people. its just a lifestyle choice! but escalating teh debt and deficit is unfair to future generations. 

Agreed for every part except for #1, there isn’t any reason why it can’t come into effect immediately. Both Trump’s, W’s, and Reagan’s tax changes when into effect the next year, no reason we can’t do it  again.

also just so people see margina ltax rates: highest was 94%.

In 1944-45, “the most progressive tax years in U.S. history,” the 94% rate applied to any income above $200,000 ($2.4 million in 2009 dollars, given inflation). In World War Two, tax law revisions increased the numbers of “those paying some income taxes” from 7% of the U.S. population (1940) to 64% by 1944.

https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24489

historical marginal rates below!

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-i...

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

ray dalio opines:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/ray-dalio-says-us-tax-changes-will-have-...

“How tax rates are changed will have a huge effect on incentives and could have a huge effect on capital flows, and that will have big effects on markets and economies,” Dalio said in an interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. “It’s going to be a bigger market-influencing issue than people now realize.”

In November, he pointed out that the top 1/10th of 1 percent have a net worth equal to 90 percent of the population, a situation similar to the 1930s.

“This polarity issue — the income and opportunity gap — will determine who is elected and what approaches are going to be used to deal with that issue,” Dalio said. “We have entered the presidential election cycle in which different policies and their probabilities of getting enacted to deal with this income-opportunity gap issue will be really important; probably the most important issue of our time.”

Dalio made the comments in response to a question about Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to roughly double the top tax rate, which she made during a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” The idea appears to have bipartisan support: A recent poll found that 59 percent of voters were in favor of the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans signaled approval.

“We’re in agreement on the problem that’s behind that suggestion,” Dalio said. “We have to make capitalism work for the majority of Americans. I don’t know that we’re in agreement on the mechanics.”

“If we’re to have a 70 percent marginal tax rate, most individuals affected by it will calculate whether they should instead operate as a corporation in order try to convert ordinary income to capital gains, so I wonder how that will be handled,” Dalio said. “And I wonder what will be done to influence whether capital will leave the country.”

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Some interesting info from the CBO today – but again, please tell me how it’s the Dem’s who don’t understand economics. The Trump tax cut has been a massive give away to the elite, for little to no economic gain.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2019-01/54918-Outlook.pdf

“CBO’s projections, federal revenues rise from 16.5 percent of GDP in 2019 to 17.4 percent in 2025 and then grow more rapidly, reaching 18.3 percent of GDP near the end of the decade. The projected growth in revenues after 2025 is largely attributable to the scheduled expiration of nearly all of the individual income tax provisions of the 2017 tax act “

The Economy. Real GDP is projected to grow by 2.3 percent in 2019—down from 3.1 percent in 2018—as the effects of the 2017 tax act on the growth of business investment wane and federal purchases, as projected under current law, decline sharply in the fourth quarter of 2019.”
 

alsoi really think we need to go beyond this idea of giving tax breaks to elites. at the end of the day this is really an issue between future elites vs current elites. if the old elite dont want to pay taxes and continue the deficit, then our debt will grow. eventually, further down into the future, the future elites will have to pay that debt plus interest. the old elites who have amassed their wealth, on the other hand, may choose to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid that debt.

roughly 75% of the us working population is net negative if not de minimis from a tax perspective. 

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

I’m 100% in for the Green New Deal.  No more farting cows.  

82 > 87
Simple math.

For the record–I’m not a Republican.  But I found it hard not to laugh when I read this article, because I think it’s 100% right.  

————————–

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-socialist-that-could-11549583738

The Republican Party has a secret weapon for 2020. It’s especially effective because it’s stealthy: The Democrats seem oblivious to its power. And the GOP needn’t lift a finger for it to work. All Republicans have to do is sit back and watch 29-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez . . . exist.

AOC, as she’s better known, today exists largely in front of the cameras. In a few months she’s gone from an unknown New York bartender to the democratic socialist darling of the left and its media hordes. Her megaphone is so loud that she rivals Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the face of the Democratic Party. Republicans don’t know whether to applaud or laugh. Most do both.

For them, what’s not to love? She’s set off a fratricidal war on the left, with her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, this week slamming the “radical conservatives” among the Democrats holding the party “hostage.” She’s made friends with Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, who has been accused of anti-Semitism. She’s called the American system of wealth creation “immoral” and believes government has a duty to provide “economic security” to people who are “unwilling to work.” As a representative of New York, she’s making California look sensible.

On Thursday Ms. Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her vaunted Green New Deal, complete with the details of how Democrats plan to reach climate nirvana in a mere 10 years. It came in the form of a resolution, sponsored in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Edward Markey, on which AOC is determined to force a full House vote. That means every Democrat in Washington will get to go on the record in favor of abolishing air travel, outlawing steaks, forcing all American homeowners to retrofit their houses, putting every miner, oil rigger, livestock rancher and gas-station attendant out of a job, and spending trillions and trillions more tax money. Oh, also for government-run health care, which is somehow a prerequisite for a clean economy.

It’s a GOP dream, especially because the media presented her plan with a straight face—as a legitimate proposal from a legitimate leader in the Democratic Party. Republicans are thrilled to treat it that way in the march to 2020, as their set-piece example of what Democrats would do to the economy and average Americans if given control. The Green New Deal encapsulates everything Americans fear from government, all in one bonkers resolution.

It is for starters, a massive plan for the government to take over and micromanage much the economy. Take the central plank, its diktat of producing 100% of U.S. electricity “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” by 2030. As Ron Bailey at Reason has noted, a 2015 plan from Stanford envisioning the goal called for the installation of 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic (solar) systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities. AOC has been clear it will be government building all this, not the private sector.

And that might be the easy part. According to an accompanying fact sheet, the Green New Deal would also get rid of combustion engines, “build charging stations everywhere,” “upgrade or replace every building in U.S.,” do the same with all “infrastructure,” and crisscross the nation with “high-speed rail.”

Buried in the details, the Green New Deal also promises government control of the most fundamental aspects of private life. The fact sheet explains why the resolution doesn’t call for “banning fossil fuels” or for “zero” emissions across the entire economy—at least at first. It’s because “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” (emphasis mine).

This is an acknowledgment that planes don’t run on anything but fossil fuel. No jet fuel, no trips to see granny. It’s also an acknowledgment that livestock produce methane, which has led climate alarmists to engage in “meatless Mondays.” AOC may not prove able to eradicate “fully” every family Christmas or strip of bacon in a decade, but that’s the goal.

Finally, the resolution is Democratic math at its best. It leaves out a price tag, and is equally vague on what kind of taxes would be needed to cover the cost. But it would run to tens of trillions of dollars. The fact sheet asserts the cost shouldn’t worry anyone, since the Federal Reserve can just “extend credit” to these projects! And “new public banks can be created to extend credit,” too! And Americans will get lots of “shared prosperity” from their “investments.” À la Solyndra.

At least some Democrats seem to be aware of what a danger this is, which is why Ms. Pelosi threw some cold water on the Green New Deal this week. They should be scared. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a freight train gaining speed by the day—and helping Republicans with every passing minute.

82 > 87
Simple math.

I’m happy we at least have another representative that acknowledges scientists over their gut – that realizes climate change is real.

The current version of the Green New Deal isn’t going to be successful, but she’s a freshman rep - the goal isn’t to set policy, but influence it. She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.

If the climate changes, so be it, #imwithbigoil

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

Schopenhauer wrote:

She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.

If I went to the White House, stripped down to my birthday suit and slapped DJT in the face with my ding-dong, would you applaud me for bringing gender identity issues to his attention?  

82 > 87
Simple math.

Greenman72 wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.

If I went to the White House, stripped down to my birthday suit and slapped DJT in the face with my ding-dong, would you applaud me for bringing gender identity issues to his attention?  

Why do you get so upset with the mention of climate change? Are you rooting for mother nature over humans?

Schopenhauer wrote:

I’m happy we at least have another representative that acknowledges scientists over their gut – that realizes climate change is real.

The current version of the Green New Deal isn’t going to be successful, but she’s a freshman rep - the goal isn’t to set policy, but influence it. She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.

I’d be nice to propose a plan that wouldn’t devastate the economy though. 

Makes the dems look like a joke, even Pelosi refers to it as “the green dream or whatever”.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

Schopenhauer wrote:

Greenman72 wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

She’s brought climate change into the conversation more than most other people.

If I went to the White House, stripped down to my birthday suit and slapped DJT in the face with my ding-dong, would you applaud me for bringing gender identity issues to his attention?  

Why do you get so upset with the mention of climate change? Are you rooting for mother nature over humans?

I’m not upset with somebody raising the issue of climate change.  I AM upset with people being blithering idiots, which, at this point, she has proven herself to be.  

There are ways of battling climate change without insulting the intelligence of the people in this country.  

82 > 87
Simple math.