Stupid Things Ocasio-Cortez Says: Megathread

[∞∞∞]

I was at a political forum a few weeks ago and two Europeans (I think German and Cypriot) made comments about how the Democrats would be considered center-right where they're from, and the Sanders' platform would be considered moderate at best. You can gather what they thought of the GOP...

They were stunned how conservative the entire US population was...even those claiming to be liberals (according to our definition). Perspective is a funny thing.

Why don't you tell us?

Somewhere between far-right and extremist-right.

[CID1990]

I was at a political forum a few weeks ago and two Europeans (I think German and Cypriot) made comments about how the Democrats would be considered center-right where they're from, and the Sanders' platform would be considered moderate at best. You can gather what they thought of the GOP...

They were stunned how conservative the entire US population was...even those claiming to be liberals (according to our definition). Perspective is a funny thing.

Yeah Ive spent quite a bit of time around tut-tutting Euros

They talk a big game until you suggest that we drop back our NATO presence to help bring ourselves into the light where they are

they have zero means of independent self defense

I think you and your fellow travelers frequently use our own defense spending as a complaint foil ..... I'm with you! Drop our total spending back to twice Germany's, pull completely out of Korea

then watch your Teutonic leftists' tunes change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Why don't you tell us?

Somewhere between far-right and extremist-right.

Far right from whom? What’s the center? The center in America isn’t the same as in the UK or Germany or France. It’s an interesting analysis but comparing political platforms is more opinion than anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Somewhere between far-right and extremist-right.

Far right from whom? What’s the center? The center in America isn’t the same as in the UK or Germany or France. It’s an interesting analysis but comparing political platforms is more opinion than anytijfn

I don't know those answers. Again, it was at a political forum in DC - both were part of some embassy exchange program to study the cultures of other nations. The Cypriot said her thing; then at some point the German went up, agreed with his European compatriot, and spoke his piece.

[UNI88]

Meh. Can’t find the link...read it earlier today. As trip said, “socialism isn’t a dirty word to his generation”....that’s validation enough that the uniformed have no idea what they mean by socialism. Ask Venezuelans how they feel about it right about now...

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education does not mean we're going to be Venezuela. Venezuela is a single-market economy with an extremely corrupt political system.

This is a diversified, productive nation that can afford social programs if it got its priorities in order.

No one wants to capitalism gone - we want a capitalist market and social programs to co-exist. It's essentially ironing out market failures to benefit society.

So a Western European model? That does make more sense than true socialism. I do have a couple of questions/thoughts though ...

You've talked about a significantly higher tax rate (90%) on extremely high earnings but haven't addressed the potential opportunity cost of such a tax rate. Would such a rate be a disincentive to innovators? Would as many innovators chase the rainbow if the pot of gold was no longer at the end of it? What if we had that kind of rate 20, 30, 50 years ago? Would Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. exist? If you lose some of the innovators what is the ripple effect? How many future innovations don't happen? It is probably impossible to quantify but should be a serious consideration.

I think you're giving people too much credit. Socialism would be great in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world. Greed for power and wealth are and will continue to be major motivators. If we shift power and wealth away from the private sector and toward the government, the ambitious will just change their career path. Government will grow and the administrators will run government programs rather than companies that actually make something useful (i.e. less production & innovation) and weekend at their dachas on the Chesapeake shore while the proletariat toils away.

Free education sounds great but why do you think greater government involvement in education will improve things? The cost of higher education has ballooned since the government got into the loan business. The intent was to make higher education more affordable but its had the opposite effect. Why will this time be different?

IMO, the bigger the government the less effective it is. A government that focuses on a couple of key areas (national defense, infrastructure, basic safety net, etc.) is the one that has the best chance to be successful. I do think that education is part of infrastructure but the federal government has made it worse just about every time its tried to improve things. Maybe education is better left to the state and local governments.

[kalm]

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education does not mean we're going to be Venezuela. Venezuela is a single-market economy with an extremely corrupt political system.

This is a diversified, productive nation that can afford social programs if it got its priorities in order.

No one wants to capitalism gone - we want a capitalist market and social programs to co-exist. It's essentially ironing out market failures to benefit society.

So a Western European model? That does make more sense than true socialism. I do have a couple of questions/thoughts though ...

You've talked about a significantly higher tax rate (90%) on extremely high earnings but haven't addressed the potential opportunity cost of such a tax rate. Would such a rate be a disincentive to innovators? Would as many innovators chase the rainbow if the pot of gold was no longer at the end of it? What if we had that kind of rate 20, 30, 50 years ago? Would Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. exist? If you lose some of the innovators what is the ripple effect? How many future innovations don't happen? It is probably impossible to quantify but should be a serious consideration.

I think you're giving people too much credit. Socialism would be great in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world. Greed for power and wealth are and will continue to be major motivators. If we shift power and wealth away from the private sector and toward the government, the ambitious will just change their career path. Government will grow and the administrators will run government programs rather than companies that actually make something useful (i.e. less production & innovation) and weekend at their dachas on the Chesapeake shore while the proletariat toils away.

Free education sounds great but why do you think greater government involvement in education will improve things? The cost of higher education has ballooned since the government got into the loan business. The intent was to make higher education more affordable but its had the opposite effect. Why will this time be different?

IMO, the bigger the government the less effective it is. A government that focuses on a couple of key areas (national defense, infrastructure, basic safety net, etc.) is the one that has the best chance to be successful. I do think that education is part of infrastructure but the federal government has made it worse just about every time its tried to improve things. Maybe education is better left to the state and local governments.

We’ve had double to triple the tax rates going back to WWII which helped pay down the war debt and helped rebuild Europe. Did innovation suffer in the 50’s and 60’s?

I’m not saying we return to that level but I think we can simultaneously raise taxes (moderately), gain efficiencies through technology, and yes, cut some fat in order to pay down the debt while still maintaining growth. That’s not socialism, that’s fiscal responsibility.

[AZGrizFan]

So a Western European model? That does make more sense than true socialism. I do have a couple of questions/thoughts though ...

You've talked about a significantly higher tax rate (90%) on extremely high earnings but haven't addressed the potential opportunity cost of such a tax rate. Would such a rate be a disincentive to innovators? Would as many innovators chase the rainbow if the pot of gold was no longer at the end of it? What if we had that kind of rate 20, 30, 50 years ago? Would Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. exist? If you lose some of the innovators what is the ripple effect? How many future innovations don't happen? It is probably impossible to quantify but should be a serious consideration.

I think you're giving people too much credit. Socialism would be great in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world. Greed for power and wealth are and will continue to be major motivators. If we shift power and wealth away from the private sector and toward the government, the ambitious will just change their career path. Government will grow and the administrators will run government programs rather than companies that actually make something useful (i.e. less production & innovation) and weekend at their dachas on the Chesapeake shore while the proletariat toils away.

Free education sounds great but why do you think greater government involvement in education will improve things? The cost of higher education has ballooned since the government got into the loan business. The intent was to make higher education more affordable but its had the opposite effect. Why will this time be different?

IMO, the bigger the government the less effective it is. A government that focuses on a couple of key areas (national defense, infrastructure, basic safety net, etc.) is the one that has the best chance to be successful. I do think that education is part of infrastructure but the federal government has made it worse just about every time its tried to improve things. Maybe education is better left to the state and local governments.

We’ve had double to triple the tax rates going back to WWII which helped pay down the war debt and helped rebuild Europe. Did innovation suffer in the 50’s and 60’s?

I’m not saying we return to that level but I think we can simultaneously raise taxes (moderately), gain efficiencies through technology, and yes, cut some fat in order to pay down the debt while still maintaining growth. That’s not socialism, that’s fiscal responsibility.

Except it'll never happen. That's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking...

This ain't SimCity, people. It's America, with all its flaws, warts, etc. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, does NOT "cut fat in order to pay down debt"...And 88, your last paragraph is exactly what we DO have, a government that focuses on national defense, infrastructure (to a much lesser extent), and a basic safety net of social programs. Our government is already too big. The last thing I want to see is MORE power consolidated into the hands of the people who live inside the bubble/beltway in D.C.

[Ibanez]

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education does not mean we're going to be Venezuela. Venezuela is a single-market economy with an extremely corrupt political system.

This is a diversified, productive nation that can afford social programs if it got its priorities in order.

No one wants to capitalism gone - we want a capitalist market and social programs to co-exist. It's essentially ironing out market failures to benefit society.

So a Western European model? That does make more sense than true socialism. I do have a couple of questions/thoughts though ...

You've talked about a significantly higher tax rate (90%) on extremely high earnings but haven't addressed the potential opportunity cost of such a tax rate. Would such a rate be a disincentive to innovators? Would as many innovators chase the rainbow if the pot of gold was no longer at the end of it? What if we had that kind of rate 20, 30, 50 years ago? Would Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. exist? If you lose some of the innovators what is the ripple effect? How many future innovations don't happen? It is probably impossible to quantify but should be a serious consideration.

I think you're giving people too much credit. Socialism would be great in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world. Greed for power and wealth are and will continue to be major motivators. If we shift power and wealth away from the private sector and toward the government, the ambitious will just change their career path. Government will grow and the administrators will run government programs rather than companies that actually make something useful (i.e. less production & innovation) and weekend at their dachas on the Chesapeake shore while the proletariat toils away.

Free education sounds great but why do you think greater government involvement in education will improve things? The cost of higher education has ballooned since the government got into the loan business. The intent was to make higher education more affordable but its had the opposite effect. Why will this time be different?

IMO, the bigger the government the less effective it is. A government that focuses on a couple of key areas (national defense, infrastructure, basic safety net, etc.) is the one that has the best chance to be successful. I do think that education is part of infrastructure but the federal government has made it worse just about every time its tried to improve things. Maybe education is better left to the state and local governments.

Here's a thought - if socialism is the answer, then why aren't there many successful socialist countries? There are a lot more failures than anything.

The first person to say a Nordic country gets banned - those countries aren't socialists.

[kalm]

So a Western European model? That does make more sense than true socialism. I do have a couple of questions/thoughts though ...

You've talked about a significantly higher tax rate (90%) on extremely high earnings but haven't addressed the potential opportunity cost of such a tax rate. Would such a rate be a disincentive to innovators? Would as many innovators chase the rainbow if the pot of gold was no longer at the end of it? What if we had that kind of rate 20, 30, 50 years ago? Would Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc. exist? If you lose some of the innovators what is the ripple effect? How many future innovations don't happen? It is probably impossible to quantify but should be a serious consideration.

I think you're giving people too much credit. Socialism would be great in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world. Greed for power and wealth are and will continue to be major motivators. If we shift power and wealth away from the private sector and toward the government, the ambitious will just change their career path. Government will grow and the administrators will run government programs rather than companies that actually make something useful (i.e. less production & innovation) and weekend at their dachas on the Chesapeake shore while the proletariat toils away.

Free education sounds great but why do you think greater government involvement in education will improve things? The cost of higher education has ballooned since the government got into the loan business. The intent was to make higher education more affordable but its had the opposite effect. Why will this time be different?

IMO, the bigger the government the less effective it is. A government that focuses on a couple of key areas (national defense, infrastructure, basic safety net, etc.) is the one that has the best chance to be successful. I do think that education is part of infrastructure but the federal government has made it worse just about every time its tried to improve things. Maybe education is better left to the state and local governments.

Here's a thought - if socialism is the answer, then why aren't there many successful socialist countries? There are a lot more failures than anything.

The first person to say a Nordic country gets banned - those countries aren't socialists.

[Ibanez]

Here's a thought - if socialism is the answer, then why aren't there many successful socialist countries? There are a lot more failures than anything.

The first person to say a Nordic country gets banned - those countries aren't socialists.

Happiness and Socialism don't go hand in hand. Just ask any Russian Jew in the 1920s.

[CAA Flagship]

Just ask any Russian Jew in the 1920s.

Now, how in the hell are we gonna do that?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Meh. Can’t find the link...read it earlier today. As trip said, “socialism isn’t a dirty word to his generation”....that’s validation enough that the uniformed have no idea what they mean by socialism. Ask Venezuelans how they feel about it right about now...

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education does not mean we're going to be Venezuela. Venezuela is a single-market economy with an extremely corrupt political system.

This is a diversified, productive nation that can afford social programs if it got its priorities in order.

No one wants to capitalism gone - we want a capitalist market and social programs to co-exist. It's essentially ironing out market failures to benefit society.

I don't want social programs, pay your own way commie!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Just ask any Russian Jew in the 1920s.

Now, how in the hell are we gonna do that?

[89Hen]

The whiter, the happier. Check.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The whiter, the happier. Check.

I wish I could give 89Hen rep for this............#nailedIt

[houndawg]

Ever alert for an opportunity to miss the point.....

A mediocre governor of any state is still a more qualified administrator/manager/leader than most Congress critters (including Bernie Maduro). They've had larger staffs with multiple departments and more significant budgets.

The Governor of Alaska doesn't do shit except make sure the oil checks get sent to the rugged individuals on time.

[houndawg]

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education does not mean we're going to be Venezuela. Venezuela is a single-market economy with an extremely corrupt political system.

This is a diversified, productive nation that can afford social programs if it got its priorities in order.

No one wants to capitalism gone - we want a capitalist market and social programs to co-exist. It's essentially ironing out market failures to benefit society.

I don't want social programs, pay your own way commie!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You don't count.

[Chizzang]

The whiter, the happier. Check.

I laughed... for longer than I'm proud of
I also recall a study but that's for later

[houndawg]

I was at a political forum a few weeks ago and two Europeans (I think German and Cypriot) made comments about how the Democrats would be considered center-right where they're from, and the Sanders' platform would be considered moderate at best. You can gather what they thought of the GOP...

They were stunned how conservative the entire US population was...even those claiming to be liberals (according to our definition). Perspective is a funny thing.

Yeah Ive spent quite a bit of time around tut-tutting Euros

They talk a big game until you suggest that we drop back our NATO presence to help bring ourselves into the light where they are

they have zero means of independent self defense

I think you and your fellow travelers frequently use our own defense spending as a complaint foil ..... I'm with you! Drop our total spending back to twice Germany's, pull completely out of Korea

then watch your Teutonic leftists' tunes change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm down with that.

But you won't be able to hear the wailing of the Teutonic leftists over the outraged howls of the Republican -controlled Congress.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah Ive spent quite a bit of time around tut-tutting Euros

They talk a big game until you suggest that we drop back our NATO presence to help bring ourselves into the light where they are

they have zero means of independent self defense

I think you and your fellow travelers frequently use our own defense spending as a complaint foil ..... I'm with you! Drop our total spending back to twice Germany's, pull completely out of Korea

then watch your Teutonic leftists' tunes change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm down with that.

But you won't be able to hear the wailing of the Teutonic leftists over the outraged howls of the Republican -controlled Congress.

+1. Buys a lot of "social programs" that trip regularly creams himself over...

[houndawg]

Careful there
The more ridiculous and obnoxious the character the more likely to stir the fringe into action
If Trump showed us anything he showed us that "credible and informed" are meaningless now

She makes Trump look like Einstein.

She makes Trump look like a garden vegetable. Probably a Rutabaga...

[AZGrizFan]

She makes Trump look like Einstein.

She makes Trump look like a garden vegetable. Probably a Rutabaga...

Uh, no. She needs to get her primary colors straight before she moves ahead of Trumpenstein.

[CAA Flagship]

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education...

78% of my property taxes go to schools. And that only covers through 12th grade. The tax cost for the next 4 years will likely be at least 50% of the tax cost of the first 12 years (so $4k per year will jump to $6k per year - forever). People with 4 and 5 kids are benefiting. People with no kids are getting killed. How much more suffering do you want people with no kids to have to endure? Is that really fair?

[∞∞∞]

I'm single with no kids; our Board just approved a tax hike and I'm fine with it. An education is the best investment a society can make for its future. Yes I may never see the direct benefit, but my community will. And if the schools get better, there's a good chance it makes my property more attractive.

Plus teachers and staff will be getting a deserved pay bump and now that the County has a higher proportion of disadvantaged, non-native-English-speaking kids, and more complex curriculum requirements, it costs more to educate each kid. The previous tax rate was simply not cutting it anymore.

[GannonFan]

Wanting universal healthcare, better pay, and free education...

78% of my property taxes go to schools. And that only covers through 12th grade. The tax cost for the next 4 years will likely be at least 50% of the tax cost of the first 12 years (so $4k per year will jump to $6k per year - forever). People with 4 and 5 kids are benefiting. People with no kids are getting killed. How much more suffering do you want people with no kids to have to endure? Is that really fair?

Well, as for the school taxes you pay now, even without having kids go through the system, either you went through the system or you had kids (or will have kids) that go through the system, so you're paying for yourself from before or for kids you have or will have. For those who will never have kids, there is a correlation of good homes and nice places to live being in areas where the schools are good, so property values are, to a point, improved by having good schools nearby, so you pay for that. Regardless, society as a whole is better off with an educated populace, and with young people, especially under 18, being educated and in school for a good portion of the day, rather than working or even worse not working, so there's that benefit too. I think there's plenty of argument for why K-12 should be "free" and being paid through taxes, even from those not directly involved, is a good thing.

As for the free education after the first 12 years of schooling, I do share some of the same concerns. We've already established that not everyone needs to be going to college in the first place, so why making it "free" (obviously free on the back of increased taxes) is a good thing is not clear. Someone did mention that once we made student loans not only easier to get but also make the guarantor of the loan the government in almost all cases not only did that skyrocket the amount of money being loaned, but it also allowed the cost of college to soar well past what inflation or the market would've determined. So by trying to make it "more free" we encouraged people who shouldn't go to college to go and we made it more expensive for everyone involved, and at no time could you say that we, as society, were better off for this. I think if colleges wanted to make themselves "free", say by using their endowments, then have at it. I'm sure the Ivy's could do that today (and to a extent they already do) because they have the money and they already have a competitive applicant pool. As for public schools doing that, well, I'm fine with local control and if the people paying those taxes were fine with it then by all means, go ahead. No need to nationalize something like this.