LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Ocasio-Cortez Is Asked How America Will Pay For Her Socialist Dreams. Guess How Much Information She Has In Her Head.
Source:
The Wire
URL Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/3419 ... rica-will-pay-her-hank-berrien
Published: Aug 8, 2018
Author: HANK BERRIEN
Post Date: 2018-08-08 08:59:25 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 10614
Comments: 93
Speaking with host Jon Lovett on Pod Save America, New York Democratic socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked for details as to how America would pay for her socialist dreams, such as universal healthcare and free college tuition. Although she spouted for roughly two minutes, the answer Ocasio-Cortez offered was this: she has no idea. Lovett prompted the descent into puffery and sound and fury signifying nothing by stating: We don’t talk about what defense costs; we’re about to hit a trillion dollars in debt because of the corporate tax cuts; yet when we talk about pre-K, healthcare, college, suddenly it’s unrealistic because of the cost. And it’s not just bad faith Republicans that make that argument; you hear it from Democrats as well. What’s your response to that? Ocasio-Cortez started like a house afire: “Well, I think it’s that exact same thing.” That makes it abundantly clear. She continued, “It’s that we… you know they say, ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ as though they haven’t used those same ways to pay for unlimited wars, to pay for trillion dollar tax cuts and tax cut extensions. They use these mechanisms to pay for these things all the time.” What “same ways"? What “mechanisms"? But we digress. Ocasio-Cortez waxed eloquent with more brilliantisms: “They only want to know — it just seems like their pockets are empty when we’re talking about education and investing in human capital in the United States: education, healthcare, housing, and investing in the middle class.” It would seem the students who want to game the system by getting college education for free are the ones with empty pockets while in her dreams the adults in the room have to ante up, and what she means by “investing in the middle class” is anyone’s guess, but she had more: All of a sudden, there’s nothing left. All of a sudden the wealthiest nation in the world, we’re just totally scarce. We have complete scarcity when it comes to the things that are the most important. She might want to visit socialist Venezuela for a look at “complete scarcity” of things that are most important, such as food. Ocasio-Cortez continued, "And so for me, I think it belies a lack of moral priority and it’s unfortunate." As opposed to making others pay for your dreams, which used to be called stealing. Ocasio-Cortez then rambled on: I think that — but I also think a lot of these folks, especially those perhaps on the Democratic side, perhaps they don’t even see it, you know? I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s a generous interpretation or not, but I legitimately think that they start kind of buying into conservative talking points. They get dragged into their court all the time. And I think it is because there’s this really myopic, and also, just misunderstanding of politics as this flat 2-dimensional left/right thing. And so they always feel like, “Okay, the Right says this thing. We have to respond to it.” And that’s why they’re winning. That’s why they’ve won for the last ten years, because they’ve dragged us onto their court. And we refuse to have our own strong message to force them to play defense on. In all that verbiage, did you see an answer as to how the young socialist would pay for her dreams? Didn’t think so. https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1026919316665450496
Poster Comment: Nutsy is a plethora of ideas. Get this gal in Congress! I have a five point plan to pay for these ideas: 1. um, yeah, Catch a leprechaun. 2. uhhhhh, harvest Unicorn Horns, and sell them. 3. um, we can like, you know, like, set up a task force, and stuff, searching for Genie's bottles 4. ♫ When you wish upon a star ♫ 5. um uh Scandivania! So clearly, these things can be paid for if we just, uh, prioritize, and stuff. uh,Ask Bernie!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 60.
#1. To: IbJensen (#0)
I don't know how she would pay for it, but I can tell you how I will. Of course, she and I don't completely share dreams, but I agree with some of hers. The short answer to the question is that it will be paid for the same way we pay for everything the government does not: wealth redistribution< primarily in the form of taxes, secondarily in the form of regulation. Specifics would include substantially reducing the US military footprint and American imperialism, to save money, reducing the police state presence, for the same reasons, and setting taxes at the level necessary to fund what is required. Marijuana would be legalized and taxed, like tobacco, to raise substantial revenue. Securities transactions would be subject to the sales tax, like other transactions, and also to property taxes, like other substantial forms of property (houses, cars and boats). The combination of savings from defense and over-regulation reductions and new revenue from capturing ALL forms of wealth by the property tax (as opposed to the current system of taxing just houses and cars, which skews the burden heavily to the middle class) and taxes on drug and securities transactions, would provide the revenue needed to balance the budget and start retiring the national debt. The more debt that is retired, the less money is spent on interest on the debt. That is the third major source of revenue: the money that is currently spent on debt service would be available first for accelerated debt retirement, and then for investment in education and medical care. That is how I would do it: make the tax code fair. Reduce military and paramility forces and over-regulation. Tax securities and securities transactions and pot. Balance the budget. Use the surplus to retire debt, freeing up interest payments. Use the excess revenue after debt retirement to substantially improve education and medical care. Done. Without socialism. That's how I would do it.
I agree with NONE of hers while I agree with you as regards 'trimming' the central socialist government, I would take a meat ax to it and roll the calendar aback to 1912 and abolish the income tax and the IRS completely. This is the only way to kill the monster that is eating us.
I don't think of the government as a monster eating us, but as an insurance policy. I want that insurance policy to be robust enough to provide a working class standard of living to a family out of work, and a middle class education to a child without any means of support. I want universal education sufficient to provide reasonable opportunity to every American child who will work, regardless of parental status. I do not want the disabled, the unemployed or the aged to go homeless or without food or medical care. I want violent crime controlled, and morals crimes left unpoliced and mostly stricken from the books. If we're going to have libertarianism, that's where we should be having it: leave people alone to their bodily pleasures. Libertarianism is unacceptable when it reduces organ donation to capitalist transactions: the rich should not have greater access to organs than anybody else, and the poor should not be able to sell theirs out of desperation. Etc. If we faced the USSR, I would want to continue to fund the huge imperial footprint. But we don't, so I want to save the money and reduce the footprint. I do not believe that American hegemony provides enough economic benefit to middle and working class Americans to justify the expense. We're never going to abolish the income tax or go back to pre-1912, because most of us are never going to give up the insurance policy.
I want five grand. Give it to me Vic.
I want every American citizen who has liberal ideas, or is soft and WEAK... to eat a buckshot sandwich. Can ya sell this concept to Vic?
Heh... Some of your stuff really cracks me up. Like this. And then I think of those who think you're MORE than half-serious. And laugh even more. ;-)
Ah, Vic can’t help his weaknesses. He’s been brainwashed by the libtard propaganda machine. He’s ok.
Yes, he is ok. I like Vic. But I'm worried about him. He's been careening Left-ward rapidly. But why?? IS it the Left's propaganda machine that's influencing him? Vic: I can't help but note you're becoming more heavily Humanist-Secularist in personal philosophy. Hey, it's *your* life and opinion....but WHY the Big Change?
I’ll submit that he’s been that way since you’ve known him... and there are quite a few more that purposely hide the amount of LEFT in them, to have a place to post, after being de-nutted by the wheelchair RINO. All it takes is a love for anti government, and all the Paultards here or on LP will embrace you... as long as you hide your love for welfare, abortion, open borders and drugs.
Maybe you're right; Maybe he's been hiding it. OR...maybe has recently just realized (or self-admitted) that the degree of "Socialist" acceptance/advocacy is much greater than he even thought. From my perspective, Vic's always been an enigma (he might even admit it); Solidly identifies conservative in certain ways, but solidly and decidedly LEFT in others. So where's that leave him of the political scale? Overall, probably Center. But that winds up allowing the Left to gain ground while undermining the Conservatism. Conservatism MUST increase, otherwise we know the USA WILL become full-blown Socialist (already the Dems are at the brink), and then comes the inevitable: Totalitarianism. And a hot CW2. The math is painfully easy for us to do, isn't it? For Vic -- who admits his degree of affection for our country and system vs "European" *is* divided -- maybe that's why he's more Socialist than Constitutionalist. All it takes is a love for anti government, and all the Paultards here or on LP will embrace you... as long as you hide your love for welfare, abortion, open borders and drugs. There are some extremely confused posters here who want it both ways...AND ALL WAYS. Without common-sense Law Enforcement we have a Portland OR/Berkeley CA type of nation. I am SICK of the daily dredged up isolated cases that broad-brush ALL of LE as petty, evil, over-officious bullies. It's intellectually and morally dishonest. AND worst of all, follows the BLM/0bama script of spreading HATE of cops and respect for The Law. Semi-Anarchists and Socialists only serve the OTHER SIDE. This is no time as you know to straddle the fence on Party politics. Especially with Trump (the "Independent" Libertarians and Conservatives were wishing for) at the helm fighting the fake Two-Parties (GOPe NWO puppets + Dem-Commies). Honestly, Ron Paul wasn't all that wrong on many things. He was surprisingly ahead of the curve on many; He KNEW long ago that our gummit's PTB (and those behind the scene) were a festering corrupt hell-hole pit of Globalists and Liars selling us out. But was dangerously naive in a number of crucial issues. Hardcore libertarians jumped on the band-wagon then took things too far into Anarchist territory.
I'm not hiding anything. Americans are mostly four things: Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, Democrat or Republican, and Middle Class. I'm Catholic, French, Independent, and European nobility. These are my inner identifications, and each cuts across the grain of some feature of American culture, and puts me outside of the mainstream and the norm. It does not mean I am conflicted, or confused, or hiding anything. I'm not particularly shy, and I generally think that my way of seeing things is better on all counts. Economically, precisely BECAUSE I come from the nobility (which America does not have), and the nobility is tied to religion, I have an economic view that simply does not exist among Americans - I think that it is a divine obligation for the uppermost classes to specifically shepherd, care for, be concerned with and move among, the lowest classes, the poor. It is not a choice - noblesse oblige. To be rich, American style, is not nobility. They are two different animals. Nobility simply doesn't exist in America, and that's fine - I wouldn't want to try to bring it here. There's no NEW nobility in Europe either - it is an artifact of a bygone era, but it is real, and it fuses economic concerns, political concerns and religion together in a way that simply does not exist among the democratic masses. What it means concretely is that I cannot simply dismiss the poor as lazy or drug-addled wastrels, or trash, or scum, or any of the harsh words used by the economically hard-minded. They are, rather, the weaker members of the clan, the lower orders of the tribe - they are part of the extended FAMILY - and it's the duty of those chosen by God to be the leaders of the tribe, through the superior natural abilities and fortunes that God has bestowed upon us, to make sure that nobody is left behind. We're not just civilians making money and living discrete lives, we're all soldiers in a vast cultural army, and we cannot leave any soldier behind, because that's wrong. My thinking in this parallels Prince Harry or Queen Margarethe much more than it does any American politician or thinker of ANY stripe, from far Left to far Right. Where you get it backwards is in thinking that I am "moving" somewhere or "diverging". My outlook on this is a hereditary one that goes back 800 years. It's 700 years older than either modern Socialism OR Modern Conservatism. I am not a modern man in this sense at all, and I look at the current sets of socio-political beliefs and see them as being deeply flawed and unrealistic, and forgetting the wisdom of the ages. But I do not forget, and I do not forget who I am either. So if you think you're seeing movement, what you are really seeing is your own relative motion relative to a fixed object: me. I am as constant as the Sun. I DO have a temper, and when inflamed by it I can start paring off the gentler and nobler aspects of what I believe - when at peace - and become this terrible warrior that will burn down the village and kill everybody to restore obedient order, but I have to be pressed to that - I don't start there. (And it is a constant of ALL forms of established order that survive, that in the end they defend themselves with very violent force and extreme prejudice against whatever is attacking, and they kill it regardless of its ideas, because the ideas cease to matter and preserving control prevails. This was true of God himself, in the Great Flood, so it is not too terribly surprising that creatures made in his image will ultimately kill everybody and everything in order to prevent order from being overthrown by chaos.) Politically, therefore, I do not accept the limitations of thinking of either the Democrats or the Republicans. A nobleman is a traditionalist who favors good order, military forces in particular - competent and obedient paramilitary forces (but with a very strong antipathy for corrupt and self-governing police forces or other banditti) - and who sees the virtue in devotion to duty, to the flag, to a code of conduct. Traditional sins, which is to say alcohol and sex, are winked at, and tobacco is an old enough sin that one can shrug one's shoulders at it, but harder drugs that destroy the mind are much more offensive - they destroy the tribe, the cousinage, the strength of the clan, the nation, from below. But the American Right winger looks at drug addicts as dirt bags and scum, while the American Left winger sees them as victims of racial and social injustice. I see them as damaged soldiers, whose addictions and demons weaken the potential armed forces of the nation - and rather than wanting to cut them off as trash, I want to dedicate the resources to patching them up and getting them back on the field, in the ranks as members of the fighting team (even if merely as toiling peasants whose usufruit pays for the more general effort). This is not socialism, or communism, or libertarianism or traditional conservatism. It's not on the spectrum of American thinking at all. I suppose it's feudalism, if a word needs to be given to it. To ascribe this to some sort of fickle aspect of my character is just missing the mark. I am really very steady and consistent in my core beliefs about everything, and I believe that what I believe in has been proved beyond the need of proof and tested in every climate for 1000 years. If you want to know my honest-to-God opinion on anything, ask me directly, and I will tell you directly. If you want to know why I think that, ask my why, and I will tell you why. If you think try to go jamming what I think or say into one of the petty, ill- thought-out contemporary distempers, like American Republicanism, or American Democrat party "liberalism", or "socialism" or "Communism", then you're always going to go wide of the mark, and you're going to be falsely accusing me of being fickle, of hiding, of being divided. I'm not divided. I am completely loyal to what I believe in. It's just that the major causes and organizations of our day in this country don't represent me, so I come across at odds with them. That's not because of me wavering around, it's because of the ill-fit of the Republicans or the Democrats, or American Christianity, or American economic and social beliefs, with the 13th Viscount of an obscure place in France. I'm not the moving object here. The times are. I am as fixed as that old stone fort in France that is named after me and mine. (I'm not named after it, it was originally built by us, and is named after us. This is a good analogy to what we are talking about, actually.)
Not true. They are human beings with problems. You get a lot wrong about us right wingers as you call us. You look at right wingers as dirt bags. On more than one occasion you posted about the need to murder us all. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Most of them aren't bleeding hearts and that seems to be the problem. Self reliance/responsibility seems to be a 4 letter word with him.
Nope. Those things are great. But they cannot be carried to the extreme that you want to carry them. The right rule is: self-reliance and responsibility, and you will go far, have quite a bit, live a very comfortable life, have authority and respect, see the world, dine well, and look back on a life well lived. Eschew self-reliance and responsibility, and you will not go far, have little, live an uncomfortable life in drab, working class surroundings, have neither authority nor respect, see little of the world (and what you will see will be the grotty side of some run-down city, eat poorly and look back on a life of much suffering and loss. That is entirely reasonable, and that is what happens WITH social support. Remove social support, and the lack of self-reliance and responsibility will lead to homelessness, starvation, disease, and dying in the streets, as in all of the countries of the world where there is no social welfare support. Grinding poverty does NOT, in fact, act as a spur for people to climb out. It simply acts as a life-shortening, riot-provoking decay - the sprawling slums of India and the Third World. I do not speak of a social welfare state that is gold plated, such that those who do not exercise self-disciple and take on responsibility live like the middle class or upper class. I speak of basic working class conditions only, which are basic necessities, medical care, and an education permitting the determined to climb out. That is all. But you, when you say "self-reliance and responsibility" in the context of social welfare, you mean "have no social welfare", and let the poor starve to death if they won't work. Your solution would be the Third World. That is the difference between us - your lip is curled with hatred and disgust for the poor and the unambitious. You see them as worthy of experiencing extreme suffering and early death, and do not want to provide them ANY support, as that will make them lazy. I see them as unambitious peasants - capable of some manual labor but little else, but available as manpower for, say, a draft (if needed), and with the potential, among some of them, or their offspring, to rise. So, you would simply let them starve, but I say that does not respect God and that they need to have a basic working class life as a minimum. My way is more expensive in the short run (but produces a bigger economy and better-educated people in the long run) and much more humane. You scoff at the humanity. And on this website, from all appearances, most people agree with you and want what you want for the poor, but disagree with me and despise it - and despise me. Nowhere have I ever said anything that would allow you to assert that self- reliance and responsibility are a "four letter word" for me. I simply reject your assertion - and that of so many others here - that a basic subsistence level of material support, health care, and education, for everybody, is opposed to the principle of self-reliance or personal responsibility. I think it is an anti-Christian argument to say that it is. One guy said he was my friend here on this site. This would be a very good moment for ANYBODY reading this who agrees with what I have said to step up and say "Actually, I agree with him." Because here we are, in the middle of a thread created by the site master specifically to attack me, both as a person (delusional, liar, etc.) and my ideas. Plenty have chimed in in agreement, and nobody has stood on my side, which is the side of reason, compassion and, frankly, Christ. Now would be a good time to do it. If I were calling for "nationalizing the means of production" or some radical nonsense, it would be fair game to be calling me a socialist, or Communist, or whatever. I have done no such thing. All I have said is that it is necessary to provide a basic standard of living - working class dignity at least - to everybody, even the marginals at the bottom, rather than letting them starve in the streets. When even THAT causes me to be called some sort of Lefty pinko, well, it shows just what the Right is. Yes, Stone - this is what the Right is. If you don't agree, then tell me about the social welfare, medicine and education you think we DO need. Don't tell me all of the problems - I am well aware of them. Admit that, DESPITE the problems, we DO have to do it anyway, because right now all that anybody ever gives is problems, and that leads any reasonable person to conclude that, because of the problems, your solution is to do nothing at all, just "Let them eat cake" as Marie Antoinette famously never said.
Are you a liar or do you have a reading comprehension problem? It is one or the other because he already told your pathetic ass that he isn't for no social welfare. Of course it is the governments job to take care of extreme things like famines and stuff like that. Joshua did it in Egypt. You're basically a socialist hypocrite. Do as I say not as I do.
There are no replies to Comment # 60. End Trace Mode for Comment # 60.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
....but I agree with some of hers.
#3. To: IbJensen (#2)
This is the only way to kill the monster that is eating us.
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)
#7. To: GrandIsland (#6)
(Edited)
I want every American citizen who has liberal ideas, or is soft and WEAK... to eat a buckshot sandwich.
#11. To: Liberator (#7)
#24. To: GrandIsland, Vicomte13 (#11)
Vic can’t help his weaknesses. He’s been brainwashed by the libtard propaganda machine. He’s ok.
#28. To: Liberator (#24)
But I'm worried about him. He's been careening Left-ward rapidly
#44. To: GrandIsland, Vicomte13 (#28)
I’ll submit that he’s been that way since you’ve known him... and there are quite a few more that purposely hide the amount of LEFT in them...
#51. To: Liberator (#44)
Maybe you're right; Maybe he's been hiding it. OR...maybe has recently just realized (or self-admitted) that the degree of "Socialist" acceptance/advocacy is much greater than he even thought. From my perspective, Vic's always been an enigma (he might even admit it); Solidly identifies conservative in certain ways, but solidly and decidedly LEFT in others. So where's that leave him of the political scale? Overall, probably Center. But that winds up allowing the Left to gain ground while undermining the Conservatism. Conservatism MUST increase, otherwise we know the USA WILL become full-blown Socialist (already the Dems are at the brink), and then comes the inevitable: Totalitarianism. And a hot CW2. The math is painfully easy for us to do, isn't it? For Vic -- who admits his degree of affection for our country and system vs "European" *is* divided -- maybe that's why he's more Socialist than Constitutionalist.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
But the American Right winger looks at drug addicts as dirt bags and scum,
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You look at right wingers as dirt bags.
#57. To: CZ82 (#56)
Self reliance/responsibility seems to be a 4 letter word with him.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
But you, when you say "self-reliance and responsibility" in the context of social welfare, you mean "have no social welfare", and let the poor starve to death if they won't work. Your solution would be the Third World.
Replies to Comment # 60.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]