Ocasio-Cortez, at SXSW, blasts FDR, Reagan and capitalism, says political moderates are 'meh'

noonereal said:

Venezuela's troubles has little to do with socialism and all to do with authoritarian rule.

You guys constantly use this fallacy not even understanding the error of your ways.

Click to expand...

Authoritarian rule is the end result of socialism.

Kal'Stang said:

Authoritarian rule is the end result of socialism.

Click to expand...

LOL, what else can I say?

This is in no way factual nor logical.

dobieg said:

*sniffle* Did the mean people with a brain make fun of your wet dream socialist?


I for one promise not to make fun of you for supporting a former Hooter's girl with the perky jubblies just because she talks a bunch of gibberish and gets the nickel head club drooling over the next Hugo Chavez.

Click to expand...

Damn...I wish I had your way with words.

LOL!!

Conservative said:

AOC is exactly the candidate for you as you are totally incapable of accepting your own personal responsibilities and expect someone else to do it for you. When you run out of other people's money to spend then what? Her values aren't even close to the values and principles of this country as again you show very poor understanding of history and the Constitution. Promoting General Welfare is quite a bit different than providing for it so keep promoting class envy, jealousy, and chaos and keep losing national elections

Click to expand...

You are right when you wrote "AOC is exactly the candidate for" me. She incompasses the proper amount of strong-will and perspective that I appreciate. You are wrong in your assumptions about me -- as a person who was born in the lower-middle-class, who worked hard to achieve advanced degrees and leadership positions, as well as emassing a respectable amount of money, you know nothing about my accepting personal responsibilities.

You make your assumption about me because I favor programs that help the masses and favor economic redistribution -- thus, my views must be self-serving. Instead, I am willing to make sacrifices for the national good, instead of serving my personal motives or interests. Supporting policies that are to one's personal financial disadvantage is civic virtue!

PeteEU said:

Wow wait a minute... the reason we have communism and socialism is because of people like YOU and other conservatives believing they were the only ones who could rule and that capitalism was allowed to exploit people and keep the masses in poverty and hell. That is why we have socialism as it is a reaction the the abuses of the conservative political sphere and its domination of world politics and economics up to the mid 1800s.

Click to expand...

This is not true.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”[3] In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Click to expand...

The living standard of the poor, is as good now, as the evil rich had 100 years ago. The main reason for this increase in creature comfort and luxury is connected to free market capitalism. Consider TV's and computers. The prices have gone down so much that they are now affordable even to the poor. The first basic calculators used to cost over $100. Now they are less than a dollar, allowing the poor to do what only the rich businessman or rich college student could once do in the mid 1970's. The rich can afford to pay the high initial costs, until economies of scale appear.

On the other hand, name me one thing government; socialist policies, have done that has made life cheaper for the poor, so the living standard goes up? The estimate is social policies have spent over $10 trillion on poverty programs over the past 40 years and the poverty rate is the same. This has not helped change the social dynamics. The approach has not worked. Capitalism has made the standard of living better for this same percent of the population.

The idea that the average poor family, if they were living in 1919, would be considered rich, tells me that poverty is not just an objective measure; number, but is also a subjective measure. If you are envious of others, and you had $1 million, you would not be content with this, if you always compare yourself to people with tens of millions. There is no objective measure of any real deprivation, but your envy is based on subjective elements that keeps you off balance and unable to count your true blessings.

The class envy scam by the Democrats is designed to make as many people feel off balance, and unappreciative even if creature comforts would be the talk of the town in 1919. This off balance feeling means that they cannot count their blessings. This scam is extrapolated in the idea of 70% taxes on the rich.

This tax solution is based on knocking the Jones down a peg, so there is less class envy. Is in not about teaching you to rise above subjectivity, but is based on the illusion of digging a hole for those you envy, so you can appear to rise by sitting still. The analogy is your neighbor who has $10 million makes you envious. This keeps you off balance in social functions. He takes a big hit in the stock market and now he has only as much money as you. This can appease your sense of imbalance. You have not risen, but you feel better and can now appreciate what you already have.

I am of the impression that all the historical evidence of Socialism, being flash in the pan, followed by poverty is well understood by the left. However, it is accepted as good, since it lowers the floor on many successful people, so the relative illusion of rising can appease the induction of class envy. If you can count your blessings, while living in any state of affairs, then Capitalism makes more sense, since it allows you to rise under your own power, without needing others to fall. If you are content in simplicity, you can still root for the achiever. You don;t need him to share misery for you to feel better.

Conservative said:

you are so right, I was indoctrinated quite young when I was taught that there are consequences for poor choices and decisions made along with the reality as I thank my parents for that education. I expect no one to pay for my personal responsibility issues and expect to be rewarded for my efforts. Have you thought about a move to say Venezuela? Redistribution of someone else's wealth is the true goal for people like you who seem incapable of competing in our own society

Click to expand...

You are right, those not in the upper-brackets only have themselves to blame. They should have chosen to have rich parents, who would live in neighborhoods with excellent schools and then use their personal business contacts to get their children rewarding occupations.

I read your ranks, which when pushed against the wall with rational debate, reduce themselves to nonsensical illogic, like your argument above, which is essentially: 'If we want redistribution, like what was commonplace beliefs in America 100 years ago, or like what exists today in Denmark -- we are going to turn into VENEZUELA, VENEZUELA I TELL YOU!'

noonereal said:

LOL, what else can I say?

This is in no way factual nor logical.

Click to expand...

It's not only factual (as proven by the many socialist attempts we've had in history) it is also quite logical. How do you think socialism is even obtained? Through authoritative law. "give us X or you go to prison". "Pay 70% of your income to us so we can give it to these people or you go to prison." That is the very foundation of authoritarian rule. The more people get dissatisfied with such because it starts to take away from them the more a socialist government needs to put up laws to resist those that get dissatisfied with it. One of the first things to go with socialism is free speech and gun ownership. Look to Venezuela or Hitler as proof of that. Without either free speech or gun ownership The People have no voice and no way to defend themselves against the thing that they are dissatisfied with. Which leaves the government the ability to become a dictatorship. And in the end...they always do. This is historical fact and is current fact.

Acadia said:

You're right. AOC is anti-capitalist and want to grab what others have made and earned to redistribute wealth. AOC is lurching the Left further into identity politics and the culture of victimhood (which is to say intersectionality) and pitting whites vs. everyone else.

Click to expand...

Redistribution of wealth has been happening for the last 35+ years. Stagnant wages for the working/middle class. While corporations, and the wealthy have done extremely well during that time.

Pre-1980, CEO's made an average of 40-60x the average worker in the company.
Post-1980, CEO's make 400-1000x more than their average worker in the company.
That, did trickle down...to about the VP or Director level. Not much past that.

That did not just happen by accident.

That, is conservative economic policy. Reagan, Friedman, Mises.

noonereal said:

We have a capitalistic based economic system here but TRump is attempting o do the same thing . it is not the economic model that is the problem, it is the governing that is the principle problem. You continue with fallacies.

Click to expand...

Dragging Trump into a non-Trump related point. Your TDS is showing.

You've still not pointed out where there are any fallacies in my point which remains:

eohrnberger said:

A fundamental premise for Socialism and Communism.
Along with 'Some are more equal than others' - Usually the politically connected politburo members.

Click to expand...

Come back when you have something to say about the point made.

wellwisher said:

The living standard of the poor, is as good now, as the evil rich had 100 years ago.

Click to expand...

Yes, the poor now receive SNAP (Food Stamps) to avoid them from starvation, which was commonplace 100 years ago. The poor are eligible for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides them health coverage, which was lacking 100 years ago.

Let me emphasis that these two programs, Medicaid and SNAP are the progrms conservatives most wants to slash, and don’t even have large negative effects on work, according to the best available research done: (An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States).

Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious, which has never worked in all of human history.

Ocasio Cortez is a firm fixture in conservative heads. She's almost at Hillary level before her first year in office!

Kal'Stang said:

Well, to be fair capitalism does have its faults. No system is perfect. But unlike theocratic, socialist, monarchies and communist governments capitalism hasn't killed millions upon millions of people. Capitalism has in fact been one of the main reasons that we have a society that is as free as we have it right now.

Click to expand...

FDR:Necessitous Men are not Free Men’

2nd Bill of Rights:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

In sum, he stated, “All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

Click to expand...

That, is today's democratic socialism.

dobieg said:

*sniffle* Did the mean people with a brain make fun of your wet dream socialist?


I for one promise not to make fun of you for supporting a former Hooter's girl with the perky jubblies just because she talks a bunch of gibberish and gets the nickel head club drooling over the next Hugo Chavez.

Click to expand...

This post speaks volumes of your character.

And it is not pretty.

noonereal said:

You mean folks that were in the right place at the right time. Got it.

Click to expand...

Lucky sperm club!

Or have ONE good idea, and make a ton of money.....all of of sudden, these people are considered great thinkers? BS, they were lucky, and had good timing....(for the most part, there are always exceptions)

Excon said:

Obsessed? No.
Properly observant of her and her collective ideology.

Put it this way.
Given that your lean is Socialist; If you lived in a socialistic society that allowed freedom for alternative ideologies to be expressed and be elected within that society (something that wouldn't happen), you too would be as observant of someone elected who was expressing an ideology opposed to the one you currently lived under.

Click to expand...

Those things happen all the time in Norway, Sweden, France, The Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark.....

So yes, not only could it happen, it does happen.

(facts can be a bitch)

Manc Skipper said:

Ocasio Cortez is a firm fixture in conservative heads. She's almost at Hillary level before her first year in office!

Click to expand...

I see this statement in some form or other so many times that now all I can think of when I see it is a picture of a little kid sticking their fingers in their ears while hollering "I can't hear you!!!". To me it is just a sign of someone that can't rebut what is said but feels like they HAVE to say something in order to feel important. But I'm sure that they'll deny such over and over and yet despite that denial they'll never attempt to actually rebut what was originally said.

Kal'Stang said:

It's not only factual (as proven by the many socialist attempts we've had in history) it is also quite logical. How do you think socialism is even obtained? Through authoritative law. "give us X or you go to prison". "Pay 70% of your income to us so we can give it to these people or you go to prison." That is the very foundation of authoritarian rule. The more people get dissatisfied with such because it starts to take away from them the more a socialist government needs to put up laws to resist those that get dissatisfied with it. One of the first things to go with socialism is free speech and gun ownership. Look to Venezuela or Hitler as proof of that. Without either free speech or gun ownership The People have no voice and no way to defend themselves against the thing that they are dissatisfied with. Which leaves the government the ability to become a dictatorship. And in the end...they always do. This is historical fact and is current fact.

Click to expand...

The fact is you're conflating, and then riding it down a slippery slope into the dumpster.

Progressive taxes( that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela
limits on speech to prevent corruption (that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela.
limits on easy of obtaining guns to reduce gun violence (that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela.

You must hate America, and thinking we're a dictatorship, because we have each and every one of those things.
Most successful, low-corruption nations do in one form or another. Most I'd wager have more controls on all of the above, and are just as far from a dictatorship as we are.

What do you think our republic is? A check on individual power. And a check on government power.
What do you think our government with its separate branches offering checks/balances is? A check on government power.
What do you think voting does/ Helps check government power.
What do you think all laws do? Checks individual power.
Other laws? Check government power.
Are you seeing the actual common thread?

I think you should learn more before you type, you look at this through stupid-partisan glasses. You do know how you feeds you the stupid partisan view right? The party that wants your support??

There's only one major party leader in the U.S. right now who espouses things "like a dictator". Russia, NK, one leader loves these factual authoritarians. One leader relentless attacks the free press, tries to fire anyone investigating him, lies and uses propaganda for everything, etc. Hint hint.

Kal'Stang said:

It's not only factual (as proven by the many socialist attempts we've had in history) it is also quite logical. How do you think socialism is even obtained? Through authoritative law. "give us X or you go to prison". "Pay 70% of your income to us so we can give it to these people or you go to prison." That is the very foundation of authoritarian rule. The more people get dissatisfied with such because it starts to take away from them the more a socialist government needs to put up laws to resist those that get dissatisfied with it. One of the first things to go with socialism is free speech and gun ownership. Look to Venezuela or Hitler as proof of that. Without either free speech or gun ownership The People have no voice and no way to defend themselves against the thing that they are dissatisfied with. Which leaves the government the ability to become a dictatorship. And in the end...they always do. This is historical fact and is current fact.

Click to expand...

Kal, God Bless you.

You seem like a nice guy in PM.

Manc Skipper said:

Ocasio Cortez is a firm fixture in conservative heads. She's almost at Hillary level before her first year in office!

Click to expand...

Judging by the amount of press coverage she's getting, I'd say she's a 'firm fixture' in the leftist media's heads.

I think perhaps conservatives are responding to the leftist media's force feeding of that coverage.

Cramer said:

Lucky sperm club!

Or have ONE good idea, and make a ton of money.....all of of sudden, these people are considered great thinkers? BS, they were lucky, and had good timing....(for the most part, there are always exceptions)

Click to expand...

I have seen this all the way down the totem pole in business.

Is it OK to say Totem pole or will the left loonies descend upon me?

It's always something with the wingnuts or the left loonies.

Conservative said:

Wish more people understood personal responsibility so the rest of us didn't have to fund yours. Amazing how poorly informed and easily indoctrinated you are. It actually started long before Reagan back to JFK but you are too blinded by your own ideology and feelings to understand the foundation upon which this country was built and I assure you it wasn't socialism

Click to expand...

In Theory, The US Constitution, created a government of the people. The people are supposed to control government. Not monarchies. Not corporations. Not only wealthy people.

Of many, one.

That is closer to socialism, than to capitalism.

Where is capitalism mentioned in the Constitution?

There are many socialistic ideas in the Constitution. US Post as an example.

eohrnberger said:

Your reading comprehension needs work.

What I stated is historically accurate for both Socialism and Communism. Deal with it rather than baselessly attacking other forum members as being brainwashed.

Click to expand...

Who is advocating for Russia/China communism, or Venezuela style socialism?

Cramer said:

Redistribution of wealth has been happening for the last 35+ years. Stagnant wages for the working/middle class. While corporations, and the wealthy have done extremely well during that time.

Pre-1980, CEO's made an average of 40-60x the average worker in the company.
Post-1980, CEO's make 400-1000x more than their average worker in the company.
That, did trickle down...to about the VP or Director level. Not much past that.

That did not just happen by accident.

That, is conservative economic policy. Reagan, Friedman, Mises.

Click to expand...

This entire thread is answered in Paul Krugman's first blog post, Introducing This Blog, Sept. 18, 2007:

A few snippets:

[Prior to the Progressive Era] [p]ublic policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact; the politics of the era, in which working Americans were divided by racial, religious, and cultural issues, have recognizable parallels with modern politics.
...
The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal... income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains.
...
[Post WWII] society [was] without extremes of wealth or poverty, a society of broadly shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality. It was also a society in which... Democrats and Republicans agreed on basic values and could cooperate across party lines.

The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It’s important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality – even the rising inequality of Thatcherite Britain was a faint echo of trends here.

On the political side, you might have expected rising inequality to produce a populist backlash. Instead, however, the era of rising inequality has also been the era of “movement conservatism,” the term both supporters and opponents use for the highly cohesive set of interlocking institutions that brought Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich to power, and reached its culmination, taking control of all three branches of the federal government, under George W. Bush. (Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.)

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

Click to expand...

And it is worse now, 12 years later.

Mach said:

The fact is you're conflating, and then riding it down a slippery slope into the dumpster.

Progressive taxes( that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela
limits on speech to prevent corruption (that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela.
limits on easy of obtaining guns to reduce gun violence (that currently exist) = socialism = authoritarianism = dictatorship = Venezuela.

You must hate America, and thinking we're a dictatorship, because we have each and every one of those things.
Most successful, low-corruption nations do in one form or another. Most I'd wager have more controls on all of the above, and are just as far from a dictatorship as we are.

What do you think our republic is? A check on individual power. And a check on government power.
What do you think our government with its separate branches offering checks/balances is? A check on government power.
What do you think voting does/ Helps check government power.
What do you think all laws do? Checks individual power.
Other laws? Check government power.
Are you seeing the actual common thread?

I think you should learn more before you type, you look at this through stupid-partisan glasses. You do know how you feeds you the stupid partisan view right? The party that wants your support??

There's only one major party leader in the U.S. right now who espouses things "like a dictator". Russia, NK, one leader loves these factual authoritarians. One leader relentless attacks the free press, tries to fire anyone investigating him, lies and uses propaganda for everything, etc. Hint hint.

Click to expand...

1: Your TDS is showing. This thread is not about Trump.

2: Socialism in and of itself is not a bad thing. As long as it is limited. Severely limited. The US employ's some socialism and has for over a hundred years. But it is strict and limited. What AOC wants is to get rid of those strictures completely. That will lead to authoritarianism and in the end, a dictatorship.

3: I'm sure it would surprise you to know that I am all for UHC and completly free education. I have espoused for such many time across many threads and posts. Check my posting history if you don't believe me.

4: As I stated previously in this very thread, the only way socialism is going to work is if we have a society like that in Star Trek where replicator technology has abolished things like hunger and the need to buy, or even get, items from others.