Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[jdshock]

You bust your ass....I bust my ass - we should make an equal amount of $$$ right - it's up to you to make up the difference.

I absolutely do not believe we need to have a system where everybody makes an equal amount of money. Capitalism is really good at incentives, and people respond to incentives. I can't speak for every democrat, just as you cannot speak for every conservative, but I suspect very, very few liberals (and maybe zero of any elected officials) think we need a system where everybody gets paid an identical wage.

But I think people on both sides (see Tucker Carlson's somewhat recent comments) are starting to have issues with drastic income inequality. A surgeon making $600,000 a year vs a McDonald's employee making $20,000 is obviously a drastic difference, but it's nothing compared to a person making $100,000,000 on capital gains in a year.

[jdshock]

ShockTalk - I'm not sure what made you think I was talking about raising the minimum wage in this particular post (not that I'm not for it or actively avoiding it, I just wasn't talking about it here). I do think it's an interesting point.

Here is my issue with what you've said: you are proposing that if we raise the minimum wage (let's say to $12 an hour), automation will make certain jobs vanish. You are implying that automation is currently (or in the near future will be) competitive at $12/hour. If true, automation will undoubtedly be competitive at $7/hour in a not distant future. There is just no chance that the magic line that automation cannot cross is somewhere between $7/hour and $12/hour. The idea that artificially depressing the minimum wage is a good idea to stave off job loss due to automation? That is a band-aid solution. Automation will happen one way or another, it's just a question of how quickly.

[ShockTalk]

I only brought this up because of your McDonald's reference and my great concern over a shrinking middle class and a growing lower class, basically due to a lack of quality jobs and/or a lack of providing the retooling for workers for those newer, quality jobs.
The point was more this: minimum wage increases, particularly large increases, are bandages, not solutions for many workers. You make people feel good about receiving a larger minimum wage until they find out over the next couple of years that half of them have been priced out of a job due to automation being cheaper. People in these jobs are being given false hope. But they buy it because they're getting something more, or so they think.
No doubt, even higher educated workers are jobbed by capitalistic greed, that's why there needs to be a balance.

[moshock]

Equal wages across the board. Government owned everything. That is the root of Socialism and doesn't drive people to better themselves. Unfortunately - your party is headed that way. Hillary threatened to privatize oil. AOC wants a 70% tax on the rich. Barry dropped a giant turd in the punch bowl with health care. It's all based in leveling the playing field - socialism.

Is it fair for the person that is satisfied working for $20,000 per year at Mcd's - and not paying much if any taxes to be compensated by taking away from the $100,000,000 person ? Libtards like AOC want the guy who is making $100,000,000 to pay any where from 70%-90% income tax - where's the reward for brilliant ideas or hard work ? Just to be left with 10% - 30% !!!

The Koch family is one of the biggest employers in Wichita - think about the consequences if they were taxed at 70%-90%. There would be layoff's galore. I can guarantee that the donations to WSU would come to a halt if they have to pay that kind of rate.


Why not let people spend their hard earned $$$ where they want and create jobs by spending ? It worked during the Reagan admin and it's working now. Our sales have doubled since BO left office. I know I'm a small sample size but our products are for wealthy car collectors. They won't spend money if they are paying taxes with it.

I can vividly remember in the 70's when my Dad came home from his accountant and said he had made $205K and paid almost 1/2 of it in taxes. His comment was "I'll never do that again" . He was referring to paying that percentage in taxes.


My rant is over - I'll leave this forum (temporarily) by saying that I was raised Democrat and the party left me. What a bunch of whack jobs - and it's getting worse.

[Shox The Revenant]

Does Ben Shapiro make a valid argument against a socialists economy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdA2-CAJWjo&list=PLLThycM1OizRFOIp01-4Ca2Z85VYTk6Yu

[jdshock]

We all (presumably) agree that socialism and capitalism are just different ends of the same spectrum. We all (again, presumably) agree that we are not in an unfettered capitalistic society. So when do we cross the magic threshold and become more socialist than capitalist? CB said it was healthcare, but that seems like it was kind of pulled out of nowhere.

[moshock]

Ok I'm back - LOL - healthcare was a giant step towards the threshold if not over the line. My wife and I are in our mid 50's and were paying $350 +/- per month with a $3000 deductible pre Obamacare. Now we are forced to pay $2200 with a much larger deductible. I had two choices - make less money or work harder - all because I'm paying for someone else's healthcare.

Now AOC and the other libtards want Medicare for all ?? Something that will cost almost as much as the Nations income ?

I feel this giant sucking coming from Washington and I'm hanging on to my wallet.


BTW - Taxing the Rich ? I've figured out in my 58 years on Earth that politicians view "Rich" in a subjective way. Pretty much anyone over $50,000 per year with a job is considered rich. When they say tax the "Rich" - look out if you are an intelligent hard working person.

[ShockTalk]

We all (presumably) agree that socialism and capitalism are just different ends of the same spectrum. We all (again, presumably) agree that we are not in an unfettered capitalistic society. So when do we cross the magic threshold and become more socialist than capitalist? CB said it was healthcare, but that seems like it was kind of pulled out of nowhere.

[wufan]

We all (presumably) agree that socialism and capitalism are just different ends of the same spectrum. We all (again, presumably) agree that we are not in an unfettered capitalistic society. So when do we cross the magic threshold and become more socialist than capitalist? CB said it was healthcare, but that seems like it was kind of pulled out of nowhere.

When do we cross the line? We cross the line when we legislate equity. Equity means that, by law what you have no longer belongs to you, it belongs to somebody else because they need it more.

Taxation of everyone so that everyone can have access to a service is okay. The problem arises when most are paying nothing while the minority pay all of it. The “don’t pays” have externalities that cost a lot of money. We are nearing that tipping point where the majority are paying almost nothing. Health Care for all will probably push that balance so that we are more socialist than capitalist.

[wufan]

You're comparing apples to oranges, both (1) by conflating Soviet and Maoist policies with general socialism and (2) by comparing deaths under those regimes to a reduction in poverty. Surely you wouldn't be satisfied if I respond simply by saying "Capitalism has resulted in exorbitant resource consumption. Socialism kept the trains running on time." Those aren't the same thing.

Obviously, loads of people died under tyrannical communist governments throughout the history of the world. Undoubtedly that is true. Loads of people have died in the name of capitalism, though, too. Unregulated capitalism (to be clear, no one in this thread appears to be supporting such a thing) allowed millions to be sold into slavery. Unregulated capitalism provides incentives to engage in international wars over resource allocation. That could be anything from oil to diamonds to water. Unregulated capitalism, objectively this is true, means that individual firms do not feel the consequences of their externalities (by definition). If I can make $100, I don't care if I caused $100,000 worth of air pollution. Across the board, we can point to examples of injuries or deaths caused by capitalism, and millions more that could have been caused had a government not stepped in with key rules and regulations.

Capitalism is really good at leading to innovation. But it obviously has some problems. But only the most extreme (and I'm sure there are some on here) would ever want to go to an Upton-Sinclair-era form of capitalism. Right? Hopefully we can agree that some regulations are good. It's good for companies to have to meet certain food regulations. It's good for companies to experience consequences if they pollute too much.

And America's current brand of capitalism does an okay job at things like preventing slavery, at regulating food production, at regulating pollution, etc. But that's kind of the crux of the point: we are not an unfettered capitalistic society. There is a spectrum between socialism and capitalism. And things like Medicare for all and college tuition are certainly more toward the socialism end than the capitalism end, but so are public k-12 education, the FDA, and progressive tax brackets. The right is using socialism as this boogeyman to scare people away from universal healthcare, et al, rather than debating the merits of each particular point.

At what point would you say the United States is more socialist than capitalist?

I think my statements are the sentiments you are battling against when engaging a free market hawk. Maybe it’s apples and oranges, but the commy apple is rotten and the capitalist orange is juicy and delicious. Discarding the orange because it’s bruised doesn’t imply that you want to eat the rotten apple.

Certainly capitalism is hugely flawed. It didn’t kill 10 million or even 1 million people. It does kill a few, but saves more than it kills. It does cause harm, suffering, depression. Unfortunately it’s the best damn thing that’s ever happened to the world. Once the capitalists invent replicators, then we can live in communism.

also, capitalism didn’t create slavery; in fact free market countries were the first to outlaw slavery. Certainly they should have done this sooner, but it took a long time to resolve liberty rights and property rights. Just as liberty comes before property (happiness) in the Constitution, life comes before liberty. 100 years from now, people will be calling out pro-choice people of this century as abhorrent capitalists.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Healthcare spending accounts for nearly 18% of the country's GDP. The Federal government's share is 28.1% and households 28%. Private business spends 19.9% and state and local governments 17.1%. Other misc. private expenditures amount to 6.8%.

https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html

Based on the above data, a government takeover of the remaining private parts of healthcare would increase the government's share of GDP by 10%. In 2016, government spending, as a percentage of GDP, was nearly 40%. Add in nationalized healthcare and government spending will account for 50% of the GDP in America. I'm no Nobel prize winning mathematician but... when a tax-funded institution spends more every year than the private sector it taxes... well... somebody is either gonna have to increase taxes, find new natural resources within the U.S. territories that can be nationalized and sold, or load up the battleships and start a conquerin'...


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

I think my statements are the sentiments you are battling against when engaging a free market hawk. Maybe it’s apples and oranges, but the commy apple is rotten and the capitalist orange is juicy and delicious. Discarding the orange because it’s bruised doesn’t imply that you want to eat the rotten apple.

I honestly don't know what this means at all. I don't mean that socialism and capitalism are apples and oranges. I mean that inserting communism (a strict authoritarian political structure) as a comparison for socialism (an economic model that exists on a spectrum) is apples to oranges. I truthfully do not get the rest of your analogy at all.

Certainly capitalism is hugely flawed. It didn’t kill 10 million or even 1 million people. It does kill a few, but saves more than it kills. It does cause harm, suffering, depression. Unfortunately it’s the best damn thing that’s ever happened to the world. Once the capitalists invent replicators, then we can live in communism.

Yes, pure capitalism is deeply flawed. So is socialism at its extreme. The vast majority of reasonable people in this country agree. But that is my point. The stupid point that started this entire conversation. It's crazy to just say socialists are all ignorant or socialists all hate the rich when we can't even agree on what makes a person a "socialist." You and CB seem to think that if I love EVERYTHING about our current economic model except I also believe we should have universal healthcare that I am a socialist. Aside from anything else, that is absurd. In a country that has public education, significant numbers of federal and state entitlements, minimum wages, labor regulations, food and drug regulations, progressive income taxes, taxes on capital gains, etc., the breaking point is if we simply expand existing Medicare coverage? But even if that is true, THAT version "socialism" is as far removed from the evil regimes you are saying killed millions as our current economic system is removed from a system that allows slavery and privatized conflict over limited resources.

also, capitalism didn’t create slavery; in fact free market countries were the first to outlaw slavery. Certainly they should have done this sooner, but it took a long time to resolve liberty rights and property rights.

Seriously? Free market countries OUTLAWED slavery. That is not a capitalistic action. Surely you are willing to admit that, right? That is a government regulation of a free market system. That is not capitalistic whatsoever. Pure, unadulterated capitalism allows slavery. You don't have to champion pure, unadulterated capitalism. It's not our economic model and it never has been. But pure capitalism 100% allows slavery.

100 years from now, people will be calling out pro-choice people of this century as abhorrent capitalists.

That is one spicy, irrelevant, hot take.

[Kung Wu]

The argument is really about capitalism based on Christian ideals (what we have had for 200+ years) vs socialism pushing an atheistic/agnostic moral foundation (what the AOCs of the country want). Let's call it ChristCap vs AgSoc.

Go!

[Dave Stalwart]

Actually I’ve never thought about that before but that’s kinda right

[jdshock]

The argument is really about capitalism based on Christian ideals (what we have had for 200+ years) vs socialism pushing an atheistic/agnostic moral foundation (what the AOCs of the country want). Let's call it ChristCap vs AgSoc.

Go!

So slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. were all capitalism based on Christian ideals? I mean, to be fair, historically, Christianity was used to justify things like slavery.

"Christian ideals" should have nothing to do with one's opposition to government intrusion into areas such as healthcare, taxes, etc. Any argument that Christian ideals fall on your side of the big government debate can be met with an equally founded argument on the opposite side.

The idea that the real argument is about "ChristCap v. AgSoc" is a cop out answer. That's not the debate at all. It's just a convenient way to say "I want capitalism in every area except those areas I find morally repugnant." Any "Christian ideal" that is a government regulation meant to limit capitalism is still a government regulation of capitalism, and it moves the economic system closer to socialism.

[ShockingButTrue]

That's not the debate at all. It's just a convenient way to say "I want capitalism in every area except those areas I find morally repugnant." Any "Christian ideal" that is a government regulation meant to limit capitalism is still a government regulation of capitalism, and it moves the economic system closer to socialism.

What one considers morally repugnant is not a part of the modern socio/economic/political debate? SMGDH. Says you? Watched C-Span much lately?

This, from the prime initiator of the new green deal herself (allied with the -ahem- sunshine movement) :"Social movements are and should be the moral compass of our politics."

Now, digging further, she states her primary ideology: "I think there's a lot of people being more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right!" (emphasis mine). Is that just another way of describing a "false equivalent?" Do you agree with this statement?

Remind me again, who was it that said "Walls are immoral?"

But I do agree with you jd, surprisingly, in that injecting any form of a "moral equivalence" into a robust and stimulating political debate is stupid.

So, who's footin' the bill for this proposed bill?

[jdshock]

What one considers morally repugnant is not a part of the modern socio/economic/political debate? SMGDH. Says you? Watched C-Span much lately?

This, from the prime initiator of the new green deal herself (allied with the -ahem- sunshine movement) :"Social movements are and should be the moral compass of our politics."

Now, digging further, she states her primary ideology: "I think there's a lot of people being more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right!" (emphasis mine). Is that just another way of describing a "false equivalent?" Do you agree with this statement?

Remind me again, who was it that said "Walls are immoral?"

But I do agree with you jd, surprisingly, in that injecting any form of a "moral equivalence" into a robust and stimulating political debates is stupid.

So, who's footin' the bill for this bill?

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

The religious right has been brainwashed into thinking if you are Christian, you have to support the right. That it's Christianity and capitalism or it's atheism and socialism. And that's nonsense. All of the "moral" decisions made by our government over the last 200 years could be justified with religious or non-religious reasons. Capitalism, at its core, is not inherently tied to Christianity.

But it's the same thing we keep coming back to: these things are not as black and white as people want to act like. It's not good people vs the socialists. America is not one policy away from being a socialistic/communist tyranny. Not every policy throughout our nation's history was influenced by Christianity. Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right.

[atlwsu]

"Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right" is not a statement I can agree with.


"Not every policy that was justified by Christians was morally right" is a statement I can whole heartedly agree with.

[jdshock]

atlwsu - Slavery was morally wrong. Many people used Christianity as a basis for their justification for slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...o_abolitionism

Now, those people's view of Christianity almost certainly didn't align with your beliefs. They don't align with the vast majority of Christians in the world today. But, at the time, Christianity was used to justify slavery (and later to justify a ban on interracial marriage, by way of example).

Please be clear that I'm not saying this policy was justified by Christ, or justified by an accurate reading of the Bible, or whatever. But people used Christianity as the basis for their justifications. And, as further evidence of this whole silly debate, there were Christians who used their beliefs to justify banning slavery!

[Shockm]

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

This is true about where the Democrats are going and Modern Freedom in the Democrat Party
Capitalism and freedom=Democrat/Planned Parenthood Abortions
Democrat and freedom=Legalized Infanticide and late term abortions
Democrat=Medicare for all which will result in (because of high costs) Health Care Prioritizing (therefore less care for the elderly and for the most elderly no health care and even end of life decisions forced, except for the wealthy political class).
Democrat Green Deal=Higher taxes for middle class along with wealthy class

Each of these are freedom issues/economic decisions, and will mostly affect the middle class/lower class people. The wealthy elites, powerful, and politically connected will be able to afford their own care until death no matter what.

[ShockingButTrue]

Dunno where we got off the rails... but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Morality absolutely can play a role in political and even economic decision making. We just cannot act like the last 200 years represents the pinnacle of Christian ideals. And the broader point is that it's not a debate between Christian Capitalism and atheistic socialism. Any government regulation based on the principles of Christianity is inherently NOT free-market capitalism.

The religious right has been brainwashed into thinking if you are Christian, you have to support the right. That it's Christianity and capitalism or it's atheism and socialism. And that's nonsense. All of the "moral" decisions made by our government over the last 200 years could be justified with religious or non-religious reasons. Capitalism, at its core, is not inherently tied to Christianity.

But it's the same thing we keep coming back to: these things are not as black and white as people want to act like. It's not good people vs the socialists. America is not one policy away from being a socialistic/communist tyranny. Not every policy throughout our nation's history was influenced by Christianity. Not every policy that was justified by Christianity was morally right.

I'm "debating" the motive of one of the initiator's of the green deal (w/ the sunshine alliance), that being AOC. You know, the one whom this thread is about.

You didn't like the references to the proposal being intellectually lazy, among other opinions, as presented by AOC, to some of the members of this forum. She also has some pretty "rich" ideas about how to fund this proposed bill... Printing more money, for one... Can't that be a part of the debate?