Smart, focused, bold


If you really want to drain the swamp, you need AOCs to stir the pot of stagnant, do-nothing fatberg sludge. Love or hate her policies, she is a true game changer.

reply

She has Republicans scurrying, they are scared to death of her.

reply

Democrats are shitting over the new populists. Republicans are laughing to reelection!

reply

This lady is blessing for the right

reply

Is that why Faux News is running a non-stop smear campaign? They bashed her 42 days straight. She must be doing something right that is scaring foreigners.

reply

Republicans see her as an opportunity to expose just how stupid and naive Dems are. Everyone knew it, but now she's saying these idiotic things out loud and the Dems aren't shutting her up. They are complicit in their silence.

She will deliver many votes to the Republican side.

But, every true American should be afraid of any of these ridiculously stupid policies being attempted.

reply

What idiotic things, she seems pretty sharp. It doesn't matter what she says anyway, Hollywood dems will vote blue, Dittoheads will vote red.

reply

Well, when informed that her torpedoing Amazon from moving to NY because of the 3B in tax concessions NY was going to use to entice Amazon, she said they would be better to spend the 3 billion on infrastructure!!

reply

She said the pentagon lost 19 trillion last year, except in the entire history of the pentagon the budget is 17 trillion.

reply

You have it wrong both ways, lol.

reply

It was 21 trillion, not 19 she said they lost. my bad

reply

Goes to show the importance of fact checking. Her, us, everyone.

reply

I'm not an elected official making a public release about it. She couldn't have been more off.

reply

So you want to fact check elected officials? I got a doozy for you. Let me know, it'll be a big surprise.

reply

That is right, assuming she actually said it. Amazon yanks everyone's chain. Enough with welfare capitalism. If capitalism is so great let companies pay their own way... But oh wait.

reply

That is right? That is right?

Unless you're trolling, this country is more screwed up that I thought.

reply

1% own 90% of the wealth but need handouts from people barely making a living to build their hotels, sports arenas, warehouses, etc. Yeah, I'm trolling. Turn off Rush and wake up.

reply

According to CNN, it's more like 39 percent. Stop reading the NY Times...

https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/inequality-record-top-1-percent-wealth/index.html

If you **confiscate** all the money from the one percenters and apply it to the US budget, it won't even cover a single year. What happens next year when you've killed the goose that pays the golden eggs?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20 percent will pay almost 90 percent of all income tax paid.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-1523007001

The "rich" just don't have enough money to do what simple minded socialists think can be done. Progressive Socialists are just like the Apollo moon deniers: no matter how much evidence is presented, they stubbornly refuse to believe man landed on the moon because they wrap their head around the feat.

Same with socialism. No matter how much evidence points out that redistribution of wealth will cause a massive economic depression, they refuse to believe it.

I'm not surprised you can't understand this, but you're just some guy like me commenting on politics on a movie forum. OAC however was elected as a congresswoman by a whole group of people who were fed the same inane socialist ideals. That's why she deserves the derision she gets. It's no sin to be naive and dumb, but not when you think you know enough to run for congress.

reply

You're going way off topic. I'm just talkin about capital is being able to pay for their own businesses. if the people who own 90% of the wealth can't pay for it then how do you expect the people with only own 10% of the wealth to pay for it. Also socialism has never failed while capitalism has failed many times.

reply

Welfare capitalism...

Wow.

Welfare is when you hand out money to someone who pays nothing to the system. Takers only.

"Welfare capitalism" is a term applied by those who either don't understand how capitalism works or thinks socialism is a better system. It's rare for a company to be handed CASH with no taxes paid. Most "Welfare Capitalism" is in the form of a TAX ABATEMENT that allow a company to either continue to exist, or typically, expand and create new jobs. The company continues to pay tax, only a reduced level. The people working for these "welfare" cases continue to pay income tax. These workers also buy goods and services from others.

So I guess any deductions (abatement) the feds allow you to take on your income tax filing is also welfare, correct?

The sad case of AOC is that when Amazon pulled out of NY, she cheered the loss of 25,000 high paying jobs because she didn't want to hand Amazon 3 billion dollars. She actually thought NY was going to hand Amazon 3 billion dollars!! Someone else who doesn't understand "tax abatement". This is fine when you overhear a bunch of misinformed college kids talking at a table at Starbucks, but not from a congresswoman.

reply

So what is wrong with people paying their own way through life? Why does Jeff bezos need a welfare check from the people in order to build a new Warehouse?

reply

No one thought NY was going to hand Amazon 3 billion dollars. You're delusional dude.

reply

Hard to believe.

But, here you go. Enjoy:

"The city was paying for those jobs so frankly if we were willing to give Amazon so if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers, we can fix our subways, we can put a lot of people to work for that money if we wanted to."

Actually, it was a pretty good plan but they didn't go far enough. AOC should have offered Amazon a bazillion dollars, then pulled the offer back and invest that bazillion dollars in NY and pay off the national debt with the money left over..

reply

My apologies, I hadn't seen that quote. And you're right, it does make her sound vapidly ignorant. I hope someone's pointed out the gaping maw in her logic so she understands why that's wrong.

In her tiny defense she is young and will inevitably make some mistakes; in my opinion her grasp of fiscal policy is undoubtedly her greatest weakness. I saw her trying to use Modern Monetary Theory to explain away funding concerns for the Green New Deal the other day.

It worries me MMT has become the new Laffer Curve by some politicians on the left (not academics) to dismiss the need for fiscal accounting. I assumed it was a deliberately superficial reading of MMT adopted for rhetorical expedience, but maybe I was being too generous in assuming that too.

reply

My fear is that she's just a sock for a bunch of loonie college professors who have never worked in the private sector.

Anyone can make mistakes, and anyone can learn if they're willing. What really disturbs me is that she was elected being wholly unqualified. What does that say for us?

reply

Lol, she's a sock but you're the one who won't answer my question about why the top 1% need handouts from the bottom 99%. Chirp chirp.

reply

Your question makes zero sense. To attempt to answer it makes even less sense. There's no surprise you think AOC is brilliant. I'm sure compared to you, she is..

reply

Don't blame your inability to answer a simple question on me. it's not my fault that answering the question would break your fragile world view.

reply

Answering your question is like answering "why is the sky green". You don't understand why your question makes no sense so there's no point in explaining why it doesn't. It's like arguing with a flat-earther or Apollo denier (you're probably one or both of those as well).

Tell you what; don't respond to any of my posts and I'll return the favor.

reply

I'm sure you would love it if I didn't respond since my responses are no doubt uncomfortable.

Actually there is nothing wrong with my question and the answer is very simple, any business major would answer it without hesitation, the answer is this ... to minimize risk and maximize profit. Politicians pay companies in the form of tax credits, lowered taxes, and sometimes they just outright pay for construction because it brings jobs to the area and that makes the politician look good. The capitalist wins by minimizing their own investment and suckering the public into paying for their business. Now in truth it's not always a bad arrangement for the taxpayer. Cities often pay for hotel and convention centers because without them no one will come to their city but all the profits are privatized. Investing capital in a company is literally capitalism but the investor should expect a return and a stake in the company but the deals are lop sided, the politicians win, the capitalists win (big time), but the general public only gets a small return on their investment. If capitalists acknowledged that and made general concessions in the form of higher wages and better benefits then the deal would be more balanced but that isn't happening. And in other cases, companies just flat out get welfare checks. Oil is the most profitable business sector yet gets upward of 20 billion tax payer green backs a year. A further consequence is the people running the businesses have less economic stake and less risk but receive most of the profit which not uncommonly leads to carelessness and risk taking that is once again pawned off on the tax payer when the company fails. That is not a working economic system, it's an exploitation system. And don't even get me started mutual funds and how they are used to scam the public.

People can understand the same things you understand and not agree with you, that doesn't make them trolls or sock puppets or anything else.

reply

Uh, the country elected a president who was wholly unqualified and remains wholly unqualified and completely ignorant of economics and trade.

That says a lot more about us than AOC being elected out of one district in New York. She's capable of learning, unlike the president.

reply

"Ignorant of economics" have you seen how well its doing?

reply

What does that have to do with his very clear ignorance of economics? The fundamental theory of comparative cost advantage in international trade is an integral part of any typical first-year undergraduate economics curriculum. If Trump were to take a first year undergrad exam he would fail. His ideas on trade are bizarre and nonsensical.

The economic and eventually political impact of his trade war in the medium term will be immense. As will his gross mismanagement of fueling an already growing economy with irresponsible tax cuts and spending increases. What you're noticing is the sugar high of irresponsible government spending increases artificially inflating economic growth. Responsible governance means paying DOWN the debt during periods of growth.

reply

The jury is still out on Trump (those interested in the truth that is), but one thing is for sure; the U.S. has been royally ass-porked in trade agreements for decades from deals brokered by presidents from both parties.

In any case, while it may not be saying much, Trump was far more qualified than Hillary: the most corrupt and evil politician to ever run for president.

reply

I had assumed you had some economics background seeing as how you made a reference below about not being able to teach an econ course in a chat forum. Now you've made it clear you wouldn't be qualified to teach economics in any forum with your statement "royally ass-porked in trade agreements for decades". You've drank the Trump kool-aide. Economists across the political divide know that's utter horseshit plied by Trump rooted in his ignorance of the economics of free trade.

reply

Trump Kool Aid?

Where have you been junior?

This has been going on since the 1960s, and no president of either party has done anything to mitigate it.

Trump is playing hard-ball with the tariffs. This may backfire or it may reset the playing field. Time will tell.

reply

God you literally don't have the slightest clue what you're even talking about.

It hasn't been going on since the 60s because NAFTA didn't even go into force until 1994 and China didn't officially become a member of the WTO until 2001. You don't even seem to understand the root of Trump's complaints about getting "ripped off". He's ignorantly referring to China and Mexico because he doesn't understand how the US benefits from free trade ... but neither do you. Regardless, those trade agreements were decades from even being conceived of in the 1960s. For your sake, please stop embarrassing yourself.

In the sixties the US dominated trade markets in the western world while the eastern bloc was sequestered behind the Iron Curtain. Your claim is hysterically ignorant. In fact, the US was still honoring the Bretton Woods agreement in the sixties enjoying the longest period of prosperity the country had ever seen. The country was reaping the fruits of rebuilding the post WW2 economic order while dictating trade policy as the single, most dominant economic engine the globe had ever seen. There wasn't even a remote 2nd. It wasn't until Nixon abruptly left Bretton Woods and imposed a surtax on all imports in 1972 that led to a decade of stagflation in the 70s. But that wasn't because of countries "ripping us off", it was a direct result of Nixon's protectionism.

For you I'd recommend educating yourself before trying to talk about a subject you clearly know nothing about. You could start by reading some Allen Matusow, the shrewdest student of postwar US economic policy through Nixon.
https://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Economy-Booms-Busts-Dollars/dp/0700608885
Matusow wrote how Nixon governed not according to what would work in the long term, but by “the prevailing mood of the two-thirds of the country he called the ‘constituency of uneducated people.’” Trump is doing the same today. That's your ilk son.

reply

Frankly, it's astounding that anyone would think that the "unfair" trade practice calls have started under Trump. Product dumping and export subsidizing has been going on by many countries since the 1970s.

Here's a link to trade tariffs under Bill Clinton:

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/28/business/us-imposes-heavy-tariffs-on-steel-from-19-countries.html

Foreign traders have been selling goods and materials for under cost in the U.S. for years in order to expand markets and damage or eliminate competition.

Intellectual theft is the most damaging of all to U.S. production, and this is more recent. China forces U.S. companies to actually turn over technology in order to sell product in that country.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/14/china-must-stop-forcing-us-firms-share-intellectual-property-peter-navarro-column/563151001/

Intellectual property transfers and outright theft are the biggest problem the West (including the U.S.) faces today, and this was likely the trigger for Trump's actions.

"How does China acquire intellectual property?

American firms have to agree to set up a partnership, or joint venture, with a Chinese company to sell their goods in China, with technology transfer thrown into the bargain. Though this type of quid pro quo is formally disallowed by the WTO, analysts say such negotiations are usually conducted in secret.
"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-is-the-us-accusing-china-of-stealing-intellectual-property-2018-04-05

reply

Export subsidies are prohibited by the WTO dude. That's why the WTO was created, to create an international body to enforce compliance with fair trade practices. It's no coincidence your article was dated from 1993 under GATT just before the creation of the WTO.

But export subsidies and product dumping are not good examples of other countries "ripping us off" either. Think about it. What export subsidies do is in effect lower prices for American producers and consumers. Quite the opposite of 'ripping us off' it's actually making shit cheaper for us. It's an unfair trade practice because it's a foreign government putting its hand on the scale to protect domestic industry in their own markets which in turn makes it more difficult for American companies in that industry to compete. But call it what it is; it's blatant protectionism and an unfair trade practice. But lowering our prices is not "ripping us off".

IP theft is a different issue but "technology transfer" isn't IP theft. That's American companies violating WTO rules giving away their technology to profit from Chinese markets. It's an unfair trade practice that US companies would be better off standing collectively against and taking to the WTO for adjudication. But make no mistake, they are fully engaged and complicit. They know they're selling their IP to China when they negotiate in secret, yet they've made the business decision to profit and get ahead. Some companies like Google have chosen not to; in part because they don't want to give away the keys to their tech.

Real IP theft (corporate espionage) is admittedly a more recent issue, but it was not the base trigger for Trump's actions (even while it's been wisely used by his reps as justification); you need look no further than his own words every time he tries to justify his trade war. He ignorantly points to trade deficits and believes that's somehow reflective of America getting ripped off and "losing" on trade. He's an idiot. I've only seen his advisers cite IP theft. If he's ever mentioned it at all it's as an afterthought and most likely from their suggestion.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-exasperating-ignorance-on-trade-2018-08-30

reply

Chirp chirp, still haven't answered my question about why the top one percent need my money to build their business? The truth is, capitalism as we practice it isn't working. It consolidates profits into private pockets while distributing debt and consequence to the public.

reply

I can't teach a course in economics in a chat forum, but of course, even a formal education in economics did AOC no good..

You're a socialist. Fine. Just come out and admit it and say you want everyone on the same economic level, even if everyone has nothing.

reply

Next time you are teaching economics, lol, give my question some thought, might open your eyes even if just a tiny bit.

reply

Not really, we just enjoy laughing at her and her complete lack of knowledge.

reply

I'm actually beginning to think Trump paid her to run and secretly financed her campaign.

reply

Deep down we all know who's pulling our politicians strings, Russians or Top 1% corporations. Only she and Bernie are honest enough to save this country now from evil billionaires.

reply

Obviously you've never heard of the Grey Overlords from Rigel 10. They've been controlling mankind since the end of the last ice age. There's proof everywhere!

reply

Russians! LOL

Russia loves the American left and vise versa.

Didn't Bernie honeymoon in Moscow?

reply

Changing the game is not necessarily a good thing, especially when it's done by an inexperienced, arrogant, air-headed twit.

reply

And yet Trump. Cheer up, it's all uphill from here.

reply

She was so smart that she was a bartender for 7 years.

reply

Bootstraps right? I thought dittos loved bootstraps.

reply

Thats boobstraps. They are hawt.

reply

She doesn't have policies. Rainbows and unicorns are not a policy.

reply

In other words, you like the way she looks.

reply

Moronic, focused, bold

reply