DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

The US used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90% and that was during a time that many conservatives consider the golden age of American capitalism.

We can agree that the U.S. has made many mistakes in the past; that does not mean we should repeat them.

And I noticed you left a few socialist countries off your list: namely Venezuela, Cuba, not to mention the defunct Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Socialism always fails.

Clearly none of the Democratic Socialists want to emulate those countries (with the possible exception of some aspects of Cuba's healthcare sector). Russia is now capitalist and as much as today's Republicans worship Putin, I doubt they want to emulate Russia completely.

Haven't you said time and time again that you delete posts from those awful conservatives when they make sweeping generalizations about Democrats? And then YOU make some sweeping (and asinine) claim that Republicans worship Putin? Get a grip.

You are right. My overly broad statement that today's Republicans don't want to emulate Russia completely was poorly stated and inaccurate. Many of them do want to emulate Russia completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is only in her 20s? She looks a lot older,

Completely relevant to her qualifications or this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seem to be assumptions that he was talking strictly about her platform when he said Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem Party. While in some areas there is solid support for pieces of her platform, like Medicare for All and state school tuition, loan forgiveness etc, I think what he meant was that young people, women, and people of color are the future of the Democratic Party. With that, I completely agree.

I know not a single rank amd file democrat who agrees with any of these policies, it’s Bernie dreamland. The tax increase necessary to fund even one of these programs, once known to the elctorate, would be enough to defeat any dem seriously supporting them. We can make healthcare and higher education affordable, we can’t make it free.

I meant support of those platform tenets among the electorate, not elected officials. As you alluded to, most electeds will have to move to center after primary season.

My overall point stands -- Ocasio-Cortez is young, is a women, and a person of color. She is energetic, willing to work hard (she literally wore out a pair of shoes walking door to door to meet people), and interested in identifying the needs of her constitutents and to talk to them (Crowley was not/did not).

If other Democrats have those qualities -- almost regardless of platform -- I think they will be successful and be able to have excessive voter turnout of the Dem base in their areas which is precisely what we need to continue to win.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

The US used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90% and that was during a time that many conservatives consider the golden age of American capitalism.

We can agree that the U.S. has made many mistakes in the past; that does not mean we should repeat them.

And I noticed you left a few socialist countries off your list: namely Venezuela, Cuba, not to mention the defunct Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Socialism always fails.

Clearly none of the Democratic Socialists want to emulate those countries (with the possible exception of some aspects of Cuba's healthcare sector). Russia is now capitalist and as much as today's Republicans worship Putin, I doubt they want to emulate Russia completely.

Haven't you said time and time again that you delete posts from those awful conservatives when they make sweeping generalizations about Democrats? And then YOU make some sweeping (and asinine) claim that Republicans worship Putin? Get a grip.

You are right. My overly broad statement that today's Republicans don't want to emulate Russia completely was poorly stated and inaccurate. Many of them do want to emulate Russia completely.

Republicans do not worship Putin.

But Democrats do worship Castro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Meh. I used to live in Sweden as a kid; income tax rate went as high as 90% (they let you keep 10% of what you earned, subject to other taxes).

They have scaled it back to ~64% in Sweden.

That doesn't exactly look like the capitalism our founders imagined, does it? I seem to remember something about an excessive tea-tax. . .

Besides, even North Korea & Cuba have allowed "expiraments" with capitalism, but don't fundamentally believe in private property ownership.

The US used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90% and that was during a time that many conservatives consider the golden age of American capitalism.

We can agree that the U.S. has made many mistakes in the past; that does not mean we should repeat them.

And I noticed you left a few socialist countries off your list: namely Venezuela, Cuba, not to mention the defunct Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Socialism always fails.

Clearly none of the Democratic Socialists want to emulate those countries (with the possible exception of some aspects of Cuba's healthcare sector). Russia is now capitalist and as much as today's Republicans worship Putin, I doubt they want to emulate Russia completely.

Haven't you said time and time again that you delete posts from those awful conservatives when they make sweeping generalizations about Democrats? And then YOU make some sweeping (and asinine) claim that Republicans worship Putin? Get a grip.

You are right. My overly broad statement that today's Republicans don't want to emulate Russia completely was poorly stated and inaccurate. Many of them do want to emulate Russia completely.

Republicans do not worship Putin.

But Democrats do worship Castro.

Want to emulate Denmark maybe, but not Cuba.... I've met apologists for Cuba on the left; I've never met anyone that wanted to emulate Cuba.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans do not worship Putin.

But Democrats do worship Castro.

The leading Republican yesterday sided with a Russian dictator over his own country. Name one Democratic leader who has down anything close with regard to Castro?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans do not worship Putin.

But Democrats do worship Castro.

The leading Republican yesterday sided with a Russian dictator over his own country. Name one Democratic leader who has down anything close with regard to Castro?

You missed the point. You made a broad sweeping generalization about Republicans worshipping Putin (which is ridiculous), when you object to conservatives making a broad sweeping generalization about Democrats - and delete those posts. So you delete generalizations about Ds and then make a ridiculous generalization about Rs. Just pointing out the inconsistency.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans do not worship Putin.

But Democrats do worship Castro.

The leading Republican yesterday sided with a Russian dictator over his own country. Name one Democratic leader who has down anything close with regard to Castro?

You missed the point. You made a broad sweeping generalization about Republicans worshipping Putin (which is ridiculous), when you object to conservatives making a broad sweeping generalization about Democrats - and delete those posts. So you delete generalizations about Ds and then make a ridiculous generalization about Rs. Just pointing out the inconsistency.

Again, the leading Republican demonstrated before the entire world his worship of Putin. That is undeniable. Not a single member of his administration has resigned in protest. Other than a few never-Trumpers, most of whom have already announced their retirements, Republicans officials have not criticized the President. I see no grassroots rebellion against him. On what basis do you suggest my generalization is inaccurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seem to be assumptions that he was talking strictly about her platform when he said Ocasio-Cortez is the future of the Dem Party. While in some areas there is solid support for pieces of her platform, like Medicare for All and state school tuition, loan forgiveness etc, I think what he meant was that young people, women, and people of color are the future of the Democratic Party. With that, I completely agree.

I know not a single rank amd file democrat who agrees with any of these policies, it’s Bernie dreamland. The tax increase necessary to fund even one of these programs, once known to the elctorate, would be enough to defeat any dem seriously supporting them. We can make healthcare and higher education affordable, we can’t make it free.

I meant support of those platform tenets among the electorate, not elected officials. As you alluded to, most electeds will have to move to center after primary season.

My overall point stands -- Ocasio-Cortez is young, is a women, and a person of color. She is energetic, willing to work hard (she literally wore out a pair of shoes walking door to door to meet people), and interested in identifying the needs of her constitutents and to talk to them (Crowley was not/did not).

If other Democrats have those qualities -- almost regardless of platform -- I think they will be successful and be able to have excessive voter turnout of the Dem base in their areas which is precisely what we need to continue to win.

You misread— the democrats I know, not elected officials, don’t support any of these policies. That is why Hillary got millions more votes than Bernie. It is a mistake to ignore this.

Jealous is goimg to be a good litmus test. Front page story in the Baltimore Sun today is that his proposed healthcare plan will cost more than $24 billion.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You misread— the democrats I know, not elected officials, don’t support any of these policies. That is why Hillary got millions more votes than Bernie. It is a mistake to ignore this.

Jealous is goimg to be a good litmus test. Front page story in the Baltimore Sun today is that his proposed healthcare plan will cost more than $24 billion.

Ocasio-Cortez herself has said that her platform won't play everywhere (though she thinks it will be popular in places that other don't). Her argument has been that a deep blue district like hers deserves a deep blue candidate. More mainstream candidates are appropriate for districts that are more mixed. Jealous is not a good litmus test because he is running against one of the few sane Republicans left. That race would be a challenge for any Democrat.

You need to put away your Hillary-Bernie bifocals and look at the world more clearly. The 2016 primary is over. You wouldn't want Hillary to be a litmus test for Democrats would you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a democrat and hard to see her having much of a career in politics unless she changes course. She is doubling down on the worst of Bernie’s divisiveness. Traveling to other states to get involved in their primaries? She hasn’t even been elected yet.

OMG this.

You might think that because you assume everyone agrees with you.


They don't. And it's entirely likely that you could find yourself being run out of your party in a decade or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is only in her 20s? She looks a lot older,

Completely relevant to her qualifications or this thread.

Well, she doesn’t have any qualifications, so . . .

[Anonymous]

Has a long Congressional career ahead of her followed by a lobbying gig if she wants it. Seen this movie before. Zzzzzzzzz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a democrat and hard to see her having much of a career in politics unless she changes course. She is doubling down on the worst of Bernie’s divisiveness. Traveling to other states to get involved in their primaries? She hasn’t even been elected yet.

OMG this.

You might think that because you assume everyone agrees with you.


They don't. And it's entirely likely that you could find yourself being run out of your party in a decade or so.

If the party is running people out of it, it won’t be winning many elections. You don’t seem to have a very good grasp of how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her policy planks but has she articulated specifically how she would pay for them? Tobin tax? Wealth tax? What levels?

I imagine rolling back the Trump tax cut, and the Bush tax cuts for the top wealth-holders would go a long way toward payment.

You would be completely mistaken. You would need hundreds of billions in revenue beyond that. I