Paying for these things would, I think, require big tax increases and decreased military funding. I imagine reduced foreign aid would be on the table, too. I think we are going to see—sooner rather than later—a battle for the future of the Democratic Party between the center left and the hard left (there’s not much left of the center-right).

The only reason they have “free” university in Europe is because they restrict who goes especially in Germany . The left here is so focused on equality of outcome they’d be outraged at college spots going mostly to whites and Asians

Wouldn’t be VAT disparetely impact women ?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

this would not be enough to fully underwrite the cost of the policy planks.

If AOC is truly a believer, she needs to forcibly support a FULL roll back of all bush tax cuts (and trump tax cuts natch) - not just the ones O codified stupidly after folding to the Rs.

That's a start. Next would be a financial transaction tax on trading, a VAT, perhaps a LVT as well.

Why does she NEED to? The GOP seems to be totally fine with blowing out debt and deficit with zero benefit to the American taxpayer, except the 1%. Are you a fiscal hawk all of the sudden?

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.

No it would not. That's the false belief of liberals.

Like this free college crap. There aren't enough "rich" 1% people to cover these payments. That's because they pay a lot per person, but as a whole, it doesn't go far because there are so few of them. You'd have to dip pretty far down into the taxpayer base for it to mean something.

You know what WOULD amount to real money? Take a look at those in the bottom 30% - 50%, who now pay only 3% of all income taxes. (The top half pays 97%.) if you required that bracket, meaning around 50 million people who currently pay zilch, to contribute a little something in return for all the benefits they receive as a result of being part of this country, now that would be significant.

The people in the bottom third would still be exempt.

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.

this would not be enough to fully underwrite the cost of the policy planks.

If AOC is truly a believer, she needs to forcibly support a FULL roll back of all bush tax cuts (and trump tax cuts natch) - not just the ones O codified stupidly after folding to the Rs.

That's a start. Next would be a financial transaction tax on trading, a VAT, perhaps a LVT as well.

Dems will never be socialists. Republicans call pretty much every economic policy they don't like socialism as it is. The worst thing we can do is to make it true.

I remember an election in junior high school. You know who won? The kid who promised free ice cream snacks at 2 p.m. (School went to 3:10, so before last period.) Never a mention as to how it would be paid for. Just "a free goodie if you vote for me!"

We never did get the ice cream though.

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.

jsteele wrote:Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Why? Socialism is indeed a scary word. That's all we need.

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

So what’s the difference between her and Democrats?

Anonymous wrote:Democrats going to be a socialist party http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395436-dnc-chair-ocasio-cortez-represents-the-future-of-our-party?amp

conservatives are so hyperbolic

Socialism is such a scary word. Can you point out her specific policies with which you disagree? Or is your issue one of vocabulary?

Democrats going to be a socialist party http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/395436-dnc-chair-ocasio-cortez-represents-the-future-of-our-party?amp