If she represents the future of the Democratic Party, then we can be sure the Dems will have difficulty winning elections in the coming years.

Anonymous wrote:This is much ado about nothing.

So a left-wing candidate defeated a moderate in a deep-blue district.

If this was a Senate primary it would be a big deal because senators have to be more moderate in order to appeal to a broader electorate that encompasses an entire state vs a district. There are plenty of far-left and far-right wing congressmen.

It was a localized issue with limited national significance until Perez - who is, after all the chair of the DNC - said that Cortez represented the future of the Democratic party.

This is much ado about nothing.

So a left-wing candidate defeated a moderate in a deep-blue district.

If this was a Senate primary it would be a big deal because senators have to be more moderate in order to appeal to a broader electorate that encompasses an entire state vs a district. There are plenty of far-left and far-right wing congressmen.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I remember a party - allegedly of adults - that claimed to be for fiscal conservatism, but then they started two wars for fun, tanked the world economy, and gave a billion dollar tax cut they couldn’t pay for.

Anonymous wrote:I think Cortez should go and campaign for all those Democratic senators who are up for election in those red states.

After all, given that she is the "future of our party" according to Perez, let those voters in the red states see the Utopia that awaits them with the Democrats.

Too delicious to contemplate.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is a label dems are embracing. Not a label placed on them by R’s. Bernie, AOC, SELF PROCLAIMED SOCIALISTS.

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?

DP here. I'm looking at her plantform and will very briefly address her socialist points.

I don't support a federal jobs guarantee. I also don't support a national minimum wage because it encourages paying slave wages to illegal immigrants and further exploiting them. I would prefer federal funding for training or retraining of workers or infrastructure spending than a jobs guarantee. She doesn't go into why we have stagnant wages or how to solve that problem.

I don't support housing as a human right. She lives in a city with rent control. Left and right-wing economists agree, rent control is bad. It encourages builders to build luxury properties, and disincentivizes landlords to upgrade and expand their properties and to do as little maintenance as possible. Ending rent control will cause short term pain for low income renters, but long term benefit by incentivizing increasing the housing supply and better maintenance of the existing supply. Why is there a shortage of affordable housing and an oversupply of luxury housing?

I don't support medicare for all. It doesn't solve the problem of scarcity, you just have to ration care rather than allow those who can pay for it have care (care is limited). Changing how we educate doctors (make it an undergrad degree like the rest of the world), increasing the number of NPs and PAs, would likely drop the amount of compensation that those in the medical care field receive, but increase the number of them. Her solution doesn't look at why our medical system costs as much as it does, and disincentivizes investment.

I don't support higher education for all. Perhaps I might support free higher ed for the top 5% of HS students who have familiy incomes under 100k. Her solution doesn't look at why things are as costly as they are and why states were able to offer free/reduced tuition in the past.

Anonymous wrote:For those afraid of “socialism”, know that the military is socialism. We have a socialist military paid for and run by the government.

Why not have a private military run 100% by mercenary contractors? That would be cheaper and more efficient. Plus we wouldn’t have to pay unless we are in a war.

A cheaper model would be to do what the Swiss do. The downside is that you would not be able to project power abroad, and there would be considerably fewer jobs, and R&D money out there, connected to US defense spending.

For those afraid of “socialism”, know that the military is socialism. We have a socialist military paid for and run by the government.

Why not have a private military run 100% by mercenary contractors? That would be cheaper and more efficient. Plus we wouldn’t have to pay unless we are in a war.

Anonymous wrote: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

equality of outcomes (specifically going to college or not) doesn't matter as much if redistribution from taxes, transfers, and other policy controls is strong enough.

The delta between a doctor and mechanic in Germany is vastly smaller than the delta between those two occupations in the US, after taking into account taxation, safety net, public services.

so it matters less in Germany if you go to uni in the first place

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t be VAT disparetely impact women ?

Netherlands has a vat, and dutch women are way happier than American women.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just like the Trump tax cuts for the 99% then.

Anonymous wrote: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

Bingo! Winner of the thread awards!

And this extends to the broader idea of providing free benefits to.....whoever liberals think deserves them. You CANNOT have a policy that allows an unlimited number of poor people to swarm in and them provide free everything to all poor people. You either restrict the number of poor people allowed in, or restrict the benefits poor people get. Why can't liberals grasp this simple concept?

I think Cortez should go and campaign for all those Democratic senators who are up for election in those red states.

After all, given that she is the "future of our party" according to Perez, let those voters in the red states see the Utopia that awaits them with the Democrats.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Many -isms get tossed around too lightly.