AOC may be out of a job

[Moriarty]

@Loach

She’s a socialist. She doesn’t believe in capitalism…All things she has said recently…

Please help me out here with the words she used.

In my world, somebody who is a socialist who doesn’t believe in capitalism believes that there should be no private enterprise in their country and favors government confiscation of private property.

Whereas wanting to raise taxes to pay for a broader social safety net is entirely consistent with a ‘belief in capitalism’ (unless you think that America is already an anti-capitalist socialist society, what with our public high schools and “free” 911 calls).

I thought she favored the latter, which people twist to make it seem like she wants the former.

[md2000]

The real question is - where is the population shift? I see a difference in a quick look that city districts are already on the high side of population (729,500 for #4, 757,000 for #5, 708,000 in AOC’s 14, #17-741,000) and some upstate rural ones are a little more sparse. ( #21 -701,000, #22-697,000, #23-693,000, and except for Albany’s 722,000 and urban Buffalo and Rochester, most of the rest hover around 700,000.) I’m going to guess the newer census probably increases that divide even more, in favour of urban areas.

So yes, a lot of boundaries will shift, but it would be hard to finagle boundaries in any other way than to add to NYC or at least keep it the same and lose in the greater New York outback -merge Buffalo and Rochester districts with parts of their surrounding #27 then shift everyone else’s boundaries accordingly to balance population to eliminate #27.

My Congressional District

19.54M (2018) with 26 districts means 751,000 per district.

[RioRico]

@Loach

She’s a socialist. She doesn’t believe in capitalism.

Harry Truman said it:

[GOP Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this [1948] campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports. [when farms were mostly family affairs]

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

Socialism, hot-cha-cha! Ooga-booga, whitey! Socialism gonna getcha! I note that European “social democracies” have higher living standards and more socio-economic mobility than the corporate-fascist* US. Funny about that.

• Benito Mussolini defined his invention “fascism” as corporate control of government. Adam Smith said his invention “capitalism” requires tight government control. What a socialist!

[Ludovic]

@md2000

So yes, a lot of boundaries will shift, but it would be hard to finagle boundaries in any other way than to add to NYC or at least keep it the same and lose in the greater New York outback -merge Buffalo and Rochester districts with parts of their surrounding #27 then shift everyone else’s boundaries accordingly to balance population to eliminate #27.

Yeah, I’d say #27 is the one to eliminate. Buffalo grabs more of its suburbs especially in the north and east, Rochester gets most of Ontario and part of Wayne County (the latter from Syracuse), Syracuse gets part of Seneca and Ontario county from #23 and Oneida Lake from #22, #22 expands to include Ithaca and Elmira, then the remnants of #23 and #27 merge.

[phantom_lamb]

@galen_ubal

It’s her success - and that of the widening progressive movement - that has conservatives so worried. Best to cut her down before she gets too popular.

I hear quite often from the right that they want her (and Omar, etc.) to stay active as they are some of Trump’s biggest assets in a way and I see their point. So it literally can’t be both this and that.

[md2000]

The old joke goes - “With capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. With communism, it’s the other way around.”

People who seriously object to socialism don’t seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.) Most people (except Betsy Devoss?) don’t seem to object to socialist primary and secondary school, provided by the government and paid for by compulsory contributions from all taxpayers.

So the question isn’t “Socialism?” the question is “What do you want your socialism to include?”

When people throw around tens of trillions of dollars of cost for socialized medicine, for example - they are blowing smoke out their ass. It’s a demonstrable fact that to cover significantly less than 100% of the costs for significantly less than 100% of the population, the USA spends much more per capita on health care than most civilized countries. The only thing to understand is that this money will be more evenly distributed as taxes instead of employer or employee premiums, co-pays, houses sold in bankruptcy, and garnisheed wages.

But a warning on the other side. Trump blusters about how the other NATO members are not paying their fair share… this is because the other countries spend the lager portion of taxes on health care, not on military hardware.

[RioRico]

@md2000

People who seriously object to socialism don’t seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.)

MrsRico and I were software engineers at an old San Francisco firm, Fireman’s Fund Insurance. (Later killed off by its German purchaser.) Back in the day, the insured displayed plaques showing their coverage. If a private fire crew came to a building lacking their plaque, they let it burn. That was the era of Great Fires. Then San Francisco started municipal fire squads and ruined business. Damn.

A futuristic non-socialist emergency response system might work something like auto insurance. All residents and establishments are required to buy coverage from some firm. Smartphones or dongles broadcast your coverage codes. Whomever responds will bill the appropriate insurer, if any. If you’re not covered, tough. Sure, we’d have multiple private police, fire, medical, and accident cleanup responders, not just a jurisdiction’s crisis networks, but who needs efficiency? Let fire and cop shops compete for business. It’s the American Way.

MrsRico and I came upon Chinese language FireFund plaques and donated one to the company museum. I’ve not looked but I’ll guess websites exist for to fire plaques.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

He wasn’t. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with young, energetic and talented progressives running for Democratic office in safe blue seats, even against other Democrats. I was talking about what AOC has done since being elected.

You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@md2000

The old joke goes - “With capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. With communism, it’s the other way around.”

People who seriously object to socialism don’t seem to have a problem with socialist roads and water supply or fire departments, for example. The government or a designated monopoly handles the sole sourcing of the service. (In the good old days, fire departments were paid for by insurance companies and only put out fires if your building displayed a placard from that insurance company.) Most people (except Betsy Devoss?) don’t seem to object to socialist primary and secondary school, provided by the government and paid for by compulsory contributions from all taxpayers.

So the question isn’t “Socialism?” the question is “What do you want your socialism to include?”

When people throw around tens of trillions of dollars of cost for socialized medicine, for example - they are blowing smoke out their ass. It’s a demonstrable fact that to cover significantly less than 100% of the costs for significantly less than 100% of the population, the USA spends much more per capita on health care than most civilized countries. The only thing to understand is that this money will be more evenly distributed as taxes instead of employer or employee premiums, co-pays, houses sold in bankruptcy, and garnisheed wages.

But a warning on the other side. Trump blusters about how the other NATO members are not paying their fair share… this is because the other countries spend the lager portion of taxes on health care, not on military hardware.

I think the Green New Deal was when I realized that her ideas were economically suicidal

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@phantom_lamb

I hear quite often from the right that they want her (and Omar, etc.) to stay active as they are some of Trump’s biggest assets in a way and I see their point. So it literally can’t be both this and that.

It’s both. The right paints the whole party like it’s as far c left as AOC and AOC actually wants the entire party to be a fast left as her.

The mainstream Democrats would rather just have good government at this point.

[Chronos]

A healthy party contains a range of viewpoints. OK, maybe the ideal Democratic party of the future shouldn’t all have Occasio-Cortez’s views. But they should have some people with her views. And given that she’s demonstrably very good at energizing voters, why shouldn’t she be one of them?

[CarnalK]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.

That’s not exactly fair. You could say that about the Justice Democrats perhaps but AOC ran to represent her district.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You said she is targeting shitty democrats, so that makes it OK. The VERY FIRST Democrat she targeted was Joe Crowley.

If you want to argue that energetic and talented young progressives shouldn’t run for office, then fine, but I’m not going to agree with you there. I don’t care that she ran against Crowley - I think it’s good when talented young progressives run for office. Switching a less progressive Democrat like Crowley for a more progressive (and more talented!) Democrat, in a safe blue seat, is a good thing.

[GIGObuster]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think the Green New Deal was when I realized that her ideas were economically suicidal

Nope, in reality business as usual does sound more suicidal.

While changes like the Green New Deal have more support and are not likely to lead us back to the stone age, as many right wing sources and corporate media continue to get it wrong.

Would a Green New Deal Add or Kill Jobs?

The GND offers citizens a vision of how their economy could advance from traditional fossil-fuel dependence to a future powered largely by low-carbon alternatives. Our analysis indicates that a cleaner-energy approach motivated by carbon taxes would promote innovation, open up new markets and produce an economy with more jobs—a greener economy worth investing in.

Today clean-energy technologies in the U.S. struggle to compete because fossil energy is so “inexpensive.” Low prices make it difficult for such alternatives to flourish. Our analysis shows that raising energy prices would empower the transition to efficiency, renewables and other low-carbon resources. Indeed, a carbon tax of either $25 or $60 would cut carbon emissions significantly, but the higher tax would produce quicker and deeper reductions. On the other hand, while both tax levels would grow jobs, the $25 tax would provide more employment growth than the $60 one. Thus, as with most policies, the optimum is a trade-off between competing priorities.

By using the clean technologies that carbon taxes would promote, Americans would not have to travel less, freeze in the winter, take cold showers or cut the output of their manufacturing plants to reduce the U.S.’s carbon emissions. Our independent analysis, along with a growing body of research, suggests that a low-carbon economy is likely to be a stronger and more secure economy that also provides climate solutions.

[CarnalK]

The problem with that rejoinder is that the Green New Deal contains a whole pile of stuff that has nothing to do with climate change.

[GIGObuster]

@CarnalK

The problem with that rejoinder is that the Green New Deal contains a whole pile of stuff that has nothing to do with climate change.

Actually, even that “pile” can be debatable.

Scientists Must Speak Up for the Green New Deal

The GND is centered around people and justice. The GND is both comprehensive and people-focused. All of the possible solutions to the climate crisis demand changes to social and economic systems, be it renewable energy production or sustainable food systems. The GND is unique in that it recognizes the intertwined nature of global climate change, exploitative economic systems and inequitable social structures. The resolution outlines the role of the federal government to enact comprehensive legislation to tackle two crises in this country: the climate crisis and an economic crisis marked by wage stagnation and rising income inequality. By taking on these crises in tandem, the GND centers people and avoids the false choice between reducing carbon emissions and improving the economy. The resolution recognizes that ultimately, we cannot have a sustainable climate without environmental and economic justice.

The GND asks us, the American public, to leave no community behind as we implement climate change solutions and provides a focal point for organizing a diverse and inclusive coalition to address the climate challenge. The GND also recognizes historical injustices of federal programs, including its namesake, the New Deal of the 1930s, stating that “many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations.”

This recognition is accompanied by the vision “to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” and to “provide resources … so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.” The resolution represents a commitment from national leaders to uplift front line communities—from coastal cities to indigenous nations to coal mining towns—incorporating their needs directly into federal climate change solutions.

In any case, I expect that a lot of a non binding resolution that was foolishly dismissed, to not be adopted soon; but the rejection of also the most scientifically based parts is asinine, coming specially from virtually all Republicans that need to be tossed out.

[CarnalK]

I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to prove with that quote. What is “debatable” about the pile? You’re saying raising the minimum wage and UHC in fact have something to do with climate change?

[Loach]

@iiandyiiii

God what alarmist hyperbole. Why are you so worried about a young, talented, energetic progressive, who hasn’t done a single thing to damage the party?

I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.

Ocasio-Cortez Builds Progressive Campaign Arm to Challenge Democrats...

[iiandyiiii]

@Loach

I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/aoc-democrats.amp.html

She’s working to strengthen it - she just disagrees with you about what that means. So far, she hasn’t done a single thing to hurt the party. If she supports a successful primary that subsequently loses a winnable seat, then I think you’d have an argument. But right now, all you have is fear - nothing bad that she’s actually done.

[RTFirefly]

@Loach

I get it. You don’t think the party is far enough left so you agree with her. She is working against the party. She said so from the beginning. She tempered her speech a bit after being called on it but she continues. She doesn’t believe people like Biden belong in the same party as her and she is working on trying to defeat democrats that the party backs. That’s not alarmist that’s what she is actively doing. She is working against the Democratic Party.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/aoc-democrats.amp.html

She is promoting primary challengers. How is that “working against the Democratic Party”?

I think primary challenges for safe seats are an important part of the ongoing debate over just what the Democratic Party should be about. Do you disagree with that?