Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez can dance as well...

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1081234130841600000

Alt-reality dipshits...

Who cares about her dancing? Her politics is the problem, not her dance moves.

Although there were stories about people trashing her for dancing, there was a distinct shortage of people trashing her for her dancing. Story made from nothing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You need to write a real nasty letter to the government demanding they correct the data they present.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/


High-Income Americans Paid Majority of Federal Income Taxes

In 2015, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGI below $39,275) earned 11.28 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $41 billion in taxes, or 2.83 percent of all income taxes in 2015.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI of $480,930 and above), earned 20.65 percent of all AGI in 2015, but paid 39.04 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2015, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $568 billion, or 39.04 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $428 billion, or 29.41 percent of all income taxes.

Considering that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth they're getting quite a deal only paying 39% of the taxes, don't you think?

 

[skepticalbip]

You need to write a real nasty letter to the government demanding they correct the data they present.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/


High-Income Americans Paid Majority of Federal Income Taxes

In 2015, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGI below $39,275) earned 11.28 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $41 billion in taxes, or 2.83 percent of all income taxes in 2015.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGI of $480,930 and above), earned 20.65 percent of all AGI in 2015, but paid 39.04 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2015, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $568 billion, or 39.04 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $428 billion, or 29.41 percent of all income taxes.

Considering that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth they're getting quite a deal only paying 39% of the taxes, don't you think?

You are conflating wealth and income. Income tax is a tax on income. Their wealth is primarily ownership or partial ownership (through stocks) of a company. They don't pay income tax on their ownership of a company any more than the typical American family pays income tax on their wealth (their home, car, IRA acct. savings acct. etc.)

 

[Canard DuJour]

and have had for over 200 years (longer in, eg, Britain), yet the sky hasn't fallen. On the six or so occasions you reversed that trend by running surpluses, the result was depressions. That's because govt "debt" denominated in the currency which that govt issues is nothing like household debt - and arguably isn't really "debt" at all except in an abstract accounting sense

But paying for it by borrowing comes with it's own cost--an ever-increasing percent of the budget going to pay the interest on that borrowing. Not to mention eventually people won't loan you money anymore. To continue to live on debt is either to bring catastrophe or big inflation to chew the debt down to a manageable size.

a) Well no, for the same reason : the interest is denominated in the same currency of which the federal govt is ultimately the issuer. Gov't "borrowing" isn't really borrowing at all in that sense. Read the links you've edited out of my post.

b) In any case, govt only "borrows" - i.e. issues bonds equivalent to deficit spending - due to a legal requirement dating from gold standard days. That could and should (IMO and growing opinion among economists) be rescinded or rethought. Govt "borrowing" for a monetary sovereign is like a dairy farmer buying milk at Walmart.

Of course running a surplus caused a recession (not a depression)--a sudden cut in government spending will do that.

Nope. Again, read the links. Google "sectroral balances"

You need to steer with a very gentle hand and you should aim for a balanced budget or a slight surplus to reduce the size of the debt.

Why?

A sovereign currency issuing govt does not need to balance its budget, it needs to balance the economy.

Only because it can avert catastrophe by means of a hidden tax--inflation. Better not to get in the situation in the first place, though.

Yes and no. Inflation is indeed a hidden tax and the real danger. Whether and when govt spending fuels inflation or growth is the real question. We are now in a disinflationary era of falling real wages and productivity, with QE staving off outright deflation. Better to spend directly into the real economy.

 

[Canard DuJour]

It illustrates that someone who advocates doing 'the moral thing' (and worse yet implementing it) in spite of the math informing them that it will fail is causing suffering. Holding some lofty goal is admirable but recognizing and accepting reality is more important. Math is reality.

Okay, but I'm still not getting the relevance here. Could you try expressing your moral point about causing suffering in the language of linear algebra?

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

The maths is very complicated because what matters is availability of real resources, not money or tax revenues. It's more like a massive engineering project than a household budget.

However, there's a relatively uncomplicated way of going about it. The federal govt funds the programmes by spending its currency into existence until inflation kicks in. It's essentially how monetary sovereigns (the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc) already spend. The obstacles are political, not financial.

AOC seems to be aware of this : https://www.businessinsider.com/ale...ng-how-americans-think-about-economics-2019-1

 

[Worldtraveller]

Thus illustrating why utopian ideals fail when there are attempts to implement them....

Since UHC exists in a number of countries, it is hard to argue that it is a utopian ideal. Moreover, I think Pyramid's position is that there is sufficient wealth to implement UHC without depleting the national wealth to an unsustainable or undesirable level.

If UHC was the only program that would consume federal funding then I would agree. I hear a hell of a lot more free stuff being proposed plus a guaranteed minimum income. One free program is easy to finance but the totality becomes overwhelming.

So you're ok with letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Well, we can't have all the nice stuff we want, so fuck it, let's just try anarchy.

 

[skepticalbip]

If UHC was the only program that would consume federal funding then I would agree. I hear a hell of a lot more free stuff being proposed plus a guaranteed minimum income. One free program is easy to finance but the totality becomes overwhelming.

So you're ok with letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Well, we can't have all the nice stuff we want, so fuck it, let's just try anarchy.

You misread. It is a matter of priorities. Anyone insisting on implementing everything they see as utopian even though the math demonstrates that it would collapse the entire system is the bad. Priorities need to be decided on and programs selected on that basis.

 

[4321lynx]

Someone should tell AOC that Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If UHC was the only program that would consume federal funding then I would agree. I hear a hell of a lot more free stuff being proposed plus a guaranteed minimum income. One free program is easy to finance but the totality becomes overwhelming.

So you're ok with letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

Well, we can't have all the nice stuff we want, so fuck it, let's just try anarchy.

You misread. It is a matter of priorities. Anyone insisting on implementing everything they see as utopian even though the math demonstrates that it would collapse the entire system is the bad. Priorities need to be decided on and programs selected on that basis.

You realize that, unlike her colleagues, AOC has a degree in economics. She understands the math.

That's one of the things that makes her a threat, and hence a target.

 

[skepticalbip]

You misread. It is a matter of priorities. Anyone insisting on implementing everything they see as utopian even though the math demonstrates that it would collapse the entire system is the bad. Priorities need to be decided on and programs selected on that basis.

You realize that, unlike her colleagues, AOC has a degree in economics. She understands the math.

That's one of the things that makes her a threat, and hence a target.

She may or may not have some clue about economics but that is beside the point. She has stated that morality is more important than the facts. So, even if she understands the facts, they are irrelevant to her in her desire for her utopian dream.

 

[RavenSky]

And she's fearless

With the economic pain and dire safety risks caused by the record-long government shutdown becoming clearer by the day, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a group of her fellow freshman House Democrats marched to the Senate building on Wednesday to hand-deliver a letter demanding that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately hold a vote to reopen the government.

After searching for and failing to find McConnell in the Republican cloakroom, his office, or on the Senate floor, the Democrats left copies of their letter on McConnell's desk and in his personal office.

#WheresMitch

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...emocrats-search-high-and-low-demand-mcconnell

 

[Loren Pechtel]

a) Well no, for the same reason : the interest is denominated in the same currency of which the federal govt is ultimately the issuer. Gov't "borrowing" isn't really borrowing at all in that sense. Read the links you've edited out of my post.

b) In any case, govt only "borrows" - i.e. issues bonds equivalent to deficit spending - due to a legal requirement dating from gold standard days. That could and should (IMO and growing opinion among economists) be rescinded or rethought. Govt "borrowing" for a monetary sovereign is like a dairy farmer buying milk at Walmart.

There are only two choices--borrowing or the printing press. The latter causes major inflation at the level any modern government needs to do it (you could fund government with the printing press if it were something like 10% of it's current size) and history shows it causes major problems for the economy.

You need to steer with a very gentle hand and you should aim for a balanced budget or a slight surplus to reduce the size of the debt.

Why?

So government isn't dragged down by as much interest payment. This makes the budget more flexible.

A sovereign currency issuing govt does not need to balance its budget, it needs to balance the economy.

Only because it can avert catastrophe by means of a hidden tax--inflation. Better not to get in the situation in the first place, though.

Yes and no. Inflation is indeed a hidden tax and the real danger. Whether and when govt spending fuels inflation or growth is the real question. We are now in a disinflationary era of falling real wages and productivity, with QE staving off outright deflation. Better to spend directly into the real economy.

No. We were in a disinflationay era but we are not anymore. That was an anomaly caused by a major government fuck-up, it isn't the normal state.

- - - Updated - - -

The math isn't that complicated. If the programs advocated to achieve those lofty goals require financing that exceeds the available resources then any activation of those programs are insured of failing.

The maths is very complicated because what matters is availability of real resources, not money or tax revenues. It's more like a massive engineering project than a household budget.

However, there's a relatively uncomplicated way of going about it. The federal govt funds the programmes by spending its currency into existence until inflation kicks in. It's essentially how monetary sovereigns (the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan etc) already spend. The obstacles are political, not financial.

AOC seems to be aware of this : https://www.businessinsider.com/ale...ng-how-americans-think-about-economics-2019-1

Said inflation starts showing up at about 10% of current federal spending.

- - - Updated - - -

You misread. It is a matter of priorities. Anyone insisting on implementing everything they see as utopian even though the math demonstrates that it would collapse the entire system is the bad. Priorities need to be decided on and programs selected on that basis.

You realize that, unlike her colleagues, AOC has a degree in economics. She understands the math.

That's one of the things that makes her a threat, and hence a target.

She's a fanatic. While she might understand math she's not letting it influence her thinking.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You misread. It is a matter of priorities. Anyone insisting on implementing everything they see as utopian even though the math demonstrates that it would collapse the entire system is the bad. Priorities need to be decided on and programs selected on that basis.

You realize that, unlike her colleagues, AOC has a degree in economics. She understands the math.

That's one of the things that makes her a threat, and hence a target.

She may or may not have some clue about economics but that is beside the point. She has stated that morality is more important than the facts. So, even if she understands the facts, they are irrelevant to her in her desire for her utopian dream.

I think you're in fantasy land. Do you have any quotes from AOC to back up your assertion?

 

[Canard DuJour]

a) Well no, for the same reason : the interest is denominated in the same currency of which the federal govt is ultimately the issuer. Gov't "borrowing" isn't really borrowing at all in that sense. Read the links you've edited out of my post.

b) In any case, govt only "borrows" - i.e. issues bonds equivalent to deficit spending - due to a legal requirement dating from gold standard days. That could and should (IMO and growing opinion among economists) be rescinded or rethought. Govt "borrowing" for a monetary sovereign is like a dairy farmer buying milk at Walmart.

There are only two choices--borrowing or the printing press.

So you might think if you don't understand what govt "borrowing" is. If the central bank ends up buying the bonds - which they've been doing an awful lot lately - there ain't really much difference. Meanwhile, there are other mechanisms : Bank of England - The Case for Monetary Finance' by Lord Adair Turner

The latter causes major inflation at the level any modern government needs to do it (you could fund government with the printing press if it were something like 10% of it's current size) and history shows it causes major problems for the economy.

History shows not, if you don't spend beyond your productive capacity - whether by "borrowing or the printing press".

Why?

So government isn't dragged down by as much interest payment. This makes the budget more flexible.

The only difference it makes to the currency issuer is political - i.e. vested interests stoking deficit hysteria among a public which shares your misunderstanding of the monetary system.

No. We were in a disinflationay era but we are not anymore. That was an anomaly caused by a major government fuck-up, it isn't the normal state.

If you can increase the money supply by $4 trillion and there's no inflation, you are in a disinflationary era. The US inflation rate averaged 3.27% over the last century, and was down to 1.9% in Dec 2018. Productivity growth is still below pre-crisis levels and way below pre-neoliberal levels. Real wages have been flatlining for 40 years. There could hardly be a better time for expansionary fiscal policy.

Said inflation starts showing up at about 10% of current federal spending.

Wow, so current federal spending is 10x the level at which inflation starts accelerating? Don't think so.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Considering that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth they're getting quite a deal only paying 39% of the taxes, don't you think?

You are conflating wealth and income. Income tax is a tax on income. Their wealth is primarily ownership or partial ownership (through stocks) of a company. They don't pay income tax on their ownership of a company any more than the typical American family pays income tax on their wealth (their home, car, IRA acct. savings acct. etc.)

Income is part of wealth. I certainly don't pay income tax on my house or my car or my land but I certainly pay tax on those things based on their value. If I'm consuming 90% of the water in an area why should I only be paying for 36% of the water?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And she's fearless

With the economic pain and dire safety risks caused by the record-long government shutdown becoming clearer by the day, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a group of her fellow freshman House Democrats marched to the Senate building on Wednesday to hand-deliver a letter demanding that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately hold a vote to reopen the government.

After searching for and failing to find McConnell in the Republican cloakroom, his office, or on the Senate floor, the Democrats left copies of their letter on McConnell's desk and in his personal office.

#WheresMitch

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...emocrats-search-high-and-low-demand-mcconnell

This is nothing but a Mitch Hunt!

 

[skepticalbip]

Considering that the top 1% own 90% of the wealth they're getting quite a deal only paying 39% of the taxes, don't you think?

You are conflating wealth and income. Income tax is a tax on income. Their wealth is primarily ownership or partial ownership (through stocks) of a company. They don't pay income tax on their ownership of a company any more than the typical American family pays income tax on their wealth (their home, car, IRA acct. savings acct. etc.)

Income is part of wealth.

Income can add to wealth if it is used to invest in assets but isn't wealth in itself.

I certainly don't pay income tax on my house or my car or my land but I certainly pay tax on those things based on their value.

The breakdown was specifically only a look at income taxes paid. However there are certainly also state and/or county ad valorem taxes levied on assets held both by individuals and by businesses and the ad valorem taxes on businesses are much higher than a residence especially with homestead exemptions also businesses pay business taxes.

If I'm consuming 90% of the water in an area why should I only be paying for 36% of the water?

That is a non sequitur.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Income can add to wealth if it is used to invest in assets but isn't wealth in itself.

The actual income you receive post deductions automatically is part of your wealth. On-hand, actual income, is an asset whether or not the asset accrues additional income via investment. So, if you get $500 from a week of work after deducting taxes and hide it under your bed, it is an asset and part of your wealth, just like the bed and the house and the car, etc. It might be smarter to put it in the bank or invest it in something but with or without re-investment it remains an asset that is part of a larger concept of wealth. So, if you continue to collect such actual income each week and hide it under your bed for 10 years, accruing $1 million (or whatever) under your bed, that is also part of your wealth. Throwing it in a portfolio is unnecessary for the definition.*

*Of course, one has to look at not only assets but also debts and deductions in order to determine wealth. It is complicated but still, on-hand money is an asset.

 

[skepticalbip]

Income can add to wealth if it is used to invest in assets but isn't wealth in itself.

The actual income you receive post deductions automatically is part of your wealth. On-hand, actual income, is an asset whether or not the asset accrues additional income via investment. So, if you get $500 from a week of work after deducting taxes and hide it under your bed, it is an asset and part of your wealth, just like the bed and the house and the car, etc. It might be smarter to put it in the bank or invest it in something but with or without re-investment it remains an asset that is part of a larger concept of wealth. So, if you continue to collect such actual income each week and hide it under your bed for 10 years, accruing $1 million (or whatever) under your bed, that is also part of your wealth. Throwing it in a portfolio is unnecessary for the definition.*

*Of course, one has to look at not only assets but also debts and deductions in order to determine wealth. It is complicated but still, on-hand money is an asset.

Yes, $500 hidden under the mattress is an asset but it isn't income, it is how that income was 'invested' or saved that adds to one's wealth pretty much as if it were 'invested' in a savings account. If that $500 income had instead been spent on something like a fishing trip then it wouldn't have added to one's wealth.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saving money under the bed is not the same as investing it, even if you put quotes around "invest" like this. Seriously. Since your point is that semantic quibbling means more than the big picture, you lose the argument automatically.