Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Gospel]

Deficits are a red herring. They are one of the least important indicators of the merit of a policy platform.

Deficits are completely irrelevant. No serious economist cares about deficits as a problem in their own right; They are an accounting tool that provides just one of many data points to help understand which way things are trending.

I agree with both statements, assuming you're not actually arguing that a large and persistent national deficit doesn't matter at all. Easy for you to say, but if I start telling people that deficits don't contribute to inflation or interest rates, I'll probably get beat up on this side of the ocean.

 

[bilby]

assuming you're not actually arguing that a large and persistent national deficit doesn't matter at all

I am arguing exactly that.

As a net importer (ie, a wealthy nation with wealthy citizens), a large and persistent national debt is not only not a problem; It's a necessity.

The deficit need not be large; There will even occasionally be years when the economic conditions lead to a surplus, because accidents do happen. But if there is a surplus, that implies either insufficient spending, or excessive taxation, and needs to be corrected.

The objective should be a small deficit, in support of strong economic growth.

If your government can't think of any way to invest money in infrastructure that will more than pay for itself in terms of increased growth, then it's time to elect a more imaginative government.

If your unimaginitive government is collecting as much or more in taxes than it spends (or even nearly as much), then they are not only failing in their duty to improve the nation, they are also overcharging the residents for the privilege of being mismanaged.

 

[blastula]

 

[Gospel]

She's right about that work fa sho.

 

[Swammerdami]

An example of what I'm getting at is Clinton achieved a budget surplus during his administration*.

* - when including the Social Security surplus.

Federal Debt: Total Public Debt | FRED | St. Louis Fed

Graph and download economic data for Federal Debt: Total Public Debt from Q2 1901 to Q1 2024 about public, debt, federal, government, USA, and budget.

fred.stlouisfed.org

The debt reduction was HUGE, during Clinton's 2nd term, more than a whopping half a Trillion dollars lopped off "Federal debt held by the Public". HOWEVER even with the Soc Sec surplus added on to debt, there was a very slight decrease in Total Public Debt at the very end of Clinton's term, as you can see at the linked graph. The Democratic Congresspeople famously "walked the plank" to achieve this impressive result. I don't have the patience to explain this again and watch right-wingers shriek their lies.

But of course, the balanced budget was quickly destroyed -- deliberately (cf "Starve the Beast") -- by Bush-Cheney's GOP and their huge tax cuts for the rich.

Netherlands, Denmark and South Korea are large countries whose government budget is still in surplus.

- - - - - - -

Neither Jimmy nor Gospel is at fault, but some others' recent posts are full of falsities and confusion. I'm too exhausted to whack all the moles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

 

[bilby]

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

OK, Batshit Crazy it is then.

If the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money, then

a) where the fuck is the "cost to society"?

and

b) why the fuck would an infinite pool of money be needed??

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on X: "Wall Street came for us again, ... / X

Wall Street came for us again, and the people prevailed.

Thank you to the Bronx and Queens for choosing me to be your Congresswoman.

It is the honor of my life to fight for working families and everyday people.

To receive this level of support is deeply moving. Pa’lante.

Pa'lante is short for "para adelante" -- "forward"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money, you're not looking at the benefits and detriments of deficit spending per se.

No shit, Sherlock. I do exactly that; But to be fair, only because I am not a complete idiot.

Do you think it is OK for a person to borrow money?

Yes or no. No fair "sorting out beneficial and detrimental uses of the money"; If it's OK to borrow money to buy a home or a car, then it must also be OK to borrow money to play roulette, or so you can use dollar bills to light fires, or to use as matress filling.

Assuming that your objection here isn't batshit crazy, that is.

You're still focusing on whether the spending is for good things or not, not about the cost to society of doing it.

This is the same infinite pool of money nonsense that underlies an awful lot of leftist economic thinking.

OK, Batshit Crazy it is then.

If the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money, then

a) where the fuck is the "cost to society"?

and

b) why the fuck would an infinite pool of money be needed??

Because you refuse to include any consideration of whether we can afford it. The only way you can not care about cost is if the money available is vastly in excess of what you're considering spending. It's the standard leftist error of assuming anything good can be funded.

 

[bilby]

Because you refuse to include any consideration of whether we can afford it.

No, that's built in to:

the benefits of spending money outweigh the costs (including interest) of borrowing the money

In that scenario, you can't afford NOT to do it.

The only way you can not care about cost is if the money available is vastly in excess of what you're considering spending.

That's true, IF YOU ARE NOT A FIAT CURRENCY ISSUER.

If you are a fiat currency issuer, the only physical limit on spending is the availability of numbers.

The practical limit is variable, and changes with the size of the economy, the rate of inflation, and the desired exchange rate with your various trading partners' currencies.

And the effect of spending on that practical limit is (when the benefit outweighs the cost), to increase that practical limit.

Fiat currency issuers always have to spend before they can borrow or earn it; It is the exact opposite of the situation of users of someone else's currency, who must obtain money before spending it.

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc) • Instagram photos and videos

She recently Instagrammed on her visit to some wind farms off the coast of southern New England, going there aboard a Coast Guard ship with "experts, policymakers, and state officials". Also, "Here with some of my congressional colleagues from across the country - including California, New Mexico, North Carolina & of course Rhode Island".

Those wind farms were Block Island and South Fork, under construction near Long Island.

She marveled at how huge the turbines and the blades were, passing by a ship that was carrying some of the blades. In a group of five of the turbines, four were stopped for maintenance, with only one of them turning. Some of the newer wind turbines have blades as long as an American football field, about 100 yd / m long.

Then she requested questions, with a picture of a Metro-North train in the background.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

But you still are not looking at costs, just whether the result of the spending is beneficial.

 

[bilby]

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

But you still are not looking at costs, just whether the result of the spending is beneficial.

I have explicitly included costs from the very beginning of this discussion. I even used the word "cost" in the bit you just quoted.

If you think I have not been "looking at costs", then you need to go back and start again; You clearly are arguing against what you guess I might be saying, and are disregarding the stuff I actually say.

Please could you stop regurgitating your boilerplate reactions to discussing deficit with anyone who doesn't share your conclusions, and instead read, think about, and then respond intelligently to, the words I am actually writing.

Because doing it your way is making you look like a crazy person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

But you still are not looking at costs, just whether the result of the spending is beneficial.

I have explicitly included costs from the very beginning of this discussion. I even used the word "cost" in the bit you just quoted.

If you think I have not been "looking at costs", then you need to go back and start again; You clearly are arguing against what you guess I might be saying, and are disregarding the stuff I actually say.

Please could you stop regurgitating your boilerplate reactions to discussing deficit with anyone who doesn't share your conclusions, and instead read, think about, and then respond intelligently to, the words I am actually writing.

Because doing it your way is making you look like a crazy person.

You only addressed cost when I objected and you're basically handwaving it.

 

[bilby]

Your idea that you might not be able to "afford it" is not even wrong, unless it means "the cost outweighs the benefit" - and if that's your meaning, you are wrong by definition, as we are explicitly discussing the opposite scenario.

But you still are not looking at costs, just whether the result of the spending is beneficial.

I have explicitly included costs from the very beginning of this discussion. I even used the word "cost" in the bit you just quoted.

If you think I have not been "looking at costs", then you need to go back and start again; You clearly are arguing against what you guess I might be saying, and are disregarding the stuff I actually say.

Please could you stop regurgitating your boilerplate reactions to discussing deficit with anyone who doesn't share your conclusions, and instead read, think about, and then respond intelligently to, the words I am actually writing.

Because doing it your way is making you look like a crazy person.

You only addressed cost when I objected and you're basically handwaving it.

If you refuse to read what I write, and instead insist on guessing what I should have written, then you can conclude whatever you wish.

Clearly my input is neither needed nor desired in this dialog; I shall leave you to continue on your own.

 

[lpetrich]

In her Instagram Stories:

Self-care: "Bags of nerds clusters" - NERDS Candy

When asked to show her feet, she responded with a picture of her dog's feet. Sort of like when someone asked about her OnlyFans account, she pointed to her ActBlue donations page.

Asked what sort of action has had the greatest impact on her life, she responded "I think prioritizing and centering my well-being has had really big effects in my work and my life."

She then described how that when she started trusting her judgment and experience more, as opposed to what she felt obligated or pressured to do, the quality of her work improved, her decision-making became better, and she became happier.

About her and Bernie Sanders being pals, there is a reason that she calls Bernie tío, Spanish for uncle.

 

[lpetrich]

What blue-collar trade? She grew up around a lot of construction work, and she helped install solar panels in Puerto Rico, and so she might want to become an electrician. Also was involved in restaurants for some years, sourcing food, delivering food, construction, interior carpentry.

When asked how to avoid getting burned out, she recommended understanding oneself and what kind of work schedule one can most easily accept. Like working double shifts at her restaurant four days a week and having the other three days off. She also recalled changing from the 6 train to some express buses, so she could work more easily.

Personality traits? Being hard-headed, delusional or crazy, very hardworking, and a quick study. She gives as an example the Civilian Climate Corps, something that a lot of people dismissed as delusional or crazy or a dream. But it launched this year, with people in it doing things like install solar panels. One does have to know when to quit, but being stubborn can sometimes be a very good thing.

"How do you avoid anxiety when a LOT of major historical events happen in such a short time?" - she responded "Oh you sweet, sweet summer child!" (laughs)

About selecting a Vice President, she said that Joe Biden made his selection because he understands the Senate and how to work with Senators, and he wants a VP who also has that experience. However, Donald Trump wanted JD Vance because the two supposedly hate women.

Then about grieving and how painful it can be: "grief never ends because love never ends".

 

[blastula]

When asked to show her feet, she responded with a picture of her dog's feet. Sort of like when someone asked about her OnlyFans account, she pointed to her ActBlue donations page.

Was the person who asked anyone we know?

 

[lpetrich]

She recently Instagrammed a lot on political strategy.
Sam Grady on X: "Must Read. @AOC's response to a great question about why some Leftists seem to spend so much energy attacking her, despite *multiple* Palestinian advocacy groups continuing to rank her and her voting record as being one of the very best in Congress when it comes to Palestine. (pic link)" / X

Why do leftists attack you despite multiple Palestinian rights groups ranking U as 1 of Congress's best?

This is understandably a very challenging time for a lot of people. And there are a likely a few reasons (probably more than I can list here!):

1. I am an elected official in the US government. That is a fact. No matter how opposed I am to what is happening, criticism will be there. I get that. But you are correct. I have one of the strongest vote records in Congress on Palestinian human rights and voting against bloated US military budgets (both overall and against unconditional military aid to the Israeli gov). And in a time when AIPAC dedicated $100 million to booting out members of Congress who stood for Palestinian human rights this year and successfully unseated two, that matters. We need to grow and defend our ranks to do more.

2. There is a LOT of disinformation going around. A LOT of people are getting "news" from random viral social media posts (which given how censored this issue has been in mainstream media for so long, I understand, but not all of it is legit). Please understand that there is a lot of nefarious stuff getting amplified along with the legitimate stuff too. When I was in Chicago this protestor broke into a restaurant I was eating at and demanded to know when I would call it a genocide. I actually did so months ago in a high-profile House floor speech that was covered a lot in the news. This kind of thing happens a lot. Disinformation hurts movements from the inside and discredits them from the outside. It's important to check. It's everywhere.

3. Repair is hard! It is so easy in the short term to dispose of people and toss them in the trash the moment you don't like something. We are all human. It's easier to be pissed off on the internet than actually build community and power around a just cause. But if we actually want to change things, we need to get real about building power. And you can't build power by recreating the punitive, angry, expulsion-focused cultures that we seek to replace. It will require NEW SKILLS from us. It's not enough to be right. We need to be right and WIN. I believe that we have a moral obligation to be EFFECTIVE in addition to having a just stance, otherwise who are we doing this for? We must ACCOMPLISH, BUILD, STRENGTHEN, REPAIR, GROW, WIN, SURVIVE, and that is HARD HARD HARD WORK. And we are going to disagree on the way. If we can't learn to handle that in good faith, we will stay small. And we owe the people we are fighting for way more than that.

I like that. That's why I have a LOT more respect for the Working Families Party than for the Green Party.

 

[blastula]