Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[RavenSky]

It wouldn't be a good time right now to have a guarantied federal job! But what does she mean "hold Wall Street Accountable"? The stock market goes up and down. Is she saying that people shouldn't want to sell when Trump says something crazy?

From her campaign website:

Curb Wall Street Gambling: Restore Glass Steagall

Systemic risk in our banking system leads to the concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands and also leads to increased risk that individuals will lose their savings due to the irresponsible decisions of bank management. We should restore Glass-Steagall to make sure our banks can’t gamble with our money.

We also should make sure that no bank is allowed to become “too-big-to-fail” and that oversized banks are broken up to reduce the likelihood of a financial crash.

Finally, we need to make postal banking a reality in the United States, which will revitalize the United States Postal Service, provide a low-cost source of basic banking services for disenfranchised communities, and increase competition in the banking industry.

https://www.ocasio2018.com/issues

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, most workers today have no pensions. SSN is unreliable. Good idea to strip 401ks also? How are working people suppose to retire?

That's because neoliberal policies have bamboozled American democratic rank and file into believing the stock market, rather than supporting eachother generationally, is a better idea. It was a radical idea at the time, and it was, and is, wrong.

eta: But it can be fixed.

Well, this seems to be a derail. I think that she's more talking about increasing the regulations on banks and taxing the stock transactions. I like her and think that it's good that we have straight shooting liberal in congress that Fox news hates. I like some of her positions. But I'll probably disagree with some others. But that's okay. We don't have to agree to everything.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It wouldn't be a good time right now to have a guarantied federal job! But what does she mean "hold Wall Street Accountable"? The stock market goes up and down. Is she saying that people shouldn't want to sell when Trump says something crazy?

From her campaign website:

Curb Wall Street Gambling: Restore Glass Steagall

Systemic risk in our banking system leads to the concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands and also leads to increased risk that individuals will lose their savings due to the irresponsible decisions of bank management. We should restore Glass-Steagall to make sure our banks can’t gamble with our money.

We also should make sure that no bank is allowed to become “too-big-to-fail” and that oversized banks are broken up to reduce the likelihood of a financial crash.

Finally, we need to make postal banking a reality in the United States, which will revitalize the United States Postal Service, provide a low-cost source of basic banking services for disenfranchised communities, and increase competition in the banking industry.

https://www.ocasio2018.com/issues

I agree that Glass Steagall should be reinstated. I'd prefer that larger banks who were deemed to be too large to fail would just be regulated more. As a business owner, I hate the large banks. But larger banks are needed to help the very large US corporations. If they were to go away, the larger US corporations would just move their business to large foreign banks.

I'm not sure what is gained by making the post office a deposit gathering business. The costs for consumers for bank deposits are incredible low today. And most banks are paying for deposits. The post office would not pay for deposits as they have no business needs for deposits. Unless you are arguing that they should also be making loans? If so, I'm not sure that I'd trust mail men to make business loans.

 

[RavenSky]

From her campaign website:

https://www.ocasio2018.com/issues

I agree that Glass Steagall should be reinstated.

same here

I'd prefer that larger banks who were deemed to be too large to fail would just be regulated more. As a business owner, I hate the large banks. But larger banks are needed to help the very large US corporations. If they were to go away, the larger US corporations would just move their business to large foreign banks.

I agree with you here

I'm not sure what is gained by making the post office a deposit gathering business. The costs for consumers for bank deposits are incredible low today. And most banks are paying for deposits. The post office would not pay for deposits as they have no business needs for deposits. Unless you are arguing that they should also be making loans? If so, I'm not sure that I'd trust mail men to make business loans.

The idea is to provide accessibility to people in rural and poorer areas.

Post Office Banking: An Old Idea Getting New Life

In big cities and affluent areas, banks can seem as ubiquitous as coffee chains. Making a deposit or stopping in to talk about a loan can be about as simple as grabbing a nonfat vanilla latte with an extra shot, no foam.

But many Americans — those living in poor neighborhoods or in rural communities — don’t enjoy such convenience. They rely instead on costly “off-the-grid” services such as payday loans and check cashing.

It’s an old reality that’s getting a new look. And depending on whom you ask, it would either be a massive and misguided government overreach or the long-awaited alternative to payday loans that could save Americans about $90 billion a year.

And if you live in a rural area, going to the bank can be a chore no matter your income level. “It takes about an hour to get there because I go the speed limit,” says Sallie Larsen of Marblemount, Washington, population 200. “Forty-seven miles is a long way to go.”

Until the 1960s, people could turn to the post office to deposit money or build a savings fund. Born out of the financial crisis known as the Panic of 1907 and taking off in popularity after the Great Depression, postal banking flourished for a time — at one point holding about 10% of all commercial banking assets in the U.S. — before the system was abolished in 1966, when community banks proliferated.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/post-office-banking-2/

The ironic part about so many of her ideas is that they aren't new. They are what the red hats SHOULD be referencing when they say MAGA

 

[Harry Bosch]

same here

I'd prefer that larger banks who were deemed to be too large to fail would just be regulated more. As a business owner, I hate the large banks. But larger banks are needed to help the very large US corporations. If they were to go away, the larger US corporations would just move their business to large foreign banks.

I agree with you here

I'm not sure what is gained by making the post office a deposit gathering business. The costs for consumers for bank deposits are incredible low today. And most banks are paying for deposits. The post office would not pay for deposits as they have no business needs for deposits. Unless you are arguing that they should also be making loans? If so, I'm not sure that I'd trust mail men to make business loans.

The idea is to provide accessibility to people in rural and poorer areas.

Post Office Banking: An Old Idea Getting New Life

In big cities and affluent areas, banks can seem as ubiquitous as coffee chains. Making a deposit or stopping in to talk about a loan can be about as simple as grabbing a nonfat vanilla latte with an extra shot, no foam.

But many Americans — those living in poor neighborhoods or in rural communities — don’t enjoy such convenience. They rely instead on costly “off-the-grid” services such as payday loans and check cashing.

It’s an old reality that’s getting a new look. And depending on whom you ask, it would either be a massive and misguided government overreach or the long-awaited alternative to payday loans that could save Americans about $90 billion a year.

And if you live in a rural area, going to the bank can be a chore no matter your income level. “It takes about an hour to get there because I go the speed limit,” says Sallie Larsen of Marblemount, Washington, population 200. “Forty-seven miles is a long way to go.”

Until the 1960s, people could turn to the post office to deposit money or build a savings fund. Born out of the financial crisis known as the Panic of 1907 and taking off in popularity after the Great Depression, postal banking flourished for a time — at one point holding about 10% of all commercial banking assets in the U.S. — before the system was abolished in 1966, when community banks proliferated.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/post-office-banking-2/

The ironic part about so many of her ideas is that they aren't new. They are what the red hats SHOULD be referencing when they say MAGA

I like your term: red hats! Based on the above, using the post office for rural people makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of services that a modern bank/credit union offers for depositers that a post office wouldn't be able to replicate. But clearly Cortez isn't the radical that the red hats are making her out to be.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 19601

I agree fully. In college I did nothing but classes and work. Not a second of fun. I was also a coal miner and worked the assembly line and served in the military.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many people ask what a Green New Deal entails.

We are calling for a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy ASAP.

To read more, check out http://ocasio2018.com/gnd - that’s our resolution text. Read Section #6 for our detailed scope & scale.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jxUzp9SZ6-VB-4wSm8sselVMsqWZrSrYpYC9slHKLzo/edit

Which is why I'm calling it crackpot. That's way too much economic disruption for an unattainable goal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Some of her other political positions:

Support a Federal Jobs Guarantee

That needs details.

Bailout Student Debt / Student Loan Cancellation

Again, details.

College for All

Bad idea. A lot of people aren't college material. What we should do is undo the cuts to college funding the government has been making for many years now, put State U and the community colleges back to affordable.

Legalize Marijuana

I'd either legalize or make available by prescription to addicts basically all recreational drugs.

Explore Reparations

Crackpot territory.

Baby Bonds

Huh?

Endorse Single-Payer Medicare for All

1) The numbers don't work the way it's proponents say.

2) It's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse and will result in erosion of quality.

Hold Wall Street Accountable

Nice statement, generally not meaningful.

Make Min Wage = Living Wage

Living wage is another one of these leftist delusions.

Cancel Puerto Rican Debt

Horrible idea. Puerto Rico got itself in trouble by the bread-and-circuses route. We shouldn't be bailing that out.

Besides, it's not the government that owns that debt, if you cancel it you're hurting an awful lot of people that own said debt.

End For-Profit Prisons & ICE Detention

For profit prisons I agree.

ICE does need to do some detention. What needs to end is the current punitive system.

Except for not knowing what "baby bonds" means, I'm not seeing anything in there that I disagree with.

Thus showing you're too far left to be trying to direct a country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How would that help anyone?

I'm not sure how stock trading helps anyone except the rich.

You have no retirement savings of any sort, including pension and 401k?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, most workers today have no pensions. SSN is unreliable. Good idea to strip 401ks also? How are working people suppose to retire?

I don't know enough about SSN or 401ks to comment on those, but I do see that whenever the stock market goes down, it hurts the poor the most. Why's that acceptable? And it's based entirely on chance.

Huh? The poor are basically unaffected by the stock market. (Note, however, that the stock market is a reflection of the economy--when the economy is bad the poor suffer and the stock market suffers.)

As for SSN--I don't understand the N but it's obvious he's referring to Social Security.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I read somewhere that she and a few others wanted a small tax on stock trades, as well as taxing capital gains as regular income. Short term capital gains are already taxed as regular income. Maybe that's what she means. Of course, none of this is going to happen as long as the Senate and presidency are in Republican hands. And, even if Dems were in complete control, few of these things will ever happen. The US isn't made up of people with views as far left as some of the new Dems. If they gain power, and can make a very good, detailed case as to how some of these things could be done in a realistic way, perhaps over time, progress will be made.

Some from both sides have had a delusion of obtaining vast sums by taxing stock trades. In reality they would kill high frequency trading (which would probably be a good thing) and kill arbitrage trading (a bad thing, arbitrage traders provide a useful benefit to keeping the various markets in balance) and raise nothing like the money they envision.

As for taxing capital gains as ordinary income--I favor this provided we tax the true gain, not the phantom gain of inflation. Note that in the big picture this is approximately neutral--given average stock market returns capital gains rate + the tax on phantom income is pretty close to the regular income tax rate. This will never be done, though, because it would take a huge bite out of the tax paid on interest income. (An awful lot of the interest is just making up for inflation.)

One of the things that few people seem to understand, is that 1/3rd of current Medicare recipients get their coverage from Advantage Plans, which are private insurance plans, similar to HMOs. The premiums are lower, but the programs are subsidized by the government. I've not seen anything realistic put forth that would explain how Medicare would be paid for if everybody received it, or how much taxes would need to be raised if everyone received it without copays or premiums. Hopefully, the increased taxes would be less than current insurance premiums. Medicare for all would be a big help to business, since most working people currently get their coverage through their employers.

The numbers they use do make it a bit less than the current cost of insurance. The problem is that this is ignoring the fact that very often Medicare costs are subsidized from private insurance.

Another thing that hasn't been addressed is Part D, the drug coverage part of Medicare, which is also a private insurance plan. How do you transition from this to full governmental coverage? What happens to the thousands of people who work in the health insurance industry? Medicare currently doesn't cover dental or vision care, yet those who promote Medicare for all say these things will be covered. How does that happen? What about long term care? It's the most expensive part of old age care, but Medicare only covers rehab. I'm not against UHC, but I haven't seen a realistic plan yet that would allow us to go from where we are today to where we want to be. I tend to think that we might be better off by following some of the European countries that use insurance to provide care. I think the insurance companies might be non profit, but I really don't know enough about them.

They're using the stick your head in the sand approach to these aspects of the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not sure what is gained by making the post office a deposit gathering business. The costs for consumers for bank deposits are incredible low today. And most banks are paying for deposits. The post office would not pay for deposits as they have no business needs for deposits. Unless you are arguing that they should also be making loans? If so, I'm not sure that I'd trust mail men to make business loans.

I believe the intent is to provide banking services with no minimum balance requirements and no monthly fees.

I think it would be better handled by requiring all banks to offer a no-frills free checking account. (Provide a list of what they must provide, although a bank which completely does not provide a service isn't obligated to provide it on a free account.)

Note, however, that this will not do nearly as much for the unbanked as leftists imagine. An awful lot of the unbanked are either fleeing judgments or have stiffed the banks and so the banks don't want to deal with them.

 

[marc]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Funny that the GOP fearmongers about the high tax rate, when it was higher in the ‘good old days’ they want to go back to..... or was it something else about those times that they miss?

Or some are referring to the guilded age as the good old days

 

[southernhybrid]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Funny that the GOP fearmongers about the high tax rate, when it was higher in the ‘good old days’ they want to go back to..... or was it something else about those times that they miss?

Or some are referring to the guilded age as the good old days

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

 

[Harry Bosch]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Funny that the GOP fearmongers about the high tax rate, when it was higher in the ‘good old days’ they want to go back to..... or was it something else about those times that they miss?

Or some are referring to the guilded age as the good old days

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

Very true that people have very selective memory when it comes to the good ole days! I think that it would be better to eliminate all deductions and then implement a more politically acceptable tax rate that would be accepted by a majority. Fox news is very good at twisting the truth.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

Very true that people have very selective memory when it comes to the good ole days! I think that it would be better to eliminate all deductions and then implement a more politically acceptable tax rate that would be accepted by a majority. Fox news is very good at twisting the truth.

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

 

[southernhybrid]

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

I don't do either of those things, but I know what you mean. Some people get very upset when some poor person gets some public benefits but they don't care when wealthy corporations or individuals cheat on their taxes. I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who receive SNAP benefits and struggle to survive. I have a somewhat wealthy bro in law who voted for Trump so he could get a tax break, but I've never heard him say that poor people shouldn't receive public assistance.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

Very true that people have very selective memory when it comes to the good ole days! I think that it would be better to eliminate all deductions and then implement a more politically acceptable tax rate that would be accepted by a majority. Fox news is very good at twisting the truth.

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

I don't do either of those things, but I have known middle class people that resented poor people who received public assistance. I've never understood that. Maybe they are people with miserable lives who resent anyone getting something that they don't get. A lot of it is due to ignorance. Most people that I talk to don't even know the first thing about the TANF program, or that most people who receive SNAP benefits are either disabled, older adults or the working poor.

I've never known of anyone who claimed that we shouldn't tax the wealthy because of loopholes, so I have no idea where you got that idea from. The argument is usually a selfish one. It goes something like this. It's my money. I earned it. I shouldn't have to help anyone else. At the same time they fail to admit that they benefit from the laws, opportunities and infrastructure that allowed them to succeed. They fail to understand that not everyone has the same potential to become financially successful, etc. I am friends with a lot of poor people and I know their struggles. I also know that they never had the type of opportunities that most wealthy people have had. We are often taught that we can do or be anything that we want in the US, which is a delusion, since people have very different potential in addition to different levels of opportunity. But, I'm sure the posters here know that already.

I don't like extreme wealth inequality, but I think it will take some time and careful consideration to figure out the best way to reduce the horrendous inequality that we currently have.

I haven't itemized deductions since we paid off our mortgage many years ago, and we live in a low tax state. But, I know that the liberals in high tax states, like my sister in NJ, are extremely upset because they can no longer deduct the full amount of their real estate taxes. etc. The vast majority of these people aren't wealthy. My sister is middle class with a decent income, but she lives in a very expensive state. Getting rid of all deductions sounds great, but it would be very hard to accomplish. And, people who live in very expensive states like NJ and California would probably be hurt the most. Change never comes easy, does it?

I am not against change but plans and ideas must be well thought out, detailed and realistic. Sometimes we tend to forget that our country is made up of people with very different ideas, views and beliefs, from our own. Nobody gets to have it all their way. There has to be some compromise that is acceptable to the majority of the people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

SouthernHybrid noted AOC's 70% top tax rate proposal. I posted above a link to part of her "New Green Deal" proposal.

Funny that the GOP fearmongers about the high tax rate, when it was higher in the ‘good old days’ they want to go back to..... or was it something else about those times that they miss?

Or some are referring to the guilded age as the good old days

Back then there were so many loopholes it looked like Swiss cheese. Most people didn't actually pay those high rates. (But we will never know the true data as most of the issue was dodges that kept it from being reported as income in the first place, thus there's nothing in the IRS records to use to figure it out.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's true that the highest rate was about 91%, but from what I've read, nobody paid that rate due to deductions etc. After deductions, the highest rate was about 50%, still much higher than today. But, even AOC has said that the 70% rate would only apply to those making over 10 million per year and that would be before deductions. It's an interesting thing to discuss, even though it's unrealistic to expect it will ever be passed into law.

Everybody remembers what they want to about the "good ole days".

Very true that people have very selective memory when it comes to the good ole days! I think that it would be better to eliminate all deductions and then implement a more politically acceptable tax rate that would be accepted by a majority. Fox news is very good at twisting the truth.

It's funny to me how the fact that rich people will find ways to avoid paying taxes is used as an argument for why we shouldn't tax them. Like, okay, we gave it our best shot and it turns out it'll never work because of loopholes, onto the next idea. But when someone sees a welfare recipient buying a bag of Doritos it's suddenly "maybe we should invent microchips that go into the Doritos and prevent them from being ingested by poor people"

No. What we are saying is that the "it worked before" argument is wrong because people didn't actually pay those rates.