Elections Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Establishment Democrats' Wakeup Call

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

Worried About Socialism Coming to America? Calm Down
A political novice who won a primary election in New York is more likely to lead to evolution than revolution.
by Noah Smith | July 2, 2018

​

The pundit class was surprised last week by a stunning electoral upset, when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic House primary in New York City. That in itself would be a shock, but Ocasio-Cortez’s political affiliation is even more stunning — she’s a self-described socialist. The former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer — who will almost certainly win the general election in her heavily Democratic district this fall — is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose membership jumped after Ocasio-Cortez’s victory.

On one hand, it’s important to keep this primary in perspective. Turnout, as usual for primary elections, was low — only about 13 percent of registered Democrats in the district voted. And Ocasio-Cortez’s personality, energy and identity as a young Hispanic woman might have more to do with her victory than her party affiliation. Meanwhile, the DSA hasn’t come close to the level of primary election success enjoyed by the Tea Party in the Republican Party.

But it would be wrong to ignore the socialist surge. The stigma around the term has waned, as fewer Americans remember the Cold War and the Soviet Union and most pay little attention to the economic disaster in Venezuela, which has a socialist government:

So what does socialism mean in the U.S. today? In a country where ideological labels are notoriously malleable, it’s useful to look at the actual policy platforms of candidates like Ocasio-Cortez.

The first plank of Ocasio-Cortez’s platform is “Medicare for All.” This actually doesn’t mean extending the Medicare program for the elderly to cover all Americans — a good idea that would make the U.S. health care system similar to Japan’s. Instead, it means single-payer health care, where the government is the only health insurance provider. Medicare allows people to buy supplemental insurance to cover the cost of relatively high deductibles, which help keep costs down; a single-payer system could cost more. Though a hybrid system like the current Medicare program would probably be safer, it’s hard to imagine single payer being worse than the system the U.S. has today, which is much too expensive and delivers middling results:

Ocasio-Cortez’s second plank is housing as a human right, meaning the elimination of involuntary homelessness. This would actually be a relatively cheap and easy thing to do — federal housing initiatives have already reduced U.S. homelessness substantially, and a ballpark calculation suggests that going the rest of the way would probably cost less than $10 billion.

On housing, however, there is the ominous possibility that the socialist approach might not be a healthy one. Ocasio-Cortez’s platform includes negative references to “luxury real estate developers” — a pejorative phrase that has been used in the San Francisco Bay Area to refer to any market-rate housing development. Cities need market-rate housing to prevent high-income workers from displacing low-income residents; let's hope socialists will realize that this aspect of capitalism is a desirable one.

Another piece of the socialist platform is a federal job guarantee. Though implementation might be difficult, and the fiscal cost could be considerable, there are many advantages to providing government work for those who can’t find it in the private sector. It could help workers maintain their skills, networks and work ethic, as well as providing them with a sense of dignity and purpose. A job guarantee also provides a great automatic stabilizer, protecting the country against the damaging long-term effects of recessions.

Ocasio-Cortez also supports free public college for all. This, unfortunately, is a misguided policy idea. Because rich Americans tend to pay much more for college than poor ones, and tend to have major advantages in terms of getting admitted to expensive colleges in the first place, free college could easily end up subsidizing those with higher incomes. Meanwhile, there’s the question of implementation — federal tuition subsidies would cause universities to simply jack up prices, as they did in response to subsidized student loans. And price caps would hurt university budgets, causing quality to go down.

A great plank of Ocasio-Cortez’s agenda is to step up the fight against climate change. Although her goal of transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 is probably impossible, promoting efforts to switch to renewables — and to encourage advancements in renewable-energy technology — would pay big dividends. Not only would carbon emissions be reduced, but better energy storage technology would give a boost to growth. The falling cost of solar power makes Ocasio-Cortez’s goal realistic, rather than pie-in-the-sky:

Finally, Ocasio-Cortez wants to restore the Glass-Steagall rule that separated investment banking from commercial banking during the Great Depression. Though this wouldn’t be a bad policy, it’s also not likely to make the financial system much safer, since the investment-commercial banking nexus is not likely to cause a financial crisis. Financial regulation should prioritize other things, like strengthening the Volcker Rule preventing banks from trading on their own accounts, and reducing leverage in the banking system.

On most economic issues, therefore, the new socialist movement doesn’t look that different from a standard progressive Democratic agenda. The big new ideas are single-payer health care and a federal job guarantee. These are expensive programs that will be difficult to implement correctly, but both could lead to higher economic output as well as greater quality of life for the poor and working class.

In other words, the new socialist movement may turn out to be more about evolution than revolution.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...paign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=business

 

[BrotherClaudio]

1. Tuition-free college for all (paid for by the federal government)
2. Medicare for all (paid for by the federal government)
3. Abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement
4. Jobs for all (paid for by the federal government)
5. Housing for all (paid for by the federal government)
6. Family and sick leave for all (paid for by the federal government)

Besides #3 it all sounds good to me.

How does one pay for all of that?

 

[Scheme]

ITT: People fine with the idea of the US paying for storage of thousands of obsolete tanks, guns, planes and rockets. But not paying for citizens basic health needs.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
~Some pinko commie liberal named Eisenhower.

Because military spending is not something an individual can take care of. We need to pool our resources together to contribute towards military spending, otherwise we would not have a military. That's the whole purpose of government, to do things that individuals themselves could not do.

Basic health needs is an individual's problem.

Good food, water, energy, internet access, shelter, clothing, etc. are all necessities that I would argue are more important than government provided healthcare. Should the government take responsibility to pay for all those as well?

Also the issue with healthcare is not that we aren't spending enough money on it. The issues are that the costs are too high and the people are too unhealthy.

And I don't want to be punished for 1) working harder, and 2) living a healthier lifestyle. If I work harder I get taxed more, and if I live a healthier lifestyle I use less healthcare, therefore the percentage of my taxes that goes to my healthcare goes down.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Here’s a list of successful socialist countries:

Greatest countries in the world by most or all metrics are social democracies, prove me wrong.

 

[Roaming East]

Because military spending is not something an individual can take care of. We need to pool our resources together to contribute towards military spending, otherwise we would not have a military. That's the whole purpose of government, to do things that individuals themselves could not do.

Basic health needs is an individual's problem.

Good food, water, energy, internet access, shelter, clothing, etc. are all necessities that I would argue are more important than government provided healthcare. Should the government take responsibility to pay for all those as well?

Also the issue with healthcare is not that we aren't spending enough money on it. The issues are that the costs are too high and the people are too unhealthy.

And I don't want to be punished for 1) working harder, and 2) living a healthier lifestyle. If I work harder I get taxed more, and if I live a healthier lifestyle I use less healthcare, therefore the percentage of my taxes that goes to my healthcare goes down.

except our 'military spending' has less to do with the defense of the nation and is almost entirely a jobs and corporate welfare program for a select few industries and its supporters. or do you think the US military, which currently outspends the rest of the world combined a half dozen times over, still needs ADDITIONAL money....'to make america great again'. We already have a sweeping welfare state. its just the only beneficiaries are Nortrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I love hearing the "Free Stuff" mantra. Free? Nothing in life is free. If you want to raise billions of dollars to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate the masses someone must pay. The cost or "burden" as I call it is shouldered by those who work. Whether it's an increase in taxes on goods and services or money taken directly from a paycheck; those who work shoulder the burden. We'd be better off looking at alternatives to what has been the norm in education, home lending, Gov't spending, etc. and making changes to decrease debt, lower cost / duration of education, etc etc.

Socialism doesn't belong in America. I've never met one person who was for it who gave up their own excesses to ease the burden of others. I've been to college bars where kids were driving 2 year old Audi S4's, spending their Parents' money on pitchers of beer, and rocking $80 jeans while telling anyone that would listen that "WE" need to do more for our fellow man and the Government should provide. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

This is the same zhit you guys have been saying for 80 years. Keep saying it. Eventually more people will ignore it, as they are now, and you will wake up with a socialist president, or a socialist Congress, and by then your oligarchy plantation masters wont be able to save you.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

except our 'military spending' has less to do with the defense of the nation and is almost entirely a jobs and corporate welfare program for a select few industries and its supporters. or do you think the US military, which currently outspends the rest of the world combined a half dozen times over, still needs ADDITIONAL money....'to make america great again'. We already have a sweeping welfare state. its just the only beneficiaries are Nortrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon.

This. China is stealing the entire south east Asian sphere of influence form Murka and literally building missile emplacements off the coast of Australia and all that money isnt doing zhit.

Oh noes they werent invited to the annual Murkan War Games!!

<45>

What a joke.

 

[BrotherClaudio]

Maybe you're confusing the difference between goals that are impossible for the US to achieve and goals that are fully achievable but unacceptable to you, personally.

Please, inform me how've we pay for all of that, under US law, that has been in place for decades

Here, try just one. How do we make our fucked up college system, free for everyone. We have 1.3 trillion in student debt currently

 

[Seano]

you don't think Reagan caused a moral panic on the left? or GW Bush? likewise, you don't think Carter, Clinton and Obama caused moral panics on the right?


- IGIT

Like this? No, absolutely not. The backlash to the Trump presidency is unprecedented in this country.

 

[Scheme]

except our 'military spending' has less to do with the defense of the nation and is almost entirely a jobs and corporate welfare program for a select few industries and its supporters. or do you think the US military, which currently outspends the rest of the world combined a half dozen times over, still needs ADDITIONAL money....'to make america great again'. We already have a sweeping welfare state. its just the only beneficiaries are Nortrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon.

I should've clarified that I wasn't defending the amount that America spends on it's military, just that military spending is an inherent responsibility government, more so than providing healthcare.

As a % of GDP, America spends around 2-3x more than other countries. A lot more, but not outrageous considering their military power and influence in the world.

 

[Rob Battisti]

hello and well met, xcvbn,

i'd be interested to see if anyone responds to your question, as i assume most of us who post here do not work for the Federal government and enjoy our day jobs.

- IGIT

Pensions aside, many many many companies in the tech field offer better benefits and strong retirement plans.

Do we get off every other Friday and 8 weeks a year and leave at 3:30?

No, but that’s the reason govt gets nothing done.

 

[bad seed]

Please, inform me how've we pay for all of that, under US law, that has been in place for decades

Here, try just one. How do we make our fucked up college system, free for everyone. We have 1.3 trillion in student debt currently

Raise marginal tax rates, additional wealth tax for the top 0.1%, increase capital gains tax, increase estate and inheritance tax, reduce military budget, tax offshore profits. These are enough to cover the budget and then some. And "free education" is an investment that pays off dividends for the nation, much greater than tax breaks for corporations.

 

[BrotherClaudio]

Raise marginal tax rates, additional wealth tax for the top 0.1%, increase capital gains tax, increase estate and inheritance tax, reduce military budget, tax offshore profits. These are enough to cover the budget and then some. And "free education" is an investment that pays off dividends for the nation, much greater than tax breaks for corporations.

These are 100% pipe dreams


Increase inheritance tax? Are you insane? So your parents worked their ass off, and the money they leave to their kids, after being taxed not only initially, but every year the interest accrued was taxed. So then when it changes hands, it should be taxed again? And not only taxed at all, but increase them? You know that the max is a whopping, 40% right? So we need to fuck our citizens over, to help foreigners?

 

[bad seed]

These are 100% pipe dreams


Increase inheritance tax? Are you insane? So your parents worked their ass off, and the money they leave to their kids, after being taxed not only initially, but every year the interest accrued was taxed. So then when it changes hands, it should be taxed again? And not only taxed at all, but increase them? You know that the max is a whopping, 40% right? So we need to fuck our citizens over, to help foreigners?

what kind of simpleton thinks that would "fuck our citizens over" when it is expanding our tax revenue for the benefit of EVERYONE, instead of accelerating the wealth accumulation of one family?

 

[BrotherClaudio]

what kind of simpleton thinks that would "fuck our citizens over" when it is expanding our tax revenue for the benefit of EVERYONE, instead of accelerating the wealth accumulation of one family?

This isn't a communist country

 

[BrotherClaudio]

Can any person give me an example of a successful Socialist country, one that plays on the world stage, not some commune in a jungle somewhere

 

[ultramanhyata]

Here, try just one. How do we make our fucked up college system, free for everyone. We have 1.3 trillion in student debt currently

Given that the US provides 13 years of public education, to virtually every student in the nation, and has done so for at least a century, do you really doubt that the US could afford to provide an additional 4 years of public education to a much smaller percentage of students?

 

[Fedorable]

DNC has made their bed and they will have to lay in it.

that's why I never make my bed.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Can any person give me an example of a successful Socialist country, one that plays on the world stage, not some commune in a jungle somewhere

Given that the right defines UHC as "socialism", the answer would be: Every single industrialized nation on earth. Save for the US of course.