The scary woman from Queens
 

Careful you might expand your horizons
https://youtu.be/dUmIdCClbTE

she is a complete moron.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Far too well spoken to be a moron
I assumed you would disagree with her and be afraid to even watch because she is 100% wrong about everything
How dare she say money influences our politicians
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hello pot? That is a moronic statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

being articulate is not intelligent. she said low unemployment is bad, because it means people are working two or more jobs. that’s one of the stupidest things you will ever hear. then there’s her belief that there’s such a thing as free college. beyond stupid. could care less how articulate she is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is also not what she said. What she said about low numbers due to people with two jobs isn't accurate, but she never said low unemployment is bad. You must have watched the crtv fake interview of her. It cant be"one of the stupidest things you will ever hear" if it never happened. Get your info straight or stop sharing fake news from your social media.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump repeated a claim he’d made several times before.

"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment," Trump said. "The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."

Comrade didn't say low unemployment was bad either, but he did question the numbers. Ocasio said the low numbers mislead people into thinking all is well. I am pretty sure that was a huge part of Trump's campaign, though she wasn't claiming 42% unemployment like Comrade.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump is also an idiot in many ways, but he has a resume that includes building and running a company with thousands of employees. what has this girl done? nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she was obviously attempting to downplay the benefits of low unemployment, by stupidly suggesting that part of the reason why unemployment is low, is that it’s brought down by people who are forced to work two jobs. has she recanted that statement? not that i saw.

and again, an admitted, proud socialist. promising free college, free tuition, guaranteed income. no suggestions how to pay for it, by why obsess over silly little details. if she’s the future darling if the party, i will sleep well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've worked two jobs most of my 45 years in construction ....not complaining....I was told and believed that's how you get ahead and that's how I paid my mortgage off and raised two kids. I tell my kids the same......"if you want to get ahead....you will need to work a lot more than 40 hrs. a week!

Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election. and if so is 1 voice in Congress . But they are not worried or Afraid of the Current POTUS , and his actions and behavior and Policies


As much as Jim says the certain people are responsible for Trump . Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate

Trumps gives Business promising free money , wants 100% Depreciation " I don't have to please Wall Street, and so I appreciate depreciation. For me the relevant issue isn't what I report on the bottom line, it's what I get to keep" equals guaranteed income. yet no suggestions how to pay for it

I don't think anyone expressed fear....just made fun of her politics and statements...I'm rooting for her :jester:

I think the Democratic Party fears her more than the Republican Party does. The more popular she becomes the more fragmented the Democrats become.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Conservatives are afraid of a women who has yet won election"

You could not be more wrong. I love her, I hope she gets the nomination to run for POTUS, maybe with Maxine Waters as her running mate. I think she's a moron, that doesn't mean I'm afraid of her. It's Nancy Pelosi, and the democratic establishment, who are afraid, because they know she's a ditz who will have zero appeal outside of NYC or San Francisco. Pelosi has spoken against her, because she knows this woman is going to hurt the party.

"Trump is responsible for this kind of candidate"

Oh I agree! It's evidence of how severely he has broken their brains. The GOP response to Obama, was the Tea Party. And this woman, is the left's response to Trump? We will see which pays better political dividends, but we all already know what the answer will be.

Exactly. I'm tempted to donate to her campaign. The more prominent and visible she is, the better the GOP will do in November.

SHE is the one headlining fundraisers? A 26 year old who hasn't done a thing with her life? Trump's election was 18 months ago, and this is the best the democrats have got to trot out? Unbelievable. Where is their bench?

George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

By George F. Will | The Washington Post
·
Published: 1 day ago
Updated: 21 hours ago
Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!”

A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”

Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:


“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”

Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.

Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity.

Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism.

In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything.

That is your misinterpretation of what she was doing. And you have the stones to call her a moron?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who has the broken brain? She won a primary for the Congressional district that includes Brooklyn and you are comparing it to a national response like the tea party. Oh man, Jim...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she's sneaky smart...and probably has an impressive resume...once they get her on a Teleprompter...she'll do fine

You know there is a minimum age in the u.s. to run for president, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you go to her congressional district in Queens you will find that many people have 2 jobs to be able to afford to live there and that low unemployment is not that great if the available jobs are not good.
She also says we as a society should choose #1 to make Healthcare affordable for all and #2 public college tuition affordable for all.
Of course that is the simplistic answer, she is a political candidate not an economist.
You may think that those are unwise investments of tax dollars but look at how those dollars are currently spent and what we get for our investment as a society.
Do you also think she is incorrect about how Congress is bought and paid for?

As long as Sacha Baron Cohen doesn't get should of her like the genius Republican from Congress, she might be ok. That guy is the poster child for the current state of the Republican party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are laws about illegally crossing the border too....I'd let her run and accuse anyone who disagrees as racist, sexist ageists....

She thinks that if I take a second job, unemployment goes down. She said the Jews invaded Palestine. he thinks that there is such a thing as "free" college. Forgive me, I don't think she should be writing federal law.

I did not compare one primary result to the national tea party creation. I compared the fact that the DNC is sending her to fundraisers all over the country, to the GOP tea party response. She is THE hottest rising star on the left right now, and it's a joke.

OK you tell me what she was doing with that comment...

Nope.

I'm not denying that some people have to work two jobs. What I'm saying, is that when I take a second job, or a tenth job, unemployment does not decrease. It only decreases when I go from having zero jobs, to having more than zero jobs, whether I have 1 or 10 doesn't matter.

May come as a shock to you., but conservatives also want everyone to have great healthcare and access to affordable education. But we don't think it's as simple as the feds saying "it's now free", because that doesn't make it devoid of cost.

You make something more affordable by making it more efficient (in the case of college, there are WAY too many professors making boatloads of money for working barely part time hours). You don't make anything more efficient, by putting the feds in charge of it.

I am curious who you are referring to...

10 jobs are available only 5 people work those 10 jobs 2 jobs each p

the rate of unemployment of those 10 jobs is reported as Zero

Same 10 Jobs same 5 people only working 1 of the 10 whats reported ??? it has an effect most likely statistically insignificant..

kinda of like your argument Warren pay equals higher cost to students most likely statistically insignificant. you were selling ..... but her Ideas crazy ok

The number of jobs isn't an ingredient of the unemployment calculation. Unemployment is, roughly speaking...

the number of people looking for work who are not employed...

divided by...

the number of people working, plus (I think) the number of people looking but not working.

If everyone who works takes a second job, that doesn't change the unemployment percentage. because no one is now working, who was previously unemployed.

unemployment decreases, when someone who wasn't working yesterday, gets a job today.

If one professor is making huge money for not much work, that doesn't add much cost to tuition. If lots of them make huge money, that is a huge driver of cost.

I never said Warren is the only one. She's just the only one hypocritical enough to demand huge money for almost no work, and simultaneously crying about how hard it is for kids to afford to college.

you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?

The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.

People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.

The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.

People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.


Is there only one official definition of unemployment?

There is only one official definition of unemployment—people who are jobless, actively seeking work, and available to take a job, as discussed above. The official unemployment rate for the nation is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force (the sum of the employed and unemployed).

Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college? All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest.
You also did not rebut her views on Congress, I would say that you cannot agree with anything a "liberal" says but....:deadhorse:

There is this peculiar notion that if private business entities charge so much that not everyone can afford their product it is because they are too greedy. But if public entities are "unaffordable" for all, it is because everybody isn't paying enough.

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

"So she was wrong or misspoke, haven't we all?"

That is a fair point, I sure have been wrong and have mis-spoke. But I admit it when I do. Has she? And I'm not asking to get elected to a position where I am writing federal law.

"Does that also make them (conservatives) Morons?"

Nope. Conservatives believe that to make something cheaper, you actually have to somehow reduce the cost of that something. Liberals believe you can make something free, by having the feds provide it. One of those two ideas is, in my opinion, moronic. The other is completely in line with mathematical reality.

"Where is your evidence that professors are The driving factor in the increased cost of college?"

If you looked at the financial statements of a typical college, what do you really think the biggest expenses are? It will be faculty tuition & expenses, and building construction.

"All the evidence I see is that they are a contributing factor, but not the largest."

Too bad you didn't share any of that evidence.

"You also did not rebut her views on Congress"

I haven't seen her views on Congress. She's an admitted socialist who has made huge promises of freebies with zero ideas of how to pay for it, she doesn't know what unemployment is (but she'll say anything to make the GOPs unemployment rate sound like it's a bad thing), she thinks Israel invaded Palestine, and she was at a rally with Bernie Sanders where a shout out was given to a convicted cop killer, and as far as I know, she didn't speak against it.

I don't know every single detail of her platform. But I know more than enough. And I want her right where she is, getting invited to make speeches all over the country, I want the DNC to convince voters in purple states that she is the future of the party.

You cannot embrace socialism in a huge, heterogeneous country, if you've given it two seconds of rational thought. It's just not possible. Socialism can maybe work in a tiny country with rich natural resources, and very strict immigration, say Norway, where everyone has an oil well in their backyard, so everything can be provided, as long as they don't let too many people in. If we tried that here, we'd be Venezuela within ten years.

You could say that, and once again, you would be demonstrably wrong. I agree with liberals on some of the big issues...I am opposed to the death penalty, I support gay marriage, I'm in favor of banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

On the economy in particular, liberals are impervious to arithmetic, observable results, empirical evidence, and common sense. They try an idea, it fails spectacularly, and that doesn't EVER cause them to re-think anything. Here in CT, we have been an experiment in pure economic liberalism for 40 years, it's been a disaster. What do the dems propose? Higher taxes, bigger spending. They aren't capable of responding to empirical evidence. It's mind-boggling. Can you explain it?

I already did. She said unemployment was low because people were taking multiple jobs. I already said she was wrong about that. She then said low unemployment doesn't necessarily indicate things are great for everyone. Same thing trump said and Bernie said and pretty much every candidate said.

You said she said low unemployment is bad, which is a straight up lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was desperately putting a negative spin on low unemployment, because the left hates Trump more than they like everyone to thrive. And the GOP was guilty of some of that during the Obama years, obviously.

When the stock market soared under Obama, liberal said that was great. When it spars under Trump, liberals complain it only helps the rich.

I'd appreciate some consistency, that's all.

No, but it is moronic to lie about what someone said either intentionally or because you didn't take the time to listen to what said said and said your nonsense anyway.

I bet you are o.k. with a guy who writes federal law also pulls his pants down, yells America! and rushes his naked back end at an "Isis terrorist."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device