Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

with an upward pressure on wages? the left is for raising tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

You are pretending that it will generate more than what you took out of the economy in the first place, but you have nothing more than your special pleading to back it up.

the analogy is an oil pump. the lubrication of liquidity is beneficial to an economic engine.

You continue to pump from the well, it will dry up, then you have nothing but a dried up well and no more oil.

we have to re-circulate liquidity.

 

[Papageorgio]

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

 

[Papageorgio]

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

with an upward pressure on wages? the left is for raising tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

Who are you taking money from?

 

[Papageorgio]

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

You are pretending that it will generate more than what you took out of the economy in the first place, but you have nothing more than your special pleading to back it up.

the analogy is an oil pump. the lubrication of liquidity is beneficial to an economic engine.

You continue to pump from the well, it will dry up, then you have nothing but a dried up well and no more oil.

we have to re-circulate liquidity.

You have yet to prove your theory, Give me the facts not repeated soothsaying.

 

[danielpalos]

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

 

[danielpalos]

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

with an upward pressure on wages? the left is for raising tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

Who are you taking money from?

those who have more.

 

[Papageorgio]

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Then prove you are right, it is pretty simple, so far you have sayings and silly quotes repeated with no proof or solid ground.

 

[Papageorgio]

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

with an upward pressure on wages? the left is for raising tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

Who are you taking money from?

those who have more.

LOL! Those that have more pass the cost to those who have less, giving those that have less, little if anything at all.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Then prove you are right, it is pretty simple, so far you have sayings and silly quotes repeated with no proof or solid ground.

only if you know nothing about economics. automatic stabilization and positive multiplication are already observed, economic phenomena.

 

[danielpalos]

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

with an upward pressure on wages? the left is for raising tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

Who are you taking money from?

those who have more.

LOL! Those that have more pass the cost to those who have less, giving those that have less, little if anything at all.

a simple cost of living adjustment with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[hadit]

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.

 

[hadit]

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Because it costs more than it generates. That's always the way it works when you first have to take money out to spend it.

 

[Papageorgio]

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.

Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.

 

[conserveguy877]

Merry Christmas as our president is working hard for the country. Also, helping the children out with Santa. Let's all ignore this Crazy Eyed Cortez girl. Because our president is working.

 

[danielpalos]

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

We spent billions on a one time stimulus package that didn't pay for itself. Why do you think spending 3 times as much every year will pay for itself? You've given me nothing that convinces me.

Because the left understand economics and solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Because it costs more than it generates. That's always the way it works when you first have to take money out to spend it.

it depends on how you spend it. more people spending more money means a positive multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.

Again, you need to prove your numbers are correct, so far you have showed your idea is unsustainable, I am open to your idea however you give us nothing but theory without facts.

the right wing is economically clueless and economically Causeless. in what manner is it unsustainable, with a positive multiplier and automatic stabilization of the economy?

Repeating silly sayings is not proving a theory. You have hard cold acts to prove your theory is sustainable? How are you going to raise an extra 2.7 trillion. If you were correct, then paying everyone $100,000 a year would be a better solution then having anyone work. The issue is that it is not sustainable. The intital shot to the economy would be good, however the result would be higher inflation which would the reduce the buying power of more Americans.

Japan has infused its economy many times over the decades and it results in continued slow economic growth. It s not sustainable otherwise we would have done so in 2008.

you have to understand economics. solving for actual economic phenomena not right wing fantasy, makes all of the difference in the world.

 

[deltex1]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

Who wants to get the clap?

 

[danielpalos]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

Who wants to get the clap?

safe sex, all the way!